[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The people did not elect Ford to do this. As you've written, he had no platform, therefore he has no mandate from the 17% of people that voted for him to override the Charter and implement it.

The people don't vote on every single decision a government makes. Doug Ford specifically mentioned during his campaign that they intended to reduce the size and cost of government. While Toronto wasn't specifically mentioned, this is a reduction in the size, cost and efficiency of the government that's often dysfunctional and stands in the way of progress that affects the entire Province.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comment ... eform.html

[llama66]

$1:

Why isn't it democratic? This is a tool brought to us via various governments who were elected democratically and it's never been changed since inception.

So, you'd be cool with the government limiting your rights by invoking S.33? Its democratic after all.

There was no referendum on it, Chrétien recommended it and Trudeau Sr. put it in to the CCRF to placate the premiers, so no, its not democratic. Besides, it allows Government to sidestep the Judicatory, on matters inconvenient to the government.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The people did not elect Ford to do this. As you've written, he had no platform, therefore he has no mandate from the 17% of people that voted for him to override the Charter and implement it.

The people don't vote on every single decision a government makes. Doug Ford specifically mentioned during his campaign that they intended to reduce the size and cost of government. While Toronto wasn't specifically mentioned, this is a reduction in the size, cost and efficiency of the government that's often dysfunctional and stands in the way of progress that affects the entire Province.

He might have meant 'Toronto' in his reference to 'governments', but 17% of the people does not represent a majority of the people. Affecting 100% of the population or Torontos' charter rights, therefore is undemocratic without the mandate to do so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/doug-fo ... -1.4821302

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

He might have meant 'Toronto' in his reference to 'governments', but 17% of the people does not represent a majority of the people. Affecting 100% of the population or Torontos' charter rights, therefore is undemocratic without the mandate to do so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/doug-fo ... -1.4821302

It does equate to a majority according to our current political system. Majority by numbers? Of course not. That's never the case with our elected majority governments.

If we don't like the system as it stands, fix it. Don't just try to discount the system when someone that makes controversial decisions gets into office.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

Don't just try to discount the system when someone that makes controversial decisions gets into office.

I'm all about shaking up the establishment. I'm just not about suppressing rights to do it.

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Coach85 Coach85:

Don't just try to discount the system when someone that makes controversial decisions gets into office.

I'm all about shaking up the establishment. I'm just not about suppressing rights to do it.

The idea that this decision infringes on their right to 'freedom of expression' is ludicrous.

[llama66]

Just wait, this can set the stage for our rights to be curbed in other areas.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Coach85 Coach85:

Don't just try to discount the system when someone that makes controversial decisions gets into office.

I'm all about shaking up the establishment. I'm just not about suppressing rights to do it.

The idea that this decision infringes on their right to 'freedom of expression' is ludicrous.

And yet, many are complaining about confusion surrounding which riding they are in and who the candidates are. Their freedom of expression, and right to free and fair elections are compromised.

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, many are complaining about confusion surrounding which riding they are in and who the candidates are. Their freedom of expression, and right to free and fair elections are compromised.

Confusion is common during any election campaign. That's not unique.

There's been 3 weeks since the new wards were announced and there still another 4-5 weeks until voting day.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You don’t understand what rule of law means.

I understand this. Ford hasn't broken any law. Why can't you understand that?

I'm more concerned about activist judges rewriting laws to adhere to their political agendas.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, many are complaining about confusion surrounding which riding they are in and who the candidates are. Their freedom of expression, and right to free and fair elections are compromised.

Really?

How many?

Warmington reacts to their "massive" city hall protest as blasted nationally across the mainstream Progressive media.

Turns out it wasn't that 'massive' after all.

Like it or not, Ford's won this round

$1:

So this is what the outrage of an Ontario premier vowing to use the notwithstanding clause to pass his city council reduction law looks like.

There’s about 450 people out of a population of 13.6-million, who really seem to care about this.

Plans for a revolution may be on hold.

At more than 13,000 online participants, I had 20 times more people polled in the Toronto Sun questionnaire which had Sun readers at 80% support for the premier and his government.

Take away all the Liberal and NDP leaning politicians, their staff, the media and professional demonstrators and that 450 number is actually far less.

There seemed to be just as many trying to get onto the Queen streetcars.

[clip]

The problem with all of that is the premier has done nothing wrong and is just following the rules he has in front of him.

He saw his law struck down by the charter so he is merely using the same charter to overrule a decision making see is judicial activism at its worst.

Ford vowed to take a stand on this when he read the justice had used the word ‘crickets” in the judgement to mock the province’s response position.

It was bulletboard material for Ford.

No matter how loudly they all squawk there the premier has just used the existing rules to beat them at their own game.

The rally yesterday at city hall and the raucous show put on at Queen’s Park may get all sorts of media coverage and headlines, but at the end of the day in the big picture it’s a bunch of screaming that’s not being heard in the forest.

The vast majority of Ontarians don’t seem moved by any of this.

Unless Ford’s haters can convince Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to use powers he has within the Charter to overrule this, Ford is going to get his way to reduce Toronto City council from 47 to 25 seats, no matter how many disruptors there may be taken out in handcuffs from the gallery at Queen’s Park.

This was more about a couple hundred people trying to mess up an elected premier out of spite.

A lot of it is poor sportsmanship. The reality is Doug Ford is going to win this one.

What went on there Wednesday is an illustration of what losing looks like.

And the Liberal left hates to lose.

Especially to Doug Ford.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/ ... this-round

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You don’t understand what rule of law means.

I understand this. Ford hasn't broken any law. Why can't you understand that?

I'm more concerned about activist judges rewriting laws to adhere to their political agendas.

I never said Ford broke any law. I said he has no respect for the rule of law and his going nuclear in such a trivial issue is proof.

The judge is neither an “activist” nor is he “re-writing laws” or have a “political agenda”. He made a ruling you didn’t like, which may likely be overturned on appeal. It happens Get over it.

Ironically while Ford and his followers falsely and incorrectly claim courts have no business overruling elected government, Ford is taking the federal government to court, demanding that an “appointed judge” will overturn the carbon tax laws of Trudeau’s elected government. Just let that sink in for a while

[PluggyRug]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I never said Ford broke any law. I said he has no respect for the rule of law and his going nuclear in such a trivial issue is proof.

The judge is neither an “activist” nor is he “re-writing laws” or have a “political agenda”. He made a ruling you didn’t like, which may likely be overturned on appeal. It happens Get over it.

Ironically while Ford and his followers falsely and incorrectly claim courts have no business overruling elected government, Ford is taking the federal government to court, demanding that an “appointed judge” will overturn the carbon tax laws of Trudeau’s elected government. Just let that sink in for a while

I suggest you read this.....

$1:

People often make the mistake of calling judicial decisions they disagree with activist. This is not one of those cases. Because the judge couldn’t invoke s3 of the Charter (which doesn’t apply to municipalities), he wrote himself a new Charter in which s2 does the work of s3.

The judge even goes out of his way up front to invoke the idea of judicial restraint, like a talisman against accusation of activism. The Supreme Court of Canada likes to do this too ... and it is invariably a sign that the Court is about to overstep its constitutional bounds.

So the judge solemnly intones: "I am acutely aware of the appropriate role of the court in reviewing duly enacted federal or provincial legislation and the importance of judges exercising judicial deference and restraint." Then the rest of the opinion is one long "BUT ..."

Having conceded Bill 5 "appears to fall squarely within the province’s legislative competence," the Court nevertheless invalidates it on two grounds: (1) the freedom of expression of candidates and (2) voters' right to cast a ballot that results in "effective representation."

The first of these arguments never bothers to establish its underlying premise, viz., that a political candidates' freedom of expression is relevant because it relates to running in a specific election, the terms of which fall within the Province's authority to determine.

Instead, the judge inverts the logical order of his "argument," holding that because Bill 5 would impair the candidates' ability to talk about the election as it would have been contested with 47 wards, Bill 5 could not alter the terms of the election to cover only 25 wards.

This gets the constitutional argument backwards: if the Province has the power to alter the terms of the election by reducing the number of wards, as the court concedes it likely does (para.33), then candidates' expressive rights are limited to those new electoral conditions.

The court's second argument concerns political rights, which fall under s.3 of the Charter, which doesn't apply to municipal elections. This doesn't faze the judge, as he holds the underlying principles of s.3 can be transferred over to s.2's protection of freedom of expression.

Of course, this means that court's decision on this point rests on two inapplicable SCC precedents: a s.3 case (Sask. Ref.) that never once mentions s.2 and another (Haig) that explicitly rejected a s.2(b) argument, and an ONCA precedent (East York) that rejected a s.2 argument.

Finally, the court makes the gratuitous and unexpected finding that a ward with a population of 111,000 is too big to provide effective democratic representation. On this point, the court cites no relevant precedent; it's just tacked onto the end of the s.3 (ahem s.2) analysis.

This finding contradicts the court's earlier suggestion that Bill 5 would have been fine if it had been enacted well in advance of an election. The judge doesn't explain why 111,000-person wards are unconstitutional right now, but wouldn't be in six months, or six months ago.

But then there is a lot that isn't well thought out, consistent, or explained in the decision. It's almost as if, to borrow a phrase from para.70 of the ruling, the opinion was penned "more out of pique than principle." Definitely a candidate for invoking s.33.

Another option, that would be cheeky but would basically respect the court's ruling, would be for the province to pass a law delaying the election for six months and in the meantime imposing the same provisions as Bill 5.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The judge is neither an “activist” nor is he “re-writing laws” or have a “political agenda”. He made a ruling you didn’t like, which may likely be overturned on appeal. It happens Get over it.

You get over it. Your side lost. I'm just trying to help you come to terms with it. Small thanks I get. Try this then.

[N_Fiddledog]

Looks like PluggyRug gave you lots to think about though Beave so I shouldn't need to explain it to you.