Originally Posted by
flyingcrooked
But if this was indeed said it is a very dismissive and inappropriate thing to say. Perhaps it wasn't said, but shouldn't there be a presumption that he is telling the truth, a default assumption that he likely is? We would normally afford that dignity to anyone who reports that someone said something to them, let alone a sitting member of parliament.
I don't need to assume that this news reporting of the gentleman's own account covers every possible detail in the scenario - just for starters, a quick web search shows me a Canadian of identical name who - though acquitted of the charges he faced years ago - might very well still be on the kind of government watch lists that prompts additional scrutiny at an airport.
When I suggest that it's reasonable to start from "let's find out more about this before making any assumptions about what actually happened", that's just one of several possibilities to consider.
Sadly, in a forum like this there's always one or two who can't handle the patience that requires, and feel compelled to jump straight to "he must be lying, you know how
those people are".
That's probably about as much as I have to offer on this, that'll fit within FT's rules.