The Future Is In Our Past -
Conservative Member of Parliament Devinder Shory is amongst dozens of defendants listed in a lawsuit alleging mortgage fraud. The Bank of Montreal charges that some of the defendants bought houses that cost less than average, and then forged papers elevating their value to correspond with similar properties.
The bank says that the scheme had the fraudsters pay 'straw buyers' to put their names on a mortgage application. When the mortgages were approved, the fraudsters pocketed the difference between what they paid for the houses and the mortgages they were able to get. The money was deposited into offshore accounts.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is declining to comment on the case and Mr. Shory remains an MP. The Prime Minister is respecting the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
There is no such luck for Helena Guergis, an Ontario Conservative Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister who has not been named in a lawsuit nor charged with a crime. Ms. Guergis was named, in a round about way, by private investigator Derrick Snowdy.
Mr. Snowdy told the Prime Minister's office that businessman Nazim Gillani had boasted of having cellphone photos of Ms. Guergis and her husband, Rahim Jaffer, in situations that, in Snowdy's subjective opinion, could have left them open to blackmail.
The Prime Minister turned the matter over to the RCMP. However, the Prime Minister was not satisfied to wait for the results of an investigation; Helena Guergis resigned from Cabinet and she was expelled from caucus and forbade from running again for the Conservative Party.
Last week, Derrick Snowdy told a Parliamentary Committee that he has no evidence of wrongdoing involving Ms. Guergis. The RCMP has said that they have not decided whether to investigate formally. The Ethics Commissioner has said that she has no grounds, under the Conflict of Interest Act, on which to investigate.
So far, not a shred of evidence has been produced that could warrant the action taken against MP Helena Guergis. In an interview on CBC television, Ms. Geurgis confirmed that Prime Minister has not told her the nature of the allegations, and she hasn't been interviewed by the RCMP.
The public is under the illusion that Ms. Guergis is guilty of something enormous. Ms. Guergis and the people deserve to be told the truth about why she was judged so harshly.
On the other hand, the case in which MP Devinder Shory is named seems clearly an illegal scheme to gain money from banks, with a lawsuit in progress. Yet, the person cited in a lawsuit remains in place, with no comment from the Prime Minister.
Isn't the asymmetry shocking? Rules are established in the human society so that people can live together with a feeling of justice. If the same rule applies to everybody, then everybody is equal. The equality rule is fundamental to keeping a democratic society running efficiently. All other rules flow from this common principle.
If a powerful person makes different decisions, in similar cases, for different persons, it begins to spoil the equality principle. Decisions could then be based simply on the taste of the ruler, who may prefer, for some personal reason, one person to another.
One could say this is a minor injury to the principle. But the asymmetry could come from more deeply rooted reasons, as can be suspected from the lop-sidedness in the cases mentioned here. It can be noticed that the person named in a lawsuit is male, while the person accused by hearsay is female. Is this the underlying reason for the huge difference?
If gender is the reason, then it should be established as an explicit rule, to keep the rule principle valid. Of course, transparency would require a debate (it is hoped).
It might seem like we are discussing small details, but the damage potential is enormous. As history will attest, if such incongruities accumulate, they can end up destroying the people's agreement to live together harmoniously.
Another lingering case that illustrates the potential for inequality is the Roman Polanski case. We are constantly being subjected to the views of famous people trying to get in the way of justice to have Mr. Polanski freed. They fail to see that what's important is not what Mr. Polanski has done or not done. What is really important is that justice has to decide.
The main problem is that Mr. Polanski fled, and is still fleeing. If he had any courage and self-esteem he would just say, "Enough! I am going to face justice."
Maybe, as in the previous cases, what is more troubling is how the powerful have a different view of justice for different people. Their view threatens the very idea of justice.
The same thing is happening in the economy. Powerful people are diluting the equality base of the social contract. What powerful persons should understand is that even for them dilution is going to be dangerous, as Ms. Guergis is experiencing.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" is a famous quote. To that must follow: when our vigilance uncovers injustice, there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
.jpg)
.jpg)
