The Manufactured Outrage Over Rahim Jaffer
People across Canada were understandably angry yesterday when former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, caught speeding in Ontario last fall while under the influence and in possession of cocaine, was handed down a relatively lenient sentence of $500 by Judge Doug Maund. Immediate reaction ranged from disbelief, to accusations of Conservative influence peddling. Many actually attested to their belief that there are some rules for regular citizens, and then others for members of the Conservative Party.
The truth couldn’t farther from this fiction. The fact is that most Conservatives have been shrinking away from this unpleasantness, and disassociating themselves from Mr.Jaffer as much as they possibly can. If anything, many Conservatives have, if not publicly, then in private, expressed concerns of a political backlash over seeing Rahim Jaffer get away with what amounts to a rather serious charge.
The Conservatives were particularly irked yesterday, when in the House of Commons, Liberal MP Anita Neville stood and demanded to know what the party thought about the light sentence. Rather than respond to the question, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson demanded an apology, twice, before the floor moved on to other matters.
The controversy was compounded yesterday by a blog entry by journalist David Akin, who in responding to federal Conservative MP Vic Toews’ observation that it was a Liberal administration in Ontario responsible for the case, pointed out that the judge presiding over the case has Conservative roots. Mr.Akin later said that he hadn’t intended to cast aspersions on the judge; only that he was responding to Mr.Toews’ observation with one of his own.
Well, that may be so, but the fact of the matter is that Vic Toews wasn’t accusing the Liberals of having influence over the case. He was making a comment about the fact that the Conservatives not only do not have any influence on the case, but that the jurisdiction is a province governed by a Liberal party.
Would it have been best if he hadn’t said anything at all? Well, yes, it probably would. But that would hardly have stopped the accusations of Conservative influence over the decision, which have precipitated as a result of the “observation” of the judge’s conservative background anyway. In layman’s terms, we call these kinds of things “smears”. When you make an observation that is largely irrelevant to a proceeding, and then follow it up with a disclaimer ["I'm not suggesting that politics were a factor in the disposition of the case"], you can’t expect people not to infer the meaning anyway.
Vic Toews took exception to David Akin’s observation, reposted by Mr.Akin himself on the National Post. Kady O’Malley calls his response an over-reaction [without a hint of self-irony]. She’s right in a way. It might have been better advised to simply let this matter die. But it would appear that, if anything, the story is gathering traction.
The fact is that a lot of conservatives are upset with the verdict. Tim powers writes in the the Globe today that an explanation is owed in order to pacify “perplexed and infuriated” observers. NDP MP for Windsor–Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, also demanded answers, but was quite clear that he wasn’t making this a partisan issue:
“I’m inclined to think that there is no reason to be suspicious that there was political interference or anything of that sort but I think it behooves the prosecutor … or Ontario’s Attorney-General to tell the Canadian people why this happened.”
Adam Rawanski may finally be the sole voice of reason. Saying he can’t quite believe he is defending a Conservative, from all people, Tim Powers, he suggests “it might be a good time for the rest of us – including former political opponents scoring cheap points – to move on. “
