|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Surveys find more than 1,000 self-reported incidents of anti-Asian racism since start of pandemic: report
More needs to be done to address this concern, especially in light of the Atlanta spa shootings and the physical assault of an Asian American grandmother in San Francisco.
picard102
Senior Member
It's concerning that the focus of the Atlanta shooting is being mischaracterized as driven, or part of, anti-asian racism.
Completely overshaddowing the root of it being anti-sex and anti-sexworkers.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
I mean it could be both racism and sexism? Seems to be a lot of assumptions that these women were sex workers without any evidence to support that, especially in the initial days.
picard102
Senior Member
Could it be both, maybe. Fetisization of asians and asian spas could have played a role.
However shooter said he was motivated by sex addiction that was at odds with his religious beliefs, and did this to help others who were similarly tempted by them.
Could he be lying? Maybe, he did seek treatment for "sex addiction" reportedly before hand though.
But the danger sex workers face seems to be a third rail here and it's easier to pin it on racism, rather than deal with sex workers.
Two of the massage parlors had been the subject of prostitution arrests.
Last edited:
APTA-2048
Senior Member
So two of them had arrests for prostitution, but one didn’t. Still sounds like he assumed all Asian parlours employed sex workers. And again, I still haven’t seen anything confirming these specific women were sex workers.
And the whole framing of it by the police looks bad. Just repeating what he told them hours after it happened instead of doing any investigation. They could have decided not to comment, but instead repeat what sounds like an excuse from someone that feels sorry for themselves.
tiffer24
Senior Member
Government can tax people. Who knew?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not quite as simple as that - at issue is whether it is in the Federal government's jurisdiction (and it's been ruled that it is - at least partially).
AoD
Richard White
Senior Member
This was not so much about the tax but more about the jurisdiction. The provinces were arguing that Ottawa could not impose a Carbon Tax on the provinces given that environmental issues fell under the auspices of the provinces.
Northern Light
Superstar
6-3 decision.
I'm reading it now.
Per Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer JJ.: The GGPPA is constitutional. It sets minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern under the peace, order, and good government (“POGG”) clause of s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
Arguably decision should read 6-1-2.
****
First key point: (from the decision)
Applying the threshold question, Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine
Second key point:
Although the matter has a clear impact on provincial jurisdiction, its impact on the provinces’ freedom to legislate and on areas of life that would fall under provincial heads of power is qualified and limited
Third key point:
As a final matter, the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by the GGPPA have a sufficient nexus with the regulatory scheme to be considered constitutionally valid regulatory charges. To be a regulatory charge, as opposed to a tax, a governmental levy with the characteristics of a tax must be connected to a regulatory scheme.
****
Next is Justice Cote:
Per Côté J. (dissenting in part): There is agreement with the majority with respect to the formulation of the national concern test. There is also agreement that Parliament has the power to enact constitutionally valid legislation establishing minimum national standards of price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. However, the GGPPA is, in its current form, unconstitutional. It cannot be said to accord with the matter of national concern formulated by the majority because the breadth of the discretion that it confers on the Governor in Council results in no meaningful limits on the power of the executive. Minimum standards are set by the executive, not the GGPPA . Additionally, the provisions in the GGPPA that permit the Governor in Council to amend and override the GGPPA violate the Constitution Act, 1867 , and the fundamental constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law and the separation of powers. Clauses that purport to confer on the executive branch the power to nullify or amend Acts of Parliament are unconstitutional.
****
For the full dissent:
Per Justice Brown:
The key arguments are:
The Act’s backstop model is therefore constitutionally impossible: if the provinces have jurisdiction to do what the Act does, then the Act cannot be constitutional under the national concern branch of POGG. This demonstrates that Parliament has legislated in respect of a matter that falls within provincial legislative authority.
Responsibility for the reduction of GHG emissions among the provinces can therefore be readily identified for regulation at the source of the emissions. Nationwide GHG emissions are nothing more than the sum of provincial and territorial GHG emissions. The reduction of GHG emissions therefore lacks the degree of unity required to qualify as an indivisible matter of national concern
I'm reading it now.
Per Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer JJ.: The GGPPA is constitutional. It sets minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern under the peace, order, and good government (“POGG”) clause of s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
Arguably decision should read 6-1-2.
****
First key point: (from the decision)
Applying the threshold question, Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine
Second key point:
Although the matter has a clear impact on provincial jurisdiction, its impact on the provinces’ freedom to legislate and on areas of life that would fall under provincial heads of power is qualified and limited
Third key point:
As a final matter, the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by the GGPPA have a sufficient nexus with the regulatory scheme to be considered constitutionally valid regulatory charges. To be a regulatory charge, as opposed to a tax, a governmental levy with the characteristics of a tax must be connected to a regulatory scheme.
****
Next is Justice Cote:
Per Côté J. (dissenting in part): There is agreement with the majority with respect to the formulation of the national concern test. There is also agreement that Parliament has the power to enact constitutionally valid legislation establishing minimum national standards of price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. However, the GGPPA is, in its current form, unconstitutional. It cannot be said to accord with the matter of national concern formulated by the majority because the breadth of the discretion that it confers on the Governor in Council results in no meaningful limits on the power of the executive. Minimum standards are set by the executive, not the GGPPA . Additionally, the provisions in the GGPPA that permit the Governor in Council to amend and override the GGPPA violate the Constitution Act, 1867 , and the fundamental constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law and the separation of powers. Clauses that purport to confer on the executive branch the power to nullify or amend Acts of Parliament are unconstitutional.
****
For the full dissent:
Per Justice Brown:
The key arguments are:
The Act’s backstop model is therefore constitutionally impossible: if the provinces have jurisdiction to do what the Act does, then the Act cannot be constitutional under the national concern branch of POGG. This demonstrates that Parliament has legislated in respect of a matter that falls within provincial legislative authority.
Responsibility for the reduction of GHG emissions among the provinces can therefore be readily identified for regulation at the source of the emissions. Nationwide GHG emissions are nothing more than the sum of provincial and territorial GHG emissions. The reduction of GHG emissions therefore lacks the degree of unity required to qualify as an indivisible matter of national concern
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The feds should also do the same with health care and long term care.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Except that the court has generally taken the position that the delivery of health care is a provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces, particularly Quebec, would balk at federally imposed standards. The provinces generally take a 'give us the money then sod off' position.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The provinces may "deliver", but the "standards" could be set by the feds.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I suppose they could try but, generally, he who sets the rules brings the money. Without some manner of clarity from the court, that type of model requires cooperation, and I simply don't see it. It would also have to be a hill they are willing to die on.
gabe
Senior Member
Another reason to hate China.