备战六月，赶走韦恩

x5 说:
大麻和痞子也就半斤八两，我看那痞子八成就是吃大麻长大的，你在这跳什么跳？开口闭口就吃药，我刺激你了？我不喜欢神父的观点，也不喜欢神父老玩那复活的游戏，但神父还很少出口伤人，你叫神父捡砖，那不是让神父降格吗？
点击展开...
估计他吃药成习惯，所以就以己度人了
 
New Person 说:
这年头流行痞子当道，个人秉性不重要。只要能够忽悠那些失落者和不满者就行。
点击展开...
胖哥那股劲对付老妖婆再合适没有了！:D
 
阿土仔 说:
胖哥那股劲对付老妖婆再合适没有了！:D
点击展开...
到时候有好戏看，估计各种attack ads会漫天飞，比如把以前一些关于F领导和他兄弟的新闻改编一下大概就行了
 
uglyducking 说:
广大吃救助地段人口都聚集在那里，都选自由党NDP:monster:
点击展开...

Ontario election agenda: What you need to know for March 15
Doug Ford continues to make big promises and bold predictions as the Tories enjoy a healthy lead in the polls
Published on Mar 15, 2018
by Daniel Kitts

Ford%20media2.JPG

Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford has promised to reduce the size of government by $6 billion without cutting public-sector jobs. (Chris Young/CP)

Here’s our daily look at what’s making news in the lead-up to the next provincial election.

https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...ion-agenda-what-you-need-to-know-for-march-15
 
At least the Ontario election won’t be boring
By L. Ian MacDonald. Published on Mar 12, 2018 9:50pm

DEA4505-1200x675.jpg
Cartoon by Michael de Adder
Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
"Wynne has already spoken of the “stark” contrast between her brand and his. But Ford, quite smartly spoke respectfully of her Sunday as a good campaigner and debater, pointedly adding she hadn’t yet debated him. "

---

Christine Elliott won the popular vote 52 to 48 per cent over Doug Ford in the third round of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership race. She also won 64 ridings to his 60 on the last ballot. But because all ridings had 100 points divided by vote share on the weighted preferential ballot, Ford edged out Elliott by 50.6 to 49.4 per cent.

The margin couldn’t have been thinner — Ford won by 153 points: 6,202 points to 6,049. Had Elliott received just 77 more points, she would have won.

But it wasn’t because of voting irregularities, such as members voting under wrong postal codes, that Elliott lost. She lost because not enough of Caroline Mulroney’s supporters moved to her on the last ballot. After Mulroney was eliminated with 18 per cent of the points on the second ballot, 75 per cent of her supporters moved to Elliott on the third ballot.

Many of her remaining supporters simply abstained.

Consider — while the PCPO website says 63,545 party members voted on the second round, only 62,243 expressed a preference between Ford and Elliott on the third ballot. That means 1,203 PC members abstained. And virtually all of them were clearly supporters of Caroline.

(By way of disclosure, and to state the obvious, I’ve known Caroline Mulroney her entire life. And Christine Elliott’s late husband, Jim Flaherty, was my oldest friend from high school days, and I spent many evenings at their home in Whitby, a splendidly restored 19th century stone farmhouse where they raised their triplet sons.)

It should also be noted that Tanya Granic Allen won a surprisingly strong 15 per cent, or 1,882 points on the first ballot.

While she started out as a one-issue candidate, the sex-ed lady, she exceeded expectations in the two debates, and also showed she had a strong retail game. Fully 83 per cent of her votes went to Ford on the second ballot, according to CBC polling analyst Eric Grenier, which proved to be the margin of his victory.

The weighted ballot is a legacy of the merger between the federal Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance in 2003. Peter MacKay, then leader of the PCs, insisted that all ridings be created equal going into the 2004 leadership campaign won by Stephen Harper. For MacKay and the PCs, this was a deal-breaker in the merger, and Harper understood that mainstream Conservatives didn’t want to be swamped by the former Reform crowd from western Canada.

Pre-marked preferential ballots may not be a problem at political conventions, but they’ve taken a lot of enjoyment out of them. Delegated conventions were a lot more suspenseful, and a lot more fun.

The ranked pre-voting wasn’t the issue at Saturday’s Conservative meeting, which for hours begged the question of how the PCs could run an $800 billion economy if they couldn’t manage a vote announcement. It went on for four hours before a party official announced they had lost the hall in Markham, asked supporters to leave the room, and was roundly booed for his trouble. (For four long hours, CBC’s Rosemary Barton and TVO’s Steve Paikin called the equivalent of a rain delay in baseball in terms for which Montreal Expos announcer Dave Van Horne was famous.)

The Conservatives limited the damage from Saturday’s chaotic event by announcing Ford as the winner by evening’s end, rather than making it an overnight disaster, and closed the case when Elliott sensibly accepted the result and rallied to Ford’s side on Sunday evening.

And while the Ontario PCs didn’t get a convention bounce out of the Saturday shambles, it doesn’t appear to have hurt them, either. An overnight poll by Forum Research in Monday’s Toronto Star put the PCs at 44 per cent, the NDP at 27 per cent and the Liberals at 23 per cent. That’s majority territory, big-time, for the blue team.

Indeed, in spite of the chaos engulfing the Ontario Conservatives since Patrick Brown’s resignation six weeks ago, their polling numbers looking to the June 7 general election haven’t gone south at all since then.

Which tells us two things. This is a change election, after 15 years of Liberal rule. More than that, it may well be a throw-the-bums-out election. You can change the narrative of the first ballot question but not the second, as we saw with the federal Liberals in 2006, the Alberta Conservatives and federal Conservatives in 2015.

Even worse for the Ontario Liberals, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s approval ratings are in the low 20s, and you don’t win elections from there. But the Liberals will take some comfort from Ford’s 48 per cent disapproval rating in the Forum poll, with only 36 per cent approving of the new PC leader.

Clearly many mainstream Ontario voters are concerned about Ford’s right wing populism. The Liberals will try to portray him as “Trump North”, though he is obviously nothing of the sort on issues such as immigration. Wynne has already spoken of the “stark” contrast between her brand and his. But Ford, quite smartly spoke respectfully of her Sunday as a good campaigner and debater, pointedly adding she hadn’t yet debated him. Not a bad point. In the second Conservative leadership debate, he proved he could deliver a punch against Elliott, which might have been the defining moment of the campaign. He also showed that night in Ottawa that he works a room very well.

Moreover, winning 60 ridings in the leadership race, he clearly grew his campaign from suburban 905 in Toronto to southern, northern and rural eastern Ontario.

The Liberals have already put some interesting policies in the window — free meds for people under 25, the $15-an-hour minimum wage, and free tuition for university students from poor families. There are some very smart people in the Liberal war room, starting with pollster David Herle.

But this is a different campaign than the one the Liberals were looking at when they assumed Elliott would be their opponent. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/12/at-least-the-ontario-election-wont-be-boring/
 
New Person 说:
不知道Doug Ford是不是用大麻， 但是他的brother Rob Ford的DRUNG问题很大。不过Rob Ford得执政能力还不错。Doug Ford只当过几年市议员。
点击展开...
查了查，还真有DOUG FORD和大麻的报道。
Globe investigation: The Ford family’s history with drug dealing
This investigative report reveals that:
  • Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s.
  • Another brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping.
  • Their sister, Kathy, has been the victim of drug-related gun violence.
In the 1980s, anyone wanting to buy hashish had to know where to go. And in central Etobicoke, the wealthy Toronto suburb where Mayor Rob Ford grew up, one of those places was James Gardens. In the evening, the sports cars often wound along Edenbridge Drive, past the gated homes and the lawn-bowling pitches, until they reached the U-shaped parking lot. By nightfall, the public park was a hash drive-thru. One former street dealer, whom we will call "Justin," described the scene as "an assembly line."

There were usually a number of dealers to choose from, some of them supplied by a mainstay at James Gardens – a young man with the hulk-like frame and mop of bright blond hair: Doug Ford. "Most people didn't approach Doug looking for product. You went to the guys that he supplied. Because if Doug didn't know you and trust you, he wouldn't even roll down his window," Justin said.
Today, Mr. Ford is a member of Toronto's city council – and no ordinary councillor. First elected in 2010 as his brother was swept into the mayor's office, he has emerged as a truly powerful figure at City Hall –– trying to overhaul plans for Toronto's waterfront less than a year after arriving. He also has higher aspirations, and has said he wants to follow in the footsteps of his father, Doug Ford Sr., by running in the next provincial election as a Conservative.

Meanwhile, he serves as his brother's de facto spokesman. As Toronto is gripped by allegations that its mayor was captured on a homemade video smoking what appears to be crack cocaine and his office descends into disarray – his chief of staff was fired on Thursday – Doug Ford has been the only person to mount a spirited public defence of his largely silent sibling. On Friday, after the Mayor finally made a statement about the accusation, he was the one who fielded questions from the press.


Well before the events of the past week, The Globe and Mail began to research the Ford brothers in an effort to chronicle their lives before rising to prominence in Canada's largest city. Over the past 18 months, it has sought out and interviewed dozens of people who knew them in their formative years.

What has emerged is a portrait of a family once deeply immersed in the illegal drug scene. All three of the mayor's older siblings – brother Randy, 51, and sister Kathy, 52, as well as Doug, 48 – have had ties to drug traffickers.

Ten people who grew up with Doug Ford – a group that includes two former hashish suppliers, three street-level drug dealers and a number of casual users of hash – have described in a series of interviews how for several years Mr. Ford was a go-to dealer of hash. These sources had varying degrees of knowledge of his activities: Some said they purchased hash directly from him, some said they supplied him, while others said they observed him handling large quantities of the drug.

The events they described took place years ago, but as mayor, Rob Ford has surrounded himself with people from his past. Most recently he hired someone for his office whose long history with the Fords, the sources said, includes selling hashish with the mayor's brother.

The Globe wrote to Doug Ford outlining what the sources said about him, and received a response from Gavin Tighe, his lawyer, who said the allegations were false. "Your references to unnamed alleged sources of information represent the height of irresponsible and unprofessional journalism given the gravely serious and specious allegations of substantial criminal conduct."
 
New Person 说:
查了查，还真有DOUG FORD和大麻的报道。
Globe investigation: The Ford family’s history with drug dealing
This investigative report reveals that:
  • Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s.
  • Another brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping.
  • Their sister, Kathy, has been the victim of drug-related gun violence.
In the 1980s, anyone wanting to buy hashish had to know where to go. And in central Etobicoke, the wealthy Toronto suburb where Mayor Rob Ford grew up, one of those places was James Gardens. In the evening, the sports cars often wound along Edenbridge Drive, past the gated homes and the lawn-bowling pitches, until they reached the U-shaped parking lot. By nightfall, the public park was a hash drive-thru. One former street dealer, whom we will call "Justin," described the scene as "an assembly line."

There were usually a number of dealers to choose from, some of them supplied by a mainstay at James Gardens – a young man with the hulk-like frame and mop of bright blond hair: Doug Ford. "Most people didn't approach Doug looking for product. You went to the guys that he supplied. Because if Doug didn't know you and trust you, he wouldn't even roll down his window," Justin said.
Today, Mr. Ford is a member of Toronto's city council – and no ordinary councillor. First elected in 2010 as his brother was swept into the mayor's office, he has emerged as a truly powerful figure at City Hall –– trying to overhaul plans for Toronto's waterfront less than a year after arriving. He also has higher aspirations, and has said he wants to follow in the footsteps of his father, Doug Ford Sr., by running in the next provincial election as a Conservative.

Meanwhile, he serves as his brother's de facto spokesman. As Toronto is gripped by allegations that its mayor was captured on a homemade video smoking what appears to be crack cocaine and his office descends into disarray – his chief of staff was fired on Thursday – Doug Ford has been the only person to mount a spirited public defence of his largely silent sibling. On Friday, after the Mayor finally made a statement about the accusation, he was the one who fielded questions from the press.


Well before the events of the past week, The Globe and Mail began to research the Ford brothers in an effort to chronicle their lives before rising to prominence in Canada's largest city. Over the past 18 months, it has sought out and interviewed dozens of people who knew them in their formative years.

What has emerged is a portrait of a family once deeply immersed in the illegal drug scene. All three of the mayor's older siblings – brother Randy, 51, and sister Kathy, 52, as well as Doug, 48 – have had ties to drug traffickers.

Ten people who grew up with Doug Ford – a group that includes two former hashish suppliers, three street-level drug dealers and a number of casual users of hash – have described in a series of interviews how for several years Mr. Ford was a go-to dealer of hash. These sources had varying degrees of knowledge of his activities: Some said they purchased hash directly from him, some said they supplied him, while others said they observed him handling large quantities of the drug.

The events they described took place years ago, but as mayor, Rob Ford has surrounded himself with people from his past. Most recently he hired someone for his office whose long history with the Fords, the sources said, includes selling hashish with the mayor's brother.

The Globe wrote to Doug Ford outlining what the sources said about him, and received a response from Gavin Tighe, his lawyer, who said the allegations were false. "Your references to unnamed alleged sources of information represent the height of irresponsible and unprofessional journalism given the gravely serious and specious allegations of substantial criminal conduct."
点击展开...


Doug Ford drug story: Statement by Globe and Mail editor John Stackhouse
Tues., Sept. 10, 2013

The following is a statement by The Globe and Mail to the Ontario Press Council Sept. 9, 2013. The Globe and the Toronto Star were asked to respond to complaints about stories on Mayor Rob Ford and his brother Councillor Doug Ford.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail. With me here is Sinclair Stewart, The Globe and Mail’s Editor of News and Sports, and Greg McArthur, an investigative reporter and the lead writer of the article that we have been called to discuss today.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you and the Press Council for convening this hearing. And Ms. Harrison, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important questions around the use of anonymous sources. I will speak to the principles and practices of our journalism, to our approach to the story being discussed today, and to the four questions raised by the Ontario Press Council.

As you know, unlike some newspapers, The Globe and Mail is a voluntary member of the Ontario Press Council and we believe in and have invested in the transparency of our journalism and how it is crafted. We have a public Code of Conduct and a senior position of Public Editor, who deals with such issues raised by readers. The Globe and Mail has very high standards for its work and we are happy to have this opportunity to explain those.

Article Continued Below
Journalists in a democracy play a vital role in bringing stories of public interest to light and I am proud of the work our journalists have done. This story, at its heart, is about the actions and background of a public figure who has much power and responsibility over the lives of our readers and the functioning of this city. This story met a very high standard of public interest, which I will explain, and was subjected to the most rigorous standards of reporting that we could apply, including repeated efforts to get a response from members of the Ford family, multiple interviews with key sources and additional, corroborative interviews with those sources by senior editors and legal counsel, all over an 18-month period. I am proud of those standards, the rigorous process applied to this work of investigative reporting, and the outstanding and important journalism that it produced.

While we understand that some people don’t like critical stories written about politicians or other community leaders, it is the responsibility of journalists to document facts that perhaps those leaders don’t want to be known. Public leaders have many opportunities to tell their story and those stories are covered as well, but the voting public and society at large needs to know much more than what elected officials want published. Ultimately it is up to the public to decide what to do with the information, but journalists need to be impartial witnesses and publish as much reasonable and defensible information as they can so that citizens, who do not have access to the same resources to question and challenge authority, can make up their own minds.

Ms. Harrison said this article could be used in a partisan way. It is important to note that there were no motives, partisan or otherwise, in our work. In fact, unlike some media, we have written positively as well as critically about the Fords, and have even, in the past year, published an article by Doug Ford on the issue of public transit. Our work on this story was driven only by the principles of full disclosure in matters of public concern, of which the commercial trafficking or drugs surely is one.


Mr. Chairman, this investigation began, as much great journalism does, with some simple questions about public officials. Our reporters and editors wanted to better understand the newly elected mayor, his powerful brother and the events that shaped them. We did not start research on this story with any expectation, especially that it would become about Doug Ford’s ties to the drug trade. Surprisingly, at the time, there was little information on the public record about the Fords’ family background. This was especially curious given Rob and Doug Fords’ repeated statements about their family’s integrity, and given that family’s long and admirable history in public life.

Starting in late 2011, our reporting began to explore that family background, and the more people we spoke with, the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings, and that they were known for that amongst their peer group in central Etobicoke. Given the serious public concern about drug trafficking in Toronto, and given Doug Ford’s own statements against the drug trade, we felt this information was irrefutably in the public interest.

The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous. Of course, this panel understands the role of the Canadian constitution in the use of anonymous sources, but perhaps it is worth repeating for the public record that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated its views about the press and its constitutionally-mandated role under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In two recent important court cases, both involving direct and active efforts by The Globe and Mail, our courts have recognized the benefit to the public of the media using anonymous sources to tell stories that are in the public interest. In 2010, hearing a case about The Globe and Mail and its coverage of the so-called sponsorship saga, the Supreme Court bolstered the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources. Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel said “some form of legal protection for the confidential relationship between journalists and their anonymous sources is required.”

Earlier this year, in a separate case involving our coverage of a corporate takeover battle, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that The Globe and Mail should not be forced to identify confidential sources. That court said: “The public interest in free expression must always be weighed heavily in the balance.”

In addition to the law, The Globe and Mail has its own published Code of Conduct, written by senior staff and approved by the publisher. It states that anonymous sources may be used when they convey important information that cannot be obtained for attribution elsewhere and when they are not used to voice opinions or ad hominem attacks.

The importance to our democracy of confidential and anonymous sources cannot be overstated. As the Supreme Court of Canada recognized in a case involving the National Post – a case in which The Globe and Mail played a significant, supporting role – many important matters of public concern were revealed only because of secret sources, often internal whistleblowers. Those cases included:

1. The tainted tuna scandal of the mid-1980s, which led to the resignation of the federal Minister of Fisheries.

2. The story that Airbus Industrie paid secret commissions in the sale of Airbus aircraft.

3. Stories dealing with the City of Toronto’s health inspection system for restaurants.

4. Stories about the fall of Nortel Networks that contrasted optimistic public forecasts by company executives with internal discussions warning of a potential devastating market downturn.

Each of these stories based on anonymous sources is unique, yet each one offers information that is demonstrably in the public interest and therefore necessitates the use of unnamed sources.

Let me turn to the four questions you have asked.

1. Did the article deal with a matter that is in the public interest?

Yes, absolutely. This point was discussed by senior editors in numerous meetings before there was a decision to publish. Doug and Rob Ford have great responsibility in the City of Toronto. While Doug Ford is a city councillor, an important role in its own right, he additionally wields much power as a close, perhaps the closest advisor, to the mayor. He often speaks for the mayor, and for the city. Further, he has expressed an intention to run for provincial office as a member of the Ontario legislature and has publicly challenged the Premier. Doug and Rob Ford have influence over wide areas of public life, from taxes and budgets to transit and policing. They have campaigned on anti-drug platforms and have spoken about the need to stop drug-related crimes without acknowledging their family’s history with the drug trade. Rather, they have campaigned on the good works of the Ford family, and what the Ford name means to the city. City council and the society at large, we believe, need to understand the background of their leaders. They need to know that the story of the Ford family is more complex than the family itself has promoted, and that the facts of that story pose questions about their independence to take on the drug trade.

2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?

This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.

Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.

After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.

Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information.

3. Was Mr. Doug Ford given adequate notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond and did the newspaper include that response in its reporting?

Yes. Rob and Doug Ford (representing his family as well), were approached numerous times, directly and through spokespeople or legal counsel, and they declined to respond to interview requests. A senior editor visited Doug Ford privately, well before publication. After that meeting, more interview requests were made, and again, Doug Ford declined to respond. Throughout the reporting process, Doug Ford threatened legal action. As the article says, “The Globe wrote to Doug Ford outlining what the sources said about him, and received a response from Gavin Tighe, his lawyer, who said simply that the allegations were false.” After publication, The Globe published two articles and one video in which Doug Ford denied the allegations. The Globe and Mail has quoted him at every opportunity and made every effort to obtain his statements.

It is perhaps worth noting here that despite off-hand denials of the story’s central facts, no formal effort, to our knowledge, has been made to refute the story, and that the standard channels for redress, up to and including the public courts, have not been sought.

4. Was it appropriate for the newspaper to include references to other members of the Ford family?

The Globe and Mail did not arbitrarily decide to make Doug Ford’s family and siblings a significant part of his political biography; Doug Ford made his family the centrepiece of that biography. As it says in the article, the Ward 2 Councillor repeatedly cites his family’s contributions to the community when promoting the Fords as a political brand. On his website, it says: “Doug Ford and the Ford family have been lifelong residents of Etobicoke, where they have been highly involved members of the community.” Or while campaigning, he has said: “I’m not here to hide that the Fords have given back to the community for 55 years” and “When my neighbour calls me, I’m standing at their front door. I would never let our reputation down as a family.”

What our research found is, Doug Ford’s version of his family’s reputation is inconsistent with the recollections of many people who grew up with the four Ford siblings. When it became clear during the research that Doug Ford’s description of his family was seriously incomplete, there was an obligation to set the record straight.

As to Randy Ford, his story is inextricably linked to Doug Ford’s. Almost every source with knowledge of Etobicoke’s drug scene in the 1980s raised Randy’s history when asked about Doug. Randy’s reputation for violence was cited by several sources as one of the reasons people were fearful about standing up to the Fords at that time. The Fords have publicly involved Randy in their campaign, posing with him in photographs and bringing him along for a campaign-style tour with a Toronto Star reporter. As for Kathy, her troubled past cannot be ignored. Furthermore, much of it was already on the public record. In January, 2012, her long-time boyfriend and a convicted drug dealer was accused of bursting into the mayor’s home and threatening to kill him. When Rob Ford was a city councillor in 2005, Kathy Ford was shot in the face.

The background of the siblings is highly relevant in both cases. As is established in our story and elsewhere, the Ford siblings are close, and have exceptional influence on one another. This is a material relationship, in our view, for the mayor and his councillor-brother.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the council again for giving us this opportunity to explain our journalism in a public and neutral forum.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the following:

– the facts established in our reporting are extremely serious and important to the people of this city, especially now when the public and its police force are facing evidence of an extensive drug trafficking network in northwest Toronto.

– the facts printed in the Globe could be corroborated only through anonymous sources, and was done so through extraordinary and extensive interviewing by our staff and lawyers.

– the use of such sources has been accepted by the courts of Canada, and is established in our published code of conduct.

– even for those concerned about the use of anonymous sources, the only serious alternative – that is, to not publish the story – would have been irresponsible, journalistically and civically. It is up to the people of this city to decide who their leaders are, but it is up to the media to give that public as complete and accurate information as they can. That is what we did, and what we will continue to strive to do, with the diligence, integrity and public concern that The Globe and Mail is known for.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain our work.

We look forward to further questions.
 
我不相信Ford 会赢。
ccc 说:
Doug Ford drug story: Statement by Globe and Mail editor John Stackhouse
Tues., Sept. 10, 2013

The following is a statement by The Globe and Mail to the Ontario Press Council Sept. 9, 2013. The Globe and the Toronto Star were asked to respond to complaints about stories on Mayor Rob Ford and his brother Councillor Doug Ford.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail. With me here is Sinclair Stewart, The Globe and Mail’s Editor of News and Sports, and Greg McArthur, an investigative reporter and the lead writer of the article that we have been called to discuss today.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you and the Press Council for convening this hearing. And Ms. Harrison, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important questions around the use of anonymous sources. I will speak to the principles and practices of our journalism, to our approach to the story being discussed today, and to the four questions raised by the Ontario Press Council.

As you know, unlike some newspapers, The Globe and Mail is a voluntary member of the Ontario Press Council and we believe in and have invested in the transparency of our journalism and how it is crafted. We have a public Code of Conduct and a senior position of Public Editor, who deals with such issues raised by readers. The Globe and Mail has very high standards for its work and we are happy to have this opportunity to explain those.

Article Continued Below
Journalists in a democracy play a vital role in bringing stories of public interest to light and I am proud of the work our journalists have done. This story, at its heart, is about the actions and background of a public figure who has much power and responsibility over the lives of our readers and the functioning of this city. This story met a very high standard of public interest, which I will explain, and was subjected to the most rigorous standards of reporting that we could apply, including repeated efforts to get a response from members of the Ford family, multiple interviews with key sources and additional, corroborative interviews with those sources by senior editors and legal counsel, all over an 18-month period. I am proud of those standards, the rigorous process applied to this work of investigative reporting, and the outstanding and important journalism that it produced.

While we understand that some people don’t like critical stories written about politicians or other community leaders, it is the responsibility of journalists to document facts that perhaps those leaders don’t want to be known. Public leaders have many opportunities to tell their story and those stories are covered as well, but the voting public and society at large needs to know much more than what elected officials want published. Ultimately it is up to the public to decide what to do with the information, but journalists need to be impartial witnesses and publish as much reasonable and defensible information as they can so that citizens, who do not have access to the same resources to question and challenge authority, can make up their own minds.

Ms. Harrison said this article could be used in a partisan way. It is important to note that there were no motives, partisan or otherwise, in our work. In fact, unlike some media, we have written positively as well as critically about the Fords, and have even, in the past year, published an article by Doug Ford on the issue of public transit. Our work on this story was driven only by the principles of full disclosure in matters of public concern, of which the commercial trafficking or drugs surely is one.


Mr. Chairman, this investigation began, as much great journalism does, with some simple questions about public officials. Our reporters and editors wanted to better understand the newly elected mayor, his powerful brother and the events that shaped them. We did not start research on this story with any expectation, especially that it would become about Doug Ford’s ties to the drug trade. Surprisingly, at the time, there was little information on the public record about the Fords’ family background. This was especially curious given Rob and Doug Fords’ repeated statements about their family’s integrity, and given that family’s long and admirable history in public life.

Starting in late 2011, our reporting began to explore that family background, and the more people we spoke with, the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings, and that they were known for that amongst their peer group in central Etobicoke. Given the serious public concern about drug trafficking in Toronto, and given Doug Ford’s own statements against the drug trade, we felt this information was irrefutably in the public interest.

The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous. Of course, this panel understands the role of the Canadian constitution in the use of anonymous sources, but perhaps it is worth repeating for the public record that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated its views about the press and its constitutionally-mandated role under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In two recent important court cases, both involving direct and active efforts by The Globe and Mail, our courts have recognized the benefit to the public of the media using anonymous sources to tell stories that are in the public interest. In 2010, hearing a case about The Globe and Mail and its coverage of the so-called sponsorship saga, the Supreme Court bolstered the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources. Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel said “some form of legal protection for the confidential relationship between journalists and their anonymous sources is required.”

Earlier this year, in a separate case involving our coverage of a corporate takeover battle, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that The Globe and Mail should not be forced to identify confidential sources. That court said: “The public interest in free expression must always be weighed heavily in the balance.”

In addition to the law, The Globe and Mail has its own published Code of Conduct, written by senior staff and approved by the publisher. It states that anonymous sources may be used when they convey important information that cannot be obtained for attribution elsewhere and when they are not used to voice opinions or ad hominem attacks.

The importance to our democracy of confidential and anonymous sources cannot be overstated. As the Supreme Court of Canada recognized in a case involving the National Post – a case in which The Globe and Mail played a significant, supporting role – many important matters of public concern were revealed only because of secret sources, often internal whistleblowers. Those cases included:

1. The tainted tuna scandal of the mid-1980s, which led to the resignation of the federal Minister of Fisheries.

2. The story that Airbus Industrie paid secret commissions in the sale of Airbus aircraft.

3. Stories dealing with the City of Toronto’s health inspection system for restaurants.

4. Stories about the fall of Nortel Networks that contrasted optimistic public forecasts by company executives with internal discussions warning of a potential devastating market downturn.

Each of these stories based on anonymous sources is unique, yet each one offers information that is demonstrably in the public interest and therefore necessitates the use of unnamed sources.

Let me turn to the four questions you have asked.

1. Did the article deal with a matter that is in the public interest?

Yes, absolutely. This point was discussed by senior editors in numerous meetings before there was a decision to publish. Doug and Rob Ford have great responsibility in the City of Toronto. While Doug Ford is a city councillor, an important role in its own right, he additionally wields much power as a close, perhaps the closest advisor, to the mayor. He often speaks for the mayor, and for the city. Further, he has expressed an intention to run for provincial office as a member of the Ontario legislature and has publicly challenged the Premier. Doug and Rob Ford have influence over wide areas of public life, from taxes and budgets to transit and policing. They have campaigned on anti-drug platforms and have spoken about the need to stop drug-related crimes without acknowledging their family’s history with the drug trade. Rather, they have campaigned on the good works of the Ford family, and what the Ford name means to the city. City council and the society at large, we believe, need to understand the background of their leaders. They need to know that the story of the Ford family is more complex than the family itself has promoted, and that the facts of that story pose questions about their independence to take on the drug trade.

2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?

This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.

Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.

After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.

Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information.

3. Was Mr. Doug Ford given adequate notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond and did the newspaper include that response in its reporting?

Yes. Rob and Doug Ford (representing his family as well), were approached numerous times, directly and through spokespeople or legal counsel, and they declined to respond to interview requests. A senior editor visited Doug Ford privately, well before publication. After that meeting, more interview requests were made, and again, Doug Ford declined to respond. Throughout the reporting process, Doug Ford threatened legal action. As the article says, “The Globe wrote to Doug Ford outlining what the sources said about him, and received a response from Gavin Tighe, his lawyer, who said simply that the allegations were false.” After publication, The Globe published two articles and one video in which Doug Ford denied the allegations. The Globe and Mail has quoted him at every opportunity and made every effort to obtain his statements.

It is perhaps worth noting here that despite off-hand denials of the story’s central facts, no formal effort, to our knowledge, has been made to refute the story, and that the standard channels for redress, up to and including the public courts, have not been sought.

4. Was it appropriate for the newspaper to include references to other members of the Ford family?

The Globe and Mail did not arbitrarily decide to make Doug Ford’s family and siblings a significant part of his political biography; Doug Ford made his family the centrepiece of that biography. As it says in the article, the Ward 2 Councillor repeatedly cites his family’s contributions to the community when promoting the Fords as a political brand. On his website, it says: “Doug Ford and the Ford family have been lifelong residents of Etobicoke, where they have been highly involved members of the community.” Or while campaigning, he has said: “I’m not here to hide that the Fords have given back to the community for 55 years” and “When my neighbour calls me, I’m standing at their front door. I would never let our reputation down as a family.”

What our research found is, Doug Ford’s version of his family’s reputation is inconsistent with the recollections of many people who grew up with the four Ford siblings. When it became clear during the research that Doug Ford’s description of his family was seriously incomplete, there was an obligation to set the record straight.

As to Randy Ford, his story is inextricably linked to Doug Ford’s. Almost every source with knowledge of Etobicoke’s drug scene in the 1980s raised Randy’s history when asked about Doug. Randy’s reputation for violence was cited by several sources as one of the reasons people were fearful about standing up to the Fords at that time. The Fords have publicly involved Randy in their campaign, posing with him in photographs and bringing him along for a campaign-style tour with a Toronto Star reporter. As for Kathy, her troubled past cannot be ignored. Furthermore, much of it was already on the public record. In January, 2012, her long-time boyfriend and a convicted drug dealer was accused of bursting into the mayor’s home and threatening to kill him. When Rob Ford was a city councillor in 2005, Kathy Ford was shot in the face.

The background of the siblings is highly relevant in both cases. As is established in our story and elsewhere, the Ford siblings are close, and have exceptional influence on one another. This is a material relationship, in our view, for the mayor and his councillor-brother.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the council again for giving us this opportunity to explain our journalism in a public and neutral forum.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the following:

– the facts established in our reporting are extremely serious and important to the people of this city, especially now when the public and its police force are facing evidence of an extensive drug trafficking network in northwest Toronto.

– the facts printed in the Globe could be corroborated only through anonymous sources, and was done so through extraordinary and extensive interviewing by our staff and lawyers.

– the use of such sources has been accepted by the courts of Canada, and is established in our published code of conduct.

– even for those concerned about the use of anonymous sources, the only serious alternative – that is, to not publish the story – would have been irresponsible, journalistically and civically. It is up to the people of this city to decide who their leaders are, but it is up to the media to give that public as complete and accurate information as they can. That is what we did, and what we will continue to strive to do, with the diligence, integrity and public concern that The Globe and Mail is known for.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain our work.

We look forward to further questions.
点击展开...
 
upload_2018-3-16_18-11-50.png


doug_ford.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x727.jpg

Doug Ford, the new leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party at Deco, his family business in Etobicoke. (Vince Talotta / Toronto Star)

By Star Editorial Board
Fri., March 16, 2018

So how might Doug Ford comport himself as premier of Ontario, should he win the provincial election in June?

As that staple of amateur psychoanalysis has it, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. But the cliché is not precisely accurate. There are caveats.

High-frequency behaviour is more predictive than infrequent behaviour. Past behaviour is usually predictive of future conduct only over short intervals. The situations for the past and predicted behaviour should be similar. And the person in question must remain essentially unchanged.

On the face of it, the new Progressive Conservative leader’s experience as a Toronto city councillor from 2010 to 2014 is recent enough, similar enough and produced behaviours recurring enough to serve as a rough guide.

Two books on the Rob Ford years – Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable, by former chief of staff Mark Towhey, and The Only Average Guy by city councillor John Filion – offer insider accounts of Doug’s temperament.

In all, they provide a study in presumption, impulsiveness, indiscipline, indiscretion, bullying and an inability to put the team first.

For all the Ford talk of business experience, “Rob and Doug had no idea how to” staff the office after Rob’s election, Towhey wrote.

It was also soon apparent that Doug wasn’t motivated solely by the opportunity to serve, but a desire to wield power at elite levels. “If you think I came down here just to be the councillor from Ward 2, you’ve got another think coming!” he reportedly yelled at Towhey and former Ford adviser Nick Kouvalis.

Doug acted as if entitled to a rank and authority he hadn’t earned, Towhey wrote, and would sit “at the head of the table, in the mayor’s seat, and hold court.”

During the transition to the Ford administration, Doug was an unreliable presence, Towhey said. He “popped in and out” of meetings, usually late. “He expected us to go back to the beginning to bring him up to speed.” He’d participate for 10 or 15 minutes, then step out to make a call. “We wouldn’t see him again until he popped into another meeting later in the day, or the week.”

Furthermore, the mayor’s staff believed Doug to be the source of leaks. “We began to guard our conversations around Doug,” Towhey wrote, and changed the topic whenever he arrived.

During the early going, Doug’s impulsiveness caused his brother numerous problems, Towhey said. “Doug was shooting from the hip and picking fights we didn’t need.”

He got into slanging matches with the likes of Margaret Atwood over public libraries and, later, the chief of police. In 2011, he dreamed up a Disneyfication scheme for the waterfront that became an instant laughingstock.

To Towhey, the new PC leader was a bully, even to his brother. “If Rob ignored Doug, Doug would pummel him with endless calls and tenacious harassment. Often Rob would cry uncle, telling us ‘I can’t handle one more call from him. Just do it’.”

As with many who demand utter loyal, Doug Ford was mistrustful of most everyone. “I only trust the person I shave in the morning,” he told Filion. “That’s it. And I nick him sometimes too.”

Doug once told Filion, in the run-up to his 2014 mayoral run against John Tory, that “you’ve never seen the vicious side of me. You watch.”

For all that, while Ford might be challenged by the quotidian details of governing, he is apt to thrive on the campaign trail, where salesmanship, partisanship and an ability to get under an opponent’s skin are virtues.

“He can deliver a message with devastating simplicity,” Filion wrote. “He’ll win you over with generous words and a megawatt smile, all the while observing your every move, ready to pounce.”

Still, Doug Ford’s track record in city government provides ammunition for his current opponents. It’s not for nothing, after all, that Premier Kathleen Wynne used the word “reckless” to describe Ford’s proposal this week to privatize cannabis sales in the province.

There’s always the possibility, of course, that the trauma of his brother’s premature death has changed Doug Ford. His comportment on the PC leadership campaign was more restrained.

But his demeanour this week during a CBC Ottawa radio interview with host Robyn Bresnahan was entirely consistent with the man Towhey and Filion described. Ford boasted. He bristled with anger. He baited and belittled the host. He balked at being asked to explain contradictions in his proposals.

Bresnahan asked how Ford could cut as much spending as he claims without cutting jobs. “Very simple. You haven’t done it. I’ve done it. That’s the difference. Next question.”

It was a burst of condescending man-splaining that may well have had many female listeners rolling their eyes.

As both the Rob Ford experience in Toronto, and current events in the United States make clear, there’s a vast difference between having the salesmanship to win an election and the competence and temperament required to govern.

Ontario voters, presumably, will be hoping to see a little more of the latter from the new PC leader.

As has been shown over and over again, when simplicity trumps experience, administrative expertise and policy mastery, chaos ensues. We have been warned.
 
Former PC leader Patrick Brown not running in Ontario election
Brown stepped down in January amid sexual misconduct allegations he denies
The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 15, 2018 9:47 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 16, 2018 10:03 AM ET

wynne-brown-lawsuit-20171023.jpg

Patrick Brown was Ontario's PC Party leader before he faced sexual misconduct allegations weeks ago. He has denied the allegations. He won't be allowed to run for the PCs in the riding he was nominated in for the June 7 provincial election, and also has said he won't be running at all. (Peter Power/Canadian Press)

Former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown won't be allowed to run in the riding he was nominated in for the June 7 provincial election, the nominations committee said late Thursday.

The committee said in a statement that it had reached a "unanimous decision" forbidding Brown to run in Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte riding.

For his part, on Thursday night, Brown tweeted that "after much thought," he has decided he won't run in the election, causing confusion over how the decision was ultimately made and why.

"I remain committed to the Conservative movement and to the well-being of my local community," Brown said in his tweet.

"I am confident that Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte will have a PC party candidate that will hit the ground running and work hard on behalf of our constituents. Thank you to the people of Barrie and Simcoe County for your unwavering support over the last 17 years."

upload_2018-3-16_18-25-57.png


upload_2018-3-16_18-27-18.png


Brown stepped down as leader in January amid sexual misconduct allegations, which he vehemently denies.

He then briefly tried to reclaim his old job, but bowed out of the race last month, saying his bid was taking a toll on family and friends.

After a turbulent party convention last Saturday, the Conservatives picked former Toronto city councillor Doug Ford as their new leader.

'He's made a decision to move on'
Scott Macpherson, vice-president of the PC's riding association in Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte, said that while some believe the allegations against Brown are toxic to the party, many in the riding are disappointed by the decision.

"I'm personally sad for him. My wish was for him to be on the ballot," Macpherson said. "He's made a decision to move on with his life, a life outside of politics, and I'm sure he's going to have a very bright, successful future just as he's had a bright, successful past."

Decisions also made about ridings
Though he did not mention Brown by name, Ford said in a statement he said he was happy to learn about the committee's decision.

"I am pleased to learn of the decisions made by the Provincial Nominations Committee. As Leader, I am fully focused on the June election and taking the fight to Kathleen Wynne," Ford said in a statement.

"Together we will ensure that we are in the best position possible to defeat the Wynne Liberals and form a majority government."

The committee also agreed to reopen nominations in the Brampton North, Mississauga Centre and Newmarket–Aurora ridings, and to "set aside the nomination" in Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas "as a result of the flawed process," party president Jag Badwal said in a statement.

Police are investigating the Hamilton-area nomination amid allegations of vote-stuffing. The Conservatives have been dogged by controversial nomination battles in ridings across the province.

Ontario voters go to the polls on June 7.
 
您必须登录或注册才可回复。

相关推荐

metropolis
DW 特朗普又惹议 筹备生日阅兵、发AI教宗图
回复
4
查看
8K
ASSISTANT
A
metropolis
石破茂发表战后80周年感言 强调文官统制、自由民主重要性
    • 喜欢
回复
1
查看
590
ASSISTANT
A
L
PP能否继续领导保守党，明年1月见分晓：(CTV) ‘I don’t believe in magic:’ Poilievre on upcoming leadership review
回复
4
查看
2K
ztbll
Z
EV
大选后加拿大国家走向及政策
回复
12
查看
9K
知更鸟
知更鸟
T
哈哈哈，加拿大准备着吧：英国承认巴勒斯坦国后 收到后者索赔2亿英镑要求
回复
6
查看
1K
tt8966
T
后退
顶部