Well as far as I know animals, plants and machines are all immune from either prosecution or even man made rules, laws and regulations. Hence to the best of my knowledge it is always human beings who on occasion face the courts for various and sundry violations of the rules. In this particular case the "charges" if you will are under the Municipal Elections Act and quite frankly yes they may speak to integrity, honesty etc. but quite clearly we are not remotely talking about serious criminal charges or heaven forbid any serious penalties or outcomes. Three Woolwich councillors including Mayor Shantz probably chose to take self-serving shortcuts for a variety of reasons whether or not they are willing to admit to doing it on purpose.
Perhaps what Mayor Shantz is actually saying is that she is offended at being "charged" at all precisely because she is a politician. Maybe she feels that her status as a local big shot, former councillor and financially well off (1 percenter ?) individual should exclude her from some of the "lesser" laws. I truly hope that is not her attitude because it sure looks to be based upon an attitude of entitlement as in I'm above this little shit that mere mortals around me need to be careful of.
Mayor Shantz is quoted as saying "...the same election expense mistakes could have been made by any politician." Well as a matter of fact they weren't. To the best of my knowledge her multitude of errors were hers alone whether in Woolwich or the Region of Waterloo. Whether similar or identical "mistakes" as she calls them have ever been committed by other politicians in other jurisdictions I have no idea. This I do know: some of her "mistakes" were mathematically self-serving for her and allowed her to stickhandle initially around the requirement for an Audit if she exceeded $10,000 in expenditures which she most certainly did. That particular "mistake" I found to be very concerning.
No comments:
Post a Comment