Archive for the 'Toronto' Category



23
Nov

The O’Neil Grant Story

Anybody who was in Toronto in 1994 will remember the Just Desserts case. On April 5 of that year, three young Black men entered a cafe in the downtown area intending to carry out an armed robbery. In the process one of the patrons, a Greek-Canadian girl named Georgina Leimonis, was shot and killed.

The shooting generated outrage throughout the city. The indignation grew further when it was discovered that one of the suspects, “Tiger” O’Neil Grant, had earlier been ordered deported to his native Jamaica for committing a series of crimes, including assault with a weapon. While he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in connection with the Just Desserts incident, in 2002 he was sent back to the country in which he was born.

O’Neil Grant’s name surfaced once again at the beginning of this month. In the November 12 issue of the Toronto Star, Sandro Contenta reported that Grant had been shot dead in Kingston, Jamaica on October 29 2007. His murder has remained unsolved: some speculated that the shooting was ordered from Toronto, others that Grant, who was romantically involved with two women at the same time, was killed as part of a love triangle.

Contenta portrayed O’Neil Grant as a good boy who had taken a few wrong turns along the way. Though Contenta admitted that before the Just Desserts acquittal Grant had not been a model immigrant, he had since then shaped up, caring for his aged grandmother, finding a steady job, and, perhaps more importantly, not racking up any criminal record in Jamaica. Grant had always hoped to return to Canada, “the greatest country in the world” in his own words, and felt betrayed by the Canadian justice system that ultimately deported him. The Star article contained a photograph of Grant’s youngest child, a baby born five days after his death, as if to remind readers of those he left behind.

A much more inflammatory piece appeared in Toronto’s NOW Magazine by senior editor Enzo DiMatteo. Asking rhetorically “Should the pols who ran Just Desserts accused out of town bear some blame for O’Neil Grant’s fate?, DiMatteo depicted Grant as a scapegoat for the “anti-black immigration hysteria” fomented by the police and ruling class following the Just Desserts incident. In addition Grant was supposedly traumatized by his nearly six-year stay in the Don Jail while awaiting trial. DiMatteo cast particular blame on former Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi, who stated that Grant should have been deported long before the shooting.

On the other side of the spectrum, in an article in the Toronto Sun Joe Warmington scoffed at the portrayal of O’Neil Grant as a victim, either in life or in death. The real victim, according to Warmington, was Georgina Leimonis. Warmington spoke scathingly of efforts by friends and family to bring Grant’s body back to Canada for burial.

I have followed the Just Desserts case since its beginning (incidentally, at the time it occurred I was house-sitting for a friend just around the corner from the cafe), so I will make some comments on the three stories mentioned above. It is true that as in the Jane Creba murder eleven years later, White racists used Georgina Leimonis’ death to grind their own axes, although unlike Enzo DiMatteo I don’t believe they were spurred on by politicians or the police. For example, at a makeshift memorial for her at the site someone left a sign saying, “Kill your own. Leave us alone.” (Ironically, at the beginning of the last century some American White Supremacists opposed immigration by Greeks and other groups such as Jews and Syrians on the grounds that the United States should be for the”White man.”)

I have trouble with DiMatteo’s and Contenta’s picture of O’Neil Grant as a victim. If Grant really did turn his life around as Contenta claimed, he (Grant) should be given some credit. Yet even if Grant did not pull the trigger of the gun that caused Leimonis’ demise, surely he knew what his companions were doing when they set foot in the Just Desserts café and was aware that in any armed robbery the chances of someone getting killed or seriously injured are high. While he expressed bitterness over what he saw as a betrayal by the Canadian authorities, Grant never once appeared to express sympathy for Georgina Leimonis or her family. I might feel sorry for Grant over the fact he died violently at a young age, but not over his inability to return to Canada. Similarly questionable, in my view, was the notion perpetrated by DiMatteo and Contenta that Grant was shipped to a “strange country” (i.e. Jamaica). In fact Grant had spent most of his formative years there (he came to Canada at the age of twelve) and was familiar with the language and culture of that nation, which are basically the same as those of Anglophone Canada. It is not as if Grant had been deported to Japan, a country with a completely different culture which does not even use the same writing system as Canada and most other Western nations.

On other hand, I’m not completely in tune with Joe Warmingtonâ’s portrayal of Grant as if he were second in command to Satan himself. Grant was after all acquitted of any direct responsibility in Leimonis’ death. I also believe that if Grant’s family wants to bring his body back to Canada, they should be free to do so (how dangerous is a dead man?) as long as they pay for the expenses out of their own, as opposed to the taxpayers’, pocket.

With regard to Enzo DiMatteo’s question - should the politicians who sent Grant back to Jamaica be held morally and/or legally responsible for his death - my answer is a resounding no. As I’ve written in a previous essay, individuals found guilty of a crime committed in a country not their own (that is, of which they are not citizens) forfeit their right to reside there. Canada was right to deport him, and I’ll even agree with Sergio Marchi, of whom I was by the way no great fan, that Grant should have been thrown out much earlier. Not that it would have saved Leimonis’ life, but at the very least it would have spared us the expense of keeping Grant in prison and putting him on trial.

These are my observations on the story of O’Neil Grant. Please feel free to add your own.

12
Nov

Harper’s Optics Bode Ill for Toronto

The dismissal of a federal candidate raises some serious concerns about the CPC’s agenda for cities, and in particular Toronto:

The federal Conservative candidate for Toronto Centre says he is being dumped by his party because he wasn’t “staying on message” with the national campaign strategy.
…
Warner, who has been campaigning for 10 months, said he was trying to highlight the need for better urban and social policies, which wasn’t what the party’s campaign brass wanted.
“I was trying to stay on message in terms of talking about crime and other major issues, but in a riding that is 60 per cent immigrants, that has lots of public housing, and has two universities and a community college, I felt the need to also talk to the issues that my constituents were raising on the door — education, immigration, housing, in addition to environment, health care and crime,” he told CTV’s Mike Duffy Live on Thursday.
-CTV Toronto (Nov 1)

At first glance, the Conservative Party of Canada’s dismissal of Mark Warner seems reasonable – the party and its previous incarnations (The Canadian Alliance, The Reform Party of Canada) have been dogged repeatedly by the controversy of renegade members whose sound bites were picked up by the media and blown out of proportion. Warner spoke to his riding on education issues, public housing and HIV/AIDS – issues important to the Regent Park residents in his riding but not central to CPC doctrine. On the latter issue, the CPC deleted a reference on Warner’s biography citing attendance at a 2006 HIV conference that Prime Minister Stephen Harper avoided.

Mark Warner is also hardly the first CPC member to be removed for defying party policy in support of local interests. Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey was expelled from the Tory Caucus in June for voting against the federal budget. Casey’s objection was an amendment to the Atlantic Accord, which he contends was promised not to be changed. The executive in his riding refused to seek an alternative candidate were also dumped from the party.

Thirdly, Warner’s riding is at best a long shot, as he is running against Liberal big-shot and former Ontario Premier Bob Rae in the cultural nucleus of a city that failed to elect even one conservative party member during the previous federal election. Toronto Center contains some of the nation’s richest (Rosedale) and poorest (Regent Park) residents. The riding has not seen a Conservative in office since 1993 and Warner was expected to run a distant third in the upcoming election. Taken in combination with the previous points, the cost of keeping a renegade candidate in a long-shot riding outweighs any apparent benefit. Removing Warner seems like a logical decision.

Alas, this “logical” decision does not account for optics – how does it LOOK to remove a candidate that isn’t towing the party line? Here’s how it looked to some local media –

Share Magazine Article on Mark Warner
(click to Enlarge)

So again, what was Mark Warner trying to accomplish by diverting his message from black letter policy? Although joining the PC party during the reign of the comparatively Toronto-friendly Brian Mulroney (whose public opposition to apartheid won him some respect among the socially conscious), Warner was going out on a very long limb by remaining in CPC the party under the western-based Harperites. As a Caribbean –a group rarely targeted by CPC supporters except when seeking a scapegoat for violent crime- he probably received a lot of flack from his ethnic community over his allegiance. His best response was to tailor the Conservative message for a region with a long exposure to anti-Conservative fear mongering. Warner’s website lists actual CPC achievements since coming to office and how they have positively affected life for Torontonians. If Stephen Harper wanted to appear less scary to urban residents, “Mark Warner” was the way to do it.

Alas, the 43-year old lawyer was unceremoniously dumped with minimal public explanation and no overture to his riding. Knowing that Stephen Harper was quite happy to dump untold money on Quebec to gain political favour and oblige every Sikh/Chinese ceremony he could fit into his schedule, the message to Toronto is clear: “Go to Hell”.

This message will play well with the many Canadians who have turned their hatred of Toronto into a religion, but the divide and conquer strategy will have long term consequences for a nation that is supposed to be governed as one.

07
Nov

The Folly of Africentric Schools … and Why they Should be Allowed Anyway

From the Toronto Star:

Admitting it is failing some students of colour, the Toronto public board could open a black-focused school as early as next fall.

Two community meetings are planned in the next week to discuss the idea of an “African-centred alternative school” from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 that would have more black teachers, black mentors, more focus on students’ heritage and more parent involvement.

“Whatever is being used in the system at this moment is failing a lot of students – and more specifically a lot of black students,” said Donna Harrow, a community worker who is behind the push for such a school, along with Etobicoke parent Angela Wilson.

Race-based schooling, despite its good intentions, is a dangerous way to combat academic failure for three main reasons -

Problem #1: Black-Focused Schools are Hypocritical

As some bloggers have already opined, it is sadly ironic that members from the racial group responsible for the biggest civil rights / integration push in North American history now campaign for racially-segregated schooling. Alas, that is not what I was alluding to – rather, Ontario just had an election that focused inordinately on the possibility of public funding for religious-based schools. Ontario Conservative leader John Tory staked his reputation on support for the initiative and Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty howled in protest. The voting public were equally dismayed with the idea and Tory was slaughtered at the polls (failing to even win a seat for himself). For the McGuinty government to consider race-based schooling barely a month later is a double standard beyond reproach – and a betrayal of the public confidence.

Problem #2: The Segregation Genie

If blacks are allowed to have their own schools, who’s to say that the Portuguese –another group said to be underperforming academically- won’t want their own as well? On the other end of the spectrum, why couldn’t the high-successful Chinese also apply for segregated schooling? Chinese culture is quite unique from the European experience, there are far more Chinese than blacks in Toronto and the Chinese could additionally claim that public schools aren’t teaching their high performing children quickly enough (or at least SOME of them could claim the latter).

An additional wrinkle – contrary to what fund-chasing activists publicly proclaim, there is no such thing as black culture. The “black” population of Toronto comprises of several ethnic groups from four continents. The primary groups are Jamaicans, Trinidadians, Somalis, Ethiopians and Nigerians. Jamaicans and Trinidadians have a somewhat similar culture due to their shared history of slavery and Euro-Centric indoctrination. The East Africans -Somalis and Ethiopians- and somewhat similar, owing much to Arabic influence and the fact that both states have been historically independent as they do to any notion of blackness. Nigerians belong to a third faction (West Africans) and have a different history altogether. Now, if these schools are being justified on cultural and historical relevance grounds, how the heck can you place these three factions of “blacks” together? Jamaicans are the most notorious of the black groups for crime and poor school performance – why would they care about Haile Selassie any more than they would about Winston Churchill? Will the East Africans continue to be isolated if there are no bilingual classes in Soomaali and Amharic? How finely will the school population have to be subdivided to eliminate all of these supposedly incapacitating barriers?

Problem #3: History Classes Cannot Override Social Deficiencies

The most dubious claim by proponents of an Africentric curriculum is that the inclusion of African history will increase interest and subsequently the achievements of black students. If that is the case, how come Asians are doing so well despite little instruction on the dynasties of Ancient China (which would still be of little use to a Vietnamese immigrant)? Better yet, why aren’t Jamaican children as a whole performing much better in Jamaica, where the history classes are heavily oriented towards local culture? The answer lies in both history and economics: except for the rich upper classes, Jamaican kids are doing extremely poorly in school and end up feeding a gang culture far worse than multicultural Canada. Jamaica’s murder rate has consistently been in the top 5 for the world, surpassing considerably poorer states like Zambia and political hot-spots like India (whose students tend to do quite well in Toronto).

More academically-successful immigrants emigrating from places like India and Hong Kong tend to be wealthy and well-educated in their homelands. More recent Jamaican immigrants, by contrast, tend to be from the poorer classes who lived in shanty-towns embroiled in gang wars precipitated by the nation’s two political parties. Education in Jamaica is still largely a privilege of the wealthy.

This cultural disparity was exacerbated by the refocusing of Canada’s immigration point system away from academic traits and in favour of required employment experience, which took place during the late 1970’s. Entry to Canada became more difficult for Jamaican university graduates and much easier for housekeepers. Most Jamaicans –even wealthier ones- were not and are not able to “buy” their way into Canada like their Asian counterparts, causing freshly-educated Jamaicans to look elsewhere for migration. The revised immigration policy also favoured single workers over family units, which caused many Jamaican women to leave their children behind to get a job in Canada. Many applied to have their children emigrate later as direct family members once the rules became more family-friendly.

The social effects of this migration pattern should be obvious – a child that grew up with one or zero natural parents in an unstable environment with poor education would beseverely ill-equipped to handle the pressures of living in Canada. (S)he would have to live in an alien culture with a mildly-educated mother who was never around through the formative years and often still won’t be around due to long work hours, the lack of a father, and a culture of origin that placed little emphasis on academics. In short, many of these kids, by nurture, have no value for learning and become more economically isolated as manufacturing and other low-education jobs cease to exist in Canada’s service-oriented economy.

My question to the Africentric scholars – do you seriously think this social problem can be fixed by teaching more history lessons about Africa?

…

That said, I don’t officially oppose Africentric schools. Why? Because Ontario is already segregating schools, as stated in the article. One cannot seriously oppose Africentric schools without proceeding to oppose native-only schools and the entire Catholic school board. To attack one type of focused school system is at best myopic and at worst biased. Thus, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed - just mind the slippery slope.

24
Jul

On Toronto Gun Violence and Gangs

The following points were adapted from a recent discussion at Jack’s Newswatch. Ultimately the discussion was triggered by the recent fatal shooting of 11 year old Ephraim Brown. As usual, Toronto’s political elite raised the issue of handguns and how these violent attacks would go away if only the federal government would ban all handguns (memo to Mayor Miller: why not be more holistic about it and just ban murder? Oh wait….)

1) Kids are shooting other kids with guns as part of gang warfare. These misguided youths-turned-domestic-terrorists want a rep and some “cheddar” - using guns is a way to do it, and far more glamourous than working at McDonald’s

2) Cultures with fewer stable families and not inclined toward academics / learning have a very difficult time countering the notions of “easy money” that all youth seek. Bajans, Trinidadians and Nigerians are subject to the same discrimination and economic disparities as Jamaicans, yet have substantially lower crime rates and virtually no gun play (at least in this country). The reason? Different cultural priorities that are more compatible with our highly-educated, service-based economy.

2) Gangs exist to make a profit. They don’t shoot guns off for the hell of it and rarely target innocent bystanders. The profit is often made on selling drugs.

3) Gangs are middle-men. Drugs, like any other product, can only be profitable if there is adequate supply and demand. Exclusively attacking the middle man is useless (even though that seems to constitute the majority of the war on drugs and use of police resources). If you want to get rid of the gang violence then you have to get rid of the incentives that lead to the violence. Attack the supply or the demand.

4) Everyone very well knows about #3 but that, and not American guns for Jamaican thugs, is the part that people are “afraid” to talk about. Why?

Supply –> Foreign countries mostly. Attacking Colombia is likely to step on some stateside toes and drag us into a war similar to the war on terror. And regardless, why should Canada go at it alone? For domestically grown drugs we would have to declare war on our own countryside (eg B.C.) and that is sure to ruffle a few voter feathers. What politician has the guts to suggest such a drastic response?

Demand –> You don’t want to get rid of demand because you ARE the demand. Cocaine is for the most part not a ghetto drug - you are more likely to find it in Richmond Hill than Malvern. If you want to see serious drug consumption, spend some time on a college campus, at a posh night club (not a hip hop club) or in a small affluent town. Of course if you arrest and pressure these types of users then you’d be arresting doctors, lawyers, college students and Paris Hilton wannabes - not the kind of “scary lookin” folks that have to rely on a public defender. Thus they will be hard to procesute and cause only a minute increase in public confidence (as opposed to jailing a few big scruffy bikers or menacing Jamaicans)

27
Apr

Bits & Bites (April 27, 2007)

Ever have a time when your mind simply shut down? Unfortunately it’s been that type of month here. There is much going on in the political and social world today, but most of it frankly doesn’t seem that interesting (or at least not as interesting as my job, which is an analyst’s heaven). Here are some random thoughts on what’s “hot” these days –

Topic:
Jackson, Miss., mayor acquitted

Excerpt:
The mayor of Mississippi’s largest city and two police bodyguards were acquitted Thursday of using sledgehammers and sticks to demolish a duplex he considered a drug house.
…
The first-term mayor was elected by a landslide in 2005 on promises to root out the crime problem that is blamed for suburban flight and an evaporating tax base in Mississippi’s capital city.
But it wasn’t long before his unorthodox tactics, including carrying guns and cruising the inner city in the police department’s mobile command center, landed him in the sights of the district attorney’s office.

[Associated Press]

Comment:
It is wrong to support vigilante action, as its most extreme implementation is anarchy (with no central body deciding what is “right”, everyone will apply their own definition and possibly enter into an endless cycle of revenge action. Romeo and Juliet comes to mind). That said, I’d love to buy Frank Melton a drink. Right or wrong, his action is inspiring and it’s very refreshing to see an elected official taking action on the ground floor instead of setting up committees from his office or shouting slogans to the camera. The only way to approach the war on drugs is to fight it as an actual war, and if nothing else Melton seems to get results. Are you watching, Mr. Miller?


Topic:
Tories unveil green strategy

Excerpt:
The door was firmly closed on the Kyoto treaty Thursday as the Conservative government heralded its own wide-ranging environmental plan, one that it says will save billions in health costs and only marginally affect the Canadian economy.
…
The strategy has two major components: dealing with the major industrial emitters of greenhouse gases, and clearing the air of smog and other pollutants. The government predicts that improving air quality will save the country $6 billion annually in health costs.
Companies that belch smog-producing pollutants will face tougher regulations than those that emit greenhouse gases. Reductions of sulphur oxide, for example, will have to attain a reduction of 55 per cent by 2015 and the targets will be firm limits. The provinces already largely manage such pollutants.
Meanwhile, industries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide will face a reduction of 26 per cent by the same year, and targets will be based on their level of production rather than a firm limit.

[Toronto Star]

Comment:
Environmentalists and the (un)interested public will lynch the Tories as anti-environmental cowboys. However, what sense is there in endorsing an international policy without honoring its tenets? In the year 2000, Canada signed the Kyoto agreement and promised to reduce greenhouse gasses by 6% by 2012. By 2005, emissions had risen 2.1% over the previous 4 years. All the sloganeering and purchases of “An Inconvenient Truth” won’t compensate for the fact that Canadians like to sell oil, drive SUV’s and … how shall we put this… keep their jobs.
The only certainty about the CPC’s environmental plan is that consumers will have to pay more for necessities and near-necessities. Whether this translates to a measurable decrease in greenhouse gas emissions or merely supplements the government treasury remains to be seen. I’ll be waiting to hear the results of this initiative, but in the meantime, a dubious “maybe” still trumps a measured failure – trendy environmentalism be damned.


Topic:
Alleged target forced to testify in Creba case

Excerpt:
The first person convicted in connection with the fatal shooting of Jane Creba will not have his subpoena tossed, which means he will be called to testify against those charged with killing the 15-year-old.
…
After the decision was handed down, Steele launched into a profanity-laced tirade, telling the judge “You just opened up my family to danger you don’t understand…you just helped them kill me,” The Globe and Mail reported.
Steele then called the crown attorneys “a piece of shit” before he was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs.

[CTV]

Comment:
“Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword”
Richard Steele is the son of Valerie Steele, former head of the Jamaican Canadian association. It is not unreasonable to believe that, given the elevated position of his mother and the better facilities that entails, Richard could not have guessed this might happen if he ever got caught up in the drug game. Obviously these risks weren’t important, as Steele was convicted earlier this year on drug and weapon charges. If Richard was so concerned about his safety and the safety of his family then he should have used his elevated position (being the son of a prominent activist) within the black community to get a good education and a sustainable career. Alas, he wanted to take the thug route so now he has to deal with thug problems. Steele perhaps deserves even LESS sympathy than the average ragamuffin, due to his family background. Steele has but two saving graces –

  1. Selwyn Pieters is his lawyer. Pieters, who deserves partial credit for striking down Ontario’s Safe Schools Act, has a “gift” for turning even the most benign infraction into a racial issue on the magnitude of Plessy vs Ferguson. In the current political envrionment, law & order types (or anyone so bold as to punish a “disadvantaged youth” for misbehaviour that only recently became excusable in black political circles) wilt under threat of the dreaded racism charge.
  2. His mother’s standing within her community will likely lead to more lenience than the average impoverished child (who cannot afford expensive counsel) would receive. After all, class and all the resources it can procure influences sentencing more than race (which will become a focal point due to #1) or silly things like the seriousness of the crime.

Topic:
Jack’s Newswatch Expands

Excerpt:
As of yesterday, this site has three new faces who will appear periodically “as the mood strikes” writing on issues and topics which interest them.
…
Each of these people I have come to know well through their visits to this website and in order to assist them in getting their views out I opened my site up to them. Hopefully they will add much to the ongoing “chit chat” here in the days ahead and I look forward to their entries.

[Jack’s NewsWatch]

Comment:
Jack and I crossed paths accidentally when The Toronto Sun mistakenly attributed a quotation from Cynics Unlimited to Jack’s original Newswatch site (I believe it was hosted on Wordpress). Right away, Jack impressed me with his diligence in tracking down the real source of quotation and attributing the proper credit, so I started reading his site. Though his politics appeared a bit right-leaning for my tastes, his delivery was direct and honest while providing a platform for serious debate. Steadily his audience grew and it seemed the big-box blog hosting was holding him back, so I offered him some space with a standalone Wordpress installation. The transition was not so smooth but we resolved the issues and carried on with building the site (he from the editorial end and myself technically). As Jack’s audience grew, I noticed that his Google traffic was not so great relative to the number of daily visitors. This was almost certainly due to the fact that it was a “news watch” – heavy with links and not enough original material. It took some coaxing to get Jack to write more editorials, but as he did he gained a loyal following of readers. The closure of a larger news aggregator led to a burst of traffic that Jack’s Newswatch has skillfully maintained. Now, Sandy (of the now defunct Crux of the Matter) and Mac (of Enig-Mac) have joined as co-editorialists. It’s great to have them both aboard not only because they add more perspective but because I think Jack also needs the occasional break! Take it easy, sir. And yes, I will come up with something for the site eventually.

30
Mar

Arrests Made in Killing of Omar Wellington

Breaking news on a story covered in an earlier post –

After an intense eight-month investigation, six males - aged 14 to 17 - have been charged with first-degree murder in the beating and stabbing of Omar Wellington last summer. “I’m very pleased,” said Wellington’s mother Joy shortly after the charges were announced. All six youths live in Flemingdon Park, the same area where 17-year-old Wellington was stripped to his underwear and beaten in front of dozens of people on July 14. No one called 911 to report the early evening attack, just metres from a busy playground. Wellington’s body was found the following day in a nearby wooded area. He had suffered multiple stab wounds. “This was a revenge killing,” Det. Scott Spratt said at a press conference at police headquarters this morning, announcing the charges. Because the case is now before the courts, Spratt said he could not provide details about the motive of the slaying. He did say the case had “hallmarks of gang activity.” Spratt and his partner Det. Sgt. Dean Burks say they always believed the case could be solved, despite a reluctance in the community to share information with authorities.

While witness tips led to the arrests, it is still safe to say that little credit is due to the residents of Flemingdon Park. As discussed in the previous Omar Wellington post, several residents witnessed the murder and none came forward. The code of the streets discourages such action and so many months had to pass before information leading to arrests was obtained. A post on the “Stop Snitchin” ethic is forthcoming, but suffice it to say the community will likely rediscover its resolve if the police so much as harm a hair on the heads of the assailants. Assuming those arrested are minorities (most likely black since Wellington is black) they could be recast by community activists as civil rights victims of a “racist” system that didn’t gift-wrap a soft existence and thus “forced” the little gangstas to turn into violent criminals.

Excuse me for being cynical, but this drama has played itself out too many times and too many “community leaders” seem content to ignore the writing on the wall (promoting bad culture + coddling bad people = bad environment).

In the meantime, read the comments section in the original Omar Wellington post – it shows gives an interesting look into the mentality of some Flemingdon Park as well as people close to the Wellington affair.

16
Nov

Foolhardy Toronto

By pure chance I happened to be in Toronto during the great “blizzard” of 1999. I had descended from cottage country to attend a concert and emerged from the show to see Queen Street resembling a country highway. Taxis were spinning their wheels helplessly while prissily dressed college girls strained every muscle in their anemic frames to remain upright on the icy sidewalks. By all accounts it was good snowfall – definitely worth a day off school in cottage country. However, Toronto mayor Mel Lastman –awash in his usual melodrama- called in 400 troops from CFP Petawawa (backed by armored vehicles) to rescue his city from 3 days of moderate snowfall and 26km/h winds. As Mayor Mel stopped just short of declaring a state of emergency, the rest of Canada had a good laugh at the mighty metropolis’ inability to withstand what is considered regular January weather throughout much of Canada.

Prior to the 2006 municipal election, I thought the 1999 “blizzard” would go down as the single most embarrassing moment in the city’s history. However, embattled mayor David Miller, whose prior unresponsiveness left him at odds with activists and community groups across the political spectrum, managed to easily fend off former councilor Jane Pitfield, former Liberal Party President Stephen LeDrew and dozens of other candidates. The final vote tally told the whole story –

  • David Miller – 57%
  • Jane Pitfield – 32.3%
  • Stephen LeDrew – 1.4%

Not only did our left-leaning and action-averse mayor retain his position but did so by a very comfortable margin. The incumbent victory was declared by CityTV minutes into the election telecast.

To be sure, Miller didn’t exactly have formidable competition. Closest competitor Pitfield had good ideas about handling waste disposal and inner-city rot but ran an ineffective campaign that left some wondering what she stood for … besides opposing David Miller. The web plagiarism mini-scandal was followed up by a lackluster TV debate featuring some particularly silly exchanges with the mayor

Miller: “If I said it was Sunday, you’d say it was Monday. Then you’d call back and say it was Sunday. And then you’d phone up a week later and say it was Tuesday.”
Pitfield: “Maybe it is.”

If Pitfield can be assigned a single fault, it’s constantly making awkward/uninformed public exchanges like the aforementioned. Even as Miller’s victory was announced, Pitfield looked like a deer in headlights during her initial interview. (perhaps she wasn’t in the know about the alleged plagiarism on her website).

Of course, as Jane rightly claimed, she was at least providing some viable competition for Miller. Stephen LeDrew, by contrast, failed to even play the part of the spoiler. At best his presence would have split the anti-Miller protest vote, assuring Miller a re-election. LeDrew’s credibility was attacked almost as soon as he entered the race – the media pounced on the Liberal Party President’s failing law practice and personal bankruptcy filing. To boot, LeDrew also publicly billed himself as an alternative to Miller who would back Jane Pitfield if his candidacy didn’t go well (translation: “I’m here just to cause drama. Don’t take me seriously”). Incidentally, Stephen LeDrew captured barely over 1 in 100 electoral votes and finished less than 3000 votes ahead of the non-participatory 4th place finisher.

However, it is the Toronto voters who warrant the heaviest scrutiny. David Miller has stated time and time again that the voters should look at his record, and if anyone had bothered to do so they would have seen a distinct pattern of failure and inactivity –

Issue: Crime
Results: The year of the gun; The high profile murders of Jane Creba and Chantal Dunn; Miller ignores local community leaders who want to attack crime; Miller refuses to meet with the Guardian Angels

Issue: Transit
Results: The St Clair streetcar fight; The Island Airport;

Issue: Finance
Results: Miller begs; Toronto holds onto taxpayer money given back by federal government

Issue: Environment
Results: Waterfront redevelopment woes; Environmentally-friendly landfill solutions … NIMBY style

Despite this overwhelming evidence, Torontonians fell for a slick campaign and David Miller’s nice haircut. The standard Canadian “Best to go with the devil you know” ethic also played a role, since a large number of Torontonians polled before the election said that change was needed in the Mayor’s office. However, what incentive is there to change when Miller can violate his major election promises and still win by a 2:1 margin in a city full of “disaffected” voters?

Incidentally, Miller and his inner circle of incumbent winners did not even wait until the end of Election Day before falling back into their own habits. The incumbent mayor threatened to beg Ontario for more funding and to siphon 1% of the federal sales tax to shore up the city’s deficit (how he will accomplish this with the decidedly Toronto-unfriendly Stephen Harper remains unclear). Kyle Rae (Ward 27) rambled about the how environmentally conscious Torontonians rebuffed his “North York” competition and that we nasty humans are destroying the planet. Howard Moscoe (Ward 15) beamed openly about his upcoming pension after serving the upcoming term as councilor.

Mel Lastman must be smiling as well – his jackass-like behavior during the snowstorm no longer represents the silliest moment in Toronto history. City voters can now collectively share that dubious distinction.




Further Research




Categories


Archives