City
Morning Brew: February 9th, 2009
Photo: "Add a eyes, nose, mouth, ears and some hair." by Squeakyrat, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):
It didn't take long for the suspect in a recent night club sexual assault case to turn himself in. On Friday the media released security video footage of a man accused of slipping the date rape drug into a woman's drink, and by Sunday he was in court pleading not guilty. Shortly after his release he was seen dodging the media by running through a pub at the Eaton Centre.
The City of Toronto is set to unveil its 2009 operating budget tomorrow, which may include a hefty 4% increase in property taxes for homeowners. Not a lot of details have been leaked, and as the city (along with the rest of the country and world) goes through some seriously challenging economic times, they remain tight-lipped.
Councillor Rob Ford is once again presenting his colleagues with a list of cost saving measures to reduce what he deems to be excessive spending at city hall. While he's sure to be dismissed by some as a nut bar not worth listening to, others may agree that $80,000 for plant watering can be reduced or eliminated.
--
For the third consecutive year, this weekend a Toronto woman greeted Yonge & Dundas passersby with free hugs. While the idea is seemingly as old as dancing hamsters, it's a small gesture that actually brightens peoples' day and brings some warmth to an otherwise cold winter day (in what many people find to be a relatively cold city).
A security company that lost close to $3-million in an armoured car robbery last week is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the recovery of the money. Police have no suspects, and think that some kind of high tech device may have been used to crack locks.
And in other news, Toronto-based techies Amber Macarthur and Christopher Dick had a baby boy yesterday! Congrats!
Discussion
41 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Here's a concept that works: 4% less government waste, find a way to create jobs and mitigate welfare abuse, and remove taxes on things that should've never been taxed in the first place (such as certain feminine hygiene products).
As a sidenote, to the guy who is accused of using the date rape drug, geez, the media in this city are bloodsucking hounds, I saw the footage, I'd escape into the first open door too.
That's it Mr. Mayor, just keep on increasing those taxes and adding new fees. Another 5-10 years and this city will only be upper and lower class. The middle class won't be able to afford to live here. That will keep up his popularity (insert sarcasm here).
RE taxes going up: The reason they keep going up is because the first mayor of the City of Toronto, a Red Tory if ever there was one, refused to raise taxes for six years. Too bad Mel couldn't balance the books either by eliminating waste.
Another example of how homeowners are baring the brunt of municipal downfalls and city shortages. Good news for landlords who may be assured their renters keep on renting.
There is an election in 2010. Can we count you as an early vote for Pitfield?
Residential property taxes should double.
I'm definitely the most right-wing of any BlogTO reader or commenter, but Toronto's tax structure is stupid. Residents pay far too little of the tax burden, leading to idiots like Miller being elected and support for ever more expensive programs. If the voters had to pay for all these programs, our council would begin to look and sound much more like a 905 council.
Ideally commercial rates should be negative and residences should pay all of the taxes. Landlords also shouldn't be charged property tax, it should be directly collected from the tenants. The current blending hides the cost of government from tenants and encourages them to demand more services since they're "free".
The city shouldn't have any plants inside, and landscaping staff should be homeless paid a minimum wage.
There's something to be said for the higher residential property taxes in the 905 and their ability (at least for now) to be debt-free and willing to make the tough choices that need to be made.
I think what frustrates people so much (I know it frustrates me) is not that the Mayor is socialist, it's that they (Mayor and Council) seemingly waste money and are unable to make (while not much) symbollic cuts such as the plant watering. I think this extends to Mel as well. The hiking of property taxes is just the easy way out for them. It's a reason to justify raising taxes and creating new taxes such as the land transfer tax.
They are delaying the inevitable that tough choices will one day need to be made to ensure the city runs properly in the future and forever. I think the people at City Hall seem to be content (and reactive) with the status quo and not proactive and tackle the budgetary issues facing the city now.
If they city could show that the money they collect is going towards the benefit of the city - something concrete that people can see - I think there would be less of an issue. I also think that something progressive as a Toronto Sales Tax of say 1-2% on stuff bought in the city or tolls on the DVP/427/Gardiner with half going to transit would be something people would pay for.
Also, I think this mentality of 905 vs 416 is getting tired and old. The city needs to wake up and realize that the 905 and 416 is in this together for the long run. It's the Greater Toronto Area and not Toronto and the 905. The region needs to work as one not the way it does now.
And where will be the mob of reporters, waving their video cameras and microphones, on the day when "32-year old married Brampton man Jagdeep Chahal" is found to be innocent?
Why, they'll have moved on to another suspect of another crime deemed sensational enough to headline the evening news across Canada.
You all make good points in your posts, but what leaves me thinking is; if he pleaded innocent in court, then why run from the media? If he indeed is innocent then why not plead your innocence to the public using the media as a conduit? Why run? Running makes one think he is guilty. Sort of reminds me of the pre-OJ Simpson trial scenario.
I assert that the media is irresponsible because it reports only the most sensational of facts (i.e. that Mr. X stands accused of a terrible crime) and fails to report the mundane, yet equally important facts (that Mr. X has been found to be innocent of that crime).
This omission is as damning as an outright lie, and as catastrophic to an innocent man. Yet our Mr. X has none of the "civil remedies" you speak of. He can't sue CTV for what they didn't report.
The media does indeed censor itself, but ti does so on the basis of which reports will attract the most attention. This is completely at odds with what rational people need to make their own determinations.
You might also ask yourself this: if he's guilty, why did he go to the police immediately after seeing the tape on TV?
His guilt or innocence is not for us to determine. We have people for that. And the don't work for the media.
You do however seem to be ultra-sympathetic, more so than the average bystander. Attacking people simply because they voice their opinion does seem to be going above and beyond what anybody who doesn't have an affiliation with him would do.
Please keep in mind that I have never stated that he is guilty or innocent, simply that he seems to be acting like what someone who is guilty would act like.
I will not insult or attack you because of your beliefs, but I do agree that the media might take things too far at times.
Ask yourself this: If you were innocent but the media painted you as guilty, wouldn't you want to make your best efforts to show/prove your innocence?
BTW: "date rape drug guy" is just a title for the story, not a shot or insult at him. You see I was very generic, I did not use his name.
Regardless, you are not entitled to present your opinion as fact. As I wrote before, we have people for that.
Because once they have you on tape and a victim pleading for the public's help in the media, it's only a matter of time before they arrest you. It's not a good judgement of his innocence, plenty of guilty people turn themselves in to.
His guilt or innocence is not for us to determine. We have people for that.
Ironically, it is US to determine, as they 'people' we have for that are called jurors and they are you and I and our peers.
I agree with daniel. He's acting guilty, his behaviour has been sketchy to say the least, he's caught on video. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If not, yea, sucks to be him, hopefully he can get on with his life. But statistically speaking, chances are he IS guilty. The police are rarely wrong when they have solid evidence like this.
For all we know, he could be a victim of false accusations. Let the courts decide, not the media, or observers of the media.
OJ ran from the cops in a highly publicized police chase? Does that make him guilty? Is he? Or isn't he? Why is he on the streets? In the system of guilty or not guilty, there are no exceptions to the rule, do you have 100% faith in the "people" we have to decide for us or not?
Oh absolutely! But that system works far better than trial in the court of public opinion, especially when so much of public opinion is the result of media trying to capture eyeballs.
Which is why it is completely irresponsible for the media to pick and choose which 'facts' they choose to air.
Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, this man is going to end up in a courtroom with at least a few jury members who have already decided whether he is guilty based on what they've seen on TV or in the newspaper.
Story time. This is rather sensitive, so any names and places are removed. I had a friend who, several years ago had gone to a party and met a guy who was a few years older than she was at the time (She was 15 or 16 and he was 18). In the 'original' version, he gives her a drink laced with the date rape drug and takes her to a room and sexually assaults her. She later tells someone, that person tells the police and an investigation starts. While there was no physical evidence found the investigation ended up turning up someone else who claimed they were also sexually assaulted by the same guy. This girl was 14 at the time.
The media coverage was minimal (due to the small size of the town), however it didn't take long before the entire community knew of the events.
The guy was eventually charged and sent to prison for 3 years (only two because of the lack of physical evidence). It should also be noted that while my friend might have triggered the court case, most of it seemed to revolve around the other, 14 year old girl.
My friend didn't talk about it much. I only heard bits and pieces. Then I heard that the guy was being released from prison on parole. My friend was frightened. She was concerned he was going to come find her.
I then got version #2 and understood why she was so concerned. She wasn't so sure a crime even took place. She had been drinking fairly heavily that night (without his help). But still said she didn't remember what happened (I'm not sure if this is true or not). She did however, admit that at the time she didn't really have any reason to believe he had slipped her the date rape drug and everything could have easily been caused by the amount of alcohol she consumed.
She said she wasn't sure why she told someone she was drugged and assaulted (I'm no psychologist, so you'll get no help from me on this one). She didn't think that person would say anything, let alone get the police involved. She still says she 'thinks' she was despite numerous conflicting reports from people at the party (I found this out from a friend of hers after I inquired why the court case focused entirely on the other girl).
She felt much better of course once it was discovered that he had allegedly assaulted another, younger girl. In that case there wasn't any conflicting evidence (there was no physical evidence at all actually).
The community was very emotional regarding the events. All they had was the the accusaion from a 14 year old girl (backed up with an accusation, albeit conflicting one from a 16 year old girl). Regardless of the lack of evidence, they burned this guy at the stake. There wasn't a person in town who didn't think he was guilty. He didn't stand a chance in court.
The other girl's testiomny however started becoming less and less believable during those two years. The media portrayed her as just an innocent 14 year old girl, but she was no angel. She got herself into <b>far</b> more than her share of trouble after the events, and it was slowly being discovered she had gotten herself into far more than her share of trouble before the events too.
There was no outrage, there were no pleas to have him released. Why? Because once he was put into prison the community moved on with their collective lives. During the events he lost his friends, his family and anybody else who would have provided some level of support. Nobody cared that a potentially innocent person was put in prison for a crime that may not have even existed.
Because single people who are accused of rape always confess immediately.
No because the fact in this case is he's married, I don't know what other single people do have anything to do with this. He's married his face is platered all over the media, what's he gonna do, run from it? or Don't worry about it babe its not true just forget about it.
2. The type of conviction it is, even if the 2 girls admitted to lying he may not have gotten released from prison. They don't need much evidence to convict in such cases. These 'safeguards' were put into place. They are abused by some, but the greater good still prevails.
Both things have nothing to do with the media reporting on facts given. Sorry you wrote so much and that you're friends with such a douche.
You mis-read. There are no reports that police received tips pointing to him having committed any crime. The police told the media that they received phone calls saying that he looked like one of the men shown entering the club in the video the police had broadcast.
"Well you have to assume with the publication ban on evidence that they have 'something' or they wouldn't be able to arrest him in the first place."
As often as not, police seek publication bans when they have no strong evidence. (The Paul Bernardo case is a glaring example of this. The police were silent until they convinced Homolka to plea bargain, after which you couldn't shut them up.)
Furthermore, police don't need evidence to arrest anyone, anytime, for anything. Evidence is necessary only to convict someone. There is a world of difference between "arrest" and "conviction", which the media fail to acknowledge, and which is the whole point of this discussion.
Know what kills me? If it turns out this guy did do it, all the folks who had pre-judged him before seeing any evidence will then feel vindicated.