It's Curtains for Rob Ford?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
14 day stay on the ruling--Ford will almost certainly use that time to appeal it and request a further stay.
And he can run again.
This is a bad law. Obviously, I think Ford is a complete jack-ass and unfit to be mayor, but this is not the way to get rid of him. He is guilty. He shouldn't have done that. He should have got a painful fine or other reprimand, but apparently the law does not give the judge that kind of discretion. It looks like the law only allows the judge to make a yes/no decision, and the facts say yes. We should rewrite the law to give the judge other punishment options other than removal from office.
And he can run again.
This is a bad law. Obviously, I think Ford is a complete jack-ass and unfit to be mayor, but this is not the way to get rid of him. He is guilty. He shouldn't have done that. He should have got a painful fine or other reprimand, but apparently the law does not give the judge that kind of discretion. It looks like the law only allows the judge to make a yes/no decision, and the facts say yes. We should rewrite the law to give the judge other punishment options other than removal from office.
Guys, be aware that this was CM's private thread until you took over. He was having a great watching his clock tell him the time.
While I can see the view that the punishment is disproportionate to the specific amount, it's hugely dangerous to the public good to have a someone in such an important office who cannot understand the difference between what is good for him and what is good for the city he heads. The trial established that was Ford's failing, and that he determinedly and obstinately ignored and blocked all efforts to steer him clear, or keep the matter small and harmless, when those with better sense advised or remonstrated with him. If that's how he mismanges and misunderstands his responsibility in this small matter, entrusting him with a large one is clearly too risky.
Besides we all have seen ample other instances of his belligerent defiance of rules—like honesty, or safe conduct in public space—that apply to ordinary people. It's not as if this stubborn misbehaviour was the only instance of why he's not fit.
And then there'd be competence.
Besides we all have seen ample other instances of his belligerent defiance of rules—like honesty, or safe conduct in public space—that apply to ordinary people. It's not as if this stubborn misbehaviour was the only instance of why he's not fit.
And then there'd be competence.
In the ruling the judge noted that he was required to vacate the seat but cited significant mitigating circumstances in declining further penalty.
I get the strong sense that if a lessr penalty than removal had been available the judge would have gone for it.
Just like mandatory minimum sentences are problematic in criminal law, the lack of options open to the judge here is also a problem.
While I agree with you on the importance of integrity, I also think they our judges, who have the clearest view of the case, should have the discretion to scale the punishment to the infraction.
'Mitigating circumstances'? How about these findings by Judge Hackland:
1) Ford's claim of a 'ignorance of the law' and 'errors in judgement' amounted to 'willful blindless'.
2) Ford displays a 'sense of entitlement' towards his position.
3) Ford displays a 'dismissive' and 'confrontational' attitude towards the law, rules, regulations and authority.
The 'blob' got off light.
Now that's out of your system, how about we shitcan a mayor that actually deserves it, like London's Joe Fontana.
How about Judge Hackland himself said there were significant mitigating circumstances.
Anyone who doesn't have a trashcan for a head would know that although Ford was clearly seriously in breach of the rules, what he was doing wasn't for his own personal benefit, but for the benefit of his pet charity. Those rules were set up to catch people who were pocketing money from developers while voting on zoning regulations.
Ford broke the rules, and he was too much of an arrogant bombast just to say sorry and make amends--so he brought this on himself.
But you are a clown if you think that having done it rather openly and in the service of a charity isn't a significant mitigating circumstance.
No where in Hackland's ruling does he state that 'significant mitigating' circumstance dissuaded the judge from imposing further penalty(ban from re-election) as you contended in the post to which I responded to.
The judge did not state nor believe that Rob Ford, "having done it rather openly and in the service of charity' was a significant mitigating circumstance in his disposition of the case.
He did make mention that certain aspects of the MCIA may have to be revisited but nowhere does he state that significant mitigating circumstances helped form his opinion and thus disposition of this case. Cut and dried case. Guilty as guilty can only be.
Did you read the judge's descriptive narrative with respect to Rob Ford's actions and behaviour. Those words were a judicial roasting of the man. The verdict was just. The penalty was a kiss.
Concentrate on weaselling out of paying your fair share of your property taxes and then wailing away on this board about how the city is going to hell in a hand basket.
You mean other than the part that says:
"In view of the significant mitigating circumstances surrounding the respondent’s actions, as set out in paragraph 48 of these reasons, I decline to impose any further disqualification from holding office beyond the current term."
And for reference, here are those significant mitigating circumstances:
paragraph 48 said:
For all that Rob didn't personally gain, and for all that the amount was small, the point is that no law can precisely define what will or will not improperly influence a politician, or advantage a lobbyist unfairly. They are explicitly forbidden to have any such contact. In fact it would be just as improper for Rob to be made aware that a person with business before Council had made a large unsolicited donation to his charity. That's why it's at arms-length; it's why there's an integrity Commissioner to help determine difficult issues, such as whether a chance party convo that resulted in a cheque would be improper, and why a whole Council wound up debating it.
But using the same official Council letterhead that might tell someone they'd scored a big contract for street repair in your ward to ask for a 'donation' [sarcastic single quotes intended] to your personal foundation. That's easy: It's wrong.
If you didn't know it, and won't listen when they tell you—and even in Court Rob did not get it—you're not fit for office.
But using the same official Council letterhead that might tell someone they'd scored a big contract for street repair in your ward to ask for a 'donation' [sarcastic single quotes intended] to your personal foundation. That's easy: It's wrong.
If you didn't know it, and won't listen when they tell you—and even in Court Rob did not get it—you're not fit for office.
In all these threads about Rob Ford, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that the Current Mayor , someone who won the election by almost 100000 votes over his closest rival (equivalent to just under 12 % of the popular vote) will no longer (potentially) be Mayor and the voters have no say in it.
I mentioned several times that I think any interim mayor should be chosen from Ford camp, much as I disagree with it, for exactly this reason.
Ford cannot be above the law, but to the extent possible the democratic choice should be respected, dumb as it was.
I think that its fine for the courts to kick politicians who won't play by the rules out of office.
Its only too bad that Elections Canada doesn't have the same kind of teeth.
