A win for the Ford haters

Posted By: Jerry Agar · 11/27/2012 12:06:00 PM

Spare me the clap trap about how the good citizens of Toronto were well represented by a law suit that will likely bring down Mayor Ford.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby and his client Paul Magder were all hand-wringing sorry about how it was a sad day for Toronto, but you just knew, in the words of Christie Blatchford, they were "fully erect" as they said it. They had fulfilled a lefty wish and nullified the will of the electorate.

I don't need to remind you here of all of the scandals and mismanagement we have been subject to at the hands of the city and provincial government. But I will quote Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun, who said on my show that if he were to move to clean up city hall, he wouldn't have started with what the mayor did.

My column in the Sun reads, "Rob Ford may soon be the former mayor of Toronto.

I am unhappy with Rob Ford, because it did not have to happen. To use an analogy from Ford’s favourite sport of football, he committed an unforced error."

Read the rest of the column here.

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 29
  1. Stephen Smith posted on 11/27/2012 01:07 PM
    Sure you can be angry, but be angry with specific points.

    1. This is why No Tolerence laws are bad, they limit choice, its black or white, and since the right doesn't like activist judges 'making law' then really don't complain when the law is applied, after all that's what you like, right.

    2. Doubling down on the witness stand and saying you did nothing wrong and you'd do it again in front of the man hearing your case is well just plain stupid. As is bad mouthing the Integerity Comm. You know for a guy with advisors Rob really needs to listen once in a while to what they have to say. If he had just said 'Yes I made a mistake, an error in judgement and I regret and realise the error I made, this whole thing would not have happenned. Instead he got what I call 'Stupid Stubborn" a condition where you actively work against your own best interests in some delusioned state that you are actually proving a point.

    Finally for all the people who like to pull up the this is the left just getting back at Rob ask yourself this. Keep all the circumstances the same then sunstitute the name David Miller for Rob Ford. Now tell me are you just as upset or are you grinning from ear to ear. Ya thought so.
  2. Jonathan posted on 11/27/2012 01:35 PM
    Mr Agar,

    Disappointed that the behavior you abhor is behavior you condone when done by the right wing politician

    Mr Agar, you would have far more credibility and would not have to rant if you said "Consistency is my mantra... I hate it when politicians waste our money as the left so often does...

    What excites me about yesterday's ruling is that policians can lose their job if they believe that the rules don't apply to them.

    Let's activate the right - find fault and fraud among the left leaning politicians who have squandered our money or crossed the line.

    Mr Agar, please become the journalist you obviously have the brains for and stop being the whiner right wing zealot your emotions turn you into when "your team" takes a hit.

    Your predecessor in this time slot knew how to do it - and I suspect you'll win more respect and listeners if you can do it too!
    1. homer1963 posted on 11/28/2012 09:47 AM
      @Jonathan I suspect, your advice will fall on deaf ears - just as advice to Rob Ford. We need right wing commentators , activist and politicians who are not nut jobs.
    2. mark posted on 11/29/2012 06:34 PM
      @Jonathan I agree with you on your point "What excites me about yesterday's ruling is that politicians can lose their job if they believe that the rules don't apply to them" My problem is that I can't think of any liberal or NDP That this has happened to. Not Hazel, not Bob Rae, not Jack Layton, not Pierre the list goes on. I don't have a side when it comes to politics, I just want a fair and level playing field.
  3. Carol posted on 11/27/2012 02:24 PM
    I really would like someone to explain to me why Hazel can get off with what would have been "personal gain" for her son, and yet Rob gets hit big time for doing what he did (which I agree he was wrong), BUT it wasn't for his personal gain.

    OR, what am I missing?
    1. Greg posted on 11/27/2012 02:41 PM
      @Carol Hazel's going to court in January for this. If Rob Ford loses his job, Hazel should go to jail.
    2. Arlo Mack posted on 11/27/2012 04:10 PM
      @Carol Ford's problem was not "personal gain". Ford's problem was that he did not declare a conflict of interest or excuse himself from voting on a motion that pertained to him. I do not know exactly what the situation is in Miss. but it is somewhat different.
  4. Greg posted on 11/27/2012 02:40 PM
    I listened to Jerry's show today as I try to do whenever I can as I am a fan. However, I could not get over the petulance he was displaying over this.
    Let me say first off that I believe the punishment FAR outweighed the crime here. I believe Rob Ford's arrogance was his undoing. People keep getting the story wrong when they say how he was helping poor kids. That's not the issue. He voted on something which directly affected him. An hour's worth of training or reading the handbook would have alerted him to this fact. I believe he felt he was above all that.
    Jerry drew many comparisons to Liberal spending scandals over the years but, guess what? None of those people BROKE THE LAW! Immoral? Yes. Incompetent? Absolutely. But in the end, all legal - save the Sponsorship Scandal.
    This may very well have been ploitically motivated but Jerry needs to calm down and gain some perspective.
    1. Colin posted on 11/28/2012 01:29 PM
      @Greg I have to agree with you.While i not a right winger...somewhere in the middle...he did break the law and Mr.Agar cannot stand that he was removed and will coninue to malke excuses.
  5. Arlo mack posted on 11/27/2012 04:06 PM

    Yes there are Ford haters out there. But that has a lot to do with his purposefully divisive, take-no-prisoners style of politics.

    Ford's biggest problem was that he never grew past that. And it never occurred to him that you can't keep fighting city hall when you *are* city hall.

    Frankly, I grew to resent his style because it got in the way of him doing his job. For example, I am entirely in favour of expanding public transit by building more subways but he put a nail in the coffin for any new subways because of his inability to lead council, build concensus and develop a plan. In short, he failed to do his job.
  6. dory in t.o posted on 11/27/2012 04:09 PM
    couldnt agree with you more....pretty sick council in t.o.
  7. Walter posted on 11/27/2012 10:44 PM
    Using the scandals of other governments is a political argument on why what Ford did was not that serious. As long as the politicians are skilled enough to "steal" the money in a sanctioned way, there will be no legal consequences.

    The legal argument would probably be that the judge used harsh language and misinterpreted some of Fords statements and the law..

    The law does not apply if the amount of money was small or insignificant - this is a legal exception in the statutes. The judge stated in his ruling that the amount of money was "modest", but he did not apply this section of the law. When I look up "modest" in the thesaurus, I get small, minor, tiny, trivial. I do not think this part of the law was applied correctly.

    When discussing this exemption of insignificant amount of money, the judge refereed to a statement from \Mr. Ford at Council. Ford stated:
    "if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….”.
    It appears that this was interpreted by the judge as Mr. Ford admitting that he did not have $3150 in his bank account to pay it back. I think it obviously means Ford was referring to pay back the actual "donated money" (not an equivalent amount of money) since that money was gone. It was not sitting in some account so that it could be paid back..
    Misunderstanding this statement from Ford also seems to be a significant error in the judgement.

    The emotional arguments will lead to votes. The legal arguments relating to the facts win cases. Maybe there is an O.J. Simpson lesson here - whoever has the better lawyer wins the case, regardless of the facts.
  8. z baum posted on 11/28/2012 05:14 AM
    There better be a byelection including Mr. Ford. Anything else will be voter suppression. The decision to replace a mayor must be made through democratic process and with respect to the last election voters. There is no way a partisan council should decide the issue.
  9. Bryan Matthews posted on 11/28/2012 09:58 AM
    Tired of hearing about the Rob Ford affair on your show, and the opinionated reporting that you seem to thrive on. Consequently we are tuning into another station in your time slot.
    1. JJenner posted on 11/28/2012 12:27 PM
      @Bryan Matthews That will leave Agar with nearly as many as listeners as viewers to his shite on SUN TV (78)!
  10. Christopher Smit posted on 11/28/2012 11:47 PM

    Tell me you're not giving into these irrational fools. "Oh the law is the law" seems to be the line on newstalk 1010.

    It was malicious and immoral to even go after the mayor for this. He was right to stand on principal and say this is irrelevant and a waste of time. The judge should have thrown in out in disgust.

    1) it was a non-crime and was actually benevelont in nature (charity)
    2) the dumb argument that well he gained because he would have had to pay it back is also stupid and Ford rightfully stood on principal. Irrelevant amount of money that again was for charity
    3)he was democratically elected with a huge mandate and this judge thinks he can do away with the people's will because of this. Any true advocate of democracy should be $&@&$$& outraged.

    I've listened to Tory enough to know that he just needs to be liked and seem diplomatic. But you Jerry call it like you see it. Stand up to these bastards. Their action to oust him for charity work is evil - plain and simple. Condoning it is just as bad.
  11. Only Common Sense posted on 11/29/2012 08:33 AM
    Why all this drama?
    1. Ford defied the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
    2. Ford was found guilty and removed as per the same Act
    3. Council should appoint a new mayor from within its own ranks in order to save time and money.
    4. A by-election should be held within the minimum time framework to fill Ford's council seat.
    5. 2 years from now the Toronto citizenry can turn out in order to deliver its verdict again ... wherever that may fall on the left / right scale.
  12. levon posted on 11/29/2012 11:12 AM
    It's simple. Whatever side of an issue Agar is on take the opposite and you'll be correct. Agar tries to downplay it but he's sucked up to the mayor and his brother from day 1. Remember him having the Fords on his show constantly during the election, pushing Agar's rw idealogue agenda? Remember Agar bragging and telling stories of attending the Ford's annual picnic? Remember Agar over the top with joy hanging with the Fords attending the job tour in Chicago this fall? He's always made excuses for his bff and nothing have changed. But apparently it's all a left wing conspiracy. He sounds like Rmoney with excuses why he lost.
    Ford has recently apologized to the voters for his arrogant attitude concerning the trial. Agar...not so much.
    I hope 1010 dumps this guy when his contract is finally up. Surely there are less nuttier rwr's available.
  13. Dean posted on 11/29/2012 04:10 PM
    I believe the law should stand as it is. The people we elect are held to the highest standards and knowing that removal from office will result if any politician violate that law will keep most honest. Having said that, I believe that the antics orchestrated by the Premier during the election costing millions, should be written into the law.

    If the Mayor wins his Appeal, you can be assured that he won't violate the conflict of interest law again. If he didn't have to go through this mess, I truly believe that it would only be a matter of time when he would have done so anyway.....maybe in worse circumstances.

    If he doesn't win, then as I tell my daughters, every decision you make has a consequence .... The Mayor will have to accept his.
  14. kathryn curran posted on 11/29/2012 04:27 PM
    Former Torontonian -born & raised. Only in TO would a former felon bring down the mayor. I am old enough to remember Mr Magder flaunting the Sunday store closing law of the time and opening his fur store on Sunday. He paid BIG fines for every Sunday he opened for business BUT he BROKE the law of the time and was proud of it. Shame shame shame on Mr. Magder. Do you not see the reason that Mr. Ruby took the case ProBono. If he had accepted money from Mr. Magder he would have been accepting money from a former law-breaker/felon. Mr Ford was doing good things for my former hometown that I will always love. Grimsby
  15. LilliN posted on 11/29/2012 05:41 PM

    I think that the penalty the Judge brought down on Rob Ford is too harsh. It is not a very big thing, he raised money for underpriviledged kids, so what. They could have made him pay. However, he is arrogant and stubborn too and I think sending him to a place where he can learn some humility and impress upon him what stubborness has done, but seriously, I do think that the court or anyone has the right to throw a |Mayor out of office. He was elected by the people to do a job and he is. Take away the overweight body, which to me does not set a good example of good health really and his arrogance and stubborness, he is not a bad guy. He does need to learn some humility and how to get along with his councillors, although they do give him a hard time. I agree with you, it did not have to happen, he could have said that he is sorry he did it, well it is a little to late now. I am sorry to see that he feed the fire of hatred towards him by his councillors, not all, but most.
  16. mark posted on 11/29/2012 06:28 PM
    It is my opinion that a war was declared on Rob. Ford the minute he took office. Lets face it, he never fit the role. He was a threat to the wasteful, he was not sophisticated enough, (if he was, $3000.00 would not be an issue) he was just a regular guy who wanted to do good. Many opposed him right from the get go, and have been nipping at his ankles since.
    I think Toronto lost a good man and the future will reveal this.
  17. warren smith posted on 11/29/2012 10:01 PM
    Hello Jerry,
    From the very beginnig the Left was out to get him no matter what. I think Rob just can not conceive that the vast majority of Politicians at all levels are lieing backstabbing SOB iches. I hope he can somehow run again, I would vote for him. I must admit though that Rob is his own worst enemy.
    I love that Smitherman is chiming in. What a joke he is. Millar, Sewell, Art Eglinton etc. They did nothing for 30 years

    Olivia Chow LOL, Adam Vaughan LOL (Mister boring)

    What we need maybe is a party system at City Hall and certainly 1/2 the number of politicians
    Keep up telling it like it is

  18. James Peter posted on 11/30/2012 01:27 AM
    Mr. Agar,
    The chatter about left wing versus right wing and pollitically motivated pro bono lawsuits, or Ford nation versus Ford haters, or what Miller did when he was in office are all arguments you have brought up and they are NOT the point. The issue is the law and the penalty for the law. The rest is irrelavent. The fact is that Rob Ford broke the law after he was given ample warnings. His ignorance and arrogance prevented good judgement. The price he paid was too harsh. Most of us who support him or can't stand him, agree with this. However your continuous blathering about all these peripheral issues because a man you supported had to answer to the law is ridiculous. The lawsuit was obviously politically motivated by Ford's opponents. That does not change the fact that he broke the law. I think what is really bugging you is that a bunch of left wingers got the better of your type. Focus on the real issue. The law needs to change and the Mayor needs to stop being so arrogant.
  19. Adam Ridolfi posted on 12/01/2012 01:26 PM
    Legal technicalities and reliance solely on the letter of the law should not be used as a sword by city adversarial opponents of the Mayor for political motives in a process that is not to be overly technical or complex and plain and obvious there is no personal gain as the conflict of interest Act was designed for. The principle of statutory interpretation of legislation must comply with both the letter and the spirit for which the legislation was designed.

    A zealot interpreting a decree on the basis of the letter of the law alone adopts the principle of a deficient flawed one level subjective position. Wise men consider a balance of letter and spirit.

    Courts must respect the responsibility of elected municipal bodies and individuals to serve the people who elected them, and exercise caution to avoid substitution of their views on what is best for the citizens..

    That is why legislation asserted that a Judge save by reason of inadvertence or error and where the judge determines that a member or a former member or Mayor in this case, while he was a member has contravened subsection 5, if the judge finds that the contravention was committed through inadvertence or by reason of an "error in judgment", Mayor Ford should not be subject to having his seat declared vacant nor be disqualified as a member, as provided by law.

    Lets have faith that the three member panel in the Divisional court has the courage and wisdom to stand on the principle of the letter of the law and spirit of the law as it was intended to be applied and reverse or modify Justice Charles Hackland's decision and allow Mayor Ford to continue to represent the public that voted for him because it was plain and obvious the contravention was committed through "inadvertence" or by reason of an "error in judgment". Alternatively, order a by election and let the people speak again.
  20. Hugh Rodgers posted on 12/03/2012 11:08 AM
    Mr Agar, where's the anger in your voice toward the police union like you generally exhibit whenever you are talking to other union leaders . It seems like there's always a lovefest for the police union and a disgust for all the others as being unreasonable. Everyone can hear your blood boiling through the radio when you talk especially to the teachers union. In contrast , listen to the hug hug and kiss kiss that McCormack is getting
  21. slke posted on 03/20/2013 10:06 AM
    it is important of huaxi village collective enterprises adhere to the political right content makes it able to obtain mbt shoes uk more than the average company credit support.
showing all comments