I don’t recall which character it was, but someone in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (if not the book, in the movie) said something like “words mean exactly what I want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.” Rob Ford, the mayor of Canada’s largest city, Toronto, seems to have taken that to heart, except he’s changed “words” for “laws”.
I’ve written before of his disregard for the law prohibiting talking on a cell phone while driving (and giving the finger to someone who took his photo doing so) and his reading a document while driving on an expressway at 45 miles an hour during morning rush hour. Until now, I don’t think I’ve mentioned that he also drove past, or attempted to drive past, the open doors of a streetcar, which is also prohibited in the Highway Traffic Act.
For the past two days, Robbie has been in court fighting a conflict of interest charge brought by a citizen. This goes back to when Robbie was “City Councillor Robbie”, not “Mayor Robbie”. Bit of background here: When he was a member of City Council, he was noted for not using any of his annual budget, but would pay for everything from his own pocket. He could afford it. As I’ve written before, the Fords are part of the 2% if not the 1%. So, Councillor Robbie paid to have his city hall stationery printed. He used some of that stationery – city hall stationery, not personal “Rob Ford” stationery – to solicit funds for a football club for youth he is involved with. Apparently some of the people to whom he sent these letters are also lobbyists at city hall.
The city’s ethics commissioner found this was a violation of some bylaw and ordered him to repay the money, totalling approximately $3,150. Well, even as councillor, Robbie would do only what he felt was right, not what the law said he should do. He never repaid it. Finally, after several warnings, the matter was referred to city council for resolution. When it came up in council, now Mayor Robbie made a speech to the effect that he personally never benefited from the money, that it was “for the kids”. That’s fine, he’s allowed to defend himself. But where he came into conflict of interest was when he voted in favour of the motion that rescinded the order to repay the funds. In other words, he voted in favour of a motion which, if passed, would mean a financial benefit to him. That benefit is not having to pay three grand from his own pocket.
This man has been in municipal politics for at least ten years. After each election, he swore an oath to uphold the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act – an act which he admitted in court, under oath, he’d never read. Although he admitted he’d never read the Act, city records show that on previous occasions he has declared a conflict and refrained from voting on an issue. Not this time. While on the stand yesterday, court records show our Robbie saying ““I believe that (in) a conflict of interest you have to have two parties involved and the city has to benefit and a member of council has to benefit and this case that we’re talking about here today is only my issue”. This is not the definition contained in the Act. But, as I wrote above, this is Robbie’s definition therefore it’s the only one that matters. Robbie has been repeating, almost mechanically, that this is “all about the kids”. No Robbie, the money may have been “all about the kids”, but this case is about the fact you broke the law – the actual law – not your interpretation of it.
This court case isn’t simply a matter of whether or not Robbie should repay the money. If Rob Ford is found guilty of the conflict of interest, the law requires the judge to remove him from office. The judge could also prevent him from running for municipal office again for up to seven years, so this isn’t just a small “nuisance” case as Robbie and his brother, Councillor Doug, are trying to portray it.
The case has apparently wound up and the judge is expected to deliver a decision sometime with the next four months according to legal experts. Maybe Robbie can use the time to actually read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and when he finishes that, he can start on the Highway Traffic Act.
To my followers and readers, enjoy the rest of your week and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.
Cat.
Hmm … “words mean exactly what I want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less” I wonder if people would buy that if I used it as a reason for using an incorrect word. Probably not.
C.
catsworld1 