Ford brilliance on display yet again:

“They’re saying (the city’s revenue) is going to be $100 million, $150 million, $200 million — we’ll see,” Ford said. “I want to get (a casino) first and then we can talk about proposal second.”

First the police use taxpayer money to defend an abusive cop who beat up his own partner, then they break the law repeatedly by refusing to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit and thumbing their nose at the law.

But that’s perfectly fine — Rob Ford has clearly shown us that those with more power and responsibility can do whatever the fuck they want with complete impunity, so we all need to just shut the hell up and take whatever they’re dishing out. Clearly, nothing bad could ever come out of it, so why do the “lefties” keep raising a stink about such things?

There’s a reason I chuckle and shake my head whenever “lefties” are described as pot-smoking hippy communists who haven’t done an honest day of work in their life and subsist solely off the government tit.

That reason is evident in all of the so-called “lefty” machinations against Ford, Harper, etc., -which have been ongoing and quite forceful for some time. I think it’s fair to include the Occupy protesters somewhere in the midst of this, as are the numerous court cases, protests, and other actions that are seeking to redress the wrong brought about by the “right”. I mean, that’s a shitload of work and effort to go through for a bunch of shiftless stoners, isn’t it?

In fact, it could easily be argued that the lazy “left” has put way more effort into getting their way in politics than the “right” which, at this point, has managed to put on a showing of maybe 20 people to support Ford’s subway plans in Scarborough (and that was a while ago). Of course, that demonstration was in support of the mayor so it was just and correct; anything that questions or stands in opposition is, naturally, evil, wrong, and must be outlawed at any cost (because that, according to the “right” is democracy).

In the meantime, the “left” continues its efforts in a way that proves that it’s in fact the “right” who are the lazy, shiftless armchair critics who wouldn’t lift a pinky to save their grandmother if it meant having to miss a second of their favourite nighttime television program. I would invite the “right” to argue this point, but recent history demonstrates quite clearly that, at the very least, they couldn’t be bothered to engage in anything but childish name-calling.

Consider, for example, the somewhat recent conflict of interest case against Rob Ford. Even though the mayor (I hesitate to use that term), was spanked for his actions, his inability or unwillingness to do anything differently (another prime “right” quality), has him repeating the same offenses immediately after being told they’re wrong. In the meantime, Paul Magder and Clayton Ruby, the people who proved without a shadow of a doubt that what Rob Ford did, and continues to do, was wrong, are now taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The law, after all, is quite clear, and if it hadn’t been for the technicality on which Rob Ford squeaked by, he would no longer be in City Hall. Magder and Ruby are spending time, energy, and some might argue money, in order to ensure that everyone is equally held to account (this after years of trying to do the same). On the other side , in juxtaposition, we have an admitted ignoramus who wouldn’t expend the energy to learn how to write his own name.

According to the same “right”, the people working hard on a daily basis, sacrificing, demonstrating, being vocal and getting out there to demonstrate (or whatever), are the lazy ones, and the people making a mockery out of anything we would call government through their stupidity and inaction (then covering it up by ensuring no one can see their itinerary), lashing out against anyone trying to hold them to account, and making not-so-subtle slurs and insults from the comfort of their armchairs, are the “hard workers”.

I’m sure this will continue to be the trend. The blubbery “right” seems to be going on the alternate definition of the word (as in being correct), and that definition alone is enough to convince them that whatever slurs, insults, lies, falsehoods, coverups, and other crap coming out of the mouths of their leader must be accepted verbatim, without question, and certainly without any critical thought. That would, after all, require a little bit of effort.

I suppose I needn’t dwell on this incredible bit of hypocrisy. Regardless of what I say, Magder and Ruby are still toiling away pretty much pro bono to ensure that no one, especially people with more power, are able to openly and brazenly abuse that power (I’m sure that hidden and cowardly abuse is also be unacceptable). The “right”, on the other hand, continue to exemplify the laziest of armchair criticism, comfortable in their 47% “majority” (looking up the meaning of that word must take too much effort), and clearly believe that a dictatorship (again, a word they just can’t be bothered to learn), is just fine as long as they identify themselves as being on its side.

And it’s this one fact that I try to impress on anyone who feels like Ford’s side, however you want to identify it, is winning. He just has well-connected and corrupt friends, the same sort of sleazeball associations one might find in immensely corrupt and debased juridictions like Ford’s favourite, Chicago — a mob town top to bottom. We’ve seen that it’s people like Ford and his supporters who are the lazy and ignorant ones (Ford even came right out and said as much), so it’s only a matter of time until this system of corruption and stupidity comes crashing down. Whether’s it’s going to be an emboldened Ford committing some crime that even his supporters abhor (frankly, I’m not sure what that would be), or justice and democracy do win out in the end through concerted, long-term “lefty” efforts, the man and his cadre are going to go down in a spectacular way. My only hope is that it happens sooner rather than later.

Day, or night?

If you’re a Torontonian, here are two pieces for your consideration:

Three times more lobbyists signed up with the city in 2012 as in 2010. The number of subjects they’re pushing has doubled. Allegations of misconduct have tripled. And the daily communications logged between lobbyists and public office holders appears to be 10 times higher last year than the year before Ford took office, an analysis by the Star has shown.

And with the numbers on the rise, lobbyist registrar Linda Gehrke worries there is dwindling awareness around the “ethical” guidelines set out in the code of conduct.

But for many councillors, the most worrisome result of the new reality is that average citizens and community associations — people without the means to hire Bay Street professionals to plead their case — are being shut out.

That’s not me saying it, that’s former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson claiming that Ford decided that this was the way to go at the CJPAC Action Party last night.

She gave extra details in a later interview, but in what way will this come as a surprise to anyone at this point?

Sarah asks, “guess where his hand was in this picture?” —

Hmmm…

Toronto’s #4, bitches!

Toronto City Life can bring this level of exposure to your city too! Hire us today! ;)

So do you remember Rob Ford’s big court case where he came this close to being tossed out of office? He squeaked by on the technicality that City Council had no authority to force him to repay donations from lobbyists, and therefore the entire case was null and void?

As you may recall, the fact that Ford was using his position improperly was never at issue; all parties (with the exception of Ford and his buddies), agreed that what he did was wrong. To quote presiding judge Hackland, “…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.”

Being held to account obviously chafed the fat man something fierce because there was no end to his vitriol. Anyone who would dare question what he did (especially people who were competent and required by provincial legislation), MUST BE FIRED! After all, if the Fuhrer decrees it…

So I can’t imagine how Ford is going to deal with the fact that he was today found to be openly continuing to use his name to ask for donations from lobbyists, but he also once again ran away to his beloved American bosom to avoid any scrutiny or painful brow-furrowing (a.k.a. thinking). Second vacation in three months — just like any regular TV mobster waiting for the “heat” to die down.

Let me reiterate that in case you missed it: the thing that Ford got in trouble for and almost got him fired (were it not for a technicality), is exactly what he has continued to do since the case was dropped!

There’s no way in the universe he can still claim ignorance, or that it was some sort of decade-long bout of abject ineptitude — something that in any company would have been just cause for a firing a long long time ago.

Even the lobbyists being targeted know what the problem is:

Andy Manahan, executive director of the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario, said he received a letter on Jan. 28 — only three days after Ford won his appeal in the conflict of interest saga that began with his decision to solicit donations from lobbyists in 2009.

“You never know what a mayor’s office could do to put a monkey wrench into your dealings with the city.”

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to take those sort of lists and send out letters to people who have dealings with the city,” Manahan said. “Again, there could be repercussions. There’s potential.”

…

The second registered lobbyist asked not to be named for fear of alienating the Ford administration. He said, “I think it’s kind of suspicious. The only interactions I’ve had with him were on city business or as a lobbyist registrant.”

He added: “It goes back to: are you allowed to use names and contact information from business dealings to raise funds? Is that permitted? It sure seems strange.”

…

Ford also sent a fundraising letter in the past two months to a non-lobbyist who does business with the city and whose fortunes he could directly influence: Brian Ashton, president of the Canadian National Exhibition Association, which stages the annual fair.

As mayor, Ford is automatically a member of the association board; if Ashton seeks re-election, Ford could vote for or against him. Under its new governance model, the association will pay rent of more than $3 million to the city in 2013.

“It’s awkward because if you’re doing business with the city in any fashion, do you feel a sense of obligation?” said Ashton, a former centrist councillor who retired from politics in 2010. “If you don’t (donate), will that influence his impression or support of your organization?”

Ashton is currently urging council members not to put a casino at Exhibition Place. He said the fundraising letters are “unnerving” because “the Fords are very powerful in Toronto.”

“I just hope that (Rob Ford) separates the two and doesn’t allow fundraising efforts to influence decisions with respect to the casino or any other CNE business,” Ashton said.

Good news — Bill C-30, the warrantless wiretapping “you’re either with us or you’re with the child pornographers“, is dead in the water.

The bad news — the Harper government has renamed it Bill C-55, made it secret until it’s been introduced to Parliament — because, after all, why do the peons need to know when their rights are being trampled on? — and have Bill C-12 (a.k.a. PIPEDA) waiting in the ranks just in case.

So what does Tyrant-in-Waiting Harper have in store for us with C-55? Let’s have a look at some of the highlights:

2. Section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace;

Translation:

We can hire someone under the auspices of “public peace” to spy on you; we’re no longer limiting this to just cops.

Next:

184.4 A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

Meaning:

Any “police officer” (see previous section), can spy on you if they believe you’re going to break the law. How do you know they believe it? Why, you just have to take their word for it. Oh, and it’s not just limited to the internet; they can spy on you through your phone, by placing a bug in your place (or some other similar means), intercepting your mail, grabbing post-it notes stuck to your computer, etc. Also, if the “police” “believe” you’re likely to be the victim of a crime, they can spy on you as well. Basically, you’re going to be spied on. Period.

Then:

(1) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness shall, as soon as possible after the end of each year, prepare a report relating to
(a) authorizations for which that Minister and agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by thatMinister for the purposes of section 185 applied and to the interceptions made under those authorizations in the immediately preceding year;
(b) authorizations given under section 188 for which peace officers to be named in the report who were specially designated by that Minister for the purposes of that section applied and to the interceptions made under
those authorizations in the immediately preceding year; and
(c) interceptions made under section 184.4 in the immediately preceding year if the interceptions
relate to an offence for which proceedings may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada.

Translation:

The Minister of Public Safety is going to prepare a yearly report on who’s spying on you. Unfortunately, there’s no mention that this report needs to be made public, and furthermore, unless the spying results in charges, there’s no need to include any details in there (i.e. if you’re being spied on for no purpose, there’s no reason anyone needs to know about it). This is further spelled out in additional sections; only where charges have been laid does anything need to be reported on.

Granted that the bill isn’t a completed document yet, and it rests on the existing Criminal Code so my analysis isn’t exactly thorough (and to be honest, I would love for someone to prove me wrong), but I can’t help but question if any of the clauses above (which pretty much comprise the entire current version), do what the bill’s preamble claim that they do:

(a) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4;
(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception;
and
(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

As usual, I invite you to read the whole thing yourself and, if possible, have a gander at the sections of the Criminal Code that it’s attempting to change. And while you’re at it, I would challenge you to ask who, exactly, all of these laws are intended to benefit. It’s unlikely that Joe Commonman could list 1% of all the laws he’s being subjected to, yet is expected to abide by, and simultaneously isn’t allowed to claim ignorance of in the courts (unless, of course, you’re Rob Ford).

Common Law it most certainly is not.

Obviously, if urbanity isn’t your cup of tea then gazing out over this every day is probably not something you’d enjoy. Sarah and I, on the other hand, are digging it (along with the prospects of a balcony garden of some sort). Spectacular sunset panoramas should present themselves forthwith…