Rob Ford's Toronto

[Admiral Beez]

My guess is that other cultures and races are more homophobic than white Europeans.

I don't know about that. At age five, I emigrated from the UK in 1976 and grew up in Mississauga. At that time nearly my entire school was white Europeans. Walking the halls and in class, you'd often hear kids shouting fag at each other, and any boy who had feminine tendancies was a quick target for bullies. Butch looking girls were called dykes or worse. This sort of behaviour starts at home.

So, I'd say the period of white European immigration was not a tollerant place.

 

[CowboyLogic]

Here you go: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/.

As I stated in my previous response to CowboyLogic, simply being gay is not a risk factor for HIV, so Ford's statement is quite inaccurate - and the inference is insulting to the gay community. (Ford himself admitted as much when he apologized for the comment years later, a story which the Star covered in happier times.) An accurate statement would have been: "If you don't engage in high-risk behaviours, you probably won't get AIDS." The virus doesn't discriminate based on your sexuality. But that wouldn't have served Ford's agenda to cut funding from educational programs for HIV prevention.

Ford's attempt to label the disease as a "gay" disease so as to stigmatize it and imply that those affected (and those at risk of infection) do not deserve support from the community is what's homophobic. Is it relevant in any way that the disease is more prevalent in the gay community? Nope - not unless you see homosexuality as a reason to restrict access to care and prevention programs. This perspective is straight out of 1982.

If Ford's statement had begun: "If you're not doing needles and you're not black..." - in reference to a disease that was prevalent in the black community, then absolutely no one would be defending it, and rightly so.

Nobody said simply being gay is a risk factor for HIV - what Ford said was that if you're not gay or not a drug user, chances are you won't get HIV. That is true. In 2006, a combined 79% of males with HIV got it through male-to-male sexual contact or through drug use. Being gay doesn't make you magically more susceptible to HIV, but if you are gay, statistically your chances of contracting HIV are higher. Not to mention that anal sex (which not all gay men engage in, but some do) has a higher transmission rate for HIV than vaginal sex.

The fact is that what he said is true by any reasonable measure. If people want to discuss the implications of his statement, that's fine, but this notion that the statement itself was homophobic is just false.

I don't think he tried to stigmatize it as a gay disease. I think his point was that a broad awareness campaign is not needed for a problem that specifically effects only a small subset of the population.

CowboyLogic:

But the question then becomes - are people from the suburbs actually neglected and ignored by Toronto politicians? If one insist on critical thinking, shouldn't said 34% of the populace a) engage in the same and b) see through the blatantly false rhetoric? Surely that is the hallmark of critical thinking - i.e. not falling for the soundbite.

You're right, that is a question that should be examined. Unfortunately, people who simply go off the base assumption that 34% of the city is populated by morons will never ask this question. Denigrating an entire POV or opinion by not pointing out what's wrong with it but rather simply labeling it "stupid" or "moronic" is a way to avoid having to critically engage with it. There is some reason that the suburbs feel neglected, whether or not they're justified.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. People think I'm saying that Ford supporters are equally as correct on every issue as Ford detractors. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ad hominem attacks and labeling your opponents "idiots" is just a way to avoid critically thinking about these issues. Its a lot easier to assume people disagree with you because they're "dumb" than it is to admit they might have some sort-of point.

He was utterly silent for 7 full days and provided a subsequent response that is parsed to high heavens - does that sound like someone who "spoke his mind", much less not engaging in doublespeak or PR (note the constant use of code words and soundbites throughout his campaign and mayoralty). What does one's critical thinking tells you?

These are two separate issues. He speaks his mind clearly and plainly on most political issues, and you always know exactly where he stands on any given issue. This is something you guys have lambasted him for, so I'm not sure why you would deny it now.

Compassion is offered for those without the means to defend themselves - is Rob Ford in that category, considering his background? And shouldn't those who demand compassion from others be the first to offer it to others less fortunate than they are, instead of supporting someone who see nothing wrong with labelling and otherwise denigrating them, under the guise of "little regard for political/social niceties"?

And yes, calling someone "left of Stalin" in public is definitely the highlight of "unprecendent" hate and attacks.

AoD

I've noticed that a lot of the people on this forum like to deflect or change the topic.

The issue here is whether or not the "left" is more compassionate. Now you're bringing up something entirely different: whether Ford is deserving of compassion and whether he is compassionate.

Well...that's not what we were talking about.

Regardless, I think everyone can agree that there is a fundamental difference from politicians calling each other out, a pretty standard part of politics, and wishing death on somebody. If you want to make the argument that Ford saying someone is "left of Stalin" is the same as someone wishing he has a heart attack, be my guest. I think you know the difference here and you're being willfully partisan.

 

[CowboyLogic]

That's like saying there's no reasonable debate between scientists and the Flat Earth Society as if there should be.

Except we're not talking about science here. We're talking about a difference in values.

The Earth isn't flat. That's a fact.

Ford supporters generally want smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. There's nothing factually incorrect about that - its a difference in values.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

I don't know about that. At age five, I emigrated from the UK in 1976 and grew up in Mississauga. At that time nearly my entire school was white Europeans. Walking the halls and in class, you'd often hear kids shouting fag at each other, and any boy who had feminine tendancies was a quick target for bullies. Butch looking girls were called dykes or worse. This sort of behaviour starts at home.

So, I'd say the period of white European immigration was not a tolerant place.

When I moved to Toronto in the 1970s, I was shocked by the levels of intolerance. Everything from "Paki-bashing" (there were a number of incidents of people being pushed onto the subway tracks!) to gay-bashing. This burg was still ultra white bread back then. You couldn't find much international cuisine and you couldn't get a drink on Sunday. The great waves of non-European migration had barely begun. And, unlike in Montreal, LGBTs were quite closeted, harassed and busted by the cops all the time. "Toronto the Good" and conservative was, I suspect, very homophobic.

Meanwhile, this: OMG Ford could win again!

Is Rob Ford the Teflon mayor? After the past couple of months, you might have expected his approval rating to plummet. Instead, it’s gone up, and whether you like it or not, he’s positioned to take a realistic run at re-election next year. Edward Keenan explains why the Ford era might not be ending any time soon.

 

[BurlOak]

I don't know about that. At age five, I emigrated from the UK in 1976 and grew up in Mississauga. At that time nearly my entire school was white Europeans. Walking the halls and in class, you'd often hear kids shouting fag at each other, and any boy who had feminine tendancies was a quick target for bullies. Butch looking girls were called dykes or worse. This sort of behaviour starts at home.

So, I'd say the period of white European immigration was not a tollerant place.

I am not sure what time period we should be talking. Your example does nothing to compare Europeans to other cultures. If in your example you could tell me that all muslims, hispanics and other cultures at the time were opening supporting the gay population, then I could change my mind.

 

[LowPolygon]

Nobody said simply being gay is a risk factor for HIV - what Ford said was that if you're not gay or not a drug user, chances are you won't get HIV. That is true. In 2006, a combined 79% of males with HIV got it through male-to-male sexual contact or through drug use. Being gay doesn't make you magically more susceptible to HIV, but if you are gay, statistically your chances of contracting HIV are higher. Not to mention that anal sex (which not all gay men engage in, but some do) has a higher transmission rate for HIV than vaginal sex.

The fact is that what he said is true by any reasonable measure. If people want to discuss the implications of his statement, that's fine, but this notion that the statement itself was homophobic is just false.

I don't think he tried to stigmatize it as a gay disease. I think his point was that a broad awareness campaign is not needed for a problem that specifically effects only a small subset of the population.



You're right, that is a question that should be examined. Unfortunately, people who simply go off the base assumption that 34% of the city is populated by morons will never ask this question. Denigrating an entire POV or opinion by not pointing out what's wrong with it but rather simply labeling it "stupid" or "moronic" is a way to avoid having to critically engage with it. There is some reason that the suburbs feel neglected, whether or not they're justified.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. People think I'm saying that Ford supporters are equally as correct on every issue as Ford detractors. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ad hominem attacks and labeling your opponents "idiots" is just a way to avoid critically thinking about these issues. Its a lot easier to assume people disagree with you because they're "dumb" than it is to admit they might have some sort-of point.




These are two separate issues. He speaks his mind clearly and plainly on most political issues, and you always know exactly where he stands on any given issue. This is something you guys have lambasted him for, so I'm not sure why you would deny it now.



I've noticed that a lot of the people on this forum like to deflect or change the topic.

The issue here is whether or not the "left" is more compassionate. Now you're bringing up something entirely different: whether Ford is deserving of compassion and whether he is compassionate.

Well...that's not what we were talking about.

Regardless, I think everyone can agree that there is a fundamental difference from politicians calling each other out, a pretty standard part of politics, and wishing death on somebody. If you want to make the argument that Ford saying someone is "left of Stalin" is the same as someone wishing he has a heart attack, be my guest. I think you know the difference here and you're being willfully partisan.

All these faux-rational posts of yours, with their inside-baseball musings about the difference between left and right, heavily masticated cogitations about how people just have "different values", and your pretentious advocacy of the idea that Reasonable People Can Disagree Reasonably, is all just subterfuge and avoidance.

And it leads me to wonder: why are you working so hard at defending this moron? You really have to ask yourself that. How many hours have you spent this week on this? Why does it matter so much to you?

Lets forget all your overwrought dissimulations, and revisit a post by typezed from a few days back which I thought was a rather good encapsulation of why most people not only don’t support Rob Ford, but why they loath Rob Ford.

...

Rob Ford is unfit for the office of mayor of the biggest city in the country. He has lost support of council, and his own office is falling apart due to resignations. Those are happening in part because he may be involved in criminal activity. Sure I don't like him because he's ugly, fat, and dull-witted. But those aren't the reasons I believe he is unfit for the position he holds. I believe he is unfit to be mayor because he is unable to work with others, because he is unable to see or understand any point of view but his own, because he is lazy and probably derelict in his work performance, because he advances slogans and myths rather than ideas and accomplishments, because he shows very little interest or appreciation for the city that he leads. People sometimes are over sensitive or offended for public display on issues of identity politics, they like to toss homophobe and racist labels about, but in this case those accusations, while maybe strong, don't rise from imagined slights. Due to his fallow imagination and slow curiosity, he does seem at least a decade behind the times in his appreciation for the contributions of diverse communities. I also find this unsuitable in a leader. People who want to endorse Rob Ford as a leader of the city need to show how he's moving the city ahead despite an inability to show up for work, despite failing to communicate policy, despite his lack of vision for the city, despite being unable to hold together a stable office, despite his extra-curricular associations with shady characters. Get past the fact that I find him fat and ugly. You probably think him fat and ugly too, and you were willing to vote for him. I could do the same for someone equally fat and ugly if they weren't so overwhelmingly unsuitable in their beliefs, attitudes and work habits.

...

This pretty concise description of his fallings is not about a difference in style, values, politics, or point of view. It's not about 'the other side does it too'; its not about snobbish elitism or some other bs evasion. These are the facts. And to continue to defend them and him (ad nauseum at this point) leaves you looking very much like a particularly desperate member of the flat earth society.

 

[VoicesCarry]

Nobody said simply being gay is a risk factor for HIV - what Ford said was that if you're not gay or not a drug user, chances are you won't get HIV. That is true. In 2006, a combined 79% of males with HIV got it through male-to-male sexual contact or through drug use. Being gay doesn't make you magically more susceptible to HIV, but if you are gay, statistically your chances of contracting HIV are higher. Not to mention that anal sex (which not all gay men engage in, but some do) has a higher transmission rate for HIV than vaginal sex.

The fact is that what he said is true by any reasonable measure. If people want to discuss the implications of his statement, that's fine, but this notion that the statement itself was homophobic is just false.

I don't think he tried to stigmatize it as a gay disease. I think his point was that a broad awareness campaign is not needed for a problem that specifically effects only a small subset of the population.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

The kind of statement Ford made only serves to marginalize specific segments of the population and simply recalls that period in the 1980's when it was acceptable to stigmatize those afflicated with the disease simply because the epidemic was initially concentrated in the gay community. It has no basis in public health policy. Ford later apologized for this particular statement, so even he realized it was inappropriate. As I stated, if Ford had referenced blacks and not gays in his statement - an equally "valid" comment by your standards, given the CDC stats I posted earlier - no one would ever defend it as "reasonable", and rightfully so.

FYI, the AIDS Prevention Community Investment Program (which Ford was suggesting should not be funded) targets those segments of the community where the disease is more highly prevalent - it does not conduct a broad awareness campaign. The Program targets gay and bisexual men, injection drug users, women and men from countries where HIV is endemic, people living with HIV/AIDS, gay youth, trans populations, at-risk youth, sex workers and incarcerated men and women. Their outreach is focused at organizations like the 519 Church Street Community Centre, Action Positive, Africans in Partnership Against AIDS, the AIDS Committee of Toronto, the Alliance of South Asian AIDS Prevention, the Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, Central Toronto Community Health Centers, Fife House, the Hassle Free Clinic, Native Child and Family Services, and Youthlink, among others.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I am not sure what time period we should be talking. Your example does nothing to compare Europeans to other cultures. If in your example you could tell me that all muslims, hispanics and other cultures at the time were opening supporting the gay population, then I could change my mind.

Again, you're talking about this imaginary "European Culture". The culture of Britain is very different from Slovakia which is also different from what you'll find in Russia and Germany.

To be more specific, in the UK they are generally very LGBT friendly. They've just approved gay marriage with wide support in Parliament. On the other hand, Russia, who would also be part of this "European Culture" you've been talking about, just approved a law banning the use of "homosexual propaganda" (aka, talking about LGBT issues). Clearly, there isn't much of a unified European Culture, particularly when it comes to tolerance.

So please stop referring to whatever you're talking about as "European Culture". Especially in the context of LGBT issues and tolerance.

 

[Admiral Beez]

. Clearly, there isn't much of a unified European Culture, particularly when it comes to tolerance.
.

If i may speak for another, perhaps he is referring to POWP (plain old white people), meaning not European immigrants themsevles, but their North American raised kids. Regardless of where their parents are from in Europe, the kids of the Euro immigrant soon morph into the generic white Canadian.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, in the outskirts of Muddy York, Rob Ford plans Ford Fest for Friday in Scarborough. From the Toronto Sun, at this link:

It’s his party and he’ll robocall you if he wants to.

Some residents received robocall invites Tuesday night to Mayor Rob Ford’s Ford Fest Scarborough event, which will take place Friday.

The calls urged residents to attend Ford’s bash at Thomson Memorial Park.

“On behalf of the Ford family, I would like to invite you and friends to join us at Ford Fest barbecue in Scarborough,” Ford said in the call.

“There’ll be free food, free drinks, amusement rides for kids and entertainment for the whole family. Again, hope to see everyone there this Friday, July 5 at Thomson Memorial Park.”

The event runs from 6 p.m.-10 p.m. at the park on Brimley Rd., near Lawrence Ave. E.

Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker — whose ward includes the park — signed off on the noise exemption for the event.

De Baeremaeker said the attendance estimate on the permit was for around 5,000 people.

Although he doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Ford politically, De Baeremaeker said he’s not worried about the pro-Ford party happening in his backyard.

“The world needs more parties,” De Baeremaeker said. “The more any of us mix and mingle with residents the better.”

Officials in the mayor’s office didn’t respond to a media request asking how many mayor’s office staffers were working on organizing the party or whether they are working as volunteers on anything related to Ford Fest.

Councillor Adam Vaughan dismissed Ford Fest as a campaign event.

“(Ford has) never been interested in governing, it’s always been about campaigning — he’s just on the campaign trail,” Vaughan said.

Councillor Doug Ford kept expectations low on the Ford Fest attendance, saying, “if it rains, it’ll probably be about 50 (people).”

Wonder if the homeless will get there for the free food? Its not Trinity Bellwoods Park, but could we BYOB?

 

[typezed]

There is some reason that the suburbs feel neglected, whether or not they're justified.

It's important to ask to what degree they are justified. I do believe that other politicians need to seriously observe Ford's appeal, and perhaps modify their own priorities to give more weight to the legitimate grievances of middle-class suburban residents.

But they partially feel neglected because the Ford brothers and similar politicians use this feeling of neglect as a wedge issue, telling them that they're being cheated. Until recently I lived in the Cliffside (or Cliffcrest, I could never get it straight) area of Scarborough. Lived there for four or five years. I saw plenty of public money being spent around there, on roads, sewers, parks, hydro. I saw city money working in other suburban areas as well. Two of the major initiatives of the Miller administration - Transit City and Tower Renewal - were targeted at the suburbs. And suburbs, from the start, are more expensive (per capita) places to build and maintain infrastructure than dense city cores. Fords, Mammoliti, others will rant about no money going to the suburbs. It's just not true.

Maybe suburban residents just want too much. They want their private backyards and cul de sacs and free parking everywhere then think they should be served by subways because the downtown is served by subways. They want quiet and security and then get jealous about the attention given to the city core. Then they dream up their Civic Centres and think they deserve equal cultural funding to the downtown of the biggest city in the country.

 

[ThinkRicky]

It's important to remember that the suburbs aren't real communities, just little bubbles where people live and stew about whatever things their wedge politics have encouraged them to blame for their ills. The people that live here generally have little concern for others outside of their immediate social/familial circles beyond polite acknowledgement, and as a result tend to adopt shortsighted worldviews. ie: "Well, the problem is that there are no subways to my house in the middle of nowhere, not that I have no understanding of what my lifestyle entails, how it came to be or what it will take to maintain it going forward; that guy says there's a gravy train and we have to stop it!"

 

[Adaax]

Seriously, I'm thinking of calling up the Fords and asking them to kick up another scandal just to get this thread back on track. Who knows, they might be game.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

It's important to remember that the suburbs aren't real communities, just little bubbles where people live and stew about whatever things their wedge politics have encouraged them to blame for their ills. The people that live here generally have little concern for others outside of their immediate social/familial circles beyond polite acknowledgement, and as a result tend to adopt shortsighted worldviews. ie: "Well, the problem is that there are no subways to my house in the middle of nowhere, not that I have no understanding of what my lifestyle entails, how it came to be or what it will take to maintain it going forward; that guy says there's a gravy train and we have to stop it!"

A DOWNTOWN ELITIST gravy train, surely.

Can you imagine Ford holding a BBQ in Nathan Phillips Square?

Nah. Neither can I.

 

[Eug]

It's important to remember that the suburbs aren't real communities, just little bubbles where people live and stew about whatever things their wedge politics have encouraged them to blame for their ills. The people that live here generally have little concern for others outside of their immediate social/familial circles beyond polite acknowledgement, and as a result tend to adopt shortsighted worldviews. ie: "Well, the problem is that there are no subways to my house in the middle of nowhere, not that I have no understanding of what my lifestyle entails, how it came to be or what it will take to maintain it going forward; that guy says there's a gravy train and we have to stop it!"

I think this is a pretty good example of why many suburbanites don't want downtowners making the decisions.

The irony of it is that a significant chunk of suburbanites are downtown expatriates, when they became older and more mature.