Crouton and Gomery
Feb. 10th, 2005 04:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chickenfeetHaving now had a couple of days to digest our former prime minister's testimony before Mr. Justice Gomery's enquiry into corruption in the management of the "Unity Fund", I offer the following observation.
The central theme is that the arrogance of Crouton knows no bounds. So huge is his ego that he did not appear to realise just how damning his testimony was. His whole attitude, golf ball theatre and all oozed "what right has a mere judge to question the legality of the methods of the Great Crouton, who single handedly saved the Nation". He brushed aside the propriety of using public facilities and the services of federal public servants to advance party causes. In doing so, he revealed a much deeper and more troubling arrogance; a belief that he, the Great Crouton, had the right to sweep away a century of constitutional convention separating party interests from national ones. He clearly believes that the interests of Canada and the Federal Liberal Party are identical and that therefore there is nothing wrong with using public money to advance Liberal causes. After that, why should we doubt for one moment that public funds were used, directly or indirectly, to fund Liberal election campaigns in Quebec. It was in the "national interest" so why should anyone object?
Given the slavish way in which ministers and public servants read signals from the PMO it would be quite astonishing if some individuals had not gone even further than might have been intended. That doesn't obscure where the moral responsibility for the corruption lies. It lies squarely with Crouton.
The central theme is that the arrogance of Crouton knows no bounds. So huge is his ego that he did not appear to realise just how damning his testimony was. His whole attitude, golf ball theatre and all oozed "what right has a mere judge to question the legality of the methods of the Great Crouton, who single handedly saved the Nation". He brushed aside the propriety of using public facilities and the services of federal public servants to advance party causes. In doing so, he revealed a much deeper and more troubling arrogance; a belief that he, the Great Crouton, had the right to sweep away a century of constitutional convention separating party interests from national ones. He clearly believes that the interests of Canada and the Federal Liberal Party are identical and that therefore there is nothing wrong with using public money to advance Liberal causes. After that, why should we doubt for one moment that public funds were used, directly or indirectly, to fund Liberal election campaigns in Quebec. It was in the "national interest" so why should anyone object?
Given the slavish way in which ministers and public servants read signals from the PMO it would be quite astonishing if some individuals had not gone even further than might have been intended. That doesn't obscure where the moral responsibility for the corruption lies. It lies squarely with Crouton.
