Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

My thoughts on the Jaffer story

With this being the lead story on National Newswatch, I suppose many of you will be curious to hear my thoughts. So here goes...

1) I've said for a long time that I'm a strong supporter of mandatory minimums for violent crimes, not all crimes. (at least not that I can recall offhand)

2) Having said that, I've always felt that there should be room for leniency for first time, non-violent offenders. (Going over my previous posts, however, I can't recall the issue of "first time offenders" having ever come up, so I can't defend this point by simply saying "I've always said that")

3) The folks that are pointing fingers at this "Tory" judge are off base... the charges were withdrawn by the PROVINCE.

4) While I'll grant the fact that the Prosecutor in this case was indeed appointed by the Harris Tories, he's working under the direction of the CURRENT Provincial Government.

5) I'm personally curious as to WHY the drunk driving charge was withdrawn. Of all the charges, that one was to me the most serious. (For reference, I'll refer you to my thoughts from his arrest) Of course, it's easy to armchair quarterback this one, but we weren't there in the courtroom. I would like to hear more about this, because with withdrawal of the drunk driving charge does concern me. Not because of who he is, but because I've always HATED listening to ads on the radio from paralegals who advertise the fact that they'll help you get out of a drunk driving charge. Maybe I'm biased, having lost a friend to a drunk driver when I was a kid. (AC, I still think of you, and can still remember your face even to this day... some 25 years later)

That's all.

Labels:

15 Comments:

  • At Tue. Mar. 09, 09:22:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Hinchey's Store said…

    I think that's pretty close to how I feel about this subject, CC. Drug charges? Drunk driving charges? I guess the only thing that I would look at as potentially dangerous to others (violent) is the drunk driving. Well, and the fact that he was going nearly double the speed limit...

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 09, 10:03:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Honey Pot said…

    The optics look really bad. It looks like Jaffer received some divine political intervention.

    He should pay for what he did, and I don't care what party he is affiliated with.

    There should be only one law in the land. Justice should be blind, and in this case it is obvious that strings were pulled to get him off because of who he is.

    I want a justice system that treats all people as equals. We don't have that, but we should.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 09, 10:43:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The defence of the Conservatives (not their jurisdiction) misses one obvious point. EVERY CANADIAN WITH A COMPUTER IS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE EXCEPT FOR THE 'LAW AND ORDER' CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA!!!
    Why isn't our minister of justice screaming mad?

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 09, 10:56:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Powell lucas said…

    The public always seems to get riled up over the mere mention of two tier health care, but I don't see a lot of protests about our two tier justice system. I'm a conservative; Jaffer is a criminal. I don't care if he's a Liberal. a Conservative, or a Socialist. This thing stinks to high heaven. If you or I were caught in the same situation we would have been prosecuted for impaired driving and possession of cocaine. If you're a politician...you walk. What a farce.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 09, 11:06:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Only going to respond to "Honey Pot" on this one... in fact, there's ZERO evidence that any "strings" were pulled. A whole lot of "first time" drunk drivers do in fact "get off" all the time, if they get a good lawyer. Is that right? I don't really know.

    I certainly don't think the charges should have been withdrawn, and I'd like to know the reasons why... but I don't think there's any way anyone can say that "strings were pulled". There's absolutely no evidence of that, and it's certainly not the first time it's happened. It's also not true that only the "elite" get this sort of treatment... anyone with a half descent lawyer could have made such a deal.

    But do I like that? That would be a "no".

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 12:03:00 a.m. EST, Blogger The_Iceman said…

    I would be willing to bet that the probability of recidivism is very low in this case. He may snort blow again in the future, but I guarantee he will keep it away from automobiles.

    I would have been more forgiving had be been caught with a joint. I am decidedly against cocaine.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 01:15:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    CC:

    First: I agreed with your comments when the story broke. [I don't think I made any comments at the time. The current webpage seems to agree with me. But if I did say something there or somewhere else, please let me know. At times I get too passionate for my own good].

    But I digress.

    Ok. Maybe I agreed with you 95%. I rarely/never agree completely with anyone. Especially myself. But the only thing I think I disagreed with was: "Rahim Jaffer is finished." I hope that he isn't. At least not for that reason. This is the sort of story that I think that is politically irrelevant (in terms of public policy, voting record etc).

    Churchill (for example) had whisky at breakfast: http://books.google.com/books?id=hdPmzLtU5G4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=gandhi+and+churchill&cd=1#v=snippet&q=and%20soda&f=false.

    He never campaigned against drunks. (At least, I hope not). He did think that Gandhi was horrible...

    But I digress...

    What really bothers me is Jaffer's election campaign where he [apparently] painted his opponent as soft on crime/soft on drugs. I think it might be appropriate to treat him in the same way he has wanted others caught with cocaine and driving drunk should be treated. (If he is on record saying something specific).

    I'm also really curious about the crown's decision to withdraw charges. Was he NOT caught with cocaine? Was he NOT driving under the influence of alcohol? If so... he shouldn't have been charged. Why was he charged? If he was charged with reason, and if he was guilty, then why was he convicted of a lesser crime? I'm far more tolerant of lighter sentences than I am of these plea bargains that see people not acknowledging their true crimes (or-which might be worse-pleading guilty for a crime they didn't commit to avoid a worse fate because they can't afford the lawyers who might work for Rahim Jaffer or Michael Bryant).

    Question for CC:
    Does this perhaps make you think perhaps mandatory sentences are inappropriate?
    See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSgx5mFBuvGNhTCnr6H0YF2vPYww).

    You seemed to think they were appropriate here:
    http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2009/12/liberal-senators-again-protect-drug.html

    I disagree[d] with your position there very much (though I suspect that we might have different ideas about what counts as a "plant" and how harmful marijuana is...).

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 01:48:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Also, why would the CPC/PCO engineer Jaffer being cleared of all serious charges? That's the worst thing that could happen to his political career.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 06:18:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Cool Blue said…

    I don't recall the same level of outrage when the Supreme Court threw out Margaret Trudeau's drunk driving charges a few years back...

    Who appointed the judges on the SCC?

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 08:30:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Honey Pot said…

    There may be no evidence....yet, but my gut is telling me political strings were pulled. I go with my gut, it has never failed me.

    That said, this is going to cause political repercussions against the Conservative party.

    Jaffer is a public figure tied to the Conservative party because of his ditzy wife.

    Rightly, everything those two useless knobs do, reflects on the Conservative party.

    If it is seen that Conservative mp's and their families are above the laws of the land, allowed to get away with crimes the rest of us would not be allowed to, really does sully the Conservative party.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 09:54:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Bec said…

    Honey Pot @8:30am
    re your last paragraph
    Are you serious?
    Does Premier Campbell ring a bell? Did you ever hear about Premier Klein making a fool of himself at a Calgary homeless shelter?
    What about a former PM's son or PM's wife? A former Premiers son as well was charged with drug possession.

    Just because they are politicians doesn't make the laws different and wanting it to be true, doesn't make it so.

    Imagine human beings that are POLITICIANS with human frailities, wow what a concept.
    Regardless, the guy for some reason was found NOT GUILTY and yes, it happens all the time because either THEY AREN'T or the evidence wasn't there to convict.
    I've seen it up close and personal and what I am seeing suggested in many of these threads is a police state mentality, guilty because the media said so.
    Let's just hope it never hits close to home because it could to any of us and I would like to think that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 10, 09:48:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Honey Pot said…

    Being a politician, or the spouse of a politician, should mean sitting an example. I feel sort of sorry for Jaffer because he is a crack head, and if he was hurting no one but himself, I would tell the guy to knock himself out.

    His crack use and drinking could put others lives at risk. That is when it becomes my business.

    He is married to a high profile politician, a ding bat, but someone who should be sitting an example and so should that crack head husband of hers.

    Being a politician, a public figure, holds you up to public scrutiny, that is just the way it is.

    It looks like Jaffer got off because of who he knows. That is just wrong, and sends a message out to the rest of us, that politicians are corrupt and will remain corrupt no matter who is in charge. It sends the message out that there is no hope for good governance, because our politicians, and our justice system is corrupt.

    It tars all politicians with the dirt brush, and that is why Canadians don't vote, because they don't trust any political party.

     
  • At Thu. Mar. 11, 09:13:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "It looks like Jaffer got off because of who he knows"

    Honey Pot, again, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS WHATSOEVER. And I can pretty much guarentee that no such evidence exists, because I'm 99.999% sure IT NEVER HAPPENED. Jaffer is politically RADIOACTIVE right now, so ANYONE pulling strings to help him out would be committing POLITICAL SUICIDE... and trust me, "politicians" have a pretty good survival instinct when it comes to this sort of thing.

    It's funny, because loads of my critics jump all over me when I post similar things without evidence, so there's no way I'm going to let you do that and get away with it.

     
  • At Thu. Mar. 11, 09:39:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Honey Pot said…

    I am stating an opinion that is held by many Canadians. I have no proof, but the perception is strong that political favours were at play here.

    There are no details as to why the charges of drunk driving and cocaine carrying were dropped. Until those details are brought forward, I and many others will be demanding to know the reason Jaffer was given a slap on the wrist.

     
  • At Thu. Mar. 11, 10:23:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "Until those details are brought forward, I and many others will be demanding to know the reason Jaffer was given a slap on the wrist."

    On that note, we are in agreement. It's strictly your unsubstaniated accusations of "political favours" where I take issue, because it unfairly tarnishes others without any basis in fact.

    In essence, it's a very "Liberal" thing to do... remind anyone of the "Hidden Agenda" charge? Unprovable, and yet also impossible to disprove, which is why they try to smear us with it. Same goes with this fiasco... the Liberals are trying to smear others with this, in their ususal reprehensible way of doing things.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home