Fine by me, I’m just pointing out the fact that voters have already had the chance to deal with it, and have decided that he is still the best leader for the province. Obviously it was a terrible thing to do, I think it’s idiotic and stupid to drink and drive, but as eccentric said, he didn’t fight the charges, which is more than can be said about many people who drink and drive. And it’s not like he’s become a repeat offender, which happens to many people who drink and drive. If he were to drink and drive again, and it happened in BC, then yes, he should definitely step down as Premier. But I think Campbell is someone who learns from his mistakes, and I respect him for that.
It’s the way it was swept away as “not a big deal”. I think it is massive, and I haven’t forgotten or forgiven and neither have a lot of people.
So money is what it’s all about, huh?
This is what we are teaching our children? Forget morals, throw such silly notions down the tubes, that costs too much? Live in the real world, the money world, where the only face that matters is the reflection on the ATM screen. Great freaking society.
The Olympics won’t be useless to the people of BC, and will have a positive lasting effect on the image of the province–hopefully we can keep the cost as low as possible at the same time.
Completely different situation, the fast cats are unusable and can still be seen rotting away at dock in Vancouver. The olympics are one of the best, if not the best, way to provide economic stimulus, and I don’t know if the olympics have ever come in on budget anywhere that they have been held, but the effects can be seen for years, if not decades later.
Read my previous post to yours, I never said it was “not a big deal”.
And for the premier of the province, money does tend to be pretty important. The NDP seem to think its fine to run to province deeply into debt as long as it’s “good for the province”. The liberals actually know how to practice some money management skills.
[quote=“Krissy”]
If he were to drink and drive again, and it happened in BC, then yes, he should definitely step down as Premier.[/quote]
"and it happened in B.C. . . . " So it’s okay if he does it out of province again?
not at all.
I love google. From 2003
“B.C. Liberal MLAs wish to express their strong support for Gordon Campbell and call on him to continue in his responsibilities to lead the province as premier,” said the statement signed by caucus chairman John Les and caucus whip Kevin Krueger.
“This is an isolated personal mistake that should not wipe out the premier’s 18 years of dedication and commitment to public life in British Columbia,” said the statement.
“He has spent his career working for the benefit of his community and the province, and we remain committed to moving British Columbia forward with Gordon Campbell as our leader.”
Not only did he have the support of caucus but I also recall local Liberals putting a full page ad in the Daily News lending support to the premier and I am sure that sentiment was shared by Liberals around th province. On top of that he has won two elections. So it seems a dead issue.
On the other hand, Joy MacPhail said:
“The Premier’s statement today only raises more questions. By choosing to exempt himself from the standard he has set for others, he has complicated forever the question of what conduct is acceptable from a public official. What offences, for example, will be acceptable or unacceptable to this premier when a cabinet or caucus member runs afoul of the law?”
And this I think is the crux of the issue. Everything is politically expedient. It doesn’t matter really what you do - drive drunk, pose nude, speed, grab a boob - you will only have to resign or step aside if the political winds suggest you have to.
How on earth does one submit oneself to the laws applicable in BC for an offence committed in Hawaii? Our courts do not have extraterritorial jurisdiction on these matters. There is no citizen’s right to require that the Crown bring a criminal charge against oneself, presumably so that they can plead guilty and be appropriately sentenced for whatever they did wrong. I seem to recall that Gordo was brought before a court in the Aloha State.
I also do not understand why in this discussion some think that the only way to take responsibility is to resign and that anything less is ‘no big deal’. Disclosure, admissions of a mistake, expressions of contrition, and taking corrective or remedial actions are all forms of taking responsibility.
I also do not understand the notion that Mike Harcourt resigning as premier, purportedly to take responsibility for the wrongdoings of others in his party, sets the gold standard for how premiers should conduct themselves. That strikes me as the most disastrous decision in the history of the NDP. A capable premier who, like Gordo, brought to the top job years of experience as a successful mayor of a major city turns over the reins to a guy who had been a teaching assistant at SFU before entering the legislature. The ghost of Glen Clark stalks Carol James to the present day.
I would also question whether moral imperatives caused Harcourt to resign. I think that another, more credible version of events is that Harcourt was the kind of person who would not dodge accountability; young up and comers in cabinet saw that as an opportunity for their own advancement; they withdrew their support, which put him in an untenable position. He left, they stayed, and inexperience in high office prevailed to the long-term detriment of the NDP.
I don’t think that Harcourt should have resigned; he should have sent some people to the back benches to learn their jobs and cleaned up his own party.
Well of course Sir John A never did drink and drive, though he may have rode a horse…
As for Winston Churchill, he had those army guys to take him around town it being war and all…
It’s not so much what the man did as the events that followed it I think, for instance he (The Premier) doesn’t resign or at least step down for a period of time over that offence, yet the solicitor general John Van Dongen does resign for his speeding tickets and the Premier says its the right thing to do…
I don’t quite understand the double standard of it all…
One offence is not as troublesome as the other?
I think it had more to do with the timing, the fact it was during an election and there was significant pressure from the public.
I am not sure, but the difference may have pertained to John Van Dongen being a repeat offender. Also, being Solicitor General might hold him to a higher standard in this regard than, say, the minister responsible for ensuring that the price of beer is not raised $3 a case, thus ensuring that we will not be discouraged by high prices from drinking too much.
The Gordon Campbell DUI thing to me is another case of the BC Liberals saying “Do as we say, not as we do.”
It’s a double standard of the worst kind for Gordon Campbell to say that any person holding a public office should resign when found guilty of a criminal offense, but then not hold himself to his own standard.
He repeatedly hammered home (heh) the point that public figures lose the public trust when they are found guilty of criminal offenses, and that they should resign. Of course, that doesn’t apply to him.
Well that’s nothing but crass opportunism, something that betrays a confidence don’t you think? No ethical or moral compass to follow, but instead its a case of what’s the best damage control during an election campaign.
Well personally I think the issue with Van Dongen was given way to much attention. So what? the guy had a few speeding tickets, alot of people can relate to that. If he had been a cabinet minister in any other position I don’t think it would have received the same kind of attention.
Were the BC Liberals not quick to quip that Ray Lam was unsuitable as a candidate for his racy pictures on facebook? Double standard.
Here is Ray Lam:
[quote] Ray Lam: I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY PHOTOS, NOR DO I REGRET THEM – Georgia Strait May 7, 2009
On April 19, 2009, Mary McNeil’s ambition discouraged an entire generation from public service and seeking public office.
Ms. Mary McNeil effectively warned a generation of leadership that day:
In this digital age, the paparazzi can be anyone with a cell phone camera. Web 2.0 can create an everlasting impression with or without our consent or knowledge. If you want to represent your community, if you want to create positive change, if you want to make a difference for your children and grandchildren, you better damn well have been planning since junior high.
Today, I am writing to say that Ms. McNeil is wrong.
I agree, when you decide to run for public office, you are held to a higher standard.
I do hold myself to a higher standard – the highest standards for dedication to my community and ability to help shape policy that changes the lives of millions of British Columbians. These photos have nothing to do with that standard – voters care about their candidates’ ability and commitment to govern effectively, not their candidates’ teenage parties.
I do not apologize for my photos, nor do I regret them. I have accomplished a lot in my life and do not believe that Pride pictures from my youth should trump my present credentials or standing. Public life should not mask my private life. I will not hide Ray Lam, the person, in an attempt to create Ray Lam, the public figure.
What I have, and will continue to apologize for, is my disruption to the NDP’s provincial campaign and allowing myself to be a liability, distracting voters from the real issues of the election. I will apologize to the friends who I know, and those who I have not been in contact with for years, for the disruption to their lives and the embarrassment that this has caused them and their families.
I believe that democracy is a conscious action to build caring and supportive communities. We vote for the community we want everyday by working, volunteering, and expressing our opinions. That is the beauty of our democracy - it is shaped by our everyday actions and we strive to form a government of the people, by the people and not a government of picture perfect personas created by denying our past, and hiding our present. [/quote]
What I take from McNeil and Lam is that we have no real standards for public office. Any clown can make a joke of it. Lam made a mistake yet makes no compromises towards his right to be mistaken. McNeil, for similar political brinkmanship, sounds rather sanctimonious in her appeals, conveniently ignoring the fact her dear leader has had a rather divisive personality since nursery school.
So, on one hand we say “you better plan since junior high” which of course no longer exists in most districts. Then we say, “Ray Lam is not fit because of his racy photos”. Then we say “we should not hold politicians to higher standards than we live by”. Keep BC Strong!
Well we better get used to it–the next generation of public figures is going to have to decide what to do about the internet. Youtube comments, facebook pictures, myspace profiles, HTMF posts–they’re going to come back to haunt people running for office. 
I think that the situation of a premier is somewhat different from that of a cabinet minister. A minister is appointed by and in practice serves so long as they retain the confidence of the premier. By convention the premier holds office so long as they retain the confidence of in theory the legislature and in practice the governing party. It is for the latter to determine whether the conduct of a premier is so egregious that they must resign. Our system does not only rely on whatever moral compass an office holder is guided by.
I do not think that premiers resigning whenever they run afoul of the law, without regard for the nature or gravity of the offence or whether there are mitigating circumstances such as subsequent expressions of contrition, would be very sensible public policy. Stability in government is also important.
As for Ray Lam, when I read that story I was struck more by how stupid the guy was not to check his Facebook page, or have someone do that for him, before throwing his hat in the ring.
Is the page still up? I’m not versed on this Ray Lam situation.
Edit: Nevermind, found it. Now I get DWhite’s “grab a boob” comment. Too bad he decided to step down… he’s a young guy, and he wasn’t an NDP candidate when the photo was taken.
If you go to the CBC site and search I am sure you will readily find a picture of candidate Lam and one male and one female clawing at his underwear or whatever with looks of great excitement on their faces. I seem to recall that Ray had a rather nonchalant WTF expression. They were wearing id tags so I took it that this occurred at a Party function that might have become just a little too party hardy for some.