Thursday, April 08, 2010

Sue Rahim, Sue

The right-wing rag, The Toronto Sun, reports that Rahim Jaffer is threatening to sue the Toronto Star for something, probably defamation. The Sun claims Jaffer is furious about a Star expose claiming Jaffer got drunk driving and cocaine possession charges dropped by agreeing to roll over on, grass, give evidence against one of his business associates Nazim Gillani. It is alleged Gillani is the subject of investigations into tax fraud and other offences.

Jaffer's got a point. If The Star's article is false, it's defamatory as hell. He ought to sue. It's the best - make that the only - way to redeem his reputation. Let's lay the facts before a court of law. Let's let the newspaper defend its story. Let's get Jaffer under oath and get a look at the records of his dealings with Gillani and the Conservatives.

My guess is that Jaffer is blowing smoke. A sure sign of a scoundrel is one who threatens to sue before skulking back into the shadows. Of course the account in The Sun claims Jaffer isn't exactly complaining of defamation but merely that the Toronto Star article is "inaccurate" and "a complete mischaracterization." I'd love to hear more. Wouldn't we all?


Anonymous said...

Well, if your name isn't Harper, you would. Wonder what'll cause him to finally punt Guergis, if he hasn't already by this point?

The Mound of Sound said...

If Harper doesn't drop Guergis it may just be his Hamid Karzai moment. My brother lives in her riding and he tells me she's less popular at home these days than she is in Ottawa.

Good to hear from you Troy. What's new? Have you caught the bug to write something substantial yet? You know you can. Sorry to sound like a grandmother.

Anonymous said...

Jaffer's cunt wanted to sue a paper also.

I have absolutely no respect with these assclowns..

I'd like for the cokehead to go to court.

Mark Richard Francis said...

Well, The Star would have to demonstrate that Jaffer was likely speeding, had coke on him and had been drinking sufficiently to blow over. Using the civil court standard, which is merely balance of probabilities, not surmounting reasonable doubt. Then, all his business dealings would be subject to discovery. I'd doubt he'd be willing, or that he'd have deep enough pockets to go the distance.

I read the story. It clearly had a slant, but unless it was dead wrong on key points, he'd lose.

The Mound of Sound said...

Well put Mark. One might suspect you've been legally educated. I'd be surprised that the article had not been cleared by the paper's counsel in advance of publication. Having been both a journalist and a lawyer my impression is this has all the makings of a minefield into which Mr. Guergis sails at his own peril.

Mark Richard Francis said...

"One might suspect you've been legally educated."

Nah. Just been a defendant a few times... and a plaintiff. ;)