[AlvinofDiaspar]

thedeepend:

Calm down a little - you are at risk of shooting the messenger instead of the message.

In any case, the pattern has clearly gone on for more than 7 years.

AoD

 

[Tulse]

STILL SAYING THEY WILL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN!!,

What do you expect, when the only other option is Jack Layton?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Geez, between 2006 and now he still hasn't gotten over his personal problems.

AoD

True, but on the bright side (for the city, at least), when you compare his pictures today to the one taken in 2006, at least it looks like he'll be dead soon. Let's just hope he doesn't cause any (more?) deaths before that happens.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

vox:

Well, I am not going to wish him death (as convenient as it maybe) but you're right that he did look significantly worse for wear.

AoD

 

[RC8]

I think what CowboyLogic was trying to say, is that hanging out with murderous drug dealers and smoking crack, is not that far from purchasing sexual services from a woman who may be under the control of murderous human traffickers

Even if she was (which is a stretch), no, it's not equivalent at all.

It's not about the morality of the act here, it's about how it affects your duties as an elected official.

Rob Ford's wife wanted to take him to trial for uttering death threats, but that's not a reason to kick him out of office, for example.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

vox:

Well, I am not going to wish him death (as convenient as it maybe) but you're right that he did look significantly worse for wear.

AoD

To be clear, the duration of the remainder of Ford's life is mostly his own choice. Yes, I happen to think the city would benefit if it happened sooner than later, but I'm not "wishing him death". The mere fact that we need to worry about the mayor causing the death(s) of (more of?) his electorate is ample evidence that the city stands to gain if the mayor drops dead this afternoon. That's just math.

 

[Tewder]

It seems somewhat unfair to include Tewder in that list seeing as he's already conceded he detests Ford and that "smoking crack is worse".

This next part isn't directed at you but more to the forum in general. I think we do sometimes have an obligation to ask ourselves about our own biases and it's particularly important to think about how we'd react to improper behaviour from "our guys". I'm not completely sure the Jack Layton issue is totally irrelevant as some have claimed. Yes, it shouldn't be used in the context of "Layton did this so that makes Ford ok!!" but it seems reasonable to consider how it affected our opinions about his character and whether we held him to the same standard. I was (and am) a very strong Jack Layton supporter but I'll admit honestly that the massage incident shook me somewhat. I'm not completely sure an elected official should survive a proven prostitution scandal - so that causes me some internal conflict that I recognize.

If we don't or can't ask those questions of ourselves we risk becoming the pretzel logic apologists that we all accuse "Ford Nation" of being. I don't want to be those guys.

We should absolutely be arguing vigorously against Ford and what he stands for but we need to be careful not to cross the line into rabid anger whenever anybody tries to present the opposite point of view providing that they do it respectfully and reasonably. I agree there are indeed a lot of "stupid people" that voted for Ford but there are certainly some people with intelligent things to say that also did so... even if I think they're completely wrong.

(I'm saying all this as someone who absolutely despises the Ford brothers and what they've tried to do to my city)

+1! Post of the day. A slow hand clap in your direction my friend.

 

[mrtinfoilsocket]

Even if she was (which is a stretch), no, it's not equivalent at all.

It's not about the morality of the act here, it's about how it affects your duties as an elected official.

Rob Ford's wife wanted to take him to trial for uttering death threats, but that's not a reason to kick him out of office, for example.

When you say "kick out of office" do you mean legally removed? Or do you mean forced by public opinion and scandal to step down?

Let's say we knew that a particular politician uttered death threats to his wife... I think morally that makes one unfit to hold public office because I find the behaviour so repugnant. Should he be legally removed? No. But I'd like to think that public opinion would be whipped into a frothy outrage such that said politician might have to step down. (even though the act didn't affect politician's job directly)

 

[James_D]

Ford Nation loves to deal with all of his faults, transgressions and lies as isolated incidents. That way they can say "so what he's not perfect?" If you look at them as a whole the only conclusion is "He's not perfect. In fact he is deeply, pathologically and dangerously flawed.'

 

[Tewder]

Whether you get a massage or even have nightly affairs with prostitutes - possibly gay and fetish prostitutes - is your own personal business.

Oh Really? Even for a public servant/elected official??

No, to seek a rub and tug - ah heck let's just say it, to go to a hooker - is to condone the exploitation of women, to objectify them as sexual things that can be bought and sold, and to turn a blind eye to the network of crime that controls this trade. A career public servant such as Layton of all people should have known better, which means he deliberately turned a blind eye for personal gratification, which shows poor judgement imo... and who's to say it wasn't a chronic issue, that maybe he'd only been caught once? It raises a suspicion at least.

I do agree with you that Ford's transgressions are on a completely different scale but let's not pretend that Layton's actions were merely morally ambiguous slip-ups!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

No, to seek a rub and tug - ah heck let's just say it, to go to a hooker - is to condone the exploitation of women, to objectify them as sexual things that can be bought and sold, and to turn a blind eye to the network of crime that controls this trade. A career public servant such as Layton of all people should have known better, which means he deliberately turned a blind eye for personal gratification, which shows poor judgement imo... and who's to say it wasn't a chronic issue, that he'd only been caught one? It raises a suspicion at least.

Actually, the only certain thing is that the act by itself is illegal - the moral equivocation is problematic since you don't really know whether the woman in question is exploited, much less a victim of crime or whether he is a chronic rub and tugger. Besides, if you are going to go down the route of moral equivocation, I would sincerely hope that you have never enjoyed any pornography and will vigorously oppose the consumption thereof - it is just an exploitative an industry with extensive criminal involvement. Same goes for a good chunk of the entertainment industry in general (and let's not even get into other commodities we consume, e.g. coffee, sugar, minerals, etc. - there is a reason why the "ethical" label came about)

AoD

 

[Tulse]

Actually, the only certain thing is that the act by itself is illegal

I thought prostitution was legal in Canada. It is illegal to run a "bawdy house" (which this facility would have been) or to be in one (which is the case with Layton), but to "go to a hooker" isn't actually illegal in itself.

(And it should be noted that the the bawdy house provisions are currently under legal discussion in the courts, and there is a possibility that they will be thrown out.)

None of this should be interpreted as necessarily condoning what Layton did, although I am far more worried about exploitation than about prostitution per se.

But I would be far more worried still if the head of city government were hanging out with murderous crack dealing gang members.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^Funny thing about the Layton "rub and tug incident" is that all we have to go on are police notes illegally leaked by a retired TPA senior brass, which seemed to coincidentally be leaked years later when Layton was federal NDP leader. Not saying it's not true and, if true, I too, would have to reconcile that fact (and the associated moral issues) with my other feelings about Layton. But even the police conceded that they didn't have the evidence necessary to pursue a criminal charge.

I say "funny thing" because it's illustrative of the different standards applied to left-wing politicians. Ford has been protected by the police every step of the way, whereas Layton was not.

 

[Tulse]

The focus on Layton here is nothing but misdirection. If we were talking about Chow it would at least have some relevance since she might run for mayor, but Layton has been dead for two years -- seriously, there's nothing relevant here.

 

[mrtinfoilsocket]

Not saying it's not true and, if true, I too, would have to reconcile that fact (and the associated moral issues) with my other feelings about Layton. But even the police conceded that they didn't have the evidence necessary to pursue a criminal charge.

Not to mention the "if there's no video then it didn't happen" refrain from Ford Nation whenever the crack scandal is discussed.