Ya, I agree it was kinda weak, but it didn't seem impossible. I was kind of hoping if it was upheld that it might ultimately lead to easier times putting new bike lanes in as well.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

The judges are hiding behind a bunch of legalese, out of cowardice. Everyone agrees that is an idiot Ford waging a dumb culture war, and putting lives at risk. At least the first judge called it the way it is, and had some guts.

If judges don't stand up to stupid people, a major and fundamental aspect of democracy is gone.

[–] egerlach@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree with you on outcome, but not on method, and there's a principle behind it.

Judges need to remain fair and judge the law fairly. Unfortunately in this case, that comes with a stupid outcome driven by stupid people. But it was the right outcome based on our system of laws. I think this battle is lost, but that doesn't mean give up on the war. The goal should have always been: change the laws so cities can make their own decisions about bike lanes (or something like that, I'm not claiming to have the ultimate goal here).

We should take down Ford based on the battles that are beyond equivocation:

Billions in unspent federal funding for healthcare
The closed Science Centre: An Ontarian icon
The grift for real estate developers
Centralization of municipal powers
etc.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

We wrote a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those words are real, the judge just dismissed it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a useless piece of paper because these judges did not stand up for it.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The lower judges get some leeway on making rulings like that and the ability to call people out, because it will go to the appeal court, and possibly the supreme court, but ultimately it has to come down to the actual law as egerlach's reply says. You can't just outlaw someone doing something stupid because it's bad idea and a waste of money without the law saying you can.

Its our job to stand up to people doing stupid but legal shit and not re-elect them, or recall them when possible.

This might still be appealed as well, I didn't see them say they wouldn't.