Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) As I've let this incident sink in I must say that someone so stubborn and bull-headed probably wasn't long for this job. He had many outs in this situation in order to keep his job and he took none of them. He even apparently killed himself during the trial pleading ignorance. Hopefully if they do call for a Bi-Election he'll either run or throw his full support behind a less confrontational conservative like Stinz or Halliday. But to deny that this was a political stunt by the left to remove Ford from office on a technicality would be denying the truth. Ford fell for it but to say it's just justice is a bit much. If the incident was so detrimental to the integrity of council one of the many anti-Ford councillors would have taken him down and not a few busy-body policy wonks and an activist lawyer who took on this case pro-bono. As a conservative though, I find if very hard to take that a man like Dalton McGuinty can cling to power after such a blatant conflict of interest in canceling two power plants to win a few seats at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and when the legislature tries to take him to task on it, he can just take his ball and go home. BUT over a trivial amount of money Rob Ford can lose his job. Just doesn't seem right. Edited November 27, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 As a conservative though, I find if very hard to take that a man like Dalton McGuinty can cling to power after such a blatant conflict of interest in canceling two power plants to win a few seats at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and when the legislature tries to take him to task on it, he can just take his ball and go home. BUT over a trivial amount of money Rob Ford can lose his job. Just doesn't seem right. the difference being what ford did was illegal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 But to deny that this was a political stunt by the left to remove Ford from office on a technicality would be denying the truth. The rules are quite clear, The Act was in place long ago. The rules were told to him prior to the vote on the issue. He was urged not to vote and not to speak. He did both ignoring advisors. Yup, must be the left. The left snuck in and re-wrote the MCIA overnight, damn gremlins. The Argos won the cup, must be the left figured out a way to do that., The sun didnt rise comewhere in Canada, the left brought the clouds in. Good grief, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) There is no nice way to put it. Rob Ford is a ****ing moron. None of this would have seen the light of day if he had just shut up. The next time I want to shake things up, I will check to make sure the person isn't a boneheaded moron. I sure wasted a vote on this one. Edited November 27, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 the difference being what ford did was illegal... Technically it was. But what decision hurt the public more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Technically it was. Care to explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Care to explain? I was referring to Ford. He was caught on a technicality that everyone on here concedes he could easily have avoided prosecution if he wasn't so stubborn. Now regarding McGuinty, the Tories were having hearings on how much corruption was going on in the decision to cancel the Power Plants. They were also moving forward with Contempt accusations against the Energy minister until Dalton took his ball and went home, shutting down the legislature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 This incident shows clearly that so called "democracy" is a lie. If Ford is elected by people, one judger with one randomly picked guy is more than enough to let him left the office.Obviously you don't understand democracy. One judge and one random person is not enough to turf him from office. You need an entire Legislative Assembly of democratically elected representatives voting and passing legislation first. Sorry you don't understand how democracy, the judiciary, or politics works, but Ford was democratically removed from office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 He was caught on a technicality that everyone on here concedes he could easily have avoided prosecution if he wasn't so stubborn. So no technicality at all. Ok. As for Dalton and his gang, not relevant to this, no matter how bad that gang is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 The decision was right. The punishment was excessive. How was the punishment excessive? It was the only punishment available to the judge. He could have also banned him from running for 7 years, but did not do that. It wasn't excessive. It was exactly the punishment that the law required. The charge was politically motivated. The charge was at best frivolous. Maybe, but these are just personal opinions. The judge should have considered the A) Political agenda b The minor infraction in his judgment. C) And he did have discretion in the finding penalty. Magder and leftist activist team were likely looking for a Ford legal issue from day 1. How do you know the judge didn't consider these things? Ford was clearly guilty. He voted on something that he was personally involved in. He's required to abstain in those circumstances. Does the law suck? Yes. Politicians are obviously going to be personally involved in their communities, but are required to vote on things that have to do with their communities. That's why the MCIA needs revamping. Since McGuinty prorogued the legislature that can't happen for god knows how long now. And all of this whining about leftist activists is completely asinine. The judge was appointed by Stephen Harper and it was not an activist decision whatsoever. It was a decision strictly to the letter of the law carrying a mandatory sentence. Of course, that won't stop conservatives from continuing to push for mandatory sentencing, even though this is evidence of exactly the reason why judicial discretion is so important. By the bye, try and reconcile your opinions that there should be an activist judge here with other instances of judges being activists (ie, abortion, gay marriage, sex work, etc). If you say the judge should have used discretion here and made a ruling that stretches the letter of the law, then you must accept when judges use their discretion elsewhere and do it. Those that are calling it a leftwing agenda and nothing more than political activism want the judge to have discretion only when it suits their views, but they don't want the judge to use discretion if he/she is going to make a ruling that opposes their views. This is a selfish and arrogant viewpoint that in no way should be the foundation of our judicial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Boges, it's not a technicality. Even conservative commentators are saying the case was pretty cut and dry, but the law is defective. If the case is that cut and dry, his appeal will be denied. We'll see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1293535--adam-chaleff-freudenthaler-the-27-year-old-who-triggered-rob-ford-s-downfall Yup, It was a life-long Union leftist activist that started this. I agree Ford should have been fined or reprimanded but NOT stripped of his mayoralship.. He was democratically elected and this law is simply an affront to democracy. Too add... Ford has saved Millions of dollars and stuck to his word... It does hurt the left in sure but he was elected IN on those promisses.. Stuborn and pig-headed yes... But doing his job Was Bill Clinto stripped of his Presidancy for BJ's in Office?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yup, It was a life-long Union leftist activist that started this. He got Ford to vote and speak when he should not have? Wow, this guy must be a magician. I agree Ford should have been fined or reprimanded but NOT stripped of his mayoralship.. He was democratically elected and this law is simply an affront to democracy. Ford should have doen the first of your two points above, but didnt....and here we are. Of course an affront to democracy is pure hogwash, but that seems to be the sentiment of many who dont understand. Was Bill Clinto stripped of his Presidancy for BJ's in Office?? Did Clinto vote whether his BJ was a violation of the MCIA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 In my mind and in that of many others, the punishment doesn't fit the NO CRIME! http://fullcomment.n...tie-blatchford/ The mandatory removal required — under Section 10.1 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act — makes the statute an ass, as the judge himself acknowledged. It “is a very blunt instrument and has attracted justified criticism and calls for legislative reform,” the judge said. He quoted no less than David Mullan, a professor in administrative law and Toronto’s first integrity commissioner, who six years ago told city council that “it is simply Byzantine to have a regime under which the only way of dealing legally with conflict of interest in a municipal setting is by way of an elector making an application to a judge and where the principal and mandatory penalty…is the sledgehammer of an order that the member’s office is vacated.” Had Judge Hackland been looking for an out — to address what he pretty plainly agrees is a bad law — his best bet was Section 4 (k) of the statute, which says that removal doesn’t apply if the pecuniary interest “is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.” Gary Clement / National Post But the judge found that what the Mayor said at that meeting where he shouldn’t even have been speaking revealed “his pecuniary interest…was of significance to him” and the 4 (k) exemption didn’t apply. What Mr. Ford said was this: “And if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask that I pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone; the money has been spent on football equipment.” (I’d argue that it’s just as reasonable to interpret that as the sputtering and clumsy protest of a man who was bewildered how doing something good had turned so bad.) Thus did the judge join Paul Magder (the citizen who complained) and Clay Ruby (Mr. Magder’s lawyer) in using an elephant gun of a statute on a flea of a misdemeanor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.thestar.c...ford-s-downfall Yup, It was a life-long Union leftist activist that started this. Actually, Rob Ford started this. Do keep up. I agree Ford should have been fined or reprimanded but NOT stripped of his mayoralship.. He was democratically elected and this law is simply an affront to democracy. The law should be changed. But that has nothing to do with Ford's guilt, his arrogance and his ignorance of the fundamental rules that govern how you run a city government. Too add... Ford has saved Millions of dollars and stuck to his word... It does hurt the left in sure but he was elected IN on those promisses.. Stuborn and pig-headed yes... But doing his job Not really. Ford hasn't had a real legislative win in more than a year. he was beaten on his budget, thumped on transit and since has spent more time coaching football and appearing in court than attending to the business of the city. Was Bill Clinto stripped of his Presidancy for BJ's in Office?? Is getting a BJ in office against the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 From the Blatch article above: The Mayor did, notoriously, vote for a motion that rescinded the order to repay. As the judge said, his speaking and voting “was far from the most serious breach,” but removal is mandatory unless the breach was inadvertent or by reason of an error in judgment. A little contrition and humility would have saved Ford's bacon here. He got what he had coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 From the Blatch article above: A little contrition and humility would have saved Ford's bacon here. He got what he had coming. I think that was an "error in judgement"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I think that was an "error in judgement"! Ford didn't. And as a result, he's out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Listening to an interview with Union boss Sid Ryan, by no means a Ford Fan, defending Ford. He compared what happened yesterday as Capital Punishment for a Traffic Offense. I'd have to agree. He also thinks the move to remove him this way could be a strategic error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 This move will simply "unite the right".... There are A-LOT of very upset people in Toronto right now. This has simply exposed the powers that want to continue with waste and self preservavtion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Technically it was. But what decision hurt the public more? once politicians are held accountable in court for their bad decisions that will matter right now they aren't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 It gets rid of Ford but it doesn't eliminate the sentiment that allowed him to get elected. If Doug Holliday gets named interim mayor, much of Ford's agenda will remain the same. If there's a Bi-Election who'll run? Apparently Rob can't but Doug can. Will Olivia fast-track her apparently mayoral aspirations? What about Adam Vaughan? It'll be very interesting to see how things go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 With comments from Olivia Chow like the below, the patern of waste will be exposed... Toronto voted for fiscal competance last time... and will again.. Perhaps, most telling is Olivia Chow’s reaction to questions about their spending, as reported by the Toronto Star: “It’s within the law,” Chow snapped when asked why they both bill for accommodation while in Ottawa.” (Nov. 6, 2010. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/887101--layton-and-chow-the-million-dollar-power-couple) I would like to see Doug Holliday run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 This move will simply "unite the right".... There are A-LOT of very upset people in Toronto right now. This has simply exposed the powers that want to continue with waste and self preservavtion... Anyone who was outraged by this would probably have voted for Ford regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I've heard Olivia has a lot of stuff people can use against her in an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.