Ruby Dhalla, MP: Public Perception Vs. Fairness

Posted by Laura Steiner May 9, 2009

By now, everyone has heard the story of Ruby Dhalla. The Brampton-Springdale Member of Parliament (MP) stands accused of mistreating two nannies and a housekeeper, brought to Canada to take care of her mother. It is alleged the family underpaid them, forced them to perform duties such as cleaning floors daily, shoe shining, and cleaning chiropractic clinics, and forced them to work overtime without pay. The family also allegedly took away their passports.

All of these are allegations- nothing has been conclusively proven, and under the justice system she's innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, public perception disagrees. Ruby Dhalla spoke at a press conference yesterday... or rather her labour lawyer spoke at a press conference yesterday. Ms. Dhalla read a few prepared remarks, but sat silent for most of it, letting her lawyer take all the questions. If a lawyer has an innocent client they know is innocent why not let them speak? By remaining silent so long she appears guilty at least in the eyes of the press.

If Ruby Dahlla truly is innocent why didn't she come forward when word of the allegations first broke? Why wait for nearly a week before speaking publicly? In most cases silence in the face of something this serious speaks volumes, and gives the perception of a slight possibility there's some grain of truth to these allegations.

The two caregivers came forward at a public meeting with Ontario's Labour Minister Peter Fonseca, and Education Minister Kathleen Wynne. The pair encouraged the ladies to come forward with their allegations of mistreatment, and did so- then the ministers responded by giving them a phone number to call and voice their concerns. Aside from the obvious appearance of cold-heartedness toward the suffering of our fellow human, is there something wrong with this picture?

I think there is. As Labour Minister Peter Fonseca had the responsibility to at least investigate allegations this serious- especially if they're against a fellow elected official. The fact he didn't suggests the perception of a cover-up, or at the very least gross incompentence. He should either resign, or be fired. Personally I'm not giving any the Liberals that much credit- it's likely incompetence. And as for the accusations of some kind of smear campagin by her political rivals; setting up those two caregivers to talk at that particular public meeting seems to be too much work to smear someone.

The conduct of her lawyer toward the press does her no favours either. During her press conference, he often appeared confrontational and defensive. If Dhalla's guilty, then she needs the press to stay on her side in order to foster sympathy, and help rehabilitate her image. If she's innocent, then the media could be useful to forward the cause of foreign workers. Being confrontational gives the perception that there's something to hide- and the press have a habit of finding out.