The View from Jaffar

Er, Jaffer - spelling mistake is intentional

Vic Toews wrote an open letter to take the piss out of David Akin's views. The first three paragraphs are great - the rest of it is ranting nonsense. The key is - there is no WAY his political stripes could have helped him with a crown attorney unless it was the crown which was crooked, and then it would be McGuinty's problem, not Steve's. I don't buy the political interference angle, and I never will. Vic should know, he was a provincial Minister of Justice.

If there was anyone in the Tory caucus I would ask about this, it would be Peter Mackay. Or maybe one of the ten cops that they have in caucus.

I am going to reproduce the things we know to be true, then I am going to reproduce things that may be true, and then things which were reported in the media.

Fact: Rahim Jaffer (C- Ottawa High School Dances) was pulled over in 2009.

Fact: Rahim Jaffer is married to a Junior Cabinet Minister (for shoes) (C-Tazer proof)

Fact: Rahim Jaffer admitted to an officer that he had had two beers when he was pulled over for driving several kilometres over the speed limit.

That is about it for things we KNOW are true.

It may be true that he was over the legal limit. It may be true that he possessed cocaine. Both were alleged. It is alleged he was driving 43 KMs over the speed limit.

Implied fact (IF):

IF Rahim Jaffer had been driving over the legal limit, he should go to jail.

IF Rahim Jaffer had been possessing cocaine (a controlled substance) he is guilty of a criminal code offence (actually, he would be in violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but who cares)

IF the evidence against Rahim Jaffer was as great as was reported in the media, or obtained legally, we would have a different result.

So, what does this actually mean?

1) Is there a crisis in transparency?

Maybe - Justice must be done and must also be seen to be done. The problem is that the MEDIA had over-reported the story and created the public expectation that now requires the greater transparency. Ergo, if they had reported the story responsibly in the past, the expectation would not be as high. The Media built up the expectation, and declared that evidence be examined on page 6 for its probative value. Bravo. I think the media should be the one who fix this problem - and on the fucking front page.

2) Do we need some answers?

Yes, but not because of what you think. I want to know what happened to the so-called evidence that would have been offered against Mr. Jaffer at his trial. I am WAY more worried about a cop who pulled over a non-white person in the middle of the boonies and then violated his constitutional rights.

Oh, how do I know this happened, you ask?

Assuming that which was reported in the media was correct, they HAD evidence of the very serious allegations in question. And they bragged about it. Trust me when I say some Crown Attorney would have LOVED to take down a high profile target. Then poof, it was gone.

That is code for the access to that information was unconstitutional, and the evidence would not have been admissible at trial, or it didn't have the probative value they professed that it had.

But, they couldn't just dismiss the charges because of the media shit-storm that had already broken out. If this was you or me, it would have been over. Rahim had to pay a $500.00 and plead to a lesser offence/misdemeanour because it was already out there.

3) Is he getting special treatment? HAH!

Ironic that the failure of the police to safeguard personal freedoms is now coming back full circle to look like a case of privilege when in fact it was the EXACT OPPOSITE that happened. He wasn't afforded special treatment, his constitutional rights were probably violated.

The bad news is that Mr. Jaffer will just let this blow over now - he did get a break - too bad that break was a violation of OUR rights. Yes, you hear me, not his rights. OUR rights. If this was you or me, we could sue in constitutional tort and get a WHOPPING settlement. Rahim, because of his position in the media spotlight, can't.

Privilege indeed.

Maybe we need to re-evaluate the freedom of the press again. I have previously proposed that until a person is FOUND guilty of an offence, they should be saved from having their name maligned. Just like other would be criminals, now Rahim has this hanging over his head despite nary a conviction against him. Doesn't exactly seem fair that he has he stigma associated with committing a crime without actually having stood trial, does it?