DANIEL LEBLANC
Globe and Mail Update
February 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM EST
OTTAWA — After being exonerated on all charges of fraud and breach of trust today, George Radwanski said he would have done a few things differently as privacy commissioner, but suggested the criminal case against him was an RCMP vendetta.
Mr. Radwanski hugged his lawyer and a family member as he was found not guilty in an Ottawa courtroom Friday morning.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Radwanski said he paid a large price for his lack of administrative experience, as well as for his long fight as privacy commissioner with RCMP plans to install surveillance cameras in Kelowna, B.C.
“It's been a five-and-a-half year nightmare, so it's wonderful to have my life back,” Mr. Radwanski said.
“There is no question I antagonized a lot of people by the way I went about my job, in terms of how aggressively I pursued the issues I was fighting for. I ticked a lot of people off, not the least the RCMP. ... It turns out that you can only antagonize so many powerful players without there being all sorts of pushback.”
Mr. Radwanski said the Ontario Court of Justice was the “first fair tribunal” to look into his case, after the Auditor-General and a parliamentary committee started criticizing his tenure in 2003.
. . .
During the trial last year, Mr. Radwanski's lawyer, Michael Crystal, painted the former privacy commissioner as a hardworking defender of Canadians' rights in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Despite his faults and bad judgment, the former privacy commissioner turned a “sleepy office deep within the bureaucracy” into a champion of human rights, Mr. Crystal said.
“No one - no one - has ever taken issue with Mr. Radwanski's work,” Mr. Crystal said during final arguments.
Stumble It!
And then we wonder why kids join gangs, having seen that toil is for suckers...........?
Radwanski instance is like a teaspoon of dirt that may be overlooked, but is added to a pile of dirt that eventually makes a mountain, and can't help but be seen. He is TECHNICALLY not guilty, but added to all the other instances where "people in high places" get off or get (a perceived) too light a sentence, it all adds up to corruption and payola.
And then we wonder why kids join gangs, having seen that toil is for suckers...........?
No, he is totally not guilty. He was actually fighting for you and I and our rights, and became a thorn in the sides of some powerful people. Your perception that he is somehow guilty is the result of a well placed propaganda campaign that seems to have worked in your case.
Remember the "Super Database"? The one where every Government department would pool together everything they know about you into one place searchable by anyone in Government? The one that was totally illegal, but they were going to do anyway?
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/ar/02_04_10_e.asp
The only reason it didn't become reality (against current laws!) is that HE stopped it. HE made YOU and the press aware of it's formation, and public opinion killed it from there. HE is the reason we don't have video cameras on every street corner, like they do in London and most of England.
http://www.henrymakow.com/000172.html
George Radwanski is an example of what happens to civil servants who get in the way of the 'big boys' who have other plans for you and I.
It's quite possible I owe George an apology then. But is it true he scoffed good wine on the taxpayer's tab?
Yes, but no more than any other head of a government department. Probably less so.
As the trial said, he did nothing unusual or extraordinary for a man in his position.
Reminds me of a reprimand I got years ago, from the school principal when I was hauled into the office for throwing snowballs (an "illegal" activity, not only on the school grounds, but at the time for coming and going to school as well -- which the school crossing gestapo made sure of). My excuse was "but everyone was doing it", and was promptly told that, just because others did it was no excuse......
As a servant of the people, he could as easily brownbag it (as could all the others who seem to think their positions are one of privilege). Having said that though, I do not believe that the only time one gets reprimanded is when one is caught, as it merely serves to engender the notion that one shouldn't get caught then, rather than the notion that it shouldn't be done.
Therefore, I reiterate my apology to George, in recognition that he actually did something to keep the barbarians from overrunning the walls. Thanks for bringing me "up to speed", Dr. C.