Leaderboard

Ford is not overriding 'charter rights' as the notwithstanding clause is not about overriding the Charter but about the right of a democratically elected Govt. to over ride the selective interpretation of the Charter by un elected and non accountable judges. The province has the right to make changes, the not withstanding clause is there to prevent provincial rights from being trampled by a judge or by federal govt.

The only way Hillary would go to prison is if she suddenly became a Republican.

Monkeypox - just part of the cultural enrichment and diversity we must accept. Right? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6156029/Second-person-struck-deadly-monkeypox-virus-UK.html

So, really, our Prime Minister was unable to say any words to our U.S. allies who are mourning 9/11 17 years on. Never forget - he/she can't be bothered to remember

Interesting battle....the loyalists who worship "The Crown" vs. the republicans who stand for governance by "The People".

The disallowance power originates in the Constitution Act, 1867 (i.e. the BNA Act), which is subsumed in the Canadian constitution alongside the Constitution Act, 1982. A brief synopsis on disallowance, written by Eugene Forsey, is linked below. The power hasn't been used in decades but remains valid. There's widespread misunderstanding that the 1982 Act repealed and replaced the 1867 Act, which it did not. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/disallowance

The Charter even defeats the purpose of a Charter. A Bill of Rights in a Constitution generally aims to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms does precisely the opposite. It entrenches the privileges of the two dominant ethnic communities through its language and separate-school provisions. In terms of protecting minority rights, that's even worse than having no Charter at all.

Ford forgets that Judges are appointed by the Crown as was he. He was elected as an MPP, but he was appointed Premier by the Crown. He is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

If you check my previous comments you'll see I don't even LIKE Doug Ford. But Doug Ford, unlike the judges will be restrained by what he thinks the people are willing to see happen. If he does too many things that tick the people off Doug Ford will be gone. Judges have no such restraint.

What is the difference between a Liberal government and a Liberal court? What we've seen from the courts for the last couple of decades is creeping politicization. We have law schools telling students it is their mission to push laws that help society, that indoctrinate students into a progressive mentality of legal activism. We have a law society which now demands every lawyer not only adhere to progressive beliefs but sign a binding promise to do so. And we have courts so liberal that when Harper tried to find a judge in Quebec to appoint to the Supreme court who would actually just read the constitutions the way it was written and didn't believe in judicial activism he had to try and pull some guy out of semi retirement in Quebec. And then the Supreme Court in all its stolid, stern liberal indignation, made up a reason why he couldn't do that. Because the courts now are wholly devoted to judicial activism from a liberal progressive ideological base. They see law as intended to serve their view of a progressive society and are not the least hesitant to twist and stretch its meaning to cover just about anything they want to. Thus when a conservative government, responding to the anger of people over low sentences by judges for violent offenders imposed mandatory minimums the judges rose up in their sanctimonious anger and struck such laws down as 'unconstitutional'. When the conservatives, again, responding to public anger, tried to reign in the judicial habit of granting 2 for 1 or even 3 for one time served while in custody the judges found that unconstitutional. The judicial branch is acting like they are in charge of both making law and changing society and NOBODY elected them for that. At least when politicians do things people don't like they can be voted out. Judges are in there permanently and are under no obligation to give a shit what the people want while they remake society according to their own vision.

You are being hysterical. Do you work for city council or something? When the Liberals did a massive rework of Ontario's debt and associated contracts for electricity in order to lower electricity rates (and cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars) in order to enhance their election chances, how much discussion was there? It was simply announced as a wonderful thing! GOOD! Like what? What exactly has hindered the Liberals in doing whatever the hell they feel like doing, other than voter anger and their own future electoral prospects? This is more ridiculous hysteria. You're acting like a child whose favorite toy has been taken away.

According to the charter, Ontario tax payers must fund that catholic church with tax money. According to the charter, we don't actually have freedom of speech, we merely pretend we do. Section 2 of the charter is made ineffective my sections 1 and 33 of the charter. According to the charter, the state recognizes the supremacy of god, and this recognition of the supremacy of god comes before anything, including rule of law. I could go on. Our charter is terrible. Unfortunately, idiots blinded by nationalism pretend it's the best thing in the world, often without having read it.

Important? I'm not sure about that. Trudeau's priorities often seem overstated and even somewhat irrelevant. As Thomas Walkom noted in a Toronto Star column a few days ago (link below), none of the three major priorities identified by the federal government is likely all that important to Trudeau's negotiating team, which seems intent mainly on securing a few pyrrhic concessions. Trudeau's government will cave in to some degree on dairy to get a deal, as is likely wise. Is our protectionist system, supported by massive costs imposed on consumers, the hill on which Trudeau's team is willing to let NAFTA talks die? Its own cultural policies haven't been particularly consistent, nationalistic or protectionist and the dispute resolution mechanism, which has never been taken seriously by the Americans, is hardly the benefit Trudeau makes it out to be. So, what's left? https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/09/06/playing-culture-card-good-politics-for-trudeau.html

There is no need for Trump to go have a little chat with the Mule because the Mule has nothing on Trump. But what I am waiting for is the day when the Mule has Hillary and Obama finally in his cross hairs and puts her under oath and starts to question her on her dealings with the Russians. Will she commit perjury herself then? One can only hope she does. Orange will look good on her. Too late for that. The dumbocrats have already beaten the Republicans to the finish line on the matter of ethical behavior. The dumbos have already declared that they are themselves the masters at being unethical and so much more bad stuff.

I imagine when they drafted the laws they didn't anticipate a reprobate like Ford purposefully trying to f*ck over the largest city in the Country. Poor vision I guess. This incident has made me switch over to support Proportional Representation. If the Progressive (hah) Conservatives aren't even aware that they are bound by the courts then we might as well have a left-centre-left dictatorship. I will change my mind if I hear reasonable opposition from the right about this power grab, but I doubt I will.

It's certainly impacted housing availability and costs. Look at the problems of those displaced by the 650 Parliament St. fire, many of whom have nowhere to move to but shelters. And there was an article in today's Toronto Star about a senior with cancer who's been on the assisted housing waiting list for years. Seniors and the seriously ill and disabled apparently don't rank on the priority scale where public services are concerned. I believe the British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that one of the impacts of large scale immigration in developed economies is to generate greater competition among the disadvantaged for ever scarcer social services, leading eventually to a decline in social cohesion as well as withdrawal of public support for sustaining these programs. That's where we are in 2018, folks. The safety net is gone. Why keep paying for it? https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/09/06/even-terminal-illness-wont-guarantee-a-spot-in-torontos-subsidized-housing.html

DPRK celebrates 70th birthday with military parade — no ICBMs https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-celebrates-70th-birthday-with-parade--but-doesnt-show-off-icbms/2018/09/09/f9872fde-b3c8-11e8-a810-4d6b627c3d5d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.36115cbbf23f

Agreed....CBS' "respected" reporter and news anchor Dan Rather had to resign in disgrace because of "fake news" backed up by fake documents about George W. Bush during the 2004 election. Rather felt that his mission to bring down a president was so important, his end justified the means. Unfortunately for him (and CBS), the forged documents used Microsoft Word fonts/spacing that did not exist when they would have been typed by an IBM Selectric typewriter...so "fake news". With the internet and social media, the old guard "journalists" can no longer control the narrative, and with severe pressure for more content, several more have been caught flat out lying (e.g. Brian Williams in Iraq). Print media like the NYT has been busted on several occasions as that industry comes under severe pressure and lost of advertisers. Donald Trump was able to seize upon the decline of hard news media credibility and the rise of entertainment / celebrity reporting.