turningrite

I believe many of the U.S. citizens are in fact children born in the U.S. to some of the claimants. In any case, your point is well taken. There's a good article in today's G&M that demonstrates the abysmal inadequacy of our refugee determination bureaucracy. Reportedly, over the past 19 months this bureaucracy has cleared only about one in six of the almost 30 thousand claims filed by those who've "irregularly" walked into Canada at the Quebec-U.S. border. At this rate, and assuming that no new arrivals enter the system, the backlog will take 7 to 8 years to clear! Wow! https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-asylum-seeker-surge-at-quebec-border-choking-canadas-refugee-system/

I've not heard of any council candidates who were informed of Ford's intention to reduce the size of council prior to rumors of this which first emerged on July 26 and Ford's subsequent announcement the next day that in fact he intended to pursue this agenda. July 27, by the way, was the day on which nominations for municipal council elections closed, according to the Ontario Municipal Elections Act (see link below). Perhaps some candidates with PC ties were privately aware of Ford's plan prior to it being officially announced (which, if true, would be really problematic) but one has to believe that as the mayor was not informed of Ford's agenda prior to July 26 or 27, well after nominations had been opened (on May 1, 2018) and fundraising and campaigning were well underway, Ford's plan was not widely known. It certainly wasn't in any direct way discussed during Ford's election campaign. It's not particularly surprising that some incumbent councillors don't oppose the changes as incumbency is a huge advantage in municipal elections. Newcomers who'd been drawn into the field for the expanded council are particularly disadvantaged by it. This is not a matter of Ford draining the swamp. It's a matter of Ford reducing the size of the swamp and putting a fence around it to keep newcomers out. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page18735.aspx

Many confuse the Constitution Act, 1867 with the Constitution Act, 1982. Both Acts effectively remain valid except where laws have been enacted and approved to alter specific constitutional provisions, such as the elimination of separate religious schools in Quebec and Newfoundland. The provisions that established separate schools regimes in Canada were aspects of the 1867 Act rather than the 1982 Act, which includes the Charter. The Charter legally accommodates contradictions between the 1867 provisions and other provisions in the 1982 Charter by means of Sections 23 and 29, which respectively clarify and preserve language and education rights accorded in the 1867 Act.

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

Apparently, you intend to have us believe that Michael Thompson's opinion amounts to a principle, right? I think his position somewhat disingenuous. Toronto's city council is characterized by ideological factionalism (i.e. informal parties) combined with a lot of regional (i.e. suburban) parochialism. This won't end with a 25 member council although perhaps debates might be a little less windy. The real problem, which has been noted by some analysts over the past couple days, is the "weak mayor" system under which the city operates. In a strong mayor system, a mayor would have the authority to limit debate, choose policy options and easily bring them to decisive votes. The province wants none of this as the mayor could acquire sufficient political clout to challenge provincial politicians and authority. I suspect Thompson and Ford's other allies on council are aware of this. Better to support the leader than talk about real principles and solutions, I guess.

Which makes it all the more shocking that he included democratic rights among those that could be suppressed. You have to wonder if Trudeau Sr. was actually a fan of democracy all. Junior likely doesn't know what democracy actually entails, so I suspect he'll give this particular Charter controversy a pass.

Well, there is a pesky little thing called the "rule of law" whereby courts serve as a check on governments. As far as I'm aware, this principle applies in all democratic jurisdictions. There are certainly instances where one can criticize judicial overreach and where use of the notwithstanding clause might be appropriate. But is this one of those instances? Hmmm... it's hard to figure how it might be. I believe the court ruling released yesterday acknowledged that the province has the right to make changes regarding municipal elections but held that based on democratic principles this can't be done in the middle of an election period. It seems pretty sound logic to me. Doug Ford is obviously in a huff for having his bluff called by an unelected judge. However, I believe all judges are appointed in this country, suggesting that Ford disrespects the role of the judiciary. We have to ask whether it's dangerous to democracy to tolerate Ford's antics? What if he were to gerrymander ridings for the next election to ensure the re-election of his party and invoke the notwithstanding clause to get away with this? Sure, it would be within his authority to do so, but would it serve the interests of the province's voters? What we're talking about here is the slippery slope, which Ford seems willing to tilt to a very steep angle.

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

The "principle" you reference seems unclear to a lot of people. Is it the principle of payback, which many believe actually motivates Ford's reduction of council? Or is it the principle of provincial control over municipal affairs, which if applicable raises the question of why other municipalities, where councillors generally represent far fewer constituents, aren't being subjected to similar legislative interference? As a long-time Torontonian, I tend to agree with reducing the size of city council but Ford didn't campaign on the issue, contrary to his bizarrely tangential assertion to the contrary. The basic problem here is changing election rules when an election is underway. It's difficult to imagine that a precedent exists in any Western jurisdiction to justify this.

It's my understanding that coalitions are the norm in Sweden as it the case in many other European countries. The rise of an explicitly anti-immigration party in what is often considered one of the world's most tolerant and prosperous countries does suggest that right-wing populism is now becoming an ingrained reality in Western politics. Swedes who were interviewed on a news broadcast today seemed surprised that this is happening in their country. But one woman, more apparently introspective than the others, said she believed the growing support for this kind of politics is a logical result of politicians not listening to public concerns about immigrant integration. The test now will be to see whether the mainstream parties are willing to address these concerns in an open and forthright fashion rather than with the haughtily dismissive elitism so often characteristic among many traditional parties in the West. How far behind progressive Sweden can meek and mild Canada be? Our time will come. How can it not?

Doug Ford has set the cat among the pigeons by announcing he will utilize the notwithstanding clause to suppress the Charter and reduce the size of Toronto's city council. And he's announced he's willing to use the clause to bypass the Charter in the future. As one analyst noted on an evening news broadcast, this will inevitably lead to the notwithstanding clause being applied more frequently on ever more commonplace matters. Ultimately, only the federal government, which retains a disallowance power, can thwart such behavior. But the federal minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs, while lamenting Ford's position today, didn't appear to indicate any willingness on the part of the Trudeau government to get involved. Is the Charter effectively doomed if the federal government doesn't intervene? Many have criticized Charter overreach, and accurately so in my opinion, but in this case Ford is attempting to override democratic rights, a situation that clearly veers into dangerous territory. It should be interesting to see whether Trudeau will man the barricades (person the barricades?) in defense of democratic rights as he has done for minority and religious interests. There may be more at stake for his reputation in this matter than there is for Ford.

According to breaking reports, Ford's gone nuclear and imposed the notwithstanding clause! Wow. This is quite shocking as I can't recall any Ontario government ever using it.

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

While it's my understanding that the ruling cites the Charter rationale but also addresses the more salient issue of subversion of democratic process. It's simply improper in a democracy to change an election process after that process is underway. Some candidates had made professional decisions and sunk considerable sums into campaigning when Ford pulled the plug on them. At least with the election now (presumably) reverting to 47 wards we'll get a chance for real debate. Ford can reintroduce his legislation to apply to the next municipal election, scheduled for 2022. He could even reduce council terms to 3 years from 4, which in my opinion wouldn't be a bad thing. But changing the rules in the middle of an election simply wasn't/isn't democratic, nor was/is it fair.

I think I'm simply being cognizant of how some might perceive such garments. And it really is about how such garments are interpreted by others that's truly important here. You imply in a previous comment that people should be able to wear religious clothing anywhere, including in workplaces. Why? When I was still working, we were told to dress in a fashion that accommodated the sensibilities of our clients. In particular, we couldn't wear clothing or any other item that connoted a particular political, ethnic, religious or ideological agenda. Had I worn a button saying something like 'Christians are God's true children', I'm sure I would have been told to remove it, and rightfully so. I suspect most employers tend to be highly sensitive to respecting the views and sensibilities of their customers and/or clients. Sometimes it's not about the beliefs of those who insist their choices be accommodated. Rather, it's about integrating into and functioning in the real world, which in the West means respecting the customs of largely secular societies.

Might not fundamentalist religious garments be viewed as hateful and/or political symbols by some groups, including refugees who've fled religiously grounded persecution? And what about members of the LGBTQ communities, who've been and remain the targets of religiously grounded persecution in much of the world?

The relevant issue is not how they intersect with my personal freedom but how they intersect with broader societal objectives like gender equality. Admittedly, I'm a secularist. I believe that religious freedom, as well as the equal right to be free from religion, can only be achieved in a secular society.

I agree with the gist of your immigration proposals with a few exceptions and/or modifications. In particular, I don't agree with keeping refugee claimants in custody and I'm not sure this would even be legal. I think it prudent to adhere to the UN definition and to process claims much more quickly than is reportedly the case at present. I believe it might be okay to grant temporary asylum pending review of both the conditions in a claimant's home country as well as the ability of claimants to integrate and adapt. I think the system should be set up on an incentive basis, though, whereby accepted claimants who have demonstrated English or French language proficiency and adapted economically should be entitled to apply for permanent status after the temporary status period has been exhausted whether or not conditions have improved in their home countries. We have to be fair in all of this.

Well, Ford lost his bid to reduce the size of Toronto city council. Based primarily on the timing of Ford's act, in the midst of an election period that was already underway, a judge today restored the 47 seat council format for the upcoming municipal election. Personally, I favored a reduced council but was opposed to the fashion in which the change was made. I think democracy won today although taxpayers might not have. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-judge-rules-against-fords-move-to-cut-toronto-council/

Why? I believe people should have a right to private religious belief and practice. Public manifestations of religious affiliation and devotion are bound to generate resentment. Among the people with whom I've been acquainted over the years, the one who was most critical of tolerating the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism was a woman who'd fled post-revolutionary Iran. She noted that Westerners didn't understand the political and philosophical symbolism and messaging inherent in fundamentalist customs and practices. Further, she lamented the cultural trivialization practiced by some "progressive" women who accommodated religious customs on trite grounds, like complimenting the fabric of a woman's burka or niqab, when many of these self-styled progressives otherwise had little or no attachment to any of the religions or religious beliefs associated with their own culture(s). If accommodating religious customs boils down to fashion commentary rather than intellectual critique, how seriously should we take it?

That's a worst case scenario. But if it comes to pass it will also render large swaths of the Northern hemisphere, which due to climate are only marginally if at all inhabitable, fit for cultivation and human habitation.

Some periods of minority government in Canada have been legislatively productive. Many observers believe the Pearson minority period in the 1960s was among the most productive in our federal political history. I understand your point, however, and think it has broad validity in the modern era. I believe representative democracy, controlled by political parties, has failed in recent decades to reflect popular concerns on many issues. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, we've developed a system that might best be described as "managed" democracy, whereby political parties seek to rationalize, package and sell to the public policies that are often intended to serve narrow special interests. In this environment, I believe the public interest has in many instances been both misrepresented and subverted. Thus, I've increasingly become a fan of various forms of direct democracy, which new technologies should render increasingly practical although some argue these technologies could be vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. And direct democracy requires an engaged and informed electorate. So, I'll stick with my preference for minority parliaments until a better mousetrap is invented.

I find this view overly pessimistic. It's become a form of neo-Malthusian ideology. The problem is that the initial Malthusian premise, which held that the world population of roughly one billion people and growing at the time would exert such a strain on resources, and particularly on food supply, that famine and disease would inevitably emerge to restore balance, didn't come to pass. Well, here we are about 200 years later and all indications are that human beings on average enjoy much longer lifespans, better nutrition and are less susceptible to disease than anyone in Malthus' time could have imagined. What happened? Technological and scientific progress. The new boogeyman is climate change. It's a problem, for sure, particularly for those who live at sea level. But the carbon age is slowly winding down, the population growth rate is declining and beyond mid-century many countries, including China, Russia, Germany, Japan, Spain and Brazil will experience actual population decline. The end is not nigh, at least not on account of overpopulation. I won't be around at the end of this century but my guess is that unless the earth is in the meantime struck by a massive asteroid or depopulated by nuclear Armageddon human beings will still productively inhabit this planet.

I doubt the Queen thinks about any of this very much. As for indigenous claims, my point is that the legal situation is much more nuanced than many First Nations activists seem willing to admit. Were politicians, and particularly Libs and NDPers, more forthright and less visibly obsequious when dealing with indigenous issues I think the dialogue would be much more productive. Trudeau's tears and hand-over-heart apologies (on behalf of many who feel no personal need to apologize) aren't apparently accomplishing much.

You're spouting nonsense in an apparent attempt to defend your weak and generally circular and trivial critiques. If you really don't understand the problems associated with state-sponsored and enforced behavior modification in relation to political, cultural and ideological matters, perhaps there's a dictatorship somewhere where you'd be happier. If you don't understand the kind of ideological autocracy inherent in the attempts either by fiat or indirectly to limit free speech, including the risible M-103, which is an example of a mentality as I've clearly stated, perhaps you shouldn't live in a democracy. If you can't be more sophisticated than to glibly equate the American constitution's aspirational affirmation of the "pursuit of happiness" (while at the same time accommodating slavery, which presumably you're willing to discount) with some kind of institutional master plan that's directed the future of all Western democracies, perhaps you might consider the almost 250 years of subsequent history. Furthermore, if the U.S. constitution, which is grounded in Enlightenment ideals) does serve as an ideal or template for Westernism, if not an institutional master plan, it also contains the free-speech affirming First Amendment, which clearly implies that the effective pursuit of happiness isn't possible in the absence of unfettered free speech. Free speech is the oxygen of democracy. The enterprise can't succeed without it. Westernism, as I stated, is messy and contentious and confrontational and oppositional and even in many aspects intolerant and offensive in the view of some. And yet somehow it's spawned what are widely believed to be among the most open and attractive societies in human history. Why mess with a good thing in order to impose some sort of controlled utopia that in all likelihood would for many end up being or becoming a nightmare? The West's greatest achievement is democracy and I'll stick with Churchill's assessment that it's "the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Meanwhile, if you'd rather live in a society dedicated to behavior modification and thought control, surely you can find one somewhere. But it's a journey on which I and many others don't wish to embark.