I expect my municipal government to make sure trash cans are available and not overflowing, traffic patterns make sense, sidewalks are safe, snow is plowed and garbage is collected. I do not expect nor want them to wade into the Israel/Palestine crisis, except for issuing a thoughtful statement as to why that would help no-one at this point and why therefore they must remain apolitical on the matter. This would not in any way mean that she doesn't care.
All this should be obvious. Every Toronto citizen has an interest in having their garbage collected, and snow removed promptly from streets. But why should politicians charged with these kinds of responsibilities be expected to speak out officially on non-municipal issues, especially when they know the citizenry's opinion on these issues is divided? On which particular group of citizens' behalf should they speak, and why should a mayor or city councillor who supposedly represents all the people be obliged to choose? Whether you're progressive, conservative, or something else, what difference is the mayor's endorsement or lack of it going to make to your personal convictions about world affairs; and why should your views be entitled to such endorsement over the views of fellow city-dwellers who may disagree?
Exactly, I have zero interest in the Toronto city council's opinion on the mid-east, U.S. election, Ukraine's invasion by Russia and any other topic not directly related to their job. Stay in your freakin' lane and get stuff done.
Although there are many who might consider Toronto the centre of the universe and its municipal politics as critical to all Canadians it’s likely not really the case and there are many who could give a rats patoot about the twisted angst visited upon the citizens of that city.
Was going to comment but this is pretty much correct IMO. Those trying to drag a Cdn municipal politician into such a complex political morass, is only trying to stir it up, and should be ignored. I'm no fan of the mayor, but I kinda like her ambivalence on this one. The way both sides on this issue/war/occupation are playing it here on the ground in Canada is entirely "un-Canadian".
I agree that politicians should stay out of issues that aren't in their jurisdiction. The mayor of Toronto should not have a foreign policy because having one adds needless fights.
But politicians of all stripes are intent of virtue signalling on areas outside their jurisdiction, so when they're conspicuously silent or absent from a particular cause, it speaks volumes, especially if that lines up with pandering to their base.
And it's tough for Ms. Chow because even if she wants to stick to governance, she's in a political culture in which everyone is doing the opposite.
"And it's tough for Ms. Chow because even if she wants to stick to governance, she's in a political culture in which everyone is doing the opposite."
That's the thing - there are definitely opposing members of council and journalists who are doing everything to drag her into this, kicking and screaming.
I'm outside Toronto, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong here, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that she wants to stick to governance.
For instance, does she give the trans issue a complete pass because human rights issues are effectively outside the jurisdiction of a city council? That's the problem with sticking to governance issues whether it's trans-inclusion, protecting women's spaces from biological men or something entirely different such as getting more generous parental leave... those are provincial & federal matters.
Once a mayor gets involved in one, not getting involved in others isn't neutral.
It's really, really hard to stay out of those things.
Problem is, there’s no big name set up to run against Chow; the only person making it insanely obvious that he’s running is Brad Bradford, who’s effectively abandoned his ward in order to camp out outside CP24’s studio full time in case they need an interview criticizing Olivia for something. Hopefully he manages to at least double that 1% share of the votes he got last time.
Toronto is a very shallow, apathetic city and unless it’s a local celebrity running against her, Chow will likely squeak through again due to nobody really caring one way or the other.
I neither live in Toronto nor do I want to live there. Of course, in this country we must live with Toronto being the center of the universe (Canada edition) and, obviously, obviously, obviously everything TO is necessarily of interest to we the great unwashed. Even when it is not.
That is not a slam at this column but is a ham-handed way of saying that even though I don't live in TO, I am aware of the Mayor and the disgraceful way that she has conducted herself on this issue. It is clear that she is not interested in doing what is right but is only interested in doing what is politically expedient.
Why do I say that she is not doing what is right? Well, her various and sundry contradictory excuses show that she cannot figure out what she should say. If she really believes that Israel is bad actor (I don't) or that Jews deserve all that happens/happened to them (dammit, that is just going far, far too far even for a stupid leftist) or that nothing happened on October 7 (Laif Marouf et al - you know, the really deranged types) then she should say so and take the heat. If she is a supporter of Israel, etc., etc. she should say so and take the heat.
But, no, she isn't interested in doing what is right but only what is kinda, possibly maybe, perhaps expedient. No matter how disgraceful that shows her to be.
Having lived on the west coast since 67, Toronto is viewed as blot in fly over country. if any notice is taken it's viewed as being full of strange immigrants who go to university to learn how to express their deepest feelings and tell Canadians what we need to know about world affairs!
"...her attitude can best be described as disinterested."
A public servant's attitude should always be disinterested, as a matter of ethical principle. This doesn't mean Mayor Chow is uninterested in the issues mentioned, which was presumably the writer's intended meaning here.
Integrity? Depends who you ask. His wife and four children might have some opinions on how much, if any integrity he possesses. One might also ask his former staffer with which he had an extramarital affair. Oh, I know, old fashioned morality, who cares about that?
Definitions from Oxford Languages
in·teg·ri·ty - /inˈteɡrədē/ noun
1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
My comment was based on one decision: He resigned after a determination he breached "the quality of being honesty and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness". There is no one else in politics either in the US, UK, or Canada who has exhibited these principles when they have severely screwed up and let their family and others, down. Here is looking at you Justin.
Tory wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. Anyone with any substance would have looked good after Rob Ford. I wasn't a Tory supporter before but the relief was palpable when he was sworn in...without the help of Don Cherry! Wow! What a nightmare that was. It's not over either. There are two of his relatives at Queens Park.
I expect my municipal government to make sure trash cans are available and not overflowing, traffic patterns make sense, sidewalks are safe, snow is plowed and garbage is collected. I do not expect nor want them to wade into the Israel/Palestine crisis, except for issuing a thoughtful statement as to why that would help no-one at this point and why therefore they must remain apolitical on the matter. This would not in any way mean that she doesn't care.
All this should be obvious. Every Toronto citizen has an interest in having their garbage collected, and snow removed promptly from streets. But why should politicians charged with these kinds of responsibilities be expected to speak out officially on non-municipal issues, especially when they know the citizenry's opinion on these issues is divided? On which particular group of citizens' behalf should they speak, and why should a mayor or city councillor who supposedly represents all the people be obliged to choose? Whether you're progressive, conservative, or something else, what difference is the mayor's endorsement or lack of it going to make to your personal convictions about world affairs; and why should your views be entitled to such endorsement over the views of fellow city-dwellers who may disagree?
Spot on! More politicians need to focus on their constituents and not comment on international events they may know very little about.
Exactly, I have zero interest in the Toronto city council's opinion on the mid-east, U.S. election, Ukraine's invasion by Russia and any other topic not directly related to their job. Stay in your freakin' lane and get stuff done.
Although there are many who might consider Toronto the centre of the universe and its municipal politics as critical to all Canadians it’s likely not really the case and there are many who could give a rats patoot about the twisted angst visited upon the citizens of that city.
Was going to comment but this is pretty much correct IMO. Those trying to drag a Cdn municipal politician into such a complex political morass, is only trying to stir it up, and should be ignored. I'm no fan of the mayor, but I kinda like her ambivalence on this one. The way both sides on this issue/war/occupation are playing it here on the ground in Canada is entirely "un-Canadian".
> but I kinda like her ambivalence on this one.
The problem is *selective* ambivalence.
I agree that politicians should stay out of issues that aren't in their jurisdiction. The mayor of Toronto should not have a foreign policy because having one adds needless fights.
But politicians of all stripes are intent of virtue signalling on areas outside their jurisdiction, so when they're conspicuously silent or absent from a particular cause, it speaks volumes, especially if that lines up with pandering to their base.
And it's tough for Ms. Chow because even if she wants to stick to governance, she's in a political culture in which everyone is doing the opposite.
"And it's tough for Ms. Chow because even if she wants to stick to governance, she's in a political culture in which everyone is doing the opposite."
That's the thing - there are definitely opposing members of council and journalists who are doing everything to drag her into this, kicking and screaming.
I'm outside Toronto, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong here, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that she wants to stick to governance.
For instance, does she give the trans issue a complete pass because human rights issues are effectively outside the jurisdiction of a city council? That's the problem with sticking to governance issues whether it's trans-inclusion, protecting women's spaces from biological men or something entirely different such as getting more generous parental leave... those are provincial & federal matters.
Once a mayor gets involved in one, not getting involved in others isn't neutral.
It's really, really hard to stay out of those things.
Problem is, there’s no big name set up to run against Chow; the only person making it insanely obvious that he’s running is Brad Bradford, who’s effectively abandoned his ward in order to camp out outside CP24’s studio full time in case they need an interview criticizing Olivia for something. Hopefully he manages to at least double that 1% share of the votes he got last time.
Toronto is a very shallow, apathetic city and unless it’s a local celebrity running against her, Chow will likely squeak through again due to nobody really caring one way or the other.
I neither live in Toronto nor do I want to live there. Of course, in this country we must live with Toronto being the center of the universe (Canada edition) and, obviously, obviously, obviously everything TO is necessarily of interest to we the great unwashed. Even when it is not.
That is not a slam at this column but is a ham-handed way of saying that even though I don't live in TO, I am aware of the Mayor and the disgraceful way that she has conducted herself on this issue. It is clear that she is not interested in doing what is right but is only interested in doing what is politically expedient.
Why do I say that she is not doing what is right? Well, her various and sundry contradictory excuses show that she cannot figure out what she should say. If she really believes that Israel is bad actor (I don't) or that Jews deserve all that happens/happened to them (dammit, that is just going far, far too far even for a stupid leftist) or that nothing happened on October 7 (Laif Marouf et al - you know, the really deranged types) then she should say so and take the heat. If she is a supporter of Israel, etc., etc. she should say so and take the heat.
But, no, she isn't interested in doing what is right but only what is kinda, possibly maybe, perhaps expedient. No matter how disgraceful that shows her to be.
Having lived on the west coast since 67, Toronto is viewed as blot in fly over country. if any notice is taken it's viewed as being full of strange immigrants who go to university to learn how to express their deepest feelings and tell Canadians what we need to know about world affairs!
"...her attitude can best be described as disinterested."
A public servant's attitude should always be disinterested, as a matter of ethical principle. This doesn't mean Mayor Chow is uninterested in the issues mentioned, which was presumably the writer's intended meaning here.
John Tory was the last person in office who had any integrity.
Integrity? Depends who you ask. His wife and four children might have some opinions on how much, if any integrity he possesses. One might also ask his former staffer with which he had an extramarital affair. Oh, I know, old fashioned morality, who cares about that?
Definitions from Oxford Languages
in·teg·ri·ty - /inˈteɡrədē/ noun
1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
My comment was based on one decision: He resigned after a determination he breached "the quality of being honesty and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness". There is no one else in politics either in the US, UK, or Canada who has exhibited these principles when they have severely screwed up and let their family and others, down. Here is looking at you Justin.
Tory wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. Anyone with any substance would have looked good after Rob Ford. I wasn't a Tory supporter before but the relief was palpable when he was sworn in...without the help of Don Cherry! Wow! What a nightmare that was. It's not over either. There are two of his relatives at Queens Park.
His pregnant mistress certainly thought so.