Guergis's troubles

This is quite a remarkable editorial in the King Township Sentinel, coming from Helena Guergis's home riding and written by someone who's obviously a friend of the former minister of state. On top of the sad details of what Guergis has been enduring the past few months, it also contains the news that even Guergis doesn't know what the RCMP is investigating.  I'm copying it in full here:

Helena Guergis: Much ado about nothing

The story of Helena Guergis and her husband Rahim Jaffer may be “much ado about nothing.”

It seems that media has given excessive attention to this matter, but most of what has been reported appears to be difficult to verify.

We have been trying not to report on the personal life of this MP from nearby Simcoe — Grey ,but it seems now is the time to reveal more to you since it has moved into the realm of dramatically affecting her job.

Yes Helena, did throw a tantrum at Charlottetown airport but this was following her second miscarriage in a few months and when one’s hormones are badly out of whack, life can be difficult. She immediately apologized for her behaviour.

As we all know, Helena and Rahim got married right after the last election about a year and a half ago. They expressed at the time that they wanted to start a family.

As for Jaffer having a meeting with Nazim Gillani, that does appear to have taken place but what Gillani boasted about in his e-mail seems to be in the character of this promoter exaggerating events.

We remember well when former MP Paul Bonwick lost Simcoe — Grey to Guergis, that he was not very popular in the Paul Martin camp. Most reasonable people can imagine that Stephen Harper would not have been very happy with Jaffer for losing an Alberta seat. For anyone to claim that Jaffer had a big influence in the PM’s office is beyond belief and certainly mystified Harper’s team.

As for the investigations into Guergis, a lot appears to be bogus. The ethics commissioner is not investigating her and as for the 100 per cent mortgage on her Angus home, that doesn’t appear to be an issue. Lots of people have 100 per cent mortgages.

As for the RCMP investigation, no-one seems to know what that is about (not even Guergis) except that it is a complaint from a third party.

We were trying to keep Helena’s personal life personal and with two miscarriages, finishing off her Master’s degree, dealing with a heart attack and two cancers among close family members all within a few months, we thought she was performing as well as could be expected and we really have seen nothing to change that opinion.

Guergis has offered to cooperate completely with any investigation. Let’s hope this cloud gets wrapped up quickly.

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

Take this with "a pinch of salt" Susan.
This ranks with the "booster letters" from her staff.
I know the publisher / editor of this newspaper well (having trotted out Liberal candidates to him amongst others for the old media dog and pony show to get a little name recognition!)
He is rabidly biased towards the Tories - both provincially (where he thinks the sun shines out of Jim Wilson's nether regions) and federally.
This probably wouldn't be the first time he's fed releases straight out of a constituency office.

[K. Halloran]

Y'know there's nothing more offensive than using private problems to justify professional misconduct. And I didn't think my opinion of Ms. Guergis could sink lower.

[Ian B]

Thank you for posting this important editorial, Susan. It shows that there is indeed another side to this story.

It is imperative that certain media, the political opposition and others who are out to crucify Guergis realise that these are unproven allegations at this point. Regardless of our political persuasion, we have to believe in the presumption of innocence.

[Mark]

It's hard to take an editorial seriously when it suggests everyone stop peddling innuendo about Helena Guergis, but then offers up its own innuendo about Paul Bonwick instead.

[Justin Case]

I have a hunch that when all is said and done in this affair it will be able to be summarized succinctly... for election purposes: Jaffer was no Dingwall or Corriveau.

[Bill]

What a weak retort this article is.

It is strikingly obvious that the author is well on the side of Guergis, sounding like a drunk teenage girl trying to defend her guilty friend to authorities. It reinforces the type of activity that we would have seen from Guergis if she was allowed to stay in public office. I'm relieved to see people of this sort aren't always allowed to slip by unnoticed.

I agree with the comment regarding the innuendo about Paul Bonwick too, and I have no particular affiliations with any of the parties involved.

Quality journalism it ain't!

[buster69]

How ironic that the paper that started there media splash is the one defending her

[MyThought]

I think it's tacky for the person writing this letter to an editor to try to gain sympathy and equally tacky for an editor to publish it.

[Gabby in QC]

Wascally Wabbit | April 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM:
"Take this with "a pinch of salt" Susan. ... He [the editor of the King Township Sentinel] is rabidly biased towards the Tories ..."
And readers are to accept YOUR rabidly anti-Conservative POV without question, right?
Off to the Windsor salt mines, Wascally!
Or maybe your refined taste runs more to the Fleur De Sel de Camargue.

[Who Cares]

So Helena suffers the same family/personal issues of the liddle people, does she?
She's crass, tasteless and tacky and just an awful rep for women's issues, especially the women who have suffered far worse, but without the salary and perks.

[Gabby in QC]

MyThought April 14, 2010 at 03:52 PM:
"I think it's tacky for the person writing this letter to an editor to try to gain sympathy and equally tacky for an editor to publish it."
Maybe it would help if you were to read the introduction to "the letter".
Ms. Delacourt points out it is *an editorial,* quite different from a letter to the editor.

[jill]

It 's not possible to have a "second miscarriage in a few months". But thanks for the laugh.

[jill]

And if she were my any relation of mine, I can tell you I'd have a heart attack too at the shenanigans these two are trying to pull off. Ever consider tha? She and Jaffer's shameful behaviour in an honest, hard working family caused problems, not the other way around?

[Wascally Wabbit]

Gabby in QC - or YOUR regular rabidly Tory boosting you mean?
As for the aforementioned publisher - when you have a bully pulpit where you provide "news" to a community - if you don't provide even handed reporting - you risk becoming a propaganda machine - which IMO (and of many others) - this small local chain of newspaper has become!

[A Discussed Female]

Ms. Guergis chose the public life of politics, but to allow her "private life" to become the excuse for her public behaviour is laughable.

I see this "editorial" as being detrimental to all women in high profile positions. OMG!... female hormones badly out of whack?... it wasn't that many years ago when companies held women back for these exact excuses. If I were a female politician, I'd be embarrased by this excuse!

What's next... ED as an excuse for political gaffs?

[Sarann]

No matter what she did in the airport or how bad her judgement was about the letters it is not right for the PM to smear one of his own ministers and not tell us why. He has unleashed a nasty, nasty smear campaign. If it turns out they are false accusations he has ruined her reputation. And I note it is his lawyer who has no comment.

[Jayne Wagman]

I find it more interesting that no one is questioning the motives of the "private investigator" who started the ball rolling on this. He has already stated that he is a staunch Conservative party member. If he had proof that crimes had taken place, he should have gone directly to police. Instead he took it to the Conservatives first so that they could brainstorm ways to protect themselves. Surely that itself, if not a crime, should be investigated.

Clearly, it sounds as though everyone on Parliament Hill was already aware of the shenanigans of Mr. Jaffer, so why would she be expelled now, except that Harper didn't mind what was going on until he thought the public might be aware of it. Personally, I distrust all politicians of all parties, but the self righteous comments of Conservative supporters are really too much. Every time the Conservatives are caught in a lie, they trot out the Sponsorship Scandal. It's old news folks, and you're just hypocrites.

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: Wascally Wabbit | April 15, 2010 at 07:16 AM"
"Gabby in QC - or YOUR regular rabidly Tory boosting you mean?
As for the aforementioned publisher - when you have a bully pulpit where you provide "news" to a community - if you don't provide even handed reporting - you risk becoming a propaganda machine - which IMO (and of many others) - this small local chain of newspaper has become!”
Wascally Wabbit, the more that time goes by, the less sense you make.
The text that Ms. Delacourt transcribed here for your reading pleasure is an EDITORIAL, not a “news” item or a report. Apparently, you don’t know the difference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
ed·i·to·ri·al: an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.
re·port: an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.
The person or persons who wrote that editorial may be “rabidly biased towards the Tories” as you contend, but no more than your own “editorial” comments, which are IMO, “rabidly anti-Conservative”. That was the reason for my previous comment.
“What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

[sansei]

I think most Canadians dislike gotcha politics and probably want to give someone
in a difficult situation a break. With Guergis, however, I suspect many feel as I do: a break does not translate into ducking the consequences that should be visited upon a Minister of Parliament who has allowed her staff to deceive the media and her husband to use her position for private gain, both of which came about long before the unfortunate circumstances she cites as the cause of her behaviour in P.E.I. Sadly, when I read her sister's comments in the Star, my first reaction was, "Show me the medical report and then I'll believe it."

[Wascally Wabbit]

Dear Gabby - in a style reminiscent of Peter Van Loan in QP - you split hairs and avoid answering the question!
For the record, once that editorial was recognized for the unctious and sycophantic propaganda piece that it was, it BECAME part of the news!
As to being anti-Tory - I have many Tory friends whom I respect (some of whom are now in the Liberal party because they could not stomach Harper and Co.) but not this lot currently in situ in Ottawa.
As for the publisher / editor in question - when someone holding this position makes my letters available to "elected Tories" so they can publish rebuttals alongside my original letter - in the same weekly edition - but do not offer me the same courtesy when said politicians use their "letters from the parliament building" for pure propaganda that frankly made tenpercenters seem benign by comparison - then surely even you would have to agree that some extreme partisanship is being shown!

[Wascally Wabbit]

And here, in a competitor's Weblog / online newspaper - (via Warren Kinsella's blog) - deep in the heart of Ms. Guergis' riding (I should confess my subjectivity here - I have sunk more than a beer or two with the publisher of the online newspaper (Tony Veltri) - and consider him the most objective of all the publishers in the area - with the Editor of the other main newspaper in the area being a former communications aide for the longtime Tory MPP in the riding).
The debate continues here - http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/04/enough-is-enough/

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: Wascally Wabbit | April 17, 2010 at 08:58 AM: "Dear Gabby - in a style reminiscent of Peter Van Loan in QP - you split hairs and avoid answering the question!"
Ummm, and that question would be ...?
There was no question, that I'm aware of. You made a categorical statement, based not on fact, but on your opinion of an editorial, which is someone else's opinion still.
I proceeded to opine on your opinion.
See? No question involved.
As to the invitation to visit the Kinsella website, thank you, I decline. My computer has a K-chip to guard against it.

[Charles Zollner]

Did I get this right? First you go to Barrie Community College and get a diploma in real estate. Then you go somewhere in order to work on a master's degree.