At SDA :
Everyone knows the details already, but the basic facts are essential here: former MP Rahim Jaffer was charged last year with drunk driving and drug possession. Several days ago, under an agreement reached between his lawyer and an Ontario provincial Crown prosecutor, Jaffer pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The provincial prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the more serious charges; according to this report, police sources said that "a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer."
Now, keeping in mind that at the time he was charged Jaffer was neither a Conservative MP nor working for the Conservatives in any capacity whatsoever (they had long since elbowed him out of the nomination race in his riding), and that his plea deal was reached with the Crown prosecutor, not the judge, in a provincial jurisdiction that the federal government absolutely has no say in, take a look at a sampling of what various media and opposition members had to say:
David Akin: "Turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund, is a long-time Tory."
Jane Taber: "Stephen Harper’s tough-on-crime Conservatives were accused of being not-so-tough when it comes to one of their own..."
Akin, again: "Jaffer's former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the (Crown prosecutor's) decision."
Peter Mansbridge, introducing the top story on The National: "As a Conservative
Member of Parliament Rahim Jaffer was known for his tough stand on crime. Now, the opposition says he's a Tory example of another kind: hypocrisy!"
Liberal MP Anita Neville, seen bellowing in the HOC on The National: "The Conservatives are conspicuously silent...when the law is being flouted by one of their own."
Toronto Lawyer Russell Silverstein, on The National: "You know, when the public sees somebody charged with drunk driving and possession of cocaine who's politically connected..."
Unidentified man-on-the-street, on The National: "Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women's Affairs - I mean obviously they're going to drop the charges, they had no choice." ....
...Someone at the CBC made a decision to broadcast, coast-to-coast, an unidentified individual's statement that a particular provincial Crown prosecutor - someone who has a name, a professional reputation, and a family - rendered a decision based not on the law he's been sworn to uphold but on political interference from someone outside his jurisdiction, and that our sitting government illegally interfered in a court case in a provincial jurisdiction - and all without one single shred of evidence.
Was it urgent, serious, and of public importance for the CBC to nationally broadcast a categorical, unproven allegation of serious wrongdoing made by an unidentified member of the public? Was the unidentified individual's honest statement of opinion in any way based on fact? ...
....Vile, unethical, unprofessional journalism - and it only costs us a billion dollars a year.
One can't help but wonder about those Canadians who still get the bulk of their news from the CBC. (Presumably, there are still some). Can people be so disinterested in what's actually happening, that they are satisfied to have Mansbridge , in his words, tell them 'what's important about the news'? (i.e. do their thinking for them).
I resent having some (not that pretty) face telling me what I know to be untrue (because I can read and reason), and telling me what I should think about it...on the tax-payer's dime.
As much as I have , over the years, appreciated the classical music programs on CBC2 Radio, it's JUST NOT WORTH IT!