Centerpiece

You seem to be the perfect profile for someone who reads Martin Regg Cohn's columns. He's The Star's attack dog against all things Conservative. Look, I'm not a fan of Ford's personality but remember what the voters said. By giving the Liberals only 7 - count 'em - seven seats, the electorate sent a crystal clear message. Do you really think she governed for all 13 million people - by the way - probably only 6 million voters (Cohn has a habit of misrepresenting things)? They said - enough already - lets get back to basics. Ford has some very capable people to lean on. Let's give them all a chance - at least as much as was given to Kathleen Wynne who went ahead and privatized Hydro without having it in her platform - or Trudeau who lied about so many things, modest deficits and balanced budgets being a huge one. Why not pack away your outrage for a while........

In political jargon, they might be called "the useful idiots". But seriously - you know - and I know - that what you summarized is the root of the rise of populism and the enabling of Ford-like politicians. People just get sick of the tut-tutting of the elite. I sense a climb towards a tipping point - aided by the arrogance of this current Federal Liberal government.

Exactly my point. This is not about rights....it's about inconvenience. Registration fees can be returned. If you took a leave from work - you just go back. There's absolutely no guarantee that you would win anyway. Might be sloppy implementation - but if the government believed that it would help, the alternative of waiting another 4 years is not a good one. Ontario - and by extension Toronto - has a lot of work to do. If Toronto Council would have taken the advice of their lawyers and just accepted the Government's direction, there would have been ample time to carry out the election in a robust fashion. But the important point is about rights - and I strongly expect the appellate courts will overturn the decision.

Very rational thinking. Frustratingly, in today's "progressive" climate - amplified by media like the CBC and The Star - any such questions are immediately shouted down with accusations of being "un-Canadian" and often, racist.

In a previous post, I calculated that it was probably about $200 a day for food and lodging - that's about $6000 a month or $72,000 a year for each. So $50K would be a "bargain". Most will be here for years until they are finally deported.....and then a good number will be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. $$$$$$. Crazy stuff.

The Charter has great value - and is vital to our democracy - when implemented in a proper fashion. I liken its use to sports video replays. If there is not clear, unequivocal evidence of a violation of rights - remembering that the Charter also says that those rights are not "absolute", then government legislation must prevail. Putting technicalities aside, if you were to ask a Toronto citizen how their individual rights have been violated by cutting council, the overwhelming answer would be "Huh?". In many respects - but not all (especially egregious violations that cannot be minimized) - our Charter's reluctance to make rights "absolute" can best be supported by Star Trek's Spock - "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Excellent summation that cuts through all the hand-wringing noise. Ford's legislation was introduced July 27th - giving just shy of three full months to get ready for the October 22nd election date. It wasn't the "middle of an election" as July 27th was actually the last date for candidate nominations - which was subsequently extended. It was/is the obstructionist moves by the Council that has plunged the election into chaos. There's a very good chance the judge/decision will be strongly rebuked by the Appellate Court. That will be an interesting day as it stands to bring over-reaching judicial activism out in the open - while giving credibility - and even purpose - to the use of the nonwithstanding clause. That "threat" may rightly give the Judiciary pause before using the Charter in such a machiavellian manner.

I sea it - I just don't buy it.

No.

I don't buy your interpretation. On a related note, it was surprisingly refreshing to watch CBC Power and Politics today. They had three former Premiers on - Christy Clark, Brad Wall and Jean Charest. All three whole-heartedly supported Ford's use of the notwithstanding clause. Jean Charest was particularly adamant that Parliament was supreme - subject to the eventual reckoning with the electorate. There wasn't one hint of reluctance.

Bingo! And therein lies the problem with a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". They are not black and white - as laws and lawyers are used to. How far do you take Freedom of Expression for example? Who decides the huge grey area between oppression and inconvenience? If a ruling affects only 1 out of 100 people - or 10 out of 100 - is the result severe enough to warrant depriving the vast majority of the intended benefits? Even so, can allowances be made to lessen the impact on the tiny minority. This is just a tiny portion of the interpretation that a judge must make. They are human and can easily be wrong. And yes, their political mindset (level of "activism") can affect their reasoning. That's why, in my opinion, their decisions should err on the side of supporting legislation - because the court of public opinion will always rule supreme as electoral democracy takes its course. It's like video-review in sports - if there's no compelling evidence to overturn the decision - it stands.

Don't recall him saying he was "above the law". As you would say - do you have a cite? (AKA "I'm not buying it")

I stand corrected - a sloppy mistake. He tripled the deficit. I will re-word: Wynne privatizes Hydro. Trudeau triples deficit with no balanced budget......neither of which were in campaigns and both of which have far more impact on peoples' lives than the number of councilors. Where was the outrage? Where were the lawsuits? The mentality of the Right is to accept democracy. The mentality of the Left is to litigate if it goes against their ideology. Have you noticed that now Greenpeace is launching a lawsuit against the Ontario government over the cancellation of Cap & Trade? And on and on it goes.

But as I said, it seems it's only used by one side.....here's a summary of the "outrage" so far: Greenpeace v. Ministry of Environment City of Toronto v. Attorney General of Ontario Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) v. Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and Attorney General of Ontario Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) v. Minister of Education Basic income recipients v. Minister of Children, Community and Social Services Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Minister of Education Parents of LGBTQ+ youth v. Minister of Education

Wynne privatizes Hydro. Trudeau triples debt with no balanced budget......neither of which were in campaigns and both of which have far more impact on peoples' lives than the number of councilors. Where was the outrage? Where were the lawsuits? The mentality of the Right is to accept democracy. The mentality of the Left is to litigate if it goes against their ideology. Have you noticed that now Greenpeace is launching a lawsuit against the Ontario government over the cancellation of Cap & Trade? And on and on it goes.

No.

How is this not a crisis? And the cost? Forget about the bureaucratic cost for a second.....if we use an estimate of $200 per day for basic food and lodging - that's $192 million for every month (for 32000) that they stay in Canada. We're talking billions - and the number of "asylum seekers" is still growing. It appears that many of the deported were the easy ones - 116 were US citizens. Link: https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/09/07/canadian-border-agency-has-deported-398-illegal-migrants-out-of-32000.html

Interesting kerfuffle - because at the individual level - I can't really see whose rights or freedoms were infringed on. Voters - who mostly stay home for municipal elections? The judge says they would be confused. Pretty subjective and quite frankly, BS. If anything, they would be MORE aware of who to vote for with all this publicity. Voter representation? How does this judge KNOW that they will be less represented after the city makes the necessary adjustments to help support the councilors with large constituencies - like other large cities around the world? Answer - he doesn't. Some failed candidates spent a bit of money? So what - reimburse them if necessary. Big clue to the judge's bias? He said it appeared it was done in a fit of "pique". How does HE know it didn't have all-party agreement? He doesn't - he's just taking the words of the litigants. Tell me specifically whose rights or freedoms were infringed - in such an irreconcilable fashion that democratic legislation HAD to be struck down. And if the Supreme Court overturns the decision? That validates Ford's position and will give credibility to the use of the notwithstanding clause - and hopefully, give pause to the courts to more carefully weigh the real-world impact on individual rights/freedoms against the intent/value of the legislation.

.....and if the Supreme Court strikes down the ruling? Where do you stand on that? Do you not hold the slightest doubt that perhaps this particular judge "over reached" with his interpretation? The clue I'll give you is his statement that it was done in a "fit of pique". How does this judge know that this decision was not an "all party" decision? How does he conclude that 25 councilors takes away from "representation" - how does he know the new structure will not compensate for the larger constituent base? He doesn't. It was simply taken from the comments of the litigants. This judge is - unfortunately - part of the obstructionist barricade that has infected the Left side of the political spectrum.

The courts ALWAYS have to be there to uphold the constitution - the issue is the seeming living/breathing interpretation of the embedded Charter - interpreted on a case-by-case basis by a single person or a majority "opinion". However, this may prove to be a turning point in over-reaching court decisions. If - and I say IF - the Belobaba decision is overturned on appeal - it would give huge credibility to the use of the notwithstanding clause and give pause to courts not to trivialize the use of the Charter to overturn democratic legislation. The violation of Charter rights must be clear, substantiated, and unable to be rectified (poor wording but you get the idea). In this particular case, the reasoning amounted to perceived voter confusion and personal inconvenience. In my opinion, it was the court that used a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

I take it you don't like Premier Ford? Actually, when they drafted the Charter back in 1982, the provinces wisely held out for the notwithstanding clause to protect against over-reach by the Federal government. More and more, that over-reach has been transferred to the courts where they have incrementally read things into the Charter that are questionable at best. The intent of section 1 was pretty clear. The judge's decision was misplaced, if not pure folly. It overturned democratic legislation due to nothing more than an inconvenience put on the litigants. Their "rights", such as they were described, were only minimally impacted - and individually could have been addressed. Lost some money on fliers and advertising - pay them back. Lose your councilor seat - it's not a lifetime position. Even a strong minority of councilors voted to let the change happen. If the election was allowed to happen, it would be another 4 years (at best) before change could happen - 4 more years of dysfunctional Toronto council bickering. I've seen it for almost 20 years. It's horrible. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In general, I am in agreement but remember - you started the discussion saying that even if 80% of Canadians were in favour - that might not be enough on a major issue. That's a cavalier attitude. It's precisely these "major issues" where we have to listen very carefully to that 80% - or any majority - more so that a much smaller minority. Ignore them at your own peril. Democrats did - and look what happened in the US.

How does that square with Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage - or all the letters and numbers that have been somewhat arbitrarily added to LGBTQ2 - each of which have resulted in "rights" with far, far less than an 80% majority?

That's another trick of this far Left element that has gripped academia. Anyone who fails to see things their way - is tagged as controversial or polarizing. The fact that Jordan Peterson is constantly referred to in those terms is a perfect example of the intolerance that this topic is probing.