myata

Absolutely that speaks for the actual state of democracy in the country more and better than any ratings. Alleged political interference with independent justice office "minor" and insignificant. OK it's a normal, regular state of affairs in third world democracies". Emergency powers invoked for no reason and without any checks? Haha. What can be added to this picture? What would have more meaning?

Todays news: bail revoked. Using formal justice to prosecute political opponents is deplorable. This is no democracy, however adorned and covered.

Well yes if it takes conscious and critical examination of pretty much anything of importance in our lives every day, no pauses and holidays easy to see how it can be such a tall order. Possibly even unattainable by us as a species.

The results are widely different different though. And this indeed illustrates the point: a democracy that is mostly in the name and resemblance will not work for the society. The first bells have been ringing for a while; just give it time.

Here's the thing though: Canada's political system is a careful imitation of a democratic system. Yes right, like in a children's book pictures look pretty and glossy but none works as it should. Only pretty pictures in a color me book. Printed independent justice cannot investigate anyone of importance; printed employee-representatives, keep anyone to account or decide anything and so on. A pretty pantomime that somehow managed to survive unchanged and never challenged in the backwaters of the world for close to two centuries. In marine biology there's that crab that managed the trick for some millions of years, only one species though. Curious. Let's see.

Can, like "never"? Holiday scandal, SNC-Liberal scandal, absolutely unwarranted emergency powers what could happen, any idea cause my imagination is failing me.

Last minute: UK's PM has resigned.

Why "benefits", though? Why not "small gifts" not exceeding clearly defined amount? Why such a vague stretchy definition, by 6 times median wage supposedly legal experts? Is it only just another innocent oversight? Why is this whole system made, no I cannot avoid the conclusion, intentionally and deliberately from day one as one giant branching and interconnected conflict of interest? The state of democracy in the country should be a grave concern for the society. And if it couldn't care less, the trajectory is all set. Queen won't be of help here and I doubt anything could.

Just read this. Isn't it like, the epitome, a succinct and final summary? "Unclear", so done. Investigation can be closed, hands washed salaries, benefits yada rolling. Keep going. This is what we do in a democracy, honestly. What? RCMP documents show that the force believed there were reasonable grounds to charge Mr. Trudeau with fraud for accepting a free holiday from someone doing business with the government. But, in documents released to the Conservatives under access to information law, the Mounties said that “it is unclear whether Mr. Trudeau can be prosecuted under Section 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, since the section has a provision which allows officials to accept benefits from individuals with government dealings, provided the official has the written consent of the head of their branch of government.” Because Mr. Trudeau is the head of the government, the RCMP said it was unclear whether he had the authority to grant himself permission to accept the gift.

This country's system is truly unique - maybe with Australia and India, not sure but no other analogs. It likes to see and position itself as an advanced modern democracy. And yet, nowhere else do you know, except the third world would you find governments that are allowed so much, with so few if any checks and accountability? The founding fathers of American democracy thought about a democracy that would last, about checks and balances, independent and separated power. We remember how UK police investigated PM office for violations of quarantine rules. Has it even happened, even once in this country? We just had a scandal of political interference with an independent justice office, that's Nicaragua stuff and who cared to notice? It appears that in Canada the thought went into how to create a system that could rule for as long as possible with as few checks and accountability as at all imaginable and the least credible. And look, it worked!

So many ifs, twists, hooks and crooks and we still want to call it a democracy. OK sure. A word is only a word it will endure anything. Even Putins of the world can claim democracy. What is obvious already though is that it behaves very little or even nothing like democracies we know. It doesn't represent the country, some alternate impossibly contorted projection of it; its supposed "representatives" cannot vote their will and that of their constituents unless allowed by party handlers. It has no independent checks on governments. And its been a long time since it showed any notion of internal integrity - that requires a tradition and concept of independent mind and standing that isn't there. So what does it have of a democracy still? A ritual? Talking heads show? Anything else?

37 ministers and party officials resigned so far in what began as a minor appointment scandal we wouldn't even know about. We had an episode of an alleged political interference with an independent officer of justice, a major issue if confirmed (what we cannot know, due to prerogatives) and transgression against democracy. No please never point fingers, tell me this is roughly same system so it has to be working, no it's not. Not even close. Over the years weak, mostly formal and preposterous checks have worn out, the tradition of integrity, service to the public as opposed to partisan interests and the trough maybe was words mostly form day one, and by now we have none of the either. Let's see how it's going to work out. It's going to work out somehow, right?

Check this story. So far it caused resignations of at least three cabinet ministers within days, and a number of functionaries and party officials. The issue is ridiculously minor so that we here likely wouldn't even hear about such: an appointment of a minor party official, a deputy whip. Within days, the story of earlier sex misconduct allegations hit the media and the "who knew what" game began. Here we don't need to know about such matters. Government whatever "prerogative" protects all that can be known and no one is talking - they know better that a place at the trough is way more valuable than any notion or tradition of integrity. After a little SNC-Liberal embarrassment a real triffle, only alleged interference with independent justice office of which we still know as little as is minimally credible thanks to a slew of self-appointed rules and prerogatives, employee-representatives learned their lesson well and nothing like that happened on unprecedented invocation of emergency powers for basically, no reason unless just watch would count as such. And this is why this country is nothing like UK, the comparisons based on paper imitation are worthless and ridiculous. They have some ingrained values and traditions and we have nothing, just none. No formal checks and controls; and no internal ones either. So Queen won't help us. Who will, then?

The system has not been updated since it was created and by now is pretty much absorbed in itself. There may be better PMs and worse ones, but that is and will be its substance going forward. We cannot have real change by a pretense, a meaningless ritual of pseudo changing. We are either too dumb or deliberately careless and lazy to not understand this obvious conclusion in such a time. I don't see any other explanations.

Absolutely he is! And we must be thankful to him for showing what the system is and what can be done with it. Here we have a self-loving do-gooder plus a flu-like epidemics et voila! Imagine what someone with a bit more, or seriously more nefarious will and cause, along with a few buddies and persistence could do in his shoes? And what would be there to slow them down? Did we see anything out there, hello? So thank you, Justin much sincerely! A blind wouldn't see, a dumb wouldn't understand but is it any of his doing?

It has the same archaic system of governance no checks no controls red pill or blue one. What next, where?

Democracy is no panacea. A functional democracy is only a working and reasonably effective instrument to manage public matters and issues of public importance and interest. Now, how likely is it to be performed by a bureaucracy in near complete detachment from the reality of the country that knows only how to take care of itself and throw tons of public money at any problem and haven't done anything else for a long while? All public matters will be in decline there will be enough money only to keep governments going as in the third world. Protests will not fix that, not a chance. What's the point of protesting if there are no better options? Problem is not any Justine, problem is the system. And in Canada folks never bothered even to think how to make one, it was given like Moses's stones from above and sailed never questioned or updated ever since.

But there's a positive side here too. Now we have a precedent and thanks to it, we can know finally and factually, if this is country is still a democracy, at least on the level more like it or already not really. So setting up tables for information of public isn't allowed at a peaceful citizen protest Government said as much. OK. It can be wrong, and then that act will be challenged in a court. If not, we are not a full democracy, because a government can say anything and there's no checks on it. If it's challenged in the court and overturned, we know that government has overreached yet again and there were no effective checks on it, stopping the act as opposed to assessing it later after the fact. If that is a consistent, ongoing trend, can we call ourselves a full democracy? And if it's challenged and found valid then it has to apply to all and any protest. Any case of selective application would mean a deviation from democracy. A government free hand to decide which protest is good and which requires strict application of rules. This is how democracy" works in the third world. This state has little to do with real democracy. Our options to remain a functional democracy in this century are shrinking. But OK who promised that a free ride would go forever?

And this is getting into a dangerous territory as far as seen from here of course. Today on CBC a "reporter" going out of her way how the police was effective at enforcement at the most recent truck protest, all about the rules, attempts to set up a table quickly dealt with. Really? And what about environmental, climate change table? Indigenous table, for Heaven's sake? Are we creating a notion of wrong protest already? And only a few short months back it was supposed to be an arm's length from politicians to police, are we flushing it out with Covid too? In the spirit of togetherness, selective enforcement? Good protests and bad, uncanadian protests, as decided by all-knowing government? Will we meed with Putins of the world, somewhere in the sunny perspective? Sure questions, many of them but where are the answers, will we be getting any?

And that check, for whatever it was worth is gone now. And judiciary now likes to talk about high matters like "intent" instead of getting into matters of immediate government overreach, for whatever its independence and impartiality was worth. We had a convention of separation of essential offices from political influence but that's gone now as well (SNC-Lavalin, Freedom convoy). And so, what's left? Anything? We're down to governments with no effective checks, even formal and superficial ones like above. If they are good, we are in luck. And if ugly?

Governments will be (eventually) as bureaucratic and infringe as much as they are allowed to. There's no such thing as a "good government" that manages itself and keeps itself "good". If we didn't get it in two centuries, what's the chance?

None of this Russian bioweapons bullshit makes any sense. And it wasn't intended to make any. No you don't get to blow your neighbor home on an unproven allegations - this is what psychos do. And then, they come up with impossible reasons how the world made them do it. This is exactly what they do. They are violent and destructive. They are dangerous to innocent people around them. They have no principles and compassion. Their value system is entirely corrupted and centered around their needs and wishes with no regard of others. And they cannot admit consequences of their acts and take responsibility for them. And that's why there's no point in talking to psychos and their apologists, other than in strictly and safely controlled secure setting. It would achieve no ends. A psycho will never admit or take responsibility for their acts. This is both a fact and a definition.

What is the other side? Where is it? I'm open minded and curious. Please begin. Only not "russian speaking" bs please no we've been through it. There's European Court of Justice. Russia was a member of the Council of Europe. Russia many times in several treaties recognized international borders of Ukraine. No you don't get to blow your neighbor home on an unproven allegation. This is no other side, only the same old and tired bullshit lying side. That's what psychos do though - blow up first, then look for excuses and other sides, however improbable. This is exactly what they do.

Do you take into account the stance of a criminal psycho who blew up a shopping mall then complained that the world made him do it? Good luck.

Three questions: 1. Is Russia's invasion unlawful and criminal? Yes. All the russian-speaking bullshit Russia can stick down its because that's where it belongs. There are mechanisms of justice in Europe and UN. None of them ever confirmed Russia's claims of ethnic persecution in Ukraine. No justifications, just bullshit. 2. Is there any point in discussions about Russia's bullshit claims while it continues its invasion? No. When crime is in progress the first priority is to stop it. Russia has to stop its unlawful aggression and withdraw from Ukraine, that is the only point that needs discussing. 3. Will Russia have to assume full responsibility for its criminal invasion and its consequences? Yes. The decision to begin the invasion was deliberate and conscious. Russia was warned and appealed to not do it. The invasion was a choice of Russia, Russia only and she has to carry full responsibility for it.