Rob Ford Turfed ?

[Black Dog]

Ignores nothing. The entire issue should have been just simply dropped. That it was pushed was clearly for political agenda, and not because of the very minor issue which even the judge blasted.

So you think laws should be enforced not on the basis of whether a law was broken, but based on the motivations of those involved and the harm done?

I'm not denying he was breaking a law, I simply maintain that the pursuant actions were unnecessary UNLESS you had an agenda and this picayune issue served your purpose.

So you;re not denying he broke the law you just don't care that he did. Nice.

Just dropping it in council was the right thing to do since there was no untoward purpose in Ford's fund raising of a few dollars as he did.

Except that soliciting donations from lobbyists is the kind of shady quid pro quo dealings that conflict of interest laws were made to prevent.

The cowardly stench is attached to whoever made this an unnecessary cause celebre over a issue of peanuts and good intention.

It may have been politically motivated and the amount insignificant, but this trial showed the real cut of Ford's jib: a man completely, blissfully and proudly ignorant of the law and of how government works. A bully and an ignoramus, quick to point fingers and fling accusations of wrongdoing at others, completely unaware of his own faults. We are well shot of him.

[guyser]

Where did i disagree with what Ford walked into.

Where did I say you disagreed?

[Guest Peeves]

So you think laws should be enforced not on the basis of whether a law was broken, but based on the motivations of those involved and the harm done?

In such a' no victim, no fault, no untoward gain.as this..yes I doit isn't the first time, look at Hazel's example.

So you;re not denying he broke the law you just don't care that he did. Nice.

Correct, and I care I simply see the offensive political agenda is worse than the offense.

Except that soliciting donations from lobbyists is the kind of shady quid pro quo dealings that conflict of interest laws were made to prevent.

That's hardly the issue is it.

It may have been politically motivated and the amount insignificant, but this trial showed the real cut of Ford's jib: a man completely, blissfully and proudly ignorant of the law and of how government works. A bully and an ignoramus, quick to point fingers and fling accusations of wrongdoing at others, completely unaware of his own faults. We are well shot of him.

It showed many of us that Ford like the rest of us have feet of clay, but that he was honest and stood openly in his defense. It more clearly shows just how far and how nasty some are willing to got to get Ford on any picayune matter.

[guyser]

No, I'm just looking it up now

Could have saved you some time.

It wasnt a hypocrite the likes of the furrier guy.

[guyser]

It showed many of us that Ford like the rest of us have feet of clay,

Au contraire, it shows HE and he alone have feet of clay, and a brain to match

but that he was honest and stood openly in his defense.

Knock yourself out, but most people are openly admitting that Ford was the idiot here. And just what was honest about his trial? The fact that he blatantly ignored reading through the CoI act?

The fact that he didnt think it pertained to him?

I suppose thats honest, but I can assure that willful ignorance was his downfall.

It more clearly shows just how far and how nasty some are willing to got to get Ford on any picayune matter.

No, how about it shows just how stupid he is.

Why is this so hard ?

Edited November 27, 2012 by guyser

[guyser]

Heres a re-cap for those with short memories.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/toronto-fired-the-greatest-mayor-of-all-time

Kinda scathing report, rather funny though.

I forgot all about the purple colour people Rob talked about this past summer, not to mention Winnipeg and Windsor (or was it Detroit) are close to each other

Oh yeah, quality Mensa candidate here.

Edited November 27, 2012 by guyser

[cybercoma]

In my mind and in that of many others, the punishment doesn't fit the NO CRIME!

http://fullcomment.n...tie-blatchford/

Christie Blatchford for some stupid reason doesn't seem to recognize that Ford was removed by a democratically created piece of legislation, passed by Queen's Park and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Her argument that Ford's removal was an affront to democracy shows she has less than a high-school understanding of our legal system.

[guyser]

Christie Blatchford for some stupid reason doesn't seem to recognize that Ford was removed by a democratically created piece of legislation, passed by Queen's Park and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Her argument that Ford's removal was an affront to democracy shows she has less than a high-school understanding of our legal system.

Actually CB she does. SHe says as much as that.

Now, she does go off on a tangent for unknown reasons, and I have no idea why she would .

She quotes the Judge and how he couldnt let Ford off because of Fords own words. Basically she agrees with the decision but cant say as much.

[cybercoma]

How many laws are there in Canada, how many content can you tell me? Most people don't know, even just the number. If people don't know it, how do you know if they support or object it?

Because we have a representative democracy and their representatives voted for it. It doesn't matter what they personally support and oppose because we do not have direct democracy.

For the "democratically elected representatives", we all know those people are there just because voters thought their rivals are even worse.

So what? There's a process for establishing a legitimate government. Those that win the seats are there because there is a legitimate exchange of power.

How can those people "represent" you?

By getting the most votes in your riding. Then your MLA (or MPP in Ontario) has a constituency office for you to address your concerns. If you don't contact them about things, then you leave the responsibility of your representative to make the best decision on your behalf.

Seriously, this is really basic stuff. This is the fundamentals of our political system. How do you not understand this?

How many laws they passed each year, how many did they ask for your opinion?

You're free to give your opinion on any of the laws passed. Keep in mind that we do not have direct democracy, but rather representative democracy. You vote for someone and they make decisions on behalf of the entire constituency. Don't like the decisions they make? Vote for someone different next time around. The fact still remains that the representative that gets the most support ends up representing the entire constituency.

how many do you know exactly what is the purpose, what is the side-effect, what is the risk when it is abused? How many people know that? When someone try to use those laws, that you have no idea when and for what the law is there for who's interest, to attack you, you are always going to be said to break it which represent yourself. "Democracy"? just a beautiful joke.

You have a better system?

[WWWTT]

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.

From my understanding it is up to Toronto councilors.

In other words kiss goodbye any opportunity to a right winger taking over Fords job.

WWWTT

[jacee]

Heard on tv

To those who think I should have done this differently ... ... I sincerely apologize.

If Rob Ford set out to challenge what appears to be too blunt a hammer of punishment in the MCIA, he may yet do a good job.

Unfortunately he just blundered into it.

He/they cannot use taxpayer resources to raise money for private endeavours, charitable or otherwise, selecting personal pet projects not vetted for receipt of taxpayer help.

And Rob Ford voted for his own monetary benefit, to not pay back money raised on the public dime for a pet project.

He did wrong.

Maybe the appeal court will amend the punishments?

I think he'll get an appeal and a stay of removal from office.

So effectively the judgement is just window dressing, and maybe it's having it's intended effect of humbling Ford ... a tiny bit.

[Wilber]

I don't follow Toronto politics but just looking at this incident, all I can say is Wow! If you think someone is out to get you, why not pin a great big target on your chest and hand them a gun. What a bonehead.

[cybercoma]

maybe it's having it's intended effect of humbling Ford ... a tiny bit.

Fat chance.

[Fletch 27]

And now there is a Christy Blatford attack... Yes, you armchair lefties must be waaaay more in tune with politics and law than she.... Armchair all right.....

[cybercoma]

That's because Blatchford made a stupid and flawed argument that deserves to be attacked. Somehow she thinks democratically created laws are undemocratic. There's nothing intelligent about that.

[wyly]

blatchford has fletch convinced so what does that say about him....laws can't be ignored and I understand what this law is about, it's there for good reason...

[bjre]

How many laws are there in Canada, how many content can you tell me? Most people don't know, even just the number. If people don't know it, how do you know if they support or object it?

Because we have a representative democracy and their representatives voted for it. It doesn't matter what they personally support and oppose because we do not have direct democracy.

For the "democratically elected representatives", we all know those people are there just because voters thought their rivals are even worse.

So what? There's a process for establishing a legitimate government. Those that win the seats are there because there is a legitimate exchange of power.

How can those people "represent" you?

By getting the most votes in your riding. Then your MLA (or MPP in Ontario) has a constituency office for you to address your concerns. If you don't contact them about things, then you leave the responsibility of your representative to make the best decision on your behalf.

Seriously, this is really basic stuff. This is the fundamentals of our political system. How do you not understand this?

I did not deny there is a process. What I said is the people selected through the process can not represent most people, they represent a small interest group, their party. The government itself is a interest group. Ford lowered the office expense of this interest group when economy was in bad condition and lots of people lost their jobs. That is the true reason the interest group want him leave office, they don't represent the people who give votes, they represent themselves.

How many laws they passed each year, how many did they ask for your opinion?

You're free to give your opinion on any of the laws passed. Keep in mind that we do not have direct democracy, but rather representative democracy. You vote for someone and they make decisions on behalf of the entire constituency. Don't like the decisions they make? Vote for someone different next time around. The fact still remains that the representative that gets the most support ends up representing the entire constituency.

Yes, I have the freedom to give opinion (outside the forbidden areas laws (such as hate crime) do not allow), but that can not change anything.

Most laws were passed when most people don't have attention, and some are even with cheating like bundled with other bills, or bundle items with other items, or after cheating misleading media campaigns. Laws can be passed even most people object it, like Ontario's Bill 13 which giving implicit legislative support for prejudice against minority, religious and cultural groups; promoting a uniformity of understanding and making Ontarians’ school choices meaningless; ostracizing many who are equally committed to the cause, in forcing the acceptance of one anti-bullying approach on all schools; using an anti-bullying bill to bully some Ontarians into relinquishing their parental responsibilities and constitutional rights ( http://www.thestar.c...rts-to-bullying ) ( http://www.cbc.ca/ne...t-alliance.html )

So the point is, the "representatives" do not represent most people, they represent only the interest of their own small group.

how many do you know exactly what is the purpose, what is the side-effect, what is the risk when it is abused? How many people know that? When someone try to use those laws, that you have no idea when and for what the law is there for who's interest, to attack you, you are always going to be said to break it which represent yourself. "Democracy"? just a beautiful joke.

You have a better system?

Although I have many ideas (I have posted some, like I said we need not any representative, we need to vote on each law item by internet http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19262&st=45#entry699168 ), I have no money to do experiments. And in Canada, we might even don't have the freedom to do such experiment because of those existing ridiculers laws which are there without even a debug process because the real purpose of lots of laws are for the interest of small groups instead of most people.

Edited November 28, 2012 by bjre

[Fletch 27]

blatchford has fletch convinced so what does that say about him....laws can't be ignored and I understand what this law is about, it's there for good reason...

I dont even LIKE her... And i agree with nothing of her position other than the agreement with a flawed law (or repercussion)...

Bladow! HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[Black Dog]

Heard on tv

To those who think I should have done this differently ... ... I sincerely apologize.

Leaving aside the fact he doesn't actually apologize for his offense (only for how he handled it), this is fairly typical Ford.

1) Screw up

2) Get busted

3) Get mad, deny everything

4) Backpedal, act contrite

Repeat.

[cybercoma]

bjre, your MP, MPP, MLA, and City Councillor represents all of their constituents. They don't represent solely their party's interests. That's the problem with Canadian democracy today. Too many people playing teams, when the fact of the matter is that this is a representative democracy. You vote for a representative that you want to make these decisions for you. It's the best method for a valid exchange of power and it gives them legitimate authority to do so. You don't get to directly decide policy yourself. It would be impossible to manage. Your argument is that it's not democracy unless every single person gets to vote on every single piece of legislation and for every single penny spent by government. That's absurd and unworkable and in any case doesn't make our system any less democratic. People voted for their MPPs (democratic process) and those MPPs voted on legislation (yet another democratic process). The judge that tried Ford was appointed by the Prime Minister, who is only in place due to the democratic process and the will of the electorate that the Conservatives the government. In no way whatsoever was Ford removed undemocratically. Only someone that is completely ignorant of the way our government and judiciary works could make such an argument.

Edited November 28, 2012 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Leaving aside the fact he doesn't actually apologize for his offense (only for how he handled it), this is fairly typical Ford.

1) Screw up

2) Get busted

3) Get mad, deny everything

Yup

4) Backpedal, act contrite

Really? When?

I must have missed that.

[jacee]

In no way whatsoever was Ford removed undemocratically.

Absolutely true.

And if the penalty imposed by the law is deemed too harsh, then the law can be changed democratically too, via legislation.

[Black Dog]

A compelling case for why the punishment wasn't too harsh.

People seem to be recoiling from the decision for exactly the reason it is so welcome: because it imposes genuine, meaningful accountability, something of regrettable rarity. As a result of his violation of the Act, Ford was levied with an actual measurable consequence. It is instructive to compare Rob Ford’s punishment with another decision released the same day, which garnered considerably less attention. In July 2011, Ontario Justice Howard Chisvin, in what might charitably be called a fit of pique because he was unhappy that a prosecutor was late returning from an adjournment, dismissed all proceedings against a number of individuals, including some who had already been adjuged guilty. In short, he literally let convicted criminals walk free from the courtroom with no punishment whatsoever. The Ontario Court of Appeal called his actions “illegal and an abuse of judicial authority”. Considerable resources had to be expended by the justice system to ensure that those who had been improperly set free by Chisvin were recalled and punished in a manner befitting their crimes. Justice Chisvin was subsequently the subject of an Ontario Judicial Council disciplinary hearing. The panel found that Chisvin’s decision that day had a “detrimental effect on public confidence in the administration of justice”. His “punishment” consisted solely of a verbal reprimand.

If an injustice occurred on November 26 it was not because Rob Ford was punished too harshly, but because such meaningful punishments are so rare, especially for those who wield significant authority.

[The_Squid]

...it imposes genuine, meaningful accountability, something of regrettable rarity.

I completely agree and wish that this type of legislation applied to other levels of government as well. The fact that a Provincial or Federal politicians can get away with worse things is not a case against Ford's punishment, but an indictment of the lack of consequences for the others.

[bjre]

bjre, your MP, MPP, MLA, and City Councillor represents all of their constituents. They don't represent solely their party's interests. That's the problem with Canadian democracy today. Too many people playing teams, when the fact of the matter is that this is a representative democracy. You vote for a representative that you want to make these decisions for you. It's the best method for a valid exchange of power and it gives them legitimate authority to do so. You don't get to directly decide policy yourself. It would be impossible to manage. Your argument is that it's not democracy unless every single person gets to vote on every single piece of legislation and for every single penny spent by government. That's absurd and unworkable and in any case doesn't make our system any less democratic. People voted for their MPPs (democratic process) and those MPPs voted on legislation (yet another democratic process). The judge that tried Ford was appointed by the Prime Minister, who is only in place due to the democratic process and the will of the electorate that the Conservatives the government. In no way whatsoever was Ford removed undemocratically. Only someone that is completely ignorant of the way our government and judiciary works could make such an argument.

Is this kind of "democracy process" ultimate goal? If it is, why? can it be eaten like food, can it be wear like dress, can it be live in like house? or can it be driven like a car?

If it is not the ultimate goal, is it a means, a method for something else? is it for reflecting most people's want and will? If this is true, can current system meet this requirement? If a law that most people object can be passed, if there are many laws passed every year that most people did not know and possibly against most people's interest, can such a system meet its requirement? can such a system work as designed? in such case, what is the difference between this system and dictator system?