Still In The Dark
So what does that mean, exactly? That she is a slow learner? Poor Helena Guergis, life really is unfair. She has divided loyalties, and that's understandable. She is a Conservative Member of Parliament and was honoured by being singled out as Cabinet material. In a government concerned to have women out front and active to demonstrate that it is as sensitive to certain issues as any other political party. And it didn't hurt that she was always camera-ready.
She is a loyal, if somewhat confused elected Member of Parliament representing the Conservative wing of Canadian politics. It's a family tradition, one she took up proudly and with estimable purpose. That was back then. Before matrimony divided her loyalties. Her ambition and her husband's ambition no longer quite meshed. Hers was a noble aspiration to serve her country and exert the power handed to her; quite heady stuff actually.
His, on the other hand, shunned by the voters who brought an alternative to office on their behalf, was to serve himself. And he continued to feel that his former colleagues and his former office with all its possibilities could still serve him well. Open doors, invite opportunities, that kind of thing. He was still a somebody. A somebody with a plus-factor, with a spouse who was most definitely a Somebody.
That Helena Guergis still maintains she has no idea why her Prime Minister invited her to leave the caucus after removing her cabinet posting, is a bit of a stretch. Or perhaps indicative that she is incapable of stretching her imagination a trifle to recall past events of incautious assistance to her self-promoting husband with money-making ambitions on the back of his former position and his then-current marriage partner's.
There is more than ample circumstantial and direct evidence of unethical tampering with the public trust and the moral responsibilities of an honourable Member of Parliament. It was put rather succinctly in the statement from Arthur Hamilton, actually.
She is a loyal, if somewhat confused elected Member of Parliament representing the Conservative wing of Canadian politics. It's a family tradition, one she took up proudly and with estimable purpose. That was back then. Before matrimony divided her loyalties. Her ambition and her husband's ambition no longer quite meshed. Hers was a noble aspiration to serve her country and exert the power handed to her; quite heady stuff actually.
His, on the other hand, shunned by the voters who brought an alternative to office on their behalf, was to serve himself. And he continued to feel that his former colleagues and his former office with all its possibilities could still serve him well. Open doors, invite opportunities, that kind of thing. He was still a somebody. A somebody with a plus-factor, with a spouse who was most definitely a Somebody.
That Helena Guergis still maintains she has no idea why her Prime Minister invited her to leave the caucus after removing her cabinet posting, is a bit of a stretch. Or perhaps indicative that she is incapable of stretching her imagination a trifle to recall past events of incautious assistance to her self-promoting husband with money-making ambitions on the back of his former position and his then-current marriage partner's.
There is more than ample circumstantial and direct evidence of unethical tampering with the public trust and the moral responsibilities of an honourable Member of Parliament. It was put rather succinctly in the statement from Arthur Hamilton, actually.
"Mr. Jaffer was creating the illusion that he was ultra-connected with the Conservative government and that he could make funds available and effectively open doors to potential investors. Mrs. Guergis assisted and amplified that aura of connectedness."
Labels: Government of Canada, Human Fallibility, Human Relations
posted by Pieface | 7:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home