Following the rules is not the same as being good
If you follow the news closely, there’s a phrase, or a version of it, that comes up again and again.
“We followed all the rules.” Or, “We broke no laws.”
It must be what public relations firms tell their clients to say when they find themselves accused of some activity that doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s best said indignantly. The accused should sound insulted at the implication that he or she would ever break the law.
But when I hear someone saying it, I conclude almost immediately that something is indeed rotten. The line is spoken as the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Ontario’s Liberal government is the latest example of trying to mask wrong- doing with that defence.
When the Star reported that senior cabinet ministers have party fundraising targets to meet, the economic development minister, Brad Duguid said, “We all follow the rules exactly.”
Of course that misses the point. What the Liberals are doing is wrong. It puts ministers in a conflict of interest. It doesn’t matter if the rules allow it.
A few weeks back, when it was revealed the Liberals were charging people $6,000 a head to have dinner with the premier and the energy minister, Kathleen Wynne said her party was “following the rules as they exist.”
Again, that’s not the point. Rules set the minimum standard for behaviour. Don’t we deserve better than that?
Sen. Mike Duffy tried to hide behind that same excuse. At his trial for fraud, breach of trust and bribery, he said under oath that he had listened to all the previous testimony and, “No one has taken the stand to say I didn’t follow the rules.”
It would be nice to think that you don’t have to consult a rule book to decide what province you live in, but apparently that would be expecting too much.
There have been complaints that Bell’s so-called “skinny” package of television channels is so thin that it mocks the spirit of trying to give Canadians real choice in choosing what they pay for. Bell responds by saying all its packages “comply with CRTC rules.”
The defence of last resort has gone far beyond our borders.
China is trying to restart a hydroelectric project in Burma that was shut down in 2011 by protests over its environmental impact. Five years later, China is saying, “We have followed all the rules and laws according to international standards.” Sounds suspicious already.
Donald Trump is threatening to sue the Republican National Committee in Louisiana because even though he won the primary in that state, he may get fewer delegates than Ted Cruz. As hard as it is to agree with any Trump position, to the untrained mind that sounds wrong.
But the man in charge of Republicans in Louisiana assures us that “We’re very confident that we followed our rules.” That doesn’t strike me as a satisfactory explanation for a counterintuitive outcome.
Hillary Clinton continues to try to put her email troubles behind her. Her enemies (not too strong a word) pretty much accuse her of treason because she used a private email server while she was the secretary of state.
She may have sent classified e-mails on that server. Her lawyer’s rousing defence is that what she did, “was permissible under State Department policy in place during her tenure.” Lots of angels dancing on the head of that pin.
There is a lot of grey in our world. But not everything is grey. Some things are right. Some things are wrong. Weasel words don’t change that.
Mark Bulgutch is the former senior executive producer of CBC News. He teaches journalism at Ryerson University. His book is That’s Why I’m a Journalist.