So it’s been about a week since our betters passed a municipal bylaw requiring the imposition of mandatory indoor masks pretty much everywhere except schools and daycare, transportation (noting that the TTC has its own bylaws), medical facilities, and residential buildings.

There are some neat specifics for businesses, like bars, which can legally allow patrons indoors:

*The bylaw allows for temporary removal of a mask or face covering when receiving services (such as having a meal) or while actively engaging in an athletic or fitness activity.

How thoughtful! You’re allowed to temporarily lift your mask to shove a fry in your mouth or down a few gulps of lager.

The implied stupidity makes it really hard to take it seriously. And I suspect this is why many people doubt government so-called experts and advisors. After all, this is the same caliber of people who brought us things like the smoking bylaw that penalizes business owners if they fail to police a 9 meter (29.5 feet) radius in front of their premises, a distance that often extends well into the street if not all the way across.

I haven’t heard of anyone being rounded up into cattle cars yet so for me the mask bylaw has so far been only a mild irritant. And there are loopholes in it that are big enough to drive a truck through. Nevertheless, I sympathize with the people who see this as a slippery slope.

Developments like the increasingly indefinite emergency measures being introduced by Doug Ford’s lackeys, when compared with something like the 9/11 anti-terror laws that over the years have never really abated, tend to produce some very plausible conclusions even if those conclusions haven’t yet been borne out.

When Doug Ford claims it’s not a power grab are we to assume he’s being honest? The oxymoron doth run deep there.

So is it so surprising when we find people resisting increasingly dictatorial demands by the state even as that same state tells us that Covid infections are way down “but we have to be ready for the next wave”? Sounds an awful lot like arbitrary, indefinite lockdowns and a complete stripping of people’s rights in the name of “public health measures“.

On top of that, it seems that in their frenzied efforts to impose their controls, governments may actually be openly violating the laws of their masters, something I realized while observing an interaction at a bank between a woman refusing to wear a mask and a front-door security officer refusing her access (to her own money).

The woman was showing the rent-a-cop the bylaw and claiming she had an illness, therefore couldn’t wear a mask. The diminutive female guard asked the woman what kind of illness she had and even after she was told it was asthma there was a lot of hemming and hawing.

At first I thought, how shitty of the government to make the businesses and ultimately their employees responsible for facing people’s wrath in increasingly tense times. Besides, I doubt most of these Covid bouncers have any training in determining which illnesses may or may not qualify so putting the onus on them to make safety decisions seems quite reckless.

Moreover, aren’t there provincial health privacy laws that specifically prevent random people demanding answers to exactly these types of questions? Aren’t business owners opening themselves up to lawsuits if they follow the city bylaw? Or do municipal laws supersede provincial legislation now?

Maybe until they get their act together we should #defundthestate

“…there was no chance for public input before rookie Councillor Justin Di Ciano proposed that Toronto reverse its stand. The motion, part of debate on proposed changes to the City of Toronto Act, passed 25-18, with the support of seven councillors who reversed their earlier support for ranked ballots.

…

Under ranked ballots, a candidate with a majority of first-place votes — 50 per cent plus one — wins, just as in the current system. If nobody meets that threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is knocked out. The second-place choices of that candidate’s supporters are added to the totals of the remaining hopefuls, and so on, until somebody has a majority.

“The way it happened was entirely undemocratic; it really feels underhanded,” said Katherine Skene, of Ranked Ballot Initiative. “But we’re hopeful that there is still the possibility for change.””

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/10/02/toronto-council-reversal-on-ranked-ballots-criticized.html

Well, today’s his birthday, so that’s a good place to start. He turns 59 today, something to genuinely celebrate given the history of one of Toronto’s perennially peripheral figures.

Originally from England, in the early 80s Clarke suddenly found himself unemployed and decided to found the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, a group both vilified and praised for standing up for, or claiming to stand up for, the city’s poor.

Clarke doesn’t mince words or shy away from controversy, often staging demonstrations, sit-ins, and occupations to drive his message. He’s had run-ins with cops, politicians, and even the media aren’t particularly fond of him. Basically, he’s not in it for the popularity.

Although he’s not homeless, Clarke somehow manages to raise a family of two kids and a wife on a budget that verges on poverty. Prior to 1986, Clarke’s biggest investment was a vehicle — a 1980 Lada.

Clarke doesn’t like the word Marxist and instead prefers to call himself a socialist. Personally, I think the title of bellicose advocate for the poor is probably more appropriate– it’s certainly been his raison d’être.

And at the end of the day, even if you disagree with Clarke or his methods, you have to admire the man’s tenacity and willingness to stand up for justice. If the world only had more men like that in it, we’d all be leading much better lives.

Happy birthday, John.

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.”

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.

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.

To be exact, he wants to bring back the death penalty.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that it is murder, is that it’s been shown time and again not to work as a deterrent.

Another problem is that this is being proposed by a man who has publicly stated that he doesn’t respect the law if it doesn’t meet with his own agenda. This is also the man who thought that a curfew for teens would somehow prevent them from going out and gunning down people.

A few of the other fantastic ideas emanating from that greasy melon Mammoliti calls his head include:

• Raging against licensing rub-n-tugs in the city while enthusiastically backing prostitution and hailing the benefits of gambling for single moms (not to mention Celine Dion coming to town!)
• Creating an open discussion page on Facebook in order to figure out how to ban Communists from any involvement at City Hall.
• Skulking around the annual Pride parade with a video camera, on behalf of Toronto’s Jews, in order to record the presence of the contentious Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group (deemed “hateful” because they criticize Israeli state policies).
• Pushing for increased police powers to arrest panhandlers and have them forcibly committed to hospitals and other institutions while simultaneously encouraging those same panhandlers to camp out in front of Queen’s Park to encourage more money to deal with the problem from the province. Or maybe this was his attempt to garner more provincial powers for the city?
• Pushing for bylaw officers to be equipped with guns in order to fight graffiti (on-the-spot capital punishment?).
• Removing basketball hoops from a neighbourhood because they attract crime and drug dealers.

I have to admit that banning plastic bags was a pretty idiotic move on the part of City Hall. I honestly don’t know of a single person, other than the councillors, who though this would be a good idea. It’s fair to say that nobody thought this one through — sure as heck didn’t consult with anyone or allow the people to be heard on the issue.

Which is why Rob Ford’s comments are especially insulting to all of Toronto:

“It’s the people’s fault,” Ford told AM640’s John Oakley. “Honestly, sometimes I get so frustrated because the people are just sitting back listening. They don’t pick up the phone, they don’t go down to City Hall, they don’t ask questions, they just — it’s frustrating. I want people to get engaged in municipal politics to find out who their councillor is and know how they vote.”

What a dickish thing to say coming from a mayor who spent a chunk of his time during the budget deputations out of his seat doing god-knows-what, did his best to ensure that as few people were able to attend as possible by keeping the meeting running all day and night, and had his buddies mouthing off to deputants instead of listening to what they had to say. Not to mention that this plastic bag vote happened pretty much on the spur of the moment and without any chance for any citizen to have their say; maybe Ford expects that citizens should’ve traveled back in time to voice their objections?

Instead of representing his constituents, which he has clearly given up on doing, Ford has now taken to blaming them (clearly the only group of people left to blame) — but only those who don’t support his myopic, austerity-laden visions.

So no, Rob, it’s not the citizen’s fault that they had no chance to make their voice heard on the plastic bag issue, and where the hell do you get off claiming that people aren’t engaged in municipal politics?

Councillor Shelley  Carroll tweeted a bunch of quotes from her day today including presentations from MGM Grand casino reps trying to set up shop in Toronto (with much support from Fordo and his bunch), and witticisms from Giorgio Mammoliti’s. These would be hilarious if they didn’t represent the idiocy currently running, sorry, attempting to run Toronto.

MGMGrand representatives: “We function best in an adult oriented town.”

Still listening to deps about Casinos. In 8 yrs, I’ve never seen so many Public Affairs firms represented in this room @ 1 time. And by Public Affairs I mean Lobbyists! Generally when you create REAL JOBS & Community Benefits, you don’t need a Lobbyist.

So I’ve been presented with this glossy, done deal picture book from MGM Grand! http://pic.twitter.com/6qsAXpFH

Who could say no!?! Especially when it’s all up to the Province to wear the controversy! Sassy! http://pic.twitter.com/Gj35J4zf

So Vegas, So Glossy! http://pic.twitter.com/XY21xzFB

So would a casino in Toronto be such a bad idea? The mayor and his slimey buddies don’t seem to think so. Folks in the US would probably say otherwise. But is it really surprising considering who’s supporting this?

Jumpin Jack Mammoliti: We will transfer the funds over to TPS to break up illicit card games.

Jumpin Jack Mammoliti: “If it’s the right decision I’ll vote for it. If it’s the wrong decision I’ll vote for that as well.”

Jumpin Jack Mammoliti: This is not organized crime. This is legalized crime.

Sage words from a man who once said:

When you’re sleeping with a prostitute, you’re probably sleeping with 150 guys at the same time.

Judging by his attitude towards hookers, it only stands to reason that the arse is equally cognizant of how bad a casino would be. Makes one wonder, then, where he gets off pulling 10,000 jobs for single moms out of his ass.

So how did Mayor Rob Ford celebrate International Freedom of the Press day?

He made a proclamation, refused to talk to the press, and b-lined it for the exit. This, just days after after admitting to threatening Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale. Keep in mind that no one asserted Dale was trespassing when walking around behind Ford’s property, no one countered Ford’s threatening behaviour, and it was obviously Ford who made a call using the then-stolen property acquired through intimidation.

Putting icing on the cake, Ford said he wouldn’t be part of any media scrum that had Dale in it, and this isn’t the first time he’s directly excluded media from City Hall. In fact, not even the second time.

This could all be described as deeply ironic, if only it weren’t Rob Ford making a mockery of it all.