Law Ontario Premier Doug Ford plans to overrides the Judiciary with Section 33

No politician ONLY deals with issues he campaigned on and should NEVER limit themselves to such. So lets remove that criticism.

I reserve all other comment until I have time to review the issue further but will say as a general principle shrinking the size of Toronto gov't (all gov'ts) is a very good thing. They are all typically bloated bureaucracies with only about 10% of the people doing all the work and the rest being filler. Would be great if he could force term limits on them as well.
I have the same answer for you as I did for @HereticBD, you're arguing a false equivalency.

Before Ford, every single politician either of us knows of in Canada didn't try to change the municipal government of the largest city in the province in the middle of an election campaign, and then did not thereafter threaten democratic institutions in the process of ramming it through.

I must say though that thanks to Doug Ford and Maxime Bernier, the Liberals seem like a shoe in for second mandate, so there's that.

I would like to see a confidence vote but that would never happen in a majority government. I mean, we're not Australia, are we now?

I would like to see Trudeau take a lesson from this, mind you:

Despite a landslide election victory, Rudd’s popularity dipped after he shelved an emission-trading scheme which had been central to his environmental strategy and because of his decision for highly taxing profits made in the mining sector. Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard challenged his leadership position. Knowing he had lost the support of a large number of Labor leaders, Rudd stood down as Prime Minster and party leader.
 
I have the same answer for you as I did for @HereticBD, you're arguing a false equivalency.

Before Ford, every single politician either of us knows of in Canada didn't try to change the municipal government of the largest city in the province in the middle of an election campaign, and then did not thereafter threaten democratic institutions in the process of ramming it through.

I must say though that thanks to Doug Ford and Maxime Bernier, the Liberals seem like a shoe in for second mandate, so there's that.

I would like to see a confidence vote but that would never happen in a majority government. I mean, we're not Australia, are we now?

I would like to see Trudeau take a lesson from this, mind you:

Despite a landslide election victory, Rudd’s popularity dipped after he shelved an emission-trading scheme which had been central to his environmental strategy and because of his decision for highly taxing profits made in the mining sector. Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard challenged his leadership position. Knowing he had lost the support of a large number of Labor leaders, Rudd stood down as Prime Minster and party leader.
my argument had no false equivalency in it and I stand by everything I said it in it as factual.

I admitted I had not yet read the specifics of this issue so I have no context to comment on those but this still remains true regardless. If your thrust is what you say above then you should foucs on that rather than suggesting there is some offense in dealing with issues not compained upon.

No politician ONLY deals with issues he campaigned on and should NEVER limit themselves to such. So lets remove that criticism.

I reserve all other comment until I have time to review the issue further but will say as a general principle shrinking the size of Toronto gov't (all gov'ts) is a very good thing. They are all typically bloated bureaucracies with only about 10% of the people doing all the work and the rest being filler. Would be great if he could force term limits on them as well.
 
my argument had no false equivalency in it and I stand by everything I said it in it as factual.

I admitted I had not yet read the specifics of this issue so I have no context to comment on those but this still remains true regardless. If your thrust is what you say above then you should foucs on that rather than suggesting there is some offense in dealing with issues not compained upon.
The point is that this particular issue is the exception that proves your rule. Incidentally, I haven't suggested there is some offense in it, I said in this particular case it's undemocratic. It's a statement of fact.

Whether you are offended by that fact is a matter for each individual. My opinion is that Ford's action is against the best interests of his constituents and of the rest of Canada and that therefore makes him a shitty human being and a worse premier. So no, we won't remove that criticism.
 
Last edited:
Learn to read before posting.
all i read was a politician did something that is 100% legal. If you want to change that then write your politicians or run for office instead of making posts on sherdog.
 
The point is that this particular issue is the exception that proves your rule. Incidentally, I haven't suggested there is some offense in it, I said in this particular case it's undemocratic. It's a statement of fact.

Whether you are offended by that fact is a matter for each individual. My opinion is that Ford's action is against the best interests of his constituents and of the rest of Canada and that therefore makes him a shitty human being and a worse premier. So no, we won't remove that criticism.
Well I hope then that every single time you or anyone suggests it is unprecedented for a politician to deal or put forward issues that they did not campaign upon that others point out you are factually wrong and that you derail your own argument as that is factually false. As you have said 'it is this particular case' or use that might be wrong. That is different than saying the 'act' is wrong.
 
The point is that this particular issue is the exception that proves your rule. Incidentally, I haven't suggested there is some offense in it, I said in this particular case it's undemocratic. It's a statement of fact.

Does this apply to everything an elected official does that they didn't explicitly campaign on, or just this?
 
Did he really not campaign on something like this?

I thought I remembered him saying something about cutting the size of some governing body by half.

The specifics allude me.
 
Does this apply to everything an elected official does that they didn't explicitly campaign on, or just this?
Go back and read and you will see my original reply to you answered this question. Likely, you don't need to because I have no doubt you're going in circles because you have no other rebuttal #butIthinkyouknowthat
 
Two-thirds of Torontonians are against Doug Ford’s use of notwithstanding clause
By Kerri Breen | September 18, 2018

sr_midnightqp_64_poll.jpg


Nearly two thirds of Torontonians are opposed to the premier invoking a controversial section of the Charter to move forward with a plan to shrink city council, a new poll shows.

Mainstreet Research said almost 65 per cent of respondents were against Doug Ford‘s use of the notwithstanding clause, a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms never before used in Ontario, to pass legislation deemed unconstitutional by a Superior Court judge.

About 56 per cent were strongly opposed.

“Make no mistake about it: Doug Ford is on the wrong side of public opinion when it comes to his use of the notwithstanding clause,” said Quito Maggi, president and CEO of Mainstreet Research, in a news release.

The poll found that opposition was the strongest among downtown residents, but found elsewhere as well.

A majority either disagreed or strongly disagreed with using notwithstanding in Etobicoke (69 per cent), Scarborough (61 per cent) and North York (55 per cent).

Just over 55 per cent of those polled said they disagreed with Ford’s bill to cut Toronto council down to 25 from 47 seats, a move that would see city ward boundaries aligned with federal and provincial ones. North York was the only area where a majority, about 53 per cent, agreed or strongly agreed with that plan.

Bill 31, the Efficient Local Government Act, is set for more debate at Queen’s Park following an overnight session on Monday.

The results were collected over the weekend as part of a wider poll ahead of Toronto’s Oct. 22 election.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4461266/torontonians-doug-ford-notwithstanding-clause-poll/
 
Doug Ford’s battle to win at any cost is dangerous for Canada
By David Moscrop | September 18, 2018

NZETABWFQ47C7NFSPFBY74H2BA.jpg

It’s been a bad few years for making decisions in Canada. Or, at least, it’s been a bad few years for how we make decisions. First, the federal Liberals abandoned voting reform efforts promised during the 2015, citing a lack of consensus (which they never tried to achieve). Around the same time, rumblings that their marquee energy project, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, was in trouble started to get loud. Then, in August, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the project’s approval, ruling that the government must address flaws in the review process.

And now, there’s Doug Ford and the Great Section 33 Caper. A one-term city councilor in Toronto turned unlikely premier, Ford is unreasonably fixated on local politics. His old stamping ground’s local politics, that is. He targeted the city this fall, declaring his intentions to cut its council by nearly half just months before the Oct. 22 municipal vote. His party was mum on this plan during the provincial election. But once in government, Ford decided to go full-bore on it.

In the span of weeks, the Progressive Conservatives introduced a bill to cut Toronto’s City Council from 47 to 25 councilors. It was immediately blocked by a judge. Time passed. The city clerk warned she couldn’t guarantee a fair and accessible election. Ford signaled his intent to employ Section 33, a controversial and seldom used constitutional provision known as “the notwithstanding clause,” to insulate the bill from a court ruling. Extraordinarily, the government then ordered the legislature to sit overnight beginning at 12:01 a.m. on Monday to get the thing passed. On Tuesday, Mainstreet Research released a poll showing that a majority of Torontonians oppose Ford’s changes and his use of notwithstanding clause.

A cynical person might say politicians are committed to democracy — until they win an election. Or, to be more charitable, until, once in power, it becomes inconvenient for them to manage opposition. Ford talks about governing “for the people.” But in this case, he hasn’t asked any of them what they think about his bill. If he had, he’d have quickly learned they’re against it. For the people, you say? Which people would those be?

Process shortcomings might seem like inconvenient and regrettable bumps in the road, failures to live up to the lofty standards set out in dusty tomes reflecting the sorts of values and virtues and ideals that Cincinnatus or Bagehot might be imagined to have stood up for with stentorian barks. But dismissing good process as a nice and quaint idea that fails to live up to the realities of power politics, shrugging and getting back to battle, is dangerous.

Processes designed to engage citizens are essential. How do you know what people want or don’t want? You ask them. You listen. You respond. Steamrolling folks might get the job done in the short term. But it’s a long-term loser.

Bad processes lead to less trust and more cynicism or alienation as people look at politics, fail to see themselves as part of self-government, and check out, taking with them a sense that leaders are lousy, dodgy crooks running a rigged game. Lower levels of trust risk eroding the foundation of a democracy as citizens start to ask “What’s the point?” and look around for alternatives. Voter turnout declines. Fewer and fewer have more and more power, which threatens a cycle of exclusion and resentment.

Or worse. When a party violates procedural norms, they encourage others to do the same. If your opponent decides that winning at any cost is inbounds, then you’d be a fool not to follow their lead. Tit-for-tat. But a violation here or a pushing of the boundary there adds up. Over time, routine norm violations or cynical rule changes make politics nasty, threaten gridlock and divide the populace into friends and foes. In “How Democracies Die,” political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt trace the history of that unwinding in the United States. It’s led exactly where you think.

Politicians must commit to open, transparent, consistent, engaging and responsive decision-making processes, and they must respect democratic norms while doing so, even if that means they don’t get what they want. The playwright Robert Bolt understood this decades ago. In his play about the life of Sir Thomas More, “A Man for All Seasons,” Bolt writes on the importance of respecting shared boundaries as one of the play’s characters calls for the arrest of a “dangerous” man who has broken no law. More replies: “This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast … and if you cut them down … d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.” Premier Ford, and every politician, would be wise to take those lines to heart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-dangerous-for-canada/?utm_term=.896531f5cb61
 
Last edited:
47 fucking councillors? You can bet no decisions ever get fucking made.
 
Those little bastards are up to way more than we know. They somehow convinced our city leaders that they are not vernom and protected from getting exterminated when they infiltrate your house.
Where's Cyril Sneer when you need him?
 
ONCA lays the smackdown on Belobaba, sides with Doug Ford:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-court-toronto-council-1.4829250
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0761.pdf

The application judge was understandably motivated by the fact that the timing of Bill 5 changed the rules for the election mid-campaign, which he perceived as being unfair to candidates and voters. However, unfairness alone does not establish a Charter breach. The question for the courts is not whether Bill 5 is unfair but whether it is unconstitutional. On that crucial question, we have concluded that there is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and that the Attorney General’s appeal to this court will succeed.
 
Justin Trudeau trying to look good by not get involved. What's he going to do? Undermine his father's legacy by contradicting the not withstanding clause?

Lol.

 
Ontario's highest court has granted a stay in a ruling that struck down the province's plan to cut the size of Toronto city council by nearly half. This means the city would go ahead with a 25-ward election instead of a 47-ward one. It also means the Ford government won’t have to invoke the notwithstanding clause as planned. Now, the scramble is on to get an election going.

 
Back
Top