« Health and safety at a government-owned oil refinery | Main | Another attack on our most basic right: the right to self-defence »

September 06, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ford is in court not cause of a grant, this has nothing to do with a grant, PERIOD. The actual events deal with Ford debating and voting on a motion to overturn the IC requirement for him to repay the ~$3100. City Council rules clear state a councillor or Mayor can not be involved in a debate or vote on an issue that directly effect them financially.

As for your last point, you actually have to have legal grounds to attempt this, in the Ford cause, regardless of politics, there is clear legal grounds for this challenge.


You remind me of the Republicans who argued vociferously during the Monica Lewinsky scandal that the case was not about adultery but perjury, which of course it was - technically.

But the public didn't buy it because they saw that these legalistic arguments were simply a cover for a partisan attack against a man they couldn't beat honestly.

The Republicans lost that political war because, in the heat of the battle, they forgot the bigger picture - i.e. the political argument about the preferred direction of the country.

You people in the anti-Ford left are operating in a similar partisan bubble. This means that regardless of how the courtroom verdict pans out for Ford, you will forfeit the hearts and minds of the Toronto voters for the same reason.

They will recognize your arguments for what they are: specious, conniving and dishonest.

P.S. I wonder how many municipal politicians currently have conflicts of interest with regard to the municipal labour unions and/or land developers who donate to their campaigns - real conflicts of interest that have real repercussions on the life of their communities? Hmmmm.


First to state it is over a "Grant" that never existed, now it is about "legalistic arguments were simply a cover for a partisan attack". Which is it?

Either way, Ford took part in a debate and voted on an issue that effect him directly and financially. No matter how you slice it, that is against the rules, and his defence that he never read the rules will not cut it.

As for your last point, the actions of others is not an excuse for Ford breaking, ignoring and being willing ignorant or the rules. That argument is usually followed an unfavourable ruling from the courts.


Just as a resort to the courts follows an unfavourable electoral ruling.


The (all democrats) district attorneys office in Milwaukee WI (who's lawyers had all signed the recall petitions) are still trying to work mayhem with a "John Doe" investigation (i.e. fishing expedition) against Gov. Walker, offering leaks galore which later turn out to be more fantasy than factual.


I am sorry as I misunderstood the Ford case.

I had thought the matter was about a grant to Ford's children's football charity. I was mistaken. No public funding was involved. It was about private money going to a private charity, apparently having nothing to do with the City except that the solicitations for those donations were made on Rob Ford's official letterhead.


The issue isn't even about money. They want to overturn an election over letterhead!

Obviously Rob Ford should not have voted on the matter of having to pay the donors back out of his own pocket (even though the money did not go to him in the first place). That was wrong.

But it is quite clear that the Integrity Commissioner's proscription, requiring Ford to pay back money that didn't go to him in the first place, was wrong. And a judicial ruling that requires somebody to step down from office over such a trifling matter is not only wrong, but a violation of democracy.

I see now that the matter is worse than I first realized.


If Ford is removed from office by the court, the electorate will certainly punish whoever council puts in his place (the semantics of the arguments for and against Ford's removal will not be a factor). It would be the ultimate case of "jury nullification".

The only question will be, how many of the Councillors tied to this idiocy, will be defeated, come the next election.

Captain Zen

This isn't just about private money being given to Ford's provate charity... this is about Ford using city letter head to solicite money from Lobbyists and a company that does business with the city. The implication looks like he is asking for money so he'd be favourable towards the lobbyists. This is called a shake-down.

The IC asked for him to return the money to the lobbyists. Six times. Than she took it to council who voted that he had to give back the money... which Ford ignored until he was mayor and than had another vote to strike down council's former decision and forgive him his previous "mistake".

For all of you in Ford Nation, if the councillor was someone else, like Kyle Rae or David Miller, would you shrug and say "oh well", or would you demand that the law be upheld and the elected official be held accountable as per the dictates of the law?

All this is moot now that new allegations show the mayor has also perjured himself at his trial over his integrity. Apparently he's been using city staff to "volunteer" for his charity as well.

Frankly, if the mayor loves his charity so much (and he should, cause it's a worthy cause), he should be doing it full time and let a real mayor take over.


Actually, the reason I haven't posted about this stuff is this the the first I have heard of any of it.

While I certainly don't claim to be omnipotent, I gotta believe that if they had the real goods on Ford, they wouldn't be wasting time over trivialities like his football donations.

And the issue surrounding his football donations is what by post was about.


Apropos my earlier comment above, finally:


The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories