Toronto Mayor Rob Ford - Guilty

[Jabba 18389]

A breaking news story:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/25/toronto-ford-conflict-case-decision-release.html

 

Toronto has had interesting Mayors; Ottawa has had it's fair share too. Not throwing rocks, but this sounds like a major administrative pain for city council!

 

Gotta have some major chuztpah to run for office. Don't think I have the stones.

[roamingguy 300291]

And now he apologizes

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/rob-ford-apologizes-for-actions-in-conflict-case-1

I don't think he's really sorry, more like sorry he got caught and convicted.

The apology, that's his opening statement for his re-election campaign

Call me cynical

RG

[canuckhooker 19202]

Like him or hate him, you have to think the ruling and punishment are a little over the top. He was elected with a huge majority in Toronto, and now a judge and a former councilor who didn't like his politics have had him removed.

 

He may have done wrong in the letter of the law, but he gets punished for using his office to raise less than $5,000 for disadvantaged youth? He gets removed from office, while a crook like Fontana stays, after having the taxpayers pay substantially more than that for his son's wedding? While McGuinty walks away with his pension, unscathed after spending millions of taxpayers dollars in nothing more than a crass partisan effort to buy votes?

 

I hope the appeal court gets it right.

[baileydog 9367]

the law is the law is the law

 

the rules are clear

 

and while the judge did say that in his opinion the punishment was too severe, he had to apply the rules

 

if Mayor Ford was not involved in other court cases (like being sued for libel) and had not shown a consistent disregard for the rules over the last two years, I might feel different, but as it is, I believe he deserves what he got

[Guest Ou**or**n]

he gets punished for using his office to raise less than $5,000 for disadvantaged youth?

 

---> Haha, your name got edited by the potty mouth filter

 

No, he was found guilty of conflict of interest when he voted as to whether he personally should pay back the amount owing. To me that is a pretty clear conflict of interest as his own vote could of decided whether he personally paid $3,200. The chair even warned him it was a conflict of interest.

 

The law is quite clear that the punishment was his removal from office.

 

I would have hated to see judicial activism had the judge ruled any differently or not applied the law.

 

Whether the law is correct or just is another matter. I don't think it is but I also don't think the new federal laws on growing six or more marijuana plants are illegal is fair either. However I do respect that it is currently the law.

[PhantomKnight 7914]

If you think this is messed up. Look at who this government is giving Queens Diamond Jubilee medals too. People who are in jail are receiving them. Sigh.

[Onelongfinger 148]

Like him or hate him, you have to think the ruling and punishment are a little over the top. He was elected with a huge majority in Toronto, and now a judge and a former councilor who didn't like his politics have had him removed.

 

He may have done wrong in the letter of the law, but he gets punished for using his office to raise less than $5,000 for disadvantaged youth? He gets removed from office, while a crook like Fontana stays, after having the taxpayers pay substantially more than that for his son's wedding? While McGuinty walks away with his pension, unscathed after spending millions of taxpayers dollars in nothing more than a crass partisan effort to buy votes?

 

I hope the appeal court gets it right.

 

I think the legal system worked in this case. I don't want to see rallies and appeals to have someone that is guilty let off. There is no left agenda here. The facts speaks for itself.

 

As for other politicians that is found to have committed a crime, I hope they are found guilty too.

 

It is about time that politicians do not think they are above the law. Many politicians forgot their job is to serve the public and the country. It is not for them to take as much as they can from the country.

[bcguy42 38594]

Add me to the group of people who are bemused by the reaction to this verdict.

 

Specifically, by the reaction that runs along the lines of "this guy was elected by the people of Toronto. It is not right that an un-elected person removes him from office".

 

The judge did not remove him from office.

 

Ford effectively removed himself when he entered - against advice from legal council - into a position of conflict of interest. The judge simply verified that Ford had done this.

 

The judge then handed down the penalty prescribed by law.

 

The whole elected - un-elected thing has nothing to do with it.

 

And whether the judge was left, right, green or rhino had nothing to do with it either.

 

And, as noted, it had nothing to do with the money. It had everything to do with his participation and vote regarding an issue that directly had to do with him.

[Athos 108589]

Add me to the group of people who are bemused by the reaction to this verdict.

 

Specifically, by the reaction that runs along the lines of "this guy was elected by the people of Toronto. It is not right that an un-elected person removes him from office".

 

The judge did not remove him from office.

 

Ford effectively removed himself when he entered - against advice from legal council - into a position of conflict of interest. The judge simply verified that Ford had done this.

 

The judge then handed down the penalty prescribed by law.

 

The whole elected - un-elected thing has nothing to do with it.

 

And whether the judge was left, right, green or rhino had nothing to do with it either.

 

And, as noted, it had nothing to do with the money. It had everything to do with his participation and vote regarding an issue that directly had to do with him.

 

I have to agree. the elected - unelected debate is a red herring. We have to remember that the rule of law is fundamental to a democracy, and at the end of the day it has to be judges that enforce it. The minute those who make the laws, are not subject to them, we have forfeited any right to be called a democracy. The law may be an ass, but it has to apply to elected officials, as much as it applies to you and me. And this is especially so when there are specific laws enacted to govern the behaviour of our elected officials.

 

The judge absolutely did the right thing. If the judge had prohibited Ford from running in the next election, as he had the discretion to do under the legislation, I think his decision would have been very undemocratic. But now the voters can have their say as to whether they agree with the decision in the next election.

 

Porthos

[Guest **zz**x]

Yes - the rule of law has to be above the "the rule of the people" or you get mob governance and corruption. That is why we have a constitution.

 

Of course, if the people vote for a new Mayor (e.g. Doug Ford?) they can also elect to change laws like this but you don't justifying ignoring laws because the person breaking the law was apparently doing a "good thing". That is a recipe for chaos. And... who decides what is good or bad?

 

The worst part of all this, beside the fact Mayor Ford is a top of class buffoon, is the pattern of his behaviour (i.e. treating city buses as personal property, assaulting reporters, using the tools of city government to advance personal causes, reading while driving and disregarding basic administrative rules of government), demonstrates a view that he is above the laws or, in fact, a law onto himself.

 

Toronto faces major challenges of government and the previous administration seemed to be obsessed with minutiae but that is no reason to toss the reigns of power over to an individual that treats government as his personal playground.