Limited immunity

CanWest reports that Harper's Operation I'm Above The Law has hit another snag, as a hearing has been set for August to evaluate Deceivin' Stephen's claim to immunity in Alan Riddell's libel lawsuit:

A Superior Court hearing has been set for August to hear Prime Minister Stephen Harper's arguments that he can't be forced to testify in a libel action because he has parliamentary immunity. Lawyers for Harper and Alan Riddell, a lawyer and former Conservative who sued Harper after he agreed to step aside as a candidate for a Tory nomination in November 2005, appeared before the court's case manager earlier this week to establish a timetable for examinations and other steps that must precede the hearing on Aug. 10.

As I'd noted in my earlier post on the topic, it seems fairly likely that Harper is technically entitled to the immunity. But that doesn't mean he's obligated to make use of it - and it's worth asking again what he thinks he'll gain from postponing his obligation to answer for his actions.

After all, it's hard to think what Harper could want to hide about his public statements about Riddell that justifies making a discussion of whether he's "(impeding) the course of justice" the talk of the barbecue circuit this summer. That goes doubly when the immunity won't insulate him from testimony indefinitely in any event...and indeed would seem to make any election campaign the only available time for him to testify, pushing any embarrassing revelations into the public eye when it hurts most. And much as Harper would like to pretend otherwise, he won't be able to claim any electoral immunity against the consequences.