again: when a government suspends the rule of law, it breaks the social contract and forfeits it's claim to legitimate authority, thereby inviting revolutionary action. that is the lockean principle underlying our system of government.

“The thinking is that (the premier) is prepared to stand up to the courts"

in a constitutional system of government, the premier does not "stand up" to the courts, but defers to them.

whatever thinking is behind this is very dangerous.

it is the idea that canadians want a lapse in the rule of law. and, if that is what we are to see from this government, it is a justification and an invitation for open revolt.

i'm also going to call on the conservative party of ontario to step away from the brink and vote against this crazy, unconstitutional bill - and your insane, despotic, lunatic leader.

so, that's what you do as an activist: you argue that the state has lost all justification for authority, because it has broken the social contract, by abolishing the rule of law.

but, what do you do legally?

you appeal.

i think a part of the problem here is that the supreme court hasn't dealt with these cases very often. there should be a deeper level of case law around s. 33. something frivolous like this ought to be squashed on appeal, but it's going to require creating a judicial precedent that, frankly, nobody really thought was necessary.

what doug ford would do if he wasn't an irresponsible despot would be to send the issue to the supreme court as a reference, and have them work out the proper precedent.

but, he is an irresponsible despot.

so, he won't do that.

somebody is going to have to actually appeal. it's a shame you can't send the bill to his estate...