Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/11/2018 at 6:38 PM, Centerpiece said:

 .....and if the Supreme Court strikes down the ruling? Where do you stand on that? Do you not hold the slightest doubt that perhaps this particular judge "over reached" with his interpretation? 

Well, maybe yes.   Of course, restructuring a city in the middle of an election IS retarded, there's that too.  And also the premier declaring himself above the law... there's that.

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/11/2018 at 7:37 PM, OftenWrong said:

1. She also pushed through the sex ed agenda, other things. Those are what made people turn towards Ford.

2. Actually I believe they would have elected whomever was the leader of the PC party.

3. I 'm no partisan, and you are welcome to ignore me. I don't particularly like the way Ford was elected. At the time of the election I posted that the election of Doug Ford was an example of stupidity of the electorate.

1. I don't think the sex ed agenda was very controversial.  Mostly bad economic management and being out of touch helped Ford.

2. Well, true.  He is about the most unlikeable politician ever, and almost blew a lead to the NDP.

3. Yes, and he's even got his own propaganda arm.  We have terrible politicians in this country.

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/11/2018 at 8:37 PM, Argus said:

1. My fear was it was a leadup to a study which would then recommend constraints on freedom of expression.

2. And for all we know it might well have been, but they backed off due to the fuss. 

3. What makes you think the courts would get in their way? We have extremely left-wing, progressive judges. If the Liberals put further restrictions on freedom of speech as they've done in the UK and France "in order to combat racism and hate speech and islamophobia" what makes you think most judges wouldn't stand up and cheer?

1. You FEARED it was a LEADUP to a STUDY, which would RECOMMEND constraints.  So you were afraid it was leading to someone looking at something that may eventually change rights.  Meanwhile our retarded premier just declared himself above the law and you're not concerned.  All righty.

2. Or... it was all in peoples' minds to begin with...

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

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.

 

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that rather than ignoring the Charter of Rights, Ford was in fact applying it. Remember the Notwithstanding clause appears in the Charter itself.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Machjo

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that rather than ignoring the Charter of Rights, Ford was in fact applying it. remember the Notwithstanding clause appears in the Charter itself.

Whatever, DoFo is still telling you that you have rights under the Charter only if he says so.

[Machjo]

11 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Whatever, DoFo is still telling you that you have rights under the Charter only if he says so.

Like the right to be discriminated against in the separate-school system? Why should I respect a Charter that violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a superior document in my estimation)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada

[turningrite]

30 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Like the right to be discriminated against in the separate-school system? Why should I respect a Charter that violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a superior document in my estimation)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada

The separate school system may be wasteful. Certainly a valid argument can be made to that effect. Ironically, the separate school system was established under the 1867 Constitution to protect minority education rights. In some instances members of other minority religions have argued that the failure to provide publicly funded religious education for their communities is discriminatory. I suspect most Canadians wouldn't tolerate seeing the model expanded. Ontario had a provincial election in which this was a major issue and John Tory's PCs were soundly defeated in large measure for proposing an expansion of the system. I believe separate religious schools are a bad idea, so why take an anachronistic concept from the 19th century - which may well have served a purpose at that time - and expand it in the 21st century? Some provinces, particularly  Quebec and Newfoundland, have abandoned the religious model. That's the future.

As for the Waldman citation, presumably you realize that decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee have no enforceable legal effect in Canada. Further, the UN's record on human rights adjudication and enforcement has come under much deserved criticism as Western countries with generally good human rights records have been castigated while very often little is said or done to address countries that chronically abuse human rights. If the UN is your only point of reference, your argument isn't very strong.

Edited September 13, 2018 by turningrite

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Like the right to be discriminated against in the separate-school system? Why should I respect a Charter that violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a superior document in my estimation)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada

Why have a separate system at all?

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, maybe yes.   Of course, restructuring a city in the middle of an election IS retarded, there's that too.  And also the premier declaring himself above the law... there's that.

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") 

[scribblet]

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

[Wilber]

3 minutes 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

So Chretien believed that he should have been supreme when he was PM. Politicians don't reign according to their "so called philosophy"? Judges are appointed by politicians after all. I don't think there is a perfect system but history has shown us that there are times when citizens need protection from the actions of their elected governments. Who is to provide that protection if not the courts?

[scribblet]

Just now, Wilber said:

So Chretien believed that he should have been supreme when he was PM. Politicians don't reign according to their "so called philosophy"? Judges are appointed by politicians after all. I don't think there is a perfect system but history has shown us that there are times when citizens need protection from the actions of their elected governments. Who is to provide that protection if not the courts?

Chretien didn't say he should've been supreme, mind you, Liberals do tend to think that.   However, the same can be said about democratically elected gov'ts being over ridden by activist judges.

[Wilber]

Just now, scribblet said:

Chretien didn't say he should've been supreme, mind you, Liberals do tend to think that.   However, the same can be said about democratically elected gov'ts being over ridden by activist judges.

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

[scribblet]

22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

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

Their interpretations can vary depending on their ideology, but in this case Ford is using the NWC to protect the province from judicial over reach.    He's withing his rights and the law...     meanwhile  ---- Will John Tory and the self-preservationist Councillors meet today about gun violence --- nope----About the refugee and number of homeless on the streets - -- nope.     About their own political hides – of course you got it!   

Whoopsie – the Council has gone in camera to discuss the latest legal opinion on fighting the NWC -   So much for democracy! So much for protecting the freedom of expression of Toronto residents        

[Boges]

The tears of people pretending to care about the size of Toronto City Council are delicious. 

 

DoFo will have to do much worse for this to be a mover in the next election IN FOUR YEARS!!! The reason he did it in the middle of an election campaign is that he won't have another shot at doing this again for four years. 

Honestly, anyone who's truly upset at this, would never vote PC in the first place. This is nothingburger of an issue but it's all people really have on this government. 

BTW no Liberal ever ran and was elected on a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade, but they tried to ram those things through after being elected. These Feds are even trying to force provinces that don't want a Carbon Pricing Scheme to eat it. How's that for anti-democratic? 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Boges

[Machjo]

11 hours ago, Wilber said:

Why have a separate system at all?

I thought that was my point: either all or none at all.

[Machjo]

1 hour 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

And Chretien was one of the writers of the Charter.

[Machjo]

12 hours ago, turningrite said:

The separate school system may be wasteful. Certainly a valid argument can be made to that effect. Ironically, the separate school system was established under the 1867 Constitution to protect minority education rights. In some instances members of other minority religions have argued that the failure to provide publicly funded religious education for their communities is discriminatory. I suspect most Canadians wouldn't tolerate seeing the model expanded. Ontario had a provincial election in which this was a major issue and John Tory's PCs were soundly defeated in large measure for proposing an expansion of the system. I believe separate religious schools are a bad idea, so why take an anachronistic concept from the 19th century - which may well have served a purpose at that time - and expand it in the 21st century? Some provinces, particularly  Quebec and Newfoundland, have abandoned the religious model. That's the future.

As for the Waldman citation, presumably you realize that decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee have no enforceable legal effect in Canada. Further, the UN's record on human rights adjudication and enforcement has come under much deserved criticism as Western countries with generally good human rights records have been castigated while very often little is said or done to address countries that chronically abuse human rights. If the UN is your only point of reference, your argument isn't very strong.

the UN is not perfect, but we have to be careful with our arguments here. If I say that Canadian human-rights laws supersede UN human-rights laws, then who am i to say that UN human-rights laws supersede the Iranian constitution? Yes, one can make the argument that national laws ought to supersede international laws; but we then need to be consistent with that argument and can't play double standards on it. Do you support your argument consistently or only as it applies to Canada?

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I thought that was my point: either all or none at all.

The case you quoted wasn't about that but I agree. Why doesn't DoFo get rid of the separate system?

[Wilber]

7 minutes ago, Machjo said:

And Chretien was one of the writers of the Charter.

So he did want to rule supreme.

[Rue]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, maybe yes.   Of course, restructuring a city in the middle of an election IS retarded, there's that too.  And also the premier declaring himself above the law... there's that.

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.

 

[GostHacked]

19 minutes ago, Rue said:

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.

Will that mean more money for other things since that salaries for about 25 people will no longer be needed?  Even if these people make 50G/y that works out to about 1.25 million saved. I am sure they are making more than that, and then you can consider the costs of not needing to dole out health care or any kind of medical coverage.  I am all for lowering the numbers in government, but is this too low which means certain areas will be under or not represented at all?

Ottawa has 23 and with a population of just under 1 M

Toronto 44 wards with a population of 2.8 M

Could that set a precedent and other cities and their governing councils could be looking at reducing their numbers as well? I think Toronto is a rare case where they want to reduce instead of increase.

 

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Will that mean more money for other things since that salaries for about 25 people will no longer be needed?  Even if these people make 50G/y that works out to about 1.25 million saved. I am sure they are making more than that, and then you can consider the costs of not needing to dole out health care or any kind of medical coverage.  I am all for lowering the numbers in government, but is this too low which means certain areas will be under or not represented at all?

Ottawa has 23 and with a population of just under 1 M

Toronto 44 wards with a population of 2.8 M

Could that set a precedent and other cities and their governing councils could be looking at reducing their numbers as well? I think Toronto is a rare case where they want to reduce instead of increase.

 

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.

[Wilber]

BC has pretty much rejected the ward system and gone with councillors at large. I have mixed feelings about it.  Money is more of a factor during at large campaigns and voters basically have to rank their ballots. On the other hand, it discourages Balkanization because all the councillors are responsible for all of the city, rather than just their piece of it.

[eyeball]

On 9/11/2018 at 5:37 PM, Argus said:

And they'll be plenty of press on this. After the fact. Just like the press and complaints were after the fact on the electricity thing. There was no consultation.

There was also no souveillance - during the fact.  Virtually everything of any import happened in-camera and behind closed doors.  There was consultation going on alright but it probably took influence and money to feel its clout.  You know how that works.

Edited September 13, 2018 by eyeball