Crackfinger

All kidding aside, insofar as he reduces taxes and spending, Ford's personal life is of no significant consequence to his constituents. Those who think the mayor besmirches Toronto's reputation might be smoking crack themselves; the notion of politicians as representatives of their subjects is propaganda intended to minimize dissent against the otherwise obviously extortionate system of modern governance.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s ouster was legally dubious

Update (Dec. 18, 2012): Added clarifying final paragraph.

For speaking and voting on a matter in his pecuniary interest, actions which contravened Section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990 (MCIA), the seat of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was declared vacant by Justice Charles Hackland in a November 26, 2012 decision, Magder v. Ford, 2012 ONSC 5615. Whatever the merits of the rest of Hackland's finding, he seems to have misjudged the application of s. 4(k) of the MCIA, and therefore vacated Ford's seat improperly.

Ford was held to have violated s. 5(1)(b) when he spoke and voted on a matter involving the personal repayment of the sum of $3,150 arising from improper use of city government letterhead to solicit donations for his charity, the Rob Ford Football Foundation.

Section 5 of the MCIA reads:

When present at meeting at which matter considered

      5. (1) Where a member, either on his or her own behalf or while acting for, by, with or through another, has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any matter and is present at a meeting of the council or local board at which the matter is the subject of consideration, the member,

        (a) shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof;

        (b) shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter; and

        (c) shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question.

Section 4 of the MCIA provides for exemption from s. 5 under certain circumstances; Ford has appealed to clause k, which reads:

Where s. 5 does not apply

      4. Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have, . . .

        (k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.

Hackland's denial of s. 4(k)'s applicability reads:

While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent [Ford] has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, "[A]nd if it wasn't for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment…."

In view of the respondent's remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

Although Hackland does agree that Ford's pecuniary interest ($3,150) was quantitatively insignificant, describing the sum as "modest" (paragraph 48) and recognizing "that the circumstances of this case demonstrate that there was absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain on the respondent’s part" (paragraph 48), he believes that the mayor's remarks nevertheless prove it "was of significance to him". Yet these remarks, which are quoted in the decision (e.g., "And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this"), combined with Ford's status as a millionaire and Hackland's admission that the monetary figure was trifling, suggest that the mayor was motivated not by the monetary amount, but by principle—thereby nullifying the quantitative significance of his pecuniary interest. Moreover, the justice reports that Ford testified that he believed he did not owe the funds (paragraph 51), which is further evidence that Ford was voting on principle, not for personal monetary gain. The mayor's testimony that he understood conflict of interest to be a situation in which ". . . a member of council must benefit" ("Rob Ford out: Mayor's attack dog Mammoliti quits top committee", Toronto Star, Nov. 26, 2012) is consistent with his voting against a repayment that he regarded as unjust rather than financially onerous. If the issue were indeed one of principle to Ford, his pecuniary interest per se would be insignificant, and s. 4(k) would apply, thus sparing him from the otherwise "mandatory removal from office for contravening s. 5(1) of the MCIA", which, Hackland writes, "is a very blunt instrument and has attracted justified criticism and calls for legislative reform" (paragraph 46).

Furthermore, Hackland's decision interprets s. 4(k) out of existence. Section 5(b) already applies because Ford voted, and it is logically true that a voter has a preference with respect to the matter voted upon. This preference must be, by the exclusive either-or nature of voting, an implicit objection to the other possible option(s), in this case the demanded repayment. Ford's statements as quoted by Hackland simply show what is necessarily true by virtue of the fact that Ford voted. Of course Ford objected to repaying the money donated to his charity; this is apparent from his voting behaviour even if he had said nothing about it. Thus, Hackland's identification of the rationale for Ford's participation in the vote is no more than circular reasoning about voting. Hackland concludes, in effect, that the s. 4(k) exemption does not apply because Ford voted—without noting or understanding the obvious point that the act of voting itself implies significance to the voter. That Ford voted cannot nullify s. 4(k), because s. 4(k) can only apply because he voted. Hackland's broad interpretation of s. 4(k), in which he conflates "significant pecuniary interest" with the motivation to vote—rather than with monetary quantity—cannot be correct, for it would negate every appeal to the s. 4(k) exemption as it pertains to s. 5(1)(b) (it being impossible to divorce the desire to vote from the act of voting), rendering s. 4(k) automatically null whenever the member has voted—in plain contradiction to its inclusion in the MCIA.

To Hackland, in other words, a vote can be insignificant to the voter. Such a voter would be indifferent to the outcome, despite the paradox this presents. He seems to think that s. 4(k) is meant to apply only to a voter who lacks a preference. In fact, no such voter can exist, for voting is proof of a preference that is significant enough to motivate the voting act. In short, a vote itself proves significance, of which s. 5(1)(B) already takes account, and therefore s. 4(k), which can only apply when s. 5(1)(B) has been violated, cannot be denied on this basis. Ford's remarks, which only prove the significance of his desire to vote (as opposed to significance of the monetary quantity), were thus redundant insofar as they echoed what his vote expressed, and exculpatory insofar as they point to his vote as a principled defence against perceived unfairness, instead of as monetary aggrandizement.

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.