Rob Ford's Toronto

[jje1000]

Ford is definitely going to play himself as the victim here. And his followers will eat it up.

 

[jeff316]

Ford is definitely going to play himself as the victim here. And his followers will eat it up.

Downtown elits trying to over-turn the will of the people? This is exactly the type of thing Ford wants and badly badly badly needs.

If these people want to get rid of Ford, well they're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

 

[Gavin]

Yeah, this won't reflect well on anti-Fordists and will only further galvanize his supporters.

 

[MetroMan]

There is very little room for interpretation here and Ford clearly broke the law. If he can't prove otherwise, then he's out and we're having an election.

Given that prospect, it's an excellent chance to save this city from Ford's obstructionism for the next 2 years. This may embolden his supporters but many independent voters have been stating that they regret voting for Ford. If he ran for re-election -- after being booted for breaking the law -- I think Toronto would have a more informed opinion going in to the voter booth. I don't think he'd get much more over 30%. If a strong centrist ran against him, I think we can be rid of Ford.

From what I understand, Doug Holyday would take over as interim Mayor while an election is called. I'd be happy to have Holyday. He may be conservative but he's not a destructive bully. If Rob Ford is barred from running, I'm fairly certain that his brother would run as his proxy. I doubt he'd have the kind of support as populist Rob Ford.

This is going to be interesting to watch and judging by the number of lawsuits pending and how Ford continues to ignore City Council, I'm beginning to very much doubt that he'll be Mayor in 2013.

 

[TonyV]

Downtown elits trying to over-turn the will of the people? This is exactly the type of thing Ford wants and badly badly badly needs.

If these people want to get rid of Ford, well they're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

This depends on how the case is made. You could be quite incorrect here.

In any event, I find this all stunning. I can't recall anything of this nature in recent Toronto mayoralties, although Lastman's huge gaffe with the IOC embarrassed us on the international stage, while this little mess will probably only reach the rest of Canada.

Ford's time as mayor to this point is a catastrophe in more ways than one.

 

[toto]

I can't say what, but there's also something else big coming. A media organization is sitting on something huge. They will release it at the opportune time (and when a few more rounds of investigation have occurred). But this will be big and goes back to an incident in the summer. That's all I can say.

Is today's news of a lawsuit to remove Ford from office, the "something else big coming"? Or is there still something in the wings?

 

[Johnny Au]

From the Toronto Star comments section of the article about Rob Ford's conflict of interest regarding the behaviour of Rob Ford supporters on said comments section:

It is definite

Ford is paying lots of trolls to post. For someone who shuns The Star, it is lots of effort. Sorry, I just refuse to believe that anyone would be so stupid at this point to agree with Ford and his bully politics. If you really do, Harper is building jails where you can find your new home.

66 Agree 33 Disagree

law and order

I thought right wingers were all over law and order and playing by the rules ...? Or is it just lefties who have to obey the law, while the Fords of the world get a free pass?

65 Agree 24 Disagree

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else notice a rapid shift in the postings on Star comment sections in the last 2 or 3 days? Like these comments have been recruited from the Toronto Sun? Robo-posters... why does this not surprise me?

63 agree 18 Disagree

Yes, the Fordites are back with a vengeance pointing fingers at "libtards" as usual, rather than looking at the mirror.

 

[GraphicMatt]

He clearly broke the law but the penalty is out-of-step with what voters are likely to accept. And also: this ultimately about a guy raising money for a football charity. The average person is going to find it hard to condemn the guy for that.

I don't like this play at all. Best case, Ford is gone but right-wing populism continues to dominate the city's political discourse. The left looks like a bunch of whiners who leveraged a technicality to oust a mayor they didn't like.

Lastly, and maybe this is an unfair generalization, but I don't think this passes the universality test. Ask yourself: If any mayor other than Rob Ford was facing these charges, would you see it as a valid reason for removal from office? If you can't answer 'yes' to that question, then it might be best to let this be.

 

[Tuscani01]

He clearly broke the law but the penalty is out-of-step with what voters are likely to accept. And also: this ultimately about a guy raising money for a football charity. The average person is going to find it hard to condemn the guy for that.

I don't like this play at all. Best case, Ford is gone but right-wing populism continues to dominate the city's political discourse. The left looks like a bunch of whiners who leveraged a technicality to oust a mayor they didn't like.

Lastly, and maybe this is an unfair generalization, but I don't think this passes the universality test. Ask yourself: If any mayor other than Rob Ford was facing these charges, would you see it as a valid reason for removal from office? If you can't answer 'yes' to that question, then it might be best to let this be.

I think we just need to look next door to Mississauga to see what should be done. Hazel was not found to have violated the municipal act, but had she been guilty, her head would have been served on a silver platter. In the end, the deal she was working on was in the best interest of the city, yet the fact that it was a conflict of interest meant that her intentions meant absolutely nothing. She had good intentions, just as Ford would have with his charity.

I do think it is a bit harsh, but the law is the law. I do think he will be able to get out of this and keep his seat in the Mayors office though. Hazel was also given one chance before.

 

[Johnny Au]

Comment standards The Toronto Star reserves the right to review, edit, refuse or delete any comment.
Here's how to ensure your comments get published:

• Stay on topic.
• Respectfully debate the issue, avoiding personal attacks and name calling.
• Do not make comments that are threatening, obscene, profane, contain hate speech or degrade others.
• Do not make libelous statements, such as allegations of criminal activity or comments that unfairly harm a person's reputation.
• Refrain from posting repeatedly on one story.
• Do not copy material from other sources, except in brief quotes, with the source acknowledged.

If you see a comment that appears to violate these guidelines, please click on the "Alert a Moderator" link for that comment, and one of our moderators will review it.

That does not apply to calling out people by their political affiliation, as evidenced by the published comments that are on it. If moderators were stricter, then the comments would be much more civil, rather than pointing fingers at people with certain political viewpoints, left or right.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tuscani:

Actually I think her case is far more damning, considering it really wasn't for charity and her son is a direct beneficiary from her actions. Quite frankly she should have had her head served on a silver platter regardless.

Johnny:

Newspaper online commentary is pretty much the bottom feeder of discourse.

AoD

 

[flonicky]

I don't like this play at all. Best case, Ford is gone but right-wing populism continues to dominate the city's political discourse.

It's no secret that a lot of conservatives are not happy with Ford -- heck, Jonathan Kay of the National Post sent out an anti-Ford tweet just yesterday -- so this sort of thing must make them feel giddy because however Ford is felled, his base will be fired up to support the next, and probably more moderate, conservative contender. The powers-that-be are likely trying to give the left-leaning councillors as much rope as they'll accept.

 

[ShonTron]

He clearly broke the law but the penalty is out-of-step with what voters are likely to accept. And also: this ultimately about a guy raising money for a football charity. The average person is going to find it hard to condemn the guy for that.

I don't like this play at all. Best case, Ford is gone but right-wing populism continues to dominate the city's political discourse. The left looks like a bunch of whiners who leveraged a technicality to oust a mayor they didn't like.

Lastly, and maybe this is an unfair generalization, but I don't think this passes the universality test. Ask yourself: If any mayor other than Rob Ford was facing these charges, would you see it as a valid reason for removal from office? If you can't answer 'yes' to that question, then it might be best to let this be.

I was watching your twitter feed (finally gave into signing up to get your - and others' - immediate reactions) and totally agree with your take. This is the wrong battle to win anyone over, even though the intent is fair, the complaint warranted and the process valid.

Why a double standard for Hazel McCallion? She should have been given the boot for her much more serious conflict of interest.

 

[Silence&Motion]

The fact that Clayton Ruby can only mention a former (i.e. not sitting) councillor in Thunder Bay and a school trustee "elsewhere in Ontario" as examples of people who have been found guilty of this violation tells me that Rob Ford has nothing to worry about. Lawyers are good at making their case sound like clear applications of law, but I suspect that what plays out in the courtroom will be totally different.

As others have mentioned, this actually seems like a great political break for the mayor: populist football dad trying to raise money for charity thwarted by elitist downtown lawyer.

 

[Tulse]

this ultimately about a guy raising money for a football charity.

Actually, it is about a guy violating the law to avoid paying back over $3,000 that he improperly collected. I understand that that spin will be about the charity, but this is not about that -- it is about what borders on corruption, and certainly abuse of power.

I sympathize with the notion that this isn't the political win that ideally progressives would get. But I think it would also be a grave error not to pursue what seems a clear violation of the law just because this isn't an ideal win. Do you really want to let Ford abuse the rules at will, and only fight him in the court of public opinion?