myata

True to the last point. A government is only as good (open, transparent, democratic, etc) as the people it governs (and represents).

Too tired or bothered to see the full picture? Or not telling it, yet again? As said, Harper is using this outdated, created in times of political Noahs system to hold the country hostage. There's absolutely no way to rid ourselves of his kingly boots and atticks without going through a costly and entirely unnecessary at this time election. It maybe hard to realize (or say it honestly) that the need to call an election every time a government has screwed up, is also the one major obstacle to expression of democratic will (of the population, as represented by the elected House). It does provide the ultimate outlet to remove a government that's become completely intolerable (and in that sense we're still some way ahead of obvious dictatorships), but it also prevents democratic will of the elected House from being expressed efficiently and without government's interference and obstruction (and in this sense, our system is far behind what has become the norm in most democratic countries around the globe, namely, that a government that does not hold the confidence of the elected House should not have mandate to govern). In a normal, transparent democracy it does not have to be that way, the process would be simple and efficient: - the government loses confidence of the House; - non confidence motion is passed and the government is out; - another candidate is invited to form government; - only if nobody else (in the House) wants to form government, single faction or coalition, an election is called. Obviously, inefficient opposition as we have now is a problem for a democracy. It's not the same problem that is being discussed here (try to understand that), namely a government that has lost the confidence of the elected House, and is trying to hang on to the power using direct and indirect advantages given it by an outdated, unfair in true democratic sense, system.

As said, we're watching a progression down a slippery slope, away from transparent and functional democracy. Chretien had his "dictatorial" boots while in majority; now Harper displaying the same kind of attitudes, and more, with only a minority. Next step? The Parliament reduced to the role of meaningless show? No checks or independent oversight over government's work, whatsoever? Political influence (e.g via appointment process) over judges? Everybody's guess.

Weak opposition? Try again. First, the government obstructed the work of the independent military complaints commission in every way possible; then it tried its best discrediting civil serviceman who delivered first hand information on the issue; then again, it delayed and obstructed the work of the committee in a number of creative ways; and finally, when all else failed, it simply shut down the elected House of Representatives. Are you still insisting that "Opposition" did all of the above or is somehow responsible for it? Yeah right, keep talking, it's very credible. But why am I not surprised that folks like this fine example of rented brain Conservative would gladly consume any load of steaming and stinking bs coming from their glorious Sun King.

Was it meant to say "quite long"? Squirming around prisoners has been going on for quite awhile now, first in the military complaints commission, then, as it was completely obstructed by this government, via Parliamentary committee. Now the Parliament is out for three months and when it returns the work would have to be started pretty much from scratch (including formation of the committee itself). That sounds like a direct obstruction of work of the Parliament and a challenge to it. Those undemocratic governments of the third world we like so much to teach and lecture, are they really that much different? They simply hang on to the power by all means available. We aren't there yet, but maybe, started on the way? If obstruction of parliamentary democracy goes unnoticed and ignored by the population, somebody may just be tempted to try it in the everyday life. Given the right circumstances. As it was once an "unwriten convention" that just and benevolent king would use his duly powers only for the advantage of loving subjects who won't ever need worries and complexities of parliamentary democracy, independent oversight, access to information and such? By now we forgot what other side comes with unchecked, not responsible to anybody but itself power and willing to try it once more, who knows maybe it'll turn out different this time around?

It may have uses, but has no checks against arbitrary abuse by government, even minority faction. Government can openly defy the order of the House to submit information, and bring to heel, or fire its own appointed "independent" watchdogs. These are all products of the constitution. Adaptability is the essense of life. No piece of paper bears the final truth as no past gives guarantees for the future. If we fail to adapt and make the system more transparent, more balanced and ultimately, more democratic at this time, it could only mean one thing, that the best days of our democracy are over, and we are on the way down the slope.

Granted, you missed the point entirely, but do keep laughing. E.g. about (as is the laughing stock for democratic nations of the planet) unelected appointee of government shutting down the parliament at its (government's) nod. As government could ignore and undermine independent watchdogs it itself appointed. As government can simply say NO to the elected House request for information. After all, laughing is good for you, and a good reason to have a hearty laugh can be found virtually anywhere and in anything.

The two (parties, and leaders) hold the country for a child of under three years of age. See dear, it's mashed potatoes here; or oats there. No, you can't have anything else. No, you can't get out of that chair. Both have lots wested in holding us firmly and steadily within the blindfold. Harper won't have to respond to the elected majority. And Iggy would not as much as see the majority that is ultimately the only elected, legitimate representation of the people of this country. What a sad state of democracy! How pathetic and even desperate is that there isn't one darn thing that could be done about it..

Harper doesn't want to be held accountable (or even responsible). And Iggy sees no problem with that (his main problem is with who's at the helm). Only one of them can govern this country in the foreseable future. The sad dilemma of our federal politics.

And that differce being in the .. face. Yes. Nobody here (in the Iggy's circle) is calling for, leading or promising any meaningful change. No, they want the same old dusty system, exactly as it is, only all to themselves. When they'll get their hands on it, it'll be different, and "better". I mean, what is the real and objective proof of that difference? What makes you think it really exists?

I know and wouldn't argue otherwise, nor predict any sort of lasting impact for D9. The thing is, as August pointed out, that indivudual criteria of assesment are closely knit to that individual's development timeline, and can be grossly different from the common, standard ones. By the time I saw Blade Runner it was couple of decades out and more importantly, in my individual "framework of reference" I was already familiar with several dystopias (in both cinema and literature forms), to which Blade Runner failed to add anything more substantial than a strange and original appearance, flavour of the visuals. In particular, it fails to bring a strong emotional response in me, other than, "how bizzare and weird". The paragon of evil is again, abstract and remote. The whole thing feels like you're (me actually) looking at a strange and bizzare pattern in a microscope. I attribute it to a different viewpoint on the "aliens", in Blade Runner they appear like humans and behave alien, while in D9, it's the other way around. Of course there's a subtle suggestion that the protagonist himself may be an "alien", but again it's too abstract to translate into real emotions (in me). Indeed, its allegories are simple and "touchable" and instantly believable too. That's what I like in particular about the film.

Oleg is true to his visionary self. Ultimately, we're going to get (and already getting) the very kind of government that we deserve. No, I don't see other alternatives to boycotting, consciously and persistently both of the behemoth parties until real democratic reforms are put on the immediate agenda (that will decide where will my vote go at that time).

Like Punch and Polichinelle of old. And no hope. Sigh.

The problem is that the two behemoth parties in Canada have the most to gain from keeping the system the way it is, i.e in pathetically outdated and near dysfunctional condition (in the sense of what a modern, responsible democracy should be like in the 21st century. Now PMO is running the "democratic" show, government can kick out independent watchdogs, refuse to release information and shut down the Parliament at will). Is there any chance or hope of real, meaningful reforms happening in this situation? I'm not very hopeful(in my lifetime at least). This is the second time a clear, real need to reform the system is demonstrated in as many years, and very obviously the leaders of the opposition only want to think of it as a chance to score a few points against the opponent, forget doing something real that would benefit all Canadians. Am I too pessimistic? Did I miss some light (in the end of endless duopoly tunnel)?

No,Iggy wont' call election over this issue: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1161444.html. Respect for democracy, openness and transparency simply don't appear to be serious or important enough for him to "stoop". Scoring a few points and electing Iggy, is another story altogether. May be, himself crowned as PM, he'll find use, though doubtlessly, "do better" use, for the pathetically outdated quasi democracy we have now. No, I think there's nothing to be gained from supporting Iggy in this scenario, it'll be same old, same old, forever. Are there any other options than to simply write off Canadian federal politics till both (Harper and Iggy) are out of picture, in whatever way it'll happen?

Of course it matters. When minority shuts down the elected House using legalistic formality, it's a major cause for concern and the first step toward erosion of democracy. Because this is exactly what undemocratic dictatorial governments do: escape facing the will of majority by trick, ploy, hook and crook. I don't know (and don't really care) what those Tories say, think (or dream) but the facts as recorded are: 1) minority government is facing music in the Parliament; and 2) minority government shuts down the Parliament using undemocratic ploy. A thirdgrader should be able to put these two together. I certainly do not recall Chretien being accused of using prorogation to escape public scrutiny or kill his own legislative agenda (which his party unquestionnably commanded). If you have information to the contrary, I'll gladly examine it. The latest prorogation by Chretien was called to clear the agenda for the new government that came after his retirement, that is as much as I can recall. Again, Liberals held majority at the time and could easily have had the House vote for own prorogation. If Harper put it to vote, or refrained from using it till he had the majority, it would have been entirely different story. As it stands, no matter how you turn it, it always looks like minority faction interfering with the elected House via undemocratic means.

Ditto. The old and dusty notion that it's "Liberals or Harper" should be out (especially with Iggy at the helm). It has to become "Coalition for Democracy" or neither, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm for this one. Two critically important agendas: 1) Defending the democracy: it must be shown, in act and practice that this sort of atticks by the government will not be tolerated by the country. 2) Real and meaningful democratic reforms, now. Access to information. Independent watchdogs, responsible to the Parliament. Procedures reflecting modern times rather than those before steam trains. Will Iggy shake sand out of his pants now, and get to business? There's the question.

One more time, difference is: 1) Liberals at these times held majority allowing them to achieve the same purpose via vote in the House (as I think they should have). Harper's faction is in minority and used this archaic ploy to impose its will on the majority in the Parliament and the people it represents. 2) Prorogation has not been used to escape questioning of the government's policies. 3) Neither, to annihilate a large block of work in progress, including government own's. Now you can go and start an all new thread.

As already said by somebody here, it's hard to invent an entirely new story in this age and that business. Yet, I can point several interesting questions and observations D9 brings to mind right away, e.g: 1) an absolutely believable portrayal of our (human) obsession with running and digging for small scraps and pieces without being able to see the big picture beyond; 2) that wonderous ability to think with another's brain, and rationalize even most despicable acts if it happens to be to our immediate advantage; 3) I liked this quite original portrayal of the first human to alien encounter, outside of two main cliches (powerful and wise; ugly and evil). If I'd ever bet about the future, I'd bet on a weird incident of the kind described in D9, Stanislas Lem's Solaris, rather than either of the "mainstream" paradigms. 4) I find the evolution of Wikus's character quite believable, if not 100% perfect. He's guided from personal exposure and vested interest, to joint act to understanding and finally to alliance and fraternity with another intelligent being even so different from his own kind. 5) I find the combination of these quite serious messages with fast and dynamic action in the second part very interesting and refreshing. Way different from both "brain dead" action of regular blockbusters, and slow crawling "thinking" movies (which I dont' mind to see, on occasion). There's probably more, if I stop to think for another few minutes. I find this kind of comparisons very individual. For example I could never grasp the obsession with Blade Runner (having seen it four or five times). Each work of art (as this one doubtlessly is) should be judged on its own merit.

People setting the interests of country and democracy above their partisan ones are the only foundation, and assurance of it (democracy) survival. Nothing heroic, only the right (pun not intended ) thing to do. What still remains though is for disaproval to translate into act. No one shoule be allowed to trump democratic principles so blatantly and arrogantly without consequence, that would be a real danger to our democracy (I already said that I'd like to see that extended as universal principle so that even majority governments a la Chretien could get away from public scrutiny).

Not everything that exists in the Canadian constitution can be considered as democratic in true sense of the word. E.g. British sovereign is named the head of Canada's state and I can't see much democratic about that. As said (I'll start copy and paste the reference from now on), undemocratic is the use of this instrument by a minority faction to prevent the elected House from speaking its will. What "parliament acts", are you dreaming? Progation is a deal between the PM (leader of minority faction in the Parliament) and GG (unelected official appointed by PM). Sounds really "democratic", does it?

You only have to examine the meaning of the word, demo-cracy. I'll leave the exercise to you. Now that we have finally found somebody who can speak for "Canadian voters", we wont' really need that democracy anymore, would we?

Chretien had the majority, that Harper has not (he may not know it though). His minority faction is wrestling its will on the majority via outdated and undemocratic instruments. That is a serious problem with our political system, if we want it to be democratic in fact, not only the name.

And a direct path from government for democracy to democracy for the government.