"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

Monday, 22 September 2014

The Argument Fails

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "October 5th ,Sunday at 2p.m. At the Town Hall ,,Ce...":

So we complain when a member of council does some that is illegal, immoral or other wise bad. But, we do not want to subject those potential members the check by police? We ask volunteers for coaches, scout troops, etc. to submit to a police check.

What's wrong with asking a potential officer of a multi-million dollar corporation to have a police check to see if they have any criminal convictions. To the anal-retentive, we are not looking for traffic infractions.

Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 22 September 2014 08:55

Writing a post calls for organising a reasoned argument.

The comment above calls for review.

Coaches and scout leaders are in charge of our children. Police checks to ensure they are not convicted pederasts have not always been required.

Only since it became terribly apparent and impossible to deny, they are essential.

I do not understand why men are more likely offenders than women. Or why police checks for priests and members of lesser orders are not required. But the difference between judgement exercised in
management of financial resources and care and protection of helpless, vulnerable children must surely be obvious.

Furthermore, a police check giving clearance for conviction is no guarantee an elected official or several constituting a majority, will not abuse authority and trust to perpetrate a plan for the purpose of damaging and removing another from elected office or any other reprehensible act not authorised under the Municipal Act.

It will not prevent an insurance pay-out of $845,000 to defend them from the consequences of their malice.

Under the best of circumstances, service in elected office is fraught with potential for public repudiation.

Betrayal of trust is by far the greatest offence.

Politics is a harsh taskmaster.

Few who value privacy and reputation are inclined to participate.

Requirement of a police check and its purpose of weeding out potential criminals is hardly
conducive to those who do, to join a circle of potential thieves, vagabonds, pirates, ne'er do - wells and pathological liars.

There is no conviction under the law for being a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

No certification for common sense or good judgement.

There can be nothing more than the decision of the electorate in the options provided.


Anonymous said...

Odd how the person making the comment refers to " we ". Who is this collective " we " making demands for a background check on a candidate ? When it is not a legal requirement ?

Anonymous said...

11:28... Then "we" should not be upset when a candidate lives with their parents.

Anonymous said...

Councillor, you failed the test on making a reasoned argument. You merely list a number of comparisons that have no bearing on the point made by your poster.

We have a tough enough time trying to make any sense out of the 20 odd persons running for a council seat. In Aurora it is likely that some will be elected who should not have been elected because voters have no practical way of screening them.

I don't want a convicted felon on council to add to the mess. If an individual with a record wants to run let him or her make an argument as to why their record should not be a consideration.

A person earns his accomplishments- degrees, diplomas, designations, etc. This helps us assess an individual's capabilities - so too with a criminal record.

Anonymous said...

You sound very reasonable. So it is sad to see you act based upon twitter gossip. Your quest might begin not being interested in traffic violations and then get totally out of control. That could make you feel virtuous about yourselves but it is simple scape-goating. Ugly stuff.

Anonymous said...

13:00 I don't know what twiter gossip you are talking about so I cannot comment on 12:14's case.

However, if someone is so damned against a police check - and again we are not talking about traffic violations - they must have something to hide.

Who vetts the candidates now? The clerk that takes their money and form at Town Hall? What proof of citizenship is required?

Anonymous said...

13:00, Could you give us a hint on the connection between the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code.

Anonymous said...

If someone requires a detailed search on all candidates - hire it out & pay for it yourself.
Quit trying to make other residents complicit in what appears to be a witch hunt.

Anonymous said...

It might be more appropriate if all were required to take an IQ test.

Anonymous said...

14:58- Well that would certainly get that the number of 28 candidates to maybe 2 or 3.

Anonymous said...

12:14- You don't think that a criminal record wouldn't be sought out without a back round check? They way word spreads in this Town....I bet it would be known in less than 24hrs after registration.