Canadian Drama at its Best

We’ve seen the final episode of Downton Abbey, but the finales of two real-life Canadian dramas will be aired within the next few weeks.

A verdict in the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault case comes down March 24. And, decisions on 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery against Senator Mike Duffy are expected in late April. 

Ghomeshi is a former CBC star, while Duffy was a high-profile CBC and CTV news personality before being named to the Senate.

Their trials concluded over the winter and the verdicts, whether “guilty” or “not guilty,” will generate much discussion. Both involve interesting and important issues.

Three women testified in the Ghomeshi trial, accusing him of physically hurting them while alone with him. The roughing up included slapping, pulling hair, choking and punching.

Ghomeshi, once host of the CBC radio show Q, has admitted in a Facebook post that he enjoys rough sex that some people might find offensive. CBC fired him after executives say they saw evidence he had injured a woman.

However, he said he practices rough sex only with consenting partners. His defence is that any partner he punched or choked consented.

Defence lawyer Marie Henein produced emails and a letter to show how at least one complainant continued to communicate with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. The letter included a picture of the woman in a red bikini and was put forward as evidence as someone not disturbed about being slapped around.

Ms. Henein ran the complainants through a meat grinder, shattering their credibility. She accused them of lying under oath and of colluding to bring Ghomeshi down.

One of the issues in his trial is how to be less vicious with sexual assault complainants on the witness stand without weakening the accused person’s presumption of innocence. It is a fact that many rape victims do not step forward because they don’t want the trauma resulting from aggressive defence counsel tactics.

In the Duffy case, our corrupt political system is on trial. Specifically, how our prime ministers appoint senators as money raisers and vote getters, instead of working on behalf of citizens.

The charges against Duffy relate to expenses he racked up and whether he cheated in charging the Senate for purely personal items. There also is the issue of Nigel Wright, former prime minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, giving Duffy $90,000 to repay questioned expenses.

It is interesting how Ghomeshi and Duffy handled their defences differently.  Ghomeshi exercised his right to remain silent, while Duffy was on the witness stand for eight days, testifying in his own defence.

Duffy gave back as good as he got on the witness stand. He accused the PMO (prime minister’s office) of forcing him to repay questioned expenses that might cause political damage. 

Paying back expenses gave the appearance that he had done something wrong, said Duffy. He did nothing wrong but feared retaliation if he did not accept the PMO’s plan to avoid political problems by repaying the expenses.

Everything Ghomeshi had to say was said before he was charged and on the Facebook post explaining why he was fired. He hasn’t said anything since. 

That decision has been questioned privately, and in the media. Some people feel that the honourable thing for Ghomeshi to do was to take the stand, face his accusers and tell his version of what happened. On the witness stand he would face the same type of questioning his accusers faced – questioning designed to indicate whether a person is being entirely truthful. 

At any rate, the judges in both cases are experienced and well respected and will figure it all out. Their rulings, however, will not end the debates over the issues in each case.

And, whether they are found guilty or not guilty, neither Ghomeshi nor Duffy will ever be viewed by the public as innocent victims.

Email: shaman@vianet.ca
Profile: http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001K8FY3Y

End This Nonsense with a Judicial Inquiry

Wallin

The script is right out of an old-fashioned Western movie. Shaking fists in outrage the mob surrounds the three offenders and drags them out to the hanging tree. The lynch mob will have its justice.

   That’s exactly what’s been going on this week as the Canadian Senate tries to suspend without pay Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. They are accused of “gross negiligence” related to the filing of improper expense claims. Their suspensions would be for the remainder of the parliamentary session just started and which could last two years. Their Senate salaries are $135,000 a year each.

Brazeau

Duffy

   Brazeau’s salary already is being clawed back to recoup $48,700 in living expenses that the Senate claimed were inappropriate. Wallin has paid back $138,900 for inappropriate expenses and Duffy was ordered to pay back inappropriate expenses which he covered with a $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright, who resigned as Prime Minister Harper’s chief of staff when the cheque transaction became public.

   The lynching of these three Senators is the perfect argument for why the Senate should be dismantled and its prestigious Red Chamber converted into a bowling alley.

   The RCMP is investigating the Senate expenses scandal. No charges have been laid. Yet the Senate wants to convict the three before all the evidence is in. The Senate’s actions are based only on politics; a wrong-headed effort to appease a public fed up with the Senate, its waste, its do nothingness.

   The Senate, a quasi-judicial body, has decided to convict without a full investigation.

   The only way to mop up this mess now is a full judicial inquiry, after which hopefully anyone in any position in Ottawa proven to have cheated or lied in this shameful episode would get jail time. The public wants an end to all the political bullshit, and an end to the Senate.

Time to Put Apples in Their Mouths?

   The pigfest probes into the Canadian Senate, the grandest of Ottawa’s many swineries, have created storms of reporting and comment, but two critical questions remain.

   First, ask yourself what the Senate has done to improve your life, and the lives of your fellow Canadians. If you find that the Senate did do something to improve your life, was it worth the estimated $100 million a year it costs to operate this chamber of “somber second thought”?

   If you conclude that the Senate simply is another costly and useless layer of bureaucracy (sort of like Ontario’s super bureaucratic Local Health Integration Networks), then the next question is: How long will it take to chase it from our lives?

   The Harper government has sent the question of Senate reform, which might include abolishment, to the Supreme Court of Canada to ponder. Some members of the politico-bureaucracy say the Senate cannot be abolished, presumably because of the Constitution.

   This is both disturbing and amusing. Why would we leave the question of the Senate to nine lawyers and the bureaucrats?
   In a democracy the people are supposed to decide what they want and what they don’t want. And roughly 24 million minds are better than nine. Put the Senate to a vote of the people. That’s the way it should be done.

_____

SPECIAL NOTE

Oz and the boys at Golden Gate

Sometime in the next week or two this blog will be turned over to Ozzie, my rockstar granddog who lives in California. Ozzie, me, my daughter and two grandsons will be travelling from California to Shaman's Rock in an RV. I'll be helping with the driving, and Ozzie will be doing the writing. He has a different take on many things. So watch for it as On Shaman's Rock makes room for The Ozzie Dog's Blog. It promises to be a howl.

The Beaver, The Bear and The Useless

This is not a joke.

Last Thursday at 1:40 p.m. Senator Nicole Eaton of Toronto stood in her place in the somnolent Senate of Canada and proposed that the beaver be fired as the official symbol of Canada. She proposed that the polar bear take its place.

A politician we pay $132,300 base salary a year (plus research grants of $30,000, office budget of $20,000, tax-free expense allowance $10,000, free business class flight for them and families etc. etc.) actually stood up in the Senate and said:

 “While I would never speak ill of our furry friend, I stand here today suggesting that perhaps it is time for change.”

The beaver, she said, is a “dentally defective rat” and “tyrant” that wrecks roads, streams tree plantations, lakes and farmlands.

There’s no clue why she wants the beaver replaced by the bear, except she did tell us the polar bear is “the world’s largest terrestrial carnivore and Canada’s most majestic and splendid mammal, holding reign over the Arctic for thousands of years.”

That’s nice, but why is the outrageously expensive Senate operation promoting nonsense when we still haven’t figured out how to fix the health care system, how to stop the gang wars on Toronto’s streets, how to stop the oxycontin abuse epidemic, eliminate child poverty, stop youth suicides . . . . The list of problems and challenges this country’s politicians face stretch from sea to shining sea.

The Senate meanwhile talks about whether the polar bear should replace the beaver as a national symbol.

We citizens pay an estimated $100 million a year to keep the Senate functioning. It sits 69 days a year. It fulfills no useful purpose. It is not supported by the people, and there never will be agreement on how to reform it.

Folks, it’s not the beaver that should go . . . .

And, do we really want Canada symbolized by a ferocious animal that wanders the world’s harshest climate alone and perpetually hungry like the unfortunate street people? Or is it better to be symbolized by an animal that works . . .  well like a beaver . . . quietly, efficiently, and without complaint to build a better life for itself and its fellow citizens.