• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Doug Ford, #jail2023

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Dont move the goalposts, question is regard to intent of the use of s33

Ford is clearly offside from the spirit of S33 if not the letter, and thats not a controversial opinion, its consensus opinion in Canadian political history.

Disparity of cocaine vs crack sentencing is apples and oranges, and actually the letter of the law specified higher mandatory minimums for crack vs cocaine powder - so my issue with equality of justice there in written law (and worse in American law) is entirely distinct from the uniquely canadian question of when it is ok to use s33. Not sure why you'd even bring that up or why you're bothering to question something That is Known: S33 wasnt meant to be used whenever a court rules the way you dont like

If that last statement is true, then you must also believe that Bill Davis either:

- choose to not write that down,
- didn't think it needed to be written down,
- or could not write it down.

Which do you think is most likely?
 

workdowntown

TRIBE Member
If that last statement is true, then you must also believe that Bill Davis either:

- choose to not write that down,
- didn't think it needed to be written down,
- or could not write it down.

Which do you think is most likely?

Praktik's point is that law is interpretation of the events, by someone qualified in the subject, who is guided by precedent.

It's not as hard and fast as D&D rules or something.

Much of what is precedent is not outright stated, (nor does it have to be) but referred to when making a judgement (which is why judges exist, funnily enough!).

The contention by judges (y'know the people schooled in law, and the precedents thereof?) is that Ford is -as Praktik stated- going against how the aforementioned law is currently understood and practised by those
versed in the law; unsurprisingly because he is barely versed in walking and chewing gum at the same time, much less something as dense and complex as provincial law.

It is therefore no surprise that when an amateur like Ford tries to interpret a law to suit himself with the bare minimum of understanding, it gets slapped down by those who understand the law as it stands, given that this
is the entirety of their job.
 

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Praktik's point is that law is interpretation of the events, by someone qualified in the subject, who is guided by precedent.

It's not as hard and fast as D&D rules or something.

Much of what is precedent is not outright stated, (nor does it have to be) but referred to when making a judgement (which is why judges exist, funnily enough!).

The contention by judges (y'know the people schooled in law, and the precedents thereof?) is that Ford is -as Praktik stated- going against how the aforementioned law is currently understood and practised by those
versed in the law; unsurprisingly because he is barely versed in walking and chewing gum at the same time, much less something as dense and complex as provincial law.

It is therefore no surprise that when an amateur like Ford tries to interpret a law to suit himself with the bare minimum of understanding, it gets slapped down by those who understand the law as it stands, given that this
is the entirety of their job.

So the ruling was overturned. The higher court said "we have concluded that there is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and that the Attorney-General’s appeal to this court will succeed." Ford won't continue with bill, and the more interesting issue won't be settled.

As per the Globe:

But the appeal judges – Associate Chief Justice Alexandra Hoy, Justice Robert Sharpe and Justice Gary Trotter – did not agree with Justice Belobaba’s attempt to use the Charter’s Section 2(b), its free-expression guarantee, to essentially import protections for voters embedded in the Charter’s Section 3, which only applies to governments at the federal and provincial levels.

“The application judge’s interpretation appears to stretch both the wording and the purpose of s. 2(b) beyond the limits of that provision,” the ruling reads.

The appeal judges also say Mr. Ford’s move did not restrict candidates’ freedom of speech: “While the change brought about by Bill 5 is undoubtedly frustrating for candidates who started campaigning in May 2018, we are not persuaded that their frustration amounts to a substantial interference with their freedom of expression. The candidates were and are still free to say what they want to say to the voters.”
 
Last edited:
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts

praktik

TRIBE Member
"The best way to help people out of poverty is something called a job,"
'Something called a job' is the way out of poverty, not basic income, Ford says | CBC News

He doesnt even understand how the basic income works and how so many conservatives support it as an alternative to inefficient social safety nets

Its like he's so caught up in his ideological stupid that got canned and preserved in 1983 he doesn't even realize this is a modern conservative policy that elegantly reduces the size of government and the need for bloated social programs - takes out so much bureaucracy.

Its another perfectly fine consensus position we could have if our conservatives weren't quite so caught up in stupid lately
 
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts

praktik

TRIBE Member
cant make this shit up

It actually makes life cheaper, in the long run, because we're running up quite a tab right now.

Its just our children and theirs and theirs and theirs will be paying that tab.

When the bill comes due, higher prices on carbon intensive products TODAY means cheaper prices overall in the long run and huge savings.

Cheap life based on cheap carbon now means expensive life later - and once carbon intense things are properly priced? Dont kid yourself that other things that help us be carbon neutral wont become cheaper. Some carbon tax regimes are designed specifically to make that happen.

Ultimately we need to stop using carbon intense things - and if we dont? We pay more in the long run, much more than the savings we get from the plunder of subsidized oil in the short term.
 
Last edited:
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts
Top