Tom Zytaruk takes James Moore on an uncomfortable trip down memory lane …

by kadyomalley on Friday, February 13, 2009 4:31pm - 40 Comments

.. in today’s edition of Surrey Now:

I’m loathe to admit it, but Conservative MP James Moore and I do have one thing in common: We have both suffered the public indignity of being wrongfully accused of doing something we did not do.

In my case, of course, Moore led the Conservative Party charge claiming that I fraudulently “doctored” a taped conversation with Stephen Harper in connection with the so-called Cadman Affair.

In Moore’s case, the young MP was accused of viewing “soft porn” on his laptop computer while in the House of Commons, back in December 2007. As it turned out, he’d actually been looking at pictures of his girlfriend. At any rate, Moore was clearly distressed by the false allegation. Mortified. Humiliated.

“I hope nobody in this House goes through what I did in the last 24 hours,” he told the media, after the dust settled.

In my case, I hope no Canadian ever goes through what I’ve been going through over the past year.

At least Moore’s accuser, an NDP MP, had the class to apologize. Do you, James Moore, have the class to apologize to me? [...]

And yes, in case anyone wonders, ITQ agrees completely. Tom Zytaruk deserves a public apology from Moore, and from every other footsoldier who was — and, in at least one case, still is — willing to cast unproven – and, in fact, subsequently debunked – allegations against a journalist solely to spare the Prime Minister from having to explain what he meant by “financial considerations”. Frankly, he also deserves an apology from the rest of us in the media, who, for the most part, pretty much stopped asking that question after the PM filed suit against the Liberals — not because it had been satisfactorily answered, but due to the not unreasonale fear that we might find ourselves similarly targeted. In fact, we owe the public itself an apology for that one, so consider this mine.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    It is a shame that Tom was killed last week for his participation in the fleet uprising against the cylons, and won’t live to see any apology.

    Oh, wait…..

  • Sean S.

    gotta love Goodale’s weasel words to get out of commenting, we all expected Pierre to run and hide, but I thought the Liberals were better than that..or at least they constantly claim to be…Liberals Tories, same old story.

    • Mike T.

      yawn

    • catherine

      Last year the NDP called the Liberals dogs going after a pork chop for commenting on the Cadman affair and now they are called Tories for not commenting.
      Seems like the Liberals just can’t win over the NDP no matter what they do. :-)

      Actually, I was surprised at how evasive Goodale was. Makes one wonder what is in the confidentiality agreement.

    • http://abandonedstuff.com Saskboy

      I asked Goodale during the election campaign to comment on “financial considerations” and he basically did not. I’ll have the YouTube of it up later at my blog.

  • J@ck M!tchell

    What does Dona Cadman have to say about any of this?

  • catherine

    How about this headline which just came out: Cadman biographer threatens to sue Tories for reputational damages

  • Ti-Guy

    And I apologise for having been graceless and uncharitable at times.

    What? Aren’t we all doing it?

    • MJH

      Yes, we are all doing it.

      Be careful, the Human Rights Commission is watching!

  • seaandthemountains

    SSSSSnap.

  • paul

    Two audio experts said the tapes were fraudulent. Not only did they make the accusation, they filed sworn affidavits with the Ontario Superior Court saying the tapes were doctored. They are experts, and they said publicly, in court, that the tapes are doctored. If the tapes weren’t doctored Mr. Zatyruk would be suing the two audio experts. He isn’t. That says it all.

    • catherine

      A guy named marvin plagarized your entire post on the Judge Pierre (III) thread.

      • James Connors

        You know, the Macleans blogs deserve to be on usenet. The threading would be accurate and attributable, quoting would be easier, there would be headers to check . . . it would be much preferable to this web based crap.

        However, I digress. This Marvin, I presume?

        http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/21501BP~Marvin-The-Martian-Posters.jpg

        The Little Shop of Tories, indeed.

        [I can hardly wait 'til the Liberals form government and have Kady O'Malley to contend with. I see endless possibilities for her fertile imagination.]

        • catherine

          LOL. paul posted six sentences here and marvin posted the same six sentences 2 minutes later on the Judge Pierre (III) thread. I thought the PMO was losing their literate staff. How can they still manage six sentence talking points? Admittedly, not a very good six sentences, but, six nonetheless.

      • Ti-Guy

        Kody?

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        I think i saw it under mike somewhere else!

      • http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

        Probably a CON sockpuppet right Marvin? Only Macleans know for sure.

        • http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

          It could even be Poilievre, he’s done that sort of thing before, albeit unsuccessfully and he was caught on wikipedia.

    • http://bcinto.blogspot.com BCer in Toronto

      Yeah, no they didn’t Paul. Can you quote me where exactly in the sworn affidavits they said the tapes were either “fraudulent” or “doctored”?

    • john g

      I was about to post this as well. I do recall 2 audio experts giving testimony that the tape was doctored. One concluded that fact “with scientific certainty”.

      What happened to those expert accounts?

    • Rob Weldon

      As I recall,the Conservative expert(CIA/FBI expert, or something like this , from the USA) clearly said that the pertinent parts of the tape were NOT doctored and others indicated that there were areas of concern but easily eplained by reporters habits of taping over previous interviews.This does not mean pertinent areas of the current info on tape were altered.

  • Ti-Guy

    Kady: Globe changed the headline in the article you linked to, so this: “And yes, in case anyone wonders, ITQ agrees completely. Tom Zytaruk deserves a public apology from Moore, and from every other footsoldier who was — and, in at least one case, still is — willing to cast unproven – and, in fact, subsequently debunked” now seems inaccurate.

    I fear we’re going to have to start regulating how the fourth estate manages updates to its online content if they’re not going to be transparentl about it.

  • acd

    Conservative scum balls of the year. James Moore, Pierre Polievre, This is just disgraceful. I know they don’t like Tom Zytaruk – after all he’s the cause of all this problem to Harper but…anyhow if someone starts a fund for his suit….I’ll give a $100.00. This is just beyond the pale…totally inappropriate and juvenile behavior…and how does a guy like Polievre justify to himself just scurrying out the back door…unbelievable..cowardly…but I guess that’s how he got Harper’s bum boy job…

    • Robin

      Absolutely I agree ! Start a fund to support Tom Zytaruk’s defamation lawsuit against these liars.

  • WDM

    This whole story is rather odd. While one assumes the Conservatives got the mileage they wanted out of the lawsuit (namely stopping the Liberals from bringing it up the last 6 months), what do the Liberals get for keeping quiet about it now? Did the Libs agree to settle simply because they didn’t have the money to finance the suit filed against them? Or were they worried they’d lose? Obviously this is a pretty sensitive topic, Mr. Cadman has died, his wife is a Conservative MP (who has suggested there was an offer and Harper knew about it IIRC) yet doesn’t seem phased by the situation.

    • Jenn

      Yeah, the Conna Cadman thing is the part I just can’t get my head around. She and her daughter stand proudly behind her husband and his wonderful ethical stand. Is she saying he may have had the wonderful ethics but she’s not burdened by same?

  • WDM

    Kady:
    When Polievre said the Conservative claim had been “proven in court” what was he speaking to? I don’t remember any court saying anything of the sort – unless the audio expert the CPC hired way back when is what he’s speaking about – but I’m assuming it’s the dropped lawsuit he’s speaking too. If he is, and this info hasn’t been made public or tabled in the House, is that not out of order procedurally? Was a Point of Order raised on the matter after QP?

    • Ted

      It was never proven in court. That is part of the outrage over Polievre’s comments. In fact Harper’s own expert said quite explicitly that the relevant portions of the tape were not altered.

      And then suddenly, after that and just before a judge was going to boot the case because the Cons refused to provide documents they were required to provide, they cut and run from their case and their own words, only to scurry to Parliament to repeat their slander and hide from any accountability. Disgusting. Cowardly. This is “leadership”?????

      • WDM

        Agreed completely Ted and thanks for the confirmation. However, it’s a shame that Liberals are speaking no evil, seeing no evil and hearing no evil as well. I don’t know what the reasons for that is, but it’s disappointing.

      • James Connors

        If irony were not completely lost on Harper et al, I’d also point out they are responsible for this fiasco too:

        Coalition to Save the Court Challenges Program (CCP)

        In September 2006, the Government of Canada, cancelled the Court Challenges Program once more, despite an independent evaluation done in 2003 that endorsed the Program’s purpose and operation, and despite the renewal of the contribution agreement with Heritage Canada until March 2009.

  • Robin

    Tom,

    I am outraged the behaviour of Harper and the Cons. I would like to make a donation towards any suit you wish to file against this bunch and know many others who would also contribute to help you.

    • MJ Patchouli

      Does anyone know how to set up an online site for donations, with paypal? That would be convenient. Think of the PR for Zytaruk (not to mention the satisfying hostility of the prime minister when he realizes there is a massive cross-Canada campaign to expose his lies in court, on Tom’s behalf.

    • knick

      Count me in.

  • motor

    Count me in Robin

  • Wascally Wabbit

    I thought the whole point was…NOT to go to court!
    This was Libel Chill par excellence!
    Been there – done that – if you can shut up the other party until you have done whatever deed you need to do…you have achieved your objective!
    And if the other party (in the legal definition sense of the word) doesn’t have as deep pockets as you – you can stretch out the case until they can’t afford legal representation any more…
    Here’s a good idea for the Libs – insert in their policy platform a promise to update Canad’as Libel laws…

  • knick

    214 comments on ‘Tories maintain Cadman tape was doctored ‘ from the G&M site have evaporated…
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090213.wPOLcadman0213/BNStory/politics/home

    • Liz

      The G&M has re-opened the story comments.

      • knick

        Good, but when they disappeared there were 214 comments, now there are 205. Wonder what they ‘expunged’ – possibly for legal reasons?

  • Dave

    This incident is presented as a party versus party thing. I thought that trying to bribe an MP was a crime. I thought RCMP was involved somewhere in this. I guess they did not find enough evidence.

  • Just visiting

    The Conservatives behaviour in this matter is predictably disgraceful, given their attachment to gutter politics.

    The Liberals behaviour in this matter is, surprisingly, even more disgraceful, given that there is absolutely nothing for them to gain by settling, beyond some vague “let’s put this Dion-related thing behind us” horseshit.

    And Tom, if you’re reading this, I really respect the dignified way in which you have conducted yourself on this. In the end, you are the only one to emerge from it with your reputation not just intact, but enhanced, at least through my eyes.

    - JV

From Macleans