Ford's attack on Toronto is good news

[once]

What is so special about elections that it represents some new fangled never seen before "freedom of expression"?

If your department is down sizing from 47 people to 25, are your "freedom of expression" rights violated? What about your mortgage? What about all your grand plans for that income?

Is it a "constitutional problem" for the company that it has to prove there was dysfunction in order to initiate the downsizing? Is it a "constitutional problem" that the company need to establish "evidence of required urgency" to downsize?

What is so god damned special about the aura of "elections" that all these freedom of expression issues only present themselves when politicians are the ones on the chopping block?

None of the constitutional legal challenges fall under the "Democratic Rights" section of the charter. All these complaints about unfairness, violation of rights, and so on, apply to all Canadians, not some special class of politicians protected under the auspicious aura of elections.

This was an activist judge who didn't like the ruling invoking grand unprecedented class of electoral protections and justifying them with absolute gibberish.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

It has to be, otherwise we'd be creating the Supreme Municipal Loophole - all that municipalities have to do is extend their precampaign periods to a few years and bam, provincial governments can't interfere with their creatures anymore.

Municipal governments have no jurisdiction to make such rules. Only the province does. So no.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

The election isn't underway, it will only be taking place late October.

You truly believe that an election consists of one (or two) polling days?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Municipal governments have no jurisdiction to make such rules. Only the province does. So no.

My point was that municipal councils may very well decide to start their own precampaign periods much earlier, and erring judges will then be able to deem any interference in those periods to be infringing on freedom of democratic expression.

As as for your other post: I believe a few months is enough time for an election, yes. We're in an election here right now and it hasn't been underway for six months at all. (The precampaign period has been going on for years.)

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

My point was that municipal councils may very well decide to start their own precampaign periods much earlier

No they can't. That isn't a thing. They don't have "pre-campaign periods". The process starts May 1, by provincial law. A provincial law that hasn't changed, btw.

Originally Posted by lio45

and erring judges will then be able to deem any interference in those periods to be infringing on freedom of democratic expression.

Moot point, as your previous point is bullshit.

Originally Posted by lio45

As as for your other post: I believe a few months is enough time for an election, yes. We're in an election here right now and it hasn't been underway for six months at all. (The precampaign period has been going on for years.)

Toronto was in the actual campaign period. "Pre-campaign" isn't a thing.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Toronto was in the actual campaign period.

Yeah, and when the actual campaign period is so long that provinicial governments may change in the meantime, then it's possible that changes can be made, given that municipalities only exist at the provinces' whims and that no municipal-level representation is constitutionally guaranteed.

Again: if your actual campaign period is needlessly long, then one aspect of that is that changes made "in the middle of it" are still made early enough to leave a buffer of months to adapt before e-day. Not rocket science.....

[lio45]

Out of curiosity, what exactly is your problem with this? You're afraid there won't be enough time to ensure there are several candidates in each of the 25 wards for Torontonians to choose from...? (That would partly be that activist judge's fault, for the record.)

If not, then what is it?

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, and when the actual campaign period is so long that provinicial governments may change in the meantime,

The provincial election was originally scheduled for October 11th, 11 days before the municipal election. It was, ironically, changed to May so that it wouldn't interfere with municipal elections!

Originally Posted by lio45

Again: if your actual campaign period is needlessly long,

First off, Doug Ford doesn't think the campaign period is needlessly long because he didn't make it shorter. The next election in 2022 will begin on May 1st and end October 24th. (Two days longer than this year's campaign!)

Originally Posted by lio45

then one aspect of that is that changes made "in the middle of it" are still made early enough to leave a buffer of months to adapt before e-day. Not rocket science.....

They got two months and 8 days. I guess you can refer to that as "months"? Municipalities can't add referendums to the ballot at this point but the entire composition of the election can be altered; that's fine.

The nomination period was closed by the time the bill was passed in August, so everyone who had been nominated and started campaigning then had to decide if they wanted to continue or not. All their time, energy, money and materials largely wasted.

But that's fine.

Originally Posted by lio45

Out of curiosity, what exactly is your problem with this? You're afraid there won't be enough time to ensure there are several candidates in each of the 25 wards for Torontonians to choose from...? (That would partly be that activist judge's fault, for the record.)

If not, then what is it?

Here, let me repeat myself again, because you've asked me this repeatedly and I've answered it repeatedly:

Originally Posted by vid

He reduced the size of the council for the current election after the nominations closed, nullifying them and forcing the city clerk to re-do a process that was already half finished.

Originally Posted by vid

So it's acceptable now to change the rules of an election in the middle of that election?

Originally Posted by vid

I can accept that a municipality can be created and dissolved by the province, and that their electoral processes can be changed unilaterally by the province, but is it truly acceptable and proper for this to happen while an election is in progress?

Originally Posted by vid

He didn't campaign on this idea so it wasn't even a thing people could hold him to during the previous election

Originally Posted by vid

He did not campaign on the idea of reducing Toronto's city council during the middle of an election process, thereby causing the suspension and alteration of that process.

Originally Posted by vid

The quality of work isn't the issue here. They could be monsters, but the fact that he has interfered in how an election works while the election is in the process of working is the issue I have here.

Originally Posted by vid

But they have never used that right in this way before. No provincial government in Ontario has ever cut a municipal term short so they could alter how local elections work. Even when split terms were phased out

I think all of these were in response to you. Are you even reading what I'm saying? Should I say it in French, can you understand that better?

[Docere]

Why are the Ontario PCs trying to get an unelected judge to block the democratic mandate of Justin Trudeau who got even more votes than Doug did?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...e-down-ottawa/

[Docere]

How many here defending the change would also welcome the abolition of the "dysfunctional" Toronto City Council and Doug appointing himself the Minister of Toronto? It would get subways built and get Toronto moving right?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Docere

Why are the Ontario PCs trying to get an unelected judge to block the democratic mandate of Justin Trudeau who got even more votes than Doug did?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...e-down-ottawa/

It's actually going to be an interesting and important case. I don't think there is a constitutional issue with the federal proposal, but time will tell.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Docere

How many here defending the change would also welcome the abolition of the "dysfunctional" Toronto City Council and Doug appointing himself the Minister of Toronto? It would get subways built and get Toronto moving right?

I do think that the transit agencies in the GTA need to all be folded into a single regional agency. The downside of that would be that they'll probably eliminate the street car system despite the millions that have been invested in it. Doug Ford personally hates street cars because he got stuck behind them while driving to his taxpayer funded job. Since his personal opinions (varied as they may be) are the official policy of this government, that's the direction he'll force a regional transit agency to take.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by vid

I think all of these were in response to you. Are you even reading what I'm saying? Should I say it in French, can you understand that better?

Legendary ROCer tolerance on display.

A world where niqabs get more slack and respect than francophone fluent ESL speakers.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by vid

The nomination period was closed by the time the bill was passed in August, so everyone who had been nominated and started campaigning then had to decide if they wanted to continue or not. All their time, energy, money and materials largely wasted.

That is a perfectly good point, but it should be handled in civil court. Candidates should sue the provincial government for the costs of such items and other losses There is no notwithstanding clause for civil court judgements.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

I think all of these were in response to you. Are you even reading what I'm saying? Should I say it in French, can you understand that better?

You're actually not answering, you're just repeating the same empty platitudes that I've already addressed.

Basically, your only problem with this is that we're technically "in the middle" of an extra-long electoral period and you are obsessed with the idea that no changes should be made while such a lengthy process is at any stage of being underway, even if the process is so long that there's a change in who the boss is during the process; however, as I pointed out, there's STILL ample time for a normal 25-ward election, which is what matters; your argument is grasping at straws.

And... as I thought, you still got nothing. You have no good reason to oppose this reasonable 25-ward election where Torontonians can choose their new councillors. If you did, with all that posting you're doing, I would have heard it by now!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is a perfectly good point, but it should be handled in civil court. Candidates should sue the provincial government for the costs of such items and other losses There is no notwithstanding clause for civil court judgements.

Exactly, anyone who wasted money on signs is guaranteed to win their case - I would hope that they wouldn't even need to get anywhere near having to take the government to court to get reimbursed, actually.

But that's a ridiculously minor detail in the grand scheme of things. Am I seriously reading the argument "the freshly elected majority in Queen's Park should wait four years before implementing what they feel is important, otherwise a couple coroplast signs will be wasted!"...? Are you guys even thinking before throwing all that pasta at DoFo hoping something will end up sticking...? You should see what you sound like from the outside.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Legendary ROCer tolerance on display.

A world where niqabs get more slack and respect than francophone fluent ESL speakers.

Haha, it's okay, it's not for them that I bothered to become fluent in American.

[kwoldtimer]

Odd conflation of civil remedies (still to come, I suspect) and a Charter challenge. Chalk and cheese. One may disagree with the Belobaba decision, but the reality is that the challenge was successful, so even if were reversed on appeal it was not unrealistic to follow that route.

In fact, many Charter challenges are unsuccessful. That doesn't mean that they should not have come before the court.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Docere

How many here defending the change would also welcome ...

FYI, don't confuse "defending the change" with "pointing out that municipalities are creatures of the provinces" and "being of the opinion that three months is a sufficient window of time to hold a valid, democratic election".

I haven't seen many actual fans of the change in this thread, the discussion seems to be between two general camps, the camp that screams bloody murder and the camp that says the change is legal (and not THAT antidemocratic by global standards).

[Acajack]

Doug Ford - the zit on Ontario's face that must be popped at any cost.