Tyrone Benskin Suspended From Duties as NDP Critic

162 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know what? People get in bad financial straits for all kinds of reasons, not always neglect. And in most cases it is not a crime. I have friends who are deep in debt, and family members who have declared bankruptcy several times.and I have to ask why you see this as a betrayal? Someone's debts are between them and Revenue Canada, and once they are paid it is done.

 None of this is even a drop in the bucket compared to large businesses which have far more resources and still do this all the time when it is to their advantage.

If being poor is not a shame, having debts to settle certainly isn't either. It is neither your nor my business.

 

I'll admit to a small amount of hypocrisy here: if Tyrone were a private citizen, I'd probably go to the wall defending him. But he's not. He's one of the 308 men and women who have the power of the purse, and vote on how much my wife and I pay in taxes.

Obviously what Tyrone has done isn't even 1% of the fraud companies like Apple perpetrate upon us. And I'm not even saying it's a crime, or that Tyrone is a criminal; that's between him, the CRA, and the Crown prosecutor.

Unionist wrote:
You say he's "trying to justify [not paying his taxes] in the public eye". But here's what he said (from the OP):

Tyrone Benskin wrote:
"The life of an artist isn't always easy. I have had lean periods," he said. "I have lived in precarious conditions, not knowing what the future had in store for me, sometimes without a contract for several weeks, or even months. I have had to juggle bills.

"My situation has prevented me from fulfilling all of my tax obligations and I am truly sorry. I recognize that it is my responsibility and I will fulfill it directly and personally."

A whole lot of us have had lean periods. A whole lot of us have had weeks or months where we haven't known where our next meal was coming from. And as far as I know, at the bottom of the income ladder, CRA hasn't given a shit about hearing this from any of us -- especially an immigrant and his wife who's sponsoring him for immigration. Right-wing populism has successfully sold the idea that neither I nor my wife can apply for social assistance within a multi-year window of my application, because otherwise we'd be parasites seeking to suck the last taxpayer dollar from the naïve and generous Canadian teat.

Unionist wrote:
And since you know him personally, and feel betrayed (I don't get that, but I respect your feelings) - why do you think he didn't pay his taxes, if not for the reasons he himself gave?? Because if the reasons he gave are the real ones, then the worst you can accuse him of is poor management of his personal finances. I'll be pleading guilty to that charge shortly myself.

I'm not trying to imply any kind of chicanery here. I think he gave the real reasons for not paying his taxes. I also happen to personally find, from the perspective of a deeply struggling immigrant, those real reasons tin-eared and completely unacceptable. It reminds me of New Yorkers who complain that $1 million a year isn't enough to live on...once they spend it all. I haven't managed my finances well either. My wife and I have had to pay absolutely crippling penalties for many things that weren't our doing. And for Tyrone to appeal to public sympathy when his tax bill is more than we made in the entire period in question rubs me very, very wrong.

I don't know what Tyrone's finances are like. I do know what some of my friends who are sporadically-employed actors' finances are like. And now that Tyrone's an elected MP, him playing the starving-artist card fills me with indignation. If you owe $58,000 in taxes, chances are you weren't spending those years on the corner begging for change. I was. And given that we sat down together and discussed the plight of the working poor, I can't really reconcile your words with your deeds.

6079_Smith_W

I'm not saying public figures shouldn't be held to a higher standard. But when it gets to the point that a party is more concerned with squeaky-clean members than someone who was elected by constituents, and may be the right person for a job, there's a problem.

It begs the question of what the party might do when the right person is someone with a criminal record, an addiction problem, or something else that might be used against the party. Do they get thrown under the bus?

I should add, I don't think Mulcair is doing that in this case.

felixr

Hoang Mai was the revenue critic, while not paying his taxes. The public only finds out about it when the province of Quebec is forced to demand Parliament garnish this lawyer's $160,000/year wages.

I remember Benskin's first press conference on Parliament Hill shortly after the 2011 election. It was a disaster. The media was all called out to hear him and Andrew Cash make an announcement about artists. At the press conference they were introduced as the NDP's new flashy "artist" MPs. They then talked in broad and vague terms about how the Harper government should support artists more. The media then asked them what solutions they proposed and they had nothing. After some fumbling a couple suggestions were proferred, one of which the Conservatives were quick to note they had already enacted in the last budget. Both MPs also had nothing to answer to reporters' questions about some increases to arts funding the Conservatives had enacted that year (the Conservatives blindsided the NDP with a press release concurrent to the press conference with all these facts). In the end, it looked like a giant gloatfest, hey look at these great artists turned MPs, with no substance that left the media hopping mad. Other than being a deadbeat taxpayer living off the taxpayer's $160,000 + expenses/year , what else has this great MP done?

Sean in Ottawa

I think the response of the NDP to remove him from shadow cabinet and let him resolve the issue is the right one. I have not argued for more than that -- only that it was a good call, was moderate and fair and I think given what we know there was no other choice. If there is a reason caused by hardship that would explain why Mulcair should not have done this then that hardship would have to be disclosed. This is not unfair either. Personal tax remissions due to hardship are published in the National Gazette and remain online. One person I know-- happened also to be an artist got a small remission due to incredible hardship (money delayed due to delayed application related to a death in the family) back in 1997-- he was poor, a senior, in ill health and the remission only returned him to how he would have been taxed had he recieved his pension income on time. That remission statement remains online and is searchable by anyone to this day.

In this case it is not unreasonable to ask a sitting MP for an explanation if he has not paid his tax or alternately some time to fix it out of shadow cabinet. Nothing unfair here at all.

Unionist

Oh blimey no, nothing unfair, no my goodness. It's not as if someone's taxes are a private matter. Oh dearie.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Save the sarcasm. Special deals on taxes are not private. Did you read my post? If they are public for an ordinary person getting a remission of a couple thousand dollars how can they be private for an MP voting on policy.

If he deals with his taxes they can be private. If he does not deal with them and needs more time -- that can come outside shadow cabinet (inside caucus), if he needs special consideration because he can't deal with the issue then he needs to explain himself. This is nothing more or less than anyone else. There is a higher expectation of course when it comes to a political party's members due to the role in policy-- and in this case due to positions we want to take on ethics of others. However the principal of privacy is the same here. He gets privacy as long as he is dealing with it and sacrifices it if he does not address it -- just like anyone else.

Mulcair has not treated this MP unfairly -- has not judged or commented other than to say he will be out of shadow cabinet and given the opportunity to fix it. Yes, that is fair. It show the NDP holding a standard for themselves that we surely would want to apply to other parties.

It is this kind of over-zealous defence here  that is causing the reaction -- and the weird thing is this is not a defence the MP in question has asked for. He himself has not complained that he is being unfairly treated.

Unionist

I shudder to think what the reaction here would be if Benskin actually complained of unfair treatment and asked to be supported, Sean.

No one complains. They fall into line. Like Libby Davies. But when people are treated like crap, in public, some believe it's their duty to speak out. Unasked.

Sean in Ottawa

Well I don't think he has been treated like crap by his party leader at all. And the comments here are fair ball.

lagatta

Brian Glennie, that is trolling. I have been involved in refugee issues for many years, and the manipulations by the particular individual I menioned do not in the slightest change my outlook on that issue. (See recent posts about Central European Roma, for one). People who are desperate do manipulate others; you and I probably would too.

I'm not opposed to Mulcair temporarily removing Benskin from the shadow cabinet; appearances of doing the right thing are essential in politics. But I certainly hope he is swiftly returned to his post once he settles his tax bill as well.

Yes, in Québec this includes our pension assessment as well as the health tax and the pharmacare fee. That is why even people with very low incomes often owe to Qc.

There is a broader issue here too, that doesn't just affect Benskin. As socialists, social-democrats, progressives or whatever we may happen to call ourselves, we favour taxation in order to provide universal public services such as health care and education (from early childhood to university). And of course feel that all should pay their fair share. But there are many things wrong with the tax system, and while the worst part is the deep cuts in corporate taxation, and inadequate wealth taxation, there are also problems in terms of democracy, with a system that is judge and jury, that makes arbitrary assessments to scare people - fine if all is well with those people, but for someone who is depressed and terrified, it is just more terror.

I understand why bankruptcy does not automatically wipe clean taxes owed, as some technical bankrupts have the wherewithal to disguise their assets and become quite prosperous again, but there should be a mechanism in terms of those who really have no hope of ever being able to pay back the bill. And some tax officials act with extreme cruelty.

knownothing knownothing's picture
Unionist

Doesn't work in my browser(s)...

 

Brian Glennie

lagatta wrote:

Brian Glennie, that is trolling. I have been involved in refugee issues for many years, and the manipulations by the particular individual I menioned do not in the slightest change my outlook on that issue. (See recent posts about Central European Roma, for one). People who are desperate do manipulate others; you and I probably would too.

Here's what you wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Yes, it was vicious. I'm glad this question has returned to some semblance of sanity. I almost committed suicide over an assessment, 20 years ago. I was terrified and didn't know any accountants I could possibly afford. I hadn't cheated anyone; my ex-companion (a refugee claimant) wheedled me out of a year of very relatively high earnings that was certainly not above 20k.

The fact is you got involved with someone dishonest. Those kinds of people come from all walks of life. Instead of describing your ex in terms of his or her character you drew our attention to their status as a citizen in order to indicate what he or she was all about. You made a racist remark, lagatta, and I come to Rabble to get away from that kind of b.s.

 

cco

Oh, dear god. Are you seriously calling lagatta, of all people, a racist? This kind of bullshit is why I spend most of my time on enMasse.

lagatta

This is beyond ludicrous.

Moreover, why do you assume that a person who is a refugee is "of colour" or otherwise racialised? One of my best friends is a white Argentine (former) refugee. Her forebears were from Northern Spain and Central-Northern Italy, and she looks like any other Québécoise. And I know several former Solidarnosc activists who fled after the coup in Poland (and didn't return later on, not liking the Catholic theocracy there any more than the latter-day Stalinists). They are much whiter than I am.

I was simply telling a little snippet of life story, fortunately long past (it happened 20 years ago).

By the way, I'm partially of Afro-Caribbean descent, but I never mention that on blogs because it would be silly, as I didn't really grow up in any Afro-Caribbean expat culture. My brother is much darker than I am.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Unionist wrote:

Doesn't work in my browser(s)...

You can't play anything from ctvnews video?

Unionist

Yeah, and comments like all of these are why I'm moving to Mars soon.

ETA: Ok, my real feelings:

1. Lagatta probably didn't need to add that personal comment - it didn't add to her main point.

2. Brian could have been slightly more diplomatic.

3. Lagatta could have just said "sorry, didn't mean it that way" rather than accusing Brian of trolling.

4. cco, Brian didn't call lagatta a racist. He said she made a racist remark. That's very different.

5. Personally, I have never slipped up this way. That's why I'm moving to Mars, where everyone who has been there for a while is perfect.

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Well I don't think he has been treated like crap by his party leader at all. And the comments here are fair ball.

"Fair ball"? Do you really want to defend these (I know you don't personally share them):

  • "He is just another lying, cheating, stealing politician."
  • "He's just another scummy politician, no different than Duffy, Harb, or Mulcair."
  • "The reason I call him a fraud is because he didn't try to clear it up and he ignored a court date."
  • "Those are not the actions of an honourable person they are the actions of a sleazeball."
  • "I am calling it fraud. [...] He is no different than Duffy or the others with their sense of self-entitlement."
  • "He is cheating his way of out of duties as a citizen."
  • "Benskin should have been suspended from caucus immediately. He's a tax cheat and a fraud who avoided his obligations- among them, to appear in court."
  • "What's more if he didn't report it on his candidate screening form he is a liar to the party as well."
  • "He is not an ordinary guy. He stood for office to represent his riding and won." [That one is especially hilarious, considering the people who ran in Québec.]"

As for not showing up in court - repeated over and over in the above posts - WTF is that about? A "fact" garnered from the MSM? Maybe he was ill?

Being late on his taxes is a purely private matter. It is no one's business. If he is charged or convicted of a crime, that's a public matter. Progressive folks should pay attention to his political stands and actions.

Mulcair should have defended him ardently, spoken of his qualities as servant of his constituents and an activist of the party. You know, the way he defended Libby Davies when she misspoke once.

Pardon me for finding this conversation, and Mulcair's action, unprincipled.

Pssst - did you hear that another caucus member has been cheating on their spouse?? Yeah! Take 'em down!!

 

cco

Unionist wrote:

cco, Brian didn't call lagatta a racist. He said she made a racist remark. That's very different.


Absolutely true, Unionist. I guess I just get caught up in the fervour here from time to time, and I feel protective of those posters I like. Thank you so much for trying to keep things light. It can get nasty over here.

Unionist

knownothing wrote:

You can't play anything from ctvnews video?

It's bizarre - I tried it in Firefox and Chrome - nothing. Then Internet Explorer (yuck), and it prompted me to download Adobe Flash Player, which I did, but still no luck.

And yes, likewise with all the other ctvnews clips I tried.

Tell me everything I've been missing out on, please!!!!!

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta wrote:

 

I'm not opposed to Mulcair temporarily removing Benskin from the shadow cabinet; appearances of doing the right thing are essential in politics. But I certainly hope he is swiftly returned to his post once he settles his tax bill as well.

Yes, in Québec this includes our pension assessment as well as the health tax and the pharmacare fee. That is why even people with very low incomes often owe to Qc.

There is a broader issue here too, that doesn't just affect Benskin. As socialists, social-democrats, progressives or whatever we may happen to call ourselves, we favour taxation in order to provide universal public services such as health care and education (from early childhood to university). And of course feel that all should pay their fair share. But there are many things wrong with the tax system, and while the worst part is the deep cuts in corporate taxation, and inadequate wealth taxation, there are also problems in terms of democracy, with a system that is judge and jury, that makes arbitrary assessments to scare people - fine if all is well with those people, but for someone who is depressed and terrified, it is just more terror.

I understand why bankruptcy does not automatically wipe clean taxes owed, as some technical bankrupts have the wherewithal to disguise their assets and become quite prosperous again, but there should be a mechanism in terms of those who really have no hope of ever being able to pay back the bill. And some tax officials act with extreme cruelty.

This is a well written and well thought out post and I can agree with everything here.

The first paragraph is different and am somewhat reluctant to get into it but I will make an observation. The fact that the person was a refugee claimant I take as not a question of racism but a question of circumstances. Possibly the relevance of why that information was included was not explained as well as it should have been but Lagatta, I can say from years of reading posts here, is no racist and is certainly not anti-immigrant or refugee.

I can say that a refugee claimant could leave some horrible debts behind as when they leave tehy have neither the means nor the enforcement to pay their share. I figured that was the point -- that the person upon losing may have ended up leaving a disaster and may not have done anything about it. Perhaps I read wrong but that was what I understood.

When people speak of things that are painful and very close, they may know all the facts but expressing them clearly is difficult-- the emotion clouds things and the proximity can make it difficult to decide what to include and what to presume is a given. Latitude is always required in interpreting personal experience stories when there is more than one way to read something.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Well I don't think he has been treated like crap by his party leader at all. And the comments here are fair ball.

"Fair ball"? Do you really want to defend these (I know you don't personally share them):

  • "He is just another lying, cheating, stealing politician."
  • "He's just another scummy politician, no different than Duffy, Harb, or Mulcair."
  • "The reason I call him a fraud is because he didn't try to clear it up and he ignored a court date."
  • "Those are not the actions of an honourable person they are the actions of a sleazeball."
  • "I am calling it fraud. [...] He is no different than Duffy or the others with their sense of self-entitlement."
  • "He is cheating his way of out of duties as a citizen."
  • "Benskin should have been suspended from caucus immediately. He's a tax cheat and a fraud who avoided his obligations- among them, to appear in court."
  • "What's more if he didn't report it on his candidate screening form he is a liar to the party as well."
  • "He is not an ordinary guy. He stood for office to represent his riding and won." [That one is especially hilarious, considering the people who ran in Québec.]"

As for not showing up in court - repeated over and over in the above posts - WTF is that about? A "fact" garnered from the MSM? Maybe he was ill?

Being late on his taxes is a purely private matter. It is no one's business. If he is charged or convicted of a crime, that's a public matter. Progressive folks should pay attention to his political stands and actions.

Mulcair should have defended him ardently, spoken of his qualities as servant of his constituents and an activist of the party. You know, the way he defended Libby Davies when she misspoke once.

Pardon me for finding this conversation, and Mulcair's action, unprincipled.

Pssst - did you hear that another caucus member has been cheating on their spouse?? Yeah! Take 'em down!!

 

I am defending my comments here as fair ball. Sorry for not being clear but I already disputed some of the others you list upthread.

You are mixing up what I said. I already agreed that delay and time is a personal matter. I said that special consideration beyond that-- agreement to not have to deal with it is public-- as it is for anyone. In other words if you need more time then take it as the NDP leader said. But if you want to be in the shadow cabinet without dealing with it then that is another matter. If you want time to deal with your taxes this is private and negotiated but if you want to have a pass on paying them then that needs to be explained. Like I said people who have had dispensation are recorded publicly going back decades-- and these are not members of the parliament but the public. At least acknowledge the point being made rather than constructing a man out of straw that I have already deconstructed.

Mulcair has not criticized this person merely told him to address the issue before coming back to shadow cabinet -- to call that unprincipled is quite a stretch. How would we respond to a Liberal or a Conservative in the same situation?

lagatta

In terms of the refugee stuff, there was a funny incident in the failed Prime Ministerial campaign of a certain Michel Howard in the UK (Not to be confused with the unfortunately more sucessful Aussie Tory, John Howard, plagiarised by Stevie). Michael Howard was going on about "false refugees" and also those who travelled with false documents - and it turns out that his own dad, a Romanian Jewish refugee fleeing the Nazis and their local-fascist associates, had done exactly that.

Desperate people do wrong, manipulative and shitty things that they probably wouldn't have done otherwise. You and I might well do the same. As for Mr Slime, not only do I have friends from his country of origin, I'm friends with some of his relatives, who thought his behaviour was deplorable. He is NOT having a happy life...

Sean in Ottawa

So sorry to hear you have been thorugh all this Lagatta.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair has not criticized this person merely told him to address the issue before coming back to shadow cabinet -- to call that unprincipled is quite a stretch. How would we respond to a Liberal or a Conservative in the same situation?

I would respond in exactly the same way, Sean. What difference could it possibly make what party label they wear? I am not one of our "my party, forever, to the death" crowd, in case you hadn't noticed. I judge individuals by what they say and do.

 

lagatta

Thanks, Sean. This was a long time ago, and I never think of this person anymore, moreover, the worst of the ensuing financial problems have been solved.

KenS

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair has not criticized this person merely told him to address the issue before coming back to shadow cabinet -- to call that unprincipled is quite a stretch.

[quote liberated from opportunity for easy throw away reply]

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair has not criticized this person merely told him to address the issue before coming back to shadow cabinet -- to call that unprincipled is quite a stretch.

He suspended him from his critic's job, in case anyone missed that act of "criticism".

Anyway, let me know when Mulcair has suspended the fucking zionists and warmongers in his caucus (need a list? let me know). When that's done, I'll consider the absolute need to lick the boots of the MSM by suspending an artist for falling behind in his taxes.

What a farce this is.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"

He suspended him from his critic's job, in case anyone missed that act of "criticism".

Anyway, let me know when Mulcair has suspended the fucking zionists and warmongers in his caucus (need a list? let me know). When that's done, I'll consider the absolute need to lick the boots of the MSM by suspending an artist for falling behind in his taxes.

What a farce this is."

NAILED IT Unionist!

KenS

uh, then why bother?

KenS

My opinion:

[Regardless of what the NDP is doing about it.]

Benskin is probably a deadbeat.

Some of the criticism of him kind of surprises me. [And knock, knock, Unionist: the strongest is not coming from people prone to defending the party.]

The reason I dont really blame him [personally] for engaging in what almost certainly is minimizing what he did, is because that is the kind of spin politicians do. I wouldn't be surprised if caucus suggested the lines he has used.

While people normally get the benefit of the doubt, in my books, not when you are a public figure.

So if it walks like nonsense, quacks like nonsense, it probably is nonsense.

Because there is no plausible excuse for Benskin not dealing with this- even not showing up in court- for 2 years of having a big salary.... until it is out in public.

It's not OK being a deadbeat. I forgive him. Others here forgive him. But look at the passion it arouses in people who have faced similar circumstances.

What is your advice to them?

Maybe, "Grow up."

Or something like that?

You wouldn't suggest to people they be philosophical about a deadbeat for support payments.

I dont get exercicised about people being tax deadbeats. But I can certainly understand why others do.

Unionist

Ken - I kind of thought we should distinguish private life from public life. Hence my quip about who's cheating on their spouse. I think this is really awfully simple, and Mulcair is pandering.

I don't care whether partisans are making the most dehumanizing comments or not. Wrong is wrong.

 

Brachina

Mulcair is damned no matter what he does. Either gets nailed for protecting someone who is a "scum", I no I don't agree with that opinion of Tyrone, or he's a victim of Mulcair who loves warmongering zionists.

Reality Check, his response was moderate and fair, Tyrone isn't a monster and I don't believe he planned on cheating the tax man, but he should have been on top of this sooner and he shouldn't have missed his court date. I do understand the challenges artists face and so is Mulcair and so he wasn't harsh, he has been temporarily removed from his critic role, he's still a member oc the cacus and party and there are no more punishment.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Unionist wrote:

knownothing wrote:

You can't play anything from ctvnews video?

It's bizarre - I tried it in Firefox and Chrome - nothing. Then Internet Explorer (yuck), and it prompted me to download Adobe Flash Player, which I did, but still no luck.

And yes, likewise with all the other ctvnews clips I tried.

Tell me everything I've been missing out on, please!!!!!

I use firefox and it works for me. I don't know why it doesn't work for you.

cco

I guess I just feel like when you're one of the 308 out of 30+ million who votes on what taxes the rest of us pay, your own tax history is no longer a private matter. That's why they call it "public" life. In exchange for getting some power, you give up some privacy. And again, I don't feel like he committed deliberate fraud, nor am I calling for him to lose his job. In fact, I'm not calling for much of anything. I'm just saying I feel betrayed.

lagatta wrote:

Desperate people do wrong, manipulative and shitty things that they probably wouldn't have done otherwise.


Amen to this, lagatta. Lord knows I've done enough of those in my time that I'll likely never seek public office. It's just Benskin's talk about "lean periods" that chafes me.

Unionist, amen to your comments about Zionists and warmongers as well. Tyrone's position is far less offensive than some of those taken by the majority of the NDP caucus. I still find it offensive, though.

Brian Glennie

lagatta wrote:

I hadn't cheated anyone; my ex-companion (a refugee claimant) wheedled me out of a year of very relatively high earnings

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I can say that a refugee claimant could leave some horrible debts behind as when they leave they have neither the means nor the enforcement to pay their share.

Sean, ANYBODY could be a bad apple. Why are you guys picking on refugees?

How would this sound?

I hadn't cheated anyone; my ex-companion (a Jew) wheedled me out of a year of very relatively high earnings

It's completely unfair. Surely we all reject the idea that you can predict or explain a person's ethics based solely on how they'd fill out a census form.

 

 

 

 

 

lagatta wrote:

This is beyond ludicrous. One of my best friends is a...

Sean in Ottawa

Brian come on -- you know better than this! That's a pile of crap and certainly I have written a lot about refugees and am the last to pick on them.

However, when a refugee loses a case that person can be forced to leave the country. A bad apple made to leave the country is harder to reach out to than a bad apple who remains here with connections here. This is not attacking refugees but pointing to a reality of circumstance. The nature of refugee claimants is they can have all ties to this country severed. That has nothing to do with them and everything to do with their circumstance.

Your likening that to a comment about a Jewish person is deeply offensive and ignorant. Take it back now. It's a personal attack.

There is nothing about someone being Jewish that affects how you can deal with them. There is everything about a person who loses a refugee claim that affects if you can possibly even find them again.

A better analogy might be saying that someone was stained with blood by an accident victim. The fact that they were an accident victim is not a slur but explains how they might stain you with blood

Surely you can figure this out. I am waiting for your apology.

lagatta

Brian Glennie, that is utterly disgusting. I'll refrain from saying more, as my feelings towards your phony concern for refugees right now would get me banned and score points for right-wingers like you. I've been involved in refugee and immigrant worker issues for decades (which is, after all, how I happened to meet Shithead).

It is not picking on refugees; it is simply explaining why a person who had been upstanding before could act in such a slimy manner. Yes, of course I checked him out, as I'd do with any frigging man, as men tend to lie, cheat and destroy women's lives, whatever their status or ethnicity. That is called patriarchy, sexism or misogyny.

Edited out strong language, out of regard for rabble, not for my tormentor.

Edited to add: checking this individual's posts, all he has been doing of late is persecuting me.

lagatta

duplicate post removed.

Slumberjack

Brian Glennie wrote:
The fact is you got involved with someone dishonest. Those kinds of people come from all walks of life. Instead of describing your ex in terms of his or her character you drew our attention to their status as a citizen in order to indicate what he or she was all about. You made a racist remark, lagatta, and I come to Rabble to get away from that kind of b.s. 

Aside from the 'refugee' description, there were no other identifiers provided that I'm aware of that would allow for such a claim to be made.  He could have been a white, jarhead Marine escaping deployment for all we know.  Wouldn't attributing non-whiteness as being part and parcel of refugee status fall into the same category that you're trying to expose?  All refugee claimants by default are non-white?

MegB

This is going south. Let' keep refugees, Jewish or otherwise, out of the conversation.

Sean in Ottawa

Rebecca, problem here is that it looks like you could be implying that the statement was racist rather than information. I hope that it not the case-- please clarify. People care about racism here very much and people accused of it care about that too.

Lens Solution

Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson made her ruling today, although she says she won't be investigating any further.  In light of the ruling, I assume Mulcair won't give Benskin his Critic position back.  When this came out in May, it sounded like Benskin's taxes were leaked by someone connected to National Revenue Minister Gail Shea, but regardless, he needs to fix this if he wants to get re-elected in 2015.

-------

NDP's Tyrone Benskin broke rules, ethics watchdog finds

Federal ethics commissioner says Montreal MP should have declared tax debt sooner

Sep 17, 2013

New Democrat MP Tyrone Benskin broke federal conflict of interest rules by not declaring a tax debt, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson says in a letter to the politician. 

Dawson also uses the letter to renew her call for the power to levy fines against MPs who break the rules set out in the conflict of interest code.

In the letter to Benskin and to Liberal MP John McCallum, who made the complaint to the commissioner's office, Dawson says Benskin "has contravened his reporting obligations," as set out in the code.

MPs are required to disclose any liabilities worth more than $10,000. The commissioner's registry doesn't include the amount of the liabilities, just a searchable database of MPs, with an accompanying list detailing who they owe money to.

Last May, a media report revealed Benskin owed more than $58,000 to Revenue Quebec. That should have been disclosed, but wasn't, Dawson says in the letter. A Quebec court ruled June 19, 2012, that Benskin had to pay $54,719.99, plus costs, for a total of $58,097.45, she wrote.

Dawson notes that when MPs are found to have failed to report liabilities greater than $10,000, she has them sign a declaration "forthwith." Benskin updated his file on July 23.

--------

Read more:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-s-tyrone-benskin-broke-rules-ethics-...

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

What a horror show. Can't this deadbeat be charged? Fined ? Imprisoned?? Expelled from caucus? Tortured till he confesses????

Unionist

Have I mentioned how much I love babble's high-tech platform?

Pages