Angry in the Great White North

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla has been accused of mistreating three live-in caregivers, compelling them to work long hours for little pay, and keeping their passports as a way of keeping them in line.

No allegations have been proven, and Ruby Dhalla has forcefully denied the allegations.

Actually, Ruby Dhalla has gone a step further than mere denial.  Through her lawyer, Howard Levitt, Ruby Dhalla has alleged that their is a conspiracy to ruin her:

A lawyer representing Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, who is embroiled in controversy over her family's alleged mistreatment of several foreign workers, yesterday suggested his client is the target of a damaging political campaign.

Calling the allegations against Ms. Dhalla "absolute nonsense," Howard Levitt said the nannies' stories of being overworked and grossly underpaid had been deliberately fabricated to harm Ms. Dhalla's political ambitions.

"There are many powerful people who might have an interest in damaging my client's career," he told a room of nearly 50 reporters, noting he had documents that would prove the allegations to be false.

"Whoever has decided to target her has made a grievous error," he said.

It is an interesting theory.  Howard Levitt has not provided a shred of evidence to support it.  So I have to ask, who is behind the theory of a conspiracy?  Or in other words, who thinks this defence is a good idea?

Ruby Dhalla is in a predicament that most of us would never find ourselves.  Besides defending herself, she is also defending the Liberal Party.  Everything she says and does with regards to these allegations will inevitably blow back onto the Liberals.  If she were to make some wild accusations about the mendacity of Filipino nannies in general, the Liberal Party could find itself facing a crisis with voters in that cultural community. 

So her defence, under normal circumstances, would be constrained by political realities.  I'm assuming that one of her goals is to survive this episode politically and remain a Liberal, and not just avoid fines or worse.

So is Howard Levitt coordinating his defence with Liberal Party strategists? 

I bet those strategists would love to be involved, but I doubt they are.  I'm sure Howard Levitt knows what his job is, and that is to defend Ruby Dhalla.  Trying to placate the Liberal Party would put Howard Levitt in a conflict of interest.  I'm certain that he would recommend a course of action for Ruby Dhalla to pursue that would reflect badly on the Liberals if that is what made the most sense for Ruby Dhalla.

If that means suggesting that she is the victim of political intrigue, so be it.  If that means pointedly avoiding naming any particular party as being the chief suspect, then that's what he'll do.  If that means leaving open the door to the possibility that Ruby Dhalla is the victim of internal Liberal infighting rather than a Conservative or NDP operation, then Howard Levitt will gladly leave that door open and encourage everyone to look through it.

Howard Levitt is a good lawyer and knows where his priorities lie.

Are Liberals encouraging this open-ended conspiracy theory?  So far, the only official statements made regarding Ruby Dhalla's situation has been to say that the Liberals are eager for the facts to come out.  No one has said anything about a conspiracy.  There have been allegations of a smear campaign, but only in the sense of opportunism on the part of Conservatives and the NDP, and nothing hinting at something pre-planned.

The Liberals aren't fans of a conspiracy theory, because when it comes to people with an axe to grind with regards to Ruby Dhalla, those people are fellow Liberals:

Some colleagues aren't too sad to see her star tarnished. Some feel Dhalla hogs the spotlight, is phony and too interested in her own advancement.

"She's a bit of a manipulator," one MP said.

The only time a group has been named in the press as being part of this alleged conspiracy, that group was made up of a faction within the Liberal Party:

There's a move within the Liberal Party to have MP Ruby Dhalla removed from her Brampton riding.

At least that's the belief of Balraj Deol, publisher and editor of Punjabi weekly Khabbar Nama, which is based in Dhalla's riding of Brampton-Springdale.

"There are other people who have interest in this riding," he told me. "They know as long as she's on the scene -- she's a Sikh woman, one who's vocal, intelligent and hard-working, young and good-looking -- they won't have any chance" and so quietly they're adding to the media frenzy.

Deol agrees with Dhalla's attorney, Howard Levitt, who claimed at a packed press conference Friday that "there are many powerful people who might have an interest in damaging my client's career."

But doesn't a conspiracy of Conservatives make more sense?   As Jason Kenney has pointed out, putting the Conservatives at the centre of the conspiracy theory is a real stretch:

Speaking on CTV's Question Period yesterday, [Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney] dismissed the idea of a concerted effort to damage Dhalla's credibility.

"I don't know what conspiracy?" Kennedy said. "Would this be between the Conservative Party, the NDP, three Filipino nannies and The Toronto Star? (which first reported the charges and is a long-time supporter of the Liberal Party.)

"I mean, I can hear the dark helicopters hovering overhead," said Kenney.

Despite the risks to her credibility in the long term, Howard Levitt has concluded that Ruby Dhalla will, on the balance, be well served by promoting a conspiracy theory, even one that seems a bit out there.  That might be because a Liberal conspiracy seems marginally more believable than a Conservative conspiracy, and all he needs is a semi-credible conspiracy to protect his client.

None of this is good for the Liberals.  Some people might blame the Liberals for Ruby Dhalla's troubles, without any evidence.  The Liberals could try to point the conspiracy fans at the Conservatives, but if the party is seen to be on board with this form of the theory, the party will be subject to credibility-eroding mockery by pundits.  

It seems to me that one of the most serious risks for Ruby Dhalla and Howard Levitt is the Liberal Party publicly discrediting the theory, even if it means wrecking Ruby Dhalla's career.  It's too early for that to happen, but if this conspiracy theory defence becomes lightning rod for ridicule, the Liberals might be forced to distance themselves from it.

So why come up with such a theory in the first place?  Here is my theory, for what it's worth.  It became apparent very quickly that Ruby Dhalla was more or less on her own.   We can speculate why that might be.  Regardless of the reason, I think that Howard Levitt quickly figured this out, and decided that Liberal Party sensibilities would simply not be a factor in designing Ruby Dhalla's defence. 

Heck, maybe the distance the Liberal Party quickly put between the party and Ruby Dhalla was seen as evidence of a conspiracy.

It's not hard to argue that a conspiracy theory that alludes to Liberal infighting being at the centre is marginally more credible than one involving the Conservatives.  Liberals can't be too pleased with a Ruby Dhalla conspiracy defence since it seems so desperate, but one that doesn't clearly and unequivocally state that the Conservatives are the only suspect is even worse.

It will only take one Liberal speaking on camera in support of the conspiracy theory defence to discredit my theory, but I'm pretty confident that's not going to happen.