Monday, March 20, 2006

On chilling effects

Buried at the bottom of CBC's article on the Emerson ethics decision is this:
In the end, though, Harper did give Shapiro both an interview and a written response, the report said.
Considering the massive public outcry when Harper first communicated his intention to avoid cooperating with Shapiro's investigation, it seems particularly odd that Harper then went out of his way to avoid acknowledging that he'd eventually been willing to cooperate. And in a sense, that silent turnaround looks even more dangerous than genuine principled opposition to Shapiro's involvement. Apparently, Harper sees more value in being seen opposing any effort to question his authority than in being known to have cooperated with the ethics commissioner.

Like all too much with the reign of King Steve, there's a disturbing similarity in that tactic to one that we've seen from Bushco before. Evidently Harper prefers to publicly vilify an independent officer on political grounds rather than to admit that just maybe, Parliament's ethics commissioner should have the ability to examine ethics in Parliament. And in light of Harper's campaign declaration that the courts and the civil service are stacked against him, it's hard to be confident that Shapiro will be the only official to be publicly slammed for doing his job counterbalancing the Cons' power.

In fairness, Harper was at least willing to cooperate with Shapiro behind the scenes and without any attention - suggesting at least some recognition that he isn't entirely above any review. But Harper's clash with Shapiro seems all too likely to be calculated to send a signal to anybody else thinking of trying to keep the Cons honest - and that can't bode well for the actual honesty behind his intentions.

No comments:

Post a Comment