If I refuse to pay a tax bill, the government will garnish my wages long before they consider throwing me into jail.
Why is a democratically elected mayor getting booted from office for voting to not repay $3,100 in charitable donations that went to football youth? Garnish his wages, and let’s all get back to work.
And spare me the “conflict of interest is a serious offence” speech. One does not have to look far, to find politicians that were involved in millions of dollars worth of COI that don’t even get a slap on the wrist. Need I point out that checker board justice is a violation of our procedural fairness rights in the charter. —Not Impressed with the Looney Left
This article appears in Nov 29 – Dec 5, 2012.
the only thing crookeder than a crook, is a politition of any sort. nough said there folks.
You are not in a position of power over any citizens in this country. Like it or not, but because of that you have a lower set of standards for your code of conduct then say, an elected official. As Judge Hackland said about this case, “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”. Any person in a position of power that abuses said power should not be in power. Enough said? From now on can we leave the mayor of another city alone, or at least tie in a local political scandal. Mr Ford is no ones hero, thats well established.
Great choice of cause to champion there, Victor Meldrew. This is somehow Dexter’s fault, right?
In support of Nukka’s comment, I suppose you could use the recent example of the NS provincial gov’t spending scandal.
That being said, it looks like Mr. Ford is not being counted out yet:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ouster+T…
avast0; That is a sad link, the plague remains.
To clarify, the actual conflict of interest charge was the fact that he was in on the vote to get him off from repaying. You don’t get to vote on something affecting yourself in a public office without a conflict of interest. Jeebus!
What the money was gathered for is moot. So quit flapping your gums on that.
They (the auditors, I believe) had already told him to repay the money earlier, which he gathered using the City’s letterhead. He had be ignoring that order for awhile.
Moron Ford.
Apparently, this is one of my raw nerves!
So if Rob Ford cuts off his arm, you will too? Please You Tube that, will ya’!
It is worth noting that the result of the council vote would have been the same if Ford abstained from voting.
I’m glad he voted. A crooked mayor would have gone golfing.
Well DD got away with cameras and laptops and his Barrister’s Society’s dues paid for by the public. He only paid it back when he was caught.
I have never been a fan of any ‘reverse onus’ law. ie imo, someone that is in possession of marijuana should not have to prove their innocence as a drug trafficker. The onus should be on the prosecution to prove that he was trafficking. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
In this case, Ford voting in a council decision to strike down a motion from the ethics commissioner, automatically convicts the mayor of a Conflict of Interest. Why? How is it possible without examining the merits of the case surrounding the ethic commissioner’s motion? The fact remains that the mayor did not financially gain from the fund raising of a legitimate youth charity. The prosecution should have to prove a conflict of interest in the fund raising in order to prove a conflict of interest in the council vote. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
just saying
I’ll give it to you that the actual decision of the ethics commisioner can legititimely be challenged, but that should have been done before said problematic vote. Sure, at the ethics commission stage, the whole “I didn’t earn a cent” arguement or the “I did it for charity” could be used.
You simply can’t tie both situations together. The vote was a simple black and white conflict of interest whereas challenging the actual ethics ruling would be, well, shades of ethical greys.
I disagree, you can’t have a conflict of interest without a pre-existing conflict of interest.
Without a pre-existing conflict of interest, council is just putting the ethics commissioner in her place….something they are entitled to do.
Yes, they are definitely entitled to challenge the ethics councillor…or even override them. “Putting her in her place” is a tad strong.
But Ford should not have been in on that vote. That is the conflict.
“de minimis non curat lex.”
Ford could use stationary every day of the week for a month, then participate in a vote every day of the week for another month… and the public interest would still be unaffected.