News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.3K     0 

old boy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
792
Yes and back when the Charter was created, I thought it was extremely naive to imagine that politicians would always use it appropriately. But for that you need politicians of good will and they are in short supply.
The current government believes you're either for them or against them - quite simple, really. Less than 20% of eligible voters can lead to unassailability.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
4,563
Yes but it was never intended to be used this way. Doug Ford has bastardized it.
I'm not sure there was ever any practical consideration for how it was intended to be used. Those who supported it felt that it would protect democracy by preventing the unelected courts from overriding the elected legislators. Those who opposed it felt that it would weaken Charter-protected rights.

It seems both sides were correct.
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
1,570
City:
Toronto
I'm not sure there was ever any practical consideration for how it was intended to be used. Those who supported it felt that it would protect democracy by preventing the unelected courts from overriding the elected legislators. Those who opposed it felt that it would weaken Charter-protected rights.

It seems both sides were correct.
The entire point of a constitutional charter of rights is that it supercedes incompatible legislation, and it is the courts that are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Governments can avoid this by passing legislation that actually respects the constitution, imagine that. If we start thinking that legal decisions are questionable because judges are unelected, why limit ourselves to constitutional issues? We might as well light our very own American-style dumpster fire.
 

T3G

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
443
Reaction score
1,043
Time to make voting mandatory and not voting punishable by jail time.

Watch how quickly people vote to avoid a criminal record.
So make it mandatory for people to vote for options they don't feel any enthusiasm for?

With what confidence could you assume that Ford wouldn't win if voting was made mandatory? People who have no interest in the political process will just vote for whatever name they recognize to get it over with. No, the solution is for the Libs and NDP to stop mucking around and put forward a worthwhile campaign if they want to win next time. Maybe spend less time on asinine suggestions such as vaccine passports for booze and weed shops to begin with. If you want to make people care about voting, your campaign has to be worth caring about.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,266
Reaction score
59,092
Time to make voting mandatory and not voting punishable by jail time.

Watch how quickly people vote to avoid a criminal record.

Jail as a threat for not voting would most certainly not pass constitutional muster; nor would the notwithstanding clause save that.

I'm in favour of 'mandatory' voting, on a one-off basis, just to break people of the bad habit of apathy; but I still wouldn't use jail as incentive/disincentive.

Australia and Belgium which have compulsory voting and compulsory polling station attendance respectively...............use fines to encourage compliance.

For first-time offenders in Australia a fine is issued for AU$20 up to a max of $180 for repeat offenders.

Belgium has a range of 40 Euros to 200 Euros; though has a policy of non-prosecution and hasn't charged anyone for non-attendance in 19 years.

Australia achieves mid 90s for turnout, while Belgium consistently gets over 90%

No major country in the world uses jail as a threat for non-voting.
 
Last edited:

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
11,074
Reaction score
5,030
So what’s CUPE’s next step. They can‘t take a constitutional challenge. Can they sue the premier or government outside of the constitution? I sometimes think we need a provincial wide general strike, illegal if need be.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
5,981
So what’s CUPE’s next step. They can‘t take a constitutional challenge. Can they sue the premier or government outside of the constitution? I sometimes think we need a provincial wide general strike, illegal if need be.
I'm a bit baffled by the use of the NWC in this case. Is it really possible for the premier to completely ignore the law by invoking it?
 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
11,074
Reaction score
5,030
I'm a bit baffled by the use of the NWC in this case. Is it really possible for the premier to completely ignore the law by invoking it?
No, but it means one can’t use the constitution as the basis of one’s case against the government. I expect that’s what CUPE’s lawyers are working on now, how to legally fight without constitutional law.

When the OLP ran the government the education union(s) used the constitution to challenge a salary freeze, and the workers won, gaining $100 million in increases. That’s what Ford is trying to avoid.
 

Top