"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday 10 February 2012

An Editorial Position ...Have Your Cake And Eat It Too.

"Clearly in retrospect ,the town felt this particular case wasn't strong enough or worth playing out in a lengthy court battle"


 That's not clear at all. They changed their minds after people found out what they were up to  behind closed doors. And  because they were told to do so  in no uncertain terms by their constituents.
If  residents had not risen up in outrage ,they would have proceeded with their unconscionable decision.


"And while public officials are expected to shoulder a fair amount of  criticism. there should also be recourse to take legal action...with financial backing of the corporation...when citizens make libelous, slanderous or hateful  comments"


That's an interesting comment after the previous  statement


  "it is not  the place of the newspaper to try a legal case ,but to, instead ,inform its readers and web site users what any such legal action could mean to them and why."

"Politicians  should be entitled to the same laws as citizens. when and if warranted."


Politicians are entitled to  exactly the same laws and  also to pay the freight out of their own pockets.


"Whether or not  Mr. Maclean's letters published  in  area  newspapers were fair comment or libelous seemed to be of little concern to most of you. And we're not ruling on that"


Excuse me. You  already ruled on that when you  printed  the letters.

And let's not  suggest  the role of publication is  the courts to decide after you did exactly that.

The  role of civilized arbitrator  doesn't fit too well  either while the bias is clearly evident.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"That's not clear at all. They changed their minds after people found out what they were up to behind closed doors. And because they were told to do so in no uncertain terms by their constituents.
If residents had not risen up in outrage ,they would have proceeded with their unconscionable decision. "

I think that your statement is equally "not clear". The only reality is, you, me and the others here can only speculate what really happened. You can spin it any way that you want but unless you were in that room, you can't say for sure what the motivation was.

Anonymous said...

Check out the February 10th issue of the Pefferlaw Post, posted on-line. The front page story, the editorial and the letter from Mayor Grossi are all worth reading.

Georgina Council seems to still miss the fact that has been clearly spelt out for them in the Pefferlaw Post editorial. Namely, it's apparently ILLEGAL for governments to sue for defamation, according to the Charter of Rights.

While both Grossi and Morris have tried to pass off their private legal actions as being town initiatives what they appear to be affectively admitting is that they and their respective councils were trying to circumvent the democratic rights that are intended to allow people to comment on their government without fear of the full force of their government coming after them ! Their actions may be technically legal but I think that most people are of the view that their actions are ethically reprehensible and outrageous.

Look at Grossi's letter in the Post ! Does he honestly think he is representing the town's interests or cooling an already heated situation with that kind of approach ? After reading the last paragraph I asked myself the same question as he raises and concluded that Grossi has to be turfed from office based on his own logic !!!

We can only hope that a good number of good people speak up at the February 13th Georgina council meeting and let council know what the people of Georgina think about this nonsense !

Interestingly, the Advocate, like the Banner in Aurora’s case, appears to be trying to defuse the whole issue and move on to more important things than defending free speech or getting to the bottom of how we could find ourselves in this mess once again in York Region. Under the circumstances, that’s an “interesting” stance for a paper to take if you ask me.

Check out the Advocate’s editorial on this issue, which has been posted on yorkregion.com. You need to click on the "Georgina Mayor Lawsuit" tab because the editorial does not appear on the Georgina page or the Opinion page (Don't ask me why. I do have my own ideas).

Anonymous said...

Grossi must be suicidal. He is poking an already enraged township with a sharp stick. There was a slight chance he could survive but he's determined to do a Morris. Never thought there could be two so stupid.

Anonymous said...

Is the Council meeting on Monday televised ? If not the Georgina Forum has their work cut out for them for the weekend. From what I've learned, they are likely up to the task. Should be very interesting for Aurorans.

Anonymous said...

Looks like another weekend of Georgina.
Did you know they have a Forest ? The Code of conduct may have to wait.
Good stuff, Evelyn, try to take some down-time.

Anonymous said...

If one paper gets all the town ads, as in Banner and the other, as in Auroran, does not, the similarities between the two communities are growing. Follow the money, Georgina. I do hope Evelyn is talking to people on the Forum rather than individuals who may not be connected.

Anonymous said...

E Might have missed the anonymous button but I was angry. Clean it up if I did. OK to print. Still angry. Sorry.
S. That was likely your last comment on this site.