I had planned to append an apology to the end of this column, which was supposed to be about city councillors forcing one of their own, Councillor Rob Ford, to spend more of taxpayers' money.
It would have read, "Sorry for the rhetorical excess at the end of my column last Friday. Obviously, the suggestion to hang our councillors in Nathan Phillips Square was an attempt at satire, a statement made in jest. While the majority of readers took it that way, my apologies to those who felt hurt by it."
But then Mayor David Miller inserted his hectoring presence into the debate – and before you know it, a rhetorical hanging became a "public lynching," the memory of his "Uncle Jim" is exhumed and he has concluded that the very foundation of democracy is being threatened by one columnist raging against city hall spending.
As they say in basketball, no harm no foul. At issue is not whether Toronto councillors deserve to be hanged (I'm against capital punishment, banned in Canada), subjected to public flogging (opposed wherever it's practised), or run out of office (we've just elected them, they're in until 2010). At issue is how do we register our disgust – sorry, our displeasure – at their fiscal indiscretions.
A number of readers have emailed concern about the mayor's "over the top" rhetoric. Some, mine. Others fear I'll be beaten (metaphorically?) into submission, afraid to utter a single contrarian view in future. My bosses, far from moving to censure me, are more concerned that I might be "chilled" into overlooking wasteful habits as council embarks on this crucial 2008 budget cycle.
No worries. Let's just use the mayor's letter to the editor Saturday as the template for all further analysis and critique of city hall. Surely, an ink-stained wretch is allowed to borrow the mayor's own carefully crafted words.
A cursory glance at the mayor's letter, dripping with bile and bluster, reveals no cause for concern that one's criticism must now be facile, gracious or temperate. The mayor provides a list of choice adjectives and phrases that might now be at a columnist's disposal.
Appropriating the title of ombudsman, editor and publisher – in addition to chief magistrate and monarch – in an attempt to control all propaganda, er, communications in Hogtown, the official list of approved words and phrases include: "Beneath contempt," "Shows absolutely no respect for democracy," "stoop so low," "outrageous thoughts," "beyond belief," "hateful ruminations," "absolutely offensive," "loathsome advocacy."
With the mayor's imprimatur, one can safely use such words without incurring his "hateful ruminations."
Today, his hand-picked executive committee is to consider a report from the integrity commissioner slapping Ford on the wrist for not listing how much of his own money the councillor spends in lieu of using city funds. Ford should comply and file with the clerk every penny of his own money he spends on city business. The reasons are too lengthy to list here. Then, he should ask his colleagues to have the auditor and integrity commissioner investigate what exactly council members spend their $53,100 office budget on.
Go to robford.ca and ask yourself: Is the spending on liquor, wine, food, sports teams, etc. appropriate for a city that is hurting for cash?
Or would you describe what you see, using only the mayor's words, as: a) "Beneath contempt," b) "Shows absolutely no respect for democracy," c) "Outrageous", d) "Beyond belief," e) "Absolutely offensive," f) "Loathsome advocacy."
Knock yourself out. We're allowed to use these words. Publisher Miller says so.
No comments:
Post a Comment