Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Wilber said:

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

The final arbiter was not the high court. The high court isn't even the final arbiter of British law. Parliament reigns supreme in the United Kingdom. And it can overrule the High Court.

Trudeau based his constitution on a republic concept, where the courts would have to be completely independent in order to frustrate the will of a powerful president. But in a parliamentary system you have to believe that not just a Prime Minister, but something like 170 MPs would be willing to pass legislation which not only went deeply against the will of the people but which threatened their democratic rights. And that the people who make up our institutions like police and military, all of them raised in a long history of democracy, would be willing to enforce the will of such people in supporting the government. I simply do not see that happening. Thus we have a system which is undemocratic and has led to long, drawn-out legal nonsense which consumes billions of dollars every year in wasted time and effort. It has led to the supreme court overreaching more and more and deciding things based on their own preferences as opposed to the clearly enunciated clauses of the constitution.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Wilber said:

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.

But what happens when the courts have the power to re-write the law based on their own preferences?

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Wilber said:

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.

UNH? 

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Wilber said:

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.

I have no problem with a judge ruling according to a clearly enunciated charter right. But that's often not the case. In this case, if you read the objections from legal scholars which have been posted, it sounds like the judge made up a reason why Bill 5 was unconstitutional. Don't you have the least thought that "against the right of freedom of expression" is absolute bloody nonsense?
 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You FEARED it was a LEADUP to a STUDY, which would RECOMMEND constraints. 

It WAS the leadup to a study. The government passed it and immediately began said study. You know this.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you were afraid it was leading to someone looking at something that may eventually change rights.

Given the mentality of the Liberal government I was far from the only one who feared this was simply going to be justification for such legislation.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Meanwhile our retarded premier just declared himself above the law and you're not concerned.  All righty.

Only partisan hysterics think he said that.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. This is another example of you comparing something that theoretically could happen with what is actually happening.  

The time to worry about something and do something about it is BEFORE it happens.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When the Liberals start passing laws banning Christianity you'll be thanking the centrists for standing up for your rights.  Until then, enjoy your dictator.

More childish hysteria. Grow up.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Wilber said:

Why have a separate system at all?

Because it was in the original constitution and carried over, and because it's supported by parents mostly because of how crappy the public system often is by comparison.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, scribblet said:

Agree there should no longer a  tax payer funded separate school system.  

I don't think Ford has ever said he is above the law...     Chretien however did say this: 

"…. in a society the elected people have to be supreme — not judges — and I subscribe to that. Look at what happened in the United States where the judges reign according to their so-called philosophy. That is not the tradition here… Jean Chretien, 2012

The whole point here is that this should not have been challenged at all by the lefty liberal losers. Ford has the right to abolish seats if he wants too and there should be no one allowed to be able to challenge what Ford is doing unless national security may be involved. I don't think that losing 25 seats at Toronto city hall can be considered a national security threat. The lefty liberal social justice warriors of Ontario are about to lose their power and control over the people of Ontario and are on the run and are in a panic now thanks to Ford and I am loving every minute of it. Let the conservative revolution begin. Canada can sure use more freedom and less government and less taxes which Wynne thought would be great for Ontario. Bull to that nonsense. 

[turningrite]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

The final arbiter was not the high court. The high court isn't even the final arbiter of British law. Parliament reigns supreme in the United Kingdom. And it can overrule the High Court.

Trudeau based his constitution on a republic concept, where the courts would have to be completely independent in order to frustrate the will of a powerful president. But in a parliamentary system you have to believe that not just a Prime Minister, but something like 170 MPs would be willing to pass legislation which not only went deeply against the will of the people but which threatened their democratic rights. And that the people who make up our institutions like police and military, all of them raised in a long history of democracy, would be willing to enforce the will of such people in supporting the government. I simply do not see that happening. Thus we have a system which is undemocratic and has led to long, drawn-out legal nonsense which consumes billions of dollars every year in wasted time and effort. It has led to the supreme court overreaching more and more and deciding things based on their own preferences as opposed to the clearly enunciated clauses of the constitution.

Parliament does in fact reign supreme in the UK where primary legislation is concerned. But there's a major caveat to consider when comparing the UK's Parliament with Ontario's legislature, which is that the House of Lords serves at least in part as a check on the House of Commons while Ontario's legislature is unicameral. The UK now has a Supreme Court, but it doesn't have the authority to overturn primary legislation. The UK, of course, has no equivalent to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but its cumulative constitution includes the English Bill of Rights (1689) which emerged following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, establishing the system we now know as a 'constitutional monarchy'. More broadly, the rights of Englishmen (and others governed by legal systems grounded in the English/British tradition) were established over the centuries under the common law, aspects of which date back as far as the Magna Carta. I was somewhat surprised that the judge who threw out Ford's Bill 5 didn't reference common law principles in his decision, particularly where Ford's law interfered with the rules of an election already underway. I would think that going back over centuries of common law jurisprudence there might well be a precedent somewhere that addresses such conduct.

Edited September 13, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Parliament does in fact reign supreme in the UK where primary legislation is concerned. But there's a major caveat to consider when comparing the UK's Parliament with Ontario's legislature, which is that the House of Lords serves at least in part as a check on the House of Commons while Ontario's legislature is unicameral.

Yes, but in Canada, the federal parliament is a check on the provinces powers of legislation.

 

[turningrite]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yes, but in Canada, the federal parliament is a check on the provinces powers of legislation.

 

In theory this is true. In fact, not so much. I read a column in today's Toronto Star, by Chantal Hebert I believe, about why Trudeau won't exercise the federal government's power of disallowance. If he applies it to curb Ford's behavior he may have a much bigger problem down the road if (more likely when) a new government in Quebec implements strong legislation to enforce secularism. Trudeau's diversity crowd will no doubt pressure him to counter such a law and if Trudeau stops Ford to preserve the integrity of the Charter doing the same with Quebec could well result in a constitutional crisis. So, he's stuck. And the Charter is more or less what Brian Mulroney once said the notwithstanding clause renders it - essentially a paper tiger.

[Wilber]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because it was in the original constitution and carried over, and because it's supported by parents mostly because of how crappy the public system often is by comparison.

Which Constitution? There is only one public system in BC. Religious schools get the same funding, subject to the same rules as any other private school.

[Centerpiece]

6 hours ago, Wilber said:

Well who did he think should reign supreme? Judges can only make law by interpreting laws that are made by politicians. 

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

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

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

Politicians wrote the the Charter so why blame judges for its deficiencies. They can only work with what they are given.

Heaven forbid we rely on the court of public opinion to defend individual rights. That is nothing more than mob rule.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

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

Ford told reporters Monday afternoon. “I was elected. The judge was appointed. ”

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Politicians wrote the the Charter so why blame judges for its deficiencies. They can only work with what they are given.

Heaven forbid we rely on the court of public opinion to defend individual rights. That is nothing more than mob rule.

Democracy = mob rule when they don't vote how I want.

This is a case of judicial activism vs judicial originalism or constructivism.

Strict constructivism means reading and applying the words of the law precisely as they are written. No more and no less is the intention, and the judge's role is not to interpret. Once the meaning of the text is understood, then the law is applied as such.

Judicial activism involves judges ruling in a manner in which they promote a decision based on their own political/ideological feelings and opinions toward shaping public policy. Detractors feel that this undermines legitimate and impartial judicial review, while proponents feel that legal interpretation should change with the times.

Originalism is the practice of looking at the legal framework in place ( the Constitution), and keeping in mind the purposes and intentions with which the applicable parts were written, judging in accordance (as best as can be determined) with the spirit and intention of the law as it was written. Often originalism is equated with strict constructivism, but they're not really the same exact thing.

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ford told reporters Monday afternoon. “I was elected. The judge was appointed. ”

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

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

  Jean Charest was particularly adamant that Parliament was supreme - subject to the eventual reckoning with the electorate.  

Right.  Well, I have already said this many times but there is no denying they have the legal right to do this.  I can't help people if they don't see the point, though.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Democracy = mob rule when they don't vote how I want.T

Lynch mobs are also the court of public opinion, as was McCarthyism.

[Wilber]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

UNH? 

Well that's how many Russians died in Stalin's Gulags and how many Chinese died in Mao's Cultural Revolution. You are the idiot who compared Obama and Clinton to those two. 

[capricorn]

After vowing to not interfere with the matter of Ford invoking the NWC, Trudeau sticks his nose in it.

Quote

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau applauded the actions of 25 Liberal MPs from Toronto who signed a letter calling on all members of the provincial legislature to step up and defeat Premier Doug Ford's legislation slashing the size of the city's municipal council.

"Quite frankly, it is something that I expect of all our MPs, to be strong voices for their communities in Ottawa," Trudeau told reporters in Saskatchewan Thursday.

Trudeau said earlier this week that while he is "disappointed" the Ford government decided to use the notwithstanding clause to force the legislation through the provincial legislature, he will not step into the debate over the size of Toronto city council.

"We are calling on all MPPs to defeat Ford's legislation, tabled yesterday at Queen's Park, and the Bill's unprecedented use of the notwithstanding clause in Ontario," said the letter, first obtained by the Toronto Star.

"In particular, we believe MPPs elected in Toronto have a responsibility to defend the city, its democratic institutions, and the rights of citizens to a free and fair municipal election. The people of Toronto deserve nothing less."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-mps-letter-against-ford-bill-1.4822576

I figured all along he could not hold his tongue on this matter and relished the opportunity to criticize Ford.

[Centerpiece]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right.  Well, I have already said this many times but there is no denying they have the legal right to do this.  I can't help people if they don't see the point, though.

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

[Argus]

Margaret Wendt has a reasonable asessment of the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, and points out the Charter never would have been approved without it as many were concerned about judicial overreach and the sovereignty of parliament.

 

So when is it appropriate to use the clause?

“It should be used when there is a genuine difference of interpretation on rights and where the legislature decides to have the last word in the context of an interpretive dispute with the courts,” says Dwight Newman, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan. “The other instance is when there is some need to react quickly to a judicial decision,” he tells me.

Some argue that the notwithstanding clause is a “loophole” in the Charter. But this is exactly backward. It is an integral part of the Charter. Without it, there would be no Charter. And it was always intended to be used. Even Pierre Trudeau, who only reluctantly accepted the notwithstanding clause because there would have been no Charter deal without it, said he would use it to override the courts if they approved abortion rights.

Which brings us to Doug Ford. The strongest criticism of his use of the notwithstanding clause is that it should be used as a last resort, and this case wasn’t that. This must be set against what Mr. Anglin calls a “‘cynical manipulation of the Charter” by the judge, who struck down the government’s legislation, to change the number of seats on Toronto City Council. “The judge’s ruling was so clearly unsound that if Section 33 isn’t an appropriate constitutional response here, when would it ever be?” Mr. Anglin tweeted. Section 33, he wrote, is a reminder that " if judges want to play politics, the legislature can do it better."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-doug-ford-and-the-charter-dont-have-a-cow-man/

[betsy]

6 hours ago, capricorn said:

I figured all along he could not hold his tongue on this matter and relished the opportunity to criticize Ford.

He can't hold his tongue.  Period.  How many times did that tongue of his had caused us problems? 

He could never hold his tongue.  The only time his tongue doesn't wag is when he uses his fingers on twitter!

Edited September 14, 2018 by betsy

[taxme]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

Well that's how many Russians died in Stalin's Gulags and how many Chinese died in Mao's Cultural Revolution. You are the idiot who compared Obama and Clinton to those two. 

Those two are just as bad as Mao and Stalin. The crimes against the American people is enough to make it appear as though those two can be put in the same column as Mao ans Stalin. That is what I am trying to point out to you if you got my drift. Idiots are the people who love their Hillary and Obama communists. 

[taxme]

7 hours ago, capricorn said:

After vowing to not interfere with the matter of Ford invoking the NWC, Trudeau sticks his nose in it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-mps-letter-against-ford-bill-1.4822576

I figured all along he could not hold his tongue on this matter and relished the opportunity to criticize Ford.

The leftist lieberal destroyers of all things decent and moral just have to stick together to continue to try and shaft and deny the Ontario people from their democratic rights. It's funny how this prime mistake of ours has never spoken up about the rights and to the rescue of the Anglophones in Quebec who have had many of their English rights taken away from them. One would think that with over 500,000 Anglophones in Quebec and with their loss of their rights compared to 25 leftist liberal political hacks would be more important for the kid to want to stand up for. But no. I will bet that if a liberal premier of Ontario wanted to downsize Toronto city hall there would be no problem at all to do so and would receive no flak for doing so. Why doesn't this prime mistake of ours just go away.