Must-reads: Chantal Hébert, Jeffrey Simpson and John Ivison on the insanity.

Bravo, Mr. Harper
What Canada’s politicians did this weekend instead of thinking about the financial crisis.

The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson believes the debacle over the government’s fiscal update finally reveals “the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.” The latter isn’t really ideological, is it? Mostly, this whole thing confirms to us that Stephen Harper sees Canadian governance primarily as a game more than it highlights any particular policy motivation. But either way, it is indeed “enormously revealing” that at a time of crisis, Harper “acted in this fashion. … And very sad.”

On the other hand, as the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom notes, only one thing links cutting public funding for political parties, axing a pay equity program that doesn’t seem to be “either iniquitous or expensive” and suspending federal employees’ right to strike at a time when no strikes loom—i.e., the three most contentious measures in the fiscal update. The common factor is that the targets of the measures share a “place in the Conservative party pantheon of villains.” So perhaps it really is an ideology eruption. But whatever else it might mean, Walkom argues, it confirms that “the Conservatives are neither serious nor united about tackling the economy,” and it confirms Harper suffers from a very serious self-control deficit.

Continue…

Is there a form of sociopathy that renders a man oblivious to popular loathing? Why else would David Frost set himself up online as a hockey expert?

Frost, as you’re probably aware, is the former junior coach who emerged from his sexual exploitation trial last week with an acquittal. The evidence offered at the proceeding may not have resulted in a conviction. But it certainly suggested Frost is the last person you’d want in charge of your kid in some small town hundreds of kilometres from home. Playing for the Quinte Hawks in the late 1990s, according to undisputed testimony, meant being part of a teenage sex-fest and risking an occasional blow to the head by the bench boss. He is not, to put it mildly, Hockey Canada-approved. Continue…

David Frost, the man accused of sexually exploiting two of the players on the Junior A hockey team he once coached in Deseronto, Ont., has been found not guilty on all charges. Continue…

Final submissions today, and there are huge questions hanging over the Crown’s case. Bear in mind that the players are supposed to be the victims here: Frost was in a position of trust over them. The girls are presumed to be participants in consensual sex.

Yet the one player we watched on Thursday was testifying for the defence, not the Crown. The gist of his story? That Frost, though deeply involved in his players’ lives, had nothing to do with group sex in which these young men appeared to be regularly engaged from the time they were, oh, 16 years old, and living in Deseronto, Ont., while playing for Frost’s team, the Quinte Hawks. There was a discernible sense of incredulity in the room toward this testimony. If Frost was not engaged in group sex involving with the players, a cynic might have thought, he was the only one within five miles who can say so.

The Crown was able to convey the sense that Frost’s former players are protecting him for some reason. He was clearly a strong presence in their careers and personal lives, at times driving wedges between them and their families. He even wrote them a kind of manifesto, which our witness last Thursday claimed he filed away and forgot about.

Still, the “reasonable doubt” hurdle looks awfully high. When your victims are testifying for the defence …

P.S. I hope to be a little more expansive in my own submissions today. I’m working off my lap-top keyboard, thanks to a high-speed internet “stick” supplied by the folks at Rogers. Wireless reception is a bit spotty in the court, but it should be a vast improvement over my BlackBerry.

—–

Sorry for the delay everyone. Turns out reception in the court isn’t good enough to support computer transmission. Here’s what’s happened so far:

——

10:40 a.m. — Under way at last, with a surprise final witness for the defence: Dr. Hubert Manning. This is the long-awaited “third-testicle evidence.” It turns out Dr. Manning is Frost’s GP. Recall, this was raised by the defence as potentially exculpatory evidence, as one of the women who testified to participating in group sex with Frost and his players did not recall seeing it.

Dr. Manning has vague memory of Frost arriving in early 1994 with some sort of groin hernia, for which he received treatment from another physician. By June 1994, Frost had “significant swelling”—a hematoma—below the hernia site, right at the crease where the leg meets the abdomen. “Not the scrotum exactly. Just adjacent to the pubic area.” It’s size at the time was 5×5x3 cm, says the doctor.

Subsequent visits revealed that it had turned into a bulb of congealed blood lying under the skin. By 1998, Frost “had a large, plum-sized lump, protruding, just to the left of the scrotum, “pointing downward.” It was adjacent to the shaft of the penis, says Dr. Manning.

“It’s consistency is harder than a testicle,” and visible to the naked eye, says the good doctor. “Those kinds of swellings shouldn’t be there. It’s obvious, is probably the best way to describe it.”

10:55 a.m. — On cross-examination by Crown, Dr. Manning testifies that the lump is located at the base of the penis, to the left of the pubic area above the scrotum. Continue…

Must-reads: Christie Blatchford on the David Frost trial; Colby Cosh on what to do with murderers; Richard Gwyn on the global economy; Dan Gardner on young jihadis; Lorne Gunter on Tasers; Susan Riley on the cabinet shuffle.

Brave new world?
With Stephen Harper’s cabinet successfully shuffled, it’s time to play cards.

The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson seems fairly pleased by Harper’s choices, calling Steven Fletcher’s promotion “heartwarming” and well-deserved, appreciating the redeployment of Peter Van Loan and John Baird to less partisan positions and suggesting if anyone can strengthen the Conservatives’ woeful climate change plan, it’s probably Jim Prentice. His one lament is that the cabinet “contains not a single multicultural Canadian, despite the impressive Conservative gains in some of those communities.” (This seems a tad unfair to Bev Oda, we have to say.)

The National Post’s John Ivison likens the new dream team to “a Volvo—safe and reliable but not particularly sexy,” and designed to instil confidence in its owners (i.e., Canadians). He didn’t promote anyone “beyond their level of competence or experience,” in other words, and “prudence” was the guiding principle for the major portfolios that got shuffled. Ivison doesn’t quite buy the party spin on Prentice’s appointment, however—i.e., that “his reward for having done a good job in a difficult portfolio, is another difficult portfolio.” He’s “said to be unhappy with the move,” for one thing, and “reduce[ing] emissions without harming the energy industry” is less “difficult” than it is “impossible.” Ivison still believes Prentice’s leadership ambitions, or Harper’s perceptions thereof, played a role.

Continue…

Former NHL-certified player agent David Frost is on trial in Napanee, Ont., charged with four counts of sexually exploiting two young hockey players on the now-defunct Quinte Hawks, a Junior-A club of which he was head coach. Frost is perhaps best known as the ex-coach and agent of Mike Danton, né Jefferson, a former St. Louis Blues forward who’s currently serving seven-and-a-half years in a federal prison in Minnesota for trying to have Frost murdered. Frost denies Danton tried to kill him, even though he pled guilty to the charges. And, similarly, both alleged victims in the ongoing trial deny any sexual abuse took place. The prosecution’s case relies on several women-teenagers at the time-who have already testified that Frost participated in three- and four-way sex with them and the alleged victims, and that he controlled his players’ sex lives down to the minutest detail. Frost faces no charges for having sex with the women, even though they were under 18, because prosecutors determined he wasn’t in a “position of trust or authority” over them.

Maclean’s Charlie Gillis is liveblogging the proceedings:

Monday November 3, 2008

Final submissions today, and there are huge questions hanging over the Crown’s case. Bear in mind that the players are supposed to be the victims here: Frost was in a position of trust over them. The girls are presumed to be participants in consensual sex. Continue…

Must-reads: Ian Mulgrew on the Robert Dziekanski fiasco.

Canadian justice
Shameless cops, creepy hockey coaches and random urban gunfire. What a country.

The Vancouver Sun’s Ian Mulgrew believes the RCMP may have blood on its hands in the death of 21-year-old motorcyclist Orion Hutchinson, who was struck and killed Saturday night by an off-duty RCMP officer who happened to be inebriated, and who happened to have been one of the four officers who so professionally dealt with Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport. Those officers “have had a horrible cloud over their heads and their careers” while the RCMP dithers over what to do with them, he argues, and it’s not tough to imagine that stress leading to “self-destructive judgements.” As for the RCMP’s refusal to name the officer, on grounds he hasn’t yet been charged in either Dziekanski’s or Hutchinson’s death, Mulgrew says he can’t believe they “have the audacity to pull a stunt like this.” It really is staggering, the third-world depths to which the RCMP is capable of sinking.

The Globe and Mail’s Christie Blatchford and the Toronto Star’s Rosie DiManno report on yesterday’s developments from the David Frost trial, where a 28-year-old woman testified as to the various acts of depravity Frost forced her and his players to perform. DiManno’s is a little more in-depth when it comes to the legalese, but you won’t want to read either piece with a full stomach. (Interestingly, we note the Star seems to have reversed course and is now only identifying the female witnesses by their first names, just like the Globe.)

Continue…

Must-reads: Don Macpherson on Mario Dumont; Murray Campbell on how politicians shouldn’t deal with gun violence.

Shuffling towards liberty
Who will be in Stephen Harper’s new cabinet? And will they be allowed to speak?

Sun Media’s Greg Weston believes it’s “safe to say that [PMO communications director Kory] Teneycke has achieved more for his boss through improved relations with the national press in three months than his predecessor did in three years,” and he suspects that newfound spirit of (more) openness will translate into Harper’s new cabinet as well. It’s not just that the PM is softening up, of course. Part of it, an unnamed insider tells Weston, is that his ministers simply have more experience. So those who “know how to conduct themselves and their office,” in the insider’s words, will have more wiggle room. Implicit in that statement, it seems to us, is that there will still be ministers who don’t know how to conduct themselves and their offices. We can’t wait to find out who they are.

The Calgary Herald’s Don Martin says Jim Flaherty is a lock to stay at finance and wear the goat horns for what seems sure to be a significant deficit. Continuity is a good thing in troubled times, he argues, but it’s also just desserts, since Flaherty’s the one who “whittled down the inherited Liberal surplus to where he sits now on the film of a bursting fiscal bubble.” Harper himself “is notorious for calling the shots,” of course, so Flaherty may not be entirely to blame. But given his “quibble-worthy performance” overall—notably slagging off Ontario repeatedly, apparently just to satisfy a personal grudge—it’s difficult to muster much sympathy for the guy.

Continue…