Why hasn't he immediately sued TorStar for Defamation of Character?
Think about the MILLIONS of dollars he'd be able to get out of them in damages.
If this is untrue, he should be standing at the podium shouting fire and brimstone -- and we know he's capable of it.
But what do we see instead?
Rob Ford running from cameras as fast as his legs will carry him.
Video or no video, this speaks truth to me more than anything.
His silence, his cowardice, damns him.
By the way, the Rob Ford "Crackstarter" campaign is almost at $120,000 out of the $200,000 needed to purchase the 'alleged' video of him smoking crack (and calling Justin Trudeau a 'Faggot'... yeesh).
I'm not a fan of the idea of putting $200K into the hands of drug dealers - but at some point you've got to say "enough is enough". Our media won't touch it, our police would sock it away into evidence and it'd never see the light of day.
If this is true, the people who voted for this man need to see the truth.
And don't even get me started on this Goddamned Senate scandal.
This, however, is a great read:
We already have enough facts to know Harper is the true author of Senate scandal
I don't know if I'm back in the saddle just yet - for those unaware, between work and life my writing time - let alone my blogging time - has been almost nonexistent since just before the New Year. What little time I do have I've devoted to writing which will hopefully further my long-term career (independent political blogging, while immensely fun... is not exactly profitable).
But I had to hop back online for this one.
Hopefully I can find the time to pick this back up again - 'cause man we are living in some interesting times.
Cheers,
Brandon
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
Please Don't Go, Kevin
Earlier this year when I had my conversation with Kevin Page there was a little detail that, if you were like me, didn't even really hit home at the time - a very relevant factoid that will have profound implications for the next 3 years.
Mr. Page's mandate runs out in March of 2013. Furthermore, after his mandate, Mr. Page will be retiring.
Now, if you're embedded in the game, this comes as little shock - apparently Mr. Page has been vocal from the get-go that one term would be enough.
And in my (many) follow-up conversations with the man since my last interview he's been more than adamant that he is not the position, that there are wonderful, talented, strong people working along side him who are ready to fill his shoes once he leaves. That he feels that he can do so much more on the outside of the position, where he could be free to speak honestly of the nature of the PBO and the 'bad legislation' that created the position.
And that's all well and good -- except for one little thing:
The Parliamentary Budget Officer serves at "the pleasure" of the Prime Minister [PDF Warning, but excellent read!]
From the article:
"Under the current legislation, for instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer serves "at the pleasure" of the Prime Minister, a constraint by which no other officer of Parliament is bound, and one that could promise serious consequences for a PBO whose independent fiscal analysis displeased the PM."
Considering that Mr. Page and this arms length, incredibly useful office -- that was created to ensure that our government is not only transparent to Canadians but to itself as well -- is currently taking our government to court in order to get the information needed to do his job, well, I feel pretty safe in saying that our PBO is not currently serving 'at the pleasure' of our PM.
There's a fantastic read over at Huffington Post -- where they recently named Kevin Page "Canada's News Story of 2012" -- and if you care at all about what the next three years of our government will look like, I encourage you all to take a moment and give it a read.
But the long and short of it is this:
The way the legislation that created the position worked, the way it placed the PBO under the Library of Parliament -- forgoing giving the position true independence to the point where, if I remember correctly, they're not even allowed to hire their own staff -- it became known as the job 'nobody wanted'.
The idea was great on paper, but the execution was flawed. And flawed by design.
The reason we're even talking about the PBO at all is because Kevin Page took this job... and then built the office from the ground up. His integrity and determination, his refusal to quietly sit in the corner and count the beans that were handed to him -- his drive to be truly USEFUL to Canadians and our Parliament, pushed him to tackle important issues like the F35 scandal.
F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog
He was the first one to come forward and say 'these numbers don't add up to what we've been told'. And what did he get for that? Ridicule and attacks from the very Government that hired him to hold them accountable. Only after the Auditor General came forward and backed up those numbers was the PBO 'vindicated'.
Auditor general slams Canada’s plan to buy F-35 jets
I'd like to share with you Mr. Page’s opening statement to the government operations and estimates committee (on the topic of reforming the estimates review process) -- the first words from the man and a hint of what was to come:
"One of the key principles underlying responsible parliamentary government is that the House of Commons holds the “power of the purse”. The House must be able to satisfy itself, as the confidence chamber, that all spending and taxation is consistent with legislation, Parliament›s intentions, and the principles of parliamentary control. When this is accomplished, Parliament is serving Canadians. In my view, this is rarely accomplished." -- Source
In March of 2013 our Prime Minister will stand with the rest of Parliament and applaud this man publicly for a job well done, even as he continues to fight and stonewall the position that he created, as he fights to keep information out of the PBOs hands, and thus out of the hands of Canadians.
But what will happen when Mr. Page leaves?
Will the PBO be quietly folded into another department like our CSIS watchdog was? Scuttled to the dustbin like some sort of failed experiment?
Or will he appoint quiet 'yes-man' to the post? A bean-counter happy to work only the projects handed to him/her and never, ever speak out against the Prime Minister.
Because if there's one thing we know about our PM it's that he really, really, doesn't like having his feet held to the fire.
Having to be held accountable for answers to questions like 'why are you keeping two sets of books on the F35 purchase -- one for internal estimates and one for public release?' don't help him.
So while Mr. Page says that he works alongside a number of talented, strong people who are ready to fill his shoes after he leaves, I have to wonder: Why would our Prime Minister choose any of them?
He's going to want someone who will play ball.
And yet, in my view, the PBO has been successful because it has been so adversarial. It shouldn't exist to make friends or serve 'at the pleasure' of anyone.
The PBO exists for Canadians, to ensure that those who are voting in Parliament have access to all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
It exists to ensure the 'Transparency and Accountability' that our Prime Minister promised us (and quickly backpedaled on).
Mr. Page will be retiring after his mandate in 2013 so the task must fall on us to demand that someone of equal caliber is appointed.
To ensure that the PBO continues to work for Canadians and doesn't disappear behind a veil of secrecy like so many other aspects of the Harper Government.
We must demand that 2013 be the Year of Transparency - and work to hold our Government to that standard.
To that end, here's what I'll be doing this year - starting as soon as possible:
Writing letters to and meeting with my MP. I want to open a dialogue and understand our Government better.
Writing to MP Peggy Nash who put forward a bill this year to strengthen the PBO and also has an excellent understanding of the limitations of the position. I hope to open a dialogue and learn all I can while, hopefully, helping to build support for the bill.
I'm also going to start trying to get more interviews with MPs and other integral players in our Government, ones that I hope to share with you here.
Now this isn't an exhaustive list by any means... but it's a start, a step forward in taking this offline, out into the real world.
And I hope you'll walk with me this year.
Help me make 2013 the Year of Transparency.
Thank you,
Brandon
#YearOfTransparency
PS: I tried out the official Google Blogger App today and it is horrendous. It almost messed up this post beyond recognition when I tried to edit it on the go. If anyone knows of any decent mobile blogging apps, please let me know in the comments. Yeesh.
Mr. Page's mandate runs out in March of 2013. Furthermore, after his mandate, Mr. Page will be retiring.
Now, if you're embedded in the game, this comes as little shock - apparently Mr. Page has been vocal from the get-go that one term would be enough.
And in my (many) follow-up conversations with the man since my last interview he's been more than adamant that he is not the position, that there are wonderful, talented, strong people working along side him who are ready to fill his shoes once he leaves. That he feels that he can do so much more on the outside of the position, where he could be free to speak honestly of the nature of the PBO and the 'bad legislation' that created the position.
And that's all well and good -- except for one little thing:
The Parliamentary Budget Officer serves at "the pleasure" of the Prime Minister [PDF Warning, but excellent read!]
From the article:
"Under the current legislation, for instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer serves "at the pleasure" of the Prime Minister, a constraint by which no other officer of Parliament is bound, and one that could promise serious consequences for a PBO whose independent fiscal analysis displeased the PM."
Considering that Mr. Page and this arms length, incredibly useful office -- that was created to ensure that our government is not only transparent to Canadians but to itself as well -- is currently taking our government to court in order to get the information needed to do his job, well, I feel pretty safe in saying that our PBO is not currently serving 'at the pleasure' of our PM.
There's a fantastic read over at Huffington Post -- where they recently named Kevin Page "Canada's News Story of 2012" -- and if you care at all about what the next three years of our government will look like, I encourage you all to take a moment and give it a read.
But the long and short of it is this:
The way the legislation that created the position worked, the way it placed the PBO under the Library of Parliament -- forgoing giving the position true independence to the point where, if I remember correctly, they're not even allowed to hire their own staff -- it became known as the job 'nobody wanted'.
The idea was great on paper, but the execution was flawed. And flawed by design.
The reason we're even talking about the PBO at all is because Kevin Page took this job... and then built the office from the ground up. His integrity and determination, his refusal to quietly sit in the corner and count the beans that were handed to him -- his drive to be truly USEFUL to Canadians and our Parliament, pushed him to tackle important issues like the F35 scandal.
F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog
He was the first one to come forward and say 'these numbers don't add up to what we've been told'. And what did he get for that? Ridicule and attacks from the very Government that hired him to hold them accountable. Only after the Auditor General came forward and backed up those numbers was the PBO 'vindicated'.
Auditor general slams Canada’s plan to buy F-35 jets
I'd like to share with you Mr. Page’s opening statement to the government operations and estimates committee (on the topic of reforming the estimates review process) -- the first words from the man and a hint of what was to come:
"One of the key principles underlying responsible parliamentary government is that the House of Commons holds the “power of the purse”. The House must be able to satisfy itself, as the confidence chamber, that all spending and taxation is consistent with legislation, Parliament›s intentions, and the principles of parliamentary control. When this is accomplished, Parliament is serving Canadians. In my view, this is rarely accomplished." -- Source
In March of 2013 our Prime Minister will stand with the rest of Parliament and applaud this man publicly for a job well done, even as he continues to fight and stonewall the position that he created, as he fights to keep information out of the PBOs hands, and thus out of the hands of Canadians.
But what will happen when Mr. Page leaves?
Will the PBO be quietly folded into another department like our CSIS watchdog was? Scuttled to the dustbin like some sort of failed experiment?
Or will he appoint quiet 'yes-man' to the post? A bean-counter happy to work only the projects handed to him/her and never, ever speak out against the Prime Minister.
Because if there's one thing we know about our PM it's that he really, really, doesn't like having his feet held to the fire.
Having to be held accountable for answers to questions like 'why are you keeping two sets of books on the F35 purchase -- one for internal estimates and one for public release?' don't help him.
So while Mr. Page says that he works alongside a number of talented, strong people who are ready to fill his shoes after he leaves, I have to wonder: Why would our Prime Minister choose any of them?
He's going to want someone who will play ball.
And yet, in my view, the PBO has been successful because it has been so adversarial. It shouldn't exist to make friends or serve 'at the pleasure' of anyone.
The PBO exists for Canadians, to ensure that those who are voting in Parliament have access to all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
It exists to ensure the 'Transparency and Accountability' that our Prime Minister promised us (and quickly backpedaled on).
Mr. Page will be retiring after his mandate in 2013 so the task must fall on us to demand that someone of equal caliber is appointed.
To ensure that the PBO continues to work for Canadians and doesn't disappear behind a veil of secrecy like so many other aspects of the Harper Government.
We must demand that 2013 be the Year of Transparency - and work to hold our Government to that standard.
To that end, here's what I'll be doing this year - starting as soon as possible:
Writing letters to and meeting with my MP. I want to open a dialogue and understand our Government better.
Writing to MP Peggy Nash who put forward a bill this year to strengthen the PBO and also has an excellent understanding of the limitations of the position. I hope to open a dialogue and learn all I can while, hopefully, helping to build support for the bill.
I'm also going to start trying to get more interviews with MPs and other integral players in our Government, ones that I hope to share with you here.
Now this isn't an exhaustive list by any means... but it's a start, a step forward in taking this offline, out into the real world.
And I hope you'll walk with me this year.
Help me make 2013 the Year of Transparency.
Thank you,
Brandon
#YearOfTransparency
PS: I tried out the official Google Blogger App today and it is horrendous. It almost messed up this post beyond recognition when I tried to edit it on the go. If anyone knows of any decent mobile blogging apps, please let me know in the comments. Yeesh.
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
A Crooked Politician's Greatest Fear Is An Engaged Citizen
Those who just finished watching Rob Ford's denouement can attest to this, but I'm sure that there are other Mayors and politicians all around the country (and globe) cursing Democracy under their breath at the moment -- And by 'Democracy' I mean the right of the citizen to stand and challenge their leaders and hold them accountable for their actions.
Of course, to listen to the critics, the citizen responsible for Ford's downfall is nothing short of a political assassin. How dare he bring about 'lawfare' to attack a man who brazenly broke the law and hold him accountable for his actions?
Not 'How stupid could Rob Ford, this person we trusted to lead us, be?' or 'After 10 years, how could he not have read the basic rules of his job?' or 'Why did he ignore all the advice from his political allies and friends?'
No, instead it's the citizen who slew the giant that's at fault.
And then it's all: How DARE they? Those citizens! Those simpletons! Can't they understand how the rules can't possibly be applied to[insert politician's name here]?
Or it's the "bad" law's fault.
(Incidentally, the same "bad" law that's been on the books for HOW long now that no other mayor has had any problem with?)
If there's one common theme in all of the political rancor that I've been following it's how indifferent our leaders have become to the rules and laws that govern them - or, in some cases, the blatant, bull-headed assertions that somehow they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
Those same laws that they so boldly swore to uphold when they took office and the public's trust.
The reality of the situation is that a good number of our leaders have squandered that trust - have played on our good natures or our busy lives so that they might have their cake and eat it too.
But we're catching on. We're waking up to their shell game.
You know, one of the things that I really loved about Occupy was that at the very heart of the movement was this:
The power is in your hands.
The time for waiting for permission; for others to tell you that it's okay to demand better of your ersatz 'leaders', is over.
You are the arbiter of your nation's fate.
If nothing else, I believe that it was the one sentiment truly driven home by Occupy -- and, I would contend, that it's the one thing that's continued to fester and grow beneath the skins of decent, hard-working people.
In fact, a recent Samara poll has shown that only 55% of Canadians believe that "Democracy is working well in Canada", down from 75% in 2004. (Where will number sit in 2015, I wonder?)
Now, unfortunately, we don't know if that has been a steady decline or if our nation's fallen off of a 'Confidence Cliff' in regards to our leaders... either way it doesn't bode well.
For our Government.
See, when things are going well everyone's happy to not rock the boat. But things aren't going well.
Our Prime Minister is slashing jobs and keeping secrets and aiding in the trashing of our National Environment -- and then there's that whole nagging question of whether or not the last election was legitimate.
(And that's just off the top of my head).
The murmur of frustration is growing again, especially as our PM prepares to ram through yet another Omnibus budget bill -- this one clocking in at 457 pages.
But the question remains: What will we do about it?
Cheers,
Brandon
Of course, to listen to the critics, the citizen responsible for Ford's downfall is nothing short of a political assassin. How dare he bring about 'lawfare' to attack a man who brazenly broke the law and hold him accountable for his actions?
Not 'How stupid could Rob Ford, this person we trusted to lead us, be?' or 'After 10 years, how could he not have read the basic rules of his job?' or 'Why did he ignore all the advice from his political allies and friends?'
No, instead it's the citizen who slew the giant that's at fault.
And then it's all: How DARE they? Those citizens! Those simpletons! Can't they understand how the rules can't possibly be applied to
Or it's the "bad" law's fault.
(Incidentally, the same "bad" law that's been on the books for HOW long now that no other mayor has had any problem with?)
If there's one common theme in all of the political rancor that I've been following it's how indifferent our leaders have become to the rules and laws that govern them - or, in some cases, the blatant, bull-headed assertions that somehow they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
Those same laws that they so boldly swore to uphold when they took office and the public's trust.
The reality of the situation is that a good number of our leaders have squandered that trust - have played on our good natures or our busy lives so that they might have their cake and eat it too.
But we're catching on. We're waking up to their shell game.
You know, one of the things that I really loved about Occupy was that at the very heart of the movement was this:
The power is in your hands.
The time for waiting for permission; for others to tell you that it's okay to demand better of your ersatz 'leaders', is over.
You are the arbiter of your nation's fate.
If nothing else, I believe that it was the one sentiment truly driven home by Occupy -- and, I would contend, that it's the one thing that's continued to fester and grow beneath the skins of decent, hard-working people.
In fact, a recent Samara poll has shown that only 55% of Canadians believe that "Democracy is working well in Canada", down from 75% in 2004. (Where will number sit in 2015, I wonder?)
Now, unfortunately, we don't know if that has been a steady decline or if our nation's fallen off of a 'Confidence Cliff' in regards to our leaders... either way it doesn't bode well.
For our Government.
See, when things are going well everyone's happy to not rock the boat. But things aren't going well.
Our Prime Minister is slashing jobs and keeping secrets and aiding in the trashing of our National Environment -- and then there's that whole nagging question of whether or not the last election was legitimate.
(And that's just off the top of my head).
The murmur of frustration is growing again, especially as our PM prepares to ram through yet another Omnibus budget bill -- this one clocking in at 457 pages.
But the question remains: What will we do about it?
Cheers,
Brandon
Sunday, November 11, 2012
In Remembrance
There aren't a whole lot of meaningful things that a civilian like myself can say. I'm exceedingly lucky to have grown up in a country that hasn't known war in my lifetime. That 'luck', unfortunately, did not come without a cost and a great number of valiant Canadians sacrificed their lives so that I and my children might grow up with the blessing of a peaceful homeland.
There aren't a whole lot of things that I can say that won't sound horribly trite.
So, instead I'll say:
Thank you.
I promise to honour your sacrifice by continuing to work at being an informed and active citizen - to help maintain and uphold the Democracy you have fought and died to protect.
Brandon
There aren't a whole lot of things that I can say that won't sound horribly trite.
So, instead I'll say:
Thank you.
I promise to honour your sacrifice by continuing to work at being an informed and active citizen - to help maintain and uphold the Democracy you have fought and died to protect.
Brandon
Friday, November 09, 2012
Say No to FIPA
There's been a lot of reading involved, coming to this decision - scrounging up what I can in order to learn more about what we're being signed up for.
(not unlike the TPP, oddly enough -- our Prime Minister has gotten deep into the habit of signing things without, you know, informing Canadians what he's up to -- or letting us see what he did until the ink's dried).
But in the end, I have to stand here and say that I am strongly opposed to Canada's Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China.
Why? Well, the most simple and basic question we need to be asking is this:
What does Canada gain from this agreement?
In fact, it seems that this agreement will actually leave us holding up the larger end of the deal, suffering under more constraints and taking on far more of the risks than is even remotely fair.
My biggest question boils down to this:
If this deal was so good for Canada, for Canadians, why was it negotiated in secret?
Why did our Prime Minister prevent it from being examined by Parliament and having a fair Environmental assessment done?
Politicians love to talk about the great things they're doing, Harper is especially fond of crowing about all of his fantastic strides forward, all of his accomplishments for us.
So why is this deal being done behind closed doors? Why are we being kept out until the ink has dried?
Even if we must sign this agreement, why are we not insisting on reciprocity? Why aren't we insisting that Canadians have just a fair shot inside Chinese markets as they will have in ours?
We, my fellows -- my children -- will be on the hook for the next 31 years.
31 YEARS!
And Canadians don't get to know the full ramifications of what we're signing onto before hand?
We don't get to debate the pros and cons and have proper independent assessments?
Look, I get that there's a lot of vested interest out there all of the sudden trying to calm the seas, trying to tell us how 'great' this is going to be for us. And yet Canadians are being brought to the table in the short bus, kept away from anything that might actually inform (or incense) us.
I must stand against this process, against this secretive agreement that -- from what I can see -- will do more harm than good for my nation.
And that's why I ask that you stand with me in bringing the truth to light on this FIPA and also in demanding a new, full Environmental Assessment of it's impact.
Brandon
More reading:
Understanding FIPA in under 1,000 words
5 things to know about the Canada-China investment treaty
Harper must tear up the Canada-China investment treaty
(not unlike the TPP, oddly enough -- our Prime Minister has gotten deep into the habit of signing things without, you know, informing Canadians what he's up to -- or letting us see what he did until the ink's dried).
But in the end, I have to stand here and say that I am strongly opposed to Canada's Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China.
Why? Well, the most simple and basic question we need to be asking is this:
What does Canada gain from this agreement?
In fact, it seems that this agreement will actually leave us holding up the larger end of the deal, suffering under more constraints and taking on far more of the risks than is even remotely fair.
My biggest question boils down to this:
If this deal was so good for Canada, for Canadians, why was it negotiated in secret?
Why did our Prime Minister prevent it from being examined by Parliament and having a fair Environmental assessment done?
Politicians love to talk about the great things they're doing, Harper is especially fond of crowing about all of his fantastic strides forward, all of his accomplishments for us.
So why is this deal being done behind closed doors? Why are we being kept out until the ink has dried?
Even if we must sign this agreement, why are we not insisting on reciprocity? Why aren't we insisting that Canadians have just a fair shot inside Chinese markets as they will have in ours?
We, my fellows -- my children -- will be on the hook for the next 31 years.
31 YEARS!
And Canadians don't get to know the full ramifications of what we're signing onto before hand?
We don't get to debate the pros and cons and have proper independent assessments?
Look, I get that there's a lot of vested interest out there all of the sudden trying to calm the seas, trying to tell us how 'great' this is going to be for us. And yet Canadians are being brought to the table in the short bus, kept away from anything that might actually inform (or incense) us.
I must stand against this process, against this secretive agreement that -- from what I can see -- will do more harm than good for my nation.
And that's why I ask that you stand with me in bringing the truth to light on this FIPA and also in demanding a new, full Environmental Assessment of it's impact.
Brandon
More reading:
Understanding FIPA in under 1,000 words
5 things to know about the Canada-China investment treaty
Harper must tear up the Canada-China investment treaty
Thursday, October 25, 2012
6 Votes
If you were paying attention today, you may have noticed that the Supreme Court of Canada released it's much anticipated decision re: Ted Opitz vs. Borys Wrzesnewskyj - about the fate of the highly-contested Etobicoke Centre riding in which Borys lost the election by 26 votes and research showed several 'irregularities' which called the outcome into question.
Earlier this year, Borys took the election to court, citing that these irregularities cost him the election. In his defense, he put forth evidence gathered from 10 out of 200+ ridings and cited over 180 irregularities.
In May of this year:
"Justice Thomas Lederer of the Ontario Superior Court agreed, tossing out 79 ballots, easily overcoming the 26 vote plurality." [Source]
Optiz appealed the decision to The Supeme Court of Canada who, today, overturned Lederer's ruling in a 4-3 decision [read their full ruling here].
After all the dust settled - including Elections Canada rushing to include new evidence into the trial (evidence the Borys asked Elections Canada for in the earlier trial but was denied [source, same link]) - the SCoC ended up concluding that out of the 79 'irregular' votes, only 20 were left standing as 'irregular' and since Borys lost by 26 votes, 26-20 = 6, so Optiz maintains his seat with a 6 vote victory.
6 votes.
What I find interesting about this decision is how much of the immediate uproar was how the system is broken, how there's no need to vote anymore, "why bother? Democracy is dead!".
And yet I take exactly the opposite message from this situation:
6 Votes decided a winner in this situation. More specifically, 7 Liberal voters who chose to stay home, cost Borys the election.
Your vote matters.
In fact, that was one of the key points in the Supreme Court's decision: That the constitutional Right of Canadians to vote must not be compromised.
Which is why Canadians need to get back on the Horse in regards to the Robofraud Scandal.
You all may or may not remember the crazy story of Pierre Poutine that took our nation by storm back in February of this year, but if you need a refresher, check out my article "Analyzing The Pieces of Robofraud" which will get you back up to speed (though there are still some updates needed).
The long and short of it is this: After the investigation led directly back to Conservative Headquarters in Ottawa, the entire investigation fell off the rails after the trail lead back to an open Wi-Fi connection.
Of course there's a whole list of questions that pop up from that situation (several different IPs managed to be traced back to that open WiFi connection) but the long and short of it is that, without further outrage - Canadians demanding answers from their elected officials and Elections Canada - we are pretty much never going to find out the truth to the RoboFraud scandal.
The book is pretty much closed.
However, your constitutional 'Right to Vote' has just been pushed to the forefront by the highest court in the land - Which means if you want to ever have a chance to sort out the mess of the Robocalls -- a scientifically proved concerted effort to keep voters away from the polls on Election Day -- this is pretty much your last shot.
Scientific proof, statistically speaking that Robocalls had a measurable effect on the outcome of the 2011 election:
[Study: Full paper + analysis]
[Different study + backup + Full Paper]
So, if your Democracy matters to you at all, now's the time to start getting out there and demanding that your right to vote be upheld and that the Robocall Scandal finally receive a proper, external, investigation.
A Royal Commission.
Cheers,
Brandon
Further Reading:
Court documents conflict with Election Canada’s claim of sweeping robocall investigation
EDIT: For the next election, in order to help ensure that the job is done and done right, we're going to need more and more Scrutineers at the ballot box. If you'd like to become a Scrutineer for the next election, please follow this handy How To.
Earlier this year, Borys took the election to court, citing that these irregularities cost him the election. In his defense, he put forth evidence gathered from 10 out of 200+ ridings and cited over 180 irregularities.
In May of this year:
"Justice Thomas Lederer of the Ontario Superior Court agreed, tossing out 79 ballots, easily overcoming the 26 vote plurality." [Source]
Optiz appealed the decision to The Supeme Court of Canada who, today, overturned Lederer's ruling in a 4-3 decision [read their full ruling here].
After all the dust settled - including Elections Canada rushing to include new evidence into the trial (evidence the Borys asked Elections Canada for in the earlier trial but was denied [source, same link]) - the SCoC ended up concluding that out of the 79 'irregular' votes, only 20 were left standing as 'irregular' and since Borys lost by 26 votes, 26-20 = 6, so Optiz maintains his seat with a 6 vote victory.
6 votes.
What I find interesting about this decision is how much of the immediate uproar was how the system is broken, how there's no need to vote anymore, "why bother? Democracy is dead!".
And yet I take exactly the opposite message from this situation:
6 Votes decided a winner in this situation. More specifically, 7 Liberal voters who chose to stay home, cost Borys the election.
Your vote matters.
In fact, that was one of the key points in the Supreme Court's decision: That the constitutional Right of Canadians to vote must not be compromised.
Which is why Canadians need to get back on the Horse in regards to the Robofraud Scandal.
You all may or may not remember the crazy story of Pierre Poutine that took our nation by storm back in February of this year, but if you need a refresher, check out my article "Analyzing The Pieces of Robofraud" which will get you back up to speed (though there are still some updates needed).
The long and short of it is this: After the investigation led directly back to Conservative Headquarters in Ottawa, the entire investigation fell off the rails after the trail lead back to an open Wi-Fi connection.
Of course there's a whole list of questions that pop up from that situation (several different IPs managed to be traced back to that open WiFi connection) but the long and short of it is that, without further outrage - Canadians demanding answers from their elected officials and Elections Canada - we are pretty much never going to find out the truth to the RoboFraud scandal.
The book is pretty much closed.
However, your constitutional 'Right to Vote' has just been pushed to the forefront by the highest court in the land - Which means if you want to ever have a chance to sort out the mess of the Robocalls -- a scientifically proved concerted effort to keep voters away from the polls on Election Day -- this is pretty much your last shot.
Scientific proof, statistically speaking that Robocalls had a measurable effect on the outcome of the 2011 election:
[Study: Full paper + analysis]
[Different study + backup + Full Paper]
So, if your Democracy matters to you at all, now's the time to start getting out there and demanding that your right to vote be upheld and that the Robocall Scandal finally receive a proper, external, investigation.
A Royal Commission.
Cheers,
Brandon
Further Reading:
Court documents conflict with Election Canada’s claim of sweeping robocall investigation
EDIT: For the next election, in order to help ensure that the job is done and done right, we're going to need more and more Scrutineers at the ballot box. If you'd like to become a Scrutineer for the next election, please follow this handy How To.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Rob Ford's Double-Down
“What steps, if any, did you take to find out what the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act required of you?”
“None,” Ford said softly. There was then a long pause. Four, five seconds? The silence seemed to stretch on.
“None?” Ruby said. Another pause. “That’s your answer?”
“Yes.”
Look, I'm not a small guy.
I'm thinner now than I used to be, but I've always been 'fat'.
It wasn't that long ago that I was pushing 250+ lbs.
Yes, not the fattest guy ever (I'm sure there are some folks who wish they were at 250) but still enough to feel the wrath.
Fat guys are funny.
Fat guys are dumb.
If we get angry, we're big, fat, red-faced.
Clumsy.
You know the phrase:
Bull in a China shop.
And Rob Ford has hinged his entire defense on the fact that you're willing to buy into that stereotype and let him off the hook.
Because being 'dumb' isn't illegal.
And if you're willing to buy that he's just a big, fat blowhard then, well, there's a pretty damned good chance he'll get to keep his job.
Anyway, before we get too far into this, I want you to go and read this article:
The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford
Why? Because, hands down, it's the best article I've read so far on the subject. It does its best to come at the situation in an unbiased manner and is quite an eye-opener.
Also worth a read - relating to Ford's June 27th deposition by Clayton Ruby:
‘I don’t remember’ 89 times: details of Mayor Rob Ford’s closed-door grilling revealed
Let's look at some stats:
Rob Ford was a Toronto city Councellor for 10 years before running for Mayor.
10 Years.
According to him, over 10 years (and a few elections) he, at no time, read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act - despite the fact that it was part of a package given to him, several times. Despite the fact that it was considered 'required reading'.
According to Ford: ”How I define a conflict of interest is if it’s financially beneficial to the city and financial beneficial to me personally.”
That's his answer and he's stuck to it like glue, clinging to it like the life raft that it is.
“I always thought, for 12 years, and I still believe, that a conflict is when the city has a benefit and when I have a benefit. This is a personal issue and had nothing to do with the city.” - Rob Ford
Because, again, being dumb isn't against the law. Being aggressively ill-informed isn't against the law.
And he's praying that you're willing to eat it up.
The big, dumb fat guy was too lazy to read.
Lap it up and let him off with a slap on the wrist.
'Cause you gotta let the punishment fit the crime, right?
And, as his followers are howling, how can he lose his job over a paltry $3000??
But this isn't about $3000.
This is about a man who in 2010 chose to solicit $3150 in donations for his own Football foundation using Council letterhead.
From Court is in session: Could Toronto Mayor Rob Ford lose his job this week?
"Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper discovered this and notified Ford that his actions breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
Leiper ordered Ford to pay back the money. He ignored the request — and the following six requests.
This February, after now-Mayor Ford couldn't provide proof of repayment to the donors, he participated in a debate about the issue and voted against him having a pay it back. Enter: conflict of interest accusation."
Rob Ford ignored the order to repay the money -- essentially, his 'slap on the wrist' -- seven times.
He then CHOSE to go before council and have them vote that he didn't have to repay the money.
And then he, himself, took part in that vote and was cleared.
From Ford doesn't declare conflict, joins in debate over donations by lobbyists
Mr. Ford addressed council during the debate, but it appears none of the other politicians present objected to his participation. In a motion by Councillor Paul Ainslie, council voted 22-12 to rescind Ms. Leiper’s recommendation, made originally in an August, 2010, report to council. Mr. Ford voted in favour.
His office did not respond to several requests for comment.
He took part in a vote that determined whether or not he would have to repay the $3000 as ordered by the Integrity Commissioner.
Rob Ford is telling us that a 43 year old man, with 10 years on city council under his belt has not even the most basic idea of what 'conflict of interest' entails.
With a bowed, red face and cracked voice he's nodding yes.
We're supposed to feel pity for the big, fat buffoon.
And we are.
From The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford:
"Yet another observer, a woman I met in the elevator, compared the experience to watching a caged animal being repeatedly stabbed with a stick, unable to escape or respond or even really understand exactly what was going on."
But should we?
From Ford doesn't declare conflict, joins in debate over donations by lobbyists
As a councillor, he declared a conflict prior to a 2010 council debate over a previous integrity commissioner investigation that arose after he accused Councillor Adam Vaughan of conflict of interest on a radio show. (He withdrew the allegation.)
In her 2010 annual report, Ms. Leiper noted it was “the first time” a councillor has recused themselves from such a debate. As she wrote, “Although the state of the law in this area is not entirely clear, it may be appropriate for Councillors who are the subject of a report on a violation of the Code of Conduct to consider declaring an interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, in view of the potential sanctions that could include a suspension of remuneration (although to date, this has never happened in Toronto).”
In my opinion, from what I've read and seen, Rob Ford is a blowhard.
He's proud, he's loud and he's arrogant.
But he's not stupid.
In fact, he's just smart enough - as distasteful as he finds it - to play the 'big dumb oaf' card. To know that if he plays his cards right, he'll get to keep his job.
From The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford:
At one point, trying to show that Ford’s claim to always have believed his benefit-the-city/benefit-me understanding of the matter was disingenuous, Ruby played a video of Ford declaring a conflict of interest on another occasion. At that time, the matter was a report from the Integrity Commissioner suggesting Ford be reprimanded for an entirely different issue. There were, as laid out in the report, no financial implications from the City at all. Ford, on the video, stood at City Hall and said that since the report was about him, he could not speak or vote on it, and he had to leave the chamber. He said it himself, simply and straightforwardly.
“On that day, you understood the simple principle: if the report is about Rob Ford, you can’t take part in the debate, yes?” Ruby asked.
“No,” Ford said.
“I heard your voice. I heard you speak the words,” Ruby said. “Did you understand the words as you were speaking?”
“No,” Ford said.
Because the other thing that he knows is that his supporters won't give a damn about what's revealed in that courtroom. They're already sold on the product.
All they see is 'brave' man being needled by the system that he's fighting to change.
He knows that all he has to do is make it out of this courtroom in one piece and he's free to spin his win however he wants.
And he will.
So he plays up the dumb, hangs his head low - tries to outrun the media from time to time (ha! The fat guy's trying to run!) and waits for the hammer to fall.
But as one fat guy who's sick and tired of the stereotype - and who's incensed that our Mayor might dare to hang his entire defense on the fact that over 10+ years the 'big, fat, lazy' man couldn't be bothered to READ the base-level rules of his job - I'm asking that you throw the book at him.
Not for the 'paltry' $3000.
But the choices he made afterward.
The choices that are a clear violation of the laws that he swore to uphold.
The laws that he brazenly flouted; that he couldn't even give a damn to read.
(Which also begs the question: what else hasn't he read)
Rob Ford, you stood before council and voted to clear yourself of a penalty rightfully leveled at you for your own, previous, poor judgement.
You are, and must be found, guilty as charged.
“None,” Ford said softly. There was then a long pause. Four, five seconds? The silence seemed to stretch on.
“None?” Ruby said. Another pause. “That’s your answer?”
“Yes.”
Look, I'm not a small guy.
I'm thinner now than I used to be, but I've always been 'fat'.
It wasn't that long ago that I was pushing 250+ lbs.
Yes, not the fattest guy ever (I'm sure there are some folks who wish they were at 250) but still enough to feel the wrath.
Fat guys are funny.
Fat guys are dumb.
If we get angry, we're big, fat, red-faced.
Clumsy.
You know the phrase:
Bull in a China shop.
And Rob Ford has hinged his entire defense on the fact that you're willing to buy into that stereotype and let him off the hook.
Because being 'dumb' isn't illegal.
And if you're willing to buy that he's just a big, fat blowhard then, well, there's a pretty damned good chance he'll get to keep his job.
Anyway, before we get too far into this, I want you to go and read this article:
The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford
Why? Because, hands down, it's the best article I've read so far on the subject. It does its best to come at the situation in an unbiased manner and is quite an eye-opener.
Also worth a read - relating to Ford's June 27th deposition by Clayton Ruby:
‘I don’t remember’ 89 times: details of Mayor Rob Ford’s closed-door grilling revealed
Let's look at some stats:
Rob Ford was a Toronto city Councellor for 10 years before running for Mayor.
10 Years.
According to him, over 10 years (and a few elections) he, at no time, read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act - despite the fact that it was part of a package given to him, several times. Despite the fact that it was considered 'required reading'.
According to Ford: ”How I define a conflict of interest is if it’s financially beneficial to the city and financial beneficial to me personally.”
That's his answer and he's stuck to it like glue, clinging to it like the life raft that it is.
“I always thought, for 12 years, and I still believe, that a conflict is when the city has a benefit and when I have a benefit. This is a personal issue and had nothing to do with the city.” - Rob Ford
Because, again, being dumb isn't against the law. Being aggressively ill-informed isn't against the law.
And he's praying that you're willing to eat it up.
The big, dumb fat guy was too lazy to read.
Lap it up and let him off with a slap on the wrist.
'Cause you gotta let the punishment fit the crime, right?
And, as his followers are howling, how can he lose his job over a paltry $3000??
But this isn't about $3000.
This is about a man who in 2010 chose to solicit $3150 in donations for his own Football foundation using Council letterhead.
From Court is in session: Could Toronto Mayor Rob Ford lose his job this week?
"Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper discovered this and notified Ford that his actions breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.
Leiper ordered Ford to pay back the money. He ignored the request — and the following six requests.
This February, after now-Mayor Ford couldn't provide proof of repayment to the donors, he participated in a debate about the issue and voted against him having a pay it back. Enter: conflict of interest accusation."
Rob Ford ignored the order to repay the money -- essentially, his 'slap on the wrist' -- seven times.
He then CHOSE to go before council and have them vote that he didn't have to repay the money.
And then he, himself, took part in that vote and was cleared.
From Ford doesn't declare conflict, joins in debate over donations by lobbyists
Mr. Ford addressed council during the debate, but it appears none of the other politicians present objected to his participation. In a motion by Councillor Paul Ainslie, council voted 22-12 to rescind Ms. Leiper’s recommendation, made originally in an August, 2010, report to council. Mr. Ford voted in favour.
His office did not respond to several requests for comment.
He took part in a vote that determined whether or not he would have to repay the $3000 as ordered by the Integrity Commissioner.
Rob Ford is telling us that a 43 year old man, with 10 years on city council under his belt has not even the most basic idea of what 'conflict of interest' entails.
With a bowed, red face and cracked voice he's nodding yes.
We're supposed to feel pity for the big, fat buffoon.
And we are.
From The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford:
"Yet another observer, a woman I met in the elevator, compared the experience to watching a caged animal being repeatedly stabbed with a stick, unable to escape or respond or even really understand exactly what was going on."
But should we?
From Ford doesn't declare conflict, joins in debate over donations by lobbyists
As a councillor, he declared a conflict prior to a 2010 council debate over a previous integrity commissioner investigation that arose after he accused Councillor Adam Vaughan of conflict of interest on a radio show. (He withdrew the allegation.)
In her 2010 annual report, Ms. Leiper noted it was “the first time” a councillor has recused themselves from such a debate. As she wrote, “Although the state of the law in this area is not entirely clear, it may be appropriate for Councillors who are the subject of a report on a violation of the Code of Conduct to consider declaring an interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, in view of the potential sanctions that could include a suspension of remuneration (although to date, this has never happened in Toronto).”
In my opinion, from what I've read and seen, Rob Ford is a blowhard.
He's proud, he's loud and he's arrogant.
But he's not stupid.
In fact, he's just smart enough - as distasteful as he finds it - to play the 'big dumb oaf' card. To know that if he plays his cards right, he'll get to keep his job.
From The people Vs. Robert Bruce Ford:
At one point, trying to show that Ford’s claim to always have believed his benefit-the-city/benefit-me understanding of the matter was disingenuous, Ruby played a video of Ford declaring a conflict of interest on another occasion. At that time, the matter was a report from the Integrity Commissioner suggesting Ford be reprimanded for an entirely different issue. There were, as laid out in the report, no financial implications from the City at all. Ford, on the video, stood at City Hall and said that since the report was about him, he could not speak or vote on it, and he had to leave the chamber. He said it himself, simply and straightforwardly.
“On that day, you understood the simple principle: if the report is about Rob Ford, you can’t take part in the debate, yes?” Ruby asked.
“No,” Ford said.
“I heard your voice. I heard you speak the words,” Ruby said. “Did you understand the words as you were speaking?”
“No,” Ford said.
Because the other thing that he knows is that his supporters won't give a damn about what's revealed in that courtroom. They're already sold on the product.
All they see is 'brave' man being needled by the system that he's fighting to change.
He knows that all he has to do is make it out of this courtroom in one piece and he's free to spin his win however he wants.
And he will.
So he plays up the dumb, hangs his head low - tries to outrun the media from time to time (ha! The fat guy's trying to run!) and waits for the hammer to fall.
But as one fat guy who's sick and tired of the stereotype - and who's incensed that our Mayor might dare to hang his entire defense on the fact that over 10+ years the 'big, fat, lazy' man couldn't be bothered to READ the base-level rules of his job - I'm asking that you throw the book at him.
Not for the 'paltry' $3000.
But the choices he made afterward.
The choices that are a clear violation of the laws that he swore to uphold.
The laws that he brazenly flouted; that he couldn't even give a damn to read.
(Which also begs the question: what else hasn't he read)
Rob Ford, you stood before council and voted to clear yourself of a penalty rightfully leveled at you for your own, previous, poor judgement.
You are, and must be found, guilty as charged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)