In response to the (somewhat) explosive allegations yesterday that Rob Ford is almost perpetually publicly plastered, the mayor responded by inviting his accusers to take him to court:

“It’s just lies after lies and lies, and I’ve called you guys pathological liars, and you are, so why don’t you take me to court? Let the courts decide. You guys are liars!”

I’m pretty sure Rob doesn’t read TCL, but I know his handlers do so this little tidbit of advice might find its way into his ear: when someone’s slandering or libeling you, it’s you who take them to court, not the other way around.

Also, it’s worthwhile to keep in mind that although the Star revealed the information, of you’re going to be suing anyone it should be the well-named and very public people who are sourced in the newspaper’s claims.

Alright, I know that the headline is just plain old over-the-top hyperbole, but to hear Rob Ford pull this old nugget out of his ass again requires no less.

After all, this is the fourth time in as many years that Robbie’s “taking on”, “tackling”, “dismantling”, or otherwise dealing with his “guaranteed…GUARANTEED!!” election promise of getting rid of the Land Transfer Tax, one of the biggest forms of income for City Hall and hence the best way to fuck over the city for money for things like plowing snow, fixing roads, collecting garbage, etc.

I mean, I get it … who likes to pay taxes? And this particular one adds no value to something you don’t even really own — unbeknownst to most “home owners” within the Commonwealth, the Crown actually owns all the land and they are essentially renting it. But City Hall is fairly limited in where and how it can tax people, so taking away a major source of revenue will produce a massive deficit of the sort that Ford has thus far only (and falsely), attributed to his predecessors.

Essentially, Ford’s plan, which includes no way to make up for the lost revenue other than the non-existent “gravy” that proved to be just so much bullshit, would leave Toronto in a huge financial pickle. And Ford’s solution is to simply keep repeating the same old, proved-false rhetoric (like that tired Public-Private-Partnership nonsense that never materialized).

It probably won’t matter — Ford will once again toss his fellow Councillors under the bus for refusing to support his insane “plan”, even though he’s unwilling (incapable?) of putting forth any viable solutions, and will once again do nothing but cast blame and aspersions for once again failing to do what he “GUARANTEED!” he would do, over, and over, and over again.

Reality: 4, Ford: 0

Just when you think you’ve seen every form of stupidity that Rob Ford can muster …

Yesterday, for example, Rob Ford voted against the new city budget. Well, technically, not the whole budget, just the part that he himself had put in there!

Yeah, that’s not a typo — Ford actually voted against a part of the city’s budget that he pushed to get have included. The specific part in question has to do with the 2% property tax increase that, if you recall, he vehemently “guaranteed” year after year would be completely eliminated (just one of the many of Rob’s boldfaced, ignorance-laced, and denigratory lies).

Of course, being Ford, he reneged on that little campaign promise almost as soon as he was done telling pinkos where they can stuff it, but he kept on maintaining that he was doing everything he could to keep it at reasonable levels. Those ended up being exactly what they were prior to when he took office, so in effect Rob Ford has managed to completely fail on this end.

Just like his much-vaunted lies about all of the gravy at City Hall that never materialized, Ford has once again flown his true colours as an unabashed liar, and a bumbling buffoon of an unabashed liar at that. I mean, if this last-minute vote against his own measure is some sort of half-assed attempt to control the “optics” of his awful mayoralty (unsurprisingly, despite what the Toronto Sun says, with the help of useful idiot monkeys like Giorgio Mammoliti), he must be depending on citizen’s abject ignorance of what he’s been up to as late as last week, or he’s depending on them being so thick as to believe the crap he’s pushing.

Then again, this is Ford Nation we’re talking about here, the same small group of knuckle-dragging troglodytes who claim that black is white, up is down, “gravy” is everywhere at City Hall, Ford saves the city money (instead of costing everyone money), Toronto taxpayers is a group that only includes them (hence they are the only ones with the right to an opinion), and so on and so on. No, I wasn’t joking when I called them severely mentally ill — how else could you keep swallowing Ford’s blatant and fetid shit all this time and continue to call it candy?

Ahh, Giorgio.

Remember him?

The Councillor who once said he was willing to break laws to get what he wanted? He had a few interesting ideas, to be sure, but I think this particular one ended up being the truly visionary one, and it didn’t end up being the kind in which he assaults someone on live TV (though there were chances).

For now, it seems, Giorgio’s broken election laws to the tune of $12,000. Toss into this unfortunate bit of news the fact that he’s Ford ally (or was until recently). Ford is still in power, hanging on by his nails, and I think this is where we’re going to start seeing some genuinely interesting developments.

Consider that Mammoliti was, for about a year, part of Ford’s inner circle. He might know stuff.

And Ford will now be asked to choose sides with someone who publicly claimed he was under a great deal of “undue pressure” while working with Ford’s team.

Ford might end up relying on the “we’re both victims of legal technicalities” line, and it’d be a good one except in this case the numbers are a little higher. Four times as much — enough, and for purposes (to win an election), that I think even the most bitter “but it was just a small amount” clingers would be satisfied that the amount is not so small.

So will Ford be expected to criticize his former (current?) ally? And is he willing to say what he thinks an acceptable limit on going over the line is? (Oh, and by the way, what’s the possibility of legally moving the line instead of just telling the current one where to go?)

I mean, what would Ford say about something that ran at about the $12,000 limit? How bad of an infraction is that? And if, in theory, such an infraction was legal but looked bad, what would he think of an infraction that both looked bad but was also illegal?

Perhaps Doug et al. would like to weigh in too?

Should be interesting, I think.

By the way, Happy New Year!

Someone (presumably Ford’s election team), recently created a video called “Respect Democracy“. Toronto City Life has responded by including a few inconvenient facts in the same video — and unlike them, we won’t hide behind anonymity:

(Yeah, I realized I’d made a spelling mistake after I uploaded it. Oh well.)

I know that the headlines prior to “Respect?” in the video are hard to make out, so here they are (all easily found using Google):

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.

I wouldn’t blame you if you knew little about the upcoming trial of our ignominious, embarrassing mayor, Rob Ford.

I follow him and his merry band of criminals and I must admit that even I didn’t know the full extent of the abuses of power and influence that are to be tried at the upcoming court date, but hopefully I can make sense of it all in this post and you’ll be able to see why this is such a serious issue (and why the man has to go).

The facts thus far…

Ford is very much the front man for the Rob Ford Football Foundation which, under his name and to his political benefit, funds a number of schools around Toronto. Here’s Rob himself to introduce it:

According to the Notice of Application by Clayton Ruby’s office — he’s the lawyer leading the charge against the Mayor — Ford used the City of Toronto logo on both the envelope and letter to solicit donations to his charity prior to the 2010 election. Just to make sure everyone knew it was Rob, he had it gold-embossed with yet another City of Toronto logo and “Rob Ford Etobicoke North Councillor” on it.

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.

He had done something similar twice before (noted in the same Notice), and was slapped on the wrist for it by Janet Leiper, the Integrity Commissioner. There are also numerous previous examples that clearly demonstrate that Ford was sensitive, sometimes too much so, to conflicts of interest at City Hall. So claiming that he didn’t know would be an outright and easily provable lie.

But this is just the beginning of the story.

In mid-August of 2010, Ford had a formal complaint lodged against him on this issue which was investigated by the Integrity Commissioner. There are some out there, like Giorgio Mammoliti, the same Councillor, and Ford’s personal buddy on Council, who said he’ll openly break the law if things aren’t done his way, who suggest that the I.C. has it in for Ford, basically suggesting that because she’s doing her job, she’s engaging in some sort of personal vendetta.

My own meeting with the Integrity Commissioner suggests she’s one of the most balanced, fair, and carefully-treading individuals I’ve ever met; by far the most professional and unbiased lawyer the city could find. The video above demonstrates exactly the same demeanor I encountered.

But I guess neither Mammoliti nor Ford can possibly imagine that an Integrity Commissioner might be engaged in, oh, I don’t know, investigating breaches of integrity. Keep in mind, too, that she doesn’t do this of her own volition; investigations only ever begin when a citizen files a formal complaint, including an affidavit, under oath (it’s not easy and requires a lot of hoop jumping).

Maybe this is why, instead of speaking to allegations of impropriety, Rob Ford spent his time “explaining” how his program works, how the “Rob Ford Football Foundation” is not in any way about him but about the kids, how he’s not involved in the process at all except that the schools involved make requests directly through him by sending him invoices, he then sends the requisitions onto his foundation, and they send out cheques and cheritable receipts to donors, and so on. All perfectly above board!

Notice towards the end of the video where he holds up the letterhead (sent to Toronto schools), demonstrating that it doesn’t mention that he’s mayor — “you would have no idea that I was a politician … if you didn’t know, obviously, if you were in another city” (Council understandably laughs). The sample letter simply just shows his mug in the corner and “ROB FORD” in big, bold, banner type at the top. So, yeah, no connection to Ford at all.

Ford then admits that he used City letterhead during his campaign: “I was wrong! I took all that off!”

You may be asking why he’s babbling about having to repay money out of his own pocket in that video.

Well, that August 2010 investigation I mentioned earlier found that Ford had breached the City Council Code of Conduct (on numerous occassions), and that in order to avoid being held to account for it, he should repay the lobbyists who donated money to his foundation.

Had he simply given the money back, a mere $3,150 (pittance for a millionaire), he could’ve simply walked away from the affair and continued on his jolly way (a Code of Conduct violation isn’t as serious as something like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act).

But he ignored what was then a mere recommendation to repay and later that month Council voted that he violated the Code of Conduct and ordered him, under a legally binding obligation, to pay back the lobbyists.

Oh, and Rob Ford voted on that, and an additional motion to reconsider.

If you still don’t get what’s wrong with this, consider why we wouldn’t allow criminals to sit as both their own jury and judge — that’s very clearly a conflict of interest, exactly like Rob Ford sitting in on a vote to dismiss a punishment against him.

But Ford did it, and this wouldn’t be the last time.

In the meantime, the Integrity Commissioner followed up with a litany of payment requests and reports to Council (six, to be precise), about Ford’s complete refusal to pay back the money.

Finally, in October, Ford claimed that he had written to the lobbyists and they said they didn’t want their money back. (Their politician is bought and paid for, after all)

The Integrity Commissioner replied that the Lobbyist Registrar (yet another office now involved), had contacted the lobbyists and told them that they were violating the Lobbyist Code of Conduct. The lobbyists wisely pulled back their offer to let Ford off the hook and demanded their money back.

Okay, let’s catch our breath here for a second and do a quick wrap-up (because it ain’t over yet):

1. Ford used City of Toronto letterhead, plus his name and position all over envelopes and letters sent to lobbyists asking for donations to his football charity during the election, to which he admitted:
   He used his influence and office to solicit donations for the Rob Ford Football Foundation
2. He was warned multiple times prior to this incident about similar breaches, and had on numerous occassions recused himself from votes which might indicate a conflict of interest for him:
   He clearly knows about conflicts of interest and about recusal from votes
3. The Rob Ford Football Foundation does not operate at arms length, requiring schools to send invoices and requests directly to Rob Ford:
   He is directly involved in the day-to-day operations of his foundation, not disconnected from it as he claims
4. The Integrity Commissioner warned Ford that this was a big no-no (remember this wasn’t the first time either), and gave him an out (considering his wealth, it woulnd’t have been a huge burden). When Ford didn’t respond, Council voted that he must repay the money, by law — Ford voted against that motion, and then again to reconsider it:
   He knowingly broke the Municipal Conflict if Interest Act twice
5. The Integrity Commissioner followed up many times to remind both Rob and Council that he had failed to follow up. Instead of doing as he was required to do, by law, he wrote lobbyists asking to be forgiven. The Integrity Commissioner replied to both the lobbyists and Ford that this would amount to further breaches:
   He tried to weasel out of his obligation and ignored the law

Well, you know, this isn’t enough for Ford. He isn’t satisfied with repeatedly flaunting being above the law or endangering the city’s citizens, he has to drive home his complete and utter lack of respect for his office, the rule of law, and even common decency.

Roughly one and a half years later, Ford’s buddy Mammoliti (who, aside from brimming with criminal tendencies himself, is also a spineless toady bent on really fucking up the city every way possible), tabled a motion to let Ford off the hook completely and just fuhgetaboudit!

I guess the Councillors who previously voted on this forgot what it was all about (or were tired of it), and decided unanimously to adopt the motion.

Oh, and Ford voted on this one too.

But not before another vote (on which Ford also voted), that would’ve extended the time he had to repay until October 15 of this year. Of course, kind of a moot point since the follow-up motion got Ford off completely, but I put it in for a total vote tally (I’m not including additional votes to extend speakers’ times and to end the debate — which Ford was also in on).

So at this point, over a historic journey of about two years…

Ford directly, knowingly, brazenly contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act no less than four times.

He believes it’s okay to influence City Hall, and especially the Mayor, through underhanded lobbying techniques via obvious sham organizations, and to do it all out in the broad daylight for everyone to see.

And then comes the deposition that Ford did for Clayton Ruby.

I’m going to cover this endless stream of bickering over whether or not Ford takes his office seriously, or whether or not he remembers a single damn thing, in the next post. If you get a moment, read it through (it’s about 132 pages) — I’m sure that now that you know the facts, you’ll find Fords answers as outrageous and insulting as I do.

And if you happen to have the day off this September 5th, perhaps I’ll see you down at the Provincial Courts, where if there is any rule of law and justice, they must surely prevail.

I was strolling by the south-west corner of Nathan Phillips Square a couple of weeks ago when I noticed something was conspicuously missing:

I recalled that on this very spot used to stand a podium dedicated to free speech. But was it just some weird mixed-up memory that was bubbling up to the surface?

I searched the web and discovered that I had, in fact, been correct. The podium was called Speakers’ Corner:

Yeah, that’s the one! It was a podium guarded over by the ghost of Winston Churchill, dedicated to free speech and public expression.

Except that now, it’s gone. All that’s left is a slab of concrete where it used to stand. And to be honest, I don’t remember the last time I’d seen it there anyways.

I visited City Hall and asked the information desk about its whereabouts.

At first they had no clue what I was talking about — a podium? Speakers’ Corner? Oh, wasn’t that at the old Citytv building further west on Queen Street?

Nope, I replied. It was in front of the old statue of Churchill.

Ask security, said the woman behind the desk. Maybe it’s been temporarily moved because of the construction.

Okay, I suppose (even though it wasn’t near the fence).

The guy at the security desk also had equally little idea of what I was talking about. He called the boss and was told that the podium can be found at the south-east end of the Square.

Umm, actually, I think it had been moved from there, I replied. And besides, it’s definitely not there. Not south-west either.

The security guy shrugged his shoulders and said he had no idea. But maybe I could call the City of Toronto information line?

Okay, I’ll do that.

3-1-1 … hello?

The guy on the other end responded courteously.

“Hi. Just a quick question for you…I’m looking to find out what happened to Speakers’ Corner. It was a dais at the south-west corner of Nathan Phillips Square where people could go to speak their mind.”

“Oh, well if you want information about Citytv…”

“No, no, not that Speakers’ Corner. I’m talking about the lectern that used to sit in front of the Winston Churchill statue at the south end of the square. It had a plaque on it that read that it was provided by the city for the people of Toronto. Dedicated to free speech.”

“Hmm, I’ve never heard of it. You should try to contact the City Hall staff…”

“Oh, I already did. I spoke to the receptionist as well as to security. Neither of them had even heard of it.”

*pause*

“Well, I suppose Marguerite Reid might know something about it. She’s the special events coordinator at City Hall.”

Special events? Didn’t seem like a special event. Still, I let the 311 guy connect me to her extension which landed me in her voice mail. It told me that she’ll be on vacation until the 13th of August, at which point I have no doubt that she’ll try to refer me to Citytv to discover what happened to their vaunted corner.

Essentially, the tiny section of City Hall set aside for citizens to voice their opinions and express their free speech disappeared, and no one noticed. In fact, few people even remember it.

Okay, yeah, it might not have gotten much use over the years that it had been there, but then again no one “uses” the statue of Churchill just behind where it stood either. Yet the statue remains while the podium, a symbol of citizen freedoms, was quietly removed. And yeah, it’s fair to say that it was mostly symbolic. In the same way, the Canadian flag is merely a symbol of the country, even if it doesn’t really do anything. It could just as easily be replaced with something like a twisted Swastika or a sickle and hammer. A few years down the road, would anyone even remember what Canada had been?

What with Toronto being the center of the Canadian universe, it’d be hard to miss the latest spat of gun violence around town. Funny thing is, it only seems to make news when it happens in neighbourhoods where it usually doesn’t. Oh, don’t get me wrong, the Morningside area of Scarborough where the latest big shooting happened I’m well familiar with (I went to high school there), and it’s never been a terribly pleasant place to visit. Even the hookers along Kingston Road are lacking a certain je ne sais quoi — hard to believe hooking could get seedier, but it does.

But this particular neighbourhood where the shooting happened is a small residential street near The Guild, a ritzy part of Scabby Row, not the rundown hellhole ‘hood people are making it out to be on the news. And that’s precisely why it made the news.

You see, nary a night goes by when a *pop pop pop* isn’t heard down the street from my place; that’s either a lot of fireworks, backfiring cars, or guns going off. I’m pretty sure it’s the later. And it’s the same for nearby Regent Park. When guns go off, neither the media nor the mayor give a shit. In fact, the best people like Ford can do is put on an idiotic bravado by vowing to get those pestilent immigrants out of our fair city, or butting heads with the premiere and pretending to stand on the side of the common man by refusing to take any “BS” (i.e. demanding money from the province), even after voting to cut every single community violence prevention project around town (and being literally the only councillor to do so), and sporting a brand new luxury SUV to demonstrate exactly how much he himself is cutting corners in these tough times.

Let’s not mince words, Ford is a hypocritical piece of filth and he knows it. And he and his buddy, the Chief of Police (incidentally one of the few city agencies to get a plentiful raise while all others received cuts, not including the latest boost from the province), just plaster newspaper headlines with more crap about gun control (were any of the guns used legally purchased?)  And is it coincidental that these shootings coincide with the criticisms of Harper’s Omnibus Crime Bill, in the same way that Obama was forced to back off on his gun control legislation just as the Denver shootings took place? Sure, it’s a bit conspiracy theory, but you have to admit that the timing couldn’t be better. Almost too good.

Also interesting to note that the police don’t appear to keep statistics on how many deaths they’ve caused, but judging by the general number of complaints against them, I’d say that the first step in addressing crime is to overhaul the police services, not allow them to investigate themselves, and to show the public that crime by armed, trained, sworn police officers is dealt with as seriously as crime by civilians, not covered over, drawn out for years, and summarily dismissed. When neighbourhoods can trust the cops to actually enforce the law and not be more crooked than the criminals (I don’t recall any criminal taking an oath to serve and protect the public), then maybe the neighbours will have a reason to report crimes and criminals in their midst. And then maybe something will change.

And in case you’re wondering why most people don’t want to talk to police after shootings — that’s the reason! The vast majority of them believe cops can’t be trusted, and a lot of the time they’re right on the money. Why invite armed thugs, a.k.a. Toronto Police, into the neighbourhood when they’ve seen them selling drugs and pushing people around while being given a free pass by the law to do as they wish (in fact, being licensed to do it)? Not such a big mystery, is it?

Any news reporter mention that? Did Ford blurt that, even in passing, out of his bloated giblet?

But this, the path of transparency, honesty, and propriety, is clearly not one Harper and all of his underlings, including Ford, are willing to take, despite being told for years what the issues are. They know the problems, they know the solutions, and they’re heading in exactly the opposite direction. The only conclusion must be that they’re not interested in curbing violence, they’re interested in keeping the population scared and huddled until they can swoop in on their pale horses and take away all of our rights in the name of “safety”.

If only their efforts weren’t so transparent, one might be tempted to call them absolute imbeciles. Sadly, the truth of the matter is much more insidious.