Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[turningrite]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

All the things we have been apologizing for the past couple of decades, residential schools, head taxes, putting Japanese Canadians in camps and taking their property, Komogata Maru, St. Louis etc, were the result of a tyranny of the majority by elected governments. How many of them would have been possible with our Charter of Rights and how many governments would have invoked the notwithstanding clause to implement them?

Time and cultural change have altered our perceptions where the issues you cite are concerned. The Charter is modeled on the American 'Bill of Rights' concept, as elucidated in the First Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the U.S. Constitution. As enlightened and high-minded as that document is, it did nothing to end slavery nor to prevent Jim Crow segregation laws from emerging following the Civil War. Nor did it prevent the U.S. from (also) turning away the MS St. Louis refugees or interning that country's ethnic Japanese citizens during WWII.

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Time and cultural change have altered our perceptions where the issues you cite are concerned. The Charter is modeled on the American 'Bill of Rights' concept, as elucidated in the First Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the U.S. Constitution. As enlightened and high-minded as that document is, it did nothing to end slavery nor to prevent Jim Crow segregation laws from emerging following the Civil War. Nor did it prevent the U.S. from (also) turning away the MS St. Louis refugees or interning that country's ethnic Japanese citizens during WWII.

They have, but they would have surely been challenged in the courts by someone.

We are not the US. Slavery was a US institution when their Bill of Rights was written and Provinces do not have the power to impose the equivalent of Jim Crow laws. 

Even the Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act is now subject to the Charter.

[turningrite]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

They have, but they would have surely been challenged in the courts by someone.

We are not the US. Slavery was a US institution when their Bill of Rights was written and Provinces do not have the power to impose the equivalent of Jim Crow laws. 

Even the Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act is now subject to the Charter.

Your comment doesn't make much sense. The point is that the U.S. has had codified rights in place since 1791 and yet many of the kind of issues you cite still emerged. Jim Crow laws were actually upheld by courts (i.e. under the "separate but equal" ethos), despite the existence of such rights. And the U.S. turned away the MS St. Louis refugees and interned its ethnic Japanese citizens, as did Canada. It's unlikely any such thing would be done in either country today, with or without the existence of the First Amendment or the Charter.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Your comment doesn't make much sense. The point is that the U.S. has had codified rights in place since 1791 and yet many of the kind of issues you cite still emerged. Jim Crow laws were actually upheld by courts (i.e. under the "separate but equal" ethos), despite the existence of such rights. And the U.S. turned away the MS St. Louis refugees and interned its ethnic Japanese citizens, as did Canada. It's unlikely any such thing would be done in either country today, with or without the existence of the First Amendment or the Charter.

The point is, this is not, nor ever has been the US. Why do you think our courts would interpret laws or Constitution the same way. They haven't in the past and still don't. 

[taxme]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

So what is he going to replace it with, his own cronies? The trouble with you guys is you have no other plan than blowing things up. Blowing stuff up is easy, building stuff is hard. It takes actual thought and hard work.

Hillary and Obama = Stalin and Mao. You really are an idiot.

Why not wait and see what Ford does, say a year from now, before you attack and mock him? In politics people get replaced all the time. So, what's your point here? It looks to me like you must have enjoyed watching Wynne blowing up Ontario, eh? So, did you like what Wynne did for Ontario? If you have something than what can you show me? I anxiously await to see something.   

So tell me. Just what has any politician today or in the past done anything for you other than take your tax dollars and blow them? I believe that Ford is more of a fiscal conservative who says that he will not be spending tax dollars willy-nilly like Wynne did. She just about bankrupted Ontario with her stupid politically correct sex politics especially when it came to teaching young children in school as to how to properly masturbate or trying to make young children believe that there is no girl or boy just it's. Between liberal Wynne and liberal Trudeau I can't figure out who is the worse. I guess that I will just have to make it tie. Both are silly lefty asses. 

Hillary and Obama were dictators in the making. They both together ran a corrupt and crooked lieberal leftist system and if Hillary had become president she would have become a real Stalin and Mao kind of dictator. I just looked in the mirror and I saw a smart looking dude. I did not see an idiot standing there.   Could it then be that you may be the idiot here by chance? Just wondering about that. LOL. 

[Wilber]

Ya, over 10 million Americans died in Obama’s gulags and over 2 million more in Hillary’s Cultural Revolution. Give us a friggin break.

[scribblet]

Ford's use of the clause is perfectly legal  and used precisely as it was intended when the Charter was passed in 1982. Specifically, to address provincial concerns about judicial overreach in the use of Section 2.

[Machjo]

Given how Ford has used the NWC to shrink City Council, it would now be extremely difficult for him to argue against using it to eliminate the separate-school system that violates the International covenant on civil and Political Rights.

[Don Jonas]

It's perfectly legal, but it's also unprecedented. It seems petty to use it in this case, considering it appears he just wants to get revenge and screw things over in the middle of an election. I imagine his caucus is furious right now to have this issue hijack their agenda. And I can't imagine there is a majority of MPPs willing to pull the trigger and override the charter for no good reason.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Don Jonas

[Wilber]

This was never mentioned during the campaign so it is no wonder people are pissed. It's reminiscent of when Gordon Campbell denied BC would be going to HST during the campaign then abruptly did a few weeks after the election. It ended up costing him and his finance minister their jobs.

[Centerpiece]

19 minutes ago, Wilber said:

This was never mentioned during the campaign so it is no wonder people are pissed. It's reminiscent of when Gordon Campbell denied BC would be going to HST during the campaign then abruptly did a few weeks after the election. It ended up costing him and his finance minister their jobs.

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.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Wilber]

Wynne waited three years before privatizing Hydro. Seems to be there was plenty of outrage. Eventually, those things cost her job as well.

Using the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the Constitution is now called democracy. Right.

Litigation is open to both sides.

[Don Jonas]

42 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

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.

Is it the mentality of the Right to just say BS whenever they feel like it, like Trudeau has tripled the debt?

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Wynne waited three years before privatizing Hydro. Seems to be there was plenty of outrage. Eventually, those things cost her job as well.

Using the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the Constitution is now called democracy. Right.

Litigation is open to both sides.

Er... the Notwithstanding clause is inscribed in the Constitution. Are you saying that the Constitution violates itself?

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Wilber said:

The Law, the Constitution and Charter.

The law is whatever judges say it is. One judge says its black, another judge says it's white. The Charter is nothing. Again, judges can interpret it freely to mean pretty much anything they want. And do so.

The best example of this was the Morgentaler ruling. A judge ruled abortion restrictions were wrong and unconstitutional. Then an appeals court ruled he was wrong, and they were entirely unconstitutional. Then the SC ruled that no, they were wrong and unconstitutional.

The Charter and what it says depends on who the judge is that pronounces upon it.

[Argus]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

The judge who overturned Ford's law reducing the size of Toronto's city council does not possess absolute authority. The provincial government can appeal his decision and ultimately the decision of an appeals court can be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is a built-in even if cumbersome system of accountability where the judiciary is concerned.

Who holds the SC to account? What stops it from interpreting the Charter however  the hell it wants?

 

[Argus]

7 hours ago, Wilber said:

All the things we have been apologizing for the past couple of decades, residential schools, head taxes, putting Japanese Canadians in camps and taking their property, Komogata Maru, St. Louis etc, were the result of a tyranny of the majority by elected governments. How many of them would have been possible with our Charter of Rights and how many governments would have invoked the notwithstanding clause to implement them?

And all of those things were ruled constitutional by judges of the time. We HAD a constitution, already. And it's quite possible that the judges of that time would have ruled those things constitutional under the Charter, as well.

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Er... the Notwithstanding clause is inscribed in the Constitution. Are you saying that the Constitution violates itself?

It gives government the ability to ignore the Charter of Rights, that is why governments have been so reluctant to use it. DoFo has decided you only have those rights if he says so.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Who holds the SC to account? What stops it from interpreting the Charter however  the hell it wants?

 

The Constitution and Charter itself. The SC is not one party leader or politician, there are nine of them. What would you rather see, a king with absolute powers?

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The Constitution and Charter itself. The SC is not one party leader or politician, there are nine of them. What would you rather see, a king with absolute powers?

How can the constitution or charter hold the SC to account when the SC gets to decide what they mean?

Yes, there are nine liberal judges who all pretty much have the same ideological makeup.

Remember when Harper was desperately searching for a constructivist judge to put on the Quebec court? He couldn't find any! Only activist judges! He had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge to the job. And then the SC got together to thwart him to ensure only activist judges were appointed.

Ontario's bar is so left wing now that they are going to require all lawyers to attest to how progressive they are, and forward written plans about how they intend to enhance diversity. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Argus

[Wilber]

Argus, before 1982 the final arbiter in Canadian law was the the British High Court. You seem to yearn for those days to return.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Litigation is open to both sides.

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

 

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Don Jonas said:

Is it the mentality of the Right to just say BS whenever they feel like it, like Trudeau has tripled the debt?

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.

[Wilber]

14 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

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

 

What do you suggest, they blow up the legislature? Rule of law is how we deal with disputes and seek redress from injustice. It's called civilization.

[Wilber]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

How can the constitution or charter hold the SC to account when the SC gets to decide what they mean?

Yes, there are nine liberal judges who all pretty much have the same ideological makeup.

Remember when Harper was desperately searching for a constructivist judge to put on the Quebec court? He couldn't find any! Only activist judges! He had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge to the job. And then the SC got together to thwart him to ensure only activist judges were appointed.

Ontario's bar is so left wing now that they are going to require all lawyers to attest to how progressive they are, and forward written plans about how they intend to enhance diversity. 

The courts have to rule according to the Charter, even if individual judges don't personally agree with what it says. It seems that any judge you disagree with is an activist. Maybe the problem is yours.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Wilber