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.

It’s either that or this is yet another excuse to cut and slash and force people into abject poverty while handing over billions to banker buddies and wealthy mega-corporations. Either way, it’s a future of indentured servitude and some pretty bad times under the name of “austerity”.

I mean, how many more times are we going to hear the same bullshit coming out of the government about how they need to cut services and “tighten belts” (exactly like their municipal lick-boots like the Ford stooges), but that eventually we’ll make it out of our financial morass, only to discover that, OH NO! THINGS ARE NOW WAY WORSE THAN EVER! Oh, but this time around, we’ll for sure balance books by the next election (and just to make sure, we’ll fraudulently steal more time at the helm).

There are still idiots out there who believe that what’s happening in Greece (and, at this point, the rest of Europe and pretty much everywhere else), is the result of laziness, or unionization, or other complete and utter nonsense, but it’s getting hard to find people who keep buying the same crap over and over again in the face of blatant lies, theft, open criminality, and every other type of scumbaggery imaginable.

The only explanation for still believing anything that Harper and his criminal buddies dole out is to simply and boldly ignore reality and the regular headlines of massive bank corruption, or to not be able to see the painfully obvious when it’s publicly announced that those same banks are now running much of Europe (and directly responsible for the rape and pillage of the nations under their control). How stupid do you have to be?

Is it any wonder that Harper is so ardently trying to keep anyone from looking into how he manages your tax money? And you can be sure that the money, or savings, or whatever you want to call it, isn’t going to help you.

Take, for example, the “controversial” Multiple Sclerosis Liberation Therapy that the Harper government just killed. In case you’re not familiar with it, it’s a fairly simple, painless day surgery that many MS patients have found helps them to lead much better lives.

It’s fairly risk-free if done by a trained professional; it involves widening a vein in the neck with a tiny balloon (via a vein in the leg and using only local anesthetic), not unlike a riskier procedure regularly done in high-blood-pressure arteries for heart attack patients (done every single day here in Canada). The most expensive and time-consuming part of Liberation is actually the MRI that’s done to assess the patient.

All the doubters out there (many of whom have a direct interest in keeping MS patients at the status quo), have put out a great campaign to convince everyone that the procedure is incredibly risky, not bothering to mention that the risk comes from the people and places where the procedure is currently being done — the kinds of places they maintain you need various inoculations just to visit. And, statistically, you’re much more likely to have “complications” from government-approved medicine like yearly flu vaccinations.

These are the same people who advise patients that things like diet, proper rest, exercise, and lifestyle really don’t matter and that treatments like chemotherapy should be first and foremost (shit you not!) I’m speaking from personal experiences with one of Toronto’s top MS doctors here, straight from his mouth to my shocked ears.

Just because you may not know anyone with MS, however, doesn’t mean that Harper’s deceit won’t affect you. Consider that what his government rejected was simply a study to see if the Liberation Procedure even works; not to implement it, train people on it, etc.

Consider also that a typical Liberation treatment has to be done maybe once every couple of years or so (sometimes not even that), at a cost of about $10,000, while current drug treatments like Copaxone or newer ones like Tysabri (which are still not well understood or studied!), can cost upwards of $100,000 per year — and that doesn’t take into consideration the cost of medical professionals like nurses to administer the IV drugs (plus facilities for them), additional testing like regular blood work, or extra complications like PML, possible birth defects, etc.

The costs, any way you want to tally them, are way too high to be justified.

You know, maybe Liberation isn’t a good answer, but you’d think that being cheaper, easier, much less dangerous, and seemingly quite helpful, it would be worth a look. But no, Harper is working hard to make sure that you’re as dependent as possible for less effective, more expensive, and more dangerous treatments, whenever and wherever possible.

And you’re paying for it! Yup, your tax money is being used for back-asswards, experimental, extremely expensive, and in many cases quite dangerous treatments that do not have any additional benefits for MS patients except to keep their conditions from worsening. I suspect that most people would agree that this makes sense as a last resort, not as a first and only one.

And that’s just what I happen to know because of Sarah and mine’s experience with the medical community and the government. If the amount of willful, known, clear and apparent waste, squandering, and criminal behaviour were ever exposed, I full expect our society would easily revert back to the days of the French revolution. I, for one, would not mind a few heads rolling — I’ll take figuratively, so long as commensurate jail terms are included.

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.

You could almost see the Bush-style “Mission Accomplished” banner waving behind the incomprehensibly obstinate Ford supporters at City Hall. “We did it!”, they scream, “we got a major campaign promise under our belt!”

Except that, at very best, at this point it’s only half true:

The City must put in place solutions to make waste collection reliable and affordable.  Etobicoke, for example, uses contracted providers and saves the city $2 million each year.  By adopting the same approach for the whole city, taxpayers will save about $20 million each year and can have the confidence their garbage collectors won’t go on unnecessary strikes.

Everything west of Yonge constitutes precisely half the city (both geographically and in the estimated savings), not the whole, so claiming 100% victory is like saying that Ford won the election with a majority of votes (in reality 47%)

What makes this “victory” especially laughable is that it was supposed to demonstrate the “efficiencies” and remarkable resilience that the private sector musters over city employees (the kind of statement repeatedly used in Ford’s campaign literature):

Garbage and other solid wastes must be collected on schedule, without fail.  The strike during the summer of 2009 put the health of people and families in Toronto at risk.

The City must put in place solutions to make waste collection reliable and affordable.

Now that Rob Ford’s buddies at GFL have taken over garbage collection, what we’re seeing is the exact opposite of what Ford claimed:

Three days after a private company began collecting garbage between Yonge St. and the Humber River, its chief executive clashed with Mayor Rob Ford’s administration and the city’s waste chief over how long it should be forgiven for missing pickup deadlines.

It will take four to six weeks for Green for Life Environmental Corp. to start meeting the 6 p.m. daily deadline in its seven-year contract, said CEO Patrick Dovigi.

Six weeks is unacceptable, responded solid waste general manager Jim Harnum. The city will consider imposing financial penalties after four.

Funny that Dovigi should be saying this considering how much “research” he claims his company has invested in — 20 people for 10 weeks, to be precise — to ensure that it would be providing the most efficient services:

GFL submitted the lowest bid in Toronto’s tendering process, a testament to the company’s proven record as an efficient operator, its cost efficiencies realized from its existing Toronto infrastructure of three facilities and the efforts of its dedicated workforce.

“While some have questioned how GFL can deliver $78 million in savings to Toronto while providing residents with waste collection service as good as or better than they currently have, the fact is that we carried out extensive research prior to submitting our bid,” said Patrick Dovigi, President and CEO of GFL Environmental.

“The research we conducted prior to submitting our tender offer included analyzing the process of how the City collects waste, right down to observing the routes and operations that trucks use when on the streets,” said Dovigi. “The cost savings GFL has identified and efficiencies we bring to waste collection will result in service levels as good as or better than what people currently enjoy, at a lower cost to the City of Toronto.”

It’s not that people weren’t calling bullshit on this. In fact, questions were raised years ago, and another GFL “too good to be true” bid was rejected elsewhere in Ontario (after which GFL took out a full-page newspaper ad to express their disgust at being questioned by city council). Note how drastically even the estimated “savings” has jumped around; Ford initially claimed $20 million, then revised it to $8 million, while Dovigi puffed it up to $78 million. Today it sits somewhere around $11 million.

But none of this kept people like Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong from jumping the gun and announcing GFL had won the bidding process before anything was official. Yeah, that’s the same guy now expressing surprise at what he himself enthusiastically rammed through City Hall:

…Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the public works committee chair and Ford’s point man on the garbage file, said he did not expect delays of such length.

“We didn’t hear any of these reasons and any of the excuses — all these things that occurred this week were not presented by GFL. They didn’t tell us that these delays would be occurring,” Minnan-Wong. “So I think the public is being very generous and understanding with a company coming in with new routes, and we all want them to succeed, but the patience and goodwill of the residents in District 2 is not limitless.”

It also didn’t stop people like GFL’s Dovigi conveniently ignoring his own crap about using a “dedicated workforce”:

In 2009, the Ontario Labour Relations Board presided over a case involving GFL subsidiary National Waste Services. After winning a contract to haul residential waste in Hamilton, the firm relied on a personnel agency to provide staff instead of hiring drivers and haulers directly. The practice came to light during a certification drive by the Canadian Auto Workers; the OLRB ruled in favour of the CAW.

And after all this, it’s not simply that GFL is running late in picking up garbage, it’s actually missing chunks of the city altogether. “Inefficiency” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Beyond even this, all of Ford’s angry tirades about the unions failed to mention that Dovigi is CEO for the Ontario Waste Management Association which acts as both a powerful government lobby as well as a sort of union for collectivizing the efforts of private, for-profit waste management companies in Ontario:

All levels of government recognize the OWMA as the ‘voice’ of the private sector waste industry in Ontario. We monitor and assess regulatory and policy initiatives to determine their impact on the industry and on your business. We provide members with advance notice of new or changing government initiatives, and work proactively to ensure that such initiatives are justified, simple, and practical to implement.

Remember yesterday when I was talking about the seeming unwillingness of the government to curb violence? I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice this, but the only conclusions that people are drawing are that Harper and his cadre are doing this either through sheer incompetence or some level of meat-headed obstinance that simply won’t allow them to do anything else.

Except what if there’s a third option? One in which this is a cold, calculating move designed to get us all under the yoke of a tyrannical government. I mean, you only have to look as far back as Bills C-11, C-10, or C-38 (the Omnibus Crime Bill) to see exactly where they want to take Canada, and it’s a very ugly direction indeed; Orwellian, even — and that is not an exaggeration by any means.

And if you doubt that, today’s news offers an early glimpse into the plan made incarnate at this year’s Caribana (you know everyone still calls it that!) Here’s just a sample of what they deem is “normal” for private security (these aren’t even sworn police officers, and this is in a public place):

Security guards will be searching visitors’ bags for alcohol, drugs and weapons.

[Organizer Stephen] Weir said the people who usually purchase bleacher seats are seniors, families with young children and tourists. He doesn’t expect pat-downs will be part of the screening process.

Oh, he “doesn’t expect” pat downs will be used on children? That means that, yes, most certainly the troglodyte security goons will most definitely be grabbing at your kids’ genitals, a la US TSA gropings. And since these are mostly elderly and kids and families sitting in the bleachers, off course they need to be the subjects of a security crack-down. They are, after all, typical of the most despicable criminals out there. Makes sense, right?

People are unfairly linking us with an event in another part of the city that was really tragic, but we should be doing this.

Oh, it’s unfair. We don’t have a violent event, so of course we’ll be frisking people. And only the the law-abiding citizens who paid for their tickets; everyone else just walking around on the street won’t be subject to this. Makes sense, right?

If you’ve brought in food and non-alcoholic beverages, we don’t care. But if someone tries to bring in drugs or alcohol or projectiles and the worst-case scenario, a weapon, we have police standing by.

So what exactly is the point of security then? You know, it’s one thing to watch the crowd for sketchy people, but frisking people and rifling through their bags, especially when they’re families, elderly, and kids, has only one purpose, and it’s exactly the same purpose that the police at the G20 were put out in such force and ended up breaking the law in far larger numbers than even the demonstrators (who actually had larger numbers): fear and intimidation.

If you doubt this, read the official reports on the G20 (I’m sure I link to them from this blog somewhere). Does that help to answer why the police didn’t give a fuck when the vandals were wrecking Toronto? They weren’t there to serve and protect — it’s that simple.

They are not there to help you, they’re there to teach you to kow tow to authority, to demand that you allow flabby fucks to manhandle your kids, to scare you into obeying whatever commands they issue, even if they themselves have no more authority than the average citizen on the street. It’s important to repeat this last part, because in a public place like the Caribana parade, you have as many rights as any pudgy fuck with a pseudo-badge and a hard-on for fondling your wife’s breasts. And if you don’t like it, you can be sure that there will be hundreds of security cameras recording your every move, without your knowledge or permission, exactly as described in Orwell’s 1984.

Just today I saw two police cruisers in Allan Gardens and four bicycle cops for a total of eight uniforms busting an old man. One of the officers was doing a little jig while two others were laughing up a storm; the old guy just stood there looking down at the ground. Ridiculous? Of course not, it’s fear and intimidation; they’re doing their jobs!

You know, if the evidence fits then whatever the theory it supports must necessarily be true, and frankly all the crap that the mayor and the mainstream keep throwing at us makes no sense at all (see above).

Q.E.D.

Sadly, most people will just go along with our descent, much to the resounding joy of Harper and his underlings who see their hellish visions of a “modern” society coming to life, and these people will cower in fear and bow to “the authorities” (whoever they claim to be), whenever they’re told to.

This is just the very beginning.

I recently had a situation where one of the cheques I wrote bounced. Happens. But what I discovered as a result shocked and upset me.

They’re charging me $42.50 for a bounced cheque!

For starters, I wanted to know who I could contact about my bank. I visited the OBSI website and discovered that my institution decided it just simply didn’t want to participate anymore. According to OBSI, this means:

Unfortunately, some financial services providers are not covered by an ombudsman service.You may have to contact a government department or regulator if you are dealing with a mortgage broker, insurance broker, financial planner or other service which is not covered by an ombudsman.  Some resources to help you can be found in our Useful Websites.

Didn’t help much except to give me the TD Ombudsman’s email address. So I shot off an email:

Hello Mr. XXX,

I’ve recently managed to run into an NSF situation with my chequing account due to an error on my part. I noticed that the NSF fee has been increased to $42.50, a sum I don’t recall ever being informed about. In regards to NSF fees, I have a couple of questions and a complaint to make:

Questions

1. How does BANK determine the fee of $42.50? This value seems incredibly high and fairly arbitrary considering most of the clearing process is completely automated (it would seem that the only costs incurred would be for the electricity consumed and perhaps the decreasing cost of the computer equipment involved).
2. What is BANK’s responsibility in informing customers in NSF fee increases? And what are the repercussions to BANK for simply arbitrarily setting any fees it likes – what laws govern this? I’m presuming the standard placations that BANK “wouldn’t do that” (a need to retain customers, fairness, etc. etc.), but given that this is precisely what is being done, not to mention my own experiences and knowledge working behind the scenes at financial transaction networks, I would appreciate a forthright explanation.

Complaint

Banks, including BANK (I believe), currently charge the depositor for NSF as well ($20 is my understanding). This fee seems exceptionally egregious since the depositor has absolutely no control over what funds may or may not be in the cheque issuer’s account. This is similar to mobile phone companies who had been charging customers for receiving text messages – when there is no option or ability to refuse – or even know about impending charges — the courts have found such behaviour to be unlawful and has resulted in large fines. From my point of view, the banks seem to be engaging in this practice as well, and it becomes worse when it’s done by a bank where both the cheque issuer and the depositor both have an account – the bank is in the sole position to know that a cheque will be returned NSF and allows for no recourse, thereby seemingly simply taking money from account holders as it likes. And after exacting such exorbitant fees, the bank does not see fit to offer any services that might benefit their customers in such situations, seemingly chalking up the money extracted as nothing more than profits to be shared among shareholders. Is this accurate? And if it’s not, please offer an explanation.

I have a few other points of contention with bank operations but I would like to start with these.

Thanks for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely,
Patrick Bay

In hindsight I realized I’d unintentionally fibbed a bit — I do get notices that my bank account is being changed, by mail — but it still seems pretty unsavoury that they can just up their fees (note how they never go down), at any time by simply telling you they’re going to do it. It’s kind of like making theft legal so long as the robber lets you know he’ll be dropping by next Tuesday.

And I do feel pretty strongly about calling it theft based on the escalating NSF fees that banks charge, not only to me, but more to the person on the receiving end. Seriously, $20 for receiving a cheque that bounces? As I point out in my letter, mobile carriers did this to consumers with text messages, and the law wisely said that we can’t possibly held accountable for something that’s completely out of our control and even knowledge.

In any event, I can’t help but feel jaded by the knowledge that even though we have a Consumer Protection Act, financial services and banks seem to be completely omitted from it (a.k.a. they’re the only business that the CPA doesn’t really want you to know about). And, sadly, the Bank Act doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot on protecting customers either, though it does spell out all sort of insane rights that no individual would ever have.

Yes, it’s true that I did work behind the scenes at a financial transaction network and saw exactly where most of the bank fees go — into the bankers’ pockets. I sure as heck didn’t get rich working there, and on an average night, a financial institution would walk away with between $1000 to $2000 in pure profit (after I’d been paid, rent was covered, etc.) And this was a tiny side-network of small credit unions that were connected to Interac and decades ago; I can’t imagine the level of skimming on just standard transaction on any given day on something like the whole Interac network or Plus today.

Do you remember what the banks promised to everyone when ATMs were just starting to be rolled out to the public? “Oh, it’ll make things cheaper! Now you won’t have to pay for a teller and all of your transactions will be much smaller!” Yeah, $1.50 to $3.00 a transaction — MUCH cheaper. That was just the beginning of the wholesale lie.

When banks complain that they’re the most regulated industry out there, maybe it’s because they need to be. Maybe because they’re the most crooked, the most in need of control. Maybe as consumers we need take control back since the government seems only too happy to give it away, and the banks are only too happy to abuse it.

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

Don’t think so?

Let’s look at the facts.

First he starts making plans for the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he invites others to run against his opponents in the same election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he scales back on his election promise to privatize garbage collection until the same 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then a leaked letter reveals he’s stopped planning for the next two years and instead wants to start again after the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he shows Canada what “champion” he is by waffling out of his weight loss program week after week, presumably because he’s given up.

Not necessarily in this order, but you get the idea.

Now the Toronto Star reveals that RoFo has cut his Mayorly activities by over 60%, presumably because he’s given up.

Here’s a smattering of his absentee agenda:

In January 2012, Ford averaged 11 meetings a week compared with 33 in January 2011, his first full month as mayor. In February 2012, he had 15 meetings scheduled each week, compared with an average of 34 a year earlier.

…

According to sources that include former and current staff, Ford often does not leave his home until noon. His itineraries indicate that daily staff briefings are held at about 9:30 a.m., but on those late days, the sources say, Ford participates by phone or not at all. Some days he never appears in his office. Ford has always spent much of his time outside the walls of city hall, doing his famous one-on-one constituency work, but even that has dropped off drastically.

…

The mayor routinely doesn’t show up for long-scheduled events and meetings with officials. On Wednesday, Councillor Peter Milczyn had to step in for him at a VIA Rail speaking engagement. He has cancelled five of the last nine weekly weigh-ins — often the only time Ford takes media questions for the week — including one on Tuesday.

On numerous occasions, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday, the mayor’s brother, Doug Ford, or other close allies have been called upon at the last minute to meet foreign dignitaries or visiting officials. Holyday said there have been only “a couple of times” where he’s had less than an hour’s notice and that, as deputy mayor, it’s his job to fill this role.

The mayor was supposed to meet his Calgary counterpart, Naheed Nenshi, at an event held at the Corus building on Sept. 20, but Ford never showed up.

Ford also hasn’t held a formal meeting with many prominent Toronto leaders in more than a year, including United Way Toronto CEO Susan McIsaac, Board of Trade president Carol Wilding, Ryerson University president Sheldon Levy or CivicAction’s CEO, Mitzie Hunter. He has never attended a Federation of Canadian Municipalities event.

…

Ford’s own committee chairs don’t regularly meet directly with the mayor to discuss policy. For example, Norm Kelly, who chairs the parks and environment committee, says the mayor is very accessible, although he concedes that the last specific formal meeting he can remember was during Occupy Toronto, which was last November.

Ford’s cadre of yes-men continue to defend him, claiming that he helps out people on a one-to-one basis:

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, one of his staunchest supporters, said looking at the mayor’s itinerary alone doesn’t speak for the work he does.

“The reality is he does a lot of spontaneous work. If constituents call, he’s on it. So you won’t see that on his schedule. He calls people back on a regular basis, and I know he does that.”

There’s only one problem with that kind of thing (assuming it’s true); in a city of 2.5 million people, he would necessarily have to pick and choose who to help. To help each one equally, he would have to be responding to about 1,700 calls a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

To believe that he can adequately do this is clearly insane, yet this is the excuse that Rob Ford uses for not performing his duties as Mayor. Not to mention that, even if the excuse is actually true, Ford has to pick and choose which of his buddies and allies get his attention, and based on his “I hate all charity” agenda, those would would probably be the same petty dictators and millionaire corporate hobnobs who hang out in his back yard.

Clearly Rob Ford doesn’t understand what a Mayor’s job is, and it’s exactly why he shouldn’t have one.

—

By the way, Sarah and I are forming a little group to get the wheels moving on Rob Ford’s ouster. We’re meeting at a central downtown location tonight to get some initial ideas together — if you’d like to drop by at the next one (most likely over drinks), please drop me a line and I’ll send you the details.

Rob Ford, Dalton McGuinty, and Stephen Harper are all into the austerity game. Oh yeah, we all lived way beyond our means and it’s time to start paying back!

Except guess what…it’s an unbelievable scam being perpetrated by the big banks that’s bankrupting our economy, not any of our social programs, our schools, our libraries, our garbage collection…

I think it’s about time to start electing politicians that will:

a) Tell the goddam truth about where our money is really going
b) Stand up to the banking cartels (let’s not mince words, they are criminal enterprises)

If you’re not quite sure, have a gander at this documentary. All the numbers and facts are correct, and none of the stinking politicians seem in the slightest interested in fixing it.

Thanks to Judge Spiers for injecting some sanity and exonerating Byron Sonne from all charges. The courts, it seems, still provide a level of protection against police abuse. So to that end, good! However, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Byron has lost a year of his life, his wife, his house… again I ask what prevents the police from destroying an innocent man’s life like this in the future? What good is a flacid recognition of injustice after the fact?