Dona Cadman looks a bit spinny at the moment, vouchsafing for the prospective boss on the strength of having looked into his eyes, but no matter.
There's endless debate over what happened and whether it was illegal and whether some Libs defamed Harpo by claiming he was in on it, but no matter.
What does matter is this. Jodi Cadman said it herself, it was an "indecent proposal." It was a truly indecent, utterly sleazy act to try to take advantage of a man just weeks away from death, a man about to leave a wife and child to an uncertain future.
It was indecent and, by his own admission, Harper knew of this indecency and did nothing to stop it when he could have. Harper was content to sit back and let his henchmen try to take advantage of a man's vulnerabilities and weaknesses in a moment of enormous peril.
Stephen Harper might not be a criminal but he's shown, beyond the slightest doubt, that he is a vile, loathesome creature utterly devoid of any shred of integrity or even decency. He's a moral reprobate, a huckster. He's a power-grabber, sneak thief and a theoconservative mandrake. Canada can do well without him and his kind.
(p.s. the "mandrake" reference - Mandrake is a powerful herb of the Nightshade family used for its anaesthetic and supposedly magical qualities. Closely related to the deadly Belladonna, Mandrake (like Harper) can cause hallucinations and delerium if ingested. According to folklore, the humanoid Mandrake root screams when it is pulled from the earth, and the human who hears it will go deaf, become insane, or in more extreme versions of the legend, drop dead)
I agree, criminal or not, the taped conversation clearly establishes that the PM intended to buy Cadman's vote somehow. Even if Harper only intended to offer to cover his election expenses and the life insurance policy is a complete fabrication, this does not change the fact that Harper is guilty of trying to bribe an MP. A criminal act in my opinion, but undeniably immoral no mater how you look at it.
ReplyDeleteC'mon Fish, you're not getting off that easy. There you sit up to your armpits in fine legal minds at that hugely taxpayer financed law school not two farts and a donut toss from Parliament Hill. So, what's the buzz? Was an offence committed? Does Harper have a valid libel claim. Jeebus, I just looked at my Wright & Linden, Canadian Tort Law. It's from 1975! I think back then these things were settled with black powder and lead ball. Yikes.
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteI was afraid you might say something like that. I am planning on doing a more detailed legal appraisal of the situation as a post on my own blog, but since you asked, here's the reader's digest version for now:
It's hard to say when all of the evidence comes from the media, but yes, in my opinion this is a blatant violation of section 119(b) of the Criminal Code.
See: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_IV::bo-ga:l_V//en?page=4&isPrinting=false#codese:119
I was able to find a transcript of the tape at the following URL:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/28/4883305-cp.html
I would say that the meat of the case against Harper lies im the following portion of the transcript:
Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"
Harper: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."
When he makes reference to Cadman not forcing an election, it is pretty clear that he was talking about making a financial offer to sway Cadman into voting against the Martin budget.
So as you can see, it really doesn't matter if Haprer was trying to bribe Cadman, with a million dollar life insurance policy, election expenses, or a stick of gum. Bribery is bribery.
Is that better?
P.S. I hope I don't get sued for answering that question! ;-)