Meanwhile, in Doug Ford’s Ontario...
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next
BeaverFever @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:23 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Politicians are elected.
In spite of the important sounding language your quote says nothing that contradicts the explanation in the op ed above it. It suggests officialdom plants the sort of judge it wants depending on what the political flavor of the month is.
And these judges have tremendous power.
Belobaba for example, appeared to want to legislate from the bench.
In spite of the important sounding language your quote says nothing that contradicts the explanation in the op ed above it. It suggests officialdom plants the sort of judge it wants depending on what the political flavor of the month is.
And these judges have tremendous power.
Belobaba for example, appeared to want to legislate from the bench.
Elected politicians are not above the law. The whole point of the charter is to limit the power of elected leaders. full stop. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand democracy.
BeaverFever @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:26 pm
Coach85 Coach85:
I've heard a lot of people discuss that 'this is not the time' to use the notwithstanding clause.
When is a good time?
When is a good time?
Whey it’s an emergency and not for something supposedly so mundane and trivial it didn’t even make it into your election platform just a few months prior.
Coach85 @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:41 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Coach85 Coach85:
I've heard a lot of people discuss that 'this is not the time' to use the notwithstanding clause.
When is a good time?
When is a good time?
Whey it’s an emergency and not for something supposedly so mundane and trivial it didn’t even make it into your election platform just a few months prior.
He didn't have an election platform.
I find it funny that people are complaining about something that wasn't in his platform when they complained previously that he didn't have a platform.
That said, what type of emergency would require the use of this clause?
Coach85 @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Politicians are elected.
In spite of the important sounding language your quote says nothing that contradicts the explanation in the op ed above it. It suggests officialdom plants the sort of judge it wants depending on what the political flavor of the month is.
And these judges have tremendous power.
Belobaba for example, appeared to want to legislate from the bench.
In spite of the important sounding language your quote says nothing that contradicts the explanation in the op ed above it. It suggests officialdom plants the sort of judge it wants depending on what the political flavor of the month is.
And these judges have tremendous power.
Belobaba for example, appeared to want to legislate from the bench.
Elected politicians are not above the law. The whole point of the charter is to limit the power of elected leaders. full stop. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand democracy.
Nothing that the Ontario government has done is against the law.
In fact, the use of the clause is perfectly legal.
Democracy has given us this clause.
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:53 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Elected politicians are not above the law. The whole point of the charter is to limit the power of elected leaders. full stop. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand democracy.
Nobody broke any law and it's you who doesn't understand but not to worry, here's some help:
Here's why Ford had no choice with the notwithstanding clause
$1:
You’ve got to go back in time a bit to understand why Ontario Premier Doug Ford is invoking the notwithstanding clause. And why his decision, seen as disproportionate by some, is completely understandable given his experience with the courts.
It was the evening of October, 25, 2010. The Toronto election that brought Rob Ford to power as mayor. His opponents wasted no time making it clear they were going to railroad the mayor, personally and professionally.
“He’s only one vote,” his detractors on council were already saying, that very night he got elected. There was a concerted plan to stop Ford from day one.
And to some degree the plan paid off. For a brief period in late 2012 and early 2013, Rob Ford was removed from office by a sole Ontario Superior Court Judge, who was hearing a case about how Ford’s use of city council letterhead, before he became mayor, to raise money for a football foundation was in fact a serious conflict of interest.
Ultimately, Ford’s appeal to the Superior Court prevailed and the Supreme Court refused to take it on. Ford was reinstated as mayor. But by then considerable damage had been done. It had already been open season on Rob Ford and this shot landed a serious wound.
Doug Ford was on city council for all this, by his brother’s side throughout it all. He saw how this game is played and he came out all the wiser for it.
While the Ontario PC government won a resounding majority mandate back in June, this hasn’t stopped their opponents from coming forward with obstructionist tactics right out of the gates. Before the fall session even gets underway, there are already at least seven serious court challenges filed against the Ford government. Three of these concern the sex-ed curriculum revisions.
Responding to these efforts takes time. It takes energy. The legal challenges get press coverage and they start to shape the narrative. They distract from the government’s policy goals. They make it look like the government is in chaos … even if the cases ultimately fail.
On Monday, Ford signalled he will have none of this. He’s not going to spend the four years of his term playing defense, like his brother was largely forced to do during his mayoralty.
Is invoking the notwithstanding an example of killing a fly with a hammer? You bet. After all, numerous legal minds have already weighed in that Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling is a dubious one that judges in an appeals process will not uphold.
But Ford doesn’t want to just beat this ruling though. He wants to beat all of them. He wants to swing that hammer wide as a message to all the other flies swarming that he’s not going to put up with it.
It’s certainly unprecedented to invoke Section 33. But we’re in unprecedented times. The fact that, for example, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario think they too have a Charter rights issue on their hands in filing an injunction against the sex-ed curriculum tells us that Ford isn’t the one who started us down this sketchy legal path. He’s the one trying to bring it to an end.
There’s a lot of high-minded rhetoric floating around right now discussing the implications of Ford bringing in the notwithstanding clause. Fair game. But let’s also balance this out with discussion about the increase in politically motivated vexatious litigation. That’s the root of the problem here.
It was the evening of October, 25, 2010. The Toronto election that brought Rob Ford to power as mayor. His opponents wasted no time making it clear they were going to railroad the mayor, personally and professionally.
“He’s only one vote,” his detractors on council were already saying, that very night he got elected. There was a concerted plan to stop Ford from day one.
And to some degree the plan paid off. For a brief period in late 2012 and early 2013, Rob Ford was removed from office by a sole Ontario Superior Court Judge, who was hearing a case about how Ford’s use of city council letterhead, before he became mayor, to raise money for a football foundation was in fact a serious conflict of interest.
Ultimately, Ford’s appeal to the Superior Court prevailed and the Supreme Court refused to take it on. Ford was reinstated as mayor. But by then considerable damage had been done. It had already been open season on Rob Ford and this shot landed a serious wound.
Doug Ford was on city council for all this, by his brother’s side throughout it all. He saw how this game is played and he came out all the wiser for it.
While the Ontario PC government won a resounding majority mandate back in June, this hasn’t stopped their opponents from coming forward with obstructionist tactics right out of the gates. Before the fall session even gets underway, there are already at least seven serious court challenges filed against the Ford government. Three of these concern the sex-ed curriculum revisions.
Responding to these efforts takes time. It takes energy. The legal challenges get press coverage and they start to shape the narrative. They distract from the government’s policy goals. They make it look like the government is in chaos … even if the cases ultimately fail.
On Monday, Ford signalled he will have none of this. He’s not going to spend the four years of his term playing defense, like his brother was largely forced to do during his mayoralty.
Is invoking the notwithstanding an example of killing a fly with a hammer? You bet. After all, numerous legal minds have already weighed in that Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling is a dubious one that judges in an appeals process will not uphold.
But Ford doesn’t want to just beat this ruling though. He wants to beat all of them. He wants to swing that hammer wide as a message to all the other flies swarming that he’s not going to put up with it.
It’s certainly unprecedented to invoke Section 33. But we’re in unprecedented times. The fact that, for example, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario think they too have a Charter rights issue on their hands in filing an injunction against the sex-ed curriculum tells us that Ford isn’t the one who started us down this sketchy legal path. He’s the one trying to bring it to an end.
There’s a lot of high-minded rhetoric floating around right now discussing the implications of Ford bringing in the notwithstanding clause. Fair game. But let’s also balance this out with discussion about the increase in politically motivated vexatious litigation. That’s the root of the problem here.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... ing-clause
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:30 pm
Here ya go Beave. Both sides are represented. A slimy, little, Progressive slurmeister tries his best to 'gotcha' Ford on this issue.
BeaverFever @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:13 am
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Elected politicians are not above the law. The whole point of the charter is to limit the power of elected leaders. full stop. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand democracy.
Nobody broke any law and it's you who doesn't understand but not to worry, here's some help:
Here's why Ford had no choice with the notwithstanding clause
$1:
You’ve got to go back in time a bit to understand why Ontario Premier Doug Ford is invoking the notwithstanding clause. And why his decision, seen as disproportionate by some, is completely understandable given his experience with the courts.
It was the evening of October, 25, 2010. The Toronto election that brought Rob Ford to power as mayor. His opponents wasted no time making it clear they were going to railroad the mayor, personally and professionally.
“He’s only one vote,” his detractors on council were already saying, that very night he got elected. There was a concerted plan to stop Ford from day one.
And to some degree the plan paid off. For a brief period in late 2012 and early 2013, Rob Ford was removed from office by a sole Ontario Superior Court Judge, who was hearing a case about how Ford’s use of city council letterhead, before he became mayor, to raise money for a football foundation was in fact a serious conflict of interest.
Ultimately, Ford’s appeal to the Superior Court prevailed and the Supreme Court refused to take it on. Ford was reinstated as mayor. But by then considerable damage had been done. It had already been open season on Rob Ford and this shot landed a serious wound.
Doug Ford was on city council for all this, by his brother’s side throughout it all. He saw how this game is played and he came out all the wiser for it.
While the Ontario PC government won a resounding majority mandate back in June, this hasn’t stopped their opponents from coming forward with obstructionist tactics right out of the gates. Before the fall session even gets underway, there are already at least seven serious court challenges filed against the Ford government. Three of these concern the sex-ed curriculum revisions.
Responding to these efforts takes time. It takes energy. The legal challenges get press coverage and they start to shape the narrative. They distract from the government’s policy goals. They make it look like the government is in chaos … even if the cases ultimately fail.
On Monday, Ford signalled he will have none of this. He’s not going to spend the four years of his term playing defense, like his brother was largely forced to do during his mayoralty.
Is invoking the notwithstanding an example of killing a fly with a hammer? You bet. After all, numerous legal minds have already weighed in that Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling is a dubious one that judges in an appeals process will not uphold.
But Ford doesn’t want to just beat this ruling though. He wants to beat all of them. He wants to swing that hammer wide as a message to all the other flies swarming that he’s not going to put up with it.
It’s certainly unprecedented to invoke Section 33. But we’re in unprecedented times. The fact that, for example, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario think they too have a Charter rights issue on their hands in filing an injunction against the sex-ed curriculum tells us that Ford isn’t the one who started us down this sketchy legal path. He’s the one trying to bring it to an end.
There’s a lot of high-minded rhetoric floating around right now discussing the implications of Ford bringing in the notwithstanding clause. Fair game. But let’s also balance this out with discussion about the increase in politically motivated vexatious litigation. That’s the root of the problem here.
It was the evening of October, 25, 2010. The Toronto election that brought Rob Ford to power as mayor. His opponents wasted no time making it clear they were going to railroad the mayor, personally and professionally.
“He’s only one vote,” his detractors on council were already saying, that very night he got elected. There was a concerted plan to stop Ford from day one.
And to some degree the plan paid off. For a brief period in late 2012 and early 2013, Rob Ford was removed from office by a sole Ontario Superior Court Judge, who was hearing a case about how Ford’s use of city council letterhead, before he became mayor, to raise money for a football foundation was in fact a serious conflict of interest.
Ultimately, Ford’s appeal to the Superior Court prevailed and the Supreme Court refused to take it on. Ford was reinstated as mayor. But by then considerable damage had been done. It had already been open season on Rob Ford and this shot landed a serious wound.
Doug Ford was on city council for all this, by his brother’s side throughout it all. He saw how this game is played and he came out all the wiser for it.
While the Ontario PC government won a resounding majority mandate back in June, this hasn’t stopped their opponents from coming forward with obstructionist tactics right out of the gates. Before the fall session even gets underway, there are already at least seven serious court challenges filed against the Ford government. Three of these concern the sex-ed curriculum revisions.
Responding to these efforts takes time. It takes energy. The legal challenges get press coverage and they start to shape the narrative. They distract from the government’s policy goals. They make it look like the government is in chaos … even if the cases ultimately fail.
On Monday, Ford signalled he will have none of this. He’s not going to spend the four years of his term playing defense, like his brother was largely forced to do during his mayoralty.
Is invoking the notwithstanding an example of killing a fly with a hammer? You bet. After all, numerous legal minds have already weighed in that Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling is a dubious one that judges in an appeals process will not uphold.
But Ford doesn’t want to just beat this ruling though. He wants to beat all of them. He wants to swing that hammer wide as a message to all the other flies swarming that he’s not going to put up with it.
It’s certainly unprecedented to invoke Section 33. But we’re in unprecedented times. The fact that, for example, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario think they too have a Charter rights issue on their hands in filing an injunction against the sex-ed curriculum tells us that Ford isn’t the one who started us down this sketchy legal path. He’s the one trying to bring it to an end.
There’s a lot of high-minded rhetoric floating around right now discussing the implications of Ford bringing in the notwithstanding clause. Fair game. But let’s also balance this out with discussion about the increase in politically motivated vexatious litigation. That’s the root of the problem here.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... ing-clause
Every paragraph of that article says the same thing:. The Dictator has no respect for due process or the rule of law. He’s worried the court challenges will “shape the narrative “ and “distract from his goals”? Tough shit that’s called democracy and it comes with the territory. He invoked notwithstanding simply because “he won’t put up witth” what distractions from his agenda and narratives he doesn’t control? Couldn’t sound more like an authoritarian dictator if he tried.
We are not in “unprecedented times”. There is nothing unprecedented here except the dictatorial impulses of the newly elected College-Drop-out-in Chief.
Edit: also absolutely nothing in that article even remotely addresses the claim of why Ford had “no choice”. It just said that’s what he wants to do. Today’s extremist anti-democratic conservatives can’t tell rhe difference between “wanting” something and “having no choice” but to take it.
“ I wanted his lunch money. He tried to argue with me, which “reshaped the narrative” and “distracted from my gosls” and I “was having none of it” so I had “no choice” but to beat him up and steal his lunch money.
fifeboy @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:29 am
Toronto , Ontario and Canada will all survive this. What I think won’t are the minds of people who think it’s a good idea, not now but in the future when an elected government (from the “other side”) does the same thing, I’m sure it won’t e long before places change and some are really sorry Ford started it.
BeaverFever @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:47 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
Toronto , Ontario and Canada will all survive this. What I think won’t are the minds of people who think it’s a good idea, not now but in the future when an elected government (from the “other side”) does the same thing, I’m sure it won’t e long before places change and some are really sorry Ford started it.
So far in Canadian history, outside of Quebec and its language laws only conservative governments have used or attempted to use notwithstanding to suppress the rights of citizens, and only in Sask (used successfully twice), Alberta (attempted twice but failed both times due to jurisdiction) and Yukon (once but law never came into effect). It was a cabal of conservative Premiers lead by Alberta’s Lougheed who was the primary force behind inserting the notwithstanding clause in the charter in the first place. Conservatives just have anti-democratic tendencies I suppose.
Thanos @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:26 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
Toronto , Ontario and Canada will all survive this. What I think won’t are the minds of people who think it’s a good idea, not now but in the future when an elected government (from the “other side”) does the same thing, I’m sure it won’t e long before places change and some are really sorry Ford started it.
That's pretty much the same thing as the pro-Ford side says about the last decade or so of McGuinty/Wynne and the seemingly-endless assorted hard-left Toronto city councils of recent years. Not making excuses for Ford's open belligerence but rubbing the other side's faces in the dirt has been something the Ontario left-wing has exulted in doing for quite a long time.
BeaverFever @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:45 am
Thanos Thanos:
fifeboy fifeboy:
Toronto , Ontario and Canada will all survive this. What I think won’t are the minds of people who think it’s a good idea, not now but in the future when an elected government (from the “other side”) does the same thing, I’m sure it won’t e long before places change and some are really sorry Ford started it.
That's pretty much the same thing as the pro-Ford side says about the last decade or so of McGuinty/Wynne and the seemingly-endless assorted hard-left Toronto city councils of recent years. Not making excuses for Ford's open belligerence but rubbing the other side's faces in the dirt has been something the Ontario left-wing has exulted in doing for quite a long time.
In what way? What are the “hard left” policies that “rubbed noses in the dirt”? There’s nothing wrong with a left wing party enacting left wing policies or requirement that a party appease hostile voters from the opposite camp. But the “left” didn’t have to trample the constitution or ram through surprise legislation to to do it.
Look at Ford’s completely unannounced, completely unresearched, completely unsupported attack on Toronto just weeks after taking office which he is now going to ram through with a charter override.
Now compare that with Trudeau’s attempt to reform First Past the Post elections:
1) It was part of his election platform,
2) he then commenced a study and consultation.
3) The study and consultations revealed the change was ill-advised. So he abandoned it.
Far cry from Ford’s bully dictator tactics.
BeaverFever @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:59 am
Coach85 Coach85:
He didn't have an election platform.
Exactly. All the more reason.
$1:
I find it funny that people are complaining about something that wasn't in his platform when they complained previously that he didn't have a platform.
Why? That’s the exact same argument. Je should have a platform and his major policy initiatives should be based on that.
$1:
That said, what type of emergency would require the use of this clause?
$1:
e·mer·gen·cy
əˈmərjənsē
noun
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"your quick response in an emergency could be a lifesaver"
synonyms: crisis, urgent situation, extremity, exigency;
arising from or needed or used in an emergency.
modifier noun: emergency
"an emergency exit"
synonyms: urgent, crisis;
əˈmərjənsē
noun
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"your quick response in an emergency could be a lifesaver"
synonyms: crisis, urgent situation, extremity, exigency;
arising from or needed or used in an emergency.
modifier noun: emergency
"an emergency exit"
synonyms: urgent, crisis;
Thanos @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:09 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Thanos Thanos:
fifeboy fifeboy:
Toronto , Ontario and Canada will all survive this. What I think won’t are the minds of people who think it’s a good idea, not now but in the future when an elected government (from the “other side”) does the same thing, I’m sure it won’t e long before places change and some are really sorry Ford started it.
That's pretty much the same thing as the pro-Ford side says about the last decade or so of McGuinty/Wynne and the seemingly-endless assorted hard-left Toronto city councils of recent years. Not making excuses for Ford's open belligerence but rubbing the other side's faces in the dirt has been something the Ontario left-wing has exulted in doing for quite a long time.
In what way? What are the “hard left” policies that “rubbed noses in the dirt”?
Just from memory, and as an outsider too, I can still think up a small list of things over the recent years the Liberal provincial government and Toronto city council have done that succeeded in stoking a massive angry reaction:
- gas plants debacle/shutting down the nuke plants
- incessant tax hikes
- massive unsustainable growth of the provincial public sector
- the Caledonia embarrassment
- non-stop increases in the cost of electricity and gas, and brutal hard-nosed tactics used by the utilities on those who fell behind on their bills
- supporting Black Lives Matter's attack on the Toronto police force
- really kinky sex-ed for young children in elementary schools
- increase in open-drug use on Toronto streets/public defecation/increase in violence by homeless addicts after handcuffing the police response to these issues
- an absolute mess in public housing, with buildings being taken over by violent tenants and criminals while other available buildings remain empty for months or years on end
- wild increase in gun violence after ending police practices that kept drug gang warfare supressed
I'm sure any other Ontarians here could come up with a lot more. Whether you or I agree on this list or the exact details of any of these items is unimportant. What is important that all these things were done by Liberals/leftists and are exactly the sort of things that would absolutely provoke a wild reaction by conservatives when the time came, which it did on the night of the last election. From their perspective the average person has been totally abandoned by both the province and the city in favour of special interests and SJW crusaders. So saying that the Ontario left was completely innocent and unaware that a plurality of voters had had enough of it just isn't plausible. You can say it's just SUN-stoked rage if you want to but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to eventually happen.
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:36 am
Rewriting the law is not the same thing as "the law," Beave. Legislating a country's law from a court bench is not cool and what it does doesn't become "the law" just because some self important government appointed official decides he's in charge of the country enough to perpetrate his authoritarian desires on the citizenry.
This bureaucratic and administrative authoritarianism is why you need a not-withstanding clause and if only a couple conservatives have been forced to use it, that tells us who the bad guy really is. The not withstanding clause is a defensive maneuver used by a democratically elected leader.
Coach85 @ Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:11 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
e·mer·gen·cy
əˈmərjənsē
noun
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"your quick response in an emergency could be a lifesaver"
synonyms: crisis, urgent situation, extremity, exigency;
arising from or needed or used in an emergency.
modifier noun: emergency
"an emergency exit"
synonyms: urgent, crisis;
əˈmərjənsē
noun
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"your quick response in an emergency could be a lifesaver"
synonyms: crisis, urgent situation, extremity, exigency;
arising from or needed or used in an emergency.
modifier noun: emergency
"an emergency exit"
synonyms: urgent, crisis;
No, that's not what I asked.
Again, I keep hearing this from people and NOBODY can give me an answer. They're quick to say this 'isn't the time'. An 'emergency' is relative to the person who's making the decision.
I'm asking what specific scenario would warrant the use of this clause?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next