No RCMP charges
May 16th, 2008 by Joanne
And speaking of Chuck Cadman , these other news items would make him weep.
* * * *
Update : On MDL tonight, Pierre Poilievre hinted that the Conservatives would pursue their suit against the LPC regarding the smears in the Cadman affair. Meanwhile, the NDP feels it’s time to move on. However, it seems the Liberals would rather keep flogging this one.
Steve Janke – Cadman controversy is dead, but the Liberals uncover evidence of criminal activity .
Plattytalk – Apologies anyone?
Interesting thoughts here by Colby Cosh .
* * * *
Saturday Update : Matthew at the Politic has a great post on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.
Stephen Taylor – Chuck Cadman, RCMP closure and the last Liberal stretch.
* * * *
Sunday Update : The Star just wants to keep it going and going…
This entry was posted on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 5:13 pm and is filed under Federal politics, Too many Fools on the Hill. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The SCC decision also pretty much seals the fate of one of the crime bills. The Dangerous Offender bill created a presumption of a DO designation for the third offence. I suspect the SCC will treat this legislation the same as the YCJA.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
They would make him weep, he became an MP to fight for tougher laws.
As usual Gayle shows no compassion for Chuck Cadman and everything he fought for, she/he/it justs wants to crow about the Supreme’s total lack of respect for victims of crime!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Jo
It’s on like donkey kong.
The only question is….. is Haroer going to donate that 2 point five to the party.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
That’s Harper(just got back from the pub).
May 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Come on Gayle you can spin better then that, ha,ha,ha. Alright chicken robot is on.
Good to see you back Jo….
May 17th, 2008 at 12:53 am
“As usual Gayle shows no compassion for Chuck Cadman…”
Pardon me?
Can you link to all those “other time” I showed no compassion for Chuck Cadman?
Why do you need to be so foolish?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Et tu, Gayle?
May 17th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Thanks for that insightful comment Mac. Did you think it meant something?
May 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Gayle – please stay on topic if you can. The Crime Bill wasn’t the point of Joanne’s post.
The ruling on the Cadman issue is the right one. Perhaps the Liberals will think twice before they launch on another make-believe scandal? Oh, wait…..I’m sorry,
scandal and “gotcha” is all they’ve got, because they sure don’t have a leader, no policies and not much of a future that I can tell.
Bring on Dalton!
May 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Well, actually I did link to the Supreme Court Decision, because Chuck’s life work was about toughening the Young Offenders Act and making violent young offenders more responsible for their actions.
I admit that it is a bit confusing the way I presented it, and for that I apologize.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Gayle, are you aware of why Cadman became an MP and what he fought for years to get changed? He would be very upset at the SCC for their decision, as am I.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
And that was the point of my post. Thank you Mary T, for clarifying that. Actually, I had corresponded with Chuck on a few occasions and this issue was very dear to his heart because of what happened to his son.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I have no doubt he would have been upset over this decision, although it is not THAT significant as it does not prevent adult sentences for young people.
That does not mean I am not showing any compassion for the man.
I deal with victims, and the families of victims on a daily basis. In fact, I have dedicated my career to reducing crime. I suspect I have a far greater understanding of the pain suffered by the families of victims than most of you who post here.
None of this means the decision before the SCC was wrong. It isn’t.
As for the Cadman investigation, I predicted this result months ago. There was never any chance of charges being laid. This belongs before the ethics committee, and I expect the NDP to live up to their promise that they will allow it to be investigated there.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Gayle said “Why do you need to be so foolish?”
You’re the one who tried to change the channel, Gayle. First reply on the thread, you go completely off topic… like you usually do… and you have the gall to call others foolish? Bah!
May 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Um not off topic. Joanne linked to the article.
“Like you usually do” – got anything to back that up?
Besides, I am not sure how going off topic justifies a completely baseless smear.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“As for the Cadman investigation, I predicted this result months ago. There was never any chance of charges being laid. This belongs before the ethics committee, and I expect the NDP to live up to their promise that they will allow it to be investigated there”
yeah, because based on recent history those committees are the epitome of fairness and “ethics”. Maybe if we’re really lucky we can witness another sideshow between the LPC and the CBC.
“I suspect I have a far greater understanding of the pain suffered by the families of victims than most of you who post here. ”
LOL…I don’t even know how to respond to that, except to laugh. And ask for a link…please.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Now Tori, you know full well I am not going to link to anything.
If this means you do not believe me, I will just have to live with that.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
that was tongue in cheek…I just can’t believe that you have the audacity to claim “I have a far greater understanding of the pain suffered by the families of victims than most of you who post here”.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Anyone else who reads here (and elsewhere) notice that Gayle goes off-topic frequently, usually in an attempt to do dirt to the Conservatives? No need to provide links… just chime in!!
May 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Tori – I said I “suspect” I have a greater understanding, but I take your point. I should have said I suspect I have more experience, instead of understanding.
Mac – nice deflection. You cannot come up with your own examples so you ask others to chime in and support you, as though the number of people who agree with you actually proves you are right.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Sorry, Gayle. You’re not worth my time or effort to bother looking for examples and besides…
“Now Tori, you know full well I am not going to link to anything.”~Gayle
The fact you waited a whole 9 minutes… well, that’s speaks for itself.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Shorter Mac – I cannot back up what I say, so I will make another meaningless comment and call it a day.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
or say you don’t feel like it…or that you are not interested in that type of debate.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Well tori – if he is not interested in that type of debate, he should not have started it. Accusing someone of something, and then refusing to back it up by saying you do not “feel like it”, reflects poorly on the accusor, not on the accusee.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Ah, I missed Gayle’s lively interjections. Things were too quiet…
Now life is back to normal. All I need to do now is convince Liberal Supporter to join in again.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
gayle, those two examples were ones you have used in the past
May 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
All I need to do now is convince Liberal Supporter to join in again.
He’s probably huddled in a corner crying, like most other Lib supporters. Not that I blame him.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I know Tori – but that is not in relation to a personal attack on any individual. You are referring to my reluctance to debate ideology.
If I ever accused anyone of behaving in a certain fashion and then, when challenged to back up my accusation refuse to do so, feel free to confront me on that. I would deserve it.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
sorry, it must be the conservative in me, but i see no difference in the tactics you have used in the past to avoid a debate. Regardless of WHY you use them, you still USE them.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think it is a little convenient for you to suggest the difference between my actions and the actions of Mac are irrelevant.
There is a clear distinction between accusing someone of something and then refusing to back it up, and being unwilling to engage in a debate that has nothing to do with attacking another person.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I think I’ll just sit over here and sell tickets.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Chuck Cadman voted with the LPC in order to retain/keep his insurance benefits. Understandable in the circumstances. Dominic Leblanc and the LPC should let Chuck Cadman rest in peace.
The question is, to what length will Dominic Leblanc go to save face?
May 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am
it’s not just mac, gayle.
you demand any of us to provide links to back up our opinions, yet, convieniently, when you won’t do the same (and there have been times), there’s always some justification, some reason why YOU are different.
But I get it. Lack of facts and links is ok in certain circumstances, usually ones that benefit you.
I find it interesting you come onto other people’s blogs and then start demanding that your rules are followed to the letter. And the only one that does not have to follow the imposed rules is Gayle herself.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
tori – now you are talking about something else.
I back up my assertions – and if I cannot I make it clear that it is my opinion and not fact. You keep harping on the fact I do not want to debate ideology (which has nothing to do with whether or not I can back up my assertions).
What this has to do with Mac alleging I did something and then being unwilling to back that up is beyond me.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Of course the irony here is that I was falsely accused of “usually” changing the channel on these blogs, when it is you who has changed this thread into one where I am being asked to defend comments I made on another person’s blog. Not to mention the fact that those comments have been mischaracterized here…
May 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
That’s an interesting assertion, tori. I haven’t posted regularly to Joanne’s blog for more than a year… closer to two… yet you pretend to know my blogging behaviour. I would ask you to back that up but that might feed into your fantasy.
Gayle, evidently I am mistaken and no-one else (except possibly tori) finds your “all Conservatives are evil and I’m the only one who understands victims” schtick annoying. Perhaps it’s another channel-changing Gayle who I keep stumbling onto on conservative blogs? It’s too nice of a day to waste searching of examples of bad bahaviour. Instead, in the tradition of the Liberals, I will offer an insincere apology, declare that’s the end of the matter and demand you respect that declaration. Cheers!
May 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I haven’t posted regularly to Joanne’s blog for more than a year… closer to two… yet you pretend to know my blogging behaviour…
Yeah! How come?
Don’t be a stranger, Mac.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Too much on my plate, Jo. So much stuff going on that I have a choice between blogging or sleeping. That might be changing as I’ve just been promoted which means a transfer to Ottawa… and admin duties tend to be day shifts rather than all over the map which is what I’ve had for the past five years or so.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Congrats on the promotion, Mac! That’s fantastic.
And I do hope it turns out that you have more time for blogging, but I respect your priorities. Please keep me posted. Thanks.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
OK Mac – I will accept that as an admission you were wrong.
Thanks
May 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Thanks, Jo.
Gayle, I said nothing of the sort… but THANK YOU. Your polarizing, divisive post proves I was right!
May 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Your polarizing, divisive post…”
You mean like this?:
“I will offer an insincere apology, declare that’s the end of the matter and demand you respect that declaration.”
Why don’t you just admit that you accused me of something that you cannot prove.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
All these so called apologies and acceptances reminds me of a time I had a very public disagreement with a sp needs teacher. I was called into the principals office, and there were all the head honchos of the school division. They demanded I apologize, in writing to said teacher. The principal knew me and was afraid of my response. All those VIPs did not scare me, I just said, of course I will write an apology. Big smiles all around, then the principal asked, and what will you say,
My answer, I will write that I am very sorry that — is a liar and incompetant.
Smiles turned to frowns, and the principal said, you would do that wouldn’t you. Of course, and I would also send it to the local paper as a letter to the editor, and as my son is the publisher, it will get printed. End of attempt to shut me up, teacher not hired back so lost her shot at tenure.
When you are right, don’t back down.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Great story, Mary T. Thanks for that.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Interesting Mary.
The corollary to that point is that an honourable and honest person will always admit when they are wrong.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“Why don’t you just admit that you accused me of something that you cannot prove.”~Gayle
Interesting how you trimmed the first part of my sentence off. Does that mean you can’t stand to even quote something uncomplimentary to the Liberals?
Evidently, you’re confusing “can’t prove” with “don’t care enough to be bothered” and you’re dishonouring the spirit of my insincere apology! How mean-spirited of you!
May 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
No, it means the polarizing and divisive aspect of your quote was your attempt to insult me with your insincere apology.
I could care less about your two bit insults of the liberals.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I hereby declare Mac the winner of all ten rounds.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Gayle, if I wished to insult you, I would do so directly. I’m that kind of person. If you wish to claim insult based on an insincere apology which was clearly labeled as being such (that should have been a hint) then knock yourself out!!
May 19th, 2008 at 2:20 am
“Why don’t you just admit that you accused me of something that you cannot prove.”~Gayle
I can’t digest the pissing match of this comments thread, but that quote appears to capture the real issue of the Cadman affair, no? The liberals accused the PM/conservatives of something they can’t prove. The RCMP says there is insufficient evidence to support charges.
But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist.
It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives.
It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable.
Often the supporters of a party can forgive its officials. We expect humans to err, and those we support, we can forgive (those we don’t support must be strung up by their toenails, obviously). I suspect conservative supporters fear not that Prime Minister Harper and/or the conservative party actually did something unethical, but that the chances of retaining power would suffer if it was revealed.
Some people don’t require that Official impropriety be prosecuted by the courts. Rather, the appearance of impropriety, inadequately answered, is sufficient.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Gayle, please provide a link where the RCMP said there was insufficient evidence. It was a liberal who turned the stmt from NO EVIDENCE to insufficient evidence. Seem you bought the spin but the rest of us haven’t.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Mary – I believe you are referring to Hejhog’s excellent post on this topic, as I have not said anything about insufficient evidence on this thread.
The actual wording in the letter is “no evidence to support a charge”. That does not mean “no evidence at all”; indeed, we all know there is SOME evidence because of what Dona Cadman, her daughter and her son in law have said. That is evidence. Harper’s own words on the tape is also “some evidence”.
Certainly there is insufficient evidence to support a charge. That is likely because most of this evidence is hearsay and likely inadmissible. Even if it were admissible it would be contradicted by Cadman’s own public statements.
The biggest problem with an RCMP investigation is that the RCMP cannot force people like Doug Findley to talk. If this were before the ethics committee Findley could be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath.
I agree with hejhog’s statement:
“But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist.
It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives.
It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable.”
I suspect Mary that should the tables be turned and the liberals stand accused of bribing Cadman, based on hearsay statements from his family, you would be advocating for an inquiry or committee investigation. This is a very serious issue that goes to the core of the ethical standards we expect from our elected officials. If there is even a hint they are buying votes, that needs to be investigated.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Sorry Gayle you are wrong, I would never advocate for any committee hearing on anything as I have no confidence in the liberals on those committees.
But, speaking of liberals bribing an MP, wouldn’t you say Paul Martin bribed BS with a cabinet seat, or was it the other way around. With my liberal mindset in full gear, what really went on in that secret meeting late at night, in a hotel room, with Paul and BS.
She does have a reputation for switching partners, even causing a divorce.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Well Mary – isn’t that just part of the issue? What exactly can a party offer an MP for a vote. Obviously Stronach and Emmerson are in the exact same position as both received a cabinet seat when they crossed the floor.
Cadman is slightly different, but I would argue the entire issue needs to be before the committee.