Am I the only one who sees the irony?
Original message:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister
It is very rare that I choose to correspond with a sitting Prime Minister, for a couple of reasons: (a) because it seems to accomplish nothing, and (b) the response seems to always come from some ‘flunky’ in the PMO who sends back a form letter telling me my comments have been noted. In the case of (a) I hope that this letter *will* accomplish something and (b) an impersonal form letter is as good as no response at all, because I have no way of knowing if the intended recipient (the Prime Minister) has actually read -or even seen – the letter.
The reason for my correspondence today is Helena Guergis. I have followed the story of her dismissal and allegations surrounding her husband in the news.
It seems very strange that the nature of the ‘serious criminal allegations’ against Ms. Guergis are not being revealed; even to Ms. Guergis. A basic right of any Canadian is an opportunity to defend themselves against an accusation. I realize there is no formal criminal charge at present, but at the very least, Ms. Guergis should be entitled to know why she was dismissed from Cabinet and Caucus. One cannot address allegations and, if necessary, rectify any errors, when one does not know what they are.
Some have suggested that Ms. Guergis’ dismissal has been due to the actions of her husband. I’m sure you’ll agree when I say that Ms. Guergis is not Rahim Jaffer, nor can – or should – she be held accountable for Mr. Jaffer’s actions.
I am aware that in politics, perception is reality, and I am also aware that Mr. Jaffer’s actions, through association, do not reflect well on Ms. Guergis, however that can only be carried so far. I believe I sit with the majority of Canadians when I say I do not believe Mr. Jaffer’s actions reflect poorly on the Conservative Caucus or Cabinet as a whole.
Of course, there are other allegations that have come forward as well; for example, Mr. Jaffer using Ms. Guergis’ (and others’) email and office phone for business activities. Perhaps, such would warrant disciplinary action as a breech of ethics, however, returning to my original point, if that is the case, again, Ms. Guergis should be made aware.
The point is the lack of concrete information as to why Ms. Guergis was dismissed is leading to rampant speculation and more media exposure than had the basis for her dismissal been made public. Additionally, it creates a perception that the PMO, and specifically you, Mr. Prime Minister, are acting in a vindictive manner.
In summary, (a) Ms. Guergis deserves to know the reasons why she was dismissed, (b) the reasons for her dismissal should be her own actions, not those of her husband, and (c) the nature of the ‘serious criminal allegations’ should be made public in order to end the speculation that is going on in the media.
I await your personal reply.
Respectfully
S.C.B.
The Response:
Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister’s Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.
Thank you for writing.
Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reçu votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons être bien informés de l’opinion des correspondants.
Je vous remercie d’avoir écrit au Premier ministre.