this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
79 points (100.0% liked)

Ontario

2219 readers
60 users here now

A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Rules

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cycle Toronto has launched a Charter challenge against the Ford government’s new law that could remove three Toronto bike lanes.

The charity, along with two cyclists, Eva Stanger-Ross and Narada Kiondo, is seeking an injunction from Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to prevent the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue.

The advocates have argued tearing the bike lanes out goes against the Charter’s guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.

If the lanes are removed, “many thousands of Toronto cyclists will be forced to cycle in lanes shared with motor vehicle traffic” resulting in “heightened risk of injury and death,” Cycle Toronto argued in a statement of claim.

Gig delivery workers will be at particular risk because the nature of their work requires them to use the roads whether or not there are bike lanes, the cycling charity noted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Thank you.

I'm glad people are seeing this for what is is. I wonder if these people creep Lemmy because this is almost exactly what I said a few weeks ago

He is legislating people without mode, means, or capability to drive are another class of person who are restricted to their rights of freedom of movement set out in the charter.

He is causing intentional risk and potential harm/suffering to people seeking liberty and livelihood.

He is saying the public streets are not yours.

If I can’t access a street as he says now, then my right to seek out and gain/maintain livelihood and to be able to move freely within Canada are unnecessarily denied.

https://lemmy.ca/post/33484844/12989513

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

This is the exact argument i told a friend of mine who cannot drive. I told him this is a direct assault the conservative government has made on your municipality's ability to serve your mobility needs. He owns a small ebike and with this law his municipality would have to jump through unrealistic hoops just to get a bike lane.

His response was along the lines of "yea I've never been a big fan of ford but I'll still be voting conservative cause the others are worse." Its important to note this guy is also bisexual, relies heavily on disability payments, and free mental healthcare programs. He lives with his mother who also relies on the same programs. But tell me again how voting conservative is in your best interests.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It gives me no pleasure to say this but if you are on ODSP and the only information you have is the government services that has been offered to you under the last several governments, you might come to the conclusion that voting PC is in your material best interests. By doing far less than is needed, the Ford government has still managed to do more than any of the other governments. ODSP is a curse that condemns everyone on it to live in abject poverty that cannot be escaped without help from friends and family.

I think previous (also self-styled "progressive") governments were reluctant to do things like pegging to inflation because that is a tacit approval/acceptance of the situation, which is awful. They just didn't want to be associated with it at all. So the situation kept getting worse.

The Ford government is not afraid to wade into ODSP issues. One feared that it would be a re-emergence of Harris's "welfare queen" culture war bullshit, but to his credit, Ford has chosen not to fan that fire. He's willing to say, yep, situation sucks and we're okay with that forever. What someone on ODSP sees is that their cheque got bigger for the first time in many many years because of the PC government.

I am aware that Ford also cancelled the guaranteed income study for petty reasons and has done far more harm than he has helped, but it's understandable how someone who is watching homelessness get closer every month might not see anything more than a slightly higher income.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That's actually about the only thing I'll give him credit for. Almost a 20% increase. Still unlivable for most. But at least he actually did something.

Other than that, everything hes done is either absolutely corrupt or ridiculously stupid

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's more of a condemnation of every previous government all the way back to Harris than it crediting this one.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The corruption is so blatantly obvious. It is a complete failure of our government and justice system. Pretty sure the RCMP are looking into his corruption, I'm of the opinion he shouldn't be allowed to write any infrastructure or development bills until the investigation has passed.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

The RCMP at least.

CSIS probably has a few volumes on him.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)