The idea that Ford would easily win a re-election if ousted was making the rounds before the judgement was announced. And, of course, every fool pundit and their dog was claiming that, for sure, he would be re-elected. Hands down. No doubt.

After all, the people of Toronto love Ford and think he’s doing just a great job with everything!

Sites like Canada.com have dedicated more than one column to propping up a man who, by his own admission, can barely tie his own shoelaces. The National Post typically marches in lock-step with the Ford dictatorship, so they’re not shy about showing their own support. And, of course, the Toronto Sun might as well be called The Rob Ford Daily, though that future is uncertain since he recently turned on them.

Yup, it’s pretty much a done deal … if Ford runs again, he’s a shoe-in and his ouster will just be  a huge waste of time! Easy!

Toronto Sun poll (November 26)

Toronto Star poll (October)

Toronto Star poll (November 26)

Metro News poll (November 26)

Globe and Mail poll (November 26)

Global Toronto poll (November 26)

Globe and Mail poll (October)

Hamilton Spectator poll (November 26)

So…yeah…there you go; when it comes to Ford, the bullshit just won’t stop. The media lackeys … erm … pundits, may not have learned that lesson, but at least it looks like the voters have.

No one can say that this was  a “Leftie” conspiracy against Rob Ford — the judge who passed the judgment was in favour of the Harper government in the Guergis case.

And despite the blatantly false, grossly uninformed, and incessantly misleading bleating of ardent Ford supporters like CP24’s Stephen Ledrew (I’m sure Jerry Agar won’t be far behind), Hackland’s judgement was not a mere “technicality” (“highly unlikely” to go anywhere, according to Ledrew, mere moments before the verdict was delivered), or based on “Ford helping the kids”.

And despite CP24’s best attempt to spin the verdict by showing the “range of responses” from Twitter, which included one outraged respondent and a question about how long Ford has to appeal, my own experience both online and off (I’m sitting in a downtown coffee shop as I write this), shows an overwhelming amount of joy and a feeling that justice has finally been done. Not a “he got his” feeling, but a “law prevailed as we knew it must” feeling — something I’m sure, based on all the feedback I’ve seen, Ford supporters just can’t wrap their heads around. And there aren’t many of them around anymore (this is why I’ve mused more than once about the real conspiracy, the one that’s propping Ford up).

I can honestly say that I knew in my heart of hearts that this had to be the verdict. As I’ve stated in numerous previous posts, the judge’s job is to make sure that the law is followed, and in this case the law was very clear. Ultimately, as Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford, said in a televised conference shortly after the verdict was released, Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. That was so plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who read the details of the case that any judgment to the contrary would’ve been a shock, not the other way around. Not that it’s stopping Ledrew and the CP24 team from trying to push this lie into the “range of responses” and trying their damnedest to steer the conversation in this direction.

But if you still don’t believe how un-shocked I am at this verdict, just scroll back through a few past Ford conflict of interest posts on TCL and compare the language I used to that used by the judge himself (be sure to read the whole judgement while you’re at it):

Hackland: “In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”

TCL: “The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.”

Hackland: “For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the respondent contravened s. 5 of the MCIA when he spoke and voted on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest at the meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, and that his actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or a good faith error in judgment.”

TCL: “This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!) Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way? Not a fucking chance.”

Hackland: “In assessing errors in judgment, just as it may be relevant to consider the position of a novice elected councillor with limited experience with conflict of interest issues, it is also appropriate to consider the responsibilities of the respondent as a long-serving councillor and Mayor. In my opinion, a high standard must be expected from an elected official in a position of leadership and responsibility. Toronto’s current Code of Conduct is modelled on the recommendations of The Honourable Denise Bellamy, who conducted the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, in 2005, when the respondent was a member of City Council.

TCL: “Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.”

I could go on but it’s kind of beating a dead horse. And I have to be upfront and say that I’m definitely not the only person to point out these “discrepancies” in Ford’s thinking and statements.

But no matter what I think or say, it’s very satisfying at the end of all of this to know that common sense, as reflected in law, has prevailed. On occasion, the law actually works!

Ford is now busily figuring out how to spend the next two weeks before he has to give up his seat. Apparently there’s an appeal in the works and we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to be hearing of this outrage. In the meantime, though, City Council is thinking about if they should appoint an interim mayor or if there should be a by-election. Ford won’t be barred from this so presumably he could run (and win), once again. Considering the amount of bad blood he’s racked up so far though, even if he throws his name into the ring, I can’t see him winning again. Sorry, Ledrew, but you’re wrong on that one too.

Every once in a while I get to talking to random people on the streets about Rob Ford, and invariably the comment, “that’s some mayor you guys elected”, gets tossed out.

So just so everyone’s clear on this: NO WE FUCKING DIDN’T!

In fact, the record clearly shows that almost no one in the city proper voted for Ford. Just because he happens to have gotten elected by light thinkers living on the periphery of the vast region that comprises the city doesn’t mean that the city majority actually voted for him. In fact, in the final tally, only 25% of the Toronto borders, from Scarborough to Etobicoke, actually voted for Ford (about 50% of Toronto voted, and about 50% of those people voted for Ford). He didn’t get a majority by any means, he simply got the most votes in a race where votes were split between a number of people.

Ford Nation doesn’t seem to get this simple fact — adding 1 and 1 seems to be a feat for these people so that’s not surprising — and they maintain (usually on heady sounding boards like the Toronto Sun’s article response threads, brilliant groups like “I Hate The War on Rob Ford“, or brainiac power circles like the “Toronto Taxpayers Coalition“), that because he was elected by a “majority” (sorry, not even close), he should have dictatorial powers. And how dare the city practice representative democracy by allowing 43 other democratically elected Councillors to contradict His Highness on HIS  MANDATE! (doesn’t matter how many votes those Councillors got or how many people they represent).

This is why the remaining 75% of Toronto (probably much more at this point), are pissed off with Ford and his hand-up-the-ass puppet master / brother Doug.

They don’t represent us.

None of their efforts are benefiting downtown residents, which is seen by their supporters as a sort of “yeah, fuck you downtown!” response to those of us “elites” who live here (in neighbourhoods like Regent Park). And I get that the suburbs haven’t exactly gotten the infrastructure that they need, but that doesn’t mean that downtown residents are living some sort of glamorous lifestyle on the backs of taxpayers (oh, and we also pay taxes … shocker!) And they should know that — they use the same fucking transit lines and roads that they themselves congest, that we do. Or would, if only they weren’t such selfish fucks about it.

But that’s my own generalization and it’s unfair, in exactly the same way as putting all the focus on the suburbs and completely neglecting to take care of downtown is. Difference is that I can both see and admit to it. And that, along with a complete inability to see issues for what they are, are Rob-Doug’s abject failures.

Yeah, that’s right — removing the Jarvis Street bike lane based on a lie and at the taxpayers’ expense, isn’t going to ease any of the congestion issues anywhere else in the city, and barely on Jarvis at that (all the idiots that applauded this move are still sitting in traffic on the DVP, Gardiner, 401, etc.)

And cutting the vehicle registration tax saves drivers (again, mostly outside of the city), mere pennies a day amounting to a pittance in the pocket of fools who continue to rage at the real problems that are being ignored (you mean Ford hasn’t fixed traffic or parking or the price of gas?! Those damn Leftards!).

Oh, and that failure of the removal of the Land Transfer Tax (“guaranteed!” over and over again), would’ve saved people the same amount of money that Ford claimed the city was suddenly in the red for. In other words, he knew it would leave the city in a financial hole, lied about it, tried to blame it on his predecessor, and all openly under the noses of the same rubes that received Ford’s scorn because he didn’t get his way on the plastic bag tax. Yeah, he’ll turn on you faster than a rabid dog if he senses any trouble — and thanks for your support!

But at least we know that Fordo’s taking plentiful time out of his “busy” schedule (which no one’s allowed to see, but which doesn’t qualify as behind-closed-doors “skullduggery”), to coach football for his old grade school (abusing his position and city resources — and staff — while he’s at it, and telling everyone that his “commitment”  is on the field and not at City Hall), and helping out those poor, disadvantaged black kids.

You’ve probably read the hubbub about the US’ use of drones in Afghanistan.

In case you haven’t, drones are the unmanned, remote controlled planes that the US has taken a liking to in order to kill people abroad with basically no risk to their own personnel. And the Americans are killing lots of innocent people in their incessant search for those scary terrorists. Lots.

Obama even has an extra-judicial “kill list” for the people he feels need to get blowed up real good.

Obviously, with Al Qaeda hiding in people’s assholes, it’s necessary to bring a barrage of indiscriminate hell fire down on those turban-wearing heathen overseas (and put electroshock collars on any suspicious Americans at home, just in case) .

Those terrorists sure are scary, aren’t they? So are all those criminals lurking just outside everyone’s doors in the bushes. That’s why it’s necessary for the TSA pedophiles (sorry, “authorities”), to rape (sorry, “search”) you at random anywhere you may go now, and why it’s also become necessary to deploy those drones domestically. And of course they need to be armed (despite assurance to the contrary).

Okay, so why am I talking about this?

Well, a blog post I wrote earlier this year seems to really be hitting a nerve with readers, and I think those same readers would be shocked to see what’s just around the corner right here in Canada (the stuff I mentioned in that post is just a drop in the bucket).

Although I don’t like to discuss bummer subjects like this, it’s best we all get to collectively standing up against the crap that Harper and his Conservative buddies have in store for us (to be fair, the Liberals are just an arm of the same group of criminals these days).

You see, biggie defense contractor Raytheon put in a bid, a while back, with the Canadian military, which was actively seeking its own fleet of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). On the surface, this might seem like a good thing — we gotta bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, don’t we? Even if you agree with that, you have to question where exactly those UAVs would be used since Peter MacKay announced (about half a year back), that we’re getting out of Afghanistan.

It would’ve been speculation, of course, that UAVs would be used domestically here in Canada in the same capacity as in the US, without some sort of official-sounding documentation. I figured the government’s own website would be fairly official:

Beyond Afghanistan:

A long term UAV solution, in the form of the Joint UAV Surveillance Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) Program, is currently being developed that will include domestic and deployed operational UAV capabilities.

By the way, you may want to have a look at, and save, the link soon: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2719. When I originally researched this story, I had linked to the desktop version of that tidbit and it’s since mysteriously disappeared.

Of course, the story doesn’t end with announcements for future plans. The Canadian military is in full swing and purchasing fully weaponized UAVs for a variety of missions (to be deployed at home at some point, keep in mind).

But at least the domestic deployment not happening yet, is it?

Of course it is.

RCMP are now deploying their drones over Manitoba, claiming they’re just for monitoring traffic accidents and dangerous situations. Maybe the drones are actually for those pesky environmental “terrorists”? They’re already flying in Ontario looking for drugs, which is an excuse to do just about anything these days. And yes, it’s both law enforcement and military flying the sky-bound killing machines for use right here in Canada and abroad (including places pretty far away from Afghanistan).

In fact, if you do a search on Google, it’s a good bet that you’ll find plenty of additional information that I missed — it’s almost commonplace now (if you’ve been paying attention).

And do I believe that these things will be deployed over Toronto any time soon? I’d be shocked to hear that they haven’t been buzzing my apartment for quite some time now. And that goes for every atrocious activity that the US is engaged in domestically too — Harper’s track record demonstrates he gets all wet at the mere thought of it all.

Surveillance and possible death from above, unlicensed proctology from below — the future sounds like a big ball of fun!

Perhaps it’ll get my writing mojo back …  you know, change of scenery, getting away from the neighbour’s death threats, etc.

Yeah, if you’d managed to log in a couple of days ago, you may have noticed a brief flash of a post where I wrote, in a huff, about my interaction with our neighbour. I also took the opportunity to slag the cops for their assistance in helping the same potentially homicidal neighbour to definitely identify who called the police on him.

Safe to say I was pissed, and rightly so, but I decided that that was no mood to get back into TCLing shape. And neither is the environment, including the drug-dealing, pimping, life-threatening neighbour.

To be honest, I’ve been living in this Allan Gardens neighborhood for a bit too long now. It’s nice enough, if you can get past the crack dealers, hookers, and the down-and-out folks clutching to whatever precarious sanity they have, but I’m getting a bit bored with it all. The gunshots and sirens are becoming pedestrian, dahling.

Plus, Sarah’s in a wheelchair and that makes walking up and downstairs a tad challenging. Actually, I do the walking, she does the terrified clinging as I try to power us both on a single set of legs. Good workout though.

Nevertheless, we’re looking to change the scenery up a bit. Maybe the west end, around High Park. Maybe.

Communicating with the landlord there has been kinda spotty and getting an appointment kinda like waiting for the second coming of Christ. I finally broke down after two weeks of email silence and rummaged through the internet for his number. I got a lot of “um” and “aw”, but we finally secured a looksee in a few days. Hopefully it won’t be rented out from under us, like a unit we were going to see on Wellesley Street (the rental agreement was signed while we waiting in the lobby for our turn to see the place).

We’ve also looked around on Broadview Avenue…lovely stretch of road looking over the Don Valley and the skyline, and within spitting distance of downtown. The nice places have a waiting list that would require us to murder someone in order to get a chance, and the not so nice places are, well, not so nice.

One had a main lobby that was leaking profusely as we walked in. The superintendent who was showing us the apartment shrugged it off by saying, “yeah, it’s been like that for a while.” The ceiling in front of the apartment door had caved in and exposed cables were hanging down. The walls were beaten up not unlike, I imagine, a maximum security penitentiary (complete with streaks of what I’m sure was human blood).

The second unit we saw, one building over, was surprisingly worse. The elevator, a wonderful throwback to the 70s (actually from that era, I believe, and not serviced since then either), was dank and stank with dog urine. The apartment overlooked a fenced-in yard which, once again, was very penitentiary-like.

So these were, unfortunately, a no-go. And ridiculously pricey for the living horrors that they were. We’re hoping that the west end will be better, but for now we’re just trying to keep from getting stabbed on our own landing.

Ford’s conflict of interest case certainly seems to be getting lots of attention, including much on this little blog too. For that, loathe as I am to do so, I really should be thanking Robbie.

It’s interesting to note that some of the comments on my earlier post echo, pretty much verbatim, what Rob’s brother Doug is now bringing out to distract from the upcoming court case; the very same anger-laced diatribes that Rob himself brought out during the election, like Kyle Rae’s $12,000 going-away party — which you either abhor and therefore must love Ford, or love and therefore are critical of Ford (and clearly there’s nothing in between). It’s the kind of logic that only the Fords can pull up — like Doug’s, “Should Rob Ford be in front of a judge for helping kids? No, he shouldn’t be”

No, he’s not in front of a judge for helping kids from “disadvantaged” neighbourhoods like Forest Hill or schools like his own Catholic Don Bosco to play football, he’s there because he broke the law and engaged in what looks an awful lot like influence peddling.

Ultimately, it leads one to wonder if the same people dredging up these comparisons and urging everyone to look every which way but forward are not on the Ford payroll, or somehow part of the same team that got him into power. I’m willing to bet that if you visit The Sun or The Star and read the comments on earlier articles related to Ford’s trial, you’ll find the same commentary and use of distraction tactics.

Coincidence?

But that’s a bit beside the point, because in this post I wanted to talk a bit about what Rob Ford said when he sat with Clayton Ruby and his own lawyer. It’s kind of a long and tedious document owing mostly to Ford’s refusal to own up to anything and arguing over pretty much every definition of every other word Ruby would put to him.

The first four or five pages, for example, are filled with back-and-forths like:

(regarding signing the Declaration of Office when Ford was elected)

Ruby: The declaration is a serious promise?

Ford: I can’t remember what exactly the declaration says.

Ruby: But you understand it to be a serious promise?

Ford: I don’t recall what is says.

Ruby: I’m not asking you to recall what it says … were you making a serious public promise?

Ford: I don’t remember exactly what the wording said on the document…The clerk asks you to sign it, but I can’t remember exactly what it said.

Ruby: Was it a formal occassion?

Ford: How do you define “formal”?

This goes on for an excruciatingly long time with Ford insisting that signing such documents “happens at City Hall”, reiterating that he wasn’t sure what “formal” meant, was unsure of the definition of the word “serious”, and didn’t really get what “important” means. Basically, Rob has never seen a dictionary and doesn’t quite seem to have a good grasp on conversational English either.

Eventually, after huge lapses in memory, Rob reluctantly agreed that he might’ve signed some sort of document where he might’ve agreed to follow some rules, or something like that, maybe.

On page 17 it starts to get a bit more interesting when Ford is asked what his understanding of “conflict of interest” with regard to pecuniary (financial), interest means. “If the City if benefiting from it”, he replies. In other words, if the city of Toronto makes money from the result of his vote, it’s a conflict of interest. (How many Councillors are guilty of that?!) Later this changes to, “if something comes up with the printing”, an allusion to the Fords’ printing company which supplies City Hall with printing services. Either way, both responses display a gaping ignorance of what “conflict of interest” means. Or a put-on ignorance.

Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.

Ruby then questions Ford about his previous conflicts of interest; you know, to try to wrap his head around how Ford would’ve recused himself at previous meetings but for some strange reason completely failed to do so when this glaringly obvious one came by. One of these sections questions Ford’s previous statements about how he deems conflicts of interest to arise:

Ruby: On March 8th, 2011…That’s involving your brother, Councillor Ford. That matter was the appointment of your brother, Doug Ford, to a particular entity, Region Conversation Authority [sic] in project green…I have trouble seeing how you have a pecuniary interest in Doug Ford’s appointment.

Ford: Again, whatever the staff tells me to do, I do.

Ruby: You don’t get or give money to your brother? You each earn your own incomes?

…

Ford: We have our own incomes, but if he needs five bucks for lunch, I give him 20 bucks or 10 bucks for lunch.

A similar line of questioning follows in which Ruby asks Ford about development along Lakeshore Boulevard; Ford also made himself scarce for that Council meeting because of a court proceeding against him (probably the Boardwalk Pub one). “Okay. It doesn’t seem to me to be involving any economic interest,” says Ruby.

After one additional example, Ruby comes to the point:

Ruby: So in all these conflicts of interest, they’re all very different, yes?

…

Ford: It all depends how you define “different”.

Eventually we get to the meat and potatoes where Clayton Ruby asks why Rob Ford thought that a vote which was solely and exclusively about a punishment against him wouldn’t be considered a conflict of interest:

Ruby: In your affidavit at paragraph 16 you say: “…There is no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Can you explain what you mean by that?

Ford: I don’t see how the City benefits from this under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Ruby: And therefore there is no need for you to worry about a conflict, correct?

Ford: I wasn’t given…I wasn’t told by legal to declare a conflict.

Ruby: I know that, but I’m trying to figure out what was going on in your head.

Ford: I don’t remember what was going on in my head. I have thousands of thoughts that go through my head every day.

Although earlier in the deposition Ford barely understood what the words Municipal Conflict of Interest Act meant, he now appears to be referring to it. At least he’s sticking to his “all of Council is guilty” logic that the City must somehow benefit financially from this.

Ruby: When you say now: “…There was no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Didn’t the integrity commissioner recommend earlier that you pay back, council adopted that, and now they were asking for a time limit on proof that that had happened? In your mind…

Ford: I don’t recall exactly what it was, but yes, the integrity commissioner said I should pay this back.

Ruby: And in your mind, that is not a financial consequence?

Ford: It has nothing to do with the City under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I don’t see how the City benefits from from this.

Perhaps the most telling and laughable section appears on pages 72 to 73 where, after all of this has been established, Ruby asks Ford about his speech (available on my previous post), during that fateful Council meeting:

Ruby: Okay. After your speech, Councillor Ainslie brought a motion to rescind the previous council order requiring you to reimburse the $3,150. Is that correct? … I take it that [the speech] wasn’t an accident? It was deliberate?

Ford: No, I speak when I want to speak.

Ruby: It had nothing to do with a deliberate choice?

Ford: You’re only allowed to speak once at council on every item…You can speak to a deferral for two minutes after that, but if someone amends the item, no, you’re not allowed to speak to it. You’re allowed to speak once for five minutes, plus a two-minute extension.

Ruby: All right. So there was no significance in terms of whether you spoke or whether you voted for the fact that Councillor Aisnlie brought that motion. Am I correct?

Ford: I couldn’t speak to it. It’s against the law…It’s against procedural bylaws. You cannot speak once you have spoke on the item once, and I spoke on the item.

That’s right, Ford wouldn’t want to break procedural bylaws (by order of Council) by talking too much, but having to repay money (by order of Council) can be completely ignored, and the more serious provincial law governing conflicts of interest doesn’t need to be taken seriously at all. If he were up on federal charges like murder, I wonder how absolutely insignificant they’d be to him.

The questioning goes on and on about how Ford dealt with the repayment order, how he understood the Integrity Commissioner’s reports and so on, but it’s really this last exchange that defines what a joke any of Ford’s defense is.

Ford and his brother typify this as “politics”. In fact, they typify anything and anyone who disagrees with them as “politics”, their ignorance of laws and common sense as “misunderstandings”, and anything that smacks of benefiting the common good as pinko Communism.

The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.

It’s not that I believe that politicians, as a group, are necessarily much better, but at least that push-and-pull of public perception keeps most of them in check. For Ford, that’s obviously not the case, and if we allow it, he’s going to redefine the office of the Mayor to something ugly, decadent, and genuinely offensive, if not outright criminal.

I wouldn’t blame you if you knew little about the upcoming trial of our ignominious, embarrassing mayor, Rob Ford.

I follow him and his merry band of criminals and I must admit that even I didn’t know the full extent of the abuses of power and influence that are to be tried at the upcoming court date, but hopefully I can make sense of it all in this post and you’ll be able to see why this is such a serious issue (and why the man has to go).

The facts thus far…

Ford is very much the front man for the Rob Ford Football Foundation which, under his name and to his political benefit, funds a number of schools around Toronto. Here’s Rob himself to introduce it:

According to the Notice of Application by Clayton Ruby’s office — he’s the lawyer leading the charge against the Mayor — Ford used the City of Toronto logo on both the envelope and letter to solicit donations to his charity prior to the 2010 election. Just to make sure everyone knew it was Rob, he had it gold-embossed with yet another City of Toronto logo and “Rob Ford Etobicoke North Councillor” on it.

This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!)

Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way?

Not a fucking chance.

He had done something similar twice before (noted in the same Notice), and was slapped on the wrist for it by Janet Leiper, the Integrity Commissioner. There are also numerous previous examples that clearly demonstrate that Ford was sensitive, sometimes too much so, to conflicts of interest at City Hall. So claiming that he didn’t know would be an outright and easily provable lie.

But this is just the beginning of the story.

In mid-August of 2010, Ford had a formal complaint lodged against him on this issue which was investigated by the Integrity Commissioner. There are some out there, like Giorgio Mammoliti, the same Councillor, and Ford’s personal buddy on Council, who said he’ll openly break the law if things aren’t done his way, who suggest that the I.C. has it in for Ford, basically suggesting that because she’s doing her job, she’s engaging in some sort of personal vendetta.

My own meeting with the Integrity Commissioner suggests she’s one of the most balanced, fair, and carefully-treading individuals I’ve ever met; by far the most professional and unbiased lawyer the city could find. The video above demonstrates exactly the same demeanor I encountered.

But I guess neither Mammoliti nor Ford can possibly imagine that an Integrity Commissioner might be engaged in, oh, I don’t know, investigating breaches of integrity. Keep in mind, too, that she doesn’t do this of her own volition; investigations only ever begin when a citizen files a formal complaint, including an affidavit, under oath (it’s not easy and requires a lot of hoop jumping).

Maybe this is why, instead of speaking to allegations of impropriety, Rob Ford spent his time “explaining” how his program works, how the “Rob Ford Football Foundation” is not in any way about him but about the kids, how he’s not involved in the process at all except that the schools involved make requests directly through him by sending him invoices, he then sends the requisitions onto his foundation, and they send out cheques and cheritable receipts to donors, and so on. All perfectly above board!

Notice towards the end of the video where he holds up the letterhead (sent to Toronto schools), demonstrating that it doesn’t mention that he’s mayor — “you would have no idea that I was a politician … if you didn’t know, obviously, if you were in another city” (Council understandably laughs). The sample letter simply just shows his mug in the corner and “ROB FORD” in big, bold, banner type at the top. So, yeah, no connection to Ford at all.

Ford then admits that he used City letterhead during his campaign: “I was wrong! I took all that off!”

You may be asking why he’s babbling about having to repay money out of his own pocket in that video.

Well, that August 2010 investigation I mentioned earlier found that Ford had breached the City Council Code of Conduct (on numerous occassions), and that in order to avoid being held to account for it, he should repay the lobbyists who donated money to his foundation.

Had he simply given the money back, a mere $3,150 (pittance for a millionaire), he could’ve simply walked away from the affair and continued on his jolly way (a Code of Conduct violation isn’t as serious as something like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act).

But he ignored what was then a mere recommendation to repay and later that month Council voted that he violated the Code of Conduct and ordered him, under a legally binding obligation, to pay back the lobbyists.

Oh, and Rob Ford voted on that, and an additional motion to reconsider.

If you still don’t get what’s wrong with this, consider why we wouldn’t allow criminals to sit as both their own jury and judge — that’s very clearly a conflict of interest, exactly like Rob Ford sitting in on a vote to dismiss a punishment against him.

But Ford did it, and this wouldn’t be the last time.

In the meantime, the Integrity Commissioner followed up with a litany of payment requests and reports to Council (six, to be precise), about Ford’s complete refusal to pay back the money.

Finally, in October, Ford claimed that he had written to the lobbyists and they said they didn’t want their money back. (Their politician is bought and paid for, after all)

The Integrity Commissioner replied that the Lobbyist Registrar (yet another office now involved), had contacted the lobbyists and told them that they were violating the Lobbyist Code of Conduct. The lobbyists wisely pulled back their offer to let Ford off the hook and demanded their money back.

Okay, let’s catch our breath here for a second and do a quick wrap-up (because it ain’t over yet):

1. Ford used City of Toronto letterhead, plus his name and position all over envelopes and letters sent to lobbyists asking for donations to his football charity during the election, to which he admitted:
   He used his influence and office to solicit donations for the Rob Ford Football Foundation
2. He was warned multiple times prior to this incident about similar breaches, and had on numerous occassions recused himself from votes which might indicate a conflict of interest for him:
   He clearly knows about conflicts of interest and about recusal from votes
3. The Rob Ford Football Foundation does not operate at arms length, requiring schools to send invoices and requests directly to Rob Ford:
   He is directly involved in the day-to-day operations of his foundation, not disconnected from it as he claims
4. The Integrity Commissioner warned Ford that this was a big no-no (remember this wasn’t the first time either), and gave him an out (considering his wealth, it woulnd’t have been a huge burden). When Ford didn’t respond, Council voted that he must repay the money, by law — Ford voted against that motion, and then again to reconsider it:
   He knowingly broke the Municipal Conflict if Interest Act twice
5. The Integrity Commissioner followed up many times to remind both Rob and Council that he had failed to follow up. Instead of doing as he was required to do, by law, he wrote lobbyists asking to be forgiven. The Integrity Commissioner replied to both the lobbyists and Ford that this would amount to further breaches:
   He tried to weasel out of his obligation and ignored the law

Well, you know, this isn’t enough for Ford. He isn’t satisfied with repeatedly flaunting being above the law or endangering the city’s citizens, he has to drive home his complete and utter lack of respect for his office, the rule of law, and even common decency.

Roughly one and a half years later, Ford’s buddy Mammoliti (who, aside from brimming with criminal tendencies himself, is also a spineless toady bent on really fucking up the city every way possible), tabled a motion to let Ford off the hook completely and just fuhgetaboudit!

I guess the Councillors who previously voted on this forgot what it was all about (or were tired of it), and decided unanimously to adopt the motion.

Oh, and Ford voted on this one too.

But not before another vote (on which Ford also voted), that would’ve extended the time he had to repay until October 15 of this year. Of course, kind of a moot point since the follow-up motion got Ford off completely, but I put it in for a total vote tally (I’m not including additional votes to extend speakers’ times and to end the debate — which Ford was also in on).

So at this point, over a historic journey of about two years…

Ford directly, knowingly, brazenly contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act no less than four times.

He believes it’s okay to influence City Hall, and especially the Mayor, through underhanded lobbying techniques via obvious sham organizations, and to do it all out in the broad daylight for everyone to see.

And then comes the deposition that Ford did for Clayton Ruby.

I’m going to cover this endless stream of bickering over whether or not Ford takes his office seriously, or whether or not he remembers a single damn thing, in the next post. If you get a moment, read it through (it’s about 132 pages) — I’m sure that now that you know the facts, you’ll find Fords answers as outrageous and insulting as I do.

And if you happen to have the day off this September 5th, perhaps I’ll see you down at the Provincial Courts, where if there is any rule of law and justice, they must surely prevail.

At this point, the news of Rob Ford openly breaking yet another Ontario law has made headlines from coast to coast.

This time around, Ford was caught on camera, driving on the Gardiner Expressway reading some printouts.

This is hardly the first time that His Illustrious Rotundness has been caught brazenly endangering others on the road, but it’s the first time that photographic evidence proves it. Not only that, but Ford doesn’t deny doing this and, in his casually wishy-washy way, pretty much admits to doing it outright in the media. And so what, he claims…he’s busy!

But if that wasn’t infuriating enough, Toronto Police have declared that, instead of charging Ford with the serious offense that careless driving is, that photographic evidence of him breaking the law isn’t enough (especially without witnesses).

So the cops have, once again, unilaterally decided that they are the arbiters of what laws apply to who, refusing to lay charges without even asking for witnesses to come forward (presumably there’s at least one — the person who took the picture), and are openly lying to the public by claiming that photo evidence isn’t enough to prove that someone is breaking the law, despite the fact that it seems to be good enough for the cops to drag people in front of courts when it comes to reg light cameras, photo radar, and protests (unless, of course, it’s their own people).

Additionally, the cops say that the mayor’s offense isn’t charge-worthy unless “there’s a pattern of behaviour”, a pattern that has now been clearly established, while they simultaneously lay charges on others breaking exactly the same laws in exactly the same way in a blitz barely two weeks old in which they insist that “impaired, distracted, and aggressive driving will not be tolerated”.

Even the cops’ flimsy excuse that this is Toronto and not Ontario jurisdiction is complete bullshit with Toronto Police themselves recently launching another rake-in-the-cash distracted driving campaign in which they had no problems laying charges against no less than 10,000 people.

And then, just to add insult to injury, Ford’s police chief buddy insists that the solution is for Ford to get a chauffeur (no doubt on the taxpayers’ dime), who doubles as security because it’s the mayor that needs protection from us!

” Scumbags” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I was strolling by the south-west corner of Nathan Phillips Square a couple of weeks ago when I noticed something was conspicuously missing:

I recalled that on this very spot used to stand a podium dedicated to free speech. But was it just some weird mixed-up memory that was bubbling up to the surface?

I searched the web and discovered that I had, in fact, been correct. The podium was called Speakers’ Corner:

Yeah, that’s the one! It was a podium guarded over by the ghost of Winston Churchill, dedicated to free speech and public expression.

Except that now, it’s gone. All that’s left is a slab of concrete where it used to stand. And to be honest, I don’t remember the last time I’d seen it there anyways.

I visited City Hall and asked the information desk about its whereabouts.

At first they had no clue what I was talking about — a podium? Speakers’ Corner? Oh, wasn’t that at the old Citytv building further west on Queen Street?

Nope, I replied. It was in front of the old statue of Churchill.

Ask security, said the woman behind the desk. Maybe it’s been temporarily moved because of the construction.

Okay, I suppose (even though it wasn’t near the fence).

The guy at the security desk also had equally little idea of what I was talking about. He called the boss and was told that the podium can be found at the south-east end of the Square.

Umm, actually, I think it had been moved from there, I replied. And besides, it’s definitely not there. Not south-west either.

The security guy shrugged his shoulders and said he had no idea. But maybe I could call the City of Toronto information line?

Okay, I’ll do that.

3-1-1 … hello?

The guy on the other end responded courteously.

“Hi. Just a quick question for you…I’m looking to find out what happened to Speakers’ Corner. It was a dais at the south-west corner of Nathan Phillips Square where people could go to speak their mind.”

“Oh, well if you want information about Citytv…”

“No, no, not that Speakers’ Corner. I’m talking about the lectern that used to sit in front of the Winston Churchill statue at the south end of the square. It had a plaque on it that read that it was provided by the city for the people of Toronto. Dedicated to free speech.”

“Hmm, I’ve never heard of it. You should try to contact the City Hall staff…”

“Oh, I already did. I spoke to the receptionist as well as to security. Neither of them had even heard of it.”

*pause*

“Well, I suppose Marguerite Reid might know something about it. She’s the special events coordinator at City Hall.”

Special events? Didn’t seem like a special event. Still, I let the 311 guy connect me to her extension which landed me in her voice mail. It told me that she’ll be on vacation until the 13th of August, at which point I have no doubt that she’ll try to refer me to Citytv to discover what happened to their vaunted corner.

Essentially, the tiny section of City Hall set aside for citizens to voice their opinions and express their free speech disappeared, and no one noticed. In fact, few people even remember it.

Okay, yeah, it might not have gotten much use over the years that it had been there, but then again no one “uses” the statue of Churchill just behind where it stood either. Yet the statue remains while the podium, a symbol of citizen freedoms, was quietly removed. And yeah, it’s fair to say that it was mostly symbolic. In the same way, the Canadian flag is merely a symbol of the country, even if it doesn’t really do anything. It could just as easily be replaced with something like a twisted Swastika or a sickle and hammer. A few years down the road, would anyone even remember what Canada had been?

I was planning on going down to Caribana today but the heat and humidity were so oppressive, I thought better of it early on.

And that wasn’t the only thing that was oppressive:

Police, volunteers and private security guarded entrances to the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival, patting people down and searching bags before they entered.

A network of barricades and fences kept the public back from the dancers with glitter-dusted skin and colourful headdresses as they made their way down Toronto’s Lakeshore Blvd.

“There’s so much fences that I can’t hardly see anything,” said Ann James, a nurse from Bloomfield, CT., who was trying to find her way to the end of the parade route.

Pat downs? I thought there weren’t going to be any pat downs! And I thought they were supposed to be reserved only for the saps in the bleachers … you know, all the lowlife criminal scrum like families and the elderly that attend the parade.

And now that I think about it, I’m certain that I mentioned that this was going to turn out to basically be security theatre intended to intimidate the general public.

And now, having mentioning these things (and incidents involving police acting as simply armed thugs, not enforcers of the law), I’m sad to report that they happened last night and today exactly as I predicted.

In fact, Sarah and I decided to go out for some chicken wings in the evening and I don’t remember seeing such a ridiculous number of cops on the streets since the G20. There were cops from all over; Peel Region, Waterloo, Halton. And they were parading around in gaggles of anywhere from four to ten at intervals of — and I’m not exaggerating in any way — every single block around the city core. At times there were more cops than pedestrians.

And I can’t tell you the number of parking enforcement cops that simply strolled by cars parked in front of fire hydrants and blocking intersections, right in front of our wing place, no more than a meter away from us and clearly visible through a huge glass pane window. To put it another way, the police weren’t enforcing the law, they were out to make sure we all saw their presence.

You may, at this point, be wondering if the word “despotism” was accurate in the title of this post. After all, it’s a pretty weighty word with lots of nasty connotations. Well, how about we let Encyclopedia Britannica explain (and while you watch, keep the banking bailouts, growing disparity between rich and poor, government censorship and gagging, and the near dictatorial pronouncements and oppressive, repressive laws and practices coming from both down south and here from Harper’s Canada, in the back of your mind):