Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, who is also the senior minister for Manitoba, is unhappy with reportage on the Jaffer case done by Winnipeg Free Press Ottawa bureau chief Mia Rabson and me. The following is a “letter to the editor”-type of response Toews is circulating widely to supporters and others:
” Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”
– William Randolph Hearst,Dear Friends, Colleagues and Others,
Yesterday (on March 9) a provincial prosecutor in the province of Ontario standing before a provincial judge withdrew charges of impaired driving and cocaine possession against former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer. Mr. Jaffer pleaded guilty to the outstanding charge of careless driving.
As he was required to do, the judge sentenced Mr. Jaffer on the basis of the charge before him and not on the basis of accusations withdrawn by the prosecutor.
As with all cases involving a provincial prosecutor it is the provincial Attorney General who is ultimately responsible for explaining why decisions involving a prosecution were undertaken. In this case the Attorney General conducting the prosecution was the Ontario Attorney General.
Not surprisingly, it didn't take long for Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mia Rabson to pick up the Liberal spin advanced by Manitoba MP Anita Neville who suggested that this was an example of the federal Conservative government falling down on the job.
My advice to reporters asking for an explanation of the prosecutor's decision was seen by Rabson as “political posturing” when I directed them to ask those questions to the Attorney General responsible for the prosecution. As I stated:
“I believe the Liberal – the Liberal government in Ontario would be responsible for that.”
I certainly have no knowledge why the province decided to handle the prosecution in that way. I suspect the decision was made because there were flaws in the case involving the impaired driving and cocaine charges initially laid against Mr. Jaffer and that a careless driving charge was all that the facts and the law could reasonably support.
My suggestion that the reporters look to the provincial government for an explanation of why the decision was made is only logical in this context.
But logic has never been a barrier to Rabson's efforts to ensure that the Liberal spin on any case – despite the facts – is fully advanced.
And consistent with her usual practice Mia Rabson has no interest in actually doing any work in advancing a particular story. If the speed dial to Anita Neville's telephone isn't sufficient to fully accomplish her goal, why not just pirate the work of a colleague if it supports a Liberal spin on the story?
And so it was that Mia simply took the work of her colleague David Akin, who conveniently works a few desks over from her to put the finishing touches on her smear job on behalf of the Liberals.
This smear job was based on the fact that the provincial judge sitting on the case had originally been appointed by the Ontario provincial government in 2000 when current federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was the provincial Attorney General. For Mia Rabson and apparently David Akin, the smoking gun in the case that led to a Conservative conspiracy was the political affiliation of the judge prior to his appointment to the bench in 2000.
Although Akin can actually put out a story that is grounded in fact, this is the kind of conspiracy theory story that Mia Rabson regularly engages in because they don't involve a great deal of thought or work. They just involve innuendo and a superficial understanding of the issue. In fact, the more superficial, the better, because a thoughtful examination of the issue quickly destroys the conspiracy.
In this article Mia carefully avoids mentioning the fact that when prosecutors stand up and “stay” or drop charges in court, a judge has no discretion to reinstate those charges. Those charges come to an end as a result of the decision by the prosecutor. Nor do judges ask for an explanation as to why charges are dropped. The extent of any explanation to be provided is the responsibility of the prosecutor handling the case and ultimately the political responsibility of Attorney General of the province responsible for prosecution.
While it is clear that judges sometimes do override joint defence and prosecution sentencing recommendations made in the context of a “plea bargain”, those are very rare. Furthermore, this was not a case where the judge was able to intervene in that manner, because this wasn't a joint recommendation on sentence. The provincial prosecutor had stayed the criminal charges and the only judicial responsibility left for the provincial judge to determine was the sentence to be imposed on the charge remaining before him – the careless driving charge.
But a clear examination of the facts or the explanation of a process like this one does little to enhance the partisan political agenda that Rabson is committed to advancing. It is so much simpler to run roughshod over the facts, and additionally in this case, the judge who imposed a sentence on the charge that was brought before him.
And when it comes to running roughshod over the facts,
Rabson rarely disappoints. Mr. Hearst would be nodding his approval.
Vic Toews
Well, he is right; an awful lot of reporting has been content to get blurry with the lines of who could possibly exert influence on what, and implied (to Liberals' glee) that
– the judge answers to the Harper government, not the judiciary of the province,
– the crown prosecutor answers to the Harper government, not the provincial attorney general which actually employs her, and
– Jaffer getting a light plea bargain somehow “proves” Tory hypocrisy on sentencing.
You and your colleagues have been aiding confusion on all these factually disprovable implications, mostly out of sloppiness and ignorance. The Canadian justice system is poorly understood by the public as it is; don't make the situation worse.
Yes blame it on the journalists for doing there job. Journalists have a job to do, as do you Mr Toews instead of fingerpointing at others..why not just admit that Mr Jaffer's got off easy and as the judge commented “son you are getting a break”. It is always interesting to see how the conservatives are always quick to point the finger at others, blame others and create wedge issues but for you pesky journalists please don't write or comment on anything and please only write positive stories on the conservatives if you don't you could be pushed out!!!!
Journalists in this town are far too sensitive to this type of slap back from the PMO. If these guys arent completely pissed off at you all the time, it means you arent doing your job.
Journalists are the one window into how our government functions. If you guys arent calling out their BS and hypocracy, no one will.
Good on you and Mia for doing your jobs properly.
David,
I just read your post again from yesterday where you wrote that Toews had said that the Judge was appointed by a Liberal admin. in Ontario. If that was correcr, you could possibly ask Toews about the smearing job since he now appears to agree with you that it was Flaherty who had appointed the Judge. Talk about pot calling the kettle ….
Vic Toews and Rahim Jaffer are definitely cut from the same cloth
Blast from Vic Toews past:
But the 55-year-old Toews' public face of self-righteous morality is now clashing with his troubled private life. An MP dubbed the “minister of family values” by Liberals is embroiled in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.
-Don Martin, Calgary Herald
Rahim Jaffer's radio ad in the last general election:
“Edmontonians understand how difficult it is to make sure our children make the right choices, especially on serious issues like drug use. The Conservative Party supports drug-free schools and getting tough with drug dealers who sell illegal drugs to children. Don't let our schools go up in smoke. On Oct. 14, vote Conservative.”
Hm, thats sort of like Michael Ignatieff condoning torture until it became politically inconvenient. Must be cut of the same cloth.
Well…Mr. Akin, he's right. As we've found out the particulars today, and as I stated yesterday, there were procedural issues with the case that led to the particular charges being dropped by the prosecution. It had nothing to do with the judge in the case, regardless of which party appointed him to the bench. And it's disappointing to see you engage in such superfluous allegations and, quite frankly, yellow journalism. You're usually a prudent journalist and it seems out of character for you to assert political bias on the part of a judge when, as I suspect you clearly know, this is not the case. I do appreciate that you're willing to post these comments (and Mr Toews' letter) as rebuttal, it shows some integrity. But I wish it had extended to not engaging in such shoddy attempts to create a scandal where there clearly was none.
Yes, Jaffer got off way too easy and yes, people have grounds to call him a hypocrite. But the Government is right to call you out for basically making a press release for the Liberal Party of Canada.
So David, do you plan on responding to the statement, considering you were named directly? Your silence would seem to indicate that Vic's point was apt.
Unlike Michael Ignatieff, who chaired the Kennedy school, Carr Centre for Human Rights; and who's words have been gravely twisted by some self-servative folk, it's very difficult to take a bag of cocaine in one's backseat and 2 breathalyzer readings out of context (though if I have, please put this situation into it's appropriate context for me)
It disappoints me when a law and order, with us or against us puritanical right wing party like the Harper Conservatives will not think twice about imposing mandatory minimum sentances on a 16 year old inner city kid who has learned all he knows from the cocaine dealer that lives at the end of the housing complex; but when it comes to a guy like Jaffer who has a certain amount of privilage, the book remains on the judges pulpit. The fact that a Conservative like Toews would try to deflect this situation is so hypocritical its almost unbeleivable, because you can bet that if it was a Liberal or NDP personality that was charged in the same situation as Jaffer, the blue dogs would be all over it. Such is the state of Politics in Canada.
You mean like Margaret Trudeau? I doubt the media treated her so disrespectfully during her DUI. I also don't recall anybody screaming bloody murder when the charges were thrown out on a Charter violation. I think the media has treated two very similar cases completely differently.
I do not recall either Margaret or Pierre sanctimoniously calling for law and order approaches to intractable social problems ….
Oh no!!
The Charter saved Jaffer,
not a Tory,
no, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms…so that should shut down all those Libs and their media, right?
''…Police sources say the roots of the withdrawal of the more serious charges against Jaffer lie in the early hours of Sept. 11 after the former politician was pulled over for driving 93 km/h in a 50 km/h zone in Palgrave, east of Orangeville.
A rookie Ontario Provincial Police officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer, 38, causing the Crown to conclude the case would be open to a Charter challenge, the Star has learned. …''
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777576–judge-gives-former-tory-mp-500-slap-on-wrist
I agree with this Anonymous's assessment of the reporting of the Jaffer story.
1. The “Jaffer judge is a Tory” story was a cheap shot, especially from a usually responsible journalist.
2. A journalist's love of “the sauce” has become a running joke on the CBC's Power & Politics.
Why hasn't the same kind of opprobrium been directed at him?
I don't know for a fact that he's ever been guilty of impaired driving. But if MPs like Anita Neville believe a drunk driving charge is as serious as she apparently does, shouldn't she give the agreeable inebriable scribbler AA's number, just in case?
Or is DUI — which I do not condone — an unpardonable offense only when it involves a Conservative?
3. Suddenly the Liberals are aghast that someone might be using an illegal substance like cocaine.
Again, I do not condone its use.
But how does the opposition reconcile their apparent disapproval of that kind of substance abuse, yet they agree with the Insite project, where addicts come to shoot up under government auspices?
Weren't the Liberals — or are they still? — toying with the idea of decriminalizing pot?
So, heroin's OK, pot maybe, but cocaine oh me! oh my! hang the first-time offender — whose charge has been dropped — from the rafters!?!
You're right. Reporters have a job… and they're not doing it.
Instead of researching the case in its entirety (i.e. reading transcripts, contacting the prosecutor's office) all they are doing is making inferences based upon the verdict. Do you really call that reporting? Sounds like a knitting circle to me.
I really wish reporters would get back to actually doing research and investigation instead of the pathetic “if it bleeds it leads” mentality.
I like how you suggest it's the Conservatives playing the blame game. How many faux scandals (all of which imploded) did the opposition and media drum up last year? Body bags? Communion wafers?
Is this what the Lieberals, Dipsticks and Separatists call effective opposition?
Precisely. They didn't. Find the CTV story about Trudeau getting off. It's practically a love letter to her.
David, I'm curious…did you go and find out who appointed the judge that acquitted Margaret Trudeau? If not, why not, since you were certainly very quick to do so here.
For Rahim Jaffer, the media were very quick to trot out a spokesperson from MADD to say how disappointed they were that Jaffer beat the rap. Perhaps you can tell us who the MADD spokesperson was who commented on Margaret Trudeau beating the rap?
Never mind that last one, it was a trick question. I'm quite certain no-one from the Canadian media contacted MADD to get a comment on Margaret Trudeau beating her DUI charge on the same technicality that Rahim Jaffer did.
Puritanical right wing party? Is that tinfoil hat on a little too tight there.
Seriously. If Harper's government is what you consider to be a puritanical right-wing party, you really need to get out more. Maybe the Family Party or the Christian Heritage Party are puritanical right-wingers. Compared to the leftist extremists in the NDP and the wanna-be far leftists of the Liberals, the Conservatives are the least extreme party out there.
Someone should remind angry little Mr. Toews that he and his party have made a career out of low-level smear jobs – it is how they got elected.
Imagine if it were a vile godless criminal “Liberal” who got the slap on the wrist after careless driving, speeding and cocaine possession. No, I am sure the likes of Toews would never have mentioned a thing.
What and pathetic and arrogant bunch they are. Old Libs look like amateurs on their entitlements next to this crew. But wait – they are busy working their asses off for “us people”, right?
Rahim the victim? He was charged with impaired driving and possesion of cocaine. He is a former cabinet minister who conveniently recieves a laughable slap on the wrist. The media did not have to work very hard on this story….I want whatever Toews is smoking.
Bravo! You are dead on! David, you have stooped to yellow journalism. It was simply story filled with smut, political chicanery and innuendo and reasonably intelligent fairminded people called you out on it. Pretty bad!
Anonymous #9 in order of appearance, you are wrong on two counts:
1. You state “He was charged with impaired driving and possesion of cocaine.” Wrong.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Dropped+cocaine+charge+against+former+Rahim+Jaffer+stirs+controversy/2663357/story.html
“Jaffer, 38, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding …
The Crown in Orangeville, Ont., dropped those charges on Tuesday, citing that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
2. You also state “He is a former cabinet minister.” Wrong again.
From Wiki:
“On February 8, 2006, he was named chair of the Conservative caucus by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”
He was not a cabinet minister.
Your righteous indignation may have fogged up your mind. Or maybe you're already smoking what you accuse Minister Toews of smoking.
Vic Toews stated his allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:
“Oath of Allegiance
I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.
Splitting hairs Gabby? Not righteousness at all. Just calling it as I see it. I tend to leave righteous indignation to the righteous right. I guess you missed my bemused amusement over the whole affair. My point remains: the media did not have to work very hard on this story. I am absolutely convinced the justice due to Mr. Jaffer is lacking because of his former status as a politician and the fact he could afford legal representation most Canadians could not. Right, wrong or left, this is a sad indictment of justice in the Ontario legal system.
“Splitting hairs Gabby?”
No, just correcting your inaccurate statements. Your opinions are intact.
Funny, I thought it was the Federal Crown who made decisions on drug charges. Provincial crowns have not made those decisions since at least 1978. A little twist here and a little equivocation there. Way to go Vic! Pull the wool over their eyes. Anyway drugs arn't so bad when you've got a political position to protect.