Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm torn on the last video, on one hand yes he's clearly drunk or high or whatever and he's rambling like a drunk or high person tends to ramble on.

On the other hand, he's sitting in a living room, clearly with friends and somebody video tapes it and turns around and sells the video tape for $5000.00. The person that did that is just as terrible of a person.

And it makes you think that you are now open game in your house. For someone like Slava for example if he's running for city council in the next election, you'd better make sure you take away peoples cell phones when they come into your house in case you start dropping f-bombs when someone brings up a topic that you don't like when your loaded.

Looking at the video I don't know the context, is the guy doing a wrestling promo, is he ordering a hit on his enemies. Who knows.

Its clear that Ford needs to go and get help and decide if he wants to stay in the public limelight.

But this opens up the whole, does a good news story and a check trump the right to some privacy?

I don't know if I'm even saying this right to be honest.

Originally Posted by Slava

That's exactly it. Times have changed in this regard. Sticking with the Ralph Klein example, hearing about him being hammered and throwing change at a homeless guy can give a completely different impression than watching a video of the same incident.

If you're going to run for office, that is a terrifying thought! One minute you're screwing around with your buddies thinking everything is safe amongst friends and the next thing you know its national news. I mean, I've never done crack, so I feel basically bulletproof in that regard, but like every other guy who has had too much to drink I'm sure I've said some entirely stupid and shameful things!

What are the laws surrounding recordings video/audio? Is there an expectation of privacy in your house/hotelroom/meetingroom?

Don't get me wrong, I am in the anti-Ford crowd, but I also wonder about the recording.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's exactly it. Times have changed in this regard. Sticking with the Ralph Klein example, hearing about him being hammered and throwing change at a homeless guy can give a completely different impression than watching a video of the same incident.

If you're going to run for office, that is a terrifying thought! One minute you're screwing around with your buddies thinking everything is safe amongst friends and the next thing you know its national news. I mean, I've never done crack, so I feel basically bulletproof in that regard, but like every other guy who has had too much to drink I'm sure I've said some entirely stupid and shameful things!

Don't worry Slava, I'm sure members of the CP SW slo pitch team can be bought with patronage appointments!

[TheyCallMeBruce]

haha, I'm going to sell my childhood stories about Slava to the Calgary Sun!

[SportsJunky]

See you on Tuesday Slava.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If he would step down, then I would for sure support his right to privacy, but it's been proven that he consorts with criminals and uses illegal drugs. He is the face of the city and holds one of the most powerful positions in the country. If he won't step down and get help, then he should be smeared into submission.

So literally in this case bullying is ok? I mean the seperatist leader from a few years ago that was busted doing cocaine was given far more gentle treatment then this.

Is this a Soprano's type intervention?

I get the illegal drugs, I get the consorting, I've come around to the side of light on this that he has to go.

But no I don't buy that smearing a guy, showing a video and buying a video of a guy in a private home is anywhere near the right thing and sets a dangerous precedence.

If your the friend of someone famous, its now ok to film his every private moment because a paper will pay money for it, how is that right?

What happens if lets say, Ford hangs himself due to the harassment? or loses his family due to the press assaulting his property and people filming moments in his house for cash?

We talk diversivly about papers like the national enquirer or the English rags for buying stories like this. Where does this sit? Honest question?

BTW where's the context of this story did they just publish it because they it makes Ford look like a dumbass and a monster without any context. Ie was this a guy fired up after arm wrestling hulk hogan or watching UFC or whatever? This isn't reporting its something more dark and dangerous to me, and it goes to the right to privacy.

The crack video I'm pretty much fine with, it was clearly a criminal act (I'm guessing because I haven't seen it) and the papers did actually do some reporting with it and have provided context.

This is like a facebook thing, OMG this guy is wrecked lets film it and sell it to the press. And the media goes omg this guy is wrecked, watch it with no context and make your own conclusions.

So Flamesaddiction, lets go out and party, I'll film you absolutely loaded, maybe goad you into saying something about your boss or your wife, and release the video on the interweb with no context. I don't mind coming to your place.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Interesting response letter from Toronto City Councillor Gord Perks. He thinks the only way Ford should be removed is by voters...and that voters should have known Ford was a trainwreck.

So I wrote my councillor, Gord Perks, following Rob Ford's radio show apology on Sunday - so before the crack smoking admission. I asked him what his plans were to keep Toronto moving forward. He sent me this today

Many people are asking me to work to remove Mayor Ford from office. To the core of my being I believe it should not be up to elected officials to remove each other from office.

It is axiomatic that in a democracy the community elects its government. It must also be up to the community to remove its government and replace it with another – through elections. Anything that displaces the electorate's power to choose its government is anti-democratic. Further, our system wisely allows for a range of different points of view in government. If we allow elected officials to force each other out of office, we risk having elected officials who oppose the majority view being pushed out of office. History is replete with examples of how bad that is for a society.

Both before and during the previous election, it was clear that Rob Ford was racist, homophobic, and had problems with substance abuse and honesty. Nevertheless he won the election. We, all of us who care about justice and democracy, need to ask ourselves why this happened.

I have what I believe is part of the answer. It is increasingly common for people and institutions to succumb to anger, resentment, and an urge to punish government for real and perceived failings. Ironically, it was this very anger that helped elect Rob Ford Mayor. Recall the relentless attacks he made as a Councillor and mayoralty candidate on factually small but symbolically large uses of Councillor's office budgets, and his mantra about ending the so called "Gravy Train".

This style of politics draws on the slogans of people like Ronald Regan who said "Government is the problem" and Margaret Thatcher who said "There is no alternative". Nonsense! Government is the tool we build together to solve problems. Its precise function is to find alternatives that bring us to a better future. Theirs is a politics of resentment and anger. Reject it.

When we succumb to that anger, important questions about how to build the City we want are lost and forgotten. For the record, I am not immune to this anger. Over three years of resisting the ugliest parts of the Mayor's assault on good governance I have on occasion lost my temper and have twice decided I had to apologise to Council. Frequently, I have to remind myself to step back and count to ten and remember that I am here to build the City. I am not here to get into pointless conflict. It's hard to do, but essential that I do it.

I want to ask you to count to ten. When you are angry at your government, remember that quick, anger-fuelled solutions usually make problems worse. When a neighbour expresses anger over a real or perceived failure of the government or public servants, speak up and remind them that so much of what holds our society together depends on those same public servants. They work to make sure that we have the comforts and community we all enjoy. When government does not solve the social problems that bring suffering to neighbourhoods, resolve not to grumble but instead to learn, participate, and organize for a better government.

Most of all spend some portion of every month – even just one hour – doing political work to ensure that we don't elect angry anti-democratic leadership to govern this wonderful City that is our home.

Gord

http://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comm..._situation_in/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So literally in this case bullying is ok? I mean the seperatist leader from a few years ago that was busted doing cocaine was given far more gentle treatment then this.

Sure, in the same sense it would be OK for me to "bully" someone off my property if they were commiting a crime on it and refused to leave.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sure, in the same sense it would be OK for me to "bully" someone off my property if they were commiting a crime on it and refused to leave.

I don't think those are the same. Making someone go and get help for drinking or an addiction is pretty much not about bullying. If it was, you'd probably see a lot more dead addicts.

there are certainly consequences mentioned, death, loss of family etc. But that's not what this is about, all that video release without context is about is humiliation. Ask any addiction specialist about that.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I guess it is bullying, but to what degree does someone putting themselves in the public spotlight give them permission to be bullied? I know that may sound like an odd concept, but the guy obviously has loved the limelight for quite some time and it is just that now his love of being at the center of attention has bitten him in the ass.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Don't worry Slava, I'm sure members of the CP SW slo pitch team can be bought with patronage appointments!

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

haha, I'm going to sell my childhood stories about Slava to the Calgary Sun!

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

See you on Tuesday Slava.

Its like a vicious circle: I know lots of people so they might vote for me, but too many people know me so they may want to sell their stories!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm torn on the last video, on one hand yes he's clearly drunk or high or whatever and he's rambling like a drunk or high person tends to ramble on.

On the other hand, he's sitting in a living room, clearly with friends and somebody video tapes it and turns around and sells the video tape for $5000.00. The person that did that is just as terrible of a person.

And it makes you think that you are now open game in your house. For someone like Slava for example if he's running for city council in the next election, you'd better make sure you take away peoples cell phones when they come into your house in case you start dropping f-bombs when someone brings up a topic that you don't like when your loaded.

Looking at the video I don't know the context, is the guy doing a wrestling promo, is he ordering a hit on his enemies. Who knows.

Its clear that Ford needs to go and get help and decide if he wants to stay in the public limelight.

But this opens up the whole, does a good news story and a check trump the right to some privacy?

I don't know if I'm even saying this right to be honest.

No, it sounds good to me. I think I know what you're saying, and in 90% of situations I'd agree with you. In a lot of cases it wouldn't be news, and it would be an invasion of privacy. Maybe not legally, but morally, definitely.

However I find this situation different and justified. It's about context.

For one, the person in question is in the public eye. And not just in a celebrity rock star sports hero way, but as a person who is elected to represent a group of people and a city in a positive manner.

Now before people go off the handle, let me say definitively that this point is not enough to justify it. Not even close. Everyone has a right to privacy, even those in the public eye. Everyone has bad days, or days they wouldn't want others to see, everyone has private moments, and they should expect to have places in those private moments. And I agree, people, like whomever released the video, who use moments like this to make money or prey on others are the lowest type of scum.

However, when looked with other points, the first point I brought up DOES tilt the argument to the other side in my opinion.

The other points are many. This is not the first time behaviour like this has been noted. Ford has had similar incidents in public, even at city hall! It's not like these moments, or this issue (or group of issues) is so private, even in Ford's mind, that the public isn't involved in it already. He brought them into it already.

Secondly, he is a subject in a police investigation. Perhaps not as a suspect of anything anymore, but we don't know. All we know is at point, he was followed as a person who may be breaking many laws. And we know there is proof of him doing shady, perhaps illegal things. It's hard to complain about privacy if your breaking the rules of law. Maybe there is still a moral argument, but to expect it is a little naive.

Third, he has lied about his actions time and time again about this issue and related issues. Not once, not twice, plenty of times. Should a public figure be allowed to lie for privacy? Sure, I would expect many many white lies. But these aren't white lies. These are big ones hiding a pattern of irresponsibility and poor decision making that the electorate should know. If this video helps out these lies, then it's newsworthy.

Fourth, he has torpedoed all calls for responsibility or help so far. Again, in a smaller context, maybe it's not an issue. No one is perfect. But with how big this has gotten, and the level it must be influencing him, even his decisions, even before it became a news story, it is important for him to stop. For him, for his voters, for his city. If this video helps push him in that direction, or the people around him to push him in than direction, than again it is newsworthy and important.

A private citizen gets a lot more chances to screw up. Can shrug off responsibility, often almost indefinitely. But a public servant cannot. They have responsibilities. And they have given up privacy in circumstances to prove they are up to the task, to prove they are a good decision for leadership. If they keep that promise, than yeah, keep out of their private moments. But Ford has broken that trust. He has been caught lying. He has been caught doing illegal things (at least one anyway). He has been caught in situations which even before the circus arrived, had to be affecting his job, and influencing his decisions. Not sure how you can say it couldn't. And since the wheels started falling off, it's only more obvious it is bad for the city. It's a problem.

In extreme situations like this, the public has a right to more information to 1. make a better decision, and 2., put pressure on their official to do the right thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think those are the same. Making someone go and get help for drinking or an addiction is pretty much not about bullying. If it was, you'd probably see a lot more dead addicts.

there are certainly consequences mentioned, death, loss of family etc. But that's not what this is about, all that video release without context is about is humiliation. Ask any addiction specialist about that.

Humiliation could at least help him realize that he is close to rock bottom and hopefully trigger a moment of clarity. A lot of addicts won't quit until they actually have something to lose.

I would be lying if I said that I really care whether or not he gets help. At this point, it's more about removing a thug from a position of power.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Humiliation could at least help him realize that he is close to rock bottom and hopefully trigger a moment of clarity. A lot of addicts won't quit until they actually have something to lose.

Not in the same boat, clearly, but isn't this what happened to David Hasselhoff? Wouldn't get help for his alcohol addiction until his own kid taped him absolutely hammered out of his skull, and released it, begging him to get help?

[Bobblehead]

Yeah, while I am more than happy to see Ford make a fool of himself, this latest video seems offside to me.

If he wants to get (legally) drunk or whatever on his own time and in private, I think he should be allowed. Getting hammered in public or at city hall is across the line, but this, in someone's house, just seems like it should be allowed to be his own business.



As for the Ford seeming to not lose any support, there is something called "The Backfire Effect"

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ckfire-effect/

[Peanut]

Yeah but it's pretty obvious he's not on any legal substance in that video. Can that be proven conclusively? No, I guess not. But numerous people even just in this thread can attest to it looking quite a lot like Ford is very (illegally) coked up in that video.

[MarchHare]

CBC is reporting that an organized crime outfit tried to buy the crack video. The question I have: were the criminals trying to buy it so they could use it to blackmail the mayor, or were they trying to buy it on Ford's behalf so he could make it disappear. I'm not even sure which scenario is worse.

Ford has to resign now. There's no way he can legitimately stay on as mayor if he's involved with organized crime.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But he has neglected many things as well.

It's actually really easy to make cuts and save money, or privatize services and give the contracts to buddies. Meanwhile, innercity infrastructure and services are on the decline. At least the peple who live in the burbs, don't need to look at it though.

Hogwash. He could not do this with a stroke of a pen on a whim.

It is very difficult to make cuts and privatize services. If it was easy we would never have defiecit budgets. He would have needed to build the support of counsel to do so, as well as take on the unions head on.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ford has to resign now. There's no way he can legitimately stay on as mayor if he's involved with organized crime.

Wait what? Jumping to conclusions a bit now. An organized crime group wanted to buy a video in order to blackmail the mayor at a later point makes the mayor guilty of being involved with them and has to resign?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

CBC is reporting that an organized crime outfit tried to buy the crack video. The question I have: were the criminals trying to buy it so they could use it to blackmail the mayor, or were they trying to buy it on Ford's behalf so he could make it disappear. I'm not even sure which scenario is worse.

Ford has to resign now. There's no way he can legitimately stay on as mayor if he's involved with organized crime.

Or maybe they want to buy it on behalf of themselves? I don't imagine video evidence of dealing crack to the mayor of Toronto is great for the organization pushing the crack.

I really think Ford is hanging on for dear life as mayor because he becomes expendable to these people once he's out.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

Wait what? Jumping to conclusions a bit now. An organized crime group wanted to buy a video in order to blackmail the mayor at a later point makes the mayor guilty of being involved with them and has to resign?

It proves he's compromised. Which has been brought up before. There are criminals with sway over him, and whether or not he allowed it or is involved with it, it was poor decision making and illegal activity that gave them that power. He's compromised AND it's his fault. He HAS to go.

No conclusion jumping here. Whether he's involved or not is irrelevant (though obviously it would make it worse). Through his bad decisions and illegal activity he compromised himself as mayor. This is not some scam unfairly thrust upon him. He screwed up royally and it can (if it hasn't already) affect the city.

He MUST go.