I could not support paying for John De Cicco's legal expenses...

I think John De Cicco is a good representative for the people of Kamloops and I think he is a good man. I, however, did not think it was appropriate for the taxpayers to pay his legal expenses for the human rights complaint against him.

I was on the losing side of 7 to 1 vote on the matter. And I respect the will of a Council as a whole.

I thought it inappropriate to be seen at all as condoning John's comments about homosexuality. I also thought that John did not make his comments as a representative of the City, but as an individual Councillor.

If I commented that all religious people had some sort of disease, I would not expect John De Cicco or any other Councillor to support paying any legal expenses I would incur as a result. Note to the media: I am not actually making this comment, just to be really crystal clear.

Comments

[Mike]

Hi Arjun,

From what is reported, I would personally support the city carrying at least a portion of the expenses. If he had not been in the spotlight, he would not likely be in this position.

We have this terrible concept that a public servant must somehow be perfect in their ability to express their thoughts and beliefs; perfect in what we call politically correct.

Mr. De Cicco's comment was only a reflection of what many people have read, heard, and may believe. It may not be correct, but it's not his fault that there is so much information (some false, some correct, and some arguable).

We all hold opinions, right or wrong, that someone doesn't like. We also have a freedom to express our thoughts and opinions, hopefully without persecution; with the notable exception of spreading hate.

I understand how the gay community would be offended by his comment, but really, pushing this issue through the whole tribunal thing goes too far.

Remember what happens when we lose our right to speak freely. There are many places in the world where a slip of the tongue results in terrible punishments or death. This is quite a ways from that, but reminds me of the cost we pay for not pulling the party line.

[Jane]

Mike, I agree that a person has the freedom to say what he will. A person has the freedom to say this in public, to the media...and in a courtroom, defending himself against charges by an objecting party.

I strongly disagree with his legal bills being contributed to or covered by the City.

DeCicco is paid sufficiently to have pre-paid legal insurance or to otherwise access a lawyer. In our respective jobs, we are paid money so that we can manage our personal lives. DeCicco's abstaining from voting on certain issues is personal --and we allow that. His comments were personal, and the related expenses should be too.

Thank you, Arjun, for your integrity and post.

[Arjun Singh]

Thanks for your comments Jane and Mike.

Mike, in my view, the freedom of a public official to speak also bears great responsibility. A lot of people have a lot of respect for John De Cicco.

I think a respected public official saying in a public interview that homosexuality is a disease might encourage hateful acts by others less respected by society.

So, I think the comments crossed the line past what should be condoned under freedom of speech.

Now, John has apologized, which I was hoping he would all along - I think that was the right thing to do