The Shrillness of Stephane Dion

Ad hominem attacks, by their very nature, diminish the impact of the statements and accusations issuing from the mouths of those who consider themselves capable of exerting influence over others. When they're delivered - as are those of the leader of the official opposition, Liberal leader Stephane Dion - with a marked degree of hysterical shrieking in the House of Commons, they devalue Mr. Dion as both a cognitively-capable politician and a beacon of light on the dark matter of political intrigues.

A soon-to-be-published book on the life of the now-deceased conservative politician, Chuck Cadman, purports to describe a conversation he had with his wife with respect to political inducements offered him when he sat as an independent and his support was sought in a vote of confidence that would have brought down the minority Liberal government of the time. The two Conservative party representatives whom the book excerpts claimed made an illegal attempt to bribe Mr. Cadman and Mr. Cadman himself were the only persons present at the event in question.

Mr. Cadman is no longer available for questioning, but it is clear that he put it on the public record as denying that anything underhanded had taken place between himself and his interlocutors. What the excerpts of the book claim to have occurred is hearsay; an accounting by a third party not present at the meeting in question. And the two individuals who had approached Mr. Cadman, both men of supposed virtue as well as party stalwarts, steadfastly oppose the version appearing in the book.

Yet, the very whiff of a potential scandal that might implicate Prime Minister Stephen Harper deleteriously has sent Mr. Dion into the frenzied heights of accusation, demanding he step down as leader of the country. He must, screeches Stephane Dion, because it is demanded of him, by none other than the leader of the official opposition. One doubts that anyone could consider Stephen Harper to be anything but firm in his integrity as an honest politician, aside from other characteristics many may otherwise ascribe to him.

He does not dissemble, nor does he colour his words meaningfully to lend them an air of helpful ambiguity. He speaks forthrightly, honestly, simply because that is his style. The man has ample reason to feel offended by accusations of having deliberately attempted to suborn a colleague, and then covering up the unfortunate consequences. Anyone indelicate enough to slander another person who on the record has proven to be an honourable man, should prepare to face those unfortunate consequences.

There are times when resorting to the law to respond to slander becomes the best defence, particularly when dealing with a perpetually aggrieved, shrilly insulting opponent who seems to feel he was elected to political office as a high-strung guard dog, not a responsible legislator for whom quality of representation and regard for the electorate should be the prime motivating factor in his honoured presence in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dion is lamentably puffed with the sense of his importance, blowing out of all reasonable proportions a little-understood incident which may very well have been born in innocence as the two men present claim. Negotiations between politicians are not necessarily evil intrigues, but may very well, as often happens, demonstrate an ongoing and sometimes necessary reminder and nudge to dissenting party members of their party obligations.

The late Mr. Cadman's wife, herself preparing to run as a candidate in her husband's former riding of Surrey North, while supporting the allegations in the book excerpt, also expresses "surprise" by the furor generated by the situation. As a result of the accusations flying forth from the opposition benches, she has found it necessary to issue a statement to the effect that she believes Prime Minister Harper himself had not personally been involved in the overtures to her late husband, that she trusts and respects him.

But the Liberal parliamentarians and their hysterical leader believe they have a meaty bone of criminal contention and will not willingly surrender it to reasonable explanations. They smell malfeasance and they are determined to smear the prime minister and his aides and no denials will suffice to have them retract their suppositional accusations. They've resorted to malicious and defamatory statements, alleging the prime minister is guilty of attempted bribery.

Their antics have descended to behaviour more suitable for a bar room than a house of parliament. They do themselves no favour, they degrade their elected office, they do nothing to advance the well-being of the country, by resorting to partisan bickering over any and all matters pertaining to the country's governance. Above all, they try the patience of the fed-up and long-suffering electorate.