Sobering Thoughts on Section 33

[oldjones]

A) the government is not trampling any rights, just one's judges controversial decision.
B) the government feels that it's an important case. Elections have consequences. End of the story.

Incorrect.

A) The current state of the law is that Bill 5 did trample on our rights and was thus declared invalid. To add the Notwithstanding Clause language to it, and re-introduce the same provisions as the new Bill 31, Doug is essentially saying, 'even though this infringes on your Charter rights, I'm making it the law'. IF there was uncertainty before, he made it official and explicit. And thaqt decision will still be the law if and when Bill 31 is passed, only other judges can undo it.

B) Duh! Why would you imagine he'd have special night sessions and take two runs at doing something he thought was unimportant? His hate for those 22 Toronto Councillors he's so determined to dump is clearly more important to him than any other matter the Province has before it.

It's also clear that Doug is the government, the only government and that the government is for whatever Doug wants at the moment. That's the consequence of the Tories' palace coup, and their devious Leadership election.

But it isn't the end of any story.
------
PS: RE the silliness of 'he's just a judge' and such. We humans discovered we needed judges well before we saw the usefulness of recruiting bandit chieftains to be kings and attaching their brute power to the wisdom of the judges.

 

[Bud Plug]

It comes down to the realization that we now have an Ontario government that is not prepared to defer to the will of the courts on matters relating to public administration. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me as a concept. What do judges know about public administration? Virtually nothing. Certainly not more than politicians.

Don't get too excited until the Ford government uses it in relation to legislation which imposes obligations on the part of citizens towards the state. THAT's what the Charter was primarily intended to regulate.

 

[jcpro]

Incorrect.

A) The current state of the law is that Bill 5 did trample on our rights and was thus declared invalid. To add the Notwithstanding Clause language to it, and re-introduce the same provisions as the new Bill 31, Doug is essentially saying, 'even though this infringes on your Charter rights, I'm making it the law'. IF there was uncertainty before, he made it official and explicit. And thaqt decision will still be the law if and when Bill 31 is passed, only other judges can undo it.

B) Duh! Why would you imagine he'd have special night sessions and take two runs at doing something he thought was unimportant? His hate for those 22 Toronto Councillors he's so determined to dump is clearly more important to him than any other matter the Province has before it.

It's also clear that Doug is the government, the only government and that the government is for whatever Doug wants at the moment. That's the consequence of the Tories' palace coup, and their devious Leadership election.

But it isn't the end of any story.
------
PS: RE the silliness of 'he's just a judge' and such. We humans discovered we needed judges well before we saw the usefulness of recruiting bandit chieftains to be kings and attaching their brute power to the wisdom of the judges.

No, it was only one judge's opinion on the Charter violation and the decision is under appeal. Plenty of other constitutional experts disagreed. Since it was only an opinion, the matter of right or wrong is, at best, questionable.

 

[Frankfooter]

It comes down to the realization that we now have an Ontario government that is not prepared to defer to the will of the courts on matters relating to public administration.

You support a government that thinks its above the law?

 

[oldjones]

No, it was only one judge's opinion on the Charter violation and the decision is under appeal. Plenty of other constitutional experts disagreed. Since it was only an opinion, the matter of right or wrong is, at best, questionable.

It was a Superior Court Decision, which makes it the decided law as applied to the case at hand. Which means the Law was declared unconstitutional and of no effect. The Government could have requested that decision to be 'stayed' — not given effect — until an appeal was ruled on, but they never asked.

One judge gets to do all that. It's how our laws have worked since we had laws to be judged. You're quite wrong.

 

[jcpro]

It was a Superior Court Decision, which makes it the decided law as applied to the case at hand. Which means the Law was declared unconstitutional and of no effect. The Government could have requested that decision to be 'stayed' — not given effect — until an appeal was ruled on, but they never asked.

One judge gets to do all that. It's how our laws have worked since we had laws to be judged. You're quite wrong.

LOL!! And the Clause is there to remedy it and the government decided to use it- as is its right, also. Don't want it to be used? Reopen the Charter and strike it off. Good luck with that!!!!

 

[JohnLarue]

Sure, John. The Tories would be on their little podium screaming about Charter rights and democratic elections at the top of their little lungs. And they would be correct to do so.

Ready. Shoot. Aim, buddy. You're wrong again.

Why would the PCs fight a cost savings move?
You are wrong again

 

[Anbarandy]

LOL!! And the Clause is there to remedy it and the government decided to use it- as is its right, also. Don't want it to be used? Reopen the Charter and strike it off. Good luck with that!!!!

There is a very distinct, direct and corollary relationship between your innate knack for engaging in losing arguments 100% of the time and the subsequent LOLS!! and ROTFLMAOs that each embarrassing loss effects from you.

 

[oldjones]

LOL!! And the Clause is there to remedy it and the government decided to use it- as is its right, also. Don't want it to be used? Reopen the Charter and strike it off. Good luck with that!!!!

Did someone say they did not have that power? However no one worth listening to has said it is 'a right'.

And until the Tories actually pass their new law and take them away, we still have our rights, thanks to that judge and the laws of Canada.

 

[Frankfooter]

Why would the PCs fight a cost savings move?
You are wrong again

How much did the emergency provincial sessions cost?
How much did the court cases cost?
How much money was wasted after the city of Toronto spend years on the study and plan that came up with 47 ridings?
How much money will be wasted when the election has to be moved?

 

[basketcase]

52% of Toronto is against cutting city council size and 36% support it.
Ford does not have a mandate to screw over the city during an election.

His lack of support in Toronto (for Mayor or provincially) is likely the main reason he is doing it.

 

[basketcase]

...
B) the government feels that it's an important case. Elections have consequences. End of the story.

So important that they never raised the issue in the election mere weeks before?

 

[jcpro]

Did someone say they did not have that power? However no one worth listening to has said it is 'a right'.

And until the Tories actually pass their new law and take them away, we still have our rights, thanks to that judge and the laws of Canada.

Spare me the spin. The notwithstanding clause was included precisely for such an occasion.

 

[Boober69]

So important that they never raised the issue in the election mere weeks before?

"Reduce the size of government"...which part of that didn't you understand?

 

[Anbarandy]

Spare me the spin. The notwithstanding clause was included precisely for such an occasion.

Bravo!

You are stating with such conviction that the notwithstanding clause was included precisely for such an occasion as Ford's 'spin'.

 

[Anbarandy]

"Reduce the size of government"...which part of that didn't you understand?

The part where he stated during the campaign he was going to reduce the size of The City of Toronto's government and only Toronto's government.

 

[Boober69]

The part where he stated during the campaign he was going to reduce the size of The City of Toronto's government and only Toronto's government.

Toronto Council is government no? Province has jurisdiction over Toronto no?
Had to start somewhere right?
How do you know this will be his only reduction? You don't.

 

[Polaris]

Bravo!

You are stating with such conviction that the notwithstanding clause was included precisely for such an occasion as Ford's 'spin'.

It is. That is no joke.

The nothwithstanding clause is only for the government to use, and not the opposition.

All criticism of invoking Section 33 of the Constitution is irrelevant.

If his Ford-ness made an error, it will show up in the next election.

I cannot wait until people like John Tory campaigns for the bigger City Hall along with the NDP. More government who does nothing! That is the answer for City Hall! Subways and buses and Smart-Track everywhere!!!

 

[wigglee]

Spare me the spin. The notwithstanding clause was included precisely for such an occasion.

The notwithstanding clause was a bone thrown to the separatist Parti Quebecois who plotted the destruction of Canada. It had never before been used by Ontario. Ford says he'll use it again and again if he doesn't get his way. Is this the Canadian democracy you aspire to? The election is weeks away and even the candidates don't know where they are running , thanks to Ford's incredibly bad timing. He could have postponed the election by a few months, but no.... he had to be an asshole and now Torontonians will have 1/3 the representation per capita that other Ontario cities have. What a shitshow!

 

[oldjones]

Toronto Council is government no? Province has jurisdiction over Toronto no?
Had to start somewhere right?
How do you know this will be his only reduction? You don't.

If he has a Grander Plan to improve our entire municipal democracy why would he still keep it secret from we, the People?

Humility?