Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is the Charter finished?


Recommended Posts

Doug Ford has set the cat among the pigeons by announcing he will utilize the notwithstanding clause to suppress the Charter and reduce the size of Toronto's city council. And he's announced he's willing to use the clause to bypass the Charter in the future. As one analyst noted on an evening news broadcast, this will inevitably lead to the notwithstanding clause being applied more frequently on ever more commonplace matters. Ultimately, only the federal government, which retains a disallowance power, can thwart such behavior. But the federal minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs, while lamenting Ford's position today, didn't appear to indicate any willingness on the part of the Trudeau government to get involved. Is the Charter effectively doomed if the federal government doesn't intervene?

Many have criticized Charter overreach, and accurately so in my opinion, but in this case Ford is attempting to override democratic rights, a situation that clearly veers into dangerous territory. It should be interesting to see whether Trudeau will man the barricades (person the barricades?) in defense of democratic rights as he has done for minority and religious interests. There may be more at stake for his reputation in this matter than there is for Ford.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ford is not overriding 'charter rights'  as the  notwithstanding clause is not about overriding the Charter but about the right of a democratically elected Govt. to over ride the selective interpretat

According to the charter, Ontario tax payers must fund that catholic church with tax money. According to the charter, we don't actually have freedom of speech, we merely pretend we do. Section 2

The disallowance power originates in the Constitution Act, 1867 (i.e. the BNA Act), which is subsumed in the Canadian constitution alongside the Constitution Act, 1982. A brief synopsis on disallowanc

According to the charter, Ontario tax payers must fund that catholic church with tax money.

According to the charter, we don't actually have freedom of speech, we merely pretend we do. Section 2 of the charter is made ineffective my sections 1 and 33 of the charter.

According to the charter, the state recognizes the supremacy of god, and this recognition of the supremacy of god comes before anything, including rule of law.

I could go on.

 

Our charter is terrible. Unfortunately, idiots blinded by nationalism pretend it's the best thing in the world, often without having read it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turningrite said:

Doug Ford has set the cat among the pigeons by announcing he will utilize the notwithstanding clause to suppress the Charter and reduce the size of Toronto's city council. And he's announced he's willing to use the clause to bypass the Charter in the future.

 

It's the appointed judges who practice partisanship, that pose a real danger, imho.  

 

If the notwithstanding clause shouldn't be used - then, why on earth is it there to be used as a last resort?  I don't care what those who had put it there were thinking  - that's all speculation. 

Bottom-line:  notwithstanding clause is there to be used.

 

It's all these special interest groups too, that tangles our government in legal suits (and expenses), that is also of grave concern.  I imagine the liberals and socialists in this country will be copycatting the USA counterparts in trying to thwart our government at every turn. 

Prepare for a costly term because of these bullies who can't accept the fact that it's a conservative party that won the election! They'll be deliberately making it difficult for the government to govern.

Liberals and NDPs don't care about the deficit.  All they care about is getting the power.  They're behaving like some parties in some corrupt African countries.  Pathetic how we're devolving.

 

Is the charter finished?   YES!  For sometime ago! With the help of the colluding, lying media!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford is not overriding 'charter rights'  as the  notwithstanding clause is not about overriding the Charter but about the right of a democratically elected Govt. to over ride the selective interpretation of the Charter by un elected and  non accountable  judges.  The province has the right to make changes, the  not withstanding clause is there to prevent  provincial rights from being trampled by a judge or by federal govt. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scribblet said:

Ford is not overriding 'charter rights'  as the  notwithstanding clause is not about overriding the Charter but about the right of a democratically elected Govt. to over ride the selective interpretation of the Charter by un elected and  non accountable  judges.  The province has the right to make changes, the  not withstanding clause is there to prevent  provincial rights from being trampled by a judge or by federal govt. 
 

Well, there is a pesky little thing called the "rule of law" whereby courts serve as a check on governments. As far as I'm aware, this principle applies in all democratic jurisdictions. There are certainly instances where one can criticize judicial overreach and where use of the notwithstanding clause might be appropriate. But is this one of those instances? Hmmm... it's hard to figure how it might be. I believe the court ruling released yesterday acknowledged that the province has the right to make changes regarding municipal elections but held that based on democratic principles this can't be done in the middle of an election period. It seems pretty sound logic to me. Doug Ford is obviously in a huff for having his bluff called by an unelected judge. However, I believe all judges are appointed in this country, suggesting that Ford disrespects the role of the judiciary. We have to ask whether it's dangerous to democracy to tolerate Ford's antics? What if he were to gerrymander ridings for the next election to ensure the re-election of his party and invoke the notwithstanding clause to get away with this? Sure, it would be within his authority to do so, but would it serve the interests of the province's voters? What we're talking about here is the slippery slope, which Ford seems willing to tilt to a very steep angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre Trudeau on notwithstanding: “It’s a way legislatures have of ensuring the last word is held by elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts.” (CHAN-TV Nov. 24, 1981)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scribblet said:

Pierre Trudeau on notwithstanding: “It’s a way legislatures have of ensuring the last word is held by elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts.” (CHAN-TV Nov. 24, 1981)

Which makes it all the more shocking that he included democratic rights among those that could be suppressed. You have to wonder if Trudeau Sr. was actually a fan of democracy all. Junior likely doesn't know what democracy actually entails, so I suspect he'll give this particular Charter controversy a pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

According to the charter, Ontario tax payers must fund that catholic church with tax money.

According to the charter, we don't actually have freedom of speech, we merely pretend we do. Section 2 of the charter is made ineffective my sections 1 and 33 of the charter.

According to the charter, the state recognizes the supremacy of god, and this recognition of the supremacy of god comes before anything, including rule of law.

I could go on.

 

Our charter is terrible. Unfortunately, idiots blinded by nationalism pretend it's the best thing in the world, often without having read it.

And the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ford forgets that Judges are appointed by the Crown as was he. He was elected as an MPP, but he was appointed Premier by the Crown. He is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

Were judges ever elected?

 


 

Quote

 

A premier is in every sense the "first" minister.

The constitutional powers of the Lieutenant-Governors as the representatives of the Crown for the provinces are ordinarily exercised solely on the advice of the premier.

Other provincial Cabinet members therefore owe their appointments to the premier and may be removed or shuffled between ministries at the premier's discretion. Party or other sociopolitical interests may determine the choice of Cabinet colleagues, but the specific composition of the Cabinet is decided by the premier.

 

A premier shapes the conduct and decisions of Cabinet and speaks for the government, regardless of the departmental responsibilities of other ministers.

 

Provincial general elections are not called without some Cabinet discussion, but a lieutenant-governor will dissolve a Legislative Assembly only on the advice of the premier.

 

The sources of authority and prestige establish only the potential for strong political leadership and centralization of power in the office of premier. Many premiers have been termed autocratic but the realization of this potential will in large part depends on the propensity and ability of each premier to utilize the power of the office.

 

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premier

 

 

Quote

The Lieutenant Governor remains strictly nonpartisan in carrying out her constitutional duties. In doing so, the Lieutenant Governor ensures that the democratic will of Ontarians and their elected representatives is upheld and that the constitutional conventions of responsible government are respected.

https://www.lgontario.ca/en/constitutional-role/

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Charter even defeats the purpose of a Charter. A Bill of Rights in a Constitution generally aims to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms does precisely the opposite. It entrenches the privileges of the two dominant ethnic communities through its language and separate-school provisions. In terms of protecting minority rights, that's even worse than having no Charter at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, betsy said:

Doug Ford is really starting to remind me of Trump. An non-establishment politician outsider that has now taken the power and control away from and which is starting to piss off the liberal elite establishment and rightly so. Liberalism has been running and been allowed to ruin what was once a great WASP nation and who are now trying to turn it into a multicultural chit hole. 

Maybe it is time to start thinking about electing judges to the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter by we the people if we can in some way be allowed to do so. LOL. What that liberal social justice warrior of a judge did was to give the people the finger to Ford and to the people who voted for Ford. This should never have gone to a judge. Too many rules and regulations and laws are being either denied or allowed by our judges who appear to have been given the right to pretty much run and rule over this country and dam what the majority of we the people demand.

All judges pretty much have their own biases and political points of view and they will act accordingly to their views as to what they have to say yes or no too. If a judge believes in abortion than abortion it shall be. A judge is pretty much able to interpret the charter to fit his/her own personal beliefs and agenda. I think that it is time for Canadians to get rid of another Trudeau liberal document that has been really bad for Canada and the majority of Canadians. The charter protects minorities and the majority be damned. That is not democracy, that is tyranny by a minority, who get to give the finger to the majority. I would like to see the notwithstanding clause used more often to stop minorities or radical judges from being able to deny or abuse we the people majority. Would work for me. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, turningrite said:

Doug Ford has set the cat among the pigeons by announcing he will utilize the notwithstanding clause to suppress the Charter and reduce the size of Toronto's city council. And he's announced he's willing to use the clause to bypass the Charter in the future. As one analyst noted on an evening news broadcast, this will inevitably lead to the notwithstanding clause being applied more frequently on ever more commonplace matters. Ultimately, only the federal government, which retains a disallowance power, can thwart such behavior. But the federal minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs, while lamenting Ford's position today, didn't appear to indicate any willingness on the part of the Trudeau government to get involved. Is the Charter effectively doomed if the federal government doesn't intervene?

Many have criticized Charter overreach, and accurately so in my opinion, but in this case Ford is attempting to override democratic rights, a situation that clearly veers into dangerous territory. It should be interesting to see whether Trudeau will man the barricades (person the barricades?) in defense of democratic rights as he has done for minority and religious interests. There may be more at stake for his reputation in this matter than there is for Ford.  

The charter has become a joke and in many cases it has been used to silence conservatives.

So, where is Ford overriding anyone's democratic rights here? Ford was voted in as the Premier of Ontario by a majority of his supporters, not the judge. It is this liberal justice warrior judge here that is trying to deny the democratic rights of Ford and his supporters. What gives this judge the right to deny Ford his rights? What Canadians have been getting for decades now from judges in Canada is in many cases clear contempt for what we the people in the majority demand. One can only hope that there will be more politicians like Ford who will set cats among the pigeons and shake this country up. Canada needs a dam good shaking. 

What is with this "disallowance power" that you mentioned that I am not aware of? It sounds like this notwithstanding clause can still be challenged and thrown out. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, taxme said:

Maybe it is time to start thinking about electing judges to the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter by we the people if we can in some way be allowed to do so

That is liberal / republican propaganda. We are a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. The ultimate authority under the Constitution resides in the Crown who receives advice from her ministers and acts with that advice in mind. 

Loyalty to the Crown is the primary doctrine of conservatism. The election of Judges takes away from the prerogatives of the Crown and is a step towards socialist republicanism. It would politicize the judiciary. Taxme, your statement quoted above tells me two things: you ate not a conservative and you don't know any judges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, betsy said:

The constitutional powers of the Lieutenant-Governors as the representatives of the Crown for the provinces are ordinarily exercised solely on the advice of the premier.

One of the prerogatives of the Crown is that she may ask for, and receive advice from anyone. In this particular case, it would seem she is following the advice of her First Minister, whom she appointed. My only concern with his advice is it will disrupt many people who have spent time and money preparing for an election under the old rules, only to have the rules change a few weeks into the election. This disruption punishes good citizens who have applied to give service to their community. I will discourage others from entering public service in future.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Which makes it all the more shocking that he included democratic rights among those that could be suppressed. You have to wonder if Trudeau Sr. was actually a fan of democracy all. Junior likely doesn't know what democracy actually entails, so I suspect he'll give this particular Charter controversy a pass.

It would appear to me as though the both Trudeau's had/have a hatred for Canada and want to change Canada into their own image and into what they believe Canada should look like and become. I would like to know one thing as to what the Trudeau's have done to make Canada great? Just one thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, taxme said:

The charter has become a joke and in many cases it has been used to silence conservatives.

So, where is Ford overriding anyone's democratic rights here? Ford was voted in as the Premier of Ontario by a majority of his supporters, not the judge. It is this liberal justice warrior judge here that is trying to deny the democratic rights of Ford and his supporters. What gives this judge the right to deny Ford his rights? What Canadians have been getting for decades now from judges in Canada is in many cases clear contempt for what we the people in the majority demand. One can only hope that there will be more politicians like Ford who will set cats among the pigeons and shake this country up. Canada needs a dam good shaking. 

What is with this "disallowance power" that you mentioned that I am not aware of? It sounds like this notwithstanding clause can still be challenged and thrown out. :)

The disallowance power originates in the Constitution Act, 1867 (i.e. the BNA Act), which is subsumed in the Canadian constitution alongside the Constitution Act, 1982. A brief synopsis on disallowance, written by Eugene Forsey, is linked below. The power hasn't been used in decades but remains valid. There's widespread misunderstanding that the 1982 Act repealed and replaced the 1867 Act, which it did not.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/disallowance

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ford forgets that Judges are appointed by the Crown as was he. He was elected as an MPP, but he was appointed Premier by the Crown. He is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

You seem to forget that it is we the people that should be running Canada, and not politically appointed leftist liberal social justice warrior judges, who in most cases do have their own biases and agendas and who will over ride what the majority of what we the people want or demand. The majority does not get to run or rule Canada anymore. Tiny minorities and radical leftist liberal judges do now get to run Canada. Ford is not being ignorant or a hypocrite. Ford is doing what he told his supporters he was going to do and that is why Ford is the Premier of Ontario and not the judge. It would appear as though this judge is acting and trying to appear as though he is now the Premier of Ontario and what he says will go. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ford forgets that Judges are appointed by the Crown as was he. He was elected as an MPP, but he was appointed Premier by the Crown. He is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

This is a silly attempt at a point. Ford has to be elected and can be booted out if the people are angry at him. Not so judges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

The harter is a farce. We have the rigut to vote, nothing else.

With the politically correct political party's that we can get to vote for here in Canada none of them appear to be willing to stand up and fight for Canada or Canadians anymore but appear to only for themselves and the rest of the world and what is good for them and the rest of the world. They all keep trying to implement more liberal and socialist programs and agendas that in just about all cases have not been all that great and good for Canada or Canadians at all. The charter is a farce and so is voting. Both are a bloody waste of time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machjo said:

The Charter even defeats the purpose of a Charter. A Bill of Rights in a Constitution generally aims to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms does precisely the opposite. It entrenches the privileges of the two dominant ethnic communities through its language and separate-school provisions. In terms of protecting minority rights, that's even worse than having no Charter at all.

Many confuse the Constitution Act, 1867 with the Constitution Act, 1982. Both Acts effectively remain valid except where laws have been enacted and approved to alter specific constitutional provisions, such as the elimination of separate religious schools in Quebec and Newfoundland. The provisions that established separate schools regimes in Canada were aspects of the 1867 Act rather than the 1982 Act, which includes the Charter. The Charter legally accommodates contradictions between the 1867 provisions and other provisions in the 1982 Charter by means of Sections 23 and 29, which respectively clarify and preserve language and education rights accorded in the 1867 Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

One of the prerogatives of the Crown is that she may ask for, and receive advice from anyone. In this particular case, it would seem she is following the advice of her First Minister, whom she appointed. My only concern with his advice is it will disrupt many people who have spent time and money preparing for an election under the old rules, only to have the rules change a few weeks into the election. This disruption punishes good citizens who have applied to give service to their community. I will discourage others from entering public service in future.

Apparently, Ford had already talked about this since July.  It's not like as if it's been sprung from out of nowhere.  If some MPs agree to this change - I've heard of one who was interviewed, and who's still going to run - I don't see any reason why others can't, if they still want to.  

True, the parameters had changed. It means more responsibility!    Downsizing happens rampantly in the private sector.  In life.....sometimes s*** happens.  The unexpected occurs.   That's part of life. 

  MP-wannabes should be quick on their feet.  The position comes with a big price-tag.  We want those who can hack it, make it.

Let's see how these MPs can roll with the changes.   Those who can't, may not be suitable for the position anyway.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Ford forgets that Judges are appointed by the Crown as was he. He was elected as an MPP, but he was appointed Premier by the Crown. He is either ignorant or a hypocrite.

Ford was elected by the people the judges are not and this judge is a McGuinty judge, so it could be personal. We elect people to do our bidding, not the judges. So as is why have elections. Now I know if this was a lib gov then people here would change their tune.

Edited by PIK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...