Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Wilber said:

It's the timing. When changes in the electoral system are proposed, it is normal practice to allow a period between elections for them to take effect allowing proper public discussion. You seem to think that because someone is elected, they can ram through whatever they want with no discussion. 

They can. You are mistaking they way we do things with he way we MUST do them. Government, once elected, is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair point, but in a country that has Liberal governments much of the time do you trust a system where the courts have no overruling powers ?

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.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why is that a dictatorship ?  I think what we may need now is a real dictatorship.  Ford has shown that he will get the people to support rule by decree.  The next Liberal leader should consider jailing him and banning the PC party. 

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!

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. The power grab is not against municipalities, but against the courts.

GOOD!

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I guess you don't have the vision to see where this is going.  This means that the next Liberal government will do the things that the right has always accused them of considering. 

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? 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about the next Liberal government demanding the PC government split into two parties, and jailing anyone who states otherwise ?  Don't like it ?  Notwithstanding !

This is more ridiculous hysteria. You're acting like a child whose favorite toy has been taken away.

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair point, but in a country that has Liberal governments much of the time do you trust a system where the courts have no overruling powers ?

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.

[scribblet]

Why does Toronto need that many politicians anyway, Los Angeles with a high population has fewer Councillors.   Toronto doesn't have as many MPs or MPPs either so it's not unreasonable to reduce the number of councillors.

The not withstanding clause was put into the Constitution to prevent collective provincial rights from being trampled by a judge or by federal govt. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/legal-scholars-surprised-by-judge-s-reasoning-in-toronto-council-cuts-decision-1.4087964#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=SvL6wxS

Some constitutional law experts are scratching their heads after an Ontario judge declared that the new Progressive Conservative government’s mid-election cuts to the size of Toronto’s city council are unconstitutional because they violate freedom of expression rights.

[dialamah]

Perhaps the judiciary, understanding that politicians dancing to the tune of angry (and often ignorant) public doesn't mean the Charter must be intrepreted in a way that removes the rights of individuals or reduces personal freedoms.

Here is an article about ideology in Canadian Courts that you may find interesting:

Quote

Legal ideology in Canada is largely disconnected from what we tend to think of as political ideology. Indeed, we might not notice even legal ideological choices being there at all, because of the consistently high degree of unanimity in the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years....

Canadian judges tend to be unanimous because they tend to share a common legal worldview, but that does not mean that this legal worldview is the only one possible or that it is somehow above being called an ideology.

Odd that the "Liberal-only" court did not support the Liberals recently over the Trans-Mountain.  

Edited September 11, 2018 by dialamah

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

They can. You are mistaking they way we do things with he way we MUST do them. Government, once elected, is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone.

Nonsense. Any bill has to go through three readings, committee and get Royal assent before it can become law. Federal bills also have to go through the Senate. In this case,  this court has determined such a change right before an election is a violation of the Charter. A reason we have a thing called Elections Canada is to prevent politicians from screwing with the electoral system and engaging things like Gerrymandering. I’m not an Ontarian and could care less how many councillors there are in Toronto. We don’t even use a ward system out West. Ford is using a hammer to smash a gnat solely out of pique and unlike you, I don’t think it will be the last time.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Wilber

[dialamah]

59 minutes ago, Argus said:

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? 

How exactly is that different from the Conservatives or the NDP?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

How exactly is that different from the Conservatives or the NDP?

How did I say it was? Although I would say Conservative's have been challenged by the courts on their legislation more than Liberals have been.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

How did I say it was?

If you don't think it is, then avoid phrasing things as if you are singling them out as different.  Its up to the communicator to be clear, not up to readers to guess what you might be saying.

Although I would say Conservative's have been challenged by the courts on their legislation more than Liberals have been.

Maybe, maybe not.  But if they are, perhaps its because Conservatives are more prone to attempting legislation that attempts to limit individual rights or freedoms.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps the judiciary, understanding that politicians dancing to the tune of angry (and often ignorant) public doesn't mean the Charter must be intrepreted in a way that removes the rights of individuals or reduces personal freedoms.

Here is an article about ideology in Canadian Courts that you may find interesting:

It was but mostly in dismissing the case in the FP which said there was no ideological bias. Yet both this writeup and the study in the Post were based on grounds which I, as a conservative, don't consider valid. Basing it, as the study did, on which cases were accepted to the SC, for example, rather than how the SC decided the case seems inane on the surface. And while the author of this piece points out a lot of SC decisions are unanimous, that doesn't suggest a lack of ideology but that they all think alike having come through the same system.

A better study of judicial ideological bias would look at individual cases such as the tories trying to put in harsher penalties (in keeping with public demand) for crime, or how the courts side during lawsuits against the federal government from progressive activist groups. On that basis I would suggest the courts are far more liberal than they are conservative.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Nonsense. Any bill has to go through three readings, committee and get Roral assent before it can become law.

As did this one.

Quote

In this case,  this court has determined such a change right before an election is a violation of the Charter.

Yes, the judge decided this based on no actual law. His reasoning is logically incoherent.

Legal scholars surprised by judge's reasoning in Toronto council cuts decision

“People often make the mistake of calling judicial decisions they disagree with activist. This is not one of those cases,” Anglin writes. “Because the judge couldn’t invoke Section 3 of the Charter (which doesn’t apply to municipalities), he wrote himself a new Charter in which Section 2 does the work of Section 3.”

Anglin said that the judge’s argument concerning political rights under Section 3 of the Charter “doesn't apply to municipal elections” and that the argument Belobaba made rests on “two inapplicable” Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) precedents.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/legal-scholars-surprised-by-judge-s-reasoning-in-toronto-council-cuts-decision-1.4087964

Quote

and unlike you, I don’t think it will be the last time.

And unlike you, I don't trust the impartiality of the courts enough to respect them enough to care.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

41 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Maybe, maybe not.  But if they are, perhaps its because Conservatives are more prone to attempting legislation that attempts to limit individual rights or freedoms.

You mean putting in place laws that respond to the demand of the public? As in all that (ick!) democracy stuff?

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

 

And unlike you, I don't trust the impartiality of the courts enough to respect them enough to care.

 

But you do trust Doug Ford. 

You go on about courts supposedly exceeding their authority but don't have a problem with putting no limits on Ford. After all

Quote

 Government, once elected, is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone.

 

And for you, Government = Doug Ford.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

But you do trust Doug Ford. 

You go on about courts supposedly exceeding their authority but don't have a problem with putting no limits on Ford. After all

And for you, Government = Doug Ford.

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.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

Doesn't matter whether you like him or not, you still maintain that Government = One Person and once elected, Government is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone. Is that the kind of country you really want to live in? A primary duty of the courts is to protect people from being abused by governments.

[dialamah]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

You mean putting in place laws that respond to the demand of the public? As in all that (ick!) democracy stuff?

Does public anger mean that people should have their personal rights limited?  

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Doesn't matter whether you like him or not, you still maintain that Government = One Person and once elected, Government is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone. Is that the kind of country you really want to live in? A primary duty of the courts is to protect people from being abused by governments.

Doug Ford can't do a thing without the consent of the MPPs in his party.  So no, it's not one person. And if you think cutting the number of city councilors is a violation of people's rights you have an odd notion of what rights are.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Does public anger mean that people should have their personal rights limited?  

Like the personal right to have an illegal hand gun? Definitely. 
Remember that the Notwithstanding clause only applies to certain rights. It cannot be used, for example, to eliminate the right to vote, or to eliminate the requirement for elections.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Doug Ford can't do a thing without the consent of the MPPs in his party.  So no, it's not one person. And if you think cutting the number of city councilors is a violation of people's rights you have an odd notion of what rights are.

True but do you think Ford would actually relax party discipline to a point where it could restrict his own power? Doesn't seem the type to me.

Damn right I think drastically changing electoral boundaries and forcing big changes the ballot less than two months before an election is a violation of the electors right to a fair and open election.  No doubt you would go ballistic if Trudeau tried that just before next year's Federal election.

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I gave the example from someone who makes it very clear.

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.

Edited September 11, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

True but do you think Ford would actually relax party discipline to a point where it could restrict his own power? Doesn't seem the type to me.

I don't think Ford has a tight clutch on MPPs. He's an outsider and hasn't developed the necessary relationships and organization. And if he went off the deep end I think there would be any number of MPPs who would see a purge as a good idea.

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Damn right I think drastically changing electoral boundaries and forcing big changes the ballot less than two months before an election is a violation of the electors right to a fair and open election.  No doubt you would go ballistic if Trudeau tried that just before next year's Federal election.

Only if they were done to improve his own party's election fortunes. In this case, the province is changing the borders in a way which is not going to do a thing for them. And as I've said, it's a city council. Who gives a crap about them anyway? 

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't think Ford has a tight clutch on MPPs. He's an outsider and hasn't developed the necessary relationships and organization. And if he went off the deep end I think there would be any number of MPPs who would see a purge as a good idea.

Only if they were done to improve his own party's election fortunes. In this case, the province is changing the borders in a way which is not going to do a thing for them. And as I've said, it's a city council. Who gives a crap about them anyway? 

I don't know what kind of hold he has on his MPP's but in Canada, a party leader has the power to evict them from caucus if they don't tow the line so it would take some kind of revolt to stop him. That's pretty drastic and would any of them fall on their swords for Toronto city council?

This is city government which is not his mandate. He is messing with it for personal reasons. Would you approve of your federal or provincial government making big changes in the electoral map right before an election for any reason, whether it advantages them or not. Yes or no?

Edited September 11, 2018 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

We have had government by decree for a while now.  

You're just using this as an expression.  The premier is using the Notwithstanding Clause to fiddle with Toronto's council size.  This is something else entirely, and no premier has used the courts like this before.  Wynne was a financial disaster and cooked the books, disagreed with her own auditor but I challenge you to find a single post where I defended her for that.

Partisans aren't interesting to discuss with, as they only toe the party line.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

1. The courts ALWAYS have to be there to uphold the constitution ...

2. The violation of Charter rights must be clear, substantiated, and unable to be rectified (poor wording but you get the idea). 

1. Unless the premier contravenes it because he just wants to.

2. It doesn't matter, if you disagree with the ruling.  It doesn't vindicate Judge Ford declaring himself above the law. 

If you people can't see the difference here, I can't help you.  I would never defend a government who did this, no matter what party they were.