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

“I find this provision almost Orwellian,” said Fred Vallance-Jones, an associate professor at the University of King’s College in Halifax and an expert in access to information law.

“It seeks to rewrite history, to say that lawful access to records that existed before didn’t actually exist after all, and that if you exercised your quasi-constitutional right of access to those records, well too bad, you’re out of luck.”

The government is setting a precedent to move retroactively on any record it doesn’t want exposed, Vallance-Jones said.

“That to me is the deeper concern.”

Michel Drapeau, a lawyer, former military colonel and access-to-information author, noted there has never been a charge laid under the Access to Information Act, let alone a conviction.

He said the rationale of moving retroactively to prevent a possible prosecution is “a dangerous and unwelcome precedent” that should be as unwelcome to the RCMP and the administration of justice as to freedom-of-information wonks.

“The optics of it are not good: ‘Oh, so that’s the way it works now?’ If you do something against the law in the RCMP, you’ve got your friends in high places, they change the law,” said Drapeau.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-bill-c-59-rewrites-access-law-to-protect-rcmp-on-gun-registry-cp-1.3072548

It’s been very quiet around these parts lately.

I mean, there’s the idiotic anti-graffiti campaign that Robbie is attempting to resurrect, a “war” that the overweight fool will never win. There’s also Ford’s ill-advised yet completely expected nose-sticking into provincial politics in the now-successful campaign of Doug Holyday, which leaves Ford without an underling should something happen to him.

And that possibility is looking more likely now with the un-quieting news that Mohamed Siad, the guy who originally showed Gawker the Rob Ford crack video and was subsequently arrested in the massive June raid on the Dixon Road apartments, has offered it up to the cops in exchange for a plea deal.

To devout Fordites this will probably still all come across as pure fiction, despite the fact that well-known Toronto lawyer Warren Kinsella has weighed in, claiming that he’s certain that the video is most definitely real, has been seen by many people, and is now floating around between the courts and lawyers.

To quote:

Here’s what I know:

• Siad possessed the video.
• The police got the video when they arrested him, using a search warrant.
• The Crown office was then given the video.
• The Crown disclosed the video to lawyer Brown. He has it.

… the video is in the hands of many people, now. And it has been seen by many more. And it shows Rob Ford smoking what appears to be crack cocaine.

Keep in mind that Warren is a lawyer, and a well-known one at that, so he has a lot to lose by making knowingly false statements. Besides, how many people have now publicly, and to much flack and derision from Fordites, stated that yes, the video is real, and yes, that sure as hell looks and sounds like Ford smoking what looks like crack?

Even staunch Ford supporters like the Sun are no longer calling into question the existence of the crack “tape” and are now switching to the “but how do you know it’s crack?” deflections. That’s not unlike demanding that the recent shooting of Sammy Yatim by the cops is fiction because you weren’t there to witness it. It’s a good thing that the court system operates around evidence.

Let’s be clear: the Ford crack video is real, no doubt about that. It’s very certain that it is in fact Rob Ford smoking whatever substance he’s seen to be smoking in that video. And that substance, based on everything we know about Ford, is very likely crack cocaine.

The only question that remains is, will justice ever be done?

So now that Ford has survived the final appeal in his conflict of interest case (the Supreme Court didn’t even bother to give any reason), I think it’s worthwhile to count how many times he’s been let off the hook for flagrantly breaking both rules and laws (neither of which, of course, apply to Rob Ford or family):

There was that campaign finance audit, which, just like the conflict of interest case discovered that, yes indeed, Ford had broken the law many times over. But in the end, that was simply dismissed by an “expert committee” (a little cheating is okay). Thus Robbie first learned that the law is for other people.

Then there was the time Ford was caught in the act, reading while driving, and excused by the chief of police as a minor trifling offense (this at the same time as a distracted driving blitz was raking in cash).

You may also recall the time he rudely whisked past open streetcar doors, outright endangering people. That time the TTC refused to follow up, as did the cops.

Prior to that, Ford walked out of a domestic assault charge when it was decided that his wife just couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth.

That last one is quite ironic, considering how openly and loudly lied to the whole city about his DUI/drug charges in Florida.

Of course, there is that drunken rage incident at the Air Canada Centre, over which I don’t think charges were ever laid (Rob was just ejected).

There are lots of things Rob Ford does that, though technically illegal, would be more than sufficient grounds to get you fired from any private organization or business. Name your fault: incompetence, open deceit, criminality, etc. All of these are not only easily proven but, in some cases, actually admitted to by the fat man himself.

But why should any of that matter?

You may remember a couple of months ago that Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who took Rob Ford to court on conflict of interest charges (and won), was planning to take the subsequent appeal (which allowed Ford to walk away on a technicality), to the Supreme Court.

Well, on Thursday he’s to learn if his appeal will be heard. He’s not optimistic, but others are more so.

The question Ruby is seeking to answer is a simple one: what’s the purpose of having things like conflict of interest laws when no public official can so much as be looked at funny when they break them? At least that’s the gist of it.

Of course the thing has to do with Rob Ford who has subsequently demonstrated exactly why the public needs to be able to throw out criminal politicians. And even if, perish the thought, you actually support Rob Ford, then at least it’s worthwhile to consider this for someone you don’t care for much — someone like Miller, maybe?

Most troubling about this, however, is the tiny fact that the Supreme Court only heard 12% of appeals last year (while typically hearing an average of 60%). This, it’s said, because the courts only choose cases of “public importance”, and I guess last year must not have been really very worthy, certainly nothing the public would care about.

Of course, defending Ford in court against all comers is what Alan Lenczner does, so the fact that he’s still going to bat for Rob Ford and trying to prevent a re-opening of the successful appeal that got the mayor off of his conflict of interest charge shouldn’t come as a great surprise.

Lenczer’s ongoing defense of Ford is so expected that I wouldn’t even have mentioned it, except for the fact that the lawyer decided to put forth his reasoning for not holding public officials to account:

On the issue of national importance [required for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court], Lenczner said it was “incomprehensible” that Ford’s lawsuit be lumped in with cases like that of contractor “Monsieur Troittoir” in Montreal, or to members of the Senate in Canada.

“The allegations in Montreal are of conspiracy, bribery and corruption. The allegations against certain members of the Senate are of claiming reimbursement for improper expenses. In this case… (Justice Charles Hackland found) ‘there was absolutely no corruption or pecuniary gain on the respondent’s part.’”

Rob Ford balked noticeably at being told that he would have to pay his own court costs in the conflict of interest case, which he says he won “fair and square”.

Although he reserved his harshest, most thoughtful criticism for the proposals that Metrolinx recently put out in order to fund transit in Toronto, he nonetheless believes that he was wronged in being forced to pay his own way after “winning” the appeals to the case — one out of four appeals, or 25% of the total to be exact (after completely losing the original case).

But this is Rob Ford, after all, who believes that 25% qualifies as an overwhelming “win”, or that a 47% voting result is a “majority” during an election, etc.

Ford is probably also upset that those opposing him are working for free (assholes!), essentially leaving him the only one footing the bill for his own crimes, which the appeal judges once again reiterated were very real and very wrong, hence the loss of most of the appeals.

The funny thing is that this is exactly what Ford and his idiot supporters outright demand — it’s everyone for themselves, and cut and slash and privatize and fuck everyone in the process because money should be in the pockets of the rich, corrupt, and openly criminal. This is Ford’s raison d’etre incarnate; but, of course, because it’s being done to Rob and not by him, it’s completely wrong! That’s  the new neo-Con, money-trumps-everything, buried-in-hypocrisy-and-lies-and-corruption Canada.

Clayton Ruby offered an insightful and absolutely correct analysis of the situation: “Mayor Ford’s costs request was, once again, scuppered by Mayor Ford.” The term “karmic retribution” would also be very appropriate — now the universe just needs more  of it.

Toronto’s top cop, Chief Bill Blair, sent out an internal video to his staff a couple of days ago to express his displeasure at some of his members’ conduct — things like beating handcuffed and defenseless suspects, turning off dashboard cams to hide their behaviour, lying to courts, etc. And part of his statement seemed to hit the nail on the head:

“…you don’t get to be an idiot in our uniform, you don’t get to be an idiot diminishing our organization and you cannot hide behind the badge to abuse the authority so carefully earned and so carefully used by all of us.”

Nice words, but as critics are quickly pointing out, if words are all there are, nothing’s going to change. After all, if there are cops out there who are not only not doing their job but willing to publicly break the law (while simultaneously collecting a hefty salary), I don’t think the situation is one that requires a stern tongue lashing.

I know — I didn’t follow up much on Rob Ford’s conflict of interest case of a few months ago, although I’ve been eagerly awaiting a verdict.

I actually went down to the court house on the first day of the trial to hear him give testimony, and it was pretty much what I’d expected. There was a lot of side-stepping and claiming that during his decade or so at City Hall, he’d never really read the rules, barely talked to any legal aid, had most of his decisions made for him, and ignored the advice of fellow Councillors — what more could you expect from a mayor?

I tweeted from the court room so I’m sure Twitter will have some record of exactly how things went down that day, but there was really nothing new learned on that occasion except the amount of derision in the court that morning. Justice Hackland warned against “outbursts” when someone produced a quiet snicker at one of Ford’s remarks. It may have been the one where he said, “You read it to me, but I haven’t read it,” (referring to a previous conversation that he’d had with Clayton Ruby about reading the rules and which, apparently, failed to make any impression), but really there were so many that I could easily be mistaken.

In any event, it just smacked of one giant insult against common sense to hear the man speak and try to wriggle his way out of responsibility for his own actions.

The reason I mention this is because, at long last, the court is supposed to be delivering its verdict on this coming Monday (at 10 a.m.) In practical terms, Ford may not be mayor come Tuesday morning. That would mean not only a possible by-election, but also Ford’s absence from any municipal politics for a number of years (so presumably Harper would immediately take him on in some cabinet position).

Let justice, law, and the truth prevail!

At this point, the news of Rob Ford openly breaking yet another Ontario law has made headlines from coast to coast.

This time around, Ford was caught on camera, driving on the Gardiner Expressway reading some printouts.

This is hardly the first time that His Illustrious Rotundness has been caught brazenly endangering others on the road, but it’s the first time that photographic evidence proves it. Not only that, but Ford doesn’t deny doing this and, in his casually wishy-washy way, pretty much admits to doing it outright in the media. And so what, he claims…he’s busy!

But if that wasn’t infuriating enough, Toronto Police have declared that, instead of charging Ford with the serious offense that careless driving is, that photographic evidence of him breaking the law isn’t enough (especially without witnesses).

So the cops have, once again, unilaterally decided that they are the arbiters of what laws apply to who, refusing to lay charges without even asking for witnesses to come forward (presumably there’s at least one — the person who took the picture), and are openly lying to the public by claiming that photo evidence isn’t enough to prove that someone is breaking the law, despite the fact that it seems to be good enough for the cops to drag people in front of courts when it comes to reg light cameras, photo radar, and protests (unless, of course, it’s their own people).

Additionally, the cops say that the mayor’s offense isn’t charge-worthy unless “there’s a pattern of behaviour”, a pattern that has now been clearly established, while they simultaneously lay charges on others breaking exactly the same laws in exactly the same way in a blitz barely two weeks old in which they insist that “impaired, distracted, and aggressive driving will not be tolerated”.

Even the cops’ flimsy excuse that this is Toronto and not Ontario jurisdiction is complete bullshit with Toronto Police themselves recently launching another rake-in-the-cash distracted driving campaign in which they had no problems laying charges against no less than 10,000 people.

And then, just to add insult to injury, Ford’s police chief buddy insists that the solution is for Ford to get a chauffeur (no doubt on the taxpayers’ dime), who doubles as security because it’s the mayor that needs protection from us!

” Scumbags” doesn’t even begin to cover it.