Johnny Au
Senior Member
Rob Ford is the patron of the arts, if the definition of arts include rock musicians and television commercials, but excluding unauthorized inner city murals, orchestral instruments, arthouse films, and such.
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
cassius
Active Member
So he has to like those other things, or all arts, in order to be considered a patron of the arts?
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Rob Ford's definition of arts is different from our definition. He cuts funding to arts that he does not consider arts.
JWBF
Senior Member
Yes, hypocrisy flows threw Robbie's veins, like doing a presser from the TIFF village but actually voted against their funding.
Ford's List of the Arts:
Art Flemming, Art Garfunkel, Art Carney, Art Linkletter, Art Bell, Art Monk...
Last edited:
TonyV
Senior Member
cassius
Active Member
Point taken. And we're not on opposing sides of this. However which specific arts programs has Ford cut?
JWBF
Senior Member
Point taken but I really doubt that Fraud could name any of the above.
I think he could name one, Art Monk, he was an NFL player.
mr. grieves
New Member
@cbcdaveseglins: Judge rules media cannot see sealed #ProjectTraveller warrants bc sensitive wirewtap info. CBC, Star lose bid to look for any #robford ties
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
So is that it then? I thought this wasn't coming until the 20th?
Edit: Ok I think I understand. 90 of 114 pages were redacted. Today's decision was about whether or not the 90 redacted pages had to be provided to the media "un-redacted". Friday's court date will decide whether the remaining information in the remaining pages can be made public.
Last edited:
Peepers
Banned
The latest in the efforts to unseal the search warrants. Big loss for the media - judge rules wiretap information must remain sealed.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...veller/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
They did release the addresses of homes raided and included was the home of the man who tried to sell the crack video. It sounds very fishy to me that Police targeted this guy. On what basis did they raid his home? I guess we will never know now. Why no raid on Rob Ford home since police obviously had evidence he - a high school football coach - was associating with drug dealers.
If we are not going to get to see the sealed warrants I think the time has come for an outside police force to come in and review the actions of the Toronto Police . If there is any evidence that Bill Blair has been trying to protect Ford (e.g. by sending police to raid homes in search of the video) Bill Blair (and any other officers involved) should be criminally charged.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...veller/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
They did release the addresses of homes raided and included was the home of the man who tried to sell the crack video. It sounds very fishy to me that Police targeted this guy. On what basis did they raid his home? I guess we will never know now. Why no raid on Rob Ford home since police obviously had evidence he - a high school football coach - was associating with drug dealers.
If we are not going to get to see the sealed warrants I think the time has come for an outside police force to come in and review the actions of the Toronto Police . If there is any evidence that Bill Blair has been trying to protect Ford (e.g. by sending police to raid homes in search of the video) Bill Blair (and any other officers involved) should be criminally charged.
Last edited:
Peepers
Banned
The judge ruled under section 193 of the criminal code - it is illegal to disclose to the public private conversations obtained by wire taps. The following is the exact wording of section 193:
Disclosure of information
193. (1) Where a private communication has been intercepted by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully
(a) uses or discloses the private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof, or
(b) discloses the existence thereof,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Exemptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who discloses a private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof or who discloses the existence of a private communication
(a) in the course of or for the purpose of giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings or in any other proceedings in which the person may be required to give evidence on oath;
(b) in the course of or for the purpose of any criminal investigation if the private communication was lawfully intercepted;
(c) in giving notice under section 189 or furnishing further particulars pursuant to an order under section 190;
(d) in the course of the operation of
(i) a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public,
(ii) a department or an agency of the Government of Canada, or
(iii) services relating to the management or protection of a computer system, as defined in subsection 342.1(2),
if the disclosure is necessarily incidental to an interception described in paragraph 184(2)(c), (d) or (e);
(e) where disclosure is made to a peace officer or prosecutor in Canada or to a person or authority with responsibility in a foreign state for the investigation or prosecution of offences and is intended to be in the interests of the administration of justice in Canada or elsewhere; or
(f) where the disclosure is made to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or to an employee of the Service for the purpose of enabling the Service to perform its duties and functions under section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
Publishing of prior lawful disclosure
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who discloses a private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof or who discloses the existence of a private communication where that which is disclosed by him was, prior to the disclosure, lawfully disclosed in the course of or for the purpose of giving evidence in proceedings referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 193; R.S., 1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 45; 1993, c. 40, s. 11; 2004, c. 12, s. 5.
Disclosure of information received from interception of radio-based telephone communications
193.1 (1) Every person who wilfully uses or discloses a radio-based telephone communication or who wilfully discloses the existence of such a communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if
(a) the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it was in Canada when the communication was made;
(b) the communication was intercepted by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator of the communication or of the person intended by the originator to receive the communication; and
(c) the person does not have the express or implied consent of the originator of the communication or of the person intended by the originator to receive the communication.
Other provisions to apply
(2) Subsections 193(2) and (3) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to disclosures of radio-based telephone communications.
Disclosure of information
193. (1) Where a private communication has been intercepted by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, every one who, without the express consent of the originator thereof or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it, wilfully
(a) uses or discloses the private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof, or
(b) discloses the existence thereof,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Exemptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who discloses a private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof or who discloses the existence of a private communication
(a) in the course of or for the purpose of giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings or in any other proceedings in which the person may be required to give evidence on oath;
(b) in the course of or for the purpose of any criminal investigation if the private communication was lawfully intercepted;
(c) in giving notice under section 189 or furnishing further particulars pursuant to an order under section 190;
(d) in the course of the operation of
(i) a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public,
(ii) a department or an agency of the Government of Canada, or
(iii) services relating to the management or protection of a computer system, as defined in subsection 342.1(2),
if the disclosure is necessarily incidental to an interception described in paragraph 184(2)(c), (d) or (e);
(e) where disclosure is made to a peace officer or prosecutor in Canada or to a person or authority with responsibility in a foreign state for the investigation or prosecution of offences and is intended to be in the interests of the administration of justice in Canada or elsewhere; or
(f) where the disclosure is made to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or to an employee of the Service for the purpose of enabling the Service to perform its duties and functions under section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
Publishing of prior lawful disclosure
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who discloses a private communication or any part thereof or the substance, meaning or purport thereof or of any part thereof or who discloses the existence of a private communication where that which is disclosed by him was, prior to the disclosure, lawfully disclosed in the course of or for the purpose of giving evidence in proceedings referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 193; R.S., 1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 45; 1993, c. 40, s. 11; 2004, c. 12, s. 5.
Disclosure of information received from interception of radio-based telephone communications
193.1 (1) Every person who wilfully uses or discloses a radio-based telephone communication or who wilfully discloses the existence of such a communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if
(a) the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it was in Canada when the communication was made;
(b) the communication was intercepted by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device without the consent, express or implied, of the originator of the communication or of the person intended by the originator to receive the communication; and
(c) the person does not have the express or implied consent of the originator of the communication or of the person intended by the originator to receive the communication.
Other provisions to apply
(2) Subsections 193(2) and (3) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to disclosures of radio-based telephone communications.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
I grew up nowhere near Toronto (Calgary, then Waterloo), but I concur. Preserving Massey Hall is one thing, but a f**king low-end purveyor of music? Seriously? Ridiculous. Anyone wanting to preserve these signs is just trying to say their youth is worth preserving. IMHO, this is like trying to preserve the Palace in Calgary b/c the first showing of Star Wars in Calgary was there. Just because I was there doesn't make it history.
guitarchitect
Active Member
It's a pretty notable sign, it was an icon of the city back then. I'm sure the same shit will happen with the Honest Ed's sign - it's no different. It's not the first time humans have wanted to memorialize something meaningful to them, even if it isn't meaningful to everyone.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Can't the Crown redact those remaining pages and release them?
CalgarianExOntarian
Active Member
Whoa. I don't have strong feelings about the Sam's signs but am dismayed by your apparent opinion that Sam's wasn't good and interesting.
I grew up a couple of hours train ride from Toronto and spent a lot of time in the Big Smoke in the 1980's. Most trips involved a pilgrimage to the flagship Sam's store.
Yeah, Yonge Street was scuzzy and sometimes scary, but Sam's was fantastic, a huge space full of music nerds hunting for rock, blues, reggae, jazz, classical, and every other genre ever pressed into vinyl. (OK, it was also a commercial operation selling pop to the masses, but so what?) In an era where almost nobody on earth even imagined what the internet would become, the major ways to find out about new music were word of mouth, print media, university radio, and, oh so important, poking around at Sam's seeing what was connected to what.
I don't know whether Sam's needs a major municipal monument but I think a little respect and not a "good riddance" attitude is in order.
- Status