Canadian Cincinnatus

Who is the Strong Mayor Now?

"Unintended consequences" has become a buzz phrase lately, mostly used by left wing latte sippers.  It's an indication of a shift in power from left to right over the last few months, and Toronto's election of true conservative Rob Ford is the most dramatic example.

Four years ago David Miller won his second term with unprecidented powers, bestowed upon him by Ontario's libreral premier, Dalton McGuinty, who felt Toronto's mayor needed to be a "strong mayor," with powers like the mayor of New York, the power to push through a socialist (oops, I mean "progessive") agenda without needing the support of right wing councillors.

I warned friends, especially socialist friends, about the danger here: what if a right wing mayor were elected?  Would they be happy then?  I was no fan of Miller, and I was trying to get them to understand how I felt about the City of Toronto Act and Miller's new powers, which allowed him to have an executive council of his socialist buddies, limit debate on the budget and shut right wing councillors out of city government, giving key positions only to his loyalists.

My socialist friends scoffed.  David Miller was going to be mayor for years, at least until he annoited a successor.  No right winger could ever win Toronto.

In their defense, I envisioned Doug Holiday, Case Oates or maybe Denzil Minnan-wong coming to power.  Even I didn't see that the left's arch-nemisis, favorite council punching bag, and the man endlessly ridiculed by the Toronto Star could ever come to power.

But now Rob Ford is the strong mayor with power that McGuinty and the socialists unwittingly endowed him with.  He has already shut out the downtown socialist from his executive, and while the left wing councilors point out that Rob Ford is only one vote on council, they are quietly cringing that they gave him the power to corall many votes without the need to compromise.  The unintended consequences of the City of Toronto Act make it clear that it is a mistake to increase the power of government to support a particular ideology.  Governments must be contained and constrained.

I'm delighted about the election and Rob Ford's strong mayor powers, of course.  Rob will be able to fundamentally change the way the city works, and I'm looking forward to that.  But I'd still like to see the end of the City of Toronto Act, because I prefer it when the mayor has to build a consensus, something Miller always talked about but never bothered to achieve.

Unlike my socialist friends four years ago, I can see that a pendulum swings.  Rob Ford has more staying power than David Miller, of that I'm sure, but stuff happens.  One day, unexpectedly, a socialist mayor will be voted in, probably disguising himself as a centrist.  I don't want him to be a strong mayor.  I want him to have to include the right wing councillors.

But for now: Go, Rob, Go!

Mike Downtown

Am I being slandered by a lefty blogger?

The left-wing blogger Canadian Cynic posted this item on his blog, his response to this item of mine about the Obama – joker poster. The racist quote he attributes to be is entirely made up by him. My readers know I said no such thing and I certainly had no contact with him. I think this “quote” could even be characterized as an outright lie. His post is entitled "Racism, What Racism?" Evidently, the answer to his questions is that the only racism is that which is coming out of his imagination. My question to you is this: do you think his misrepresentation of me constitute slander as understood by the law.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, slander is “false report maliciously uttered to person’s injury” and “defame falsely”. Consider the evidence:

His post consists of a racist quote falsely attributed to me. Now he might claim it to be political satire, which would be fine except that nowhere in his post does he make it clear to his readers that he made it all up. I know that the quote is false but I think a case can be made that a reasonable person perusing his post might conclude that this false quote was taken from my post, or that it came from private communication between us. And unless his reader reads my post in its entirely they might erroneously conclude that my post was in some way about race.

This false impression is aided not only by the fact that his screen capture of my original post is done in such a way that my stated reasons for liking the Obama – joker poster are invisible. Given that my post did not mention Obama’s race, anybody else’s race or references race as a topic in any way, even tangentially, one might even conclude that Mr. Cynic is deliberately misleading his reader about my writings for the purpose of defaming me.

What do you think?