10.19.2012 07:04 AM

In yesterday lies today

Now, then.


  1. Christian Giles says:

    Interesting. Bailao’s news conference was straight out of the text book. I think it was a bad move strategically for both her and the other Councillors who were in attendance (what were they thinking? She’s not the victim here). She and they came across as more or less saying “hey its not a big deal cut her some slack she’s busy you know”. Sorry but it is a big deal and I’m glad MADD spoke up. I do agree she would have been better off to ‘fess up, acknowledged that there was no excuse (especially in DT Toronto which even at that night is not hard to find a cab)apologized and than make some pledge to work with MADD on educating the public on the dangers of drinking and driving. Instead she chose arrogant defiance, which will drag it out longer than it needs to be and will be so much worse for her if found guilty (which given a breathalyzer was used it very, very likely). But hey, its not all bad. Her PR firm will have more billable hours.

  2. Glen says:

    Why is it that the only people who take responsibility for their actions these days are terrorists?

  3. Mark Bourrie says:

    What if she’s not guilty? Maybe her friends on council are standing behind her because they believe she is, as she claims, innocent?

    • W the K - No, not Warren says:

      Then how about they let this make its way through the courts. I can understand a councillor responding with empathy and support to a reporter’s questions about a colleague/friend facing charges. But this was a staged event, apparently organized by the mayor’s office. WTF? If, as speculated, this was done for political reasons that makes the whole thing even worse.

  4. AP says:

    Glad to see that the presumption of innocence is alive and doing well.

  5. Ted B says:

    I assume the point is about Navigator.

    In the news and making the story about them, then.

    Behind the scene and nowhere to be seen, now.

    The wrong way and the right and professional way.

  6. Mark Bourrie says:

    If that’s the point, it’s not all that clear. I thought the point was the automatic public and media presumption of Bryant’s guilt in contested circumstances and his hiring of an ass-kicking PR firm vs. a councilor who (let’s face it, breathalyzer evidence is rarely beaten) has friends rallying around her and no PR spinners. So, Warren, did Councillor Whoozits (her name means nothing to me) hire Navigator, Daisy or anyone else, or is this pretty skilled PR on her own (or by her staff)? In the end, though, she’ll likely be convicted and get the full whacking. In Bryant’s case, he had something resembling a defence, leaving Navigator with a chance of coming through with a “winner.” Though it cost a bundle — from the suit delivery to the post-arrest spin to the ghost-written book, Bryant has come out about as well as anyone could under the circumstances, but he’ll always be damaged goods. This isn’t Quebec, where a drunken premier can run over a guy lying on the road and come out without charges or a serious change in the polls.

    • W the K - No, not Warren says:

      See my post above re. Councillor Ana Bailao. Media reports indicated this was organized by the mayor’s office. It did not happen spontaneously.

      Bailao is a moderate councillor. One of the few. These councillors are courted relentlessly to swing votes on council. Colour me cynical.

  7. AP says:

    “let’s face it, breathalyzer evidence is rarely beaten”

    Sorry, but that’s just not true.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      It is true, and results are often kicked out for a lot of legal reasons, including constitutional ones.

      There is no downside to challenging a DUI charge. None!

  8. Mark Bourrie says:

    Sorry, but it is true. Unless you can prove the machine is improperly calibrated, you’re pretty much screwed. Not to mention the fact you can be convicted even if you pass a breathalyzer, if the Crown can prove you show symptom of impairment. (See R. v. Spears, Ont. Ct. of Justice, 2008).

    • James Hanna says:

      AP is right, there are plenty of ways to get a breathalyzer excluded. Any decent defence (and I assume she is going all out) will try to uncover every possible angle. There are cases of drivers wrapping their cars around trees and being acquitted.

      What I found disingenious in the article was MADD’s comparing her to Gordon Campbell, saying he stood up and took his beating and she should follow the example. Well Campbell actually plead no contest; which doesn’t result in a criminal record. Its somethig available in some US states but not here. Thanks to mandatory minimums, if this councillor does plead guilty just to ” stand up” then she has a criminal record. Campbell didn’t face that. If we had something similar for first time offenders, with significant fines, the court system would come under a lot less pressure.

  9. AP says:

    Over 80 and Drive Impaired are two different offences. You could be found guilty of one and not the other.

    There are a number of ways to exclude breath samples and improper calibration is just one of them.

    There are trials daily in Canada where people are found not guilty of these types offences.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing Mr. Bourrie

  10. Justin says:

    I always hate these people who answer questions in absolutes, like the rep from MADD. Oh yeah a small time, barely known councillor is going to start a new wave of drunk driving. Sometimes I agree with MADD but sometimes they become nothing but revenge hungry zelots.

    • AP says:

      MADD is a special interest group that has made it clear time and again that they want to carve out special drinking and driving laws that ignore the presumption of innocence, right to counsel and the ability to make full answer and defence by removing the ability to challenge these special alcohol testing machines which they (and the police say) are never wrong. The unfortunate thing is that all political parties want to be seen as having MADD on their side and both the Liberals and Conservatives during their time in government have enacted Criminal Code provisions which seek to dilute constitutional protected rights all in the name of being “tough” on drinking and driving. MADD, just like any other organization, must not be allowed to drive the agenda on this issue and the comments by MADD’s CEO confirm that organization’s disdain for fundamental Charter rights.

  11. Mark Bourrie says:

    AP, stats please, not gratuitous insults.

  12. AP says:

    Stats about what? Read the quotes from the CEO.

  13. james curran says:

    One day someone is going totake on an ever unpopular constitutional challenge on Premier dad’s recent drinking law where drivers are being suspended for three days for being over .050 without being allowed to have the charge challenged. It stays on your driving record for 3 years, is utilized against you if it happens again within 3 years and drives up your insurance rates. All this without being able to challenge the charge because this in not a criminal charge, but rather, “administrative” in nature.

    How much do you have to drink to be over .05? About a pint and a half.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *