HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 6:24 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by acott awa View Post
Worse than that, if the new wards are too big for voters to exercise their freedom of expression then the identical federal and provincial ridings are probably unconstitutional. If 9 weeks is an insufficient amount of time for a candidate to excercise their freedom of expression then 5 week federal and provincial campaigns are probably unconstitutional. And if anything that inconveniences candidates planning violates their freedom of expression then a whole bunch of things violate freedom of expression, including by-elections and non-confidence motions.
Nothing in the Belobaba decision supports any of those assumptions/conclusions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 6:29 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Ford is not in any way interfering with the outcome of the election (i.e. favouring one side to win) and he is certainly not preventing it from taking place.

Whether or not the election will take place under less optimal conditions is a matter of debate. Or at least, who is to blame for that - both candidates and the City could have adjusted things to fit the new reality in mid-July, as it was clear back then that a majority provincial government with legitimate authority over municipal matters intended to make a change to the number of councillors.

One might say that they're at least partly responsible for the mess by digging in their heels and wasting precious time that could have been used to run a smoother election for the smaller council that Toronto will end up with anyway.
You are correct. The Province's actions have interfered in the electoral process, but I do not believe that was the intent. The motivations are, I believe, political. There may be a belief (against the best available evidence) that the measure will make Toronto City Council more efficient/less expensive, but it is not the main event, imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 6:37 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
The Premiers of 1981-1982 likely never foresaw a future of hyper activism where the definition of rights would become so expansive that trivial government moves would trigger Charter challenges.
They would certainly not have foreseen that the notwithstanding clause would be used for such a minor matter as changing the number of city councillors in Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 6:47 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is online now
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
They would certainly not have foreseen that the notwithstanding clause would be used for such a minor matter as changing the number of city councillors in Toronto.
If it’s a minor matter then what’s all the fuss about? I don’t think anyone in 1981 really had a clear idea about what was going to happen with the Charter. I would guess that if you’d asked the premiers in 1981 how often s. 33 would have been invoked by 2018, their estimate would have been much higher than the actual figure.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 7:00 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Nothing in the Belobaba decision supports any of those assumptions/conclusions.
These are the logical conclusions of the expansion of freedom of expression. This is why most judges think very carefully about consequences of decisions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 7:05 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
The Premiers of 1981-1982 likely never foresaw a future of hyper activism where the definition of rights would become so expansive that trivial government moves would trigger Charter challenges.
I think that is exactly why they wanted the Notwithstanding clause in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 8:42 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Legendary ROCer tolerance on display.

A world where niqabs get more slack and respect than francophone fluent ESL speakers.
The age of political correctness is over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:02 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The age of political correctness is over.
Leftists beginning to eschew political correctness while still recognizing issues of power relations and inequality is an amazingly positive step, IMO. I’m a far lefty who loves a podcast that’s literally called “cumtown”.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:24 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
If anyone is interested in reading the Judge's decision directly, it can be found

HERE
For those who haven't read the decision, it's a good read.

The reference cases he cites are particularly ridiculous.

He kicks off by referencing R v Keegstra as a section 2b violation, which from the case involved the following:

Quote:
During classes, he described Jews as a people of profound evil who had "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy." He also tested his students in exams on his theories and opinion of Jews.
Throughout his decision he also leans heavily on Baier vs. Alberta, legislation that explicitly denied the right to run for office of school trustees who were involved in school boards. Sounds good but doug ford's Bill 5 is not explicitly saying anyone cannot run for office. Not relevant at all.

He also variously cites cases like Figueroa v Canada and Saskatchewan reference - two actually relevant cases which concern provincial redistricting and limiting political candidates. The problem? Both these cases were found of violations of section 3 - democratic rights.

At the end of the day this decision was a total wack job. It is extremely clear once you peel back the layers of Belobaba's justification.

This is exactly what the NWC was meant to prevent - activist judges overstepping their bounds. I will repeat again, if Belobaba could not find a violation under section 3 of democratic rights, hinged upon changing things in the middle of an election (establishing that Toronto city council qualifies as a legislative assembly) - then he had absolutely no grounds to reject Bill 5.

I hope this goes to the supreme court, because have this black eye on constitutional precedence is a worse plight for our country than doug ford could ever be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:26 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
No, it is not.
Changing the size of city council was not either before this decision. Belobaba talks at length about establishing a new precedent in this case, explicitly expanding the definition of what it means to violate freedom of expression.

You can say "no, it is not" but we won't know until there is a court case which cites Belobaba's decision. The fact is, this court decision opens the door to ridiculous interpretations of freedom of expression.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:34 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
Leftists beginning to eschew political correctness while still recognizing issues of power relations and inequality is an amazingly positive step, IMO. I’m a far lefty who loves a podcast that’s literally called “cumtown”.
Isn't it, though? I mean, this is what they wanted from us, so it's what they're getting. We're abandoning 'politically correctness' and calling out their bullshit. It's called "freedom".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:42 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
NDP house leader says bills are too similar

On Saturday, NDP House Leader Gilles Bisson asked House Speaker Ted Arnott to make a ruling on whether or not Bill 31 is too similar to the previous incarnation of the legislation, Bill 5.

Bisson cited a standing order that forbids the re-introduction of identical motions or amendments that have already been decided on during the course of the same session.

"The only difference is the notwithstanding clause," he said of the two bills. "We submit that they are the same bill, and the second bill is out of order."

For his part, Arnott promised to review the matter and to "make my ruling and respond to the house in due course."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-cut-1.4825310
Silly dipper! It's not the same bill! It's the same bill with a rider that prevents the court from ruling against it! It even has a different name! Totally different! Just like when I steal someone else's license plates and topper and put them on my truck, it's a totally different vehicle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:42 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by once View Post

This is exactly what the NWC was meant to prevent - activist judges overstepping their bounds. I will repeat again, if Belobaba could not find a violation under section 3 of democratic rights, hinged upon changing things in the middle of an election (establishing that Toronto city council qualifies as a legislative assembly) - then he had absolutely no grounds to reject Bill 5.
Section 3 doesn't apply to municipalities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:44 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Section 3 doesn't apply to municipalities.
If the municipality is a creation of the province, though, you could argue that a municipal council is like an extension of the provincial legislature.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:45 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
What Doug Ford is doing is clearly legal, regardless of the judge's ruling, because the NWC is a legal action as well.

However, I do think what he's doing is wrong, just from a non-legal logical perspective. There's no problem in messing with cities, their councils, and how they work, but don't do it in the middle of an election. Just say the 2022 election will move to 25 wards, and be done with it. This entire mess could've been avoided if that's how it went down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:46 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Haha, it's okay, it's not for them that I bothered to become fluent in American.
Really no reason to start that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:49 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
What Doug Ford is doing is clearly legal, regardless of the judge's ruling, because the NWC is a legal action as well.

However, I do think what he's doing is wrong, just from a non-legal logical perspective. There's no problem in messing with cities, their councils, and how they work, but don't do it in the middle of an election. Just say the 2022 election will move to 25 wards, and be done with it. This entire mess could've been avoided if that's how it went down.
Save yourself the trouble, I've been making this argument for days and it goes nowhere with them. Reducing the size of Toronto city council is of utmost importance, so important that the government didn't even say they wanted to do it until nearly 2 months after being elected, so they had no choice but to ram it through right away!

And they can't wait until 2022 for changes to take effect: that wouldn't be fair to Doug Ford, who should get to enjoy his prizes right now not four years from now! Why else did Kathleen Wynne move the election to June if not to give Doug a window to carry out this policy he didn't even campaign on?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 9:50 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Section 3 doesn't apply to municipalities.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. If section 3 does not protect against this action, then it is constitutional, because what is at issue is an election period.

The decision is made more ridiculous by the judge continually citing cases which were decided on section 3 grounds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2018, 10:24 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
If the municipality is a creation of the province, though, you could argue that a municipal council is like an extension of the provincial legislature.
Relevance?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 12:03 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by once View Post
The fact is, this court decision opens the door to ridiculous interpretations of freedom of expression.
Exactly. And for the record, it is truly mind-blowing to me that anyone reasonably intelligent could fail to see that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:00 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.