Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
We're not in court.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
What.
|
I was going to slide over this, but there's obviously a disconnect between the people who think that public opinion is like court, and those who realize that it is not.
Rob Ford is not being prosecuted for his alleged crack smoking. He is being asked to refute allegations of crack smoking. Towards the latter end, pretty well any relevant information is going to be brought up, because it is a process that is not under the control of any one entity, like a judge would be in charge in a trial.
Ah, but how is it fair that hearsay is relevant? How can you defend yourself when drug dealers say they've seen you smoking crack and have video to prove it, but won't produce the video? Are public figures reduced to being nothing more than easy targets for malicious falsehoods?
Well, the answer is - reputation. Someone brought up a scenario along the lines of "If it was Nenshi who was being targeted, you wouldn't be so quick to believe he was on the pipe". Well, no, but that's because it would be completely out of character. I wouldn't believe it of Stephen Harper, either, and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with past behaviour and credibility. Neither has been linked to substance abuse problems in the past, and neither has been caught lying about such problems. So in either case, reputation would incline me to doubt anything other than substantive proof.
In Ford's case, this reputation is completely lacking. He has:
- had a "failing to provide a breath sample" conviction in Florida
- lied about the conviction
- been caught with a joint in his pocket on the same occasion, charges dropped
- lied about ever being charged
- been kicked out of a Leafs game in 2006 for being drunk and disorderly
- lied about even being at the game
- charged twice with assault, including one charge of assaulting his wife
- been warned repeatedly about conflict-of-interest transgressions which he lied about and ignored until legally forced to recant his opinion that he had done nothing wrong.
- threatened a reporter by waving his fist around, running at him, and demanding the reporter's phone to get pictures of "spying"
And so on. So, when someone purports to have a video of Ford smoking crack, supplies a teaser picture of Ford with his arm around a known (and now dead) drug dealer, and then when 3 different people see the video and say they are reasonably certain it was Ford, there is plentiful reason to believe the video existed, and that it showed exactly what they say it showed. To assert that this proves "nothing" is not a moral act of requiring a higher standard of proof, but more like stubborn denial.
Is it certain the video is/was real, and that Ford has, at least once, been on crack? Well obviously not, and no one is saying it is certain, just that it is both believable and more credible than any alternate theory, which is that either this is a hoax (at least somewhat possible) or an attempt by the Star to further their vendetta against Ford (absolute nonsense without any evidence in its favour - although that irony seems to escape this theory's proponents) by any means possible.
Lastly, that the video is now likely to have vanished is perfectly in line with the narrative that Ford himself has purchased it, and that he now feels safe in making denials as to it ever existing or showing what it showed. It's also in line with a narrative in which it was a hoax.
Believe what you will, but come off the moral high ground and realize that that the only one to blame for this story having credibility is Ford himself, because he squandered his reputation for truth on multiple occasions and lost his own credibility along the way. If he had been upfront in the past about his transgressions, he might have been able to convince people he was telling the truth - it's not so much that he's a drunken buffoon, but that he is a liar. People will forgive you if you confess, and act contrite, but if you are an entitled, lying db, you'll reap the consequences.