If Judy Manning is trying to impress the public with her skills - she is failing.
To date we have a "superior work ethic" that has been alleged by the Premier but not proven.
We have "extensive legal experience" that has not been backed up by demonstrated work.
Now Ms. Manning is playing the gender card. That is not a card that one should use so cavalierly. There are real situations where women are discriminated against - this is not one of them.
She is a lawyer - yet she is doing her profession a disservice if what she calls responsible public scrutiny - "character assassination". There is zero evidence that this is the case.What has been reported has been accurate and if that information causes Ms. Manning to believe that she is seen in an unfavourable light - then she should take time and reflect herself.
The latest interview with Ms. Manning by David Cochrane highlights what appears to be a pattern for the unelected Minister. According to the CBC On Point story - Ms. Manning contends "that she was surprised by the focus of the interview, thinking
it would be about general delays in the system and not her role as
review commissioner." However the story goes on to say: the Oct. 24 email from CBC asking for the interview stated
this: “I am working on a story about Minister Manning's previous role
with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division
(WHSCRD). My specific areas of inquiry are the number of cases she
handled in that role, the number of reports she filed, and what happens
to cases she did not complete.”
Then there is this quote in the story: “Did I break the system in the three months that I heard hearings? No. I
have great empathy for the people that are going through this process,
and I understand the frustration that’s emerged with the delays, but am I
the author of those delays? Absolutely not”
Notwithstanding Ms. Manning's misrepresentation of the focus of the interview - she goes on to say she has great empathy for the people going through the process. Empathy defined as the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences
and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings. This itself is questionable as it was Ms. Manning who walked away from the files to take an unelected position in the Davis Cabinet. It was Ms. Manning's resignation from the WHSCRD that has caused the delay for these people.
Here we are today - and Ms.Manning is going to haul out the gender card and seek empathy for herself from women who truly face discrimination in the workplace. The questions that are asked of Ms. Manning is appropriate scrutiny of any person who is an unelected Minister. It is unusual for Ministers to be unelected and as such these exceptional circumstances require exceptional scrutiny - replacing what would normally be electoral scrutiny. Further as Ms.Manning refuses to run in any of the three by-elections called or anticipated - she demonstrates a sense of entitlement and arrogance - hardly a just comparison with the injured workers left to wait for decisions on basic human needs.
I now have to look at why Ms. Manning has chosen to throw out an unsubstantiated claim of possible gender discrimination. My take is that Ms. Manning may be playing the card now in an effort to thwart off what will be a continued and justified volley of criticism in the House of Assembly - as Question Period proceeds without her. Perhaps Ms. Manning is putting it out there so people will relate probing in the House of Assembly as the Opposition members - picking on a woman.
None of Ms. Manning's protestations to date are becoming of a Minister of Justice and Attorney General - it has nothing to do with being a woman.
It is time for Ms. Manning to resign - or in the alternative run in one of the three upcoming by-elections.
Perhaps the greatest criticism of the Manning appointment should fall at the desk of Premier Paul Davis. Ms. Manning was chosen by Mr. Davis - to date he has not successfully justified his choice - his call - his decision.
3 comments:
Your words pretty much summarize what the majority think of Judy Manning and her appointment. AT least Dunderdale and Marshall tried to do something good when they were appointed as Acting-premiers. Davis trips up in his own feet right from the start and now will drag us through months of agonizing headaches before he calls an election. His ass is grass in da eyes of a lawnmower.
Judy Manning's gender has never been is question. The facts are: how she was appointed, bending rules to suit her, how her experience lacks education and experience for the role she has been hired for is. The seriousness of her position,"Attorney General" the political aspect, that she has been hired for is a, public position. Her life is now, personally and professionally allowed to be critique. She is pitying herself, including gender into her responses to public and media out of desperation. Instead she should be serving the public. Their is work to be done. The issue of discrimination and public outpouring of comments not supporting her, I think Judy is deserving of them.
Arrogance has no gender.
Post a Comment