In official Ottawa, no political office works more assiduously or aggressively to burnish its minister’s image than the staff around Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.
Much of this works to the mutual advantage of Kenney and those who cover him.
The minister is not tethered to the operatives in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, Kenney and his officials are more available to journalists in the capital than other government departments and he is an activist minister who makes news and staunchly defends his policies.
“We’re feisty but not hot-headed,” says one official in the minister’s office.
They like to counterpunch when criticized.
In June, for example, they took the likely unprecedented step of releasing information about the criminal history of a refugee applicant, ripping publicly into a Montreal reporter for not telling the full story of the case.
But, as events last week showed, they sometimes have to be reminded that a counterpunch doesn’t end the fight. Sometimes there’s another haymaker coming out of the clinch.
And that’s how we got to last week’s “legal uprising” against the minister.
Kenney is a man who often seeks the cameras to announce his decisions in the highly charged world of immigration and refugee determination. So with the volatile and polarizing issue of Conrad Black’s return to Canada at hand, questions were raised when Kenney slumped into the corner and left all decision making to the bureaucrats in his department.
One of those questions came from Toronto immigration lawyer Guidy Mamann, himself no shrinking violet.
Mamann told a reporter that “the idea that the minister didn’t wink or nod in favour of this is impossible to imagine” — and Kenney’s director of strategic planning, Kasra Nejatian, himself a lawyer, complained to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Nejatian said he felt he was duty bound to report Mamann because the Toronto lawyer had engaged in conduct unbecoming to his profession for purposely misstating the law to imply political involvement in an administrative file.
Criticism is one thing, Kenney’s officials said, but accusations of breaking the law must be countered.
The complaint was dismissed, Mamann went public and some 80 other immigration lawyers jumped on the bandwagon, saying they, too, backed Mamann and dared Kenney to take them to the Law Society.
But this was less a “legal uprising” than an overzealous response to fair comment from a friendly lawyer.
Mamann wasn’t alleging political interference — he was arguing that Kenney should have made the final decision instead of ducking behind bureaucrats in his department.
“He is the top dog.’’
The intervention of the other lawyers has given this story the tone of a political battle.
But Mamann is a friend, a point made by Kenney’s officials, who say they were acting on principle.
“We don’t go out of our way to piss off party members,” an official in Kenney’s office said. .
Mamann characterizes his politics as “hard right.’’
He thinks the Conservatives are better at governing this country than any other party would be, he has always voted Conservative and in the last election, he brought a number of young, like-minded Canadians into the voting process for the first time.
But that doesn’t mean he is compelled to agree with every decision taken by the government or the minister, he says.
In this case, he was merely expressing doubt, he maintains.
“If I told you I beat Michael Phelps in a race this morning, would you just accept that, or would you say, ‘that’s interesting, but I find that highly doubtful?’ ” Mamann asks.
The issue in his mind is freedom of expression — his professional conduct under attack because he did not accept “hook, line and sinker a statement made by that minister.’’
Kenney’s office has released emails showing his officials reminding others in the office that the minister wanted the Black matter “handled by the department.’’
There is no evidence of Kenney intervening in the Black case last spring.
Politically, one can see why Kenney, uncharacteristically, would try to stay far from the delicate Black affair.
But surely he and his officials would know that they would be dogged by doubters in the House of Commons, journalists and other lawyers.
If you overreach in your counterpunch, you leave yourself unprotected — and, in this case, you give the doubters a huge gust of oxygen long after you should have put this matter to bed.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Tim Harper
Much of this works to the mutual advantage of Kenney and those who cover him.
The minister is not tethered to the operatives in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, Kenney and his officials are more available to journalists in the capital than other government departments and he is an activist minister who makes news and staunchly defends his policies.
“We’re feisty but not hot-headed,” says one official in the minister’s office.
They like to counterpunch when criticized.
In June, for example, they took the likely unprecedented step of releasing information about the criminal history of a refugee applicant, ripping publicly into a Montreal reporter for not telling the full story of the case.
But, as events last week showed, they sometimes have to be reminded that a counterpunch doesn’t end the fight. Sometimes there’s another haymaker coming out of the clinch.
And that’s how we got to last week’s “legal uprising” against the minister.
Kenney is a man who often seeks the cameras to announce his decisions in the highly charged world of immigration and refugee determination. So with the volatile and polarizing issue of Conrad Black’s return to Canada at hand, questions were raised when Kenney slumped into the corner and left all decision making to the bureaucrats in his department.
One of those questions came from Toronto immigration lawyer Guidy Mamann, himself no shrinking violet.
Mamann told a reporter that “the idea that the minister didn’t wink or nod in favour of this is impossible to imagine” — and Kenney’s director of strategic planning, Kasra Nejatian, himself a lawyer, complained to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Nejatian said he felt he was duty bound to report Mamann because the Toronto lawyer had engaged in conduct unbecoming to his profession for purposely misstating the law to imply political involvement in an administrative file.
Criticism is one thing, Kenney’s officials said, but accusations of breaking the law must be countered.
The complaint was dismissed, Mamann went public and some 80 other immigration lawyers jumped on the bandwagon, saying they, too, backed Mamann and dared Kenney to take them to the Law Society.
But this was less a “legal uprising” than an overzealous response to fair comment from a friendly lawyer.
Mamann wasn’t alleging political interference — he was arguing that Kenney should have made the final decision instead of ducking behind bureaucrats in his department.
“He is the top dog.’’
The intervention of the other lawyers has given this story the tone of a political battle.
But Mamann is a friend, a point made by Kenney’s officials, who say they were acting on principle.
“We don’t go out of our way to piss off party members,” an official in Kenney’s office said. .
Mamann characterizes his politics as “hard right.’’
He thinks the Conservatives are better at governing this country than any other party would be, he has always voted Conservative and in the last election, he brought a number of young, like-minded Canadians into the voting process for the first time.
But that doesn’t mean he is compelled to agree with every decision taken by the government or the minister, he says.
In this case, he was merely expressing doubt, he maintains.
“If I told you I beat Michael Phelps in a race this morning, would you just accept that, or would you say, ‘that’s interesting, but I find that highly doubtful?’ ” Mamann asks.
The issue in his mind is freedom of expression — his professional conduct under attack because he did not accept “hook, line and sinker a statement made by that minister.’’
Kenney’s office has released emails showing his officials reminding others in the office that the minister wanted the Black matter “handled by the department.’’
There is no evidence of Kenney intervening in the Black case last spring.
Politically, one can see why Kenney, uncharacteristically, would try to stay far from the delicate Black affair.
But surely he and his officials would know that they would be dogged by doubters in the House of Commons, journalists and other lawyers.
If you overreach in your counterpunch, you leave yourself unprotected — and, in this case, you give the doubters a huge gust of oxygen long after you should have put this matter to bed.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Tim Harper
No comments:
Post a Comment