A $500 fine. That's the penalty in Ontario for driving at almost twice the speed limit, over the legal blood/alcohol limit while in possession of cocaine. Well, at least it is if you're former Conservative M.P. Rahim Jaffer.
The circumstances and substances that resulted in Mr. Jaffer's arrest and detention were well reported. As were the charges. He somehow bargained those down to a plea of careless driving. Why the crown dropped (or agreed to do so) the more serious charges of drug possession and DUI we'll likely never know. Even the judge said he caught a break.
That the judge made that clear is reason enough to wonder if Mr. Jaffer was not the beneficiary of unduly favourable treatment. To be fair, he is a gainfully-employed, non-aggressive, non-drug-trafficking, first-offender. However, would anyone of similar circumstances have fared as well as Jaffer? If so, great. If not, did Mr. Jaffer benefit merely from a judge's discretion?
That last bit is important. Because it is that very discretion that could go bye-bye if mandatory sentencing and tougher drug legislation currently tabled by the minority government pass without amendment. Unfortunately, the Jaffer business makes existing legislation look like it doesn't apply to 'them'. Further, it makes the trumpeting and dog-whistling about their proposed criminal legislation seem incredibly hypocritical. The Conservatives look to be tough on crime. Except of course when one o' their own is the subject of charges.
The Jaffer business raises legitimate questions. One need not be a rabid partisan to ask them. However, dismissing them is another matter entirely. Justice may have been served, but it was not seen to be done.
Update
Despite recent revelations that Mr. Jaffer sought deep info on Canadian Satellite thing-a-ma-jiggys, it seems all that tough-on-crime-ness still only goes so far:
http://albertadiary.ca/2010/03/canadians-deserve-explanation-of-why.html
Success!
No comments:
Post a Comment