Normally I wouldn’t pay much mind to people like Mark Cidade, but since he has vowed to run for mayor in 2014, having withdrawn his 2010 bid, and since he decided to get into scraps on Facebook on a variety of topics ranging from poverty to health, I thought it’d be a good idea to preserve some of his insights here for posterity. When the 2014 election rolls around, I sure do hope these are dug up again. And no, none of them are taken out of context.

On why the poor don’t eat home-cooked meals

They have the ability. They just lazy!

So they are cooking-disabled? Is that a thing now all of a sudden? What’s the cure—more drugs?

On why people are poor

Everyone is responsible for their own actions but they are too weak to withstand temptation otherwise they wouldn’t be in that mess. None of them would be.

There are plenty of job opportunities but a lot of these people simply don’t want to work.

On mental health disorders

If you leave someone to their own devices, all symptoms vanish eventually.

On disability benefits

I was a trustee for a client who was on ODSP and this guy would not get his act together! People need role models not incentives.

[someone replied that “things are not that black and white”]

He was brown!

On cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and depression

Cancer, AIDS, and MS all go away with proper lifestyle choices.

[A stress-free lifestyle is] one of many cures. Not everyone is willing to be un-stressed, unfortunately. I cured my depression. It’s also stress and food related.

On the 2014 election

You don’t know who I am but I’m the next fucking mayor of this city, bitches!

On not winning the 2010 election

I LET him [Rob Ford] win the 2010 election to teach this city a lesson. Everything HE says is by de facto WRONG.

[posted on July 9, 2010] As of today I am officially out of the race—I withdrew my nomination due to health issues.

On Rob Ford

As Robert Ford steps down from his meat scale, women everywhere need to step up and work out!

On Giorgio Mammoliti’s single mother/casino comment

A single Mammy stands up for all single Mommies! Way to go, Georgio. Why don’t we build the casino on the Scarborough bluffs so they can throw their babies off it when some card counter causes a round of lay-offs?

On being accused of rape

People are saying blatantly slanderous things about me while no one says a peep. Would someone please defend me?

On women

Women are people, not objects! Sexy people. That play with sex objects….zzzzzzzzZZZZZZΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩʒʒʒʒʒʒʒʒʒʒʒɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟɟ少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林少林

* the photo at the top of this post isn’t exactly the most recent, but given the general tone of Mark’s comments, it seemed the most appropriate.

If only this were some sort of April fools joke. No doubt Harper et al consider this yet another reason to keep pushing unbridled dictatorship on us (did you know Lawful Access was back on the agenda again?) Now that I think of it, why isn’t the federal government designated a terrorist organization under these terms?

Along with terrorism and organized crime, “embarrassment to the Canadian government” was considered one of the threats facing security forces at the G8 and G20 summit meetings in Ontario 2010, according to newly released military records.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/10/embarrassment-to-the-canadian-government-considered-security-threat-at-toronto-g20-summit-documents

To be exact, he wants to bring back the death penalty.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that it is murder, is that it’s been shown time and again not to work as a deterrent.

Another problem is that this is being proposed by a man who has publicly stated that he doesn’t respect the law if it doesn’t meet with his own agenda. This is also the man who thought that a curfew for teens would somehow prevent them from going out and gunning down people.

A few of the other fantastic ideas emanating from that greasy melon Mammoliti calls his head include:

• Raging against licensing rub-n-tugs in the city while enthusiastically backing prostitution and hailing the benefits of gambling for single moms (not to mention Celine Dion coming to town!)
• Creating an open discussion page on Facebook in order to figure out how to ban Communists from any involvement at City Hall.
• Skulking around the annual Pride parade with a video camera, on behalf of Toronto’s Jews, in order to record the presence of the contentious Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group (deemed “hateful” because they criticize Israeli state policies).
• Pushing for increased police powers to arrest panhandlers and have them forcibly committed to hospitals and other institutions while simultaneously encouraging those same panhandlers to camp out in front of Queen’s Park to encourage more money to deal with the problem from the province. Or maybe this was his attempt to garner more provincial powers for the city?
• Pushing for bylaw officers to be equipped with guns in order to fight graffiti (on-the-spot capital punishment?).
• Removing basketball hoops from a neighbourhood because they attract crime and drug dealers.

I have to admit that banning plastic bags was a pretty idiotic move on the part of City Hall. I honestly don’t know of a single person, other than the councillors, who though this would be a good idea. It’s fair to say that nobody thought this one through — sure as heck didn’t consult with anyone or allow the people to be heard on the issue.

Which is why Rob Ford’s comments are especially insulting to all of Toronto:

“It’s the people’s fault,” Ford told AM640’s John Oakley. “Honestly, sometimes I get so frustrated because the people are just sitting back listening. They don’t pick up the phone, they don’t go down to City Hall, they don’t ask questions, they just — it’s frustrating. I want people to get engaged in municipal politics to find out who their councillor is and know how they vote.”

What a dickish thing to say coming from a mayor who spent a chunk of his time during the budget deputations out of his seat doing god-knows-what, did his best to ensure that as few people were able to attend as possible by keeping the meeting running all day and night, and had his buddies mouthing off to deputants instead of listening to what they had to say. Not to mention that this plastic bag vote happened pretty much on the spur of the moment and without any chance for any citizen to have their say; maybe Ford expects that citizens should’ve traveled back in time to voice their objections?

Instead of representing his constituents, which he has clearly given up on doing, Ford has now taken to blaming them (clearly the only group of people left to blame) — but only those who don’t support his myopic, austerity-laden visions.

So no, Rob, it’s not the citizen’s fault that they had no chance to make their voice heard on the plastic bag issue, and where the hell do you get off claiming that people aren’t engaged in municipal politics?

Yep, it ain’t just the Conservatives playing the “peons don’t need to know” game.

Six months ago an amendment was passed to Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It was folded in like whipped egg white to a cake batter, the batter being Bill 122: “An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.” Part VIII of Bill 122 amends FIPPA so that the act “does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/barbara-kay-mcguinty-liberals-put-top-secret-label-on-abortion-figures

You may remember Ford’s spat with the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale a little while ago. It started with Dale poking around behind the Mayor’s house, investigating the veracity of an application to extend his Rotundness’ property  in order to add another fence.

Another fence, on top of an already solid six-footer because, to quote the big man directly:

“Our primary concern is the safety of Douglas and Stephanie, our two young children, having a secure area to play. The addition of this parcel of land to our property would allow us to install a better security fence that will help to enhance the safety of our children.”

…

“We have a number of safety concerns, as we have encountered youth encroaching on our property late at night on a number of occasions.”

The entire thing, in other words, is based on Rob’s concern for his children’s safety. All those pesky teens are making him jittery.

And now, in light of this past weekend’s shooting at the Eaton Centre by a man not too long out of his teens (in which a young teen was killed), here’s what Fordo had to say:

“Let’s just continue living our lives like we do every day — go out and have fun and take it from there,” Ford said at police headquarters. “It’s been a terrible couple of days but this is definitely, like I said before, the safest city in the world.”

So apparently when it comes to Ford’s part of town, those no-good teens giving him the stink-eye pose a clear and present danger, so much so that he applied to put up double fences on public land, but when it comes to a public murder in a busy downtown shopping centre, it’s suddenly the safest city in the world.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of self-serving hypocrisy. It’s yet another example of Rob Ford looking out for Rob Ford, lying and deceiving Torontonians the whole way.

The elimination of the Land Transfer Tax is actually a Ford election promise, unlike his push for subways, so that part of his ongoing bluster on the subject is true. The rest, however, including his recent assurance to have it eliminated by the end of his term, has been just one long pile of growing bullkaka.

For starters, shortly before he was elected he made a speech to the Toronto Real Estate Board promising that the LTT would be completely gone by the end of 2012 … “guaranteed!”

Ford blamed the Ontario government’s impending election for delaying the changes beyond his first year.

A little over that first year later, speaking in front of the same group, he vowed to have the LTT reduced by up to 25% by the end of 2012.

“I can’t say we’re gonna wipe it out this year, but it might be a quarter this year, a half next year, or — you know, but we’re gonna do it piece by piece. You’re gonna see a portion of the land transfer tax, I don’t know how much right now, be gone by the end of next year,” Ford said.

Granted we’re not exactly at the end of 2012 yet but Ford is already backing down on even this revised plan (once again revealed in front of the same Toronto Real Estate Board meeting), saying that he’d like to have the process of repealing the tax started by the end of his term in 2014. And in typical Ford fashion, he wants people to “get in councillor’s faces” in order to get his way.

“Folks, you must get in the councillors’ faces,” Mr. Ford said. “As we succeed in reducing costs, we can begin to phase out that terrible land transfer tax, which I never supported and I am adamant to get rid of. I’d like to start doing that before this council term is up.”

To reiterate:

2010 – Rob Ford “guarantees” to have the LTT eliminated by 2012, maybe 2011. Blames MPs, elections for possible delays.
2011 –  Rob Ford cuts back on his “guarantee”, now claiming to have the LTT reduced by about 25% in 2012.
2012 – Rob Ford completely reneges on his “guarantee”, vowing to hopefully set something in motion on the LTT by the end of 2014 (much like many of his other plans). He invites constituents to get in councillors’ faces, presumably because he blames them for his inability to gain traction on the issue.

This, according to Ford-backing tabloid Toronto Sun, is considered “tackling” the LTT. Hmm…why is it still walking then?

The group is called Re:Sound, and here’s just a smattering of the bullshit they’re peddling (from their website):

You may not be aware that you need a licence to use music in your business, but it is your responsibility to get the right licence(s) if you are playing music in public. Licences are also required by public and commercial broadcasters.

Not entirely true. There is at least one exceptions in the Copyright Act where you can “use music” in your business without being harassed by yet another copyright goon squad:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-48.html#docCont

In respect of public performances by means of any radio receiving set in any place other than a theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainments to which an admission charge is made, no royalties shall be collectable from the owner or user of the radio receiving set, but the Board shall, in so far as possible, provide for the collection in advance from radio broadcasting stations of royalties appropriate to the conditions produced by the provisions of this subsection and shall fix the amount of the same.

In other words, if you are playing music through a radio or over a web station, the station is already paying tariffs so you don’t have to. But what does that matter? They can claim that you owe them cash even if you’re just playing music over a boombox while having a picnic in the park with friends:

G. PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS

Application

1. (1) This tariff sets the royalties to be paid for the performance in public or the communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances of such works in the repertoire of Re:Sound in parks, streets and other public areas.

Interestingly, there are a series of stipulations in Canadian copyright law called “fair dealing” which exempts people from being harassed. Funny how Re:Sound makes no mention of these:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that “these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights.” In particular, the Court gave a “a large and liberal interpretation” to the notion of research, stating that “lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research”.
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a “non-copyrighted equivalent of the work” available to the user? Was the dealing “reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose”?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work “in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work – one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? “Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”

When I mention “yet another” copyright good squad, that’s because this new body is looking to charge people for the same thing that an already existing group, SOCAN, is doing:

Re:Sound and SOCAN are distinct organisations that represent different groups and as such, both are required to be compensated.

But while it’s claimed that these are two “distinct organizations”, the law gives them right to squeal on you to each other:

(2) Re:Sound may share information referred to in subsection (1)

1. (a) in connection with the collection of royalties or the enforcement of a tariff, with SOCAN;

Just like that, the Intellectual Property mafia come along and double your monthly “protection” fees.

And just like any other organization in who’s debt you are simply for existing, they’re ready to charge you interest until you cough up the dough:

Interest on Late Payments

7. Any amount not received by the due date shall bear interest from that date until the date the amount is received. Interest shall be calculated daily, at a rate equal to one per cent above the Bank Rate effective on the last day of the previous month (as published by the Bank of Canada). Interest shall not compound.

Particularly troubling is the section of the Copyright Act that says that bodies like Re:Sound are required to compensate artists if they happen to be collecting tariffs for their works, even if they don’t represent them and have no claim to the copyright:

Claims by non-members

• 76. (1) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in paragraph 31(2)(d) is, if the work is communicated to the public by telecommunication during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Royalties that may be recovered

  (2) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in subsection 29.6(2) or 29.7(2) or (3) is, if such royalties are payable during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work or other subject-matter is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Exclusion of remedies

  (3) The entitlement referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is the only remedy of the owner of the copyright for the payment of royalties for the communication, making of the copy or sound recording or performance in public, as the case may be.

In other words, if these organizations are collecting tariffs on your music, you can demand to be paid for that “service”. However, that’s all you can do. So, the organization can collect money on music that they have absolutely no rights to, and you, as owner of the music, have no other remedies. Read that section again if you don’t believe me.

It’s a messed up way of claiming the right to collect money on your music without claiming direct ownership over it — though the difference is the same if the law claims you can’t restrict someone from collecting money on your own works.

To put it another way, the very “crimes” that these organizations are supposed to be preventing are what they are basically being welcomed to engage in — by law. And if it so happens that you don’t know your music is being milked by Re:Sound for the benefit of their “partners”, too bad. And even if you do, too bad. They get to charge money for all music everywhere, and you’d better like it. You might get paid … eventually.

Of course, if it turns out you underpaid the copyright mafia, they reserve the right to get all up in your business and force you to cough up and pay at any time for a period of up to 6 years back; and, of course, if they ripped you off, there exists no provision to protect you in the same way:

Records and Audits

4. (1) A person subject to this tariff shall keep and preserve, for a period of six years after the end of the year to which they relate, records from which that person’s payment under this tariff can be readily ascertained.

(2) Re:Sound may audit these records at any time during the period set out in subsection (1), on reasonable notice and during normal business hours.

(3) Re:Sound shall, upon receipt, supply a copy of the report of the audit to the person who was the subject of the audit.

(4) If an audit discloses that the royalties owed to Re:Sound during any reporting period have been understated by more than ten per cent, the subject of the audit shall pay the amount of the understatement and the reasonable costs of the audit within 30 days of the demand for such payment.

Do you suppose you get to charge Re:Sound interest if it turns out they’ve been charging people for playing your music for years without your permission?

And if you don’t think that the copyright goon squad will play nice and fair, there are plenty of recent examples demonstrating that they have absolutely no intention of doing that.

Originally posted at: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3527

Hmmm, seems that Doug Holyday, the Deputy Mayor, might be starting to see exactly why those unions fought for good pay year after year. Except that all those “lefty” concepts of wealth distribution to workers weren’t exactly what he took away from it.

Instead, Holyday is redistributing the money to already higher-earning management who have been responsible for cutting costs (i.e. other employees).

A few dozen senior managers would get annual increases of 2.75 per cent over the four years through 2015.

Altogether, the tab for those raises over four years comes to $30 million.

It’s also proposed that city council reinstate lump-sum bonuses for managers at the top of their salary range. The bonuses were cancelled in 2010 and 2011, which meant about 2,600 managers didn’t receive bonuses. As a result, the city saved about $11 million.

…

Holyday said the senior management has helped cut costs and trim the workforce, steps that were needed to put the city on a sounder financial footing.

So to all those labourers out there who thought that the Rob Ford gang weren’t into this sort of thing, that his cuts and slashes were simply fiscal responsibility intended to weed out greedy unions, I’m afraid you were mistaken. All that extra money, instead of being distributed to workers, is simply being given to those willing to toe the line for the Mayor. And now you can see that, although unions can be problematic, they go a long way to ensuring that the rich don’t simply get richer while the rest of us lose our jobs.

Seems Ford’s interaction with Star reporter Daniel Dale made an impression on Torontonians. But not in a good way. And especially not with the folks in his own riding.

The recent spat between the Mayor and Dale appears to have pushed his approval rating down by 14% from about 47% at around this time in April. That’s not saying much considering Ford has conspicuously scraped the bottom of the mayoral popularity barrel since he got into office, but it’s an additional indictment of a man who is not only abdicating the duties of his office but also seems hell-bent on destroying this city by invoking a constantly changing agenda that is only costing taxpayers more by the day.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the erosion of the Conservative power base in this country. Not that I think the Liberal option is necessarily much better, but it’d be a start.