News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Things are escalating. The Queen’s Park protest is heading to Etobicoke. Protestors are trying to enter the BBQ place. Randy Hillier has been fined for organizing a gathering.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The law and order bunch seem to be going wild when law and order is taken seriously.

AoD
Click to expand...

Is it though?

In reading the SCOTUS decision this morning; and keeping in mind we don't have the same Constitution, or laws in Canada; but we do have similar legal principles.

I'm not sure the order to close would withstand a legal challenge here. (which is the route he should have taken).

Can you reasonably allow schools to remain open; and more to the point, indoor, non-food, big box retail; and then order outdoor dining closed, without presenting epidemiological evidence in support of same?

I'm not arguing for indoor dining, nor for the tactics of Mr. Skelley.

But I am concerned with gross inconsistency in the application of the public health regulations that doesn't seem to be based on science.

If it is; the evidence should be presented; if not, then I would argue the closure should be struck as a capricious act outside the scope of government authority.

Lets be honest, the owner here and many of his backers come off as wing-nuts worthy of the anti-vaxxer crowd for whom i have no time.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate question on the table; even if the way in which it has been posed is ill-conceived and poorly thought out.
 
Northern Light said:
But I am concerned with gross inconsistency in the application of the public health regulations that doesn't seem to be based on science.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point, but the issue with indoor dining is that you don't wear masks in the restaurant when eating. Schools and other indoor facilities are requiring masks from my understanding. This isn't what I personally believe, but if anything, the argument is more applicable for a small retailer where their customers are shopping masked and socially distanced, whereas a school is still open (also masked and socially distanced).
 
Rimsky44 said:
I think you have a point, but the issue with indoor dining is that you don't wear masks in the restaurant when eating. Schools and other indoor facilities are requiring masks from my understanding. This isn't what I personally believe, but if anything, the argument is more applicable for a small retailer where their customers are shopping masked and socially distanced, whereas a school is still open (also masked and socially distanced).
Click to expand...

I agree completely on the indoor dining question.

But its the closure of outdoor/patio dining that seems to have provoked this.

The (over)reaction to same and alliance w/the anti-masking crew is ridiculous at best; and entirely counter-productive on the part of Mr. Skelley.

But the principles at play remain important, notwithstanding their problematic .........errr.......spokesperson.
 
Rimsky44 said:
I think you have a point, but the issue with indoor dining is that you don't wear masks in the restaurant when eating. Schools and other indoor facilities are requiring masks from my understanding. This isn't what I personally believe, but if anything, the argument is more applicable for a small retailer where their customers are shopping masked and socially distanced, whereas a school is still open (also masked and socially distanced).
Click to expand...

Students in kindergarten to Grade 3 are encouraged, but not required, to wear non-medical or cloth masks in indoor spaces, including school transportation.
My niece chose not too, and pretty much only her Aunt (my wife) cares that she isn't.
 
Northern Light said:
Is it though?

In reading the SCOTUS decision this morning; and keeping in mind we don't have the same Constitution, or laws in Canada; but we do have similar legal principles.

I'm not sure the order to close would withstand a legal challenge here. (which is the route he should have taken).

Can you reasonably allow schools to remain open; and more to the point, indoor, non-food, big box retail; and then order outdoor dining closed, without presenting epidemiological evidence in support of same?

I'm not arguing for indoor dining, nor for the tactics of Mr. Skelley.

But I am concerned with gross inconsistency in the application of the public health regulations that doesn't seem to be based on science.

If it is; the evidence should be presented; if not, then I would argue the closure should be struck as a capricious act outside the scope of government authority.

Lets be honest, the owner here and many of his backers come off as wing-nuts worthy of the anti-vaxxer crowd for whom i have no time.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate question on the table; even if the way in which it has been posed is ill-conceived and poorly thought out.
Click to expand...

Dine-in is not a necessity (it allows for the restaurant to be open for takeout); allowing schools to open arguably is more justifiable as much as I don't like it (given the impact closure will have on the labour force at large as well as impact on child development); big box retail where necessities are being sold is arguably necessary - albeit it one recognizes the inherit unfairness due to the predominant of large corporations in these types of establishments.

Science is not exact, and precautionary principle is, and should be at work here. Don't confuse the wiff-waffiness of Ontario's attempt to please all sides to the necessity of stringent measures. No law or regulation is perfect - but quite frankly anything that encourages unnecessary gatherings should be discouraged, backed by penalties and enforced. If you ask me - I care about results, but do I care that much about process in this circumstance? Not really. This is war - and this government obviously isn't one to win wars.

AoD
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
Students in kindergarten to Grade 3 are encouraged, but not required, to wear non-medical or cloth masks in indoor spaces, including school transportation.
My niece chose not too, and pretty much only her Aunt (my wife) cares that she isn't.
Click to expand...

Is this private school or outside TDSB boundaries? TDSB policy requires it from my understanding, but I haven't been keeping myself updated on that issue. I assume Catholic board has similar policies but I haven't looked.


Students must wear non-medical masks or face coverings while in school.The TDSB’s requirements are consistent with the City of Toronto requirementthat anyone aged two years and older must wear a mask/face covering in indoor public spaces, with possible exemptions. Toronto Public Health recommendsthat all students wear a mask/face covering while indoors at school. The requirement for all school board staff to wear medical masks follows the direction of the Ministry of Education.
Click to expand...
 
The rules and policies are so haphazard that I'm not surprised that people are so frustrated. I don't condone opening up indoor dining by any means, but the Ontario gov't needs to get their act together. It's never too late.
 
tripwire said:
The rules and policies are so haphazard that I'm not surprised that people are so frustrated. I don't condone opening up indoor dining by any means, but the Ontario gov't needs to get their act together. It's never too late.
Click to expand...

That's the problem - Ontario had been winging it right from the start; the whole faux pas that is rewriting the criteria for the colour scheme and passing it off as "expert driven" is the last straw AFAIK.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
About time, though I am sure he will get bail and go back at it.

AoD
Click to expand...

Apparently he was arrested for 'attempt to obstruct police', which is a criminal offence. He could be held on the grounds of preventing the continuation of the offence, and he seems bold enough to actually tell a justice that he would go back and do the same thing.

I'm not aware of an arrest authority for violating a health order, or for being a dick in general.

The concrete block thing might work, and I see the mayor has mused about doing that. I could be wrong but I think that authority comes from Licencing and Standards.

I'm watching it on TV. Apparently some protestor has a bubble machine. That'll show 'em!

Northern Light said:
Is it though?

In reading the SCOTUS decision this morning; and keeping in mind we don't have the same Constitution, or laws in Canada; but we do have similar legal principles.

I'm not sure the order to close would withstand a legal challenge here. (which is the route he should have taken).

Can you reasonably allow schools to remain open; and more to the point, indoor, non-food, big box retail; and then order outdoor dining closed, without presenting epidemiological evidence in support of same?

I'm not arguing for indoor dining, nor for the tactics of Mr. Skelley.

But I am concerned with gross inconsistency in the application of the public health regulations that doesn't seem to be based on science.

If it is; the evidence should be presented; if not, then I would argue the closure should be struck as a capricious act outside the scope of government authority.

Lets be honest, the owner here and many of his backers come off as wing-nuts worthy of the anti-vaxxer crowd for whom i have no time.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate question on the table; even if the way in which it has been posed is ill-conceived and poorly thought out.
Click to expand...

The problem with going to the Supreme Court is it a long and expensive legal journey to get there. A business would have to lose in court then appeal it up through the system. I'm not enough of a legal beagle to know how a business or sector could fight an order simply because they are impacted by it; perhaps a civil order but it is still a process. The only Charter argument I can think of would would be the Section 15 (Equality) but it would have to survive the Section 1 test (reasonable limitations). The US constitution is written in more absolute terms.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top