RSS Feed

Category Archives: Toronto

Governance in the Ford Administration

Posted on

“So this debt ceiling thing is routine or the end of the world?”

“Both”

Toronto’s “budget crisis” feels a lot like America’s Debt Ceiling debacle.  Our Mayor, and members on council who do whatever he tells them to vote his way, have told us that Toronto is facing a budget crisis. The Brothers Ford have framed it as if this is the first time Toronto has ever seen a budget shortfall (it’s not), and after hiring an outside consultant to find “efficiencies” (not revenue), told Toronto that we absolutely-must-there’s-no-other-way-unless-you-rob-old-people cut services to balance the budget.  And not just any old services.  Everything, it seems, was on the table.  Libraries. Arts funding. HIV/AIDS and health-care grants. Transit. Social housing. The list goes on.

Suddenly, people were listening.  As Edward Keenan put it in his GridTO column:

By looking at every goddamn thing that was not nailed down, the Core Service Review made it about every goddamn thing at once. And then the mayor went and invited everyone with something to say about it to come down to one single meeting. Which means the Heritage Toronto People and the AIDS program people and the library people and the cycling people and the dental health people and the snowplow-loving people and the labour-union people and the—well, all kinds of people who are not usually, necessarily on the same side of things—suddenly found themselves together facing an executive committee that appeared to be prepared to cut everything to plug an 8.5% hole in the proposed budget—a hole made larger by that same executive committee’s recent decisions to cut and freeze various taxes.

Many people were genuinely surprised at the proposals. Rob Ford has claimed for the past year that he was the politician who would listen to taxpayers.  He was elected on the premise that there was too must “gravy” at city hall. He campaigned on eliminating wasteful spending on councillor’s lavish parties, costume rentals, expense accounts and free passes.  He did not campaign on cutting libraries, arts and community group grants, snow shoveling or water fluoridation. Quite the opposite, in fact. He “guaranteed‘ that there would be no service cuts. None. Zero. Zilch.

344 Torontonians signed up to speak at last week’s Executive Committee meeting — out of passion, fear, or an angry “Can you hear me now?  The Mayor, behind the façade of listening to taxpayers, insisted that the meeting would go on, without stopping, until everyone had been heard.  It lasted 22-hours, ending in the early hours the next morning.

Only 168 voices were ever heard. Some people couldn’t get to the mic fast enough when their names were called. Others likely weren’t willing or able to commit to such a long wait – even lefty-socialists have jobs and families, despite what Doug Ford thinks. The cynic in me thinks that at least a few must have realized what a sham the whole meeting was and given up to go home.  That’s what I would have done. But I’m one, of surely many, Torontonians who feels so jaded so early in Ford’s term that I don’t see the point in talking to those who reject my voice outright – both by email and publically.

I watched about 10 hours of the meeting.  And after doing so, it was no more clear whether Toronto does or does not have a budget crisis. What is clear is that Toronto has a Governance crisis.

Good Governance, as defined by Unesco, has 8 basic characteristics: It must be “participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.”  I haven’t seen a lot of that lately at city hall.

Instead, we’ve been pitted against each other. There are supposedly those of us who use cars, and those of us who don’t. Those of us who work hard and pay taxes, and those of us who work cushy union jobs and, I guess, don’t pay taxes. Those of us who want to run this city properly, efficiently, and let people keep their hard-earned money, and those of us who want to waste it all on expensive labour, big government, sick people, old people, book people, bike people etc. Essentially, there are those of us who are worth listening to, and those of us who aren’t.

At the meeting there were dozens of emotional, conscientious pleas to maintain services. Many who were there felt engaged and proud of their city. But I was most struck by the under-currant of fear and distrust that I heard from most of the speakers.

Deputants, such as Kelly Fry, told the councillors in attendance that she did not believe the numbers. She, and at least one other deputant, called it a manufactured crisis. She also told the committee that, in the past, she watched councillors agonize over cuts, and felt that this council was doing it almost gleefully.   Kelly Fry does not trust her city council.  And she wasn’t the only one.

Union leaders are angry.  Grannies are sarcastically angry. Children cried. Many people said they would pay higher taxes to save city services. Questioning councillors (I’m looking at you Mammolitti and Del Grande) seemed baffled and untrusting.

I believe the role of city council to be governance, not management. That is to say, Council should be thinking about what kind of city Torontonians want to live in, what Torontonians value, and what Torontonians need to live safely and happily, and then direct staff based on these principles (and not ignoring staff reports they don’t like).

In doing this, they need to consider the needs and wants of all Torontonians, not just the ones who suit a  political agenda. They need to ensure our roads are safe, and as convenient as they can be for as many people as possible, while recognizing the very real constraints of city planning and infrastructure. They need to consider the economic impact of their decisions, but also the cultural.  They need to recognize the difference that exists in the opinions of 2.3 million people, and that “Torontonians” are not a homogeneous group.  Not everyone will be happy all the time. But if council has a vision, and that vision truly reflects the city, they will be doing the best they can.

To many people I know, the city is headed in a bad direction. It’s scary. And it’s wrong.  City council can do better and we should all hold them to a higher standard.

Dear Council, I’m confused

Posted on

In listening to the infuriating debate in City Council today, I have a number of questions related to the debate.  If only they’d answer me.

1. Councillors arguing in favour of removing Jarvis lanes have said that bike lanes were never in the plan. They argue that the original plan was about increasing the pedestrian streetscape. And yet they want the bike lanes removed in order to restore the 5th lane of traffic which also is contrary to the original plan of returning Jarvis street to a pedestrian-friendly cultural corridor.

Contradiction much? If you agree that the street should be better for pedestrians, surely it is better to have 1 less lane of traffic than it is to have a highway that allows for high-speed vehicle travel.

2. Many councillors agree that cycling downtown is “dangerous” and that is why they support the separated bike lanes. Councillor Minnan-Wong said that “a painted line doesn’t make it safer.” So doesn’t it follow that the reason cycling is dangerous is BECAUSE of cars, not because of a lack of separated lanes? And as such, there should be fewer cars on the streets to keep cyclists safer?

Conversing with the Mayor: Part 2

Posted on

So I received a response from the Mayor’s email account to the letter I sent yesterday.  I guess he does listen to taxpayers? But wait! Everyone else who wrote to the mayor on this issue received the same response.  You can read his response on Duncan’s Biking Toronto Blog.  It was infuriating.  It does nothing to address our concerns and is clear that the mayor is not open to any new ideas or different points of view.

So I’ve written back to the mayor.  He’s not getting off that easily.

Mr Mayor,

It’s disappointing that you’ve replied with a standard form letter that does nothing to address the issues presented in my letter, nor does it take anything I’ve said seriously. I spent a significant amount of time crafting a respectful letter to you in which I informed you of real concerns I have about our city. By sending the identical response to citizens who have written to you on this issue, you’re sending a message that our letters don’t matter.

You’ve presented me with an over-simplified argument that says that the volume of cyclists doesn’t warrant the special treatment that you feel bike lanes afford. You’ve also argued that it’s unfair to somehow penalize “commuters” by making room on the road for different vehicles.

It’s been made clear time and time again that bike lanes on Jarvis have not caused the gridlock that you warned it would. In fact, the City of Toronto report stated that car travel times were affected by only two minutes a day and that is mostly due to cars making left turns.

If I drove a car instead of riding a bike then that would contribute to gridlock. Cars take up 10 times the space on the road. It’s absurd to argue that bikes are the cause of Toronto’s traffic woes, when like you stated, 15,000 people are driving large vehicles daily in just this one area. Furthermore, bicycles are entitled to take an entire lane on the road that could be used for a car. Removing bike lanes doesn’t eliminate bikes from roads, it only serves to make cycling more difficult and dangerous.

Even if I were to accept your argument that lanes for 600 cyclists cause gridlock, which I don’t, isn’t your job as leader of our city to take care of everyone, not just the majority that makes the loudest noise? Good governance is about governing – looking toward the future, finding ways for growth and sustainability, and supporting the electorate who has given you the privilege of running this fine city.

The original plan for Jarvis street called for a revitalization that would see wider sidewalks and trees. It always included the removal of the fifth lane. Therefore, any argument that removing bike lanes will fix traffic gridlock becomes moot because that lane isn’t coming back.

As for our economy, how about opening your mind a little and exploring the ways in which cycling infrastructure and more liveable streets would increase tourism and encourage more people to live in the city in which they work? How about looking at ways to reduce gridlock by reducing the number of cars on the street? After all, we have a finite amount of space.

I hope you will take the time to consider my concerns this time. I share this point of view with thousands of Torontonians and we deserve to be heard.

Regards,

Lizz Bryce

Dear Mr. Mayor: Please Save Jarvis

Posted on

After the disgraceful decision by the City’s Public Works Committee meeting last week to remove the recently installed bike lanes on Jarvis St, I decided I needed to try to speak directly to the mayor. After all, he claims that he listens. Below is the letter I have sent to him. I will also be writing to my city councillor to let him know that I can’t support a council that would vote for such backwards policies and planning.

You can write to the mayor at: mayor_ford@toronto.ca or find his other contact information here.  Contact information for your local councillor can be found here.

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I’m writing to you as a citizen and taxpayer of Toronto. I found last week’s committee decision to remove existing bike infrastructure on Jarvis St, Pharmacy Ave, and Birchmount Rd distressing and confusing.

You campaigned on a promise of cutting out wasteful spending, yet this recent move, as well as your decision to cancel transit city, would cost the taxpayers money for absolutely no reason.

The bike lanes on Jarvis harm no one and help many. City of Toronto reports have made it clear that vehicle traffic was barely affected – and will be even less so once traffic lights are adjusted – and bicycle traffic tripled. The installation of bike lanes was originally part of a larger plan to revitalize the street in an effort to make it more liveable for the residents of the area. They pay taxes too.

Furthermore, this decision was made with no opportunity for public consultation, nor consultation with the local councillor. How can you say you’re listening to taxpayers when you don’t bother to ask us what we think?

I often hear you tell people that you will do what the citizens of Toronto want. Well I’m a citizen of Toronto and what I want is to travel safely to my destination by bike or foot. I want to live in a city that values the needs of all citizens equally.

Installing bike lanes on city streets achieves several goals: it alleviates gridlock by reducing the number of cars on the street and allows cars and bikes to travel more quickly in their respective lanes; it reduces pollution; it promotes healthy activity; it reduces the burden on our public transit system; it provides safety for cyclists and encourages cycling; and it keeps pace with the rest of the world which is striving for innovative and clean transportation alternatives.

As mayor, you’ve got a unique opportunity to make the city a better place through true leadership and innovative thinking. Toronto can and should be a place that other mayors look to for inspiration. You get to choose what your legacy will be, Mr. Mayor. How do you want to be remembered?

Regards,

Lizz Bryce

Slutwalk 2011: If she’s a slut, I’m one too

Posted on
http://instagr.am/p/Czg2Q/

SlutWalk Toronto protest sign via @calamityjennnnn

Slutwalk Toronto, a march down the streets of Toronto to protest the shaming women based on their appearance and their choices, and blaming women for sexual assaults (check out the list of other cities participating), happened today.

Let me start by saying that I am not an authority on this event, and probably not even the best person to be explaining it. But since it came up at a dinner that included strangers last night, and I feel like I did a poor job of explaining it (I write instead of talk for a reason), I’m going to give it another shot here. You can visit the official site here, follow the twitter feed here, or follow the conversation on Twitter here.

There were some ignorant questions asked at this dinner. Mainly “Does everyone dress like sluts?” Ignorant, of course, because that suggests that a) being a slut is a real thing and not an unfairly applied term used in an effort to shame women,  and  b) links appearance to promiscuity (and with that the understanding of what “promiscuity” is), and promiscuity to deservedness (of assault or disrespect).

But the more important question, asked this time from a woman, was “Why not call it a ‘Women’s Empowerment Walk’ instead of ‘Slutwalk’?”  I think she was coming from a good place.  Why would you want to label yourself with a word that is so offensive?  Why would you protest using a word that continues to be used to discredit women?
I tried to respond, but I didn’t have a very good answer. I guess because I hadn’t thought it through very well.  I think I’ve figured it out now.

Calling it “Slut” walk is not, as far as I can tell, a re-appropriation of the word “slut,” as much as it is a denouncement of those who use the word to define women – any women.

Slut is a name unfairly given to women based on what one person, or a society as a whole, perceives them to be.  The label comes with a basket of assumptions about actions and choices, and is deliberately used to shame (even by those who attempt to re-appropriate it – see: my friends circa 2002).  It’s used to other these women, to separate them from the good and deserving women of society.  It implies that these women are less worthy of respect and protection.   It’s an excuse for hurting them and for defending the men who do the hurting.

By separating the “us” from “the sluts” we create a false sense of security.  Even though we’re collectively outraged by a judge and a police officer who come right out and victim blame/slut shame, there are many among us who harbour the same biases against women.  So by calling it Slutwalk, and participating in Slutwalk*, it effectively sends a message that “if she’s a slut, so am I.”  Because “sluts” aren’t real.

So why does it matter if women are called sluts?

I guess it’s a bit like why rape jokes aren’t funny.  Because even if you’re a totally nice guy who wouldn’t actually ever rape someone, there’s a good chance that someone around you thinks you’re serious and that you actually do think rape is okay. (this is a paraphrased idea from Kate Harding and others, but I couldn’t find the right link).  Making rape jokes and using derogatory language like “slut” contributes to our rape culture, and whether you mean to or not, you’re holding up a social norm that says that rape is ok as long as it only happens to bad women.

Slutwalk Toronto Protest sign via @CalamityJennnnn

Until we can get to a point where we don’t think only some women deserve a life free from violence, until we stop thinking that anyone is EVER asking to be hurt, and until we stop defending men who hurt women (whether it is because we like those men/their work, or because we don’t like the women) then we will not stop sexual assault from happening.

Until we stop dividing women into groups, and valuing them based on their perceived purity, actions or sexuality, we will not stop rape from happening.

Until we stop othering women who do not fit into a socially constructed idea of proper (usually white), pure, womanhood  (e.g. “sluts,” sex workers, women of colour, women in developing nations, women who wear short skirts or who go to parties, women who drink, women who use drugs, women who accept rides with strangers or those who accept rides with friends, women who go home with someone at a bar, women who don’t protect themselves from rape in a way that we think they should, etc. etc etc), rape will continue to happen.

So here’s to those women who were brave enough to stand up and say “We aren’t ever asking for it!” and to all the women who continue to fight for a world free of violence.

*I wasn’t part of the march.  I’m not a girl who likes crowds

Update: You should also read this fabulous post on Feministing. “What might appear slutty to one person might appear totally unremarkable to another. In other words, Fagan doesn’t get to define “slutty.” No one gets to define “slutty,” because “slutty” is entirely relative. Which is especially handy for people who want to blame a woman for her own rape, since the “slut” label can be slapped on pretty much any woman, anywhere, at any time!”

This is not my city

Posted on

I didn’t think I’d feel this way.  I didn’t expect to wake up feeling sad and so full of anger and shame. But that was before Rob Ford was elected mayor of a city I thought I loved.

I was sick to my stomach as the results poured in.  My heart was racing. Tears filled by eyes throughout the night.  I sent Ryan out for liquor.

Because once it became a reality – that nearly 400 000 people voted for Rob Ford – it became a symbolic issue not just an issue of taxes and politics.

People keep telling me that it won’t be so bad – he probably won’t get anything done as “mayor” – and that’s what I thought would happen too.

But whether he keeps his promises or not, we still need to deal with the fact that a third of our city voted in favour of bigotry, keeping immigrants out of our city, allowing people to die on our streets, and lies – all in the name of fighting a mythical “gravy train” that runs on inaccurate information.  A vote cast for Rob Ford yesterday was a vote for selfishness and hate.

I probably need to get over it.  There’s nothing to be done. And hey, in 4 years, we’ll just hold another reactionary vote anyway.

But right now I’m grieving.

Why I’m voting for Joe Pantalone

Posted on

To heck with your secret ballots boys, I’m telling.  Barring any horrible pre-October 25th scandals, I’m voting for Joe Pantalone.

The media tells me it’s a waste.  George Smitherman tells me  it’s a vote for Ford. But it’s not. It’s a vote for something I believe in.

I know that Pantalone isn’t perfect.  He’s not nearly enough of a bully to make it work, and he’s disappointed me throughout the campaign by refusing to acknowledge any mistakes – acknowledging the elephants in the room and coming up with a way to kill them would go a long way.  I’m even with my pal Greg who’s angry at Pants for being on the wrong side of the G20 debate (though I was one to call him on his “Joe can’t bike” policies), but Miller also messed that one up and I’d vote for him again too.

Because, at the very least, Miller and Pantalone generally represent what I believe in: complete streets, standing up for Toronto, unions, transit, and building a great city.

I’m not inspired by Pantalone, but I refuse to vote for the opposite of David Miller to make a point.  We need to build on the good things Miller did as mayor, and improve on things he did wrong.  It’s not rocket science.

There are numerous lesser known candidates I could choose from — maybe even some who will promise me subways and great bike lanes.  But while it bugs me that the media picked the big six and refused to let others debate, I was never going to vote for someone for mayor who has zero municipal/election/political experience and can’t even be bothered to put a platform on a website.  Having ideas is great, but until there’s some experience to back it up, I’m not interested.

Realistically, I think Pants will end up as a placeholder for the next Milleresque-left-wing bully.  But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise me.

In any case, my vote for Joe Pantalone is a vote for Joe Pantalone and against George Smitherman because ole’ Furious George has run an insincere campaign.  He worries me more than Rob Ford because his pandering gets confused for charm, and his run for mayor, as Pantalone put it, appears to be nothing more than a “consolation prize.”

Not in my Toronto.

A Letter to Jan Wong

Posted on

Re: “Get off the Road” by Jan Wong (September 2010)

Share the Road Sign by Hey Paul on flickr

Who decided that roads were only for fast-moving cars? Roads are connections between people and neighbourhoods. They’re public spaces.

It’s only fitting that roads be used for cultural events, fundraisers, or street parties – even if it slows people down. Engaging with each other in the streets fosters community.

Street festivals also bring in revenue and showcase the city to tourists. Pride week is estimated to bring in $100 million to the local economy. Caribana infuses more than $400 million into Ontario.

Supporting that doesn’t make me meek, or a caricature of a Canadian. It makes me proud that I love my city enough to want people to experience it, not drive right through.

Get over yourself, Jan. Take the subway, ride a bike, walk, or simply stay home and weed your own lawn. But don’t tell me that only drivers have a right to use our city.

This letter appeared in the November 2010 issue of Toronto Life Magazine.

The Candidates go for a ride

Posted on

“People are people and sometimes we change our minds”  -  Taylor Swift

If you’re Rocco Rossi, you change your mind anytime you smell the opportunity for a vote.

This morning, eight mayoral candidates, (including Rossi, but not including Ford or Smitherman) took a ride around town on two wheels.

Toronto Cyclist's Union Candidates' Ride

Toronto Cyclist's Union Candidates' Ride (photo from TCU)

The press release from the Toronto Cyclists’ Union  was positive: “The 30 minute ride, which stayed within the downtown core, allowed candidates to experience almost the full range of scenarios faced on a daily urban commute by bicycle.”

Except it didn’t.  Not even close.  The candidates were riding in a large group escorted by police– hardly representative of what I go through on my way to work every day.

After the ride, Rossi held a press conference and announced that he is suddenly in favour of physically separated bike lanes on arterial roads!

Rob Ford’s a buffoon. But he’s a sincere buffoon.  He hates cyclists, spending, services and parties.  At least I know where he stands.  I thought I knew where Rossi stood.

When he first announced his candidacy, Rossi had a list of campaign promises clearly defined.  Sure, they went against everything I believe in, but he put ‘em out there for the world to see.  And though I loathed him, a part of me respected him for telling it like it is (in Rossi land).

Rossi now appears desperate. He was endlessly mocked last week for proposing a giant tunnel to downtown, and tried to convert Rob Ford supporters by echoing plans to cut council in half and clean up city hall.  He’s in last place (of the big 5) and has been left to grasp at straws.

BlogTO alternate Rossi Ad  http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/09/create_your_own_rocco_rossi_spoof_ad/

BlogTO alternate Rossi Ad

Rocco Rossi isn’t a leader.  He’s a panderer. I hate panderers.

I hated it when so many of the candidates were desperately seeking suburban car votes, and I hate it now.

Flip-flopping is one thing.  But this is a vote grab — and proof that Rossi doesn’t get it.

He didn’t come out and say he’d made a mistake, or even admit that his threats to paint over the Jarvis bike lanes were unfair and stupid (there’s no gridlock). Either Rossi didn’t believe what he said in the beginning, or he doesn’t believe what he’s saying now.

No dice, Mr. Rossi.  You don’t deserve the cyclist vote. I want safe cycling infrastructure and good policy.  But mostly I want a mayor who can lead.  If you can’t do that, you might as well just be another angry, bald man yelling on the street corner.

The Great Helmet Debate

Posted on

 

Courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/50826080@N00/3995708733/

Courtesy of SFB579 on flickr

The great helmet debate just won’t end.

When a 40-year old Toronto cyclist died last week after falling from his bike and hitting his head, people noticed – at least they noticed he wasn’t wearing a helmet. And so began the most recent battle of “should we” or “shouldn’t we” legislate helmets for adult cyclists.

The local media outlets covered the story. Toronto Police Services issued a press release. Opinions ran wild in the Twitterverse, the loudest screaming “personal choice.”

A CBC Metro Morning debate occurring days later between Yvonne Bambrick, communications director of the Toronto Cyclists’ Union (TCU), and Sgt. Tim Burrows of Traffic Services, made it clear that “choice” is the lynchpin of this argument.

The official position of the TCU is that it “supports and encourages helmet use, but [it] also supports the current laws that allow adults to make that choice.”

The same day, the cycling website BikingToronto.com hosted a forum on helmet use. Site founder Joe Travers had this to say “Helmets save lives, as do safe infrastructure & higher numbers of cyclists. I personally wear one, but don’t fault people who don’t.”

That’s where I get lost.

Lots of things in life should be based on personal choice: who we love, where we live, Team Edward or Team Jacob. But choosing safety is not something we, as a society, have allowed individuals to do for a long time.

Employers are required to abide by WSIB rules to protect workers. We have Canadian Aviation Regulations for flight, and the Highway Traffic Act to rule the road.  We have life jackets in boats, seatbelts in cars, and motorcyclists and e-bike riders (who reach a maximum speed of only 35kmph) must wear helmets.

We are a regulated society and we’ve collectively given the government permission to make these rules. So why are we letting cyclists off the hook?

Maybe it’s because cyclists aren’t taken seriously enough. Maybe it’s because, despite the evidence, not everyone believes that helmets protect cyclists.  But I think it is because people are so busy arguing that helmets aren’t the cure to cycling fatalities that few prominent advocates are willing to stand up and say that helmets are a step in the right direction.

Any advocacy is good for cyclists.  But refusing to actively encourage safety equipment, particularly for inexperienced cyclists, in the name of “choice” is just dumb.

Helmets work. They’re not perfect, but they work.  In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that “riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury … and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury.”

They’re easy, and other than ruining your hairdo, helmets don’t cause harm.

Some people criticize helmets because they won’t do enough if a cyclist is hit by a car, or because they may give some cyclists and drivers a false sense of security.  But I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me that having an extra layer between one’s head and the sidewalk in the event of a fall is not a good idea.

Arguments against legislation often assume helmet laws will deter cycling in the city and, as Bambrick puts it, “make cycling look less safe than it is,” but I don’t buy it.  The automobile industry survived seatbelts and airbags. People still build pools even where they’re required to put a fence up. Our history of regulation shows us that people adapt.

The reality is that cycling isn’t completely safe.  Better infrastructure and education would go a long way in making it better, but we’re not there yet.

So in the meantime, why not protect your head?  If the government believes in consistency, soon you may not have a choice.

Ask a Candidate

Posted on

The following is a question I’ll be sending to the candidates at tonight’s CP24 Mayoral debate.  If you think we deserve an answer, you should send it in too.

A complete streets policy ensures planning for entire roadway keeps all users in mind – including cyclists, public transportation vehicles and pedestrians. Will you commit to keeping all Torontonians safe with policies proper infrastructure even if it slows drivers down? If no, why aren’t all Torontonians equally entitled to safety and enjoyment of their city in your mind?

Torontonians are invited to participate by emailing their questions to now@cp24.com and please include the subject “Your Vote”. You can also tweet your questions and comments to @CP24 with the hashtag #CP24mayor.

My Wish list for a Toronto Mayor

Posted on

From http://www.hope.ac.uk/prospective/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/vote.jpgI want a mayor who supports bike lanes on any road in Toronto. Not just because I’m a cyclist, but because I want a mayor who thinks everyone in the city – not just the ones driving the biggest vehicle – has a right to be protected and to use the city services they pay for.

I want a mayor who thinks that innovation is important and exciting, and who wants to spend money on great city planning, infrastructure, and environmentally friendly ideas.

I want a mayor who loves Toronto – I mean really, really loves Toronto.  Say what you will about Miller (and right now, there’s plenty to say), but that guy loves this city.  I don’t want a mayor who is using this race as a stepping stone towards provincial or federal politics, and I don’t want a mayor who thinks the city should be run as a no frills business.

I want a mayor who has a creative plan to deal with our ridiculous transit system that doesn’t involve privatization.  Selling off assets to someone who wants to run them for a profit has never been successful and is not a viable solution.  But neither is being bullied by a union that has little interest in working with the city.  I’d vote for someone who can do some creative thinking.

I want a mayor who has a campaign platform with more depth than “You said you wanted change and I’m different.”  I want ideas, energy, and planning.

I want a mayor who has an opinion. Politics may be a game where every voter needs to be courted and appeased, but I’m not into that.  Take a stance on tough positions. Stand for something. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Strategy or Conspiracy: The Policing of the G20

Posted on

So maybe I’m being a conspiracy theorist here, but did Toronto Police stand firm in riot lines surrounding the destruction rather than moving in just so that they could eliminate all the protesters at Queen’s Park later?

I wasn’t there, so I certainly can’t speak with any authority, but from all the reports I can gather, something just doesn’t add up.

Let’s look at the reports.

On Friday, OCAP protesters were illegally searched and denied entry to a public park before their protest, and then herded into a small block and prevented from continuing their protest.  From the videos I’ve seen (which I understand only show a fraction of the officers involved) officers pushed people around for no good reason.  You can watch videos here and here.

Yesterday, the day started out OK.  I saw hundreds of determined protesters heading past my window in the rain towards Queen’s Park.

Protesting in the Rain G20 TorontoBut we all knew the violence was coming – it was promised to come – and organizers of the labour rally denounced it and planned to march on through.  We knew it was coming.

And that’s what seems so strange to me.  Sure, it could have been a decoy to corral police into one area while causing shit in another.  But it wasn’t.  The anarchists promised to come and promised to be destructive.

So why then did it take police so long to secure the area where the violence erupted? Why were there only 30 police officers present – as was reported by Craig Kielburger for CBC news — when the first car was lit on fire?  From the news reports and videos, it appeared that the police were trying very hard to contain the area that was being damaged rather than arrest perpetrators.

That seemed like a good idea at the beginning – at least until back-up arrived — but the violence went on for hours. Why wasn’t it stopped?

As the mob moved towards Queen’s Park (the designated “free speech zone”), police began clearing the streets.  It was about time.  Anyone remaining in the riot zone after hours of violence was just being stupid.  I would have expected sweeping arrests there (whether that is right is a different story).  But the police started making arrests at Queen’s Park.

There are reports of tear gas, rubber bullets, and indiscriminate violence.  They were trying to clear all protesters — and anyone in the area — out completely.

Steve Paikin Twitter StatusIf Mr.Calm Steve Paikin says that police are crossing the line, I believe him.

i saw police brutality tonight. it was unnecessary. they asked me to leave the site or they would arrest me. i told them i was dong my job. • they repeated they would arrest me if i didn’t leave. as i was escorted away from the demonstration, i saw two officers hold a journalist. • the journalist identified himself as working for “the guardian.” he talked too much and pissed the police off. two officers held him…. • a third punched him in the stomach. totally unnecessary. the man collapsed. then the third officer drove his elbow into the man’s back. • no cameras recorded the assault. and it was an assault. • the officer who escorted me away from the demo said, “yeah, that shouldn’t have happened.” he is correct. there was no cause for it.

See more on Torontoist including these updates re: violence in Queen’s Park.

8:15 PM: We are hearing scattered reports from our readers about pepper spray in Queen’s Park and an escalation on Queen Street West.

7:39 PM: Some police officers have their batons out now at Queen’s Park, says Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy. At least a few protesters have been hit.

7:24 PM: Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy is among the protesters at Queen’s Park. Police have started charging the crowd, and are dragging some protesters off the scene.

More than 400 people were arrested yesterday including 3 journalists.  It was a very bad day for Toronto, the world, and democracy.

But was it more than that? Could it have been a deliberate attempt to stop free speech? Or maybe the move on Queen’s Park was just to show they had regained control?

I don’t know what it is like to be a police officer in the middle of a riot — especially when police are perceived as the enemy.  And I don’t have the answers.  But I hope the questions continue to be asked.

Peaceful Protests in Toronto

Posted on

As I watch the carnage at Bay and King in Toronto right now, I just hope that people understand that “anarchists” are not the same as “protesters.”  I spent the morning watching thousands of peaceful protesters march for issues that matter to them.  But what will be remembered now is the violence.

So in honour of the people who protest in peace, here are some peaceful pictures.

Girl in the Red Hat Protesting at Toronto G20

Girl in the Red Hat Protesting at Toronto G20

Mother and child walk in protest

This Kid Means Business: Mother and child walk in protest at labour march Toronto G20

Greenpeace Protesters

Greenpeace Protesters at labour rally Toronto G20

RainyDayProtestersG20

Rainy Day Protesters G20 Toronto labour rally

Protesters Young and Old G20 Labour Rally

Protesters Young and Old G20 Labour Rally

Fiasco!

Posted on
Capitalism Isn't Working http://www.flickr.com/photos/velsfi/

Courtesy of stuff_and_nonsense on flickr

fi·as·co
–noun,plural-cos, -coes.
1.  a complete and ignominious failure.

It’s been said MANY times already, but putting the G20 summit in the centre of Canada’s biggest city is one of the dumbest things that Stephen Harper has ever done (Fake Lake falls under the umbrella).  And if it weren’t for [what I hope to be] the massive fallout over the enormous waste of money, I’d think he put it here just to punish us.

As if it weren’t bad enough that a 10 foot fence, at a cost of $5.5 million, and an illegal security company will prevent Torontonians from actually using their own city, the place will be virtually shut-down anyway.  I can’t fly a kite.  I can’t go to the CN tower or a baseball game.  Oh yeah, and I won’t be able to call anyone if something goes wrong because my cell-phone signal will be jammed.

The weekend is approaching quickly, and everyday something new and stupid is revealed.

The G20 brings out protestors with good reason.  It’s a chance for people to get the attention (at least, in theory) of the most powerful world leaders, and raise awareness of important issues like poverty, foreign aid, and the state of the world economy.

But with all the crap that Torontonians will need to put up with, I won’t be surprised if people come out to protest the waste of money, excessive security, and loss of freedom.

Frankly, the summit fiasco is enough to warrant protest.  But will this overshadow essential world issues that need attention?

Time will tell.  But so far, the media has been distracted with the small stuff.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers