Pamela Wallin, with her usual broadcaster’s flair, managed to put an interesting punctuation mark on her suspension from the Senate: She called it a “sad day for democracy”. Hmmm….
Lots of lofty and grandiose things are said by those of questionable character, particularly when that character goes on public display. The pithiest dictum on this point is Samuel Johnson noting the affinity between scoundrels and appeals to patriotism. I guess Wallin wanted to avoid the obvious association if she said it was a sad day for Canada, so she took a slightly different tack.
What Wallin has been caterwauling about periodically is her contention that she has not been afforded the opportunity to be judged by “an impartial jury”. Overall, that’s probably a good thing for her, because if she was being judged by a jury, it would mean she was dealing with some criminal law unpleasantness. Such unpleasantness is still not entirely out of the question, but pretty unlikely, as a result (mainly) of Wallin having “tidied up” her spending records before submitting them (relying on the advice of others, of course).
Wallin, like the other two porkers on suspension, has hauled out the old mantle of victimhood and failure of “due process” resulting in suspension. Nonsense, on at least two counts: First and foremost, of course, is her own disgraceful and glutinous gorging at the trough of entitlement. If she had any legal argument to stand on, you’d be safe betting the farm she wouldn’t have paid back over $130,000 so quickly.
Secondly, the august body on which she, uh, ‘served’, has the jurisdiction to do exactly what it did. There was ample opportunity for presentation, argument and rebuttal. A true “jury” of her peers decided her fate.
Far from being a ‘sad’ day for democracy (or due process), it was a happy day for the long-suffering taxpayer for the prospect there might soon be one less preening temple of entitlement to finance.