was a little misinformed by this; the media is not helping. the '93 mulroney law actually gave ex-pats the right to vote, along with some other categories of people. this legislation was "reinterpreted" by elections canada in 2008, hence the court case challenging it and the overturning of the "reinterpretation" last year.
i'm not really sure exactly what the right legal approach is regarding challenging the "reinterpretation" of existing legislation. you'd expect that the way legislation is interpreted should be based on the existing precedent of how it was interpreted previously - and that any judicial body would uphold that. if there's a precedent for this, i'm really not aware of it. it's almost kafkaesque, really. can the government "reinterpret" any legislation at all, in any way it so desires? that's itself unconstitutional, as the common law precedents are a key aspect of the rule of law.
there was a bill in parliament, c-50, that would have rewritten the five-year limitation to explicitly exclude non-residents, but the election halted it.
i don't like the ruling itself, either. the oakes test is meant for extreme circumstances, and should not be applied willy-nilly like it was. it's kind of a mockery of the constitution, really. you've gotta jump through some serious hoops to conclude that restricting voting is a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society, and those hoops were seriously jumped through.
it's easy to see why there's so much confusion around it. it's a messy situation at just about every point. it's so messy that it's hard to even produce a remedy. i mean, the question in front of the court isn't actually the legislation. it's the way the government interprets it. i don't think that's ever happened....
i've tried googling various of interpretations of "government reinterprets legislation" and the idea seems to just not exist.
the government writes legislation.
the court interprets it.
no wonder people are confused...
ok. so, if you back up...
it seems like the people challenging the decision are going about this through the wrong channels. the decision to "reinterpret legislation" would have to be seen as an executive/administrative decision, and that's consequently what the primary challenge should have been based around. can the government "reinterpret" the legislation as they have, in the first place?
it's only after you get through that process - once you determine what the legislation actually says - that you can start questioning it's constitutionality. and, i have a very hard time with the way the oakes test was used, here...
this strikes me as both unreasonable and incorrect, if we base correctness on existing precedent.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-expats-cant-vote-1.3204664
Monday, September 7, 2015
i think what these narratives indicate is that it's ultimately up to the ex-pat to decide whether they're engaged or not. it's a kind of a strange argument. if people aren't interested or aware, there's not much chance that they're going to go through the lengthy process of registering and casting a ballot. the fact that they're jumping through these hoops largely indicates that they are actually engaged and informed.
all those headaches kind of have the effect of separating out the people that have left the country permanently from the people that are gone for a bit and are planning on coming back. the hypothetical of an individual who has no interest in canada and never plans on coming back, but wants to vote, is sort of untenable.
i think this is just fallout from the ignatieff attacks. it's not a specific vote altering scheme. it's just an attempt to maintain a narrative.
and, i do believe that the supreme court will overturn this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-expats-cant-vote-1.3204664
Sue Russell
how do you know that maybe they just want media on them?
Jessica Murray
there's some things you can't know for sure, but can carefully rule out as unlikely. most things, really.
TruthUponYou
they shouldn't even get 5 years cause they have no riding to vote in, they are not residents in any riding, how do they pick and choose which riding they vote in?
Jessica Murray
they would generally vote in the riding they last lived in, which is also the riding they're likely to return to. generally, coming home means coming home, not migrating across the country.
TruthUponYou
Canadians only maintain residency for 3 months,
even if they are likely to return there are some point in the future, doesn't matter, its 3 months.
unless you keep a residence in that riding you can't vote there unless you leave the country but should be 3 months and not 5 years.
Jessica Murray
well, i think that's the point of contention.
all those headaches kind of have the effect of separating out the people that have left the country permanently from the people that are gone for a bit and are planning on coming back. the hypothetical of an individual who has no interest in canada and never plans on coming back, but wants to vote, is sort of untenable.
i think this is just fallout from the ignatieff attacks. it's not a specific vote altering scheme. it's just an attempt to maintain a narrative.
and, i do believe that the supreme court will overturn this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-expats-cant-vote-1.3204664
Sue Russell
how do you know that maybe they just want media on them?
Jessica Murray
there's some things you can't know for sure, but can carefully rule out as unlikely. most things, really.
TruthUponYou
they shouldn't even get 5 years cause they have no riding to vote in, they are not residents in any riding, how do they pick and choose which riding they vote in?
Jessica Murray
they would generally vote in the riding they last lived in, which is also the riding they're likely to return to. generally, coming home means coming home, not migrating across the country.
TruthUponYou
Canadians only maintain residency for 3 months,
even if they are likely to return there are some point in the future, doesn't matter, its 3 months.
unless you keep a residence in that riding you can't vote there unless you leave the country but should be 3 months and not 5 years.
Jessica Murray
well, i think that's the point of contention.
at
00:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm sorry, what's the problem here, exactly? show me the part in the criminal code where peeing in a mug is prohibited. and, it had better be biblical, too. THOU SHALT NOT DRAIN THY SNAKE IN THINE MUG.
i hope he runs as an independent. i see absolutely nothing contentious here, except the micromanagement of candidates from the politburo in ottawa.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797
rogerroger
have you seen a doctor lately?
Jessica Murray
yup. few days ago. another appointment in a few weeks.
what's next? hiring or firing people over their hair?
pst0xuj
I am curious. Is the house that you live in on wheels?
Jessica Murray
you're not addressing the issue, which is that there is no legal basis for this - it is a wrongful dismissal.
you can judge people by their social class if you'd like. in the end, it says more about your own classlessness than it says about theirs. but, there's still not any legal basis for dropping this candidate. and, this level of control from head office should be more concerning to voters than harmlessly peeing in a cup.
True Dough Mania
Ok Jessica, well how about you hire Jerry Bance to do some work and leave him a few coffee mugs. I mean come on. You hire a guy to fix something and he pees in your coffee mug? REALLY? I'm sorry we don't have a direct prohibition in the criminal code for peeing in a mug. Didn't think we needed one.
pst0xuj
I am not certain as to whether this is a legal issue. However, Bance was running to be a representative of the CPC and based on what he did, he was deemed (in hindsight) to be an unsuitable candidate. I agree with the actions taken as I would NOT want him on my property.
True Dough Mania
I seriously don't a candidate for a political party is treated like an employee. Otherwise you would see wrongful dismissal law suits for candidates who have been forced to resign due to all kinds of controversies. Normal employment law likely doesn't apply to them, seeing as they aren't necessarily employees of the party.
Jessica Murray
urine is sterile on immediate emission; clutching your pearls over it is not an argument as to why it's a reason for dismissal.
Christ Bearer World Domination of Fortification
I could probably argue it as 'trespassing' or something along those lines. Plus can fire people for behavior, happens all the time.
Jessica Murray
this is true, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't operate broadly within it's purview. and, showing open contempt for the laws, as harper does consistently, is part of a pattern of increasing power in the prime minister's office.
he was invited in. there were no signs posted.
True Dough Mania
Jessica you have a fundamental misunderstanding of employment law. Bance would not be considered an employee of the CPC. That would make no sense, how could a MP ever vote out of their own conscience? How many MPs and candidates have been booted from parties for voting the wrong way, or some embarrassing comment. Careers destroyed, yet not one successful wrongful dismissal lawsuit brought? Why?
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING TO SUE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TO SUE ON.
You're creating an issue where one doesn't exist.
Its a legal loop hole. Employers pull it all the time. Some pizza delivery guys are considered "independent contractors". It would be up to Parliament to legislate on the issue, but I'm guessing they won't. Its not a contempt for the law, its the way the law is. You might not like it, but thats the way the law is written and interpreted by the courts.
Jessica Murray
i think we have an expectation to hold our political bodies to a level of accountability in terms of how they treat their candidates, which requires them to follow the outlines of employment law, even if there is not a technical contract. conservative supporters often fall back to these strict, nineteenth century interpretations of contract law, but this is generally not the way our legal system works any more.
it is the centralization of power that is the concern here, not the harmless act of peeing in a cup. when we allow the prime minister to make arbitrary decisions of this sort about harmless actions, we are all placed in the danger of his abuses of power.
True Dough Mania
First off, I'm not a Conservative supporter. Never have been, never will be. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "this not the way our legal system works any more". I'm not sure exactly what you are invoking, but what seems glaringly obvious is you have little to no working knowledge of the law as it is, only as you see it as it should be.
A court will not invent a contract where one does not exist. Also this is at best a microcosm of the issue of centralized power.
As Mr. Bance is only a candidate, his rights would be governed by the Canada Elections Act, which imposes no obligation on a party to treat him as an employee. The courts cannot supplant the intent of Parliament unless that intent violates the constitution, which it does not here.
Jessica Murray
well, if you're not a conservative supporter then why are you defending harper's abuse of power, here?
there were a number of changes to the way the court interprets contracts in the 1940s. it will in fact enforce laws based on analogy - it will claim a law written for another circumstance ought to apply in a circumstance it was not written in.
but, that's not what i'm saying, here. what i'm saying is that we ought to expect the parties to respect the law, anyways. it doesn't matter if it's technically applicable or not. it's a question of whether they have the moral guidance to treat their candidates with respect, or if they treat them as slaves that are void of rights or individual thought.
and, it's clear where harper stands on this.
so, we can expect conservative supporters to only treat people with the dignity that the law demands of them. and, worse, they don't see a problem with this.
it's one of the big problems with the current conservative government. it is only able to understand the letter of the law. it rejects the entire concept of the spirit of the law.
True Dough Mania
Jessica, if you want to change the law of how Members of Parliament or election candidates are treated, then lobby government. But when you come out and make outlandish claims that the legal system does not operate this way, without any means to defend those claims, be prepared to be shot down. A court still needs an actual contract to interpret. And it is exactly what you said. You tried to argue that the law is not being followed in this case, when quite clearly it is. Yes the law of contract has changed, but privity of contract has not. Unless there are two parties who agreed to contract with each other, there is no contract. Anyone running for office would not be under the impression they were in an employment contract, and no one in the CPC would ever make such representations. Nor would any political party.
It absolutely matters if it is applicable, otherwise there is no certainty in our laws. The approach you advocate would introduce tremendous uncertainty. I respect you for not liking the rules of Parliament, but to introduce your logic into our justice system would be chaotic
Jessica Murray
i would suggest that you read my argument more carefully, because you do not understand it.
True Dough Mania
Jessica, no political party would endorse this candidate. They just wouldn't. They probably came to the mutual decision to resign, because this is a tremendous embarrassment that would destroy his local campaign. This isn't part of Harper's great scheme for centralized control, which I agree is a horrific trend in our democracy. One look at the PMO emails from the Nigel Wright trial should send all Canadians to the ballot box to punish this government for its blatant abuse of our supposedly independent institutions. But this isn't quite the same. This is a matter of a party not wanting to be affiliated with a particular individual.
Jessica Murray
it's an example of a power-hungry autocrat running rough shod over anybody that stands in his way. a party with the slightest levels of principle or adherence to individual freedom would have stood up for this candidate and argued for his rights, rather than thrown him under the bus.
True Dough Mania
Jessica I understand your argument perfectly, I"m simply eliminating the first part of it which was clearly superfluous fluff that you added in to appear coherent.
You believe this is an abuse of power and a direct corollary to Harper's move for greater centralized control. I agree that such a move has been happening during Harper's tenure, and many PMs who came before him. Unfortunately, the only way to curtail prime ministerial powers would be through a series of constitutional amendments and drastic restructuring of our political system. Not saying that is a bad thing, but I deal in the facts and reality and that is what we're facing.
But this isn't the same thing whatsoever. This is about how Harper governs the country, or how he uses the Senate as his personal finger puppet. Its about a party not wanting to be associated with a candidate for his embarrassing conduct.
Jessica there is no right to pee in a coffee mug, I doubt even the freedom of expression could be bent far enough to protect it. There is no right for someone to run for office under a political party. You must be endorsed by that party, and if that party chooses to get rid of you, that is their choice. How can you legitimately expect a party seeking re-election to waste its time trying to play down the fact that one of its candidates pees in coffee mugs of his customers?
The Liberal party has lost candidates for extremists views, as has the NDP. Its the nature of the beast, not a rallying call to protect our fundamental freedoms. You are conflating issues. Your passion is genuine, but sadly misplaced.
Jessica Murray
there is no right to piss in the wind, either - it doesn't mean it's a reason for punishment. again, this is taking a literal and statist position of rights being granted by the state, rather than the historically liberal position of canadian jurisprudence, which consistently comes down on the side of harmless crimes not being crimes. and, in this case, we seem to agree that there isn't even an articulated "crime".
i am not arguing that he would win a court case for wrongful dismissal. i am arguing that this dismissal breaks the spirit of the law, and voters should expect more out of their political parties than cynical calculations to maximize power.
i presume this candidate won a primary to get to where he is. it is up to voters in the riding to determine their candidates, not the centralized bureaucracy in ottawa.
interference in that process is an abuse of power. regardless of which party is doing it. i've been critical of the ndp as well, especially in kings-hants. i am not aware of a comparable case for the liberals in this election, but i would not be partisan in my lack of condemnation of it if one were to be presented to me.
i hope he runs as an independent. i see absolutely nothing contentious here, except the micromanagement of candidates from the politburo in ottawa.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797
rogerroger
have you seen a doctor lately?
Jessica Murray
yup. few days ago. another appointment in a few weeks.
what's next? hiring or firing people over their hair?
pst0xuj
I am curious. Is the house that you live in on wheels?
Jessica Murray
you're not addressing the issue, which is that there is no legal basis for this - it is a wrongful dismissal.
you can judge people by their social class if you'd like. in the end, it says more about your own classlessness than it says about theirs. but, there's still not any legal basis for dropping this candidate. and, this level of control from head office should be more concerning to voters than harmlessly peeing in a cup.
True Dough Mania
Ok Jessica, well how about you hire Jerry Bance to do some work and leave him a few coffee mugs. I mean come on. You hire a guy to fix something and he pees in your coffee mug? REALLY? I'm sorry we don't have a direct prohibition in the criminal code for peeing in a mug. Didn't think we needed one.
pst0xuj
I am not certain as to whether this is a legal issue. However, Bance was running to be a representative of the CPC and based on what he did, he was deemed (in hindsight) to be an unsuitable candidate. I agree with the actions taken as I would NOT want him on my property.
True Dough Mania
I seriously don't a candidate for a political party is treated like an employee. Otherwise you would see wrongful dismissal law suits for candidates who have been forced to resign due to all kinds of controversies. Normal employment law likely doesn't apply to them, seeing as they aren't necessarily employees of the party.
Jessica Murray
urine is sterile on immediate emission; clutching your pearls over it is not an argument as to why it's a reason for dismissal.
Christ Bearer World Domination of Fortification
I could probably argue it as 'trespassing' or something along those lines. Plus can fire people for behavior, happens all the time.
Jessica Murray
this is true, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't operate broadly within it's purview. and, showing open contempt for the laws, as harper does consistently, is part of a pattern of increasing power in the prime minister's office.
he was invited in. there were no signs posted.
True Dough Mania
Jessica you have a fundamental misunderstanding of employment law. Bance would not be considered an employee of the CPC. That would make no sense, how could a MP ever vote out of their own conscience? How many MPs and candidates have been booted from parties for voting the wrong way, or some embarrassing comment. Careers destroyed, yet not one successful wrongful dismissal lawsuit brought? Why?
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING TO SUE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TO SUE ON.
You're creating an issue where one doesn't exist.
Its a legal loop hole. Employers pull it all the time. Some pizza delivery guys are considered "independent contractors". It would be up to Parliament to legislate on the issue, but I'm guessing they won't. Its not a contempt for the law, its the way the law is. You might not like it, but thats the way the law is written and interpreted by the courts.
Jessica Murray
i think we have an expectation to hold our political bodies to a level of accountability in terms of how they treat their candidates, which requires them to follow the outlines of employment law, even if there is not a technical contract. conservative supporters often fall back to these strict, nineteenth century interpretations of contract law, but this is generally not the way our legal system works any more.
it is the centralization of power that is the concern here, not the harmless act of peeing in a cup. when we allow the prime minister to make arbitrary decisions of this sort about harmless actions, we are all placed in the danger of his abuses of power.
True Dough Mania
First off, I'm not a Conservative supporter. Never have been, never will be. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "this not the way our legal system works any more". I'm not sure exactly what you are invoking, but what seems glaringly obvious is you have little to no working knowledge of the law as it is, only as you see it as it should be.
A court will not invent a contract where one does not exist. Also this is at best a microcosm of the issue of centralized power.
As Mr. Bance is only a candidate, his rights would be governed by the Canada Elections Act, which imposes no obligation on a party to treat him as an employee. The courts cannot supplant the intent of Parliament unless that intent violates the constitution, which it does not here.
Jessica Murray
well, if you're not a conservative supporter then why are you defending harper's abuse of power, here?
there were a number of changes to the way the court interprets contracts in the 1940s. it will in fact enforce laws based on analogy - it will claim a law written for another circumstance ought to apply in a circumstance it was not written in.
but, that's not what i'm saying, here. what i'm saying is that we ought to expect the parties to respect the law, anyways. it doesn't matter if it's technically applicable or not. it's a question of whether they have the moral guidance to treat their candidates with respect, or if they treat them as slaves that are void of rights or individual thought.
and, it's clear where harper stands on this.
so, we can expect conservative supporters to only treat people with the dignity that the law demands of them. and, worse, they don't see a problem with this.
it's one of the big problems with the current conservative government. it is only able to understand the letter of the law. it rejects the entire concept of the spirit of the law.
True Dough Mania
Jessica, if you want to change the law of how Members of Parliament or election candidates are treated, then lobby government. But when you come out and make outlandish claims that the legal system does not operate this way, without any means to defend those claims, be prepared to be shot down. A court still needs an actual contract to interpret. And it is exactly what you said. You tried to argue that the law is not being followed in this case, when quite clearly it is. Yes the law of contract has changed, but privity of contract has not. Unless there are two parties who agreed to contract with each other, there is no contract. Anyone running for office would not be under the impression they were in an employment contract, and no one in the CPC would ever make such representations. Nor would any political party.
It absolutely matters if it is applicable, otherwise there is no certainty in our laws. The approach you advocate would introduce tremendous uncertainty. I respect you for not liking the rules of Parliament, but to introduce your logic into our justice system would be chaotic
Jessica Murray
i would suggest that you read my argument more carefully, because you do not understand it.
True Dough Mania
Jessica, no political party would endorse this candidate. They just wouldn't. They probably came to the mutual decision to resign, because this is a tremendous embarrassment that would destroy his local campaign. This isn't part of Harper's great scheme for centralized control, which I agree is a horrific trend in our democracy. One look at the PMO emails from the Nigel Wright trial should send all Canadians to the ballot box to punish this government for its blatant abuse of our supposedly independent institutions. But this isn't quite the same. This is a matter of a party not wanting to be affiliated with a particular individual.
Jessica Murray
it's an example of a power-hungry autocrat running rough shod over anybody that stands in his way. a party with the slightest levels of principle or adherence to individual freedom would have stood up for this candidate and argued for his rights, rather than thrown him under the bus.
True Dough Mania
Jessica I understand your argument perfectly, I"m simply eliminating the first part of it which was clearly superfluous fluff that you added in to appear coherent.
You believe this is an abuse of power and a direct corollary to Harper's move for greater centralized control. I agree that such a move has been happening during Harper's tenure, and many PMs who came before him. Unfortunately, the only way to curtail prime ministerial powers would be through a series of constitutional amendments and drastic restructuring of our political system. Not saying that is a bad thing, but I deal in the facts and reality and that is what we're facing.
But this isn't the same thing whatsoever. This is about how Harper governs the country, or how he uses the Senate as his personal finger puppet. Its about a party not wanting to be associated with a candidate for his embarrassing conduct.
Jessica there is no right to pee in a coffee mug, I doubt even the freedom of expression could be bent far enough to protect it. There is no right for someone to run for office under a political party. You must be endorsed by that party, and if that party chooses to get rid of you, that is their choice. How can you legitimately expect a party seeking re-election to waste its time trying to play down the fact that one of its candidates pees in coffee mugs of his customers?
The Liberal party has lost candidates for extremists views, as has the NDP. Its the nature of the beast, not a rallying call to protect our fundamental freedoms. You are conflating issues. Your passion is genuine, but sadly misplaced.
Jessica Murray
there is no right to piss in the wind, either - it doesn't mean it's a reason for punishment. again, this is taking a literal and statist position of rights being granted by the state, rather than the historically liberal position of canadian jurisprudence, which consistently comes down on the side of harmless crimes not being crimes. and, in this case, we seem to agree that there isn't even an articulated "crime".
i am not arguing that he would win a court case for wrongful dismissal. i am arguing that this dismissal breaks the spirit of the law, and voters should expect more out of their political parties than cynical calculations to maximize power.
i presume this candidate won a primary to get to where he is. it is up to voters in the riding to determine their candidates, not the centralized bureaucracy in ottawa.
interference in that process is an abuse of power. regardless of which party is doing it. i've been critical of the ndp as well, especially in kings-hants. i am not aware of a comparable case for the liberals in this election, but i would not be partisan in my lack of condemnation of it if one were to be presented to me.
at
00:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)