Is Mayor-Elect Rob Ford a Bigot?

[This item was previously posted as a Facebook note. However, this will be the authoritative version in case of updates or corrections.]

Is mayor-elect Rob Ford a bigot?

What is the evidence that Toronto mayor-elect Rob Ford has mounted an "assault on gay people" (or is a bigot)?

1. An anonymous pro-Ford, anti-gay-marriage Tamil radio ad was aired for one day.

Ford can't be held morally accountable for the actions of others. Furthermore, he disapproved of the ad, saying, "It is not good for politics, generally speaking. It is just bad. I don't condone that sort of behaviour. I can't control it; you don't know who they are. There is no name attached to them" (source: CTV.ca).

2. Signs saying "Should Muslim vote for him who married a man? [sic]" were posted anonymously at Danforth and Victoria Park Ave.

According to CTV News, "It is unknown who is responsible for the signs." Without a connection to Ford, the signs can't in good faith be held against him.

3. He called homosexuality a "lifestyle choice."

On Twitter, Ford said, "I do not condone the recent Tamil Radio ad. I support diversity & have no issue with others' lifestyle choices."

Although homosexuality may not be a choice, thinking otherwise is at worst only an error, which is a long way from assault or bigotry.

4. He endorsed the views of fundamentalist Christian pastor Wendell Brereton.

"I support traditional marriage. I always have. But if people want to, to each their own. I’m not worried about what people do in their private life. I look out for taxpayers' money," Ford said (source: CTV.ca).

Support for traditional marriage does not mean opposition to gay marriage. "To each their own," said Ford, articulating the antithesis of bigotry.

Ford also said about Pastor Brereton, "We’re together. We have the same thoughts (source: CTV.ca)," the implication being that Ford agrees with Brereton about literally everything, including marginal views held by the latter. This is silly. Because no two people agree on everything, it is impossible to conclude which specific views they share without consulting them or their statements.

The pastor's allegedly odious view is paraphrased by CTV.ca in a manner calculated to discredit Ford (which is wrong in a news story); here is the article's lead sentence: "Rob Ford’s long-held belief in traditional marriage has exploded into a campaign issue now that he has endorsed the views of a fundamentalist Christian pastor who suggested online that same-sex marriage could 'dismantle' a 'healthy democratic civilization.'"

This is a spineless accusation using weasel words. Suggested and could are hardly indicative of fanaticism or unreasonableness; indeed, we don't know the context of these remarks. Even if one objects to the pastor's words in every possible context (which is unreasonable; nobody can live up to such a standard), Ford is not responsible for them. In any case, if this is the least flattering way to summarize Brereton's views on homosexuality, one has to ask, is that it?

Incidentally, the gay marriage issue is really about the role of the state in marriage. If marriage were private, it would be immune to legal proscription, and opposition to gay marriage would be restricted to mere words. Also, insofar as marriage is tied into government and its infrastructure, taxpayers will feel entitled to have their views enforced, even though the only practical effect of this is to grant them the power to erect legal obstacles. As Ford says, it's a private matter.

5. He voted against public funding for AIDS education in 2006 and against public funding for Toronto's Gay Pride parade in 2007.

If a cause is worthy, people will fund it voluntarily. Public funding, on the other hand, is drawn from tax money, which is extorted from citizens and spent in ways with which they may disagree.

6. Ford supporters Arnie Lemaire and Kathy Shaidle made fun of Islam.

According to Toronto Life, "Rob Ford's team isn't attached with this [i.e., with Blazingcatfur blog's "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day Contest] . . ."

Warren Kinsella alleges that Lemaire and his wife have been "at the forefront of his online campaign strategy. . . ." Unfortunately for Ford's detractors, the associated link leads to a blog post that lays out the evidence that a computer at the Toronto Star was used to edit Ford's Wikipedia entry to Ford's detriment (see also "Computer inside Toronto Star company edited Rob Ford’s Wikipedia entry", National Post, 8/17/10).

Again we see the false argument that a person is responsible for the acts of others.

Should religious people be immune to irreverence, as is implied here (Islam), or should they be castigated for opposing gay marriage (Islam and some Christian sects)? Anti-Fordites seem to want it both ways.

7. Ford has not denounced Arnie Lemaire.

He has no obligation to do so. Moreover, a non-action (not condemning someone) cannot be construed in good faith as an attack or as bigotry.

8. Ford stated in 2006 that "It [AIDS] is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS probably, that's the bottom line. . . . These are the facts."

In the Citytv.com story, the reporter responded in the next line with: "According to the United Nations, the majority of those affected with AIDS are heterosexual, non-drug users." But this isn't a refutation of Ford, for even if the UN is right, it doesn't contradict the fact that gays contract AIDS in disproportionately greater numbers than heterosexuals. (I'm ignoring drug-users, as comparable stats are hard to find.) Therefore, gays have a greater probability of contracting AIDS, vindicating Ford.

How much greater? Only 1.1% of Canadians aged 18 to 59 surveyed in 2009 by Statistics Canada consider themselves homosexual (0.9% reported being bisexual) (source: "Gay Pride... by the numbers," Statistics Canada, 2010). Results from 1994 are similar: 1.5% homosexual, 94% heterosexual, 5% unstated (ibid.). Thus, there are anywhere from 15.6 times (if 6% are gay) to 85.4 times (if 1.1% are gay) more heterosexuals than gays in Canada (if 94% are heterosexual). "At the end of 2006, MSM [men who have sex with men] accounted for 76.1% of cumulative reported AIDS cases among adult males" (Source: "Populations at Risk", Public Health Agency of Canada, 2007). Thus, Canadian MSM have historically contracted AIDS at rate that is from roughly 49.8 to 272.0 times greater than that of Canadian heterosexuals. (I've ignored female homosexuals with AIDS, as the stats are hard to find, but female homosexuality is less risky, so my numbers are somewhat off.)

Therefore, Ford's contention that non-gays are less likely to contract AIDS is correct.

9. In 2008, Ford said, "Those Oriental people work like dogs… They sleep beside their machines… The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over… They’re hard, hard workers."

Obviously, working like a dog means working hard. Everyone knows this. Ford even clarified. "When I said working like a dog, I was brought up, my father told me every day to 'Get out of bed and work like a dog, son.' A dog means you’re a hard worker" (The Globe and Mail).

Who is supposed to be the victim of Ford's remark? Asians, for being characterized as hard workers, or the rest of us, whom Ford thinks may not be as diligent?

Is it bigoted to attribute superior qualities to a different culture or people? Definition of bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." The answer is no.

Oriental may be politically incorrect, but it is not an insult. The word means eastern, just as the little-used Occidental is western. From a dictionary usage note:

"The usual objection to Oriental—meaning 'eastern'—is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable."

It is a fact—not an insult—that Asia is east of Europe (or that Europe is west of Asia). Implications of exoticism and romance are not troubling. Despotic empires still exist in Asia. Inscrutable customs refers to cultural differences, and no one would deny that such differences still exist. A dated feel? This is grasping at gossamer handles.

Despite this, Ford himself later corrected his use of the word, likely to placate those who simply accept political correctness without questioning it. (Political correctness is the creed of the coward insofar as it avoids plain-speaking and truth.)

The evidence that he is a bigot is just not there. Even Ontario cabinet minister Glen Murray, a capital-L Liberal and a Ford opponent, agrees. "I do not believe Rob Ford or Stephen Harper or Tim Hudak are bigots," he wrote on Oct. 26.