Machjo

Though I don't agree with the annexation of Crimea, I can still understand the complexities of the situation. Prior to the annexation, protests in Kiev had gotten so far out of control that protesters were starting to occupy ministry headquarters while western politicians condemned the government for its use of force. Now let's put this in perspective for a moment. Imagine downtown Washington DC in flames and protesters burning police cars and the Department of the Interior. Any objective viewer would conclude that the protesters, having taken control of a federal building of that importance, had reached the point of posing a genuine revolutionary threat to the survival of the state. Now imagine based on this reasonable assessment that congress declares a state of emergency and martial law and gives the military the authority to use lethal force to regain control of central government administrative offices. Now imagine that the EU condemns this and that some members of the the European Parliament (think John Baird in Kiev's streets) come to visit Washington DC to show their support for these revolutionaries posing a genuine threat to the stability of the state and condemn the state's use of force against them as if they were just peaceful protesters. Add to that that Russia, the most powerful country in the world, has military bases stationed in Mexico and Cuba and has long expressed a certain aggressiveness towards Canada, and the revolutionaries want to join the EU which is essentially Russian-led for all intents and purposes. Now imagine that Canada is militarily far more powerful than the US but not Russia and the EU, that New York State had long been a part of Canada before it later became a part of the United States, and most New Yorkers have long identified themselves as culturally Canadian. Now imagine that there are a few other pockets of ethnic Canadians living across parts of the northern US, that ethnic Americans have long treated ethnic Canadians in the US as second-class citizens, and as the political situation worsens, these ethnic Canadians start to worry for their safety and so start to organize to separate from the US to join Canada. Canada, expressing concern for the rapidly deteriorating situation along its border and Russian and other European leaders cheering it on, decides to annex New York State after the state calls a quick referendum. Now it may be that Canada would have long dreamed of retaking New York State and just saw this as their pretext to do so. Canada would most certainly be wrong to do this. But at the same, we'd need to understand the Canadian situation. Firstly, the US would essentially have been facing a rising revolution (and no, not just a minor protest but a violent revolution) in the streets of Washington DC that would have been falling out of control and that would already have spread like wildfire across the entire northern US along the US-Canada border with ethnic Canadians already organizing themselves militarily. European leaders would have come to Washington DC's streets to cheer the revolutionaries (and I'm sorry, but once they start burning police cars and federal buildings, they're not just protesters anymore), and the US president would already have sought refuge in Canada. In that context, while we could disagree with Canada's actions, we could also understand them. Canada would be wrong and would deserve universal condemnation. But at the same time, how could we ignore the will of New Yorkers? It still wouldn't be an excuse to illegally annex New York of course. And if the referendum was rushed, it could warrant at least another internationally-monitored referendum, and even then Canada would still have been wrong in annexing New York State even with the will of the New Yorkers themselves without the consent of the government in Washington DC. So I'm not saying that it would have been right to annex New York State or that Canada would not have deserved universal condemnation in such a scenario. What I am saying though is that Russian and other European politicians and anti-Canadian revolutionaries in the streets of Washington DC would have provoked Canada into doing this. If I punch you just as you are about to punch me, that might constitute legitimate self defense. If I punch you after you've already punched me and started to walk away, that's assault since you no longer posed a threat to me at the time that I punched you, but you still would have to accept responsibility for having provoked me. In the same way, while we can certainly condemn Russia's actions, we cannot deny that we provoked Russia into that action, and so we too need to accept equal responsibility for the Russian annexation of Crimea. So while we accept Russia's culpability, we need to acknowledge ours too. With that, let's not cast the first stone, accept that we messed up by provoking Russia into this action, and re-establish friendly relations with Russia.

And by the way, at least as far as I know, the Globe and Mail strives to present objective journalism and so is not bound to partisanship.

I agree. I favoured unilateral free trade long before Trump even ran for president because Canadian tariffs hurt Canadian consumers and Canadian subsidies hurt Canadian taxpayers. The blessing in all of this was that even though the US was quite protectionist too, it was still quite pro-free-trade at least compared to other countries in the world which benefited US consumers which by extension benefited Canadian manufacturers. In short, a stable US economy benefits the Canadian economy through a spillover effect. Trump's policy hurts US consumers which by extension hurts Canadian manufacturers. This destabilization of the US economy hurts the Canadian economy too which simply makes unilateral free trade a more pressing need for Canada.

Just as it is the US consumers who suffer most from Trump's trade tariffs. Even US economists are critical of trump's protectionism just as Canadian economists are critical of Canadian protectionism. Could it be because they are professional economists who are well-versed in the science of economics?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/study-recommends-canada-remove-all-trade-tariffs/article18598773/ I'll side with professional economists on this one.

And lobbyists for protected industries would just sit there and watch? A referendum would strengthen the government's hand against the lobbyists. If the government won a referendum with the majority of the population voting for unilateral free trade, it would then make it much harder for an MP to be influenced by a lobbyist.

Oh I agree. It even goes back to our indigenous treaties when we stabbed our indigenous peoples in the back real fast. But the fact that we've always done it doesn't mean we don't need to change this culture of two-facedness between our national and international obligations.

From what I'd read about it, he did in fact try to go through his MPP but the Ontario government of the time was determined to defend it. That's a choice Ontarians can make of course; but for the purpose of the international trustworthiness of Canada's word, I do think Canada should withdraw its signature from the ICCPR so as to harmonize Canada's domestic laws to its international obligations. Unfortunately, Canada's word has become exchangeable for cheap photo ops and so an International-Harmonization Act could help to reverse this trend and so strengthen the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada 'Mr. Waldman wished to provide his children with a Jewish education, and he faced therefore a financial hardship, which was not experienced by a Roman Catholic parent. He contended that the Education Act violated Articles 2, 18, 26, 27 of the Covenant.[3]' Article 2. is perhaps the most pertinent of these: Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

I'm not saying I'm for or against separate schools. I'm just saying that defending and remaining a signatory to the ICCPR undermines Canada's trustworthiness on the world stage. I agree that most governments do not want to open the Constitution. So with that, if the Governor General gives Parliament the choice between revising the constitution or withdrawing its signature from the ICCPR, most likely Parliament would withdraw its signature from the ICCPR within a few days. Problem solved and then Canada would find that its word holds more weight on the world stage since other states could trust Canada more to do what it says it will do. It's word would no longer just be ink on paper anymore.

True. We could propose revising these declarations so as to state explicitly that they are inspirational. failing that, we either fulfill the obligations or withdraw.

Yes we can change the constitution with a majority in Parliament and more than half of provinces together representing more than half of the population. That's in the Constitution. The Constitution itself says that we can change it, so we most certainly can change it. Such a referendum would force Canada into a corner. Imagine the following scenario: In accordance with the International Harmonization Act (IHA), the Governor General reads a proclamation in Parliament requiring Parliament within five years of that day to either revise the constitution to conform the separate-school system to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, renegotiate the ICCPR to have it allow discrimination on the basis of religion, withdraw its signature from the ICCPR, or do something else to remove the conflict between the Canadian constitution and that Convention. Should Parliament fail to conform its national and international obligations in some way within that five years, the Governor General would then obligated to call a national referendum to coincide with the following federal election on whether to conform Canada's laws and Constitution to that Convention or withdraw Canada's membership from it. Whichever way the population votes, Parliament would feel the pressure. I could imagine Parliament trying to conform the constitution within four years and, failing that, withdraw its membership before the Governor General forces the referendum so as to avoid embarrassment. For example, should the people of Canada vote to revise the Constitution, but the provinces refuse because most in their province voted to leave the ICCPR, leaving Parliament at a standstill, then Parliament could choose to just withdraw from the ICCPR anyway. should it still refuse either option, then after five years the Governor General would have a legal obligation to force yet another referendum on the matter until Parliament smartens up and somehow conform its laws to its international obligations whether by formally withdrawing from its obligations or revising our laws to conform to them. That's up to Parliament, but the Governor General would now have the authority and the obligation to pressure Parliament into making a decision on the matter. The same would apply to our NATO obligations, the UNDRIP, etc. etc. etc.

Canada has little control over other states, so I'm focusing more on strengthening the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage. One thing with the UDHR is that its wording is quite open to interpretation so it should be reasonably easy to fulfil its obligations according to a narrow understanding of that declaration. Though even according to the narrowest understanding, Canada's separate-school system definitely conflicts with it. The International Convention on civil and Political Rights is more precisely worded so as to allow less wiggle room and that one was never intended to be inspirational but applicable to all signatory member states. Canada has been formally criticized as a signatory due to our separate-school system which theoretically should be an easy fix. If we insisted on some kind of international standard, perhaps Canada could call on all UN members to adopt their own versions according to their own systems of government of the International-Harmonization Act. While this could lead to the utter collapse of many organizations, at least the ones that remain and any new ones that spring up afterwards would stand on a more solid footing. Furthermore, the fact that some of the few surviving agreements and organizations would have passed through a referendum in some member states would further strengthen the foundations of these remaining or new organizations and treaties.

Hmmm... I'm actuall a world federalist and decentralist too. Heck, I even speak Esperanto and believe that an international auxiliary language could save money on non-literary translation and interpretation. That said, i don't see the value in the government joining this and that organization and signing this and that treaty or agreement for the photo op and then forgetting about it afterwards. In fact, that undermines internationalism since no one can then trust that any agreement is worth the paper it's signed on.

By the way, and perhaps ironically, while Singapore's laws do conform to the International convention on civil and Political Rights (since it does allow the death penalty for more serious crimes), Canada's constitution does not since the Convention prohibits state discrimination on the basis of religion. Ironic, isn't it. with that in mind, why would you want for Canada to be a signatory to that Convention? One would think you'd be happy with a law that could force Canada to withdraw its signature from it.

So such an act would probably suit you well then since it would probably end up forcing the government of Canada to withdraw its membership from various organizations and its signature from various agreements. One would think you'd support this then.

Thanks for the 'like,' Paxrom. to be honest though, I think the US could benefit from an International-Harmonization Act (IHA) of some kind too seeing how the US too has sometimes just signed on to every and any agreement with no intention of fulfilling its obligations. The US has no monarch or governor general and the president is partisan in your system, but I'm sure the US could think of introducing some kind of check to ensure that the US doesn't just water down the trustworthiness of its word on the world stage by just signing on to anything for a photo op either.

I agree. My point is that we should not be signing onto anything we don't intend to comply with. That just waters down the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage. Let's suppose for a moment that under the International-Harmonization Act (IHA), the governor general forces Canada through a referendum to withdraw from a wide range of agreements and organizations the obligations of which we weren't honouring. Where would be the harm in that? Since we would not have been fulfilling those obligations anyway, what would it really change other than to strengthen the value of Canada's word on the world stage?

Then you might be interested in this:

That would depend. If Canada signs an agreement of any kind with Singapore and then does not meet its obligations according to the agreement, then yes, the governor general could give Parliament five years to harmonize its laws to that agreement or, should Canada fail to do so, force a referendum coinciding with the following federal election on whether Canada should conform its laws (and constitution if necessary) to the agreement or withdraw its membership from it. I assume you believe in a government keeping its word I hope. Hmmm.... Would you mind elaborating.

At present, Canada's word means little on the world stage. We are NATO members who do not fulfill our NATO obligations. We are still signatories to the International Convention on civil and Political Rights even though the UNHCR has repeatedly criticized Canada for the religiously-discriminatory separate-school provisions of the constitution conflicting with that Convention. We have signed onto the Paris Agreement even though we are not meeting our targets. We are member-states of the UN and UNESCO yet do not conform to all of their resolutions.We could harmonize our laws to our international obligations in a few ways: 1. We could withdraw our membership or signature from an international organization or agreement. 2. We could renegotiate the agreement or our membership in an organization to have it conform to our laws. 3. We can revise our own laws and constitution to conform to our international obligations. We may have other options too besides just signing away the trustworthiness of our word on the world stage.One solution would be an International-Harmonization Act that would give the monarch the authority and the obligation to enforce harmony between Canada's national and international obligations. For example, once the governor general is informed of a conflict between our national and international obligations, she could give Parliament a formal five-year notice to be read in Parliament requiring Parliament to harmonize the two in some way with the warning that should it fail to do so within five years, the governor general herself will force a referendum to choose between the two to coincide with the following federal election.For example, it could be a referendum on whether Canada should meet its NATO obligations or withdraw from NATO, or on whether it should revise the constitution to conform to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights or withdraw Canada's signature from that Convention, or on whether Canada should meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement or withdraw its signature from it, or whether Canada should respect UN and UNESCO resolutions or whether Canada should withdraw its membership from these organizations.While this could mean Canada withdrawing from many agreements, it would also mean that the world could trust that Canada will honour any agreement that it does sign in the future. In other words, the world would trust that Canada word is more than just ink on paper.

That''s wonderful and a good reason to leave the EU. My point was that the wording of the referendum gave no indication of what to replace it with. If it were up to me, I'd choose unilateral free trade. However, the referendum result gives no indication of what the people want other than to leave the EU for... for... well, for something or other anyway.

Should Canada remain a member of of its present free-trade agreements or should it adopt unilateral free trade? 1. Canada should remain a member of of its present free-trade agreements. 2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade. One advantage with this referendum question is that the two options aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. If the majority should vote in favour of remaining in NAFTA, future NAFTA negotiators could still try to negotiate an open NAFTA agreement. By that, I mean an agreement that would not impose country-of-origin rules on Canada or in any way force Canada to raise tariffs against other countries in exchange for lower tariffs from the US and Mexico. However, if the majority vote for NAFTA, the government would understand that it could have unilateral free trade only to the degree that the NAFTA allows it. If the majority vote in favour of unilateral free trade, this still would not prevent Canada from negotiating common standards in packaging and labelling, sanitary and phytosanitary, and technical standards to remove unintentional trade barriers. This could even allow Canada to remain in NAFTA on the condition that NAFTA be revised to form an open NAFTA that would allow Canada to pursue unilateral free trade. In practical terms, since the US probably would insist on country-of-origin rules or other rules that would prevent Canada from pursuing unilateral free trade within NAFTA, most probably Canada would be forced to choose between the two according to the referendum result. I'm just saying though that under ideal conditions, the two options would not necessarily exclude one another.

You lost me on Trump. He's perhaps the most protectionist president since the great depression. That said, I certainly would support a well-written referendum coinciding with the next federal election on unilateral free trade. My only stipulation would be that it not be a for-or-against referendum but a referendum for one of two more clearly defined objectives so as to provide the government with some clarity after the referendum.

The fact that you have to say 'as far as I am concerned' proves my point. It's not clear from the referendum's wording at all, so we have to rely on how each person understands it.