To the ethically-challenged politician and newspaper chain
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:36 pm
Canada PM voices confidence in chief of staff amid scandal
Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper voiced confidence in his chief of staff, Ray Novak, on Thursday despite court testimony that Novak knew about a secret payment to help a senator extricate himself from an expenses scandal.
Conservative Senator Mike Duffy is on trial for fraud and bribery over dubious expenses claims and a C$90,000 ($69,000) personal check he secretly received in 2013 from Harper's then-chief of staff, Nigel Wright. Wright wrote the check so that Duffy could repay the expenses.
The scandal and trial involve people who were once close allies of the prime minister, overshadowing Harper's campaign for the Oct. 19 election. Harper and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006.
The Conservative Party insists neither Harper nor Novak, who replaced Wright as chief of staff, knew about the check for Duffy ahead of time.
But Ben Perrin, former legal counsel to Harper's office, said on Thursday that Novak had been present during a meeting in March 2013 when Wright revealed he would be paying Duffy.
"He had never discussed it with me or consulted with me in any way ... and so because it was so surprising to me I immediately looked to my right to see Mr Novak's reaction and he didn't have any reaction to that," Perrin told the trial.
Perrin made similar remarks to police in 2014 and his statement to them was read out in court on Tuesday.
At a campaign stop on Thursday, reporters asked Harper if he still backed Novak.
"I've been very clear, when people are working for me, they have my confidence. If they didn't have my confidence, they wouldn't be working for me," Harper said.
Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair, whose New Democrats have a narrow lead in opinion polls, said Harper himself is ultimately on trial.
As he criss-crosses Canada to meet voters, Harper has tried to shift focus back to his campaign and away from the courtroom.
"Contrary to what some may be reading, there is one person on trial here," Harper said. "That person is Mr. Duffy because Mr. Duffy took taxpayers' money that I believed right from the outset he should not be taking."
The question of what Harper knew about the payment may not be revealed before the election. The trial is scheduled to adjourn on Aug. 28 and may not resume until November.
(24 Hours / Reuters)
___________________________________________________________________________
“The scandal and trial involve people who were once close allies of the prime minister, overshadowing Harper's campaign for the Oct. 19 election. Harper and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006 ... The question of what Harper knew about the payment may not be revealed before the election ... ”
No. The scandal obviously involves the very person with whom the electioneering prime minister is currently very close—his abovementioned chief-of-staff Ray Novak. It’s difficult to understand exactly what part of that plain fact isn’t clear enough for 24 Hours—not to mention its overly-plentiful fellow birds-of-a-feather (Quebecor-owned and -employed) opinion-makers out there—to rightly override their pro-Harper/Conservative perspective and reporting?
As a collective, carte blanche opinion-maker columnists and editorial writers will sooner scoff with a smug smirk at the notion that a publication’s true appreciation, or notable lack thereof, for its readers’ opinions (almost entirely via letters to the editor)—rather than for the readers’ subscriptions to that publication—is fairly accurately reflected by the quantity of page space, or (again) notable lack thereof, reserved for the said readers’ perspectives on relevant, timely topics. News-media professionals don’t refer to themselves as “opinion makers” for naught ...
... 24 Hoursand all other freebee metro-daily publications were to be refreshingly honest regarding their heavily lopsided reporting, they’d openly admit to essentially running press releases from corporate entities—as well as those from some other potent political interests—pretty much as they are received, with the rare exception in which equal-space opposition perspective may be offered. The metro-dailies need to acknowledge that they’ve created or are intentionally in the process of creating an alternate journalistic practice that does not reflect true democratic principles and ethics. Apparently what it essentially comes down to is: ‘manufactured majority-electorate consent’ for the ruling party and especially its head, in exchange for annual corporate welfare (subsidy) payment cheques, often enough in the billions, to the vast-majority-shareholder ownership of those said mainstream news-media—all happily signed by the said ruling party and/or its head, and all under the BS guise of creating a notable number of permanent fulltime livable-wage jobs in Canada, and all information deemed unfit to print (but of course that’s all just coincidental, yet very objective, decision-making by both sides of the interest spectrum, isn’t it) ...
For example, the annual collection of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money by corporate-news-media-ownership giant Quebecor, which is Canada’s largest newspaper chain, placed it in a major conflict of interest, for it was and still is fully supporting via positive coverage—and, much more insidious, a great lack of critical print—the government and especially the prime ministers’ office (PMO); and while the latter are granting the corporate welfare cheques, it’s on behalf of all Canadians, including those who go to school and work undernourished. But most infuriating for so many people of like mind as me, those cheques are given with little or zero accountability as to how many, if any, part- or fulltime Canada-based jobs are actually created as a result of all that public dole …
To be clear, had not the news-media such significant influence over the electorate in democratic societies—with much consideration, of course, given to the actual degree of ‘democratic’ governance—I wouldn’t be nearly as concerned as I currently am. The fact is, the large majority of working people feel that they have not the requisite time to become sufficiently accurately informed about all that’s at stake with election outcomes; thus they (even if just briefly and subconsciously) allow their minds to become malleable enough to allow/trust the mainstream new-media to honestly, accurately inform them as to the best choice or, contrarily, the wrong choice—all of which may be done implicitly, if not outright insidiously.
In a nutshell, Harper and party—although to the best of their power-in-numbers parliamentary ability are stalling progressive motions on major social issues such as the right to die and safe-injection sites—have their collective back scratched with private-interest-news-media’s positive coverage and/or lack of negative coverage. The above, of course, fails to mention the usual widely-read weekend-edition official editorial endorsement supporting the lowest corporate income tax rate and most generous corporate welfare payments in the developed world—all of which much favours the news-media-chain majority shareholders. And so the wheel keeps turning very well-greased.
Frank Sterle Jr
Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper voiced confidence in his chief of staff, Ray Novak, on Thursday despite court testimony that Novak knew about a secret payment to help a senator extricate himself from an expenses scandal.
Conservative Senator Mike Duffy is on trial for fraud and bribery over dubious expenses claims and a C$90,000 ($69,000) personal check he secretly received in 2013 from Harper's then-chief of staff, Nigel Wright. Wright wrote the check so that Duffy could repay the expenses.
The scandal and trial involve people who were once close allies of the prime minister, overshadowing Harper's campaign for the Oct. 19 election. Harper and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006.
The Conservative Party insists neither Harper nor Novak, who replaced Wright as chief of staff, knew about the check for Duffy ahead of time.
But Ben Perrin, former legal counsel to Harper's office, said on Thursday that Novak had been present during a meeting in March 2013 when Wright revealed he would be paying Duffy.
"He had never discussed it with me or consulted with me in any way ... and so because it was so surprising to me I immediately looked to my right to see Mr Novak's reaction and he didn't have any reaction to that," Perrin told the trial.
Perrin made similar remarks to police in 2014 and his statement to them was read out in court on Tuesday.
At a campaign stop on Thursday, reporters asked Harper if he still backed Novak.
"I've been very clear, when people are working for me, they have my confidence. If they didn't have my confidence, they wouldn't be working for me," Harper said.
Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair, whose New Democrats have a narrow lead in opinion polls, said Harper himself is ultimately on trial.
As he criss-crosses Canada to meet voters, Harper has tried to shift focus back to his campaign and away from the courtroom.
"Contrary to what some may be reading, there is one person on trial here," Harper said. "That person is Mr. Duffy because Mr. Duffy took taxpayers' money that I believed right from the outset he should not be taking."
The question of what Harper knew about the payment may not be revealed before the election. The trial is scheduled to adjourn on Aug. 28 and may not resume until November.
(24 Hours / Reuters)
___________________________________________________________________________
“The scandal and trial involve people who were once close allies of the prime minister, overshadowing Harper's campaign for the Oct. 19 election. Harper and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006 ... The question of what Harper knew about the payment may not be revealed before the election ... ”
No. The scandal obviously involves the very person with whom the electioneering prime minister is currently very close—his abovementioned chief-of-staff Ray Novak. It’s difficult to understand exactly what part of that plain fact isn’t clear enough for 24 Hours—not to mention its overly-plentiful fellow birds-of-a-feather (Quebecor-owned and -employed) opinion-makers out there—to rightly override their pro-Harper/Conservative perspective and reporting?
As a collective, carte blanche opinion-maker columnists and editorial writers will sooner scoff with a smug smirk at the notion that a publication’s true appreciation, or notable lack thereof, for its readers’ opinions (almost entirely via letters to the editor)—rather than for the readers’ subscriptions to that publication—is fairly accurately reflected by the quantity of page space, or (again) notable lack thereof, reserved for the said readers’ perspectives on relevant, timely topics. News-media professionals don’t refer to themselves as “opinion makers” for naught ...
... 24 Hoursand all other freebee metro-daily publications were to be refreshingly honest regarding their heavily lopsided reporting, they’d openly admit to essentially running press releases from corporate entities—as well as those from some other potent political interests—pretty much as they are received, with the rare exception in which equal-space opposition perspective may be offered. The metro-dailies need to acknowledge that they’ve created or are intentionally in the process of creating an alternate journalistic practice that does not reflect true democratic principles and ethics. Apparently what it essentially comes down to is: ‘manufactured majority-electorate consent’ for the ruling party and especially its head, in exchange for annual corporate welfare (subsidy) payment cheques, often enough in the billions, to the vast-majority-shareholder ownership of those said mainstream news-media—all happily signed by the said ruling party and/or its head, and all under the BS guise of creating a notable number of permanent fulltime livable-wage jobs in Canada, and all information deemed unfit to print (but of course that’s all just coincidental, yet very objective, decision-making by both sides of the interest spectrum, isn’t it) ...
For example, the annual collection of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money by corporate-news-media-ownership giant Quebecor, which is Canada’s largest newspaper chain, placed it in a major conflict of interest, for it was and still is fully supporting via positive coverage—and, much more insidious, a great lack of critical print—the government and especially the prime ministers’ office (PMO); and while the latter are granting the corporate welfare cheques, it’s on behalf of all Canadians, including those who go to school and work undernourished. But most infuriating for so many people of like mind as me, those cheques are given with little or zero accountability as to how many, if any, part- or fulltime Canada-based jobs are actually created as a result of all that public dole …
To be clear, had not the news-media such significant influence over the electorate in democratic societies—with much consideration, of course, given to the actual degree of ‘democratic’ governance—I wouldn’t be nearly as concerned as I currently am. The fact is, the large majority of working people feel that they have not the requisite time to become sufficiently accurately informed about all that’s at stake with election outcomes; thus they (even if just briefly and subconsciously) allow their minds to become malleable enough to allow/trust the mainstream new-media to honestly, accurately inform them as to the best choice or, contrarily, the wrong choice—all of which may be done implicitly, if not outright insidiously.
In a nutshell, Harper and party—although to the best of their power-in-numbers parliamentary ability are stalling progressive motions on major social issues such as the right to die and safe-injection sites—have their collective back scratched with private-interest-news-media’s positive coverage and/or lack of negative coverage. The above, of course, fails to mention the usual widely-read weekend-edition official editorial endorsement supporting the lowest corporate income tax rate and most generous corporate welfare payments in the developed world—all of which much favours the news-media-chain majority shareholders. And so the wheel keeps turning very well-greased.
Frank Sterle Jr