Ford's attack on Toronto is good news

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It's what the court ruled. so unless or until the decision is reversed on appeal, the Province's change to the size of council in the midst of an election campaign is a violation of freedom of expression. Since freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Charter, this is why the Province must resort to the notwithstanding clause to proceed with the measure. I thought that was clear.

Oh, ok. So if one judge somewhere goes and rules that Earth is 5,000 years old, then you'll say that Earth is 5,000 years old.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Based on his campaign, he's facing substantial deficits in any event, no?

I agree with niwell.

During the election campaign, analysts said that the PCs would actually add the most debt according to their promises.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree with niwell.

During the election campaign, analysts said that the PCs would actually add the most debt according to their promises.

Not if the PC's can reduce payroll by about 120k positions. A freeze alone would eliminate about 100k over 4 years.

[ssiguy]

After its all said and done, Ford has every right to invoke the NWC. Of course we would not be in this situation if the judge has kept his personal opinions out of his decision and based his decision on the laws of the land. Our cities, whether we like it or not, are under provincial control as clearly set out in the Constitution so Ford very much had the RIGHT to change the number of councilors at City Hall. Perhaps this may have a good end result as it maybe an impetus to change the Constitution to grant cities more autonomy but until such a time Ford has the law on his side.

I think the average Torontonians is rather disgusted by his actions but I think it`s primarily the media and city politicians that are blowing this issue way out of proportion. A lot of these disgusted citizens are also equally disgusted with the political inertia that has gripped Toronto and are not going to be shedding any tears for the loss of some politicians.

For many a Torontonian this is a side-show because their priorities are homelessness, affordability, the fentanyl crisis, transit, and roads still remain unresolved. For many, a smaller council will not make any difference to these issues but for many a smaller council can't possibly do worse.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by once

The truly frightening thing in the doug ford era is how these off the cuff demographic slurs are getting routine on both sides of the aisle.

The irony is that these same people (as above) freely discriminating on the basis of age and race will in the next breath champion a judge who rules that Doug Ford cutting the size of Toronto city council somehow violates section 15.1 of the charter for discriminating on the basis of age, gender, race, etc.

In other words, outright discrimination is fine for me, and I can use discrimination as a weapon to swing wildly whenever something doesn't go my way, regardless of context.

Words have lost all meaning.

Some form of ugly backlash is almost inevitable when it's considered OK to slander any random member of Group X for a huge range of sins (many committed long ago by their assumed ancestors) whereas it's strictly verboten in polite company to even remotely associate Group Y or Group Z with stuff like violent crime, extremism or terrorism, even though it's not really that hard to find at least some evidence of that in the here and now.

[Acajack]

I gather by freedom of expression we mean freedom of democratic expression.

If so there is no magical threshold of how many councillors Toronto citizens get to have. It could be 47, 25, 100 or even 10.

The elected people in Queen's Park could even abolish the council and appoint a board of governors to run Toronto, and it would still pass the democracy test. (Just as we have a bunch of people with power over us who are appointed by elected officials - it's a kind of second-hand democracy that's considered perfectly acceptable.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I gather by freedom of expression we mean freedom of democratic expression.

If so there is no magical threshold of how many councillors Toronto citizens get to have. It could be 47, 25, 100 or even 10.

The elected people in Queen's Park could even abolish the council and appoint a board of governors to run Toronto, and it would still pass the democracy test. (Just as we have a bunch of people with power over us who are appointed by elected officials - it's a kind of second-hand democracy that's considered perfectly acceptable.)

Exactly, you have to be an idiot (sorry, but that's the truth) to extend the notion of freedom of democratic expression to such so-crazy-everything-breaks-down-if-that's-actually-the-standard-now lengths.

This stupid judge must genuinely think the people who live in unincorporated areas of Ontario have their constitutional rights permanently violated 24/7/365, what's he doing about it? (Calling Amnesty International?)

This is just nuts.

[lio45]

On a related note, my ward of Sherbrooke was abolished last year against my will, does anyone have the contact info handy for Amnesty International...?

[FrankieFlowerpot]

wasn't funny the first time you tried it

[lio45]

I'm not kidding - that's me genuinely trying to apply those new standards more broadly. Are you saying you disagree...? I mean, do you side with the people who stole my municipal ward from me in 2017? If so, go ahead and say it!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

On a related note, my ward of Sherbrooke was abolished last year against my will, does anyone have the contact info handy for Amnesty International...?

If I were you, I think I might call in "Femen" instead!

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I gather by freedom of expression we mean freedom of democratic expression.

If so there is no magical threshold of how many councillors Toronto citizens get to have. It could be 47, 25, 100 or even 10.

The elected people in Queen's Park could even abolish the council and appoint a board of governors to run Toronto, and it would still pass the democracy test. (Just as we have a bunch of people with power over us who are appointed by elected officials - it's a kind of second-hand democracy that's considered perfectly acceptable.)

It was made clear the issue was one almost entirely of timing. And to a lesser extent the Province's complete lack of ability to illustrate why it was necessary at this juncture.

If, for instance, advance voting has to be scrapped because there isn't enough time yet the rest of the election continues as planned I would in fact consider that stifling democratic expression. Technically much moreso that letting this election continue as planned and completely changing the system afterwards.

[niwell]

As an aside, Ford is pushing for MPPs to sit on Saturday to expedite this bill (calling for the house to sit at 'atypical' times), despite the fact debate can't start for two more sitting days because the NDP has announced it wants to propose amendments. It's almost 100% going to be spun as ensuring the City of Toronto has enough time to prepare for the election by the PCs.

Monday and Tuesday are also the International Plowing Match which traditionally all MPPs have attended (going back to the 1800s I assume). It's a HUGE deal for the rural community for some reason. I do wonder if they will sit those days or not.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

It was made clear the issue was one almost entirely of timing.

But it's also clear that if doing X is unambiguously legal, then doing X with a timing that happens to harm people with whom you have a petty vendetta is also legal. Period, end of story.

(And yes, doing the latter is a dick-ish move, but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's almost 100% going to be spun as ensuring the City of Toronto has enough time to prepare for the election by the PCs.

And they'd be correct in saying that - as I've been saying to vid repeatedly in this thread so far, if you're going to do this, then you want to do this as soon as possible to make sure everyone affected has as much time to prepare as possible.

That's a plain fact, independent of what anyone may think of the move.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

But it's also clear that if doing X is unambiguously legal, then doing X with a timing that happens to harm people with whom you have a petty vendetta is also legal. Period end of story.

Not really, or at least not in all cases. Legislation isn't the will of God, but more of a guideline.

For instance, I'm currently peripherally involved in a legal matter where a rather large corporation is challenging the province on a matter where legislation makes it clear that the Minister has the authority to make regs on whatever they want. Their challenge is that despite this clause, regs still have to conform to the intent of the legislation. It's not necessarily a longshot, either.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If I were you, I think I might call in "Femen" instead!

I'm sure mistercorporate agrees too

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

But it's also clear that if doing X is unambiguously legal, then doing X with a timing that happens to harm people with whom you have a petty vendetta is also legal. Period, end of story.

(And yes, doing the latter is a dick-ish move, but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it.)

... unless the harm amounts to an unjustified infringement (typically, "petty vendetta" is insufficient to meet the justification test set out in s. 1 of the Charter) on someone's Charter-protected rights.

[TorontoDrew]

Double post

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Not really, or at least not in all cases. Legislation isn't the will of God, but more of a guideline.

For instance, I'm currently peripherally involved in a legal matter where a rather large corporation is challenging the province on a matter where legislation makes it clear that the Minister has the authority to make regs on whatever they want. Their challenge is that despite this clause, regs still have to conform to the intent of the legislation. It's not necessarily a longshot, either.

Sure, but at first sight I'd consider that a longshot.

Incidentally, I'm currently fighting a $500 ticket I got for "driving without a driver's license" because they mailed that letter to my primary residence, and I kept driving in Sherbrooke, my birthday passed, and a cop's automatic camera caught my license plate the next day.

I regained my right to drive by paying the yearly $90 fee, and my driving record is perfect.

My argument is that this is a misapplication of the legislation when we're considering the intent. That $500 ticket is meant for a teen who drives without permit, an immigrant who arrives here and drives without permit, etc.

Those people can't conjure up a perfectly valid permit to drive with a mouseclick like I did. My ability to drive was never challenged here, I regained my right to drive immediately - whereas in the case of someone who isn't actually allowed to drive, it's because the province has no idea whether or not they CAN drive; they have to pass exams, etc.; hence the penalty, as it's a much bigger offense to drive without having first demonstrated you have the skills to do it.

Basically I'm pleading guilty to paying my $90 late by two business days.

That $500 represents a 360,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000%
annual interest rate, which I'm arguing is an unreasonable rate.

I'd be willing to pay a billion percent annual interest instead...

And I consider it's a long shot, but worth trying, on principle.