• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Re: OT: Canadian Politics

IrishWolfman said:
What I'd like to see, just to safeguard against any future council taking this too far, is an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that specifically outlines circumstances under which Council is able to do this in the future.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Specifically, "If a Mayor states that "they have plenty of pussy to eat at home", this will be grounds for a Council vote on that Mayor's status.
 
BZKdGQ9CEAEZVLL.jpg:large
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

IrishWolfman said:
The only thing I don't like about what Council did today, and this speaks more to the province than it does to Council, is that they've established a historical precedent for the removal of mayoral powers from a Chief Magistrate.

What I'd like to see, just to safeguard against any future council taking this too far, is an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that specifically outlines circumstances under which Council is able to do this in the future.

The amendment should clearly outline the conditions under which a vote can be brought and should establish a supermajority threshold that the vote must meet in order to be effective. Something like three-quarters of the councillors present ought to be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Disagree.
 
Yeah, good clip. Says what I feel about many of your Obama apology posts.

It's astounding, really. Oh the website's inadequacies are ALL the dastardly Republican's faults. They're DDOSing it! It really has nothing to do with the shitty linking of government agencies needed to perform applicant verification to complete application at all. IT WAS THE ONE-ARM MAAAAAAN!
 
Habsy said:
Yeah, good clip. Says what I feel about many of your Obama apology posts.

It's astounding, really. Oh the website's inadequacies are ALL the dastardly Republican's faults. They're DDOSing it! It really has nothing to do with the shitty linking of government agencies needed to perform applicant verification to complete application at all. IT WAS THE ONE-ARM MAAAAAAN!
Click to expand...

Because it has nothing to do with targeting the one entry point of the process to filibuster the whole thing.
You're right, it is astounding.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

IrishWolfman said:
The only thing I don't like about what Council did today, and this speaks more to the province than it does to Council, is that they've established a historical precedent for the removal of mayoral powers from a Chief Magistrate.

What I'd like to see, just to safeguard against any future council taking this too far, is an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that specifically outlines circumstances under which Council is able to do this in the future.

The amendment should clearly outline the conditions under which a vote can be brought and should establish a supermajority threshold that the vote must meet in order to be effective. Something like three-quarters of the councillors present ought to be sufficient.
Click to expand...

zeke said:
the only one who set a historical precedent was Rob Ford.
Click to expand...

Council was very strongly suggesting that Ford take a leave of absence to deal with his personal issues. They did this BEFORE holding this vote. Ford arrogantly refused.
As much as I agree with the need to set guidelines to make sure this isn't used at will in the future, I certainly believe the Toronto council did this in the best manner possible, giving Ford the most opportunity to keep his powers, before being forced into pulling those powers away from him.
So Zeke is right. The precedent was set by Ford, and his own arrogance.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

link
Ontario's highest court has ruled that a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a loaded prohibited gun is unconstitutional.

The Ontario Appeal Court ruling strikes down a plank of the federal Conservatives' 2008 omnibus bill, which raised the penalty from one year.

The court found a three-year prison sentence to be "cruel and unusual punishment" for a first offence.

The problem, the court says, is that the current law does not discriminate. For example, a person keeping a restricted firearm with ammunition in their cottage when their licence requires it to be stored in their home would face the same minimum sentence as a person on the street with a loaded gun in a back pocket and the intent to use it.

The court says the ruling has no significant effect on sentences for people engaged in criminal conduct or who pose a danger to others, saying they should continue to receive sentences to emphasize deterrence and denunciation.
Click to expand...
How inconvenient, that increase in "unreported crimes" has become. How can they justify all those new jails if they can't increase the minimum sentences for the most minor of offenses?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

blacksheep said:
Council was very strongly suggesting that Ford take a leave of absence to deal with his personal issues. They did this BEFORE holding this vote. Ford arrogantly refused.
As much as I agree with the need to set guidelines to make sure this isn't used at will in the future, I certainly believe the Toronto council did this in the best manner possible, giving Ford the most opportunity to keep his powers, before being forced into pulling those powers away from him.
So Zeke is right. The precedent was set by Ford, and his own arrogance.
Click to expand...

That is my argument. In this instance, Ford left council little other choice.

But, taking aside the special circumstances, there now exists a precedent for an elected council to remove powers from the Mayor's office.

They were right to do so, but I'd like to see the province set up a legislative procedure for this power so that future Councils have rules governing this kind of procedure. Leaving this to the will of Council leaves it open to abuse.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

IrishWolfman said:
That is my argument. In this instance, Ford left council little other choice.

But, taking aside the special circumstances, there now exists a precedent for an elected council to remove powers from the Mayor's office.

They were right to do so, but I'd like to see the province set up a legislative procedure for this power so that future Councils have rules governing this kind of procedure. Leaving this to the will of Council leaves it open to abuse.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. The Ontario Municipal Act needs amending.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Perhaps the most democratic way to do it would be, instead of council having the power to strip powers from the mayor, you give them the power to force a "recall" election to fill out the remainder of the mayor's term, and require the support of 90% of council for the motion to pass.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

LeafGm said:
Perhaps the most democratic way to do it would be, instead of council having the power to strip powers from the mayor, you give them the power to force a "recall" election to fill out the remainder of the mayor's term, and require the support of 90% of council for the motion to pass.
Click to expand...

That might be perceived as simply the Deputy Mayor's way to seize power.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Sometimes I wonder if you can actually read. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion from what I wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top