Rue

LOL. Mr. BC YOU FORGOT THE OTHER MAPS IN THE SAME ARTICLE.

I truly believe Donald Trump has serious psychiatric issues. The symptoms are there and done of it could be from stress and neurological issues. He has all the classic signs of: 1-first to second stage Alzheimer's or sundowning as its sometimes referred to; 2- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; 3-narcissistic personality disorder; 4-depressive mood disorder; 5-dyslexia. Trump has done some very disturbing things. He's been shown to be unable to read. His briefings are limited to one, double spaced, bullet form set of notes with graphics and maps because he can not read sentences. This explains why he goes off script and is unable to read script. He can not read which strongly suggests dyslexia. His syntax is broken, fragmented, disjointed, and each sentence contradicts the one before it. The comments don't follow in any order and are not connected in context to one another. He does not finish any one complete thought when speaking suggesting attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and an inability to control, inhibit, or manage emotional impulses such as rage, anger, or feelings or urgency. He constantly refers to himself as the best. The bragging has become so extreme the United Nations laughed at him yesterday in a speech he gave boasting about how much he has done. He is also at the point where he exits an airplane and walks past it oblivious to where it is and gets into his car and shuts the door forcing his wife to walk around the car for the other side and open it herself...not to mention he walks far ahead of his wife getting into or out of a plane and stood right next to his wife and apologized for her not being there with him. His rally speeches are so bad his local followers now ask for clarification of what he speaks of. As for us in Canada he calls our trade with the US abusive and threatens to scrap nafta while the business lobbies and groups in Washington, openly tell him he can not refuse a trade deal with Canada as it would hurt the US and try tell him there are US mid term elections where 2 House of Representative members, 2 Senate members and a governor for each state is running for elections in October. He seems oblivious to the fact that 38 of 50 states have Canada as their no.1 trade partner. Does he want to run the risk of blowing up the deal and have a demo backlash vote them all in? Go see interviews of Trump twenty years ago compared to today. You will see he speaks differently. I think he has Alzheimer's and possibly had a minor stroke. Certainly his inability to hold water in a bottle in one hand shows a serious neurological disorder. He can not unscrew water bottle tops and requires two hands two drink. This is serious. To think he has his finger on the big bombs is scary.

When you discuss the issue of what constitutes sufficient representation to get the job done, I appreciate what you say. You raise valid non partisan concerns. I concede to you, I am not sure what constitutes sufficient representation at any of the elected levels of government. In regards to your comments that the size of Toronto's government is not an issue for non Torontonians I again remind you taxpayer money from non Toronto voters goes to pay for their government and as long as it does your comments excluding Betsy or any other non Torontonian is necessarily exclusive ignoring their interests and is therefore elitist and illogical. As for your partisan dislike of Ford, I respect that but that is an ideological component of your stated positions. I myself find things about him I do not like.I also personally believe he had a vendetta on behalf of his brother. All that said, I do think provincial governments do have the right constitutionally and legally to define municipal government. If he does not continue municipal reform elsewhere as he did in Toronto it will be questionable yes. I agree then with some of your points but not with your dismissive as to all non Torontonians. I do think any politician getting rid of unneeded bureaucracy should be supported.What defines needed remains the question.

I am an Ontario lawyer who took a similar oath and technically new Canadian citizens do during their ceremony. I quite frankly think no matter what words are drafted in an oath someone will find them a problem. Any direct mention to to God in any oath technically could be challenged by an atheist using the Charter resulting in them being allowed to swear an alternative oath not mentioning God but FTA or other lawyers chip in, I am not aware of a lawyer who has done a Charter challenge with a Bar oath. As for reference to the Queen as Rem pointed out the Queen is just a symbol for the meaning of the state itself. Any other meaning is not its intent and reflects the views of those who have their own additional contexts they add. In law, the references to the Queen simply mean the state. As for any of these oaths they just intend to have us swear we won't break the very laws we are supposed to defend. Now, some lawyers are crooked, corrupt, others are honest and hard working. In all professions are good and bad and a mix of both. Lawyers are hated because of the inherent nature of the work, arguing one view for someone when someone else argues another view. Necessarily lawyers anger people they act against. Also law is an intangible service. Lawyers charge for hours of work but you can not see the work, only the results, and the results are either seen as losing or creating documents no one really wants. All that said, I do not get hung up on the words of any oath. To me the most important person I owe telling the truth to starts with me. If that isn't inside me like an inner voice guiding me on what is the right thing to do, I could not do the job, and I teach that. I leave the opinions stated alone. Everyone has a right to question any oath. I get why people don't like lawyers the same way they feel uncomfortable with undertakers or in my case any doctor with a glove telling me to bend over.

With due respect the issue is how many reps does a city need. I have not seen a definitive formula for how many is too little or too much. What we all know is some things that are large are not necessarily automatically better than their smaller counterparts. When it comes to what size is the best fit I think we need to consult further with an expert and understand size is a subjective perception. That said might I respectfully suggest I now quit while I am ahead. I can feel more Freudian puns coming.

I think by people like you she means intolerant holier then thou elitists who think any opinion but their own are allowed.

With due respect you are wrong. The size of Toronto's government is the business of any Ontarian because it's municipal government requires funding from the province of Ontario which gets its money from the taxes it collects from all Ontarians and includes money refocused on Toronto that might otherwise be spent in other cities in Ontario. What goes on in Toronto has an impact on all of Ontario. For that matter it impacts on the size of governments at all levels in Canada. Your argument that it should only matter and be spoken of by Toronotonians is lame avoidance at dealing with an opinion you don't like.

Hilary Clinton was most certainly into grabbing pussies no different than her husband or Donald and she ate them too if we must dwell on the topic. Your naivite is not helpful. Let me be blunt, the entire American political system has been compromised.It has been for years as an internal struggle has been taking place in the US as it has globally between old and new money networks competing for control of world trade. Trump was put in as a distraction from this global and internal American financial war going on. The problem is Trumps use as a distraction to keep people distracted is no longer a sufficient reason to keep him in office. He just is too loose a cannon.He has turned against his handlers believing he is invincible. A market correction as they call it is happening. The Congress will go Democrat and initiate what will avalanche into another Nixon era impeachment drama to neutralize him...either that or he runs the risk of choking to death on a chicken bone. Whether the powers engaged in conflict behind the scenes agree to dump him for Pence or continue their proxy war using him as the deflection drama remains to be seen. In the interim the European Union, China, Russia, India, Japan and the US are all arenas for a power struggle between old money networks and new Chinese and Russian mob money networks competing for territorial dominance. China has serious long term economic issues and has moved aggressively in Africa and the Middle East to replace both Russia , the EU and the US as the no. 1 colonial power. Japan is still in deep internal crisis with its nuclear disaster to properly deal with China expansion in the trans Pacific but Japan has signalled a turn back to its chauvinistic military roots and is rapudly expanding its navy and air force and it is a huge wild card. If it opts back in to the military power world no one knows what that means. Japan is traditional enemies with Russia and China more than it is the US but since WW2 an anti American resentment continues as well. My bet is Japan seeks to reestablish its military might neutralizing China and Russia and growing stronger as US protectionism harms its ability to trade and grow its economy through trade.

Pax how is Natasha these days? I heard she ended up in Washington. That was a clumsy attempt to whip up anti American hatred. You never could fish. All you caught is a Jewfish saying if you think you are going to catch anything with that clumsy move you need to watch some Red Green episodes to understand how we fish in Canada. Geez not even you need to get your code book to decipher that. REGARDS, Bullwinkle Hey Rocky watch me pull a Putinskyite out of my hat Growl (as bear head shows itself) Oops don't know my own strength.

In regards to Taxme's first reference I simply refer people to www.wnd. com to expose his falsehood and where it comes from. In fact Germany funded the Russian revolution not Jews. The Kaiser provided 50 million gold marks to finance Lenin as per the recommendations of Gilbert Von Romberg his Secret Service Director who assisted the Russian Marxists between 1915 to 1917 to get rid of the Kaiser's cousin, the Czar in Russia. The Czar, King of England and Kaiser were all offspring of Queen Victoria. This was part of WW1 a fight between cousins. It had nothing to do with Jewish bankers. More to the point why would any banker of any faith finance a legal system that makes banks illegal? To expect Taxme to have any common sense of course is silly. Repeating false neo Nazi revisionist crap and waxing poetic about Hitler is to be expected though. Next in regards to Taxme fantasizing out loud about a world run by Hitler, I hope Taxme ywashed his hands after he was done with that exercise. As for sharing his thoughts about Putin I feel better knowing Taxme has assured me he is harmless. I am surprised Taxme forgot to mention Hitler got his trains to run on time ....especially the ones with Jews in them.

The only people who can bring about democracy are the people of the nation in question, not foreign governments. If Iran ever is to be free it begins and ends with its own people but this does not mean we can not applaud the efforts of its citizens to shed their tyrannical council of Muĺlahs and provide them support as long as that support is for medical care, infrastrucure, things that can help build its nation positively and not one based on fear of religious mainstream fundamentalism.

Strongly stand by this writer.

He never has. Provide the words where he has ever supported any Muslim terrorist. This is why you have zero credibility. You tried to bait him with pathetic accusations of him hating all Muslims now infer he supports Muslim terrorism. For someone with your track record on this board you need to learn when you bait it simply means you aint got sheeyat to say so you try deflect with false personal references.

I think the next thing we shall see is Horvath fighting impending cuts to social services.

Lol thanks a lot. Anyways the constitution is clear the province has exclusive legal jurisdiction over municipal law. Municipal powers only can exist if the province says so and they can at any time redefine them. Ford is a large rhino not a cuddly teddy bear. He is a rhino who clearly thinks Andrea Horvath is a rhino in heat...i.e. heated exchange which explains his stance towards her. I do not think there will be much foreplay between the two in the legislature. It could be worse they both could be porcupines.

Actually in jury trials the Judges can ask questions on behalf of the jury or to seek to clarify issues for the jury. They often do. Their job is to independently make sure all information necessary for a decision gets to the jury and anything immaterial or lacking in probative value is intercepted. The civil and criminal systems do give them an information asking role. Its probably not as active as with judge only trials so you are right, but you'd be surprised it is sufficient for them to assure juries get the appropriate info so in one sense it does try to reconcile the Judge's role to make sure juries have sufficient info, without telling juries how they interpret the info. Sometimes judges have to instruct juries to ignore certain evidence. Any Judge has to watch how far it goes in re-interpreting any statutory wording and giving it new meaning other than what is written. The more creative the Judge gets and strays from the actual meaning, the more likely it leaves that interpretation open to an appeal based on it being an error in the application of law. Some judges take other parts of the statute and say the wording in question must conform to those other parts of the statute so give it a meaning consistent with the other parts of the statute-that is one thing-giving an entirely new meaning out of context to anything in the statute is dangerous. Judges have overstepped their boundaries and powers and had their interpretations thrown out by higher courts. It happens. When it comes to interpreting the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada gave itself the open ended discretion to apply it as widely as possible in favour of someone seeking it as a remedy to protect their rights-thus by doing that, they can not expect provinces to seek a balance with the not withstanding clause. Its to be expected. The question is will the Supreme Court of Canada actually ever make a decision restricting how that not withstanding clause is used? They might but it could trigger a constitutional crisis with all the provinces feeling their power has been taken away by the court.

Try not to do that-certain trendy leftists don't have a sense of humour. They live on a moral throne....that and they are constipated. But hey who am I to suggest prunes. Interestingly today it doesn't matter what language we use, specific leftist morally righteous self appointed moral police will find it inappropriate and demand we be put in the institute for the politically incorrect.

Yes of course, all intelligence agencies have paid and non paid informants, no different than the police or journalists and they could be of any citizenship. Anyone who lives with another alias or identity will have psychological issues as to re-entry and/or their original or true identity. The longer they use the alias, the more likely this adjustment phenomena on return may have negative impact . In theory under cover police officers are supposed to be pulled after so many months to prevent overly identifying and attaching and becoming sympathetic to and identifying with the people they are reporting on- it is a variation of Stockholm Syndrome. The ability of detaching oneself from their alter-ego or assumed alternative identity without negative phenomena experienced, depends on many factors including how long you engage in that identity, how much demands were placed on you emotionally, and how long you have been separated from your family and loved ones in the real world. People with no support group of friends or loved ones to come back/return to after living as an alter-ego do not do as well re-entering as do people with such connections. Each operate has a handler who is supposed to monitor the psychological effects and pull them If problems develop and serve as the anchor back to the real world. A skilled handler knows what signs to look for and when to pull back so to speak on the leash and inversely know when to let the leash stay loose. The only way you probably would not have any negative side effects with identity re-entry issues is if you were a pathological liar or psycho-sociopath . To be able to detach your emotions and ego from what you do and keep them distinct is very problematic even for the best of us. This is why what you see in movies and on t.v. is b.s. It is not that glamorous,. Often its tedious surveillance or research. Sitting and analyzing weather and how it will effect cycles of production or impact to create famines, draughts and movements of population is not glamorous.Identifying risk patterns and liability exposure is not glamourous. Tracking cyber security issues is hard work requiring intense focus. No one is jumping from buildings. They are probably an anonymous employee id no. in a portal. Keep in mind the CIA is just one of hundreds of intelligence gathering agencies in the US. Each segment of the US Armed Forces has an intelligence branch, The Justice, Treasury, State, Home Security, Interior Departments have their own. Every police force and enforcement agency at a federal, state and local level may have one. Many do not share information causing a lot of counter productive work. All countries have agents who try get information from other countries, friendly and not so friendly. The majority of intelligence gathering deals with obtaining trade, industry and intellectual property secrets by payments (bribes) or by extortion through having compromising information on someone. Just ask Donald Trump what Vladimir Putin has on him. Here's a hint, you think Melania was just a model. Her Daddy was way up high in the Commie Party. You think it was a coincidence she found him? Lol. She was a high priced escort whose job was to get business secrets out of his big mouth. I should send you the pictures of him being spanked in his diapers. We all have skeletons someone may try use against us if its to their advantage . In my case there are compromising pictures going around with me and Katherine Wynne. Hey I was Jethro Bodine and she was Jane Hathaway. It was all innocent at a Halloween party.

Right on cue blame dah Jew. Lol. I blame the people of Tonga. They control Trump. Come on.

Lol good luck on that one. Mach I think we should require all Canadians to learn French and English in elementary and high school and then let them choose a third language of any kind as an optional course-in high school..in other words, pretty much the way it is now. I think its good if your kid is Portugese, Italian, Greek or Spanish or Chinese, whatever, you encourage them to retain that language. The studies show, the more languages you speak the more likely you will be open-minded and flexible in the way you deal with things. Spanish is the fastest growing language in Toronto and the second largest in Toronto having replaced Italian and way ahead of Punjabi, Urdu, Mandarin, Tagalog. Hola! I can teach you some Yiddish, here you go: Justin Trudeau........putz Donald Trump.........shmuk Melania Trump.......shixa Doug Ford...............matzah ball

I have to concede I can not claim to know what is the right amount. Arguments have not been clearly made pro or con on what constitutes sufficient numbers to "properly" represent. That is I concede a highly subjective issue. Between you and me it doesn't seem Ford is concerned about any other city but Toronto at this point (which is why some believe he is acting out of spite) but yes it would create a precedent and then the question is what formula or objective method should be used to determine that right level or amount of reps. I concede whatever side of the issue we are on too big or too small we need to come up with an objective formula. That's part of the pain staking procedure and political discussion in regards to such issues which I don't think Ford has any patience for. I also concede simply getting ride of 25 reps, by itself is not a panacea. Also truthfully, I would myself, be more convinced at a higher no. than 25 by you or anyone if the system was reformed so that something would get done. You must admit the current political system is a constant stalemate. Should the mayor have veto powers? Should their be party politics at the municipal level which is the case in other cities? Would those two things help? Maybe. I have to concede that I can't logically just grab the no. 23 or 25 and so like you I have to agree while I want smaller governments when possible, you are right, we have to find an appropriate objective way to determine the size. Good points.

I am not sure blaming Immigrants makes your case. No doubt though from reading past posts, you feel comfortable pointing out people with sun tans and big noses are problematic. It certainly can be said that anyone in Toronto who is not properly qualified to work and is unemployed creates socio- economic challenges to the city. Whether that is only the result of immigrants and not non immigrant Canadians as well remains the question. The problem with your argument is it ignores all the non immigrants who are unemployed and blames people when you don't know the individual circumstances of their situations that may be preventing them from working and whether it is caused by their negligence or something beyond their control. You have no statistics that can show the problems of Toronto are caused only by immigrants let alone are the fault of these immigrants. However again I do concede sun tans and big noses do seem to bother you and I appreciate that. Myself I think big lips can be problematic but I am thinking more of collagen injections and not any particular ethnic group. That said obviously when it comes to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, they are magnets to immigrants who come to be with their fellow immigrants and feel safe in same culture ghettos in those cities. Assimilation into Canadian culture is delayed by ghettoes and may delay entry into the greater Canadian mosaic and therefore jobs. It may on the other hand through these ghettoes set up networks that help these people jet jobs as well. I think Toronto has many issues. One is the after-effects of policies implemented by the past Liberal governments and I believe those policies have hurt all cities and economic zones in Ontario not just Toronto. The fact that 1 of every 5 Ontarians is dependent on a source of income derived from selling something in the US does not help either. It makes us vulnerable to trade interest policies that are not in our best economic interests. The current City of Toronto has a dysfunctional system of voting and for the last 15 to 20 years discussions because of it are time consuming and water down and compromise beneficial business policies. The province and federal government have also passed laws over-taxing Ontario and Toronto assuming Toronto has an unlimited threshold for paying taxes. One of Toronto's most serious issues is its failure to address the subway issue and create a proper subway system across the GTA to Mississauga or even Kitchener to he West, Barrie to the North and Oshawa to the East. Its also been inexcusable in how it destroyed its water-front with no thought to condominium condensation. Toronto can't innovate because its current municipal government can't agree on a damn thing. Toronto is also technically bankrupt. It's spending went out of control years ago. In regards to the greater Ontario context, the only way Ontario as a whole makes more jobs and grows is to diversify and stop depending on the auto industry and US buyers. It has to look to Europe, South America, Pacific nations to trade with. One last thing. Before you shee-yat too much on immigrants...need to be reminded... our province and Toronto have become addicted to immigrants when they are students. These students pay roughly 20 to 30 thou a year as elementary, high school, college and university students. Their money now funds all our schools, public and private let alone colleges and universities. They fuel the academic and education sector and create a spin off effect with their purchases and renting rooms in peoples' homes. Don't kid yourself. No one is complaining in our universities and colleges or towns making financial gain from enrolling and housing these students.

In principle municipal law and its representatives don't exist until the provincial government passes a Municipal Act delegating those powers. So in principle Ford is right, but procedurally and in practice he is wrong. Had he passed a new law amending the existing Municipal Act I would contend he could have shrunk the government down. He did not. He tried to short cut that process. He's in a rush. Had he done it the proper way it might have taken until after the next election but I think he would have prevented any constitutional arguments from being raised. I think Ford in this sense is his own worst enemy and walked into his error by not taking the time to follow proper procedure. Whether one believes in large or small governments, is a political issue I leave to others. I am only commenting on the legal procedural issues which he did not properly avail himself of. Personally I believe the Toronto council is too big and defective and needs to be down-sized and the voting system re-examined, but that is a subjective political sentiment not relevant to the legal issues. Just because I believe Ford is correct politically in his intent, I can't justify his defective way of doing it feeding right into the self serving fat cats trying to protect their jobs.

Machjo O again I must commend your logic and writing style. On this issue I do believe our existing legal system de facto recognizes all indigenous languages as official languages in Canada because of the reference put into the Charter. It doesn't specifically say so but in all the courts in Canada translators are required in the indigenous language of the appropriate party whether its for a provincial or federal legal subject due to that legal assumption all courts now make. In theory no provincial law however directly applies to an indigenous person unless its probably a Highway Traffic Act offence. Your argument is actually correct and logical as to auxillary languages but it in specific regards to indigenous languages since in practice it is now addressed it is a moot point in regards to indigenous languages. However you raise a huge issue once say Spanish or Mandarin or Punjabi grows to the size of a majority language. The way the Charter is written it opens the window to add other language requirements if the courts continue down the road of interpreting the Charter as widely as possible in application. We know because of the Official Languages Act of Canada which applies to federal laws, providing bilingual English-French services across Canada for its laws is a mandatory requirement not withstanding the actual number of French or English citizens in the specific geographic area of application. On the other hand as you also probably know, many provinces including Quebec can abd have opted out of being bilingual for laws under exlusive provincial jurisdiction and at this time, only Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario are officially bilingual provinces provincially when it comes to providing provincial government and court services for laws that are exclusively provincial in jurisdiction . The Canada Act and Constitution Act and the division of laws says only provinces can pass laws pertaining to legal subjects in their exclusive domain and so that would include language rights pertaining to those provincial laws. The Charter has not been used by theSupreme Court of Canada to challenge the province's exclusive power to define language rights on provincial jurisdiction laws at this time and Quebec used the Not Withstanding clause to justify laws that in theory violated the Charter and deliberately institutionalized discrimination against non French language rights in the name of protecting French language rights. That is interesting because the same people who remained silent when Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause probably now call Doug Ford a fascist for doing the same showing clear political sentiment can be behind the opinions of people as to how that clause should be used. The fact is constitutionally it is clear, municipal laws do not exist unless the provinces first pass laws to delegate powers to municipalities. So what Ford did was not wrong in principle just wrong in procedure. Legally had he followed proper procedure, he would first have had to pass a specific piece of legislation shrinking the municipal government of Ontario. Had he done that the City would probably not have received the decision it did from a lower court which in essence said follow the proper procedures Mr. Ford. Had the City challenged the legislation once properly passed they would have lost but it would have gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for a reference and between the process of passing the legislation and getting it confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, that would have taken 1-5 years. Ford wants to skip all that and try to avoid the lengthy and proper procedures. The lower court is technically incorrect in trying to say municipal politicians have rights it is correct in saying Ford did not follow the proper procedures in invoke a provincial law. Politicians do not have human rights in the sense of being guaranteed a job. Their powers only exist as Municipal representatives if and only ifthe Municipal Act of Ontario which is created by the provincial government gives them that power. However by by-passing the proper legislative procedure, Ford exposed himself to this legal political manouver by self serving municipal politicians seeking to protect their jobs who could then argue by his mot following the procedures properly his actions became unconstitutional. Ford's reference or pledge or threat to use the Not Withstanding clause is high handed, but no more high handed than how the Quebec government used it to screw English people of their rights. So to selectively argue Ford can not do that is interesting, Nowhere in the Charter does it say how that clause is to be used or not used, i.e., it does NOT specify the grounds for when it can or can not be invoked. The Supreme Court of Canada would be hard pressed if asked for a reference to on the one hand says the Charter should be used as widely as possible to promote individual rights but then in the next breath continue to ignore English Quebecers and as well, prevent provinces from using the clause which was created precisely to offset that Charter rights. If the Not Withstanding clause was not intended to be used it should not have ben placed in the Charter in the first place . It's like giving someone a fork and knife and a full plate of food and then telling them they should not assume they should eat the food and use the knife and fork. It's an absurd legal fiction as some now do to blow the trumpet of moral indignation over Ford but remain silent on how it was used in Quebec. Interestingly when I got my Master's in Law I was fortunate to meet Prof. Hogg co-author with Trudeau of the Charter. He said the two never intended the Charter to be used as it is now by the Supreme Court of Canada in such a wide application to all laws and they only threw in the Not Withstanding clause in a last minute exercise to placate the Western provinces to get them to sign on to the Charter. The fact is you have a Charter now being used in a way its co-authors never intended it to be used by the Supreme Court of Canada and some selectively only focusing on telling Ford he's using Charter in a way it was never supposed to be used when the Supreme Court of Canada has enshrined the principle of using it in ways it never intended to be used. Think about that for a second. Who said the Charter must be used as widely as possible and not as narrowly as possible? The Supreme Court of Canada did, not the people who wrote the law or the elected officials who passed the law. The Supreme Court of Canada said that. They created the scope, extent, nature and intent of the Charter of today, not the people who wrote it or the people it claims to protect. That is something unusual. It ordinary law, courts don't do that. Courts are supposed to limit their interpretation of ANY law using the plain language meaning and not assume anything not written specifically. They are not supposed to invent NEW law. They are supposed to be limited to only what is written and if a party asslst for a meaning other than what is written they must go back and change the law to be specific and not ambiguous to conform to the meaning they want. The Supreme Court of Canada has taken an activist approach, i.e., one that prescribes new meanings to the Charter as opposed to sending back ambiguous clauses and asking the government(s) to re-write to clarify what they meant.. British law which is what our legal system is is based on, particularly our constitutional model of law, was never designed for courts to create new laws. The US can when Democrats appoint activist Judges take the approach our Supreme Court now does which is to event new law, or it can appoint fundamentalist conservatives who are loath to create new precedent or new meanings out of the law unless the wording specifically says so.. Whether a court is activists or traditionalist It comes down to political sentiment. Harper and now Ford believe legislation written by elected officials not Judges should create the intent of a law and how it is to be applied. The problem is when they write ambiguous or unclear laws, it opens the window for courts to be unable to resist coming up with new meanings that were not intended.Courts should whenever possible not create laws. If a law is not clear their proper role should be to send it back to the legislature to re-write the law through amendments to be more specific and give the wording in front of them plain meaning only. They do not. They have turned "plain meaning" into the concept of what they call "common sense" meaning, i.e., a new context they believe makes sense but is not written in the legislation. They argue this common sense meaning by using a line of reasoning that is often arbitrary, and makes assumptions about context from previous case interpretations of previous laws. Some try remain consistent with older laws, others want to create brand new meanings. Its not as logical as people think it is. There is subjectivity in the decisions of Judges in many of these decisions. All that said, and I mention it, because Quebec abused language laws in its own province against the English and got away with it by using the Not Withstanding clause and the federal government and the Supreme Court of Canada did not challenge that use of the clause setting a precedent before nd after the creation of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada when it comes to interpreting the ambiguous Charter has for the most part given it as wide an application as possible in invoking/creating rights. I question why it was used that way to give convicts the right to vote or non Canadian citizens the right to use the Charter to get rights of Canadian citizens. I think the Supreme Court may have gone too far in some not all cases. I think in those two cases for example it was wrong. So in conclusion to your comments, while I think you are absolutely correct about auxillary language rights, I would caution in practicality it becomes ultimately a political issue not a legal one that provinces can veto or limit with any of their laws. When and if a language other than Indigenous ones or English or French becomes a majority language, it is theoretically possible at that point the Supreme Court of Canada might interpret them as a language in need of equal protection. We shall see. They didn't with English in Quebec but in years to come they might with other languages given the politically trendy and politically correct concepts of the day. It's also possible if a majority of voters who are neither English or French vote in particular leaders, they may try use the legislative process to invoke discriminatory laws in favour of their religion or language and if that happens whether the Supreme Court of Canada would challenge that remains to be seen. with that. They seem to have been impotent over Quebec discriminating against English and now with Ford and the City of Toronto. While I appreciate the Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbitrator of legal meaning, I also contend it should not where meaning is not PLAIN, i.e., clear and precise, create new meaning but instead send it back to the politicians for amendment. On the other hand if you violate clear and precise procedures of our legal system, all courts as did this lower court with Ford have an obligation to challenge that error and stop the action taken until proper procedures are followed. Ford needs to slow down and cool it down with the Trump behaviour. This bully boy look how tough I am shtick is not helpful. He should go back and review the Premiership of William Davis and how Davis handled language rights and constitutional issues. That for me is a model of apolitical, neutral, logical approach that balances provincial government rights in a greater context where there is tension with federal and municipal laws. Flamboyant ego driven ultimatums like the ones Ford, Trudeau, Trump and the former Trudeau used may ultimately alienate more than they unite.

No according to Rue you support Islamic extremism, trying to justify Islamic extremism and attack anyone who challenges it as being "anti-Muslim" and have made it a point on this forum to do that repeatedly as well as make sweeping false and negative representations of Jews, Israelis, Christians, my words, Dong on the Porch's words, and engage in transparent, shallow, subjective sound bites for Iran with your colleague "Marcus". There now, feel free to misrepresent that as well. Lol. Do start a thread when you have a chance as to the attack in France today by a man with a knife yelling Allah Akbar and explain how if someone states that they are anti Muslim. Also do start a thread suggesting that the resurfaced leader of ISIL is calling on Muslims around the world to engage in terrorist attacks against non Muslims, including here in Canada, and how if I point that out I am anti Muslim. Also do explain how someone who is anti religious extremism particularly the kind of religious extremism that promotes terrrorism, that makes them anti Muslim. Do explain how Islam is synonomous with terrorism. You keep suggesting to all it is because you state if one challenges Muslim extremism and terrorism, it makes them anti Muslim. You are using all Muslims as a shield, to hide behind, to justify Muslim extremism. You and Marcus do this in each and every post portraying yourselves as defenders of Islam while your words reek of support and apology for Islamic terrorism complete with the stereotypical buzz words against Jews, Christians, anyone who disagrees with you. You no more support or defend Muslims than you do anyone else who does not agree with you. Run along and play couch warrior with someone else I have more important things to do like take out a terrorist before he bravely attacks a civilian. Regards Rue the Rappin Jew lol defender of Muhammed he want everyone dead who you playin wit son you wanna diddle wit a gun problem is you need permission from your wife to even get a kitchen knife look at how tuff he is but he sits down to wiz yes suh he tink he bring fear to my heart cuz he likes tuh fart spppt and pfft he say to dah Jew yah yah what else is new he screams Allah Akbar but always from afar behind a nice Anglo soundin name yah dats duh game Scott Fitzgerald dah third posing as an Arab assassin how absurd such a gift yah write jus like Taylor Swift yah it gives me such fright bein threated by a terrorist transvesite yassuh I gonna go hide cuz you dun open my eyes all wide lol you and Marcus you know where tah find this Jewish carcus