|
Communism is upon us? Maybe I am going to need a lawyer soon??
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
So now Toronto politicians want to sue anyone who makes "defamatory remarks" about them. So i guess its not OK in communist canada to critisize your politicians without fear of their wrath?
I weep for our future.
| quote: | Toronto councillors could soon be able to sue each other, the media or members of the public for libel and have their legal bills covered by the city under a policy approved yesterday by the executive committee.
Although councillors can currently defend themselves from libel actions with taxpayer money, a policy permitting them to launch defamation suits with public funds would be a Canadian first, according to a city report.
Mayor David Miller said the measures are needed to protect office-holders from reputation-staining "lies" made with impunity due to the high cost of litigation.
''People's reputations matter, and they're very, very vulnerable now to false allegations," the Mayor said. "They shouldn't have to mortgage their house or sell their house in order to defend their reputation -- that's not right."
Councillor Rob Ford (Etobicoke North) -- a polarizing figure at whom the defamation policy may in part be aimed -- called it an attack on critics of the Mayor.
"This is as close to communism as you can get," he said.
"You can't say anything any more or else you're going to get sued."
Experts warned the policy could stifle democratic expression, or "institutionalize" conflict in the courts instead of debate on the council floor.
"My view is we've already gone too far in favour of an over-litigious society," said University of Toronto political science professor Nelson Wiseman. "Lawyers are already playing too big a role in the political process."
Plus, he added: "If they've got a good case, why should the public underwrite it?"
But councillors who attended yesterday's executive committee meeting described an urgent need to protect themselves from spurious attacks.
Councillor Sandra Bussin (Beaches East York) came armed with a local "tabloid" newspaper she said arrived on her doorstep on Saturday night making false allegations about a development dispute in her ward.
"I've had enough is enough is enough," she said. "I need some help here. I'm finding it very hard to fight on my own."
Councillor Adam Vaughan (Trinity Spadina), a former journalist, said he was smeared this year after Mr. Ford made inaccurate accusations against him on AM radio. The integrity commissioner made Mr. Ford apologize, but prescribed no sanction.
Other options are needed to address real grievances, Mr. Vaughan said. "I can take a punch was well as the next guy. I can throw a punch as well as the next guy -- but I don't hit below the belt."
Mr. Ford said if the measures are meant to "shut me up," they will "backfire."
"If you have a problem with me, go ahead and sue me, but use your own money," he said.
The policy, which still requires city council consent, contains criteria to weed out overtly political suits. Among the requirements are: a legal opinion justifying the merits; and approval by city council, the city solicitor, and, in some cases, the integ commissioner.
Duncan MacLellan, a professor of politics at Ryerson University, said politicians need recourse if they are truly defamed, but such cases are rare.
"I think the bar has to be set relatively high," he said. "I hate to say this, but that's politics. You will always have people who will feel that you are in someone's pocket or not doing what they want you to do. ... It's part of the business."
Councillors also have other tools to fend off attacks, and there are risks to throwing city resources behind an aggrieved councillor, he warned.
"If they don't set limits, you could have a councillor with, for lack of a better word, limitless pots of money, going after a community group that has very limited funding," Prof. MacLellan said. "There's a certain unevenness in that if councillors are allowed to go unfettered." |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| The usual suspects Miller and Vaughan are all for this. Remember, every single communist country and dictatorship in the world was socialist and left wing. Im not surprised at all. |
|
|
| Kellyboop |
This is BEYOND lame!
Wow Canada.....please join the 21st Century and move forward with your politics versus backwards :p |
|
|
| pmoisse |
hahah Rick Mercer better get a good lawyer now, and the irony is that his lawyer will be taxpayer funded via the CBC too!
That new policy is such a joke. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| I approve of Communism. |
|
|
| miketg23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
every single communist country and dictatorship in the world was socialist and left wing. Im not surprised at all. |
The U.S.S.R, history's most influential communist country, was ruled under a near absolute monarchy prior to the revolution. Religion hardly had any influence on their politics, never mind the commoner. About as from from left wing socialist that a country could be. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by miketg23
The U.S.S.R, history's most influential communist country, was ruled under a near absolute monarchy prior to the revolution. Religion hardly had any influence on their politics, never mind the commoner. About as from from left wing socialist that a country could be. |
What precisely does religion have to do with socialism or left-wing politics? I'm dying to hear this. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What precisely does religion have to do with socialism or left-wing politics? I'm dying to hear this. |
Socialism (or the Marxist-Leninist version of it) released the people from the opression and tyranny of the ruling monarchy in Russia who was heavily religious.
The USSR was deeply anti-religion and they've now just returned to a delicate balance between the recent past, and most people's religious beliefs.
I'm not saying it worked well or anything, that's just my take on history as it unfolded in 1917. |
|
|
| smuncky |
ttc streetcars bring communism!
 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Socialism (or the Marxist-Leninist version of it) released the people from the opression and tyranny of the ruling monarchy in Russia who was heavily religious.
The USSR was deeply anti-religion and they've now just returned to a delicate balance between the recent past, and most people's religious beliefs.
I'm not saying it worked well or anything, that's just my take on history as it unfolded in 1917. |
That's all well and good, but Marxism-Leninism is socialist and left-wing, so I don't see how the post I quoted made any sense at all. They originally had a right-wing (religious) dictatorship, and replaced it with a left-wing dictatorship which was arguably worse.
It's the hard Left that's almost universally anti-religion. So for someone to say that a country was neither left wing nor socialist because the ruling class wasn't religious is... insane.
Hell, the second "S" in "USSR" stands for "Socialist!" |
|
|
| miketg23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What precisely does religion have to do with socialism or left-wing politics? I'm dying to hear this. |
My point was, that unlike england at the time, the Russian aristocracy was not at all influenced by any churches or religions, making it a near absolute dictatorship. Far from the left wing socialist regime that jay claimed all countries were prior to becoming communist. |
|
|
| Anas Attia |
| All this to me looks like a step by step approach to the North American Union? :S |
|
|
|
|
