Coun. Isaac Gilbert

[fluffy]

So distortion and falsehoods are forms of personal expression and therefore a charter right ? Because that’s what’s happening here when Mr. Gilbert’s concern for the civil rights of people after release from prison is portrayed as “soft on crime”, or his efforts to improve voter/council engagement is portrayed as an effort to block that engagement. Is disseminating misinformation now a charter right ?

[A Concerned Citizen]

Out of all the various forums on Castanet this has been one of the most revealing. One needs to wonder if the 20 vote margin would have in fact occurred if as part of gilbert's platform he had made his proposals such as limiting public input at council meetings well understood. For example criticisms have included published statements such as:



And questions to him such as ...

All people have the right to form their own opinions and express them individually. A forum like this is a sign of a free society that creates a "marketplace of ideas" where people exchange their views on any number of issues. In some ways a forum like this is one means among a variety of participatory activities that can be used to ensure that elected officials remain accountable to the people rather than just at the ballot box.

Yes. Let`s stick to the facts according to the charter. The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 at 976; Ford v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 at 765-766).

The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is “perhaps the linchpin” of section 2(b) protection (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (A.G.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827). Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance. The two other rationales for protecting freedom of expression — encouraging the search for truth through the open exchange of ideas, and fostering individual self-actualization, thus directly engaging individual human dignity — are also key values that animate section 2(b) analysis.


Don`t let negative and toxic people rent space in your head. Raise the rent and kick them out.

That's a really interesting perspective that we will have to explore in future analyses of giblert's performance.

[fluffy]

That's a really interesting perspective that we will have to explore in future analyses of giblert's performance.

Some of us have already. The part that jumped out at me when considering was has been going on in this thread is:

“The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth…”

The search for and attainment of truth, not the distortion of truth to suit one’s own agenda.

[twobits]

To be accurate, Mr. Gilbert placed sixth in a field of sixteen hopefuls. Hardly “last place”. But then again, accuracy and truth are not always the priorities for some.

Ya sure Fluffy. Last place to cross the line and get a participation award. Sixth place out of 16 is pretty much last place, That is the inconvenient truth for you. The truth is he got the last spot.
And using your logic.....fifty percent of every doctor or lawyer graduated in the bottom 50% of their class. That is an absolute truth is it not? So, if you knew beforehand where your Doctor or Lawyer landed in this universally accepted method we use for schooling and accreditation....... who would you choose for a Doctor or Lawyer?
Number one (boultbee) who spent the least amount of money per vote or number six Gilbert who spent the most amount per vote for Councillor.
I am hopeful you see the analogy here.

[bobbyrog]

To be accurate, Mr. Gilbert placed sixth in a field of sixteen hopefuls. Hardly “last place”. But then again, accuracy and truth are not always the priorities for some.

Ya sure Fluffy. Last place to cross the line and get a participation award. Sixth place out of 16 is pretty much last place, That is the inconvenient truth for you. The truth is he got the last spot.
And using your logic.....fifty percent of every doctor or lawyer graduated in the bottom 50% of their class. That is an absolute truth is it not? So, if you knew beforehand where your Doctor or Lawyer landed in this universally accepted method we use for schooling and accreditation....... who would you choose for a Doctor or Lawyer?
Number one (boultbee) who spent the least amount of money per vote or number six Gilbert who spent the most amount per vote for Councillor.
I am hopeful you see the analogy here.

I don't think "winning" and getting a "participation award" are the same thing. In this scenario there are winners and losers, and Gilbert was one of the winners.

Not sure the relevancy of the doctor or lawyer analogy. People don't vote on who gets to become a doctor or lawyer.

[A Concerned Citizen]

To be accurate, Mr. Gilbert placed sixth in a field of sixteen hopefuls. Hardly “last place”. But then again, accuracy and truth are not always the priorities for some.

Ya sure Fluffy. Last place to cross the line and get a participation award. Sixth place out of 16 is pretty much last place, That is the inconvenient truth for you. The truth is he got the last spot.
And using your logic.....fifty percent of every doctor or lawyer graduated in the bottom 50% of their class. That is an absolute truth is it not? So, if you knew beforehand where your Doctor or Lawyer landed in this universally accepted method we use for schooling and accreditation....... who would you choose for a Doctor or Lawyer?
Number one (boultbee) who spent the least amount of money per vote or number six Gilbert who spent the most amount per vote for Councillor.
I am hopeful you see the analogy here.

There's a reason they don't put grades on graduation certificates ... to be fair to both gilbert and boultbee they have run for office in prior years and one can consider that as well in all of this.

Election Year. gilbert .....boultbee
2018 ............. $4,463 .......... 0
2021 ............ $14,560 ..... $7,014
2022 ............ $11,095 ..... $5,123
Total ............ $30,118 ....$12,137

2022 Votes ....... 3,309 ...... 5,618
Cost Per Vote .... $9.10 .... $2.16

Another way of looking at this is gilbert spent 425% more only to get 58% of the votes of the first place councillor. Spending over four times as much to get just over half the number of votes is a harbinger for a lack of fiscal prudence.

[bobbyrog]

Ya sure Fluffy. Last place to cross the line and get a participation award. Sixth place out of 16 is pretty much last place, That is the inconvenient truth for you. The truth is he got the last spot.
And using your logic.....fifty percent of every doctor or lawyer graduated in the bottom 50% of their class. That is an absolute truth is it not? So, if you knew beforehand where your Doctor or Lawyer landed in this universally accepted method we use for schooling and accreditation....... who would you choose for a Doctor or Lawyer?
Number one (boultbee) who spent the least amount of money per vote or number six Gilbert who spent the most amount per vote for Councillor.
I am hopeful you see the analogy here.

There's a reason they don't put grades on graduation certificates ... to be fair to both gilbert and boultbee they have run for office in prior years and one can consider that as well in all of this.

Election Year. gilbert .....boultbee
2018 ............. $4,463 .......... 0
2021 ............ $14,560 ..... $7,014
2022 ............ $11,095 ..... $5,123
Total ............ $30,118 ....$12,137

2022 Votes ....... 3,309 ...... 5,618
Cost Per Vote .... $9.10 .... $2.16

Another way of looking at this is gilbert spent 425% more only to get 58% of the votes of the first place councillor. Spending over four times as much to get just over half the number of votes is a harbinger for a lack of fiscal prudence.

Gilbert isn't the council treasurer, so I don't see how this is relevant.

Another way you could interpret these statistics is that Gilbert is so passionate about improving his community that he's willing to sacrifice more than his competitors to be a part of city council.

[rustled]

The filed documents use some accounting practices which seem to inflate the expenses of some of the candidates when compared to the others.

Electing passionate people who have difficulty understanding the value of a dollar often comes back to bite us in the end. Let's hope Coun. Isaac Gilbert is not among those whose naivete gets us into long-term wasteful expenditure.

[fluffy]

Looking at the candidates’ expenditures as a whole it’s interesting that, with the exception of the ex-mayor, there is no-one among the also-rans who spent more than any of the elected candidates. What can we surmise from that ? That seats on council are readily available for those who can afford the price ?

[A Concerned Citizen]

The filed documents use some accounting practices which seem to inflate the expenses of some of the candidates when compared to the others.

Electing passionate people who have difficulty understanding the value of a dollar often comes back to bite us in the end. Let's hope Coun. Isaac Gilbert is not among those whose naivete gets us into long-term wasteful expenditure.

It's a travesty when money changes everything where the dollars spent become a crucial determinant of whether or not a candidate will be elected ... it is only fair to assume that the money coming out of the ndp party and their infiltration into the municipal arena is a clear signal of the lack of a good policy platform and one that, in my opinion, focusses more on a campaign like a beauty pageant and a popularity contest rather than on sound proposals for good decision making and public policy.

Efforts to 'buy' elections must be thwarted and perhaps the rules that got gilbert elected should be changed to tighten them up even more so we don't end up with candidates that promise to deal with crime and then are soft on it, can't deal with the real issues of municipal matters such as cleaning the streets and focus more on social justice issues, etc.

So far, gilbert seems to treat the election like good old Judy Sentes that loved dinner parties where she could be part of handing out plaques and eating four star lasagna and is now being remembered more for what was not done rather than what was done. Money shouldn't buy political success ... good policy should.

[fluffy]

Money shouldn't buy political success ... good policy should.

I agree.

[spooker]

Money shouldn't buy political success ... good policy should.

I agree.

How many councillors actually get elected for what they represent instead of just name recognition? Yes, money shouldn't be the deciding factor and until we, the voting public, actually pay attention to what people believe and want to bring forth it will continue being a popularity contest dependent on how many dollars can be thrown at Facebook and IG ...

[bobbyrog]

How many councillors actually get elected for what they represent instead of just name recognition?

Probably all of them? Why would anyone cast a vote in an election based on name recognition? They could end up voting for the complete wrong party. Most people who don't know who to vote for just don't vote.

[spooker]

How many councillors actually get elected for what they represent instead of just name recognition?

Probably all of them? Why would anyone cast a vote in an election based on name recognition? They could end up voting for the complete wrong party. Most people who don't know who to vote for just don't vote.

I'm not sure which is worse, voting on who you know (name recognition) or not voting because you don't take the time to make an informed decision ... I almost want to bring back the Roman practice where all citizens take a turn at council ...

[bobbyrog]

Probably all of them? Why would anyone cast a vote in an election based on name recognition? They could end up voting for the complete wrong party. Most people who don't know who to vote for just don't vote.

I'm not sure which is worse, voting on who you know (name recognition) or not voting because you don't take the time to make an informed decision ... I almost want to bring back the Roman practice where all citizens take a turn at council ...

That's a comedically bad idea. That's exactly how you get people to vote purely on name recognition.