Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Bless Clark for telling it like it is. I can't beleive we are still wasting time on this. It was a bad decision and it is only going to get more expensive to deal with, if it does not end.
ReplyDeleteMayor Bratina, plus councilors Whitehead and Ferguson sit on this sub-committee, they are the architects of this deeply flawed, self-serving by-law. Embarrasing for them.
ReplyDeletePolitics 101 -Listen to the experts advise and get acquainted with the laws of the land (i.e. The Canadian Freedom of Speech). It makes no sense to me allow this gag by-law proposal to live. They are wasting time on something that experts have advised council to drop? Dragging things out that don’t have any hope in hell passing is a mere waste of taxpayers dollars. To have legal look at this again, despite already telling council that they can’t get away with placing a gag on integrity complaints is mind boggling. I applaud Councillor Clark for showing some common sense. Stop wasting our money and drop the darn thing!
ReplyDeleteDonna
This is exactly what I was going to post. You saved me from writing it out.
DeleteI agree completely!
What a waste of our dollars!
Another example of why we need term limits. Without it, it is about self preservation, even if that means a misguided attempt to limit free speech.
ReplyDeleteTerm Limits Now
And what about the other multi-term Councillors who disagree with the gag law? Why are we throwing them out too?
DeleteAnon- Based on living the lie of The Best Place to Raise a Child- I think we need term limits and a clean sweep.
DeleteTerm Limits Now
I find your logic weak and until real action is put to this argument it will continue to remain a non-issue in the eyes of anyone capable of making a difference. If your mandate was "Council Reform Now" or "Good Governance Now" I would be right behind you, but your one-dimensional, populist approach just leaves me suspicious and wary of supporting you. You're not discussing, you're anonymously campaigning, and that smacks of ulterior motives. As others have pointed out, there are various ways to even the playing field that don't involve stripping wards of their right to hang on to the long-standing and fruitful relationship they have built with their incumbent Councillors. There are 3 or 4 Councillors I could do without, but there are a good 6 or 7 who have only improved with time. To force them out would be undemocratic and plainly unfair.
DeleteWhat became obvious to me this morning while listening to the Bill Kelly talk show is that council is not listening to the taxpayers of Hamilton. I have yet to see any type of support for the councilors on the radio or blogs. It occurred to me that council does not recognize bloggers as taxpayers and call-in radio shows are only white angry males and once again not tax payers. They have the audacity to tell us how good of a job they are doing and how good public servants they are thus justifying the present system ( no term limits), now that the public has spoken damn the torpedoes! They have to be reminded that they are elected to serve the electorate not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteMr. Dubeau. Ask yourself as well, why other media are afraid to cover term limits.
DeleteTerm Limits Now
Any guesses of why would be purely speculative.
DeleteLegal Advice on gag order: ignored
ReplyDeleteConsultants advice on HECFI etc. ignored.
Why pay for services you don't listen to?
Not really clear what Clark meant by political cover?
ReplyDeleteand...how would it apply in this situation?
I think what he meant is that when time passes by, people move on and forget about the issue and who supported it.
DeleteSevern
I see... yes this could be what he meant.
DeleteThanks to sites like the Hamiltonian, forgetting past transgressions may not be so easy.
Clr. Whitehead sits on the sub-committee that originally agreed to this going forward.
ReplyDeleteAhhh...I'm beginning to understand Whitehead's response to a Term Limits Referendum now and am wondering if "Corporate Memory" dementia might be the cause.
Yes, Councillors depend on Hamiltonians to get dementia...or its the drinking water filled with pharmaseutical toilet flushings, going into our lake.
DeleteWhy can't some councillors admit they were wrong from time to time. They are not infallible, and it would build respect.
ReplyDeleteSorce
Good point Source. I would respect someone for fessing up from time to time that they goofed. After all we are human and by no means perfect. We learn and grow from our mistakes, but only if we own them.
DeleteMKL
That would be a mature thing to do Mr. Sorce. Don't hold your breath.
DeleteTerm Limits Now