Talk:Norm Gardner

1993 nomination

Does anyone know what happened with Gardner's Liberal nomination bid in 1993? The evidence suggests he dropped out before Jag Bhaduria's contested victory, but I can't find any indication as to why he would have done so. CJCurrie 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

A lot of times, many controversies are placed in here without adequate refutation (usually two or more attacks to one voice of defence). So this is shaping up to look like the police section in Howard Moscoe. GoldDragon 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you thinking of? CJCurrie 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GD, you need to list specific concerns if you're going to put up an NPOV notice. CJCurrie 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV notice for the time being. GoldDragon is welcome to put it back if he details specific examples of what he views as POV issues in this article, but I've also warned him that he may face a temporary edit block if he continues to apply POV tags to articles without providing specifics. Bearcat 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon's objections to the current edit

Could GoldDragon please outline his objections to the current edit, rather than engaging in endless reverts? CJCurrie 03:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie should not allow any of the below to stand, unless he is POV pushing.

I notice lots of one-sided statements without rebuttal, such as "opposing reform", "considered this an extreme measure", "argued that civilian scrutiny of the police force would suffer", "expensiveness and ineffectiveness of helicopters". CJCurrie removed Ed Broadbent's criticism of the Dion-Elizabeth May deal, saying that it was one-sided. Well, CJCurrie seems to make a special exception for this article.

There is also much minutae like the dog shelter (good thing that that is gone), his Thornhill residence, speculation about mayoral candidacy, details of the ammunition taken, etc. We don't need to mention Gardner's gun ownership position numerous times. GoldDragon 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The contested material on Gardner is well sourced and relevant. See Ian Urquhart's recent column where he attributes the Tory party's evident desire not to have him as a candidate to his "political baggage"[1].

Well sourced, but not necessarily relevant, and more importantly, there is undue weight and numerous POV violations. GoldDragon 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon hasn't really brought forward any arguments for his proposed changes, aside from citing a few quotes that he doesn't like. I think these rather comprehensive adjustments should be discussed in detail, before any significant changes are made. CJCurrie 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Its clearly not acceptable to have one-sided statements. At least, there should have been supporting arguements for police choppers and a lowered youth crime age, among other things. Nor is it required to make repeated references to Gardner's position on gun ownership at several different points in an article. GoldDragon 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can try to supplement the current version, if you really want ... but your whitewashing edits are not acceptable. When I have the time, I'll address the specific points. (Alternately, perhaps you could address the specific changes you wish to make now?) CJCurrie 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this much as a whitewash, rather I see this as the first step in correcting long overdue bias. (I don't have any dispute about the inclusion of the bakery robbery, police bait, or ammo gift incidents.)I do plan to go through my list of changes shortly, and some removed material can be reinstated as long as it is given a proper balanced point of view. GoldDragon 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes:

• Being misquoted on the Toronto Star - one of the numerous instances that his gun ownership stance was repeated. We don't need to hammer the point home.
• Sometimes described as resisting efforts towards police reform. The problem here is that it is implied that the reforms are a good thing, when this could not necessarily be the case. One could also easily argue that critics were playing the race card all the time.
• "Several commentators, and councillor Brian Ashton, considered this an extreme measure." It must be noted that the YOA in its current form was criticized as overly lax, and allowed youths to get unreasonably light sentences for murder or sexual assault.
• "argued that attempts by the federal government to toughen gun controls would not make anyone in Metro Toronto safer" Though its not necessarily controversial, there is no context or reasoning.
• The bakery robbery does digress into some sensationalism, try to keep focus here.
• Regarding the welfare, this is sort of similar to Moscoe's stance on Wheel-Trans; Gardner and Moscoe were likely reluctant to make the cuts. However, in Moscoe's case, it notes that he was hesitant to make the cuts in order to avoid being hypocritical, whereas in Gardner's case, it only notes that he was accused of whipping up hostility. This is a good example of a double standard.
• The fingerprinting is another standalone without any context or reasoning.
• "argued that civilian scrutiny would suffer under Gardner's rule" - is there another viewpoint that suggests that Gardner's victory would be a good thing?
• The gun across the border ending up came to nothing, similar to Volpe's incident regarding removing the website critical of him.
• regarding police helicopters, there are pros as well as cons. Where are the pros? A frequent recurring problem in this article is that Gardner takes a position but it is never stated what his rationale is behind it, while the critics are given their position and backed up by their rationale. Of course, this is one way to create POV bias.
• Regarding his residency in Thornhill, BMO's CFO lives in Cambridge. There are more important controversial things.
• Gardner's mayoral candidacy is speculation, leave it out since it came to nothing.
• Regarding accepting the ammo gift, we need not digress into firearm details (unless someone is an NAR member). There is also undue weight by having three large paragraphs, so it can be reduced into two if we keep it focused.
• Gardner's run for provincial and federal office don't need a full-tier header; however Richard M. Nixon's run for the California governorship does.

GoldDragon 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The residency of BMO's CFO is not analogous with the Gardner situation. There were a number of criticisms over the years of the fact that a Toronto City Councillor and then chair of the Toronto Police Services Board didn't live in the city whose bylaws he was voting on and police force he was governing. No criticisms of the BMO's CFO's residency that I am aware of and, of course, the Bank of Montreal has not actually been based in Montreal for decades and has not limited its operations to Montreal for centuries whilst the Toronto Police and Toronto City council are not only based in Toronto but are confined to the city's limits. What would be analogous would be, say, a federal politician who didn't live in Canada or an Ontario cabinet minister who doesn't live in the province.

Since the ammo gift is what led to his downfall the comment of "undue weight" is absurd.

If you can find rationales for police helicopters etc then add them to the article rather than remove the references because you don't think they delve deeply enough. Add, don't subtract. Loaf of bread 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time until that is found, one-sided statements can't remain in the article. I would say that it is absurd to go into details of the weapon in the ammo gift. GoldDragon 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find more details, then find more details. "In the mean time" the material stays because it's relevant and well-sourced. Loaf of bread 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that rather than seek out the material you think is lacking, you prefer to remove sourced material. It looks like you're looking for an excuse to remove material you don't like, given that you have failed to add any countervaling material whatsoever despite your complaint that it is needed. Loaf of bread 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "countervailing" material, these incidents have not been removed, but the one-sided perspectives have been. For incidents that have been removed, they are not important in the context of the article. GoldDragon 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My review

I have reviewed the last two versions, which I have labelled "CJC" and "GD", although I see that other editors have been involved. I have reviewed each disputed paragraph on its own merits ("GZ"). I want to give further consideration to GD's point that his position on handguns is repeated ad nauseum. My initial thought is that each instance in the CJC version is a separate incident/position taken by Norm, so they may all be worth keeping, but I want to ruminate.

#1

CJC: Norman Gardner is a politician and administrator in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is a former North York and Toronto City Councillor, and is best known for his tenure as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board (1998-2003). He has also campaigned for the Canadian House of Commons.

GD: Norman Gardner is a politician and administrator in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is a former North York and Toronto City Councillor, serving most recently as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board (1998-2003).

GZ: I prefer GD’s version – his campaigns for the Commons came to naught. No particular need to mention them in the intro.

#2

CJC: His supporters in the 1985 election included former Toronto Mayor John Sewell, who argued that Gardner's election would add "continuity, restraint and attention to administrative detail" to the Board of Control.

GD:His supporters in the 1985 election included former Toronto Mayor John Sewell, who said that Gardner would provide "continuity, restraint and attention to administrative detail" to the Board of Control.

GZ:“said” is more neutral than “argued”. Did Sewell’s article say “add” or “provide”? The latter suggests that the supporters believed that there was none before.

#3

CJC: Shortly after his appointment to the Police Commission, the Toronto Star newspaper quoted him as saying that store owners should arm themselves against robbers. Gardner said he was misquoted, and that he had been talking about the response of store owners in Calgary and Montreal to recent shootings in those cities. The Star refused to retract its story. Some councillors suggested that Gardner be recalled from the commission, but no action was taken.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Keep: these are controversial comments, especially given what most Canadians think about gun control. CJC’s version adequately represents both sides of the dispute.

#4

CJC: He endorsed a proposal to create co-operative housing for low-income families in the city, and later supported a contentious five-year grant to a paper recycling firm.

GD: He endorsed a proposal to create co-operative housing for low-income families in the city, and later supported a five-year grant to a paper recycling firm.

GZ: If the word “contentious” is contentious, I think it is best left out.

#5

CJC: He argued that his previous membership in the Progressive Conservative Party was "a good vehicle to use in the interests of my constituents", but added that he did not renew his membership in 1986.

GD: He said that his previous membership in the Progressive Conservative Party was "a good vehicle to use in the interests of my constituents", but he did not renew his membership in 1986.

GZ: Again, “argued” vs. “said” – “said” is more neutral.

#6

CJC: Gardner frequently defended Metro police officers against accusations of racism, and was sometimes described as resisting efforts towards police reform.

GD: Gardner frequently defended Metro police officers against accusations of racism.

GZ: Keep: the deletion of “sometimes described” seems to be whitewashing, as long as that contention is supported by the reference.

#7

CJC: In early 1989, Gardner recommended that the maximum age covered by the Young Offenders Act be lowered from 17 to 12. Several commentators, and councillor Brian Ashton, considered this an extreme measure. In 1991, he recommended a five-year minimum prison sentence without parole for criminals who use firearms in the commission of an offense.

GD: In early 1989, Gardner recommended that the maximum age covered by the Young Offenders Act be lowered from seventeen to twelve. In 1991, he recommended a five-year minimum prison sentence without parole for criminals who use firearms in the commission of an offense.

GZ: I don’t know if the reference to commentators and Ashton adds much here. Although it sounds like a weasel words, I suggest saying “controversially recommended” to indicate that many see this as a wacky idea.

#8

CJC: In late 1991, Gardner argued that attempts by the federal government to toughen gun controls would not make anyone in Metro Toronto safer.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Keep: I don’t see the rationale for cutting this.

#9

CJC: In March 1992, Gardner shot and wounded an unarmed man who was attempting to rob his bakery. It was later revealed that Gardner had a special "protection-of-life" permit that allowed him to carry a loaded weapon. He later said that he received this permit following a death threat, although commission chair Susan Eng was openly critical of this account. Eng called for him to resign pending an investigation, and councillor Brian Ashton suggested that Gardner should have been criminally charged to prevent Toronto shopkeepers from arming themselves and taking vigilante actions against criminals. Gardner denied that his actions constituted vigilantism, saying that the robber ran toward him yelling "Go ahead and shoot". The police declined to lay charges

GD: In March 1992, Gardner shot and wounded a man who was attempting to rob his bakery. It was later revealed that Gardner had a special "protection-of-life" permit that allowed him to carry a loaded weapon, which he received followed a death threat. Eng called for him to resign pending an investigation, while councillor Brian Ashton argued that it was vigilantism. Gardner denied this, saying that the robber ran toward him yelling "Go ahead and shoot" (the robber was unarmed). The police declined to lay charges

GZ: I generally prefer CJC’s version here – this was a major even in Norm’s career, so there is no need to downplay it. I would move the “unarmed” reference to where GD has placed it though, unless we know that Norm knew that the man was unarmed when he shot. CJC’s juxtaposition suggests that norm knowingly shot a defenceless person. I think that Norm would argue that he thought his own llife was in danger.

#10

CJC: Gardner was an extremely staunch supporter

GD: Gardner was a staunch supporter

GZ: “staunch” is a very clear term. No need to gild the lily by adding “extremely”.

#11

CJC: In June 1994, he was the only police service board member to oppose a ban on the private ownership and possession of handguns.

GD: (delete)

GZKeep: I see no reason to delete this. This demonstrates the resoluteness of his position on handguns.

#12

CJC: Gardner asked the federal government to give increased financial assistance to Toronto in early 1992, arguing that the government's immigration and refugee policies were putting a significant strain on Toronto's welfare system. In the same year, he chaired a Metro Committee that recommended a $15 million cutback in social services programs. Members of the group Fight Back Metro Coalition accused him of "whipping up hostility" toward welfare recipients.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Hmmm… I don’t know what this paragraph is trying to say. This needs some clarification. I think it is relevant and should stay if it can be fixed. Why did Norm’s committee recommend the cuts? Because he hates welfare recipients as the last part of the para suggests? Or because Metro was running out of money to pay for them as the first part suggests?

#13

CJC: In 1996, he supported a plan to fingerprint provincial welfare recipients.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Keep: no reason to hide another of his wacky ideas, but this should identify what he was trying to achieve with this proposal.

#14

CJC: Following her defeat, Prinsloo argued that civilian scrutiny of the police force would suffer under Gardner's rule.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Delete: I think the rest of the para demonstrates (with the Torstar quote) the difference of opinion about Norm’s impact. This isn’t needed.

#15

CJC: He also supported a controversial plan by Police Chief David Boothby to replace the city's public complaints bureau with a more decentralized model. The following month, he concluded a deal to make Toronto police officers the highest-paid in Ontario.

GD: He also supported a plan by Police Chief David Boothby to replace the city's public complaints bureau with a more decentralized model. The following month, he concluded a deal to make Toronto police officers the highest-paid in Ontario, in order to prevent an exodus of skilled officers to other municipalities.

GZ: If “controversial” is controversial, let’s leave it out. “in order to prevent” – this seems like ragging the puck. This presents the assertion as fact. Here is a more neutral way of saying the same thing: “supporters of the deal said that it would help Metro retain skilled officers by offering competitive compensation”.

#16

CJC: Later in 1998, it was revealed that Gardner had been investigated by the FBI for carrying a weapon across the Canadian-American border. No charges were filed. Other members of the police commission expressed concern that they were not informed of the investigation. Gardner later claimed that the press had tried to "smear" him over the issue.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Delete: investigated and not charged. Big deal. I don’t think this is necessary. Shooting a guy robbing a bakery – that’s news. This, not so much.

#17

CJC: Gardner supported the purchase of police helicopters in 1999, an initiative that some other councillors criticized as both ineffective and too expensive.

GD: Gardner supported the purchase of police helicopters in 1999.

GZ: Keep: by add the rationale for the helicopters. Providing both sides of the argument is always a good idea.

#18

CJC: Gardner opposed the police union's controversial "Operation True Blue" telemarketing campaign in early 2000, although the Toronto Star alleged that Gardner had made a secret deal with police union leader Craig Bromell to permit similar fundraising efforts in the future. Gardner denied that a deal had been struck, and argued that he consistently opposed the True Blue campaign.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Keep: relevant detail.

#19

CJC: After his appointment, John Sewell and others criticized Gardner on the grounds that Toronto Police Service Board members should live in the city. While Gardner's family bakery is located in Toronto, Gardner and his family reside in Thornhill.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Delete: John Sewell is entitled to his view, but he is only a minor newspaper columnist, and a bot of a wing-nut (one for whom I have voted in the past). His views are not needed here.

#20

CJC: In October 2001, Gardner supported a decision by the Toronto police to compile a list of suspected terrorist sympathizers. During a radio interview on the subject, he said that he was "assuming that people on this list are predominantly of Middle Eastern descent". Both Gardner's comments and his support for the list were criticized by civil libertarians, including lawyer Clayton Ruby. Provincial Solicitor General David Turnbull defended both Gardner's comments and the police decision.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Keep: let him hang by his own words.

#21

CJC: There was speculation in 2002 that Gardner would run to succeed Lastman as Mayor of Toronto, although his low-profile outside of policing issues was often cited as a liability. He ultimately chose not to run.

GD: (delete)

GZ: Delete: interesting tidbit, but this article is too long already, and idle speculation can be removed without losing much meaning.

#22

CJC: Gardner was criticized in 2003 for having accepted the gift of a handgun from the vice-president of Para-Ordinance Inc., a Toronto firearms manufacturer that Gardner assisted in getting a discount rate for an exhibition booth at the 2001 International Association of Chiefs of Police convention. The weapon was a .45-calibre TAC-Four semi-automatic pistol, a restricted weapon in Canada (Gardner belatedly paid $700 for the weapon shortly before the controversy was made public). He stepped aside as Police Services Board chair in 2003, pending resolution of the matter. The initial six-week investigation by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS) resulted in a formal inquiry later in the year. It was later revealed that Gardner also took 5,700 rounds of ammunition from the city's police services for his personal use, with the permission of the chief's office. In 2004, it was revealed that Gardner had approved his own expenses for conference travel.

GD: Gardner stepped aside as Police Services Board chair in 2003 for having accepted the gift of a handgun from the vice-president of Para-Ordinance Inc., a Toronto firearms manufacturer that Gardner assisted in getting a discount rate for an exhibition booth at the 2001 International Association of Chiefs of Police convention. The initial six-week investigation by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS) resulted in a formal inquiry later in the year. It was later revealed that Gardner also took 5,700 rounds of ammunition from the city's police services for his personal use, with the permission of the chief's office.

GZ: I am proposing a compromise: this is mostly CJC’s version, which I think includes relevant detail, but without the reference to the actual type of firearm, which would be of interest to few. I have included GD’s refence to Norm stepping aside – this is the most relevant bit of info here.

Gardner stepped aside as Police Services Board chair in 2003 for having accepted the gift of a handgun from the vice-president of Para-Ordinance Inc., a Toronto firearms manufacturer that Gardner assisted in getting a discount rate for an exhibition booth at the 2001 International Association of Chiefs of Police convention. The weapon was a semi-automatic pistol, a restricted weapon in Canada (Gardner belatedly paid $700 for the weapon shortly before the controversy was made public). He stepped aside as Police Services Board chair in 2003, pending resolution of the matter. The initial six-week investigation by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS) resulted in a formal inquiry later in the year. It was later revealed that Gardner also took 5,700 rounds of ammunition from the city's police services for his personal use, with the permission of the chief's office. In 2004, it was revealed that Gardner had approved his own expenses for conference travel.

I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, GZ, for these thoughtful, informed, and almost scarily comprehensive comments (which spare me the responsibility of doing a similar point-by-point overview). I don't agree with all of your recommendations, but in the interest of timely resolution I'd be prepared to accept your suggestions and move on to other matters. CJCurrie 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A few comments, though I'm aware that GroundZero is still ruminating. As most of the content in this article is about the controversies, with little or none covering the policies or programs that he helped to implement, I suggest a POV tag.

#6

"and was sometimes described as resisting efforts towards police reform." In that case, if we include the downside of defending against charges of racism, could we include Gardner's justification/upside? Alan Tonks (see Howard Moscoe) suggested that an emphasis on racial issues would duplicate existing work and lower police morale.

#18

Regarding the True Blue fundraising campaign, there is only the account on what Gardner alleged did, with nothing on what he actually did. Was Gardner credited in part with putting an end to the campaign? If he did, could we have some detail on what steps he did take (sort of like Moscoe's negotiations with the transit union)?

#20

"David Turnbull defended..." I would give some details of how Turnbull specifically defended Gardner, otherwise this seems like dragging Turnbull into the mud. From this, perhaps describe what arguments Gardner and Turnbull used in support of the terrorist suspect list.

#22

Part of reason for removing some detail was so I could merge three paragraphs into two. As all semi-autos are restricted in Canada, and as most handguns are semi-autos anyway, the controversy should have been more about accepting the gift rather than the weapon itself.

I suggest this: Gardner reimbursed the manufacturer for the weapon, a semi-automatic pistol, shortly before the controversy was made public. I also remembered reading that Gardner also reimburse the police force for the ammo...

GoldDragon 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Moving towards a consensus

I've implemented the changes I've proposed above, taking into account some of GD's additional comments. I do not suggest that this represents something that everyone can agree to, only that it brings us closer to resolving this. We should review this with respect to GD's comments about excessive highlighting of Norm's position on gun control. I think that GD also has a valid point about Norm's position not being represented on some of the issues. This should be addressed by adding Norm's position, rather than deleting the criticism from the other side. I agree that this article tends to focus on events/controversies, but I think we have to accept that when dealing with municipal politics, the news media will be pretty well our only sources. There are few books written about municipal politics to provide a more analytical approach. As a consequence, we are stuck with the daily/weekly news media's focus on events and controversies. Ground Zero | t 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, I'll carry out the non-contested changes. I also suggest the POV tag, similar to how it is used on Joe Volpe. GoldDragon 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more edits

"He supported Canada's boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. He also recommended that Canada consider banning Soviet vessels from its trading ports.[6]"

Is this necessary? Is it appropriate in the tiny section about his period as a ward councillor? I'm sure he had opinions about many issues not relevant to the politics of North York during this time (most politicians do -- remmeber Toronto City COuncil declaring T.O. to be a nuke weapons-free zone?), but why are they worth mentining here?

On GD's comemnts on #6, #18 and #20, I agree that elaboration is warranted, and encourage GD to add appropriate material. I don't think that #22 needs truncating. I think it is fine as it is.

On the overall tone of the article, I think at times it does come across as a litany of Norm's controversial remarks. I think if GD adds material on 6, 18 and 20, it would be more balanced. I have reviewed the article to see if there are ways of improving the balance without removing material, but did not come up with any new ideas. Ground Zero | t 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)