cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/61737959
The utter audacity of this.
The exemptions would be retroactive, meaning all existing, outstanding requests for information from these offices would be scrapped, including Mr. Ford’s phone logs.
Yup, that’s exactly what a corrupt politician would do
The exemptions would be retroactive
Makes me think that they must have got wind of a FOI request that requests some info that they really don’t want to get out
The proposed changes follow the government’s loss of a court battle, initially launched by Global News, over the call logs for Premier Doug Ford’s personal cellphone, which he uses for government business.
Yeah. Must be something real juicy in those call logs
A lot of calls to a certain resort in Florida?
Anyone that thinks their phone calls are private really needs to look into the reality of the situation
I’m putting my money on kickbacks relating to Ontario Place.
or the RCMP Greenbelt investigation…LOL… as if.
That’s like… that’s like an open admission that they plan to do corrupt things.
I mean imagine if your contractor said, “Well, I’d like to do this job for you but I want you to agree that you don’t need a quote and you won’t hire an inspector to check my work.” Or if your dealer at a casino said “Let me just deal the hands out behind this screen here where you can’t see what I’m doing, trust me bro.”
Transparency is the only thing that keeps politicians or business people honest.
When they openly say they don’t want transparency, they are telling us that they plan to be dishonest. It’s that simple.
What’s he hiding?
His Basket Weaving PhD.
@Sharkticon @BuoyantCitrus isn’t *
you’ll never know.
Through the process, the government has admitted Ford uses his personal phone for government business, but argued it would be an invasion of his privacy to release it.
Then don’t do public business on a private device.
If our taxes are paying you we have a right to know.
they guy yelling at people to get a job?
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Another nice article on the matter.
“Ontario still sliding towards authoritarianism”, this and other obvious news at 5.
Removed by mod
Not a law yet, technically.
There is obviously something bad that has already been identified by an FOI request that they don’t want to be made public. There’s no other conceivable reason to do this at all, and there is no possible way this can be of any benefit to taxpayers or residents of Ontario at all.
So much corruption.
Can’t spell corruption without an o, p, and c.
we have to see who in the press asked for an FOI and what about.
But FFS Ontario, what do you see in this guy? Is is sex appeal?
Oh you bet it’s sex appeal
Nah Canada isn’t going to have different rules for different classes sorry.
Fucking laughable, we already do
Do you have specific examples? Or is this a commentary on just how much you can afford to spend on a legal team?
Anyone with “generational trauma”?
So maybe I’m very misinformed, but I’m unsure how this is an example of different rules. Care to elaborate? I can generously grant that social pressure/policy/issues don’t provide supports but the legal framework doesn’t to my knowledge favour any one class (aside from how much you want to spend on a legal team), and further, such effects are often taken into consideration by judges (if and when it gets that far).
Who’s gunna stop them, another sub-50% voter turnout because the Canadian electorate ranges from insane conservative morons to completely uninformed “moderates” with only a small amount of progressives who often get easily scared into letting the center and right get away with shit like this?
