Law is Not Politics

Hiding From Politics Behind the Law

Prime Minister Paul Martin insists that Justice Gomery must issue his report before calling an election. Grits go on to repeat that all the facts must be in, that all we have is allegations and not facts. All of this betrays a fundamental disregard for the responsibilities of the Gomery Inquiry (which Martin called) and the distinctions with a court of law (which they are padding with wealthy lawyers that fatten the coffers of the Liberal Party), the law (which they have repeatedly broken in order to milk money from the state for their friends and for themselves), and the constitutional traditions of Canada (which Liberals are trampling).

Even though some think that the PM’s position on Gomery cannot be refuted, and since the Liberals seem to be a little confused, I’ve prepared the little graphic below to point out their fallacies, and to illustrate the distinction between the legal and the political.

There is a difference between the legal and the political. The legal is a strict framework of law; the political is the realm of public opinion and of common sense, of moral habits and traditions. Transgression of the law requires legal punishment; transgression of political habits or norms brings social and political punishment –but not necessarily legal.

There is also a distinction between judiciary elements, such as commissions of inquiry and a court of law. Courts assign culpability, and sentence (punish) legal transgressions. Precisely because blame and punishments are assigned, the burden of proof in a court of law is heavy (and that is as it should be). For serious crimes, accusations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (“a proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof it’s because it’s proven”). Commissions are meant to explore questions of public interest and gather information. They have the power to subpoena witnesses, and issue information bans but they do not assign blame or mete out punishments. All Justice Gomery will do is issue recommendations (Should we have the crooks receive the recommendations and trust them to mend their ways?).

Returning to the political, there is sufficient corroborated testimony or documentary evidence at the Gomery Inquiry so far for people to form an opinion and make a judgement about the Liberal government. Paul Martin cannot deny with the honesty for which he is celebrated, that

• monies left the Ministry of Public Works in industrial quantities
• it was paid to a select number of Liberal-friendly ad agencies in Quebec
• people were sometimes paid for no work performed
• bills were over-inflated at the behest of federal bureaucrats
• some of that money was channelled to the Liberal Party of Canada
• some companies were paying Liberal campaign workers
• * “donations” were made by company employees that were reimbursed by the ad companies
• a Liberal Party hack recommended that Chuck Guite be put in charge of the racket at Public Works

And it can only get worse, not better. It is about to get worse, if it turns out to be true that some judges have essentially bought a place on the Bench by making large donations to the Liberal Party of Canada (See also here, and here) .

Politics is not law. In politics, even though there is need for evidence, there is no necessity for the burden of proof that courts require. What is needed is enough common sense information for individuals to make a choice. So, in order to make their minds up, Canadians need not wait for the Gomery Inquiry to make recommendations.

Grits are playing on Canadians’ good sense of due process; they are muddling the waters and mixing things that need not be mixed. They are purposely confusing processes and their different standards, passing law as politics. They are hiding from politics behind the law. Canadians will not sentence Liberals at the polls; they will pass a political judgement. That is all that is required. Otherwise, if we were strictly to wait for all due legal process to end, we would have to wait for all the criminal charges to be brought up, and for the ensuing trials to be done. Considering that the Mounties will be involved (Can you say Airbus? Air India?) that could take years and years. But that is where Paul Martin’s logic leads. Booting the Liberals out is not a legal question; it is a political question.

Since there can be no fast rules about these events given that the written constitution does not contemplate governments reaching these depths of corruption, we need to consult our constitutional traditions. In our parliamentary tradition, the government is responsible. One of the central responsibilities of government is to ensure that citizens have respect for the law and faith in the processes. That is why, according to constitutional traditions, when public officials are marred in scandal, they are expected to resign. The mere appearance of impropriety has been traditionally enough for men of honour to offer their resignations. Frankly, we are waaaaaaaay past the appearance of impropriety: Liberals have violated electoral law, to name just the most obvious one, time and time again. In this, Paul Martin and the Liberals have also failed.

The tradition does not say that only those who are convicted should resign, as Paul Martin seems to imply. One is a legal test, and the other is a political test. Since the Martin’s Liberals have failed the political test, the right thing to do will be to go to the polls –not a year from now, but now. Those who violate the law cannot be expected to uphold it. This is the most common sensical aspect on which politics rest.

To put in perspective the distinction between the legal and the political, consider the limited analogy of an airline pilot. A pilot is hired for his qualifications and must have a flying license. There are tests that he must pass to be allowed to fly. There is no way that a pilot would be allowed to fly for ten months after having lost his flying license for negligence and incompetence; for failing a test. Paul Martin’s Liberals have flunked several tests and lost their flying license. But all Martin wants is to surrender his driver’s license for the speeding tickets that he has received, but still wants to continue flying. One activity has nothing to do with the other.

Martin has not only failed the political test, he has failed the ethical and the constitutional tests. Under the traditions of Canada, a government so wrapped up in scandal should have already resigned. But Martin is not going to resign. In spite of appearances, there is no honour there. So, Canadians must kick him out and say no to one more year of corrupted officials in government.

The Gomery Inquiry can continue. There is no reason to stop it. The federal government and the Liberal Party are represented in the Inquiry. If there are allegations and contradictions, it is up to these to point them out. But we already know enough to make informed decisions.

It is said that people have the government they deserve, but even in their cold apathy, Canadians do not deserve this bad. No one argues against due process, but Liberals must not be allowed to hide behind the same laws that they have been corrupting for years.

Crossposted from Civitatensis