The Political Strife Over Corporate Corruption: Andrew Scheer's Call for Judicial Inquiry
Canadian political tensions have reached a new boiling point, with the Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, urging for a judicial inquiry into former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's role in preventing a corporate corruption trial. This article delves into the legal and moral implications of Scheer's demand and explores the potential outcomes for both parties.
The Legal Standing of Corporate Morality
According to business law, a corporation is a virtual entity with a moral personality. Consequently, only its members or administrators can carry out corrupt acts, not the corporation itself. This distinction is often misunderstood, as many individuals believe a corporation can be put in jail, which is a misconception. A corporation cannot be legally held responsible in the same manner as a natural person due to its agentic nature.
The mistake, according to critics, lies with Justin Trudeau in his choice of the Minister of Justice. By not appointing the right and intelligent individual to this critical role, Trudeau potentially compromised the integrity of the legal system. This decision has led to scrutiny and a demand for accountability from the opposition.
The Nature of Electoral Manipulation
The call for a judicial inquiry from Scheer is largely seen as a political ploy. The objective is to capitalize on Trudeau's perceived missteps for electoral gain. Moreover, the relatively unsuccessful efforts to prevent a corporate corruption trial are leveraged to sway the public’s opinion, aiming to diminish the incumbent's support.
Some critics argue that this move is similar to that of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who may also have engaged in similar investigations aimed at undermining the opposition. However, such investigations often seem to circle back to the party conducting them, leading to scrutiny and potential derision.
The nature of the investigations is more about electioneering than about genuine pursuit of justice. Suggestions to continue the inquiry and delve into the actions of cabinet ministers would only further fuel the political game, potentially leading to a situation where Scheer himself faces similar demands for opacity.
Understanding the Limits of Judicial Power
It is important to recognize that courts are not merely tools for political retribution. Judges operate independently of political whims and cannot be used to conduct partisan investigations. In the case of the senator's criminal charge, which was thrown out of court, Scheer's initiative to re-open this issue smacks of an attempt to politicize the judicial process. Historically, political leaders who attempt to control or influence the legal system through partisan reasoning are seen as undermining the impartiality of the judiciary.
Andrew Scheer's demand for an inquiry risks appearing foolish if he fails to understand the judicial process. If he pursues the inquiry, he risks appearing as an outdated figure who lacks an understanding of the separation between politics and law. Progressives, for instance, are not concerned about this move because they believe it is a futile attempt to sway public opinion through electoral manipulation.
In conclusion, the demand for a judicial inquiry by Andrew Scheer is a clear case of electioneering noise. The legal and moral implications of such actions must be carefully considered, as any attempts to use the judicial system for political gain will likely be met with public scrutiny and criticism.