Friday, December 22, 2017

Mary Dawson and the Con Smearing of Justin Trudeau



Ever since she ruled that Justin Trudeau had violated ethical guidelines, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has become the darling of the Con media.

After attacking her for months they now swoon at her feet, and accept her ruling without question.

But I believe that ruling is hideously flawed, especially on the key question of whether the Aga Khan is a close friend of Justin Trudeau.

Dawson ruled he is not, but it seems to me that this video proves her wrong.

There is clearly a powerful bond between Trudeau and the man who helped carry his father's coffin.

So I'm glad to see that at least one member of the MSM feels that Dawson's ruling fails in the court of common sense. 

Is the Aga Khan a friend of Justin Trudeau? Does a family relationship of a generation make His Highness "a friend" of the Prime Minister, which makes Mr. Trudeau's private visits to his tropical island legitimate under conflict-of-interest rules? 

If not, should we infer that Mr. Trudeau is a patsy, naΓ―ve and pliable, and the Aga Khan is a petitioner, grubby and mendacious?


Her conclusion: There was no friendship and Mr. Trudeau broke the rules. A different conclusion: There was a friendship and this is an exercise in earnestness – and absurdity.


And while I don't question the Ethic Commissioner's motives, I agree with Andrew Cohen that the ruling casts a shadow over both Trudeau and the Aga Khan for no good reason.



The commissioner is there to make a call and she did. Yet in understanding human nature, Ms. Dawson is no Solomon. 

Really, does it matter if Mr. Trudeau and Aga Khan had a friendship, forged over a generation? Do we really think Mr. Trudeau wanted a free vacation so much that he would knowingly compromise himself? Or that the Aga Khan wanted something so much that he would soil his reputation?

And all Mary Dawson has done is play into the hands of scuzzy Cons like these...



Andrew Scheer and his Rebel Mini-Me Hamish Marshall.

Who would smear or schmear anybody for crass political purposes, as instructed by their ghastly guru Ezra Levant.

And should be the ones being investigated for trying to turn the Cons into an alt-right party.

If the ratty Con media wasn't so busy applauding them, or kissing their asses.

While selling themselves to their corporate masters...


For a job or a chunk of cheese.

And the good news?

I don't think this fake scandal will damage the Aga Khan. Although some anonymous scumbags have tried.

The Aga Khan can pitch projects and offer gifts to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other Canadian politicians without running afoul of lobbying laws because the multimillionaire isn't paid to lobby for the foundation that bears his name, CBC News has learned.

And as I said yesterday, I don't think it will hurt Justin Trudeau either.

On the contrary, I think the Cons will overplay their hand, like the ghastly Peter Kent and his NDP buddy Nathan Cullen are doing here.



Opposition parties are calling on Justin Trudeau to pay back taxpayers for his pricey trip to the Aga Khan's private island after the Ethics Commissioner ruled the Prime Minister broke Canada's ethics law over two all-expenses-paid family trips to the Bahamas.

And will end up making Trudeau even more popular.

For although Justin makes mistakes, most Canadians recognize his basic decency...



Many of them hate bullies as much as I do.

And they will send those who would smear or schmear him.

Back to the place they came from... 



40 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:30 AM

    Oh there's a powerful bond between the two of them. It's called money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the look on Baird's face.

      Delete
    2. Hi anon....well you would say that. For Cons it's always about power of money. The fear glands in their heads are so large they have no room for empathy receptors. Sad....

      Delete
    3. Hi rumleyfips...yes, wasn't that special. He looked like he had just bitten into a lemon. Some things truly are priceless...

      Delete
  2. Jackie Blue11:45 AM

    Wow, there is just no limit to the level these humbugs will stoop to, casting a cloud over the Trudeau family's Christmas holiday (and Justin's birthday at that)! And Scheer has the gall to call himself a "Christian"? Fuddle-duddle the traitor Dippers too! A pox on both their houses!

    Justin appeared a bit flustered at the presser the other day. I think he was caught off-guard by the decision because he has a natural tendency to assume the best in people, and thought anyone with common sense would appreciate that a "family" friend means a friend of both the parents and children.

    As that video showed, the Aga Khan received him like a father to a son, and undoubtedly that must have been a very emotional reunion for Justin because he lost his dad while still so young. I hope he's doing OK, that they still have a happy Christmas and he and Sacha a happy double-birthday, even despite this unwieldy back-stabbing by the cons and the evidently clueless Ms. Dawson. Just because you don't have "contact" with someone on an ongoing basis doesn't mean they aren't still a friend. There are friends of my parents' who I haven't seen since I was a child and reconnect with only at funerals, who still welcome me with open arms like we'd only spoken just yesterday. Heck, hasn't she ever heard of high school reunions?

    Ms. Dawson is in error trying to make a legalistic determination of what criteria counts as human friendship. There was no quid pro quo. And why still isn't anyone investigating Rebel Media? What will it take for Ms. Dawson to open up an investigation into Andrew Scheer, Hamish Marshall and Ezra Levant -- the latter of whom just recently invited the notorious Islamophobic hate-baiter Pamela Geller to a "speaking engagement" in Toronto? Geller has been BANNED from entering the United Kingdom for inciting racial hatred, and was at the center of a post-Charlie Hebdo "Muhammad cartoon contest" in Texas that was in incredibly poor taste! Perhaps Ms. Dawson should examine the nature of the "friendship" between Andrew Scheer and Ezra Levant? But then, who knows, she might uncover something more disturbing, and need to take a vacation to a deserted island to preserve her own sanity...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Jackie, maybe Ms. Dawson has never completed a census form.Canadians are allowed to decide themselves who constitutes their family. There are no restriction on their choices. Maybe we should have the same rights when we choose our friends.

      Delete
    2. Hi Jackie...yes, not only does Scheer have the nerve to call himself a Christian, he's always bragging about his "positive message." I also agree that if Justin looked a little stunned during that interview with the dominatrix Rosemary Con Barton was because she was so rude and aggressive. It's not easy being decent in a country where so many Cons don't know what that means. But it is worth it. My parents taught to be polite and try to be kind and decent and I consider that their greatest gifts to me. As for Dawson, I don't think she's a bad person, I just think her approach to life is a little mechanical, and as Cohen says, she's no Solomon. I also wish that our Con media spent less time inside their Ottawa bubble and started reporting on the way hate groups are spreading their ugly message all over this country. They are still small enough to be nipped in the bud, but if we don't do it now we will regret it later. As for the hideous bigots Levant and Geller, my punishment for them would be to lock them up in adjoining cells, so they could drive each other crazy...πŸ˜‰

      Delete
  3. Anonymous12:24 PM

    Gotta disagree on this one, in my view Dawson made the right call. When it comes to the Aga Khan, Trudeau is a friend with improper benefits.

    Whether they're friends or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the Aga Khan Foundation is registered to lobby the PM and receives funding from the federal government. At the time Trudeau and his family accepted two trips to the Aga Khan's private island, there were ongoing negotiations between the Aga Khan, his foundation and the Trudeau government. Trudeau did not recuse himself from those negotiations.

    The Conflicts of Interest Act requires politicians to avoid both conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. What we have here is an actual conflict of interest since the trips can reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence the negotiations. This is especially true when you consider that Trudeau's "friend" only started offering these trips once Trudeau became PM.

    Are the Cons politically motivated in making hay over this? Of course, they're the ones who complained to Dawson. That's politics. Dawson herself has a very poor record of enforcing the Conflicts of Interest Act, especially against the Cons who appointed her. In 2010, she let Lisa Raitt off the hook for a similar violation after Raitt accepted funds from lobbyists. Dawson's record of letting politicians off the hook 95% of the time may be why Trudeau decided to keep her on after her term expired. I bet he rues that decision now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. Canada's Commissioner of Lobbying, Karen Sheppard wrote on September 21 that the Aga Khan was not a lobbyist and that Canada's Lobbyist Code does not apply to his contacts with Canadian officials.

      She, not Dawson is the expert here and Dawson knew before she issued her findings. It look like Dawson's report is not as accurate as it should be. She's leaving, so this is the last mistake she will make.

      Delete
    2. No anon. The expert here, the Commissioner of Lobbying, had declared that the Aga Khan is not a lobbyist and the Canadian Lobbyist Code does not apply.

      This decision was written September 21, three months ago. The Ethics Commissioner either knew the facts and lied or she didn't do her homework and she is incompetent.

      When you decide what she is please reply here.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:53 PM

      Anon 12:24 here. I never claimed the Aga Khan was a lobbyist. And whether he is or isn't is irrelevant to Dawson's ruling. The Conflicts of Interest Act, in fact, doesn't even mention the word "lobbyist."

      Under the Act, "a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends." Trudeau is clearly in a position to advance the interests of his friend the Aga Khan as well as his own, and is in an obvious conflict which he failed to avoid. Strike one.

      Trudeau should have recused himself from any discussion of his friend's business with the federal government. Strike two.

      Further, the Act explicitly bans accepting travel on non-commercial charter or private aircraft except as required by official business or when approved by Dawson. Strike three.

      Finally, he should not have accepted the vacations on the Aga Khan's private island at all. Strike four.

      I simply don't understand people defending Trudeau on this. Had Harper done something similar, you and I would have been all over it. Why hold politicians you like to a different standard than those you don't? That's one of the things I hate most about Conbots and I hate to see it from our side too.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:45 PM

      Because they can never admit that Justin can do wrong. It is what will, in the end, destroy the Liberal Party.

      Hubris is their greatest downfall.

      Delete
    5. 1: you specify " an official power, duty or function ". This was a family vacation. You lose.
      2: Trudeau took no part in discussion of the Aga Khan Foundation. You lose.
      3. There is a provision for " exceptional circumstances " like when no other transport is available. You lose.
      4. Why not. It was not a conflict, illegal or unreasonable. You lose.
      Are you tired of the winning yet ?

      Delete
    6. Hi rumleyfips...thanks for pointing out that the Aga Khan is not a lobbyist, and for alerting me to that story. As Cohen points out, the man is no sleazy bagman. And the fact that the Cons would try to portray him as one says all you need to know about them. They have no decency, they have no shame....

      Delete
    7. Hi anon...I'm impressed that a Con knows the meaning of hubris. But I must remind you that the only people heading for destruction are the Cons. Trudeau is more than twice as popular than the creepy religious fanatic Scheer, and the millennials who will largely determine the result of the next election find him disgusting. So I'm afraid the future belongs to us...

      Delete
  4. Nonsense Simon. That video clearly indicates that they are meeting for the first time and they are certainly rather standoffish. Why they did not even shake hands!

    Sheesh, I'd say Mary Dawson just may have made another mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She doesn't actually seem to be very good at this; does she ?

      Delete
    2. Well, let me just suggest that she might want to investigate a new career south of the border.

      Delete
    3. Hi jrkrideau... Well I hadn't thought of that. What kind of man is the Aga Khan hugging complete strangers? Shocking. But as rumleyfips pointed out, the looks on the faces of Baird and Kenney was wipe the price of admission. No hugs for them....πŸ˜€

      Delete
  5. Anonymous12:40 PM

    They didn't talk for 30 years except once at the funeral. Then Trudeau gave 55 million to one of Khan's projects. Jackie Blue's daily love letters won't change that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:27 PM

      Anon 12:40, He's actually received over 300 million since 2004 and it has helped many impoverished souls worldwide.
      Does helping the unfortunate make you unhappy or just snarky?
      JD

      Delete
    2. Please tell us how much Harper gave to one of the Khan's projects. Since he did it foe years it must be massive.

      Delete
    3. We no longer mint pennies.

      Delete
    4. Jackie Blue6:15 PM

      @rumleyfips 2:59 -- Don't forget Harper is the one who granted him honorary citizenship too. And as for @anon coward 12:40 -- calling my support of Trudeau from south of the border, who is a good and decent person who far surpasses his predecessor, his opponent, and the execrable tangerine nightmare, in humanity and compassion, "daily love letters" just shows how much of a sexist you are. The newly-elected right-wing nationalist college boy from Austria is easy-on-the-eyes too. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of his. I know that it's plainly obvious that bad things happen when Austrian fascists start to gain political influence. That goes for fascists anywhere in the world, Canada included and certainly the USA.

      If this was 1972, I'd be writing in with support of Pierre, who was a far more competent, humane and professional leader than Nixon, and criticizing any cons who stoop to smear attacks to try and derail his mission for a Just Society in Canada and elsewhere in the world. John Lennon said himself that "if every leader was like Mr. Trudeau, the world would have peace." I suppose John Lennon was also crushing on the PM patriarch, and would be Lustin' for Justin if he was alive today, another dumb celebrity who had no business weighing in on politics? And that's it's also because I would have wanted to be a parliamentary intern, and not because I would have been disgusted with the escalation of the Vietnam War or the Kent State Massacre perpetrated by Nixon's tin soldiers? No, what do I know, I'm American and a girl at that. It must be because I'd only vote for the hair -- or the sideburns, anyway. I'm sure you have your theories of why I voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton too.

      Why aren't you getting up in arms about the MAGA Cons in the various internet comment sections crushing on their "alpha" heroes Trump or Putin? How do I know you and Ezra aren't collaborating on a fanfic about the buff czar and his "healthiest ever" orange puppet? Leave it to cons to coordinate a schmear attack like their own fake-news prefab teen idols. Why don't you stick to rage-tweeting about the failing NFL and too much diversity in Star Wars films; that seems to be more the domain of small-minded dopey losers. Sad.

      Delete
  6. Does anyone living a mile or more from Parliament Hill even care about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do here in Nova Scotia. It seems the ethics commissioner first mislead Morneau then knifed Trudeau. Some ethics.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:34 PM

      Yes.

      Delete
    3. Hi Mound...well that's an interesting question. I don't think people outside the Ottawa bubble should care about that nothing story. But the Con media has been talking or squawking about it so much they have raised the hopes of the Cons that he Rapture is at hand. And as a result Canadians who support Trudeau have been annoyed, so who knows how many care. What I am sure about is that the story will have no effect on the polls, or the outcome of the next election...

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:40 PM

      Only those who worry that their government is for sale. Sadly, they're few in number and easily ignored.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous1:08 PM

    Not to mention Canada abstained from the UN vote. What a coward. Guess it's nothing but selfies from an easy direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:13 PM

      Anon 1:08, A coward? Not even close though a Con with an enlarged amygdala gland might call him that.
      A coward is someone who is prone to hiding in closets(in more ways than one). A coward is someone who lets others take the fall for him. A coward is someone who abuses their authority by bullying people into doing their dirty work.
      Does it remind you of anyone?
      JD

      Delete
    2. Read all about it on Raw Story. They conclude that Canada switched from support for Trump to abstain to show disapproval with Trump's protection racket threats.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous4:31 PM

    What I find sad is how the Cons with some help from the NDP have turned our parliament into a smearing match. First Morneau then this. And nobody can accuse Justin Trudeau f being responsible for that. I hate to think what's going to happen when the next election campaign officially begins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:47 PM

      Yeah. He’s going to lose, that 30 seconds of him standing there helpless and witless while being grilled by Barton.....plan on seeing that one again....and again....and again.

      Delete
    2. Hi anon 4:31....yes it is sad, how the Cons have debased our political scene, and to see the NDP also trying to smear Trudeau is very disappointing. But then both parties are desperate. They are both very unpopular and Justin is heading for another crushing majority that may be even bigger than the last one...

      Delete
    3. hi anon 5:47 pm...look I've tried to be as gentle as possible, but For your sake and the sake of others I can't let you get away with acting in such a delusional manner. So please understand every time you play the interview with The very ugly Rosemary Con Barton you guys may get aroused, but most people will be disgusted at her rude and very un-Canadian manner, which should make Justin even more popular. If that's possible. Trudeau has the overwhelming support of women, millennials, and Quebecers which in case you still don't get the message adds up to a CRUSHING MAJORITY. I want you to know this because I care about you, and I want to give you plenty of time to apply for assisted dying... πŸ˜‡

      Delete
    4. Visitor - Pierre D.9:08 AM

      Things are looking good but the Liberals need to tighten up a bit and focus on message. Soon pot will be legal, the Indigenous file will advance, the economy should remain stable and the flithy Con will use the Ehitcs Commissioner over and over again.
      Shame on Nathan Cullen turning to the filthy Con side, NDP has lost my vote for a long time.
      Shame on Rosemary Barton for her verbal aggression and foul mouth, when all she really had to do was:
      "Mr. Prime Minister, did you have any idea you would be in conflict?" or something like that.
      HarperCo at the top of CBC still, I see....

      Delete
  9. Anonymous11:15 PM

    It's interesting that all the fuss is over vacationing with a family friend who in addition to many other responsibilities is one of the directors of a NON PROFIT Canadian charity. With some imagination one could conclude he wanted to influence Trudeau to pony up more charitable dollars so he could get a large salary bonus at the end of the year ( crazy idea! ) or perhaps donate more to help more unfortunate people around the world (possible!) or perhaps he is just a good guy and a family friend who wanted to encourage influential people who are trying to make a positive difference in this world (likely!). I agree that Trudeau should have recused himself from any dealings with the Foundations file because of the links with his family but the commissioner did not find any illegal influence was exerted on Trudeau's part. An apology and a promise to be more careful in the future seems appropriate for the non crime.
    It seems Trudeau's biggest mistake was getting mixed up with a non profit charitable organization with an eastern flavor. Now if it was vacationing on an oil sponsored yacht or an all expenses paid weekend at a game resort courtesy of the NRA the Cons would have a whole different story.
    RT

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ever since a certain ConPiMp was able to sue to avoid a criminal trial, when he was caught with bags of money in the airbus affair, I have found the actions of the Conservatives and their paid shills extremely hypocritical. The road to destruction of the Cons was advanced by Mulroney, while Harper and Shear are just the logical end result when power, ideology, and wealth, becomes the primary focus of individuals mind linked to a right wing philosophy which is trumpeted by a bought and paid for media not concerned about historical precedence, or personal integrity, or honor, but driven by personal control and power.

    I found the rush to join the NDP ranks under Layton also questionable, as this led to a decided right-wing slant within their membership and a change in their constitution, and direction of their policies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hi Filcher.... I can't really remember much about the Mulroney years, but compared to the Harper years, they seemed almost progressive. However, after I brushed up on their record I see you're right. The road to destruction started there and led to where we are now. Except that now it's a lot cruder, and tainted with the racist excrement of Trump and his fascists. As for the NDP, I try not to criticize them since I dream of one day seeing progressives united. ( I am a hopeless idealist) But I have to say the party that I voted for in the last election has greatly disappointed me, it doesn't even try to inspire younger Canadians, and is merely a yappy echo of the Cons. And yes, when they treated "socialist" as a bad word, that was for me the beginning of the end...

      Delete