Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Driving while unbelievably lucky

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 11:56am - 171 Comments

Rahim Jaffer: arrested on charges of speeding, driving drunk, and possession of cocaine. Sentenced to … a $500 fine?

OBLIGATORY TWITTER LINES: Next time I’m hiring his lawyer… So much for tough on crime… The cocaine probably cost more than that… He’s suffered enough — he’s married to Helena… etc etc

Tags: cocaine, Crime, horseshoes, Rahim Jaffer

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Unbelievable.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Utterly believeable, but I share the sentiment behind the statement.

http://intensedebate.com/people/canon70 canon70

His breathalyzer test measured more than 80 milligrams of alcohol, the court was told. He was charged with cocaine possession and driving over the legal blood-alcohol limit. His licence was suspended for 90 days.

It's a good thing the Conservatives are cleaning up the justice system when someone only gets a $500 for these charges.
Dot

I wouldn't make it a habit of quoting Ms. Tibbetts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Why shouldn't I?

Dot

You can quote anyone you want. I wouldn't quote her – she is not credible based upon the stats she presented that you quoted. Just because her current gig is "a justice and public safety reporter with Canwest News Service" means nothing – though it may carry some weight with you. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet I've had just as much or more legal training as her. And I also know a thing or two about stats.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

She's a competent, experienced and professionally impartial reporter who is a survivor in an industry (and a company) that has experienced mass layoffs.

She's one of the few Canadian reporters who covers the Supreme Court. I don't know her educational background, but since she has written hundreds of articles about court cases and Canadian legal issues, I'll assume that her knowledge of the law vastly exceeds yours.

http://twitter.com/janicetibbetts

Dot

<i.She's a competent, experienced and professionally impartial reporter</i>

That's an opinion. And ususally to be professionally anything requires being a member of a profession. Is reporting a profession?

Reporting on the Supreme Court proceedings is quite different than compiling and producing evidence. Her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny, as you yourself admitted (acknowledging the shortcomings of inclusion of marijuana stats – in your reply to Nich, at least one hour after I raised the same point).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

And usually to be professionally anything requires being a member of a profession. Is reporting a profession? Is reporting a profession?

Yes. Not that it matters to your point, though, because "professionally" is an adverb that modifies the adjective "impartial". One needn't belong to a "profession" to be "professionally impartial".

Her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny

You're reading way too much into what she wrote. She wasn't trying to "spin" anything, she was simply reporting facts.

acknowledging the shortcomings of inclusion of marijuana stats

She was reporting statistics from a Statscan study. We don't even know if the study she cited broke down drug charges by drug type. At any rate, it's up to the reader to interpret the facts she presented. There's nothing that she reported that would even remotely justify accusations of bias.
Dot

There you go again. Where did I say "spin" or incompetence?

Your partisanship is showing – starting from the point where you quoted from your "legal begal" without comment nor qualification. Why did you quote it to begin with? To influence individuals like S.S. who are quoting it elsewhere on another blog here? How much do you want to be these misleading stats will be used as talking points elsewhere?
Dot

Ok, I did say spin. Was too lazy to look.

Say, have you ever prepared and submitted evidence, cross examined witnesses, been involved in any legal /quasi judicil proceedings? I guess I'm asking why should I accept your opinions on these types of issues over mine?
Dot

How much do you want to be these misleading stats will be used as talking points elsewhere?

Ha! Just was swinging the channel and came across Joe Comartin (NDP Justice Critic, lawyer) being scrummed on CPAC, and a male reporter asked that very same question: 25,000 similar cases, 50% not convicted – what's the big deal?

JC replied – why not go to trial (obviously rejecting the 50% as I did – lumping stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. together)? That would be normal according to JC- trial. Also, DUI? They had evidence – failed breath test. And, according to him, based upon his work with Conservative Party – "the two beer defence" Jaffer was using was legislated invalid.
Dot

Now I'll state the only stat that might be remotely relevant, IMO:

Percentage of people charged with possession of cocaine that have the charges withdrawn that is not a part of a plea bargain.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I was busy at work, but now that I'm free I'll try my best to respond to your four (!) replies.

Where did I say "spin" or incompetence?

Here's some of what you said (condensed version):

This is selective stats quoting, or spin…I wouldn't make it a habit of quoting Ms. Tibbetts…her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny…she is not credible based upon the stats she presented…her current gig means nothing…I wouldn't quote her.

You tried set the record straight when you added: "Ok, I did say spin. Was too lazy to look.". (But not too lazy to post four comments, apparently.) The fact remains that you impugned the credibility of an honourable reporter based on nothing but specious assumptions.

Your partisanship is showing – starting from the point where you quoted from your "legal begal" without comment nor qualification.

The funny part is that I quoted her blog post because I found it interesting… without partisan intent. I made no attempt to endorse it, I simply provided a quote and a link as an FYI. As my previous comments right here indicate, I think Jaffer got a lucky break (in other words, he got off too lightly).

Sadly, this didn't prevent you from jumping to conclusions about me and poor Ms. Tibbets. (Btw, did you see her previous blog entry challenging the Harper government for contradicting one of Iacobucci's previous rulings? I'm pretty sure she isn't on Harper's Christmas card list.)

Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.
Dot

Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.

No, just reinforces what I had already known.
RDB

Maybe you should quit before you’re past your neck in the cement . . .
Dot

Sorry, I don't see your point. CR posts a selection of some reporter's analysis. I point out that it doesn't withstand scrutiny, and is not credible, and wouldn't myself rely on her analysis. Then he defends her by misquoting me etc etc. Poor reporter, boohoohoo.
Dot

John Ivison just now on Power and Politics claiming 50% of drug possession charges never go to trial. Wrong.

Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Asked for comment, Ms. Tibbetts said, "Who are you? What are you doing in my house?"
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

It will be interesting to see if this sparks any type of discussion within the CPC caucus…either behind closed doors or even in a suitable public setting.

Perhaps some good can come of this incident.
Brian

Well, I guess it's safe for me to take that "courier" job after all, I know some Tories too.

Anyone need another hit?
Mulletaur

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find that Conservatives are being let off the hook by other Conservatives.

By the way, where are all the usual suspects who should be on Conservative talking points about this ? How very disappointing.

Jan

They're reworking their Michael Bryant talking points. It was going to be such a slam dunk.

orval

I am so disappointed with our host. I had always counted him among the very few non-stupid Canadian journalists. But he has become so anti-Harper that a typical garden-variety plea bargain in provincial court, which happens dozens of times every single day, but in this instance involving a Federal ex-MP, results in the defaming of police, prosecutors and members of the judiciary. For what? To just to get some frisson of a thrill by indirectly insulting PM Harper and Conservative political views? For all our host's holier-than-thou rants declaiming of the Conservatives for supposedly showing disrespect to Parliament and democracy, he is quick to defame other important institutions such as our criminal justice system, and the judiciary, on the basis of gossip and innuendo.
http://intensedebate.com/people/medererobert medererobert

This is truly outrageous… but then again it isn't. It's just another example of politicians (or former) living in a completely different world than the rest of us. The past month has really magnified the disconnect. This incident, the Guergis hissy fit, the private jet, the MLA expenses in NS.

How do you solve this problem? Realistically we can't fire them all and start over. I'm not sure what the solution is. Extreme transparency enforced strongly by the media would help matters quite a bit.

Rahim will have to take the heat for the next few days but nothing will be done and he'll live the rest of his life with no criminal record. The media will move on to something else. He knows it and you can hear the arrogance when he speaks about it.
orval

I was very happy last night watching At Issue panel where Allan Gregg reminded our host and Peter M and Chantal H that as a private citizen Jaffer owes nobody any explanation; that any suggestion that the Ontario justice system was granting some favour to an ex-MP who is not a candidate for election was "preposterous;" and reminded out host about the presumption of innocence in Canada which means if Jaffer was not charged, tried and convicted of a crime then he is innocent. He also said that opposition and media reaction to Jaffer plea bargain is throwing justice system into disrepute.

Chantal changed to the subject to saying that Helen Guergis was a weak minister and should be dropped from cabinet. Our host persisted in saying Jaffer was still some sort of public figure and therefore he should explain to him and Canada why he took a plea bargain.

It was definitely not our host's finest moment. I have disagreed with Allan Gregg on issues before but on this one he is bang-on.

TrueJusticeNow

I could not disagree with you more, drunk driving kills innocent people and Gregg did not even mention how serious this crime is, he just tried to say we all have things we are ashamed of and leave Jaffer alone. Sorry Orval and Gregg you are missing the whole point, Jaffer is not innocent, he blew over the limit and cops found cocaine in the car. They made some "error" in processing Jaffer and the injustice system let him off. We all know he is guilty of drunk driving and cocaine possesion, and we want to know how much cocaine was found, how many grams, where in the care was it, and what was the chemical analysis of it? And we want to know the results of the breathalizer, and we want to know what mistakes were made by the cops! As Andrew said in the US all the details would be on the table for all to see! We want the truth and we want it now! We don't need a justice system to find him guilty, we the people will find him guilty and judge him as we see fit, and anyone else like him! Justice demands the truth be made public in this case!

orval

Hey TJN, you had me going there! I thought I was reading the script to The Oxbow Incident. I got the joke when I read your penultimate sentence.

I always recall the words of John Mortimer's Rumpole of the Bailey, played on TV by the late Leo McKern, who would say in court that the two greatest British exports to the rest of the world were the Great British Breakfast and the Presumption of Innocence. This principle is what makes our justice system work – the rule of law ( impartial) versus the rule of the mob (arbitrary).

If the media want the principle of freedom of the press to be respected they should respect the other rights as well, such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) otherwise in a court of law. The media's behaviour in most cases has been shameful.

TrueJusticeNow

No Orval, you were reading the script to 12 Million Angry Men and Women. It’s a story about how one man is trying to tell the public the accused is innocent even though the police found cocaine on him and he blew over the legal limit, but the policeman makes a clerical error and now the whole case is lost and the accused walks out the door laughing. But it does not end there, the lone juror fails to sway the rest of the jurors and accused is judged in the court of public opinion and is found guilty, by about 93% of the people, which is far worse than what would have happened if he had admitted his crimes in the first place and took his punishment. He would have received a light fine, lost his license for year and had to do some community service and maybe gone for some drug and alcohol counseling. Everyone’s anger would subside and they would feel sorry for him and wish him well in the future. Forgiveness would be found in all the people’s hearts, and the accused would have kept the most important thing of all, his integrity.

This script however is a tragedy, things don’t go well for the accused, the justice system or the conservatives, all of them are cursed and judged by the 12 Million Angry Men and Women. It does not end there Orval, the 12 Million form a posse and start tracking down the evil doers to get them out of the courts and out of government. I can see how you thought you were reading the script to the Oxbow Incident, it does have a posse scene as well, but no this is titled 12 Million Angry Men and Women.

http://www.driving-permit-test.com/ Angela

I saw this great web site about driving tests. Recommend to everyone.http://www.driving-permit-test.com/
http://www.driving-permit-test.com/ dmv practice test

unbelievable. I saw that kind of article here too. http://www.driving-permit-test.com/
http://www.permit-test.com/ permit test

Lucky you….!!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

I agree, this smells rotten.

Or maybe he had Margaret Trudeau's lawyer.

Maybe the phrase should be "Driving while unbelievably politically connected"
Jesse A

To be honest, this does not bother me that much. Would putting him in jail and throwing away the key made Canadian society any safer? Would it have scared other cocaine users into stopping out of fear of the consequences? Probably not…. However, because of this incident his career is over (well what was left of it) and he has definitely been subject to more public shaming than the average criminal (not necessarily a punishment or quantifiable, but it still stings).

Of course this touches on a whole bunch of other issues about what is the role of the criminal justice system and how best it can keep society safe, secure and orderly….
http://intensedebate.com/people/Blamo Blamo

…………and also on the fallacy of 'Tough on Crime' rhetoric.
MacLean's Regular

But…but…but…THE LIBERALZ!!!!

*yawn*
Sigh

Oh, well, if the Liberals did it first…………never mind.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Chances are if it's something the Liberals did first, it's really truly evil.
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

It wasn't my point…did you not read the part where I agree that it smells rotten? The point was more that having connections pays…Liberal or Conservative.
Gary

Yes we know…………the Liberals and NDP are beyond reproach and should be left alone. When they have a lapse in judgement, it is nobody's business, especially for the media in this country. Ignore, deny, sweep under the carpet and repeat!
Yawn!!!