Good Faith Johnston Should Be Interviewed Indeed: Combo of Stevie, Cashore-McIntyre. McArthur & Maybe Kaplan

Spector beats me to the punch in calling for Johnston to demonstrate his supposedly manifest good faith and clear the air over his baffling judgment to regard Airbus as "well-tilled ground". Given Johnston is such a fine example of "The Best of Canada" (...indeed), he will doubtless leap at the chance to explain his ironclad logic that led him to exclude actually finding out what happened with Airbus, despite the ground being quite untilled, in point of fact. As it continues to baffle even his fiercest defender and casts an unsavoury shadow over his appointment, unnecessary since he's such a fine chap and had doubtless perfectly good reason to decide what he did and refuse all interviews on the matter ever since (2007, not 2008 as I misremembered - which is an odd coincidence, since I noticed Coyne had remarked on the completely unrelated matter of the three Miami amigos "Maybe this is old news, but guy at gym says whole deal was fixed up at 2008 Olympics. Which would mean this whole circus was just for show").

I can only add, to be helpful, that Johnston would do well to make sure he was interviewed by people who actually understand this thing, and whose uncompromised assiduity is beyond reproach: the tougher, more credible his interviewers, the more sterling his reputation after he clears up all misunderstandings. So it is I would suggest he allow himself to be interviewed by all or some combo of Stevie, Cashore-McIntyre. McArthur & maybe Kaplan. I realise there may be some interpersonal conflicts between some of my suggested interviewers, but in Canada's interest, in the interest of ensuring our incoming GG is beyond reproach from even the most squalid conspiracy theorists, I would hope they could work together on this. I am certain, from what I read of Johnston's all-Canadian qualities, that he, more than anyone, would share that hope and eagerly anticipate their questioning. Now I realise that the interview would be a bust, journalistically, as he has nothing to add to his report that Airbus was well-tilled ground, would stick to that and repeat it, no matter what apparent contradictions some of us more intellectually sluggardly folk perceive. But it would all to the good to get him on the record, at least, and perhaps repetition will clear up the discrepancies that simple folk like EFL still perceive. Maybe we just haven't been told enough just how well-tilled the ground is, and we need more telling, that's all.

I admit, I was baffled by Coyne's conclusion on That David Johnston scandal, in full, 'But in this case a reasonable person would conclude there was neither quid, nor pro, nor quo.'. But at least it reminded me of a very similar quote which is always worth repeating, for honour's and history's sake. Regarding that, relationships can be hard to understand, even (especially?) for the principals, but one thing is for sure, if one has committed some error in judgment, it seems to me one should make amends in an equivalent manner, unless one has already come to a private understanding of course. That's just me, and my view of ethics, obviously. Geddes recently wrote of the historical dimension of such moral and ethical dilemmas, viewed in the context of dangerous turbulent times, like Mantel's Reformation, for example. To my mind, Geddes displayed a surprising equanimity regarding the harsh fate often reserved for innocent maids and scholars following lines of inquiry, back in those times. I suppose everyone brings their own baggage to these contemplations of history. Those who are the inheritors to a tradition of opposing tyranny in all its forms through the centuries, from the past century to back to Mantel's Reformation, might well take a more stringent view of what is right and proper than those who are new to such things. But while such folk might seem overly stringent, on the other hand, would one prefer to count oneself among the ranks of the tyrannical, their collaborators and the quiescent? Better simple-minded righteousness to baroque self-justification, it seems to me, at a great remove from Mantel's Reformation, of course.

Speaking of tyranny, while further consideration of Coyne's excellent arguments has made me more amenable to our GG, should he give a coherent accounting of his exclusion of the Airbus affair, a reader brought my attention to the righteous fury of another misguided innocent, which bears repeating , if only for posterity's sake. Behiels: And, no, PM Harper will not pick a new G-G who will stand up to him. Why? Because Harper is, and will remain, in a minority government situation. He will probably have to ask for another prorogation or an election in order to avoid, yet again, defeat in the House."

It's this kind of grouchy attitude that is so unwelcome among civilised Canadians. If you want an example of civilised behaviour, one can do worse than the acceptance speeches of the winners of 2007 Michener Citations of Merit, which to my mind, were so civilised that their acceptance speech lacked a certain something, or someone. Of course, I don't know what was prepared, or what understandings had been given, for what reasons (for example, the causes of fierce loves and hatreds are always hard to decipher), but to my mind, there was something excessively civilised about this, the first sentence leading me to expect something that was completely confounded by the second, to my surprise and dismay at the poor form, grammatically, of course :

As Linden and I stand here being honoured for our work on this story, it’s easy to forget that asking questions about Brian Mulroney’s relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber has not always been so warmly received.
This story began more than a decade ago with a very simple question. Fifth estate producer Harvey Cashore,...

There's more, some even more striking in its poor form, grammatically, of course. I know these things are given off the cuff, but one wonders whether greater care should not have been taken, in advance, so as not to give the impression of a rather uncouth ignorance of obvious niceties. But what do I know? Grammar is a complicated thing, and perhaps best left to be decided by its fairminded practitioners, like journalists.