The tale of restaurateur George Foulidis and his libel action against Mayor Rob Ford is a cautionary one for any citizen looking to do business with the City of Toronto.
You will be frustrated. You will face bureaucratic delays and political gridlock. You might get caught up in the political vortex of city hall. Your good name may be slandered or libeled. And you may just have to suck it up as collateral damage.
It’s a painful lesson of life in the ambit of Canada’s largest city, where partisan politics is never far from the surface; it is unfair, unpleasant, unwelcome and, likely, unavoidable.
But, is it too great a cost for democracy?
If Ontario Superior Court Judge John Macdonald concludes “no,” following a week of testimony, it means Ford will walk away unscathed. No doubt the defendant in Foudilis’ $6 million libel suit would then continue to practise politics the only way he knows how — rough-and-tumble, take no prisoners, pay little regard to the truth, play to the fear of constituents, and damn the consequences.
What did Ford say about Foulidis to spark the lawsuit? By inference, too much; by direct reference, enough to make Foulidis a victim of character assassination. In conjunction with his brother, Doug, and his mayoral campaign spokesperson Adrienne Batra, scurrilous claims the mayor has since failed to substantiate as promised.
But is any of that illegal? Probably not. And for some very good reasons.
We value our democracy. Elections are the purest expression of our freedoms. When candidates put themselves up for public office we want to give them the greatest latitude possible to debate issues, to raise questions, to rail at the moon, to be as outrageous or as thoughtful as possible.
As such, if a candidate calls for a public investigation into a city hall deal because he fears corruption or skullduggery or under-the-table deals, we accept the argument, even if we don’t share the concern. And we don’t expect the candidate will face legal action for stating the concern.
The thinking is that our community can withstand the rhetorical excess of misguided or over-exuberant candidates. In the end, a thoughtful and clear-thinking electorate will sift through the noise and mess and find a reasonable representative to lead them.
As noble as that is, it does leave victims. Ford the candidate for mayor tells the editorial board of a newspaper that city hall is rife with corruption, that a lease deal to provide food service for the eastern beaches “stinks to high heaven,” and that only jail time will end the wrongdoing at city hall.
He goes on radio in July 2010 to discuss the lease deal, and when asked, ‘Is someone getting money under the table?’ says: “I truly believe they are, and that’s my opinion.”
Two months later Foulidis holds a press conference demanding Ford retract the statements or face a lawsuit. Ford’s campaign spokesperson, Adrienne Batra, appears on radio to say Ford won’t apologize and that the candidate was criticizing the process at council, not Foulidis.
But when the radio host presses and reminds her that Ford had specifically implicated the lease deal on-air two months earlier, Batra essentially challenges Foulidis to take Ford to court and watch all the stuff come out in public.
She also said Ford, if elected, would reopen the deal. Ford hasn’t to this day. And he hasn’t provided any evidence of wrongdoing.
Ford’s lawyer is employing a scatter-gun approach, hoping he’ll hit on an argument that indemnifies Ford. The best may be the view that we want our politicians to shed as much light as possible on public policy issues — even to the point of making mistakes and harming someone’s reputation.
To do otherwise is to put a chill on vigorous public debate and restrict those who expose and “ventilate” serious matters of public interest.
Wednesday, in recalling the hurt he said Ford’s comments caused him and his family, Foulidis choked back tears. It seemed genuine.
Foulidis won a 20-year deal from the city for exclusive concession rights on a prime waterfront property. He played the political game, making maximum-allowed contributions to his city councillor, and successfully solicited her support on the lease renewal.
And the same political beast turned on him in the end.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Royson James
You will be frustrated. You will face bureaucratic delays and political gridlock. You might get caught up in the political vortex of city hall. Your good name may be slandered or libeled. And you may just have to suck it up as collateral damage.
It’s a painful lesson of life in the ambit of Canada’s largest city, where partisan politics is never far from the surface; it is unfair, unpleasant, unwelcome and, likely, unavoidable.
But, is it too great a cost for democracy?
If Ontario Superior Court Judge John Macdonald concludes “no,” following a week of testimony, it means Ford will walk away unscathed. No doubt the defendant in Foudilis’ $6 million libel suit would then continue to practise politics the only way he knows how — rough-and-tumble, take no prisoners, pay little regard to the truth, play to the fear of constituents, and damn the consequences.
What did Ford say about Foulidis to spark the lawsuit? By inference, too much; by direct reference, enough to make Foulidis a victim of character assassination. In conjunction with his brother, Doug, and his mayoral campaign spokesperson Adrienne Batra, scurrilous claims the mayor has since failed to substantiate as promised.
But is any of that illegal? Probably not. And for some very good reasons.
We value our democracy. Elections are the purest expression of our freedoms. When candidates put themselves up for public office we want to give them the greatest latitude possible to debate issues, to raise questions, to rail at the moon, to be as outrageous or as thoughtful as possible.
As such, if a candidate calls for a public investigation into a city hall deal because he fears corruption or skullduggery or under-the-table deals, we accept the argument, even if we don’t share the concern. And we don’t expect the candidate will face legal action for stating the concern.
The thinking is that our community can withstand the rhetorical excess of misguided or over-exuberant candidates. In the end, a thoughtful and clear-thinking electorate will sift through the noise and mess and find a reasonable representative to lead them.
As noble as that is, it does leave victims. Ford the candidate for mayor tells the editorial board of a newspaper that city hall is rife with corruption, that a lease deal to provide food service for the eastern beaches “stinks to high heaven,” and that only jail time will end the wrongdoing at city hall.
He goes on radio in July 2010 to discuss the lease deal, and when asked, ‘Is someone getting money under the table?’ says: “I truly believe they are, and that’s my opinion.”
Two months later Foulidis holds a press conference demanding Ford retract the statements or face a lawsuit. Ford’s campaign spokesperson, Adrienne Batra, appears on radio to say Ford won’t apologize and that the candidate was criticizing the process at council, not Foulidis.
But when the radio host presses and reminds her that Ford had specifically implicated the lease deal on-air two months earlier, Batra essentially challenges Foulidis to take Ford to court and watch all the stuff come out in public.
She also said Ford, if elected, would reopen the deal. Ford hasn’t to this day. And he hasn’t provided any evidence of wrongdoing.
Ford’s lawyer is employing a scatter-gun approach, hoping he’ll hit on an argument that indemnifies Ford. The best may be the view that we want our politicians to shed as much light as possible on public policy issues — even to the point of making mistakes and harming someone’s reputation.
To do otherwise is to put a chill on vigorous public debate and restrict those who expose and “ventilate” serious matters of public interest.
Wednesday, in recalling the hurt he said Ford’s comments caused him and his family, Foulidis choked back tears. It seemed genuine.
Foulidis won a 20-year deal from the city for exclusive concession rights on a prime waterfront property. He played the political game, making maximum-allowed contributions to his city councillor, and successfully solicited her support on the lease renewal.
And the same political beast turned on him in the end.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Royson James
No comments:
Post a Comment