JW-R and integrity

I was absolutely transfixed by Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony (“Inside job,” Politics, April 2019). What a woman of integrity and courage! The moment her decision not to overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision on SNC-Lavalin was made public, it made all of the attempts to pressure her into changing her mind into attempts to politically interfere in the judicial process of a case currently before the courts. They might as well have told her to call a judge. She didn’t resign; she held her ground to make sure the law was respected. I worked for Joan Smith, solicitor general for Ontario in the David Peterson government, and Joan used to tell us that if ministers resign just because they don’t agree with a policy, they lose the chance to have any influence on the final outcome. I thought of that as I watched the testimony. It’s not a sign of integrity to cut and run when a principle you believe in is under attack. You show integrity by staying and fighting the good fight in the face of strong opposition, and that’s what Wilson-Raybould did and continues to do. That the PMO was tired of talking about legalities says so much about them, and none of it good. The fact that the PM ultimately fired her as attorney general and minister of justice proves positively that they were pressuring her, tacitly threatening her. She was right to feel that a Saturday Night Massacre was the inevitable denouement. It disappoints me that several women ministers have said they’ve never been subjected to this kind of pressure, but they’re being watched by the PMO and expected to toe the line. Ultimately, they must know that if Quebec’s sacred cows are threatened in their areas of responsibilities, they too will feel the pressure from the MP for Papineau and his lackeys to do what’s politically expedient, not what’s right.

Doreen O’Brien, London, Ont.

I take issue with Anne Kingston’s framing of the SNC-Lavalin affair as yet another Me Too situation (“A Jedi-level gaslighting,” Justice, April 2019). Yes, Wilson-Raybould is a “she” and those “pressuring” her were not just one “he” but, as Kingston points out, a “he, he, he.” The comparison ends there, however. Though her gender and Aboriginal roots, in addition to her high qualifications, may have figured into her appointment as attorney general, once in the job they should no longer have been part of the equation. Wilson-Raybould was not, as is widely contended, asked to break the law, but to use her expertise as the top lawyer in the country to find some way within the framework of the law to bring about a positive outcome. She took her positions early and adamantly refused to change them even though “pressured” to do so. Some view this as a noble decision based solely on her desire to protect the sanctity of the law. Others contend that there was legally some room to manoeuvre, and her refusal to do so was more personal in that she felt her job was being interfered with. Whatever her reason for saying no and refusing to budge, it in no way compares to the situation of a woman trying to fend off unwanted sexual advances in which there is no room to manoeuvre. Making such a comparison diminishes the importance of the Me Too issues. Additionally, it does a disservice to women seeking high office and especially those in positions of high pressure. Dr. Margaret R. Oulton, Halifax