Two important and necessary takes from two of the smartest and most thoughtful observers in Toronto politics.
Matt argues that while Rob Ford’s record doesn’t exactly look good on him, this conflict-of-interest kerfuffle shouldn’t trigger his removal from office. He rightly points out that the law leaves no middle ground:
By contrast, John points out that
I can certainly understand the argument that Rob Ford won the election, and that regardless of what we may think of him, he’s entitled to serve out his mandate to the best of his ability. Because Matt’s right in more than one sense: previously, he’s argued that engineering Ford’s removal via this conflict-of-interest process is going to look like “sore losers” to some of his supporters.
It’s a compelling argument, and in an ideal world, I’d find it hard to disagree with his contention that if Rob Ford is to be removed from office, it should be because someone else manages to persuade more voters to support his or her vision of the city. Ultimately, though, I think Matt’s analysis founders on the Can’t Have it Both Ways shoals. As I suggested on his site:
You’re right, it’s disturbing to think that there’s nothing in between skating and removal from office, and there’s a very strong argument that there should be. By the same token, though, you’re also right to point out that there’s no middle ground between flagrant disregard or staggering incompetence either. I’d be more sympathetic if it were just the football thing, but when the guy actually stands up at council and argues, essentially, that the rules shouldn’t apply to him, the wiggle room disappears.
So which is it? If there’s no middle ground on the offence, then why should there be a middle ground on the penalty? Rules are rules, and they’re there for a reason. Yeah, the droolers of Ford Nation will lose their shit, but when did they ever not?
Related posts: