If Olivia Chow wants to be mayor of Toronto... - Macleans.ca

If Olivia Chow wants to be mayor of Toronto…


… there might be a very immediate opening and an impending call for applications.

At last report she was polling well as a hypothetical candidate.


If Olivia Chow wants to be mayor of Toronto…

  1. I don`t know if Ford should be mayor of Toronto but I do know that this Judge just scuttled Chow`s chance of beating him in 2014.
    Watch for the backlash against downtown lefty politics.

    • Lemme guess, they won’t be presenting a “law & order” candidate this time? It’s hilarious how quickly you folks abandon even the pretence of having principles.

      • There may be lots of reasons not to vote for Ford in the next election but one of them will not be the perception that he is a criminal.
        The fact you and the downtown lefties think this is a testimony to the disconnect you have with the people.

        • Certainly Ford is not a criminal the way that Vic Toews is a criminal. What Ford is, is criminally stupid. He had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to learn the rules, to correct his mistake, to actually comply with the law as it was written, the same law which he had sworn to follow when he took his OATH of office. Any fool can screw up and fall out of compliance with the law but it takes an incredible cement-head to drive himself headlong over the cliff despite all the signs and sirens and screams of warning from observers along the last 300 miles of his suicidal course. The man is dumber than a sack of ground meat.

          I don’t doubt for a minute that you would vote for him again out of some prehensile lust for revenge against “intelleksual elites.” By all means, vote for the man who represents you best.

          • You continue to demonstrate an inability to understand people.

            If a mayor were to take public funds and use it to pay for his son`s wedding, then people will never vote for him again.

            If a mayor uses the wrong stationary to ask for charitable funds for a worthy cause and those corporations willingly contribute 3000 dollars for this charity and then, because he did not follow the letter of the law, he is brought to Court by Clayton Ruby and other lefties, the people will gladly vote for him again—just to let the downtown elites know they don`t own the City.

            So keep calling Ford dumb—lie down with the downtown elites—-you guys just won him the next Election.

          • How about if a mayor has people thrown off a bus in a rainy day so his football team can have space?

            Or even what really happened: A mayor voting on the issue of his own corruption.

          • … then he’s a hero to the downtrodden working man. A brave idealist battling against those crafty all-powerful elites. A champion for the 4th liners, the pluggers, the lunch-bucket guys who pay their taxes, take their kids to the rink and follow the rules… so that their hero doesn’t have to.

          • So you are predicting another term for your political and intellectual hero, Rob Ford? LOL
            Oh Andrew, if only you were still around to face the music when your asinine predictions were hitting the ground like sacks of wet shit. But of course, you won’t be around and, when Ford declines to run again, you will console yourself with your certain knowledge that he would have won, if he had run.

          • Actually I was hoping Ford would only be a one term mayor—his agenda concerning straightening out the spend-happies and the union capitulation down at City Hall should have been accomplished in 4 years.
            A more acceptable Mayor like John Tory could then have won easily—I would vote for him over Ford.
            So even if Ford does not get my vote, you and Clayton Ruby and the downtowners have assured that Ford will win easily in 2014—you`ll have him until 2018—Good Luck.

          • Um.. the judge who ruled against him was a Harper appointed judge.. so the lefties may hate Ford.. but a judge ruled on the law.. and Ford broke it.

          • It’s not about soliciting funds on city letterhead for your personal charity from lobbyists who do business with the city, it’s about voting on the issue of whether or not you should be disciplined for that at Council.

            Ford was told AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE that he was in conflict and shouldn’t speak to the issue or vote on it, and he plunged ahead. In court, Ford argued that he wasn’t in a conflict of interest because the definition of conflict of interest in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is different from Rob Ford’s personal definition of conflict of interest. Not only had he never read the rules governing Council before this (by his own admission) he didn’t even bother reading them before he came to Court! His defence was basically “I didn’t break the law, because I disagree with that law, now that you’ve just read it to me for the first time”. As though laws only apply to Rob Ford when he agrees with them. It was STUNNING!

            Rob Ford has only one person to blame for this mess. ROB FORD.

          • “As though laws only apply to Rob Ford when he agrees with them.”

            And we have seen plenty of evidence of THAT train of thought…reading while driving; using a handheld phone while driving…

          • Jeez, I can`t tell when you guys are being sarcastic anymore—if you are using sarcasm, It`s cute but not real funny.
            If you are serious, just stop and think for a minute:
            There`s no corruption here, no assault, no drunk driving, no murder, no theft—only those who hate Ford are saying he is finished because he used a cell phone or glanced at a paper while in his car, or even used his influence to raise charity.
            I don`t think I would be wrong to say you and LKO and myself are guilty of committing all 3 offences. And don`t bother telling me about what the law may say about these offences—I`ve already said the people will decide the prosecution of Ford is a greater offence.

          • Let’s see… voting when in a conflict of interest? Nope! Using the cellphone while driving? Nope! Reading while driving? Only to take a quick glance at a map…

            The point is, though, that Rob Ford does what he wants to do regardless of the rules OR the reasons behind them. And often, the things he does demonstrates an utter lack of awareness of others or possible consequences… and he has demonstrated time and again an unwillingness to even pretend to listen to the reasons why he shouldn’t do a thing. The man is irresponsible and utterly lacks common sense.

            At the Santa Claus parade (according to a radio personality who was there), instructions were given to the celebrity clowns and other preparing to hand out candies at the parade that they were NOT to be thrown because of the risk of someone getting one in the eye – and the liability to the City that would result. Shortly thereafter, they set out – and Mayor Ford (who was present physically though apparently not mentally) starts tossing candies into the crowd.

            One of the others went over and reminded the Mayor not to throw candy, and again explained why. His response? “It’s not like I’m throwing overhanded!”

            And then he kept on tossing…

            The man is clueless!!!

          • Now why do you think Ford would stunningly refuse to admit to Council that he was wrong and he should be disciplined by that Council ?
            Because he honestly did not believe that he did not do anything wrong and more importantly for you Torontonians that will be blessed with his presence for at least the next 6 years—he knew a majority of the voters would see more wrong in the prosecution and conviction of a Mayor raising charitable funds, then a Mayor who would not back down to political foes looking for any reason to get rid of him.

            Forget about what the Integrity Comm. or what the Mun. Con. of Int. Act might say—-voters won`t care. This mess will give Ford all he needs to stay in power.
            Think Contempt of Parliament against Harper and how that worked out for the Opp. in the last Election.
            I still say Stupid, Stupid, Ruby and the lefty Council.

          • It’s really not that complicated. Ford didn’t need to AGREE that he should be disciplined, he just should have kept his mouth shut and not have voted on whether or not HE should be disciplined. Not only is it political ethics 101 (honestly, it’s like the simplest grade 8 textbook example of a conflict of interest you could come up with if you tried), it was also immaterial to the result of the vote. Just keep your mouth shut and let the motion pass without you (which it would have).

            Ignore the law because voters don’t care about politicians following the law, though? Well, maybe they don’t, and that’s their right. I for one, however, am not at all comfortable with a politician who not only does not seem to understand the absolutely most BASIC example of a conflict of interest, but still doesn’t understand that he did something wrong even after being convicted of breaking the law and kicked out of office for it.

    • There are no parties, there is no left/right, and the mayor only has one vote….usually only used if there is a tie.

      It’s simple majority by individuals.

    • I suspect most of Ford’s critics have no particular political orientation, either left or right. Many probably just wish the city had a mayor, not a HS football coach who has no apparent willingness to respect the most basic rules of public office.

      It’s sad that Ford’s supporters are willing to settle for, even excuse, the immature antics of a jumbo-sized man-child.

    • Ford WAS the suburban backlash. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to the middle.

      • True, and usually that only happens for one election, but this decision and the eventual anger of the public at this unnecessary distraction–byelection, etc. will result in another suburban backlash at what they perceive as an elitist downtown lefty politic.

        • I think even right wingers are smart enough to finish this one out, this time.

        • the eventual anger of the public at this unnecessary distraction–byelection, etc.

          There’s only one person to blame for this unnecessary distraction. ROB FORD.

    • The judge’s decision was non-partisan, despite what Ford states.

  2. This is what a deputy mayor is for.

  3. So much for democracy and the will of the people, and the idea of Toronto as a “progressive and tolerant” city.

    • YOur comment is stupid.

      • I know you are, but what am I?

      • In all seriousness, thank you for your enlightened contribution to the discussion. Your way with words is an inspiration to us all. If only everybody on the far left of the political spectrum was as articulate as you, perhaps this country could be great again.

        Stupid troll.

    • The will of the people is for our politicians to be held accountable when they break the law, the same as we would be. You can’t have democracy if politicians become immune from the laws of the land once they’re elected. Disagreeing with a law does not negate the force of said law, even (ESPECIALLY) if the person disagreeing is an elected official.

      • Meanwhile down the road in London long time Liberal mayor Joe Fontana is being charged with actual fraud, and he manages to remain the job with nary a peep from the Liberal elites. How does that square with you’re idea of democracy?

        Defrauding taxpayers for personal gain is A-OK, but soliciting funds for a charity on the wrong letter-head is grounds for dismissal?

        How many people actually think a public official should be removed from office for fundraising for a charity on the wrong letterhead? This is a perfect example of the complete bastardization of justice. There was no justice here, and anybody who claims otherwise has no idea what the meaning of the word is.

        • It’s not the fault of liberal elites if liberal elites are more concerned about rooting out unethical politics than conservative elites. If Fontana’s violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, why doesn’t a conservative go after him in court?

          Sorry, but I’m not buying this “other politicians have broken more serious laws than Rob Ford, so we should let Rob Ford get away with breaking the law” argument. It’s essentially the same as the (now old) “Jean Chretien did that unethical thing years before Stephen Harper did the exact same unethical thing, so why are people complaining about Stephen Harper doing it?” It’s B.S.

          Also, it’s not about the letterhead (or the soliciting of charitable donations from lobbyists who do business with the city either, frankly) it’s about voting on the issue of whether or not you should be punished for something. It’s a TEXTBOOK case of a conflict of interest, the Speaker of Council TOLD FORD it was a conflict of interest at the time, and Rob Ford just DIDN’T CARE.

          As for soliciting the donations in the first place, I just don’t understand how conservatives don’t see why this is a problem. If Mitt Romney had solicited Halliburton for donations to the Mormon Church on “Romney for President” letterhead, you really think that would be considered kosher??? I don’t care if you’re soliciting donations to help save orphaned kittens, a politician shouldn’t solicit money from lobbyists who bid for work (or represent people who bid for work) with the government that said politician is a part of. Even if it’s just about the APPEARANCE of impropriety it’s a problem. The issue isn’t whther Rob Ford personally gained, it’s whether the LOBBYISTS expected to gain from the donations, or alternatively, feared being punished through a loss of business opportunities by not donating. It’s ENTIRELY plausible that someone who bids on city work could get a letter like that from a member of city council and legitimately see it as an attempted act of extortion.

    • Conservatives don’t have to follow the rules. We know.

      • The rules against soliciting for a charity on the wrong letterhead? Ya, clearly Rob Ford is a maniac that must be stopped! Give me a break.

        Pretending this has anything other to do with certain people with a political axe to grind just makes you look foolish.

        • There is a pattern here, Rick. One rule for your boys, one rule for the rest.
          The rule he broke was not recusing himself from a decision that had a bearing on his personal finances, BTW. A pretty small and simple rule to follow. Apparantly no rule is too small to be ignored by a Con.

          • Oh, there’s two sets of rules, no doubt. Rob Ford gets removed from office for soliciting funds for a charity on the wrong letterhead. Joe Fontana defrauds taxpayers of $20,000 and he remains in office. No crime is large enough to punish a Liberal, apparently.

          • The letterhead thing is a straw man. Yes, using City letterhead for the letters (and city staff to prepare them) makes the soliciting of donations from people who bid on city work (and their lobbyists) more egregious, but it would have been wrong if he’d done it on “From the private desk of Rob Ford” letterhead, or paper with no letterhead at all.

            A politician should not ask lobbyists and people who bid on business opportunities with his government for donations to his personal charity PERIOD. If you don’t understand why it’s a problem when they do I don’t know what to tell you. Forget about the letterhead, and try to imagine what people would have thought if Mitt Romney had sent a letter personally soliciting donations to the Mormon Church to the head of Halliburton. Do you suppose people would have thought that was an ethical thing to do?

          • I’m also finding this ‘confusion’ about conflict of interest to be, well, confusing.

            When the MCIA was prepared I’d assume that there was discussion about including some wiggle room (eg single donations of less than X dollars are exempt, or in cases where a councillor is not a member of such and such committee a councillor is free to solicit funds). Apparently at that time it was deemed that conflicts of interest needed to be treated very seriously, and so the law was written so that even the smallest infraction would be dealt with forcefully.

            If there is now agreement that the law should be changed to allow some wiggle room, then that is the way to solve this problem. Personally it doesn’t strike me as all that hard to work within the existing guidelines. Also, from personal private sector experience, the existing MCIA is not exceptional.

          • I doubt Joe Fontana will be in office long. I personally hope he drags this out like Ford did, because doing so will add to his (Fontana’s) embarassment and will further damage his political career.

            Not that Fontana`s alleged (covering my ass) theivery is related to Ford`s refusal to accede to simple rules about conflict of interest, anyway.