We’re judged by the company we keep

Of course, any leader can make the odd mistake about a friend, adviser, or political ally. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s questionable picks are lately spinning out of control. In the last month, Harper has had to defend, and then repudiate, multiple political allies in the Senate and beyond.

 OTTAWA—We are all judged by the company we keep.  Of course, any leader can make the odd mistake about a friend, adviser, or political ally.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s questionable picks are lately spinning out of control.  In the last month, Harper has had to defend, and then repudiate, multiple political allies in the Senate and beyond. 

First was the unsavoury choice of Senator Patrick Brazeau. That could have been a simple error in judgment. But the appointments vetting process must have flagged Brazeau’s violent past, given domestic assault complaints had been filed with police before his elevation to the Red Chamber.

Recent rants of former key adviser and Harper confidante Tom Flanagan also raise serious questions about the prime minister’s choice of friends. 

Flanagan later apologized for his comments, but said he thinks there is nothing wrong with viewing child pornography. This is not the first time that Flanagan has gone rogue in making comments that he subsequently had to retract. 

 Three years ago, he threatened to assassinate Julian Assange, and in a televised interview, suggested that Barack Obama should put out a contract to have the Wikileaks founder eliminated.

Flanagan’s latest sortie has already cost him two jobs. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation fired him as a regular pundit within minutes of news reports about his defence of pedophilia.

 Alberta’s Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith minced no words in a curt statement firing Flanagan as campaign manager. 

“There is no language strong enough to condemn Dr. Flanagan’s comments. Child pornography is a despicable crime that seriously harms all those involved, including the viewer. The viewing of child pornography first requires the production of child pornography, which causes untold suffering and abuse towards children. In no uncertain terms, Wildrose condemns the production, transmission and viewing of child pornography. … To be clear, Dr. Flanagan does not speak for me or the Wildrose caucus and he will have no role—formal or informal—with our organization going forward.”

The Prime Minister’s Office moved into damage control as well, condemning Flanagan’s statements in the strongest possible terms. 

What was even more disturbing in Flanagan’s musings during a University of Lethbridge speech last week was his admission that he had been on the mailing list of the National Man Boy Love Association for a couple of years. “That’s the closest I ever came to child pornography,” Flanagan admitted.  

According to Wikipedia,” the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors.”

How could someone so closely linked to the Prime Minister have been on a pedophile mailing list without any eyebrows being raised.

The Prime Minister will seek to distance himself from Flanagan, who is not the first close adviser to have betrayed Harper’s public trust. Remember Bruce Carson. The senior PMO aide will go on trial next July, facing allegations of influence peddling. 

His shady past was well-known long before he went to work in the Prime Minister’s Office.  As a lawyer, Carson was disbarred for forging signatures and misappropriating almost $24,000 of client funds.  

In February 1983, Carson was sentenced to 18 months in jail after pleading guilty to two counts of theft, two counts of forgery and one count of uttering a forged cheque. In the ’90s, he pleaded guilty to three more counts of fraud.

So how did such a man find his way into the Prime Minister’s Office, working as “the fixer” on delicate political files?

The same questions could be raised concerning Harper’s appointment of Dr. Arthur Porter to head up the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Porter resigned two years ago under a cloud when newspaper reports surfaced about a dubious $200,000 payment he allegedly made to foreign interests. The questions did not end there. 

Last week, the former head of Canada’s spy review agency was charged with accepting bribes in a multi-million scheme allegedly carried out during his time as head of the McGill University Hospital Centre.

How did Porter survive the rigorous background check required of every order-in-council appointment? Or did Harper simply ignore the evidence?

In Flanagan’s case, the Prime Minister will say his friend’s views do not represent anyone but himself. 

 However, Flanagan was part of Harper’s inner circle. He was a mentor at the University of Calgary, co-authoring books and fighting multiple political campaigns with his protégé and future prime minister. 

Surely the Prime Minister must have had some insight into Flanagan’s twisted view of liberty.

Best friends forever, not?

Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Sheila Copps