To Be Doubly Clear

Robert the Bruce has left a new comment "Once more With Feeling":

Just to be clear.

The issues around the former Mayor and council started as issues related to accountability and trust - agreed. However, from the time that Morris' lawsuit hit the press, the accountability and trust drive has been replaced with a hatred that at times has been quite strong.

While "dislike" is always a factor in politics, the hatred against the GOS and two councillors from the GOS that survived re-election has coloured the bulk of posts to this and other blogs. (The previous post here calling Ballard stupid is a good example).

While I certainly did not agree with the lawsuit or the bulk of the MorMac agenda (don't ask me what I agreed with - that will cause a s**t storm here), was anything done by them illegal or against the Municipal Act?

**************************************

My position is that Councillors are entitled to a review of all documentation that led to launch of a law suit for six million dollars in damages against three of our neighbours. I contend none of what happened should have....either in
public or behind closed doors.

Now only a public examination will establish the rights and wrongs of the matter.

Public funds were authorized to be spent on a matter of questionable value to the municipal corporation.The municipal corporation has a responsibility to assure the public everything done was appropriate and legal.

There are other ways to establish facts. All of them expensive.

Toronto had the Bellamy public inquiry which I believe cost thirteen million dollars.

Currently an inquiry into a possible conflict of interest and doctoring of council minutes is wrapping up in another GTA municipality. Cost and results are yet unknown but one person's legal costs are already half a million dollars.

I believe all the facts should be publicly available. No funds have changed hands as yet nor should they until we know they are justified.

RTB chooses an interesting juxtposition of words to make his points. He refers to "hatred" against elected officials "in this post and others".

I would like to point out the difference between a post, which I write, and a comment contributed by another, anonymous like RTB or known, like Christopher Watts.

I invite RTB to point to a specific example of "hatred" expressed in a post of mine.

He refers to a law suit launched with the might of the municipal corporation behind it, as "stupid"

I doubt that's how three Aurora families, looking down the barrel of a fully loaded rifle would describe the law suit, when they were served with notice of legal action by the town.


When the word "hatred" is used to describe a political, critical comment, on one hand,and the word "stupid" used to describe a law suit for six million dollars in damages on the other, a marked lack of cohesive thinking is revealed.To say nothing at all about empathy.

Critical comment in political terms is nothing more than a powerful sense of one's convictions. We Canadians may not often enough be inclined to openly express our convictions,nevertheless,it is unwise to assume they are non-existent.

Blogs are proving political passion is alive and strong. Many comments are not published on my blog because of severity of language. Not because of failure to appreciate the depth of conviction.

Jousting with language is a time honored skill in politics. It has become rusty with dis-use. Pathetically so. Now we resort to Codes of Conduct and half-assed Integrity Police and the courts to wipe it out altogether.

Pshaw !!!

Good cess to the social media and all who dabble herein.

Bad cess to those who would deprive us.