Advocate Jan 2014

Recommendations

Info

14 VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY <strong>2014</strong> THE ADVOCATE it is the responsibility of Council to address, and act on the basis of, facts relevant to the merits of the question before it for decision, and not make such decisions on the basis of speculation, or extraneous or irrelevant allegations. 6 During the very council meetings devoted to the serious question of whether the council could sanction the mayor for his admitted criminal behaviour and ever-escalating bizarre conduct, Ford intimidated at least one council member (standing menacingly in front of him and not allowing him to pass), actively taunted members of the public (getting his newly appointed driver to videotape the public gallery while the mayor and his brother, councillor Doug Ford, yelled at members of the public), made outrageous hand gestures designed to taunt other members of council and charged wildly across the council floor. Who needed speculative or extraneous evidence in these circumstances? The principles of the bylaw under consideration state: (1) The majority of members have the right to decide; (2) The minority of members have the right to be heard; (3) All members have the right to information to help make decisions, unless otherwise prevented by law; (4) Members have a right to an efficient meeting; (5) All members have the right to be treated with respect and courtesy; and (6) All members have equal rights, privileges and obligations. How, then, can a majority of members exercising a right to amend a bylaw after the minority is given an opportunity to be heard be said to be participating in a coup d’état? The notion is, like most of what Rob Ford says, complete nonsense. Sir Winston Churchill famously noted that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. Less commonly quoted is his preface to that statement, namely that “no one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise”. Rob Ford is apparently that no one. Not only is he prepared to pretend democracy is perfect and all wise but also that its very foundation is at jeopardy because he smoked crack cocaine and the majority of Toronto City Council decided to do something about it. Any imperfections in the process adopted by the majority of members of council (a huge majority, in fact) to strip an out-of-control mayor from causing further embarrassment and harm to the city he is duty bound to serve must surely be in the interests of the city. Ford was not elected to break the law or to be a vulgar idiot unable to function at a basic level of decency. Any argument that council stepped onto a slippery slope to under-
THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY <strong>2014</strong> 15 mine the wishes of the electorate is surely more absurd than the problematic and disruptive behaviours exhibited by the mayor. Ford was given every opportunity to take some time off, reinvent himself and return a transformed man. 7 Instead, he chose to sink to deeper levels of depravity, none of which needed to be proven in court. Most of it was either admitted or selfevident, and the bulk of it played out either on the council floor or live on television. “I’ve changed the culture down here,” Rob Ford boasted in an interview shortly after being stripped of most of his budget and staff, leaving only his ceremonial duties intact; “You don’t hear about the scandals any more.” The merchant seaman whose reference letter started this piece used to say “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.” One can only hope that Ford Nation heeds that call. ENDNOTES 1. Sadly, we must leave for another day the unfolding scandal surrounding the Senate and the Prime Minister’s Office, except to pose the same general question. 2. SO 2006, c 11. 3. Ibid, s 133. 4. Ibid, s 134. 5. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, c 27, Council Procedure. 6. George Rust-D’Eye, barrister and solicitor, letter to Toronto City Council (15 November 2013), online: . 7. Cue William Shatner. t t t t t
Page 1 and 2: THE ADVOCATE JANUARY 2014 VOL. 72 P
Page 3 and 4: THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 7 and 8: THE ADVOCATE “Of interest to the
Page 15: THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 67 and 68:
THE ADVOCATE VOL. 72 PART 1 JANUARY
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Because not everyone is this lucky.
show all

Advocate Jan 2014

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?