|
flakeloaf posted:Theoretically, isn't that what the Lieutenant-Governor is for? Yes but... When Harper was in charge we saw that happened what happened when the Governor-General was a stooge who just did whatever the PM told them to even if it was obviously an abuse so I don't know if the Lieutenant-Governor can even be counted on.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
More shenanigans The new bill is exactly the same as the old bill save for the notwithstanding language, it removes the requirement for advanced voting (further disenfranchising Torontonians), but it allows for two additional days for candidate registrations, from the time the bill is passed. But... the province has also filed an appeal with a request for a stay of judgement, since the first day it can be heard is Friday, previously the last day for candidate registrations, it means that if the appeal succeeds, anyone who held off registering pending the outcome of the challenge will be locked out of the election (e.g. some big name downtown councillors). So the appeals court can prevent the notwithstanding clause being used in the new bill, but they will be further loving over downtown wards (not a legal consideration, no doubt)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Lawyers and judges following the constitution haven't done too bad of a job but it would obviously better if access to food, clean water, shelter, etc. were enshrined as guaranteed rights. *glances around* Uhm... Agree to disagree I guess? Seems like things are in a pretty dire state right now. White nationalists in charge of the American government, multiple European states drifting I to fascism, developing countries are more interested in the Chinese model, a global economy built on a powder keg. If this is what our lawyer run society thinks of as a "good job" then I sure don't wanna see what an actual gently caress up will look like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:*glances around* I wasn't talking about any of them though  infernal machines posted:More shenanigans My lovely Fordite councilor dropped out of the election (assuming the cut council) because he didn't think he could win with the redrawn borders. I hope that even if the council somehow doesn't get cut that he doesn't manage to make it in to the running.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
I wish the BC NDP had the balls to act like Ford and just ram poo poo through without a care for mana-points that only exists in their imagination like "political capital", except you know, ramming through actually progressive poo poo. Rich home owners, developers, and people profiting off money laundering are goign to hate the BC NDP no matter what they do, so just do it. Ban airbnb and have a $15,000 a day fine. Tax the gently caress out of land speculation. Bring criminal investigations against the BC Liberals and people running the casinos. Quadruple ICBC rates on vehicles over $100k. Just get in there and gently caress poo poo up without any pretense of compromise with the enemy because that's exactly what the BC Liberals will do the moment they're back in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:My lovely Fordite councilor dropped out of the election (assuming the cut council) because he didn't think he could win with the redrawn borders. I hope that even if the council somehow doesn't get cut that he doesn't manage to make it in to the running. Well, good news! The registrations for the 47 ward election already closed, if the appeal fails and god themselves comes down from on high to block the revised bill in an act of divine intervention, that dipshit will not be running.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Meanwhile in Quebec...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I wasn't talking about any of them though You're stanning for liberal democracy and constitutionalism and I'm arguing that this whole philosophy and form of government is manifestly failing to address the challenges of the 21st century. Those failures in America and Europe are our near future of we stay on this path.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
EvidenceBasedQuack posted:Meanwhile in Quebec... Welcome to the new norm, can't wait for the first premier that just completely dissolves municipal elections and just appoints people to a board that runs a city
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Well, good news! The registrations for the 47 ward election already closed, if the appeal fails and god themselves comes down from on high to block the revised bill in an act of divine intervention, that dipshit will not be running. Good but... DariusLikewise posted:Welcome to the new norm, can't wait for the first premier that just completely dissolves municipal elections and just appoints people to a board that runs a city drat is that why Ford has several cronies who don't seem too broken up that the slashed council won't have spaces for them?  Someone mentioned that earlier in the thread when I brought up my jackass councilor but back then I didn't realize how much power the province had over the cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Sure would be more efficient
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
There is a nonzero chance of that happening if Ford decides he really doesn't like the new mayor. Or maybe he'll just decide he can appoint all the committees. He can do anything, it's magic!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Why did he even waste all that time in municipal politics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're stanning for liberal democracy and constitutionalism and I'm arguing that this whole philosophy and form of government is manifestly failing to address the challenges of the 21st century. Those failures in America and Europe are our near future of we stay on this path. I mean, it is though? Trump has been stymied by the legal system and the whole governmental apparatus to a pretty large extent. And the main reason that we're pissed off at Ford is because our constitution doesn't really put a lot of restrictions on the executive and relies on governments not being petty assholes who actually care about rights and he's able to abuse that. If the U.S. had Canda's constitution it's not even a matter of opinion that most Muslims wouldn't be allowed into the U.S., not to mention what other things would have happened if Trump was able to say "nah, we're ignoring the constitution on this one"
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
xtal posted:Why did he even waste all that time in municipal politics? Name recognition. Had to build his profile first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
gently caress, Bill Davis himself explicitly stated that section 33 was written to allow the government to privilege certain groups in ways that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Lol at this laughing stock of a country
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:gently caress, Bill Davis himself explicitly stated that section 33 was written to allow the government to privilege certain groups in ways that would otherwise be unconstitutional. That seems completely incompatible with how it's worded, though. Sections 7 through 13 have basically nothing to do with privileging certain groups over others. If section 33 could be applied only to section 15, I'd see his point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:That seems completely incompatible with how it's worded, though. Sections 7 through 13 have basically nothing to do with privileging certain groups over others. If section 33 could be applied only to section 15, I'd see his point. I'm being flippant, but in his interview today he used an example of the government passing legislation that would only apply to seniors as how notwithstanding was meant to be used. So it would be disadvantaging everyone who is not a senior. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I mean, it is though? Trump has been stymied by the legal system and the whole governmental apparatus to a pretty large extent. And the main reason that we're pissed off at Ford is because our constitution doesn't really put a lot of restrictions on the executive and relies on governments not being petty assholes who actually care about rights and he's able to abuse that. On top of that up here the Supreme Court hindered Harper's agenda as well. Helsing's objections make no sense to me, just because the legal system can't do everything doesn't mean it doesn't serve as an important check on abuses of power. We'd be in a much worse situation without it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think the system is broken or even bad at a basic level. The constitution just needs to be more comprehensive and have fewer purposeful or accidental loopholes. As it's updated, it just needs to be kept in mind that decorum/rule of law/etc. won't stop people from trying to abuse it so it needs to be written to be resistant to that. The legalization of gay marriage at a time when it never would have won a popular vote in a referendum is something I think is a success story of the system. It's hard to separate humans from biases and agendas and affiliations but good things can happen when you get judges and lawyers whose only goal is to check something against the wording of the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm being flippant, but in his interview today he used an example of the government passing legislation that would only apply to seniors as how notwithstanding was meant to be used. So it would be disadvantaging everyone who is not a senior. Right, but you could theoretically do something dumb like pass a law requiring everyone stopped by the police for any reason to give a DNA sample, notwithstanding s. 8 of the Charter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Right, but you could theoretically do something dumb like pass a law requiring everyone stopped by the police for any reason to give a DNA sample, notwithstanding s. 8 of the Charter. Don't give them any ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
theres no way doug ford even knew what the notwithstanding clause was before this week
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Can the use of notwithstanding be legally challenged on the basis of malice or bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
RBC posted:theres no way doug ford even knew what the notwithstanding clause was before this week He'd heard of it when they made headlines for saying they'd use it to shoot down a federal carbon tax, at least until someone explained that it can't do that, because feds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Can the use of notwithstanding be legally challenged on the basis of malice or bad faith? I don’t think you have to give a reason for using it, so probably not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ACarterglobal/status/1039988684467003392?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Doug Ford? The retard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...ape-clause.htmlAmnesty International posted:Neve said the group, which usually speaks out against grave violations of human rights by rogue governments in various parts of the world, had never had to condemn any level of government in Canada. A normal government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Evis posted:I don’t think you have to give a reason for using it, so probably not? Pretty much no one doing something in bad faith openly states that's why they're doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Azerban posted:https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...ape-clause.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Pretty much no one doing something in bad faith openly states that's why they're doing it. The point is that no one save maybe the Lieutenant Governor and / or Justin Trudeau has the power to strike it down on bad faith, and that's not going to happen. Judges can't strike down a law for being made in bad faith unless that's part of the law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:I mean, the clause has been used before, why didn't they condemn it then? ....it was used for completely different reasons. Not by a drug dealer trying to revenge on a city council when an election is about to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
I mean to be fair Alberta trying to use it to ban gay marriage is just as outrage-worthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I mean to be fair Alberta trying to use it to ban gay marriage is just as outrage-worthy. Marriage isn't under provincial jurisdiction so it failed pretty fast. This time it's actually going to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:*glances around* You ever check out that Enlightenment Now book? You'd probably hate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Things seem pretty bleak right now but building on what I said above, I think the first thing that needs to change is our mindset. Politics is not a matter of cleaving to the centre to convince swing voters. It's about building a well organized political machine and then using every available resource to destroy the other people's political machines. But how do you gain enough representation for this to happen? Even if the system wasn't stacked against nuanced politics thanks to FPTP, we're talking reaching out to suburban and rural swing voters who actively reject anything that disrupts their comfort zone without questioning what's disrupting it. Suburban voters are pushed farther away in said suburbs by rising inequality and housing costs, end up having to drive everywhere because no one develops public transit. Any attempt by a somewhat progressive government to remediate this gets met with fierce opposition on all fronts, followed by a kneejerk vote for the opposite side which ends up slashing everything. Rural voters have similar problems compounded by the fact that their entire way of life is becoming irrelevant. They face dwindling communities and disappearing cities regardless of which government is in power simply because globalization and automation is phasing them out of existence. They end up clinging to the notion that a conservative government might be able to push back these tides. On both fronts, the solutions require more change, not maintaining the statu quo. But thanks to the endless pendulum of milquetoast centrist measures followed by furious conservative cutbacks, the overton window is now so far right that there's no hope of activism reaching the conservative voter base. They tore their shirts apart when a centrist government like the OLP tried passing very mild reforms and now praise the OPC for rolling it back the changes that might've made their lives better. All the while we progressives are sitting on the sides trying to debate and argue with them but as soon as someone tries to raise their voice, ! Nevermind the fact that they'll be frothing at the mouth, call Trudeau all sorts of names but that's totally OK if they do it.Yes, it's sounding like any hope of forming a progressive government is lost in the short term, but the only way to change that isn't trying to reach unreachable voters so much as waiting for them to die off. If we were lucky, it'd just be a matter of time, but now we're discovering that the conservative governments across the world are furiously trying to unravel the democractic institutions that might even make a progressive comeback possible. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see the OPC ramming in laws that would basically enable gerrymandering themselves into a permanent "democratic" regime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
enki42 posted:The point is that no one save maybe the Lieutenant Governor and / or Justin Trudeau has the power to strike it down on bad faith, and that's not going to happen. Judges can't strike down a law for being made in bad faith unless that's part of the law. I wonder what would happen if a province tried to use notwithstanding to ban a minority group from voting or being able to hold office in non-federal politics or some-such. You'd like to think there would be a legal recourse to the courts. e: looking at it I guess the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to democratic rights, so i'd have to think up a different example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
I really worry what will happen when Ford decides to introduce legislation to upload Toronto's subway to provincial control, something he actually had on his platform. Will the city have any real way to challenge this when he decides its time to pursue this or can he just use the NWC to push that through with no challenge or debate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 02:17
|
|
