One
of the most hated people in Italian literature is Fabrizio
Maramaldo, an army captain who ruthlessly killed his enemy,
Francesco Ferrucci, who lay dying at his feet. The last words of the
dying man, "Vile Maramaldo, you're killing a dead man," are
considered in Italian literature the worst indictment against
individuals whose actions are, without particular reasons, mean and
ruthless.
Maramaldo
came to mind last week while watching Rahim Jaffer's testimony on
the Hill. I will not defend his actions because I believe there is
not much to defend, but I will not join the long line of our modern
Maramaldos on the Hill who are in search of vacuous glory through
easy and cheap supper hour news clips.
I
believe that honesty and the need to promote it is not just a right
for every Member of the Parliament, in fact, it's their duty. But
still I don't believe the Canadian Parliament needs to be a modern
Tomás
de Torquemada, one of the most ruthless leaders of the Spanish
Inquisition who believed himself to be the depository of truth and
the dispenser of justice for all.
Had
it not been for the professional and intelligent behaviour of
Liberal MP Siobhan Coady, last week's testimony by Jaffer would have
once again spiraled out of control.
Coady
was professional in her line of questioning, polite, and effective,
and she really gave all of us the opportunity to understand better
the way Jaffer conducts his business. She did the job the committee
was supposed to do.
Unfortunately,
I can't say the same about the sorry performance of NDP MP Pat
Martin. He wasn't there to understand, but to lecture. Martin was
not there to find the truth, but to preach about his truth, and to
insult the witness.
There
is no doubt that Jaffer has a very creative way of interpreting a
business and the meaning of lobbying, nonetheless, even if the
complete truth has to come out in all its details, it looks like
what we're talking about is the action of a desperate man trying
hard, and foolishly, to put a life together after squandering a huge
career opportunity as a politician. He failed miserably way before
he appeared in front of last week's committee and the reason for his
failure was in full display last week in Ottawa: he believes that
rules are an optional duty and perceptions only a nuisance for the
fools.
It
is with this disingenuous and naive approach that he appeared in
front of the committee. He was sincerely sorry for the troubles he
caused his wife but he sincerely believed that he did nothing wrong
in handling his activities.
He
probably believes that doing something illegal is only when you rob
a bank or murder someone. He doesn't understand that, in between,
there is a huge space where you can be neither. Still, there is
enough room to be a bad citizen and I don't know where in that huge
space Jaffer got lost.
Promoting
his expertise acquired during his former political career in his
website is not a crime, but denying it offends people's
intelligence. Meeting people he worked with for years and who are
still colleagues of his wife is normal, but if he tells us that
presenting three business proposals to a Parliamentary secretary is
just a friendly event, then he offends our intelligence.
We
live in a system where every person is considered innocent until
proven otherwise. There is also always the possibility that our
perceptions are wrong and people are innocent. Our irresponsible
behaviour can destroy people's careers and lives. When they leave
the limelight of the cameras and the public insults we easily vent
at them, these same people go back to their lives of whatever's
left. But we don't care because they're disposable individuals. We
can use them to foster our ambitions, throw them out and move on to
the next victim.
We
don't care what happens to them and their families.
The
Liberals' sponsorship scandal destroyed many people's lives and
their respective families' lives, but we don't bother asking how
they are doing, even if many had done nothing wrong.
Many
good people have been destroyed by this coliseum-like style of
politics. We dispose of the careers and future of many people but do
we ask ourselves how they cope with their lives after leaving the
limelight?
I
don't think so. Otherwise we wouldn't gloat at Parliamentary
circuses like the one happening in Ottawa.
