dforthandbview
Senior Member
Or maybe it's just a job promotion and nothing else.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=186617
http://www.cartt.ca/news/14891/Radi...oadcast-on-CFRB-ruled-homophobic-by-CBSC.html
One isnt only judged by their words - but also by their actions. Anyone who is remotely aware of the issue would have cut that comment short - and he isn't one to hesitate to do that on his show. Besides, he himself has taken heat on a comment of a similar nature - which he had to apologize for - what does it tell us about his capacity for learning and the apology for his original comment? And yes, please also remind me the use of the code word "homosexual" per Fox News. Oh and do remember the variants of "I know lots of gay people" defense as well. It's almost stereotypical .
AoD
Looking at the AIDS statement, first of all, it's not statistically accurate. It may have been at one time, but it's not true now, nor was it in 2006 when he said it. AIDS and HIV was/is growing among many segments of the population, including straight women, both here and in the developing world. When Ford was confronted with these facts, he just doubled down, again, revealing his ignorance. He attributed the rise in HIV rates among women to "sleeping with bi-sexual men".
Also the implication in the statement is that IV drug users and gay people aren't worth spending prevention money on. To me, that goes beyond ignorance.
Of the estimated 333,244 male adults and
adolescents living with
AIDS, 60% had been
exposed through male-to-male sexual contact,
19% had been exposed through injection drug
use,
He also said he supports traditional marriage and offered support to a fundamentalist Christian pastor who said same-sex marriage could "dismantle" a "healthy democratic civilization." Appearing alongside Pastor Wendell Brereton, Ford said "We're together. We have the same thoughts."
And let's not forget his comments on transgendered people as well as those referring to a video about homosexuality in the Asian Community. He said it was "disgusting."
^^
How can that happen when there is no legal way to force him out? Ford has no respect for the office and will not leave voluntarily, so I expect, he will remain mayor, until the next election and possibly longer. We just have to accept that.
I've been wondering about her shift away from the city beat, given that she is such a staunch supporter of Ford. I wonder if this might be damage control on the part of the Sun -- if Ford does implode, Levy won't be in a position where she's required to comment, since it's no longer her beat.
The Province can remove him. When the video comes out, I doubt Wynne would have a problem taking him out if he still refuses to leave. When it comes out, everyone will be calling for his head.
I don't want Wynne to remove Ford directly, but I would be extremely pleased if she gave all municipalities some sort of tools to remove rogue mayors (and perhaps even councillors) themselves -- for example, allow recall of a mayor with a 3/4 vote of a city council.I'd prefer if Wynne stays out of it. It may not be a politically smart move.
I agree. While Ford's still a hypocrite for voting against funding Pride, we at least have to give him credit for doing what we've long called for him to do, which is go to the flag-raising.Colour me impressed.
I don't want Wynne to remove Ford directly, but I would be extremely pleased if she gave all municipalities some sort of tools to remove rogue mayors (and perhaps even councillors) themselves -- for example, allow recall of a mayor with a 3/4 vote of a city council.
This approach still gives the city itself the final say, while correcting a major lack in current municipal law.
...made some friendly small talk for a minute or so and then Ford pulled away to move onto someone else but not before wishing my friend "a happy pride" (?!).
I agree. While Ford's still a hypocrite for voting against funding Pride, we at least have to give him credit for doing what we've long called for him to do, which is go to the flag-raising.
I would think that if a mayor has lost the support of 3/4 of council, making them go through an election isn't really "extreme". I really don't want the province to tackle rogue mayors on a case-by-case basis, as that makes lousy law. And I don't see any reasonable legal mechanism that could both a) get Ford out if the video surfaces but he isn't charged, and b) not seem "not extreme enough" by the standards you seem to have.A recall should only be used in the most extreme of cases. 3/4 of Council voting for a recall is not extreme enough. We can't be recalling politicians whenever we don't like them.
I would think that if a mayor has lost the support of 3/4 of council, making them go through an election isn't really "extreme". I really don't want the province to tackle rogue mayors on a case-by-case basis, as that makes lousy law. And I don't see any reasonable legal mechanism that could both a) get Ford out if the video surfaces but he isn't charged, and b) not seem "not extreme enough" by the standards you seem to have.
Alternatively, what legal mechanism would you propose that would be applicable in other cases but that would meet the severity criteria you have?