Rob Ford has been removed as mayor

[Justin]

Honestly, mods, I'm actually quite flabbergasted that he keeps calling me stupid.  I thought personal attacks against other members were against the rules (although if he knows the rules, he's showing a willful blindness towards it ).

Does throwing a private party for family and friends fall under any of these categories?

Yes

-Enhance and promote a harmonious community in their wards.

The thing is, by saying "family and friends," you're implying that 30 people showed up.  Yes, it wasn't open to the public as in anyone can show up - it's an enclosed space.  But he had his supporters and volunteers from his riding there.  I can't remember exactly, but I think about 300 people attended...about the size of a large wedding...hmm...which typically costs around anywhere from $15,000 - $30,000 (although someone let me know if it's more...I'm planning on getting married soon. )  Although the event was his "retirement party," it was about him thanking his community and his supporters for making him Councillor for 19 years.  Let's say he only spent $5000 or $6000.  Would you be okay with it then?

And again, I don't think this makes me "stupid."  It just means I have different priorities.  Honestly, although he would never do it, if Rob Ford at the end of his term decided to throw himself a retirement party after being Councillor for 10 years and mayor for 4 or 8 or whatever (although, I think 15 years is the threshold for a "retirement party," but that's just me), I would be okay with it.  I can see why people on both sides of the political spectrum would disagree with it.  And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  I believe someone who has served me and my riding for a long time has the right to celebrate their career, much like most people do in the private sector.

Anyways, speculating on whether a person on the right would have done the same thing if the Mayor was on the left is a useless exercise of no merit.

No it's not - you're painting an entire portion of the population as scheming con-artists based on their political beliefs, when there are scheming con-artists on every side of the Political spectrum.  Don't act like one of them is devoid and would never do anything wrong (Bev Oda says hi again).

Matlow voted with Ford 36% of the time in 2011 and 30% of the time in 2012. That is pretty low, the lowest percentage of anyone considered part of the "middle" at City Hall, and a disappointing number for someone I was impressed with when they got elected.

So just to clarify, when Matlow votes WITH Ford = he's right.
When he votes AGAINST Ford = he's wrong, dissapointing, stupid too maybe?

How about what his constituents in his riding?  Did you stop to think that's he's voting based on what THEY want?  They might agree with Ford in some areas, they might disagree in others.  In fact, I'd say he's doing the right thing by not following the Mayor all the time and voting based on what his constituents think.

Oh louisstamos, I honestly laughed out loud when I read this. How stupid stubborn can you be to believe Kyle Rae's retirement party was a legitimate OFFICE BUDGET expense? It was a private invitation-only party to celebrate his retirement, not a community-oriented thank-you party for his supporters. The latter description would be more aptly served to describe Norm Kelly's public barbecue that you mentioned before. Are you naive?

Anyways, I'm not sure why you brought up Bev Oda again considering I already mentioned I hated her and am glad she's gone. She's no better than Rae. I'm not "painting an entire portion of the population as scheming con-artists based on their political beliefs," I am giving this description to those like Ruby and Magder who have been desperately trying to find a way to get Ford out of office before the election because they can't stomach the guy. Why do you think this "legal challenge" came up 2 years after the fact? Ruby and his gang were scouring for a way to stick it to Ford and finally found an out. As I said, there is nothing more blatantly politically motivated than what happened this week. It's pathetic.

So just to clarify, when Matlow votes WITH Ford = he's right.
When he votes AGAINST Ford = he's wrong, dissapointing, stupid too maybe?

Yes, in accordance with my political views this seems correct.

 

[dappleganger]

I am giving this description to those like Ruby and Magder who have been desperately trying to find a way to get Ford out of office before the election because they can't stomach the guy. Why do you think this "legal challenge" came up 2 years after the fact? Ruby and his gang were scouring for a way to stick it to Ford and finally found an out. As I said, there is nothing more blatantly politically motivated than what happened this week. It's pathetic.

It's hard to argue that there isn't some truth to that.

 

[Kin]

Why do you think this "legal challenge" came up 2 years after the fact?

This is just another flat-out falsehood. The legal challenge is related to Ford's actions at the council meeting in February 2012. The challenge was filed in March 2012. There was no delay.

 

[Justin]

Again, you are pure, unvarnished wrong. The Judge cannot make that ruling when it directly contradicts what the defendant says.

I am "pure, unvarnished wrong" you say? Sound more pompous, I dare you.

Why can't Hackland make a ruling that contradicted what Ford said? Considering the circumstances, which include a wildly unreasonable penalty and the consequences that would result from a removal of office, why can't Hackland declare an "error in judgement" on the case? Ford did make an error in judgement, didn't he?

No. Not when the "one man" is a judge and he removes a mayor from office on the basis that he clearly and admittedly violated provincial law that specifically says the judge has to vacate his seat if found guilty. It's a representative democracy, we get to vote in elections, we do not get to vote on court cases.

The bolded statement is true. Though, a reasonable person would have to admit that the right to vote and decide who's in office shouldn't be taken out of the hands of the people over such a minor infraction. This is what bothers me.

Your opinion contradicts the law. I'll stick with the law.

Through gauging public reaction of this it is safe to say that the majority of people agree with my opinion that Ford's punishment does not fit the crime.

 

[Kin]

I am "pure, unvarnished wrong" you say? Sound more pompous, I dare you.

Well, I could always call you stupid a bunch of times.

Why can't Hackland make a ruling that contradicted what Ford said? Considering the circumstances, which include a wildly unreasonable penalty and the consequences that would result from a removal of office, why can't Hackland declare an "error in judgement" on the case? Ford did make an error in judgement, didn't he?

Not according to Ford in the deposition. A judge's job is to hear arguments and uphold the law. It isn't to disregard arguments and unilaterally decide for himself what happened and decide if the law is proportionate.

You can't talk about respecting democracy in one breath and then seem to be in favour of judicial activism overruling laws passed by a provincial legislature.

The bolded statement is true. Though, a reasonable person would have to admit that the right to vote and decide who's in office shouldn't be taken out of the hands of the people over such a minor infraction. This is what bothers me.

Leaving aside that this ruling doesn't have anything to do with our right to vote, fine. Disagree with the law all you want. You are just wrong in stating that the judge misinterpreted the law or that his ruling betrays a political motivation. The judge was legally correct in his ruling and that's really all his job is.

Through gauging public reaction of this it is safe to say that the majority of people agree with my opinion that Ford's punishment does not fit the crime.

Even if that's true popular opinion does not supersede the rule of law.

 

[louisstamos]

Firstly:

So just to clarify, when Matlow votes WITH Ford = he's right.
When he votes AGAINST Ford = he's wrong, dissapointing, stupid too maybe?

Yes, in accordance with my political views this seems correct.

So basically "screw all the people who he's actually supposed to represent, if he doesn't agree with me/Rob Ford, YUCK!"

Oh louisstamos, I honestly laughed out loud when I read this. How stupid stubborn can you be to believe Kyle Rae's retirement party was a legitimate OFFICE BUDGET expense? It was a private invitation-only party to celebrate his retirement, not a community-oriented thank-you party for his supporters. The latter description would be more aptly served to describe Norm Kelly's public barbecue that you mentioned before. Are you naive?

This will be the last I'm discussing the Rae situation, because in the end, Rae's not on trial right now - Ford is.  Saying "But this person did something wrong too!" is as legitimate a defense as "the guy next to me was going faster than I was."  Sure, but you were still nonetheless breaking the law, and you were the one that got caught.

I have issues with what Rae did too - 1) I think he could have definitely been more frugal: $12,000 is excessive (although like I said...as someone who has planned a retirement party, they're not cheap) and 2) he should have opened it up to all his constituents, not just the people he invited because they were his volunteers/supporters/employees.  Even if he said "please RSVP, as due to space regulations, we can only accept the first 100 people," he should have at least given them the opportunity.  But like I said, what he did is (arguably) immoral - not illegal.  If it was found to be outside the realm of his office expenses, he could have been ordered to pay it back, much like Ford was ordered to pay the $3150 back!  But he wasn't.

In the end, like I said, if Norm Kelly retires at the end of this term, and wants to throw himself a retirement party, I'm okay with that.  Because he's earned it by representing me and my neighbors in city council for what will be the last 22 years.  And while I have to pay nearly $200 in property taxes a month on top of the over 30% I already pay in income tax - after 22 years, if Norm wants to use $0.10 that he's collected from me and everyone else in his district to throw himself a retirement party, I can live with that.  And he doesn't even have to invite me.  And I can see why people can disagree with me, and they have fair grounds to.  Those are just my beliefs and my priorities.

I am giving this description to those like Ruby and Magder who have been desperately trying to find a way to get Ford out of office before the election because they can't stomach the guy. Why do you think this "legal challenge" came up 2 years after the fact? Ruby and his gang were scouring for a way to stick it to Ford and finally found an out. As I said, there is nothing more blatantly politically motivated than what happened this week. It's pathetic.

And this is 100% true.  What I'm saying is, this was also true when Miller, Lastman, Hall, etc were mayors as well.  The exact same rules, the exact same standards, and (debate) the exact same scrutiny applied to them.  When you're at the top of the totem pole, the people who want to be at the top will knock you down by any means necessary.  But they didn't slip up (at least, not to the point of their seat being vacated).  Rob Ford did.  If Miller did the exact same thing, he would have been subject to the exact same rules, and there were politicians and lawyers who "couldn't stomach the guy" who would have attempted the exact same thing.  And if Miller did the exact same thing, he would have faced exact same punishment, because as Nik has been repeating - judges have to rule by standards set for them, and politics don't play into it.

I'll use a hockey example - Buffalo fans are still upset to this day about 1999.  Because the rule at the time was that you cannot be in the crease before the puck is, and it appeared that Brett Hull was.  Everyone agreed it was a stupid rule, and it was repealed that off-season.  But the fact of the matter was, it was still a rule at the time when the goal was scored and should have been enforced during that game, but wasn't.  Maybe in the end it wouldn't have mattered, maybe they would have lost game 7 anyways, but the point was that the rule wasn't properly enforced, and that's why Buffalo fans are upset.

Yes, the law needs to be reformed, I agree wholeheartedly with that.  I also agree with the notion that people are hounding Ford so tight that "he can't even pas gas in council without someone calling him out on it."  But this is the fact of the matter: Rob Ford knowingly broke a rule in which the punishment, at this time, was vacation of his seat as mayor.  This isn't a technicality, these are rules of what you can and cannot do in your position at City Hall.  What if Rob Ford's ford vote was the decisive one (i.e: the final vote was 22-21)?  That's why the rule was put into place - so politicians can't absolve/pardon themselves in matters that pertain to them.  This whole situation probably makes us look at the rules/laws, but during the time when this happened, the judge acted exactly as he was supposed to.

If when city clerk said "Rob, if you vote you'll be found in conflict of interest," Ford simply said "gotchya, I won't vote then" (especially considering he "won" the vote by a pretty wide margin), we wouldn't be in this mess right now, and all these lefty lawyers wouldn't have have any ammunition to take him down.


See you guys in the morning.   I don't drink coffee, but now I may have to start...

 

[TimKerr]

So just to clarify, when Matlow votes WITH Ford = he's right.
When he votes AGAINST Ford = he's wrong, dissapointing, stupid too maybe?

Yes, in accordance with my political views this seems correct.
[/quote]

I just want to make sure I have this correct. You don't care what the policy is just the person presenting the policy. If Ford presents it is good, if Miller presents it is bad.

I'll let Chris Rock explain the nonsense in this thinking (a little bit of saucy language):

"Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullsh*t Be a freaking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some stuff I'm conservative about, I've got some stuff I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!"

 

[Tigger]

very nice louisstamos, very nice

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Time to take a break from this for a little bit. If/when anything new comes from this situation we can start a new thread.