g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
To what extent is our specific Constitutional Monarchy, where sovereignty is nominally located in the institution of the Crown, compatible with the rhetoric espoused lately of the "nation to nation" relationship between Canada and our indigenous peoples?
It isn't. The concept of a "nation to nation" relationship has been lately mischaracterised as one between two sovereign states, or dozens of sovereign aboriginal states and a non-aboriginal one. The idea's untenable, though; aboriginal bands are clearly subject to the Canadian Crown (they are, in fact, creatures of federal law), not equal with it.
Of course, "nation to nation" is itself imprecise. It does describe the idea that an aboriginal chief can confer directly with the Canadian monarch, since the treaties are agreements between those two parties. However, it conveniently leaves out the imbalance in the relationship; the aboriginal chiefs are, in the end, subject to the monarch's laws (made at the direction of either ministers or parliament); the aboriginal nations (culturally distinct groups with some self-government) exist within the Canadian nation (a sovereign, multicultural state with total self-government).
[ed.: +]
-
They are not subjects of the Crown as we are.
Bound by the Queen's laws, you bet they're subjects of the Crown.
The Constitution "recognized and affirmed existing" rights.
So? Those existing rights being referred to are those "given" by the treaties, not some nebulous concept of pre-colonial, pan-continental, divinely originating aboriginal rights.
-
You are quite correct in one regard, the olympics is about atheletes, some of whom are gay. Putin made the olympics about oppression with laws that would be illegal in most of the rest of the world. One other thing, I'd give it some serious thought before I started quoting Rob Ford these days.
You make it sound deliberate; he didn't make the games anything of the sort. The laws you're referring to were passed by the Russian parliament and then activists and the like-minded less active and the media made the games about oppression, of people identified (by self and by others) as gay, specifically. That seems lazy to me, though; "gay rights" is a simplified and trendy cause; so, it's easy to champion. However, the laws (which do affect more people than just those who call themselves gay) are just a part of the larger problems of autocracy and, consequently, diminishing freedom of expression for everyone in Russia. But, there's no flag for that and Olympics have passed in countries with characteristics similar to Russia's (*cough*, China), yet little to no protest was mounted then. Perhaps people are deliberately missing the forest for a tree.
Anyway, I don't believe anything like that is behind Ford's tantrum.
I love how he taped up a Canadian flag facing directly at.... the Canadian flag flying on Nathan Phillips Square. What a protest! What a boob.
-
A confidence vote is on parliament's confidence in the government, not to decide who is the prime minister.
Well, that's pretty well one and the same thing; all the other ministers in Cabinet are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, not parliament.
-
This bill is trying to determine how political parties run themselves, and that is nonsense.
But not all the other laws that tell organisations--unions, corporations, charities--how to run themselves aren't?
The cabinet soildarity principle is fairly well established but we must realize ultimately it is the crown that appoints cabinet, and that mechanism is by who is selected as prime minister through conventions that have long existed.
Isn't it obvious the conventions around parliamentary confidence have been pushed over 40 or 50 years into obscurity? Responsible government is pretty well the convention that makes our system of governance democratic and it has been eroded, the consequence of changes and rules implemented elsewhere, mostly within political parties. The governor general may still only appoint as prime minister the individual the majority of the House of Commons has granted its confidence, but, in a majority parliament, that individual is then essentially accountable in no way to the legislature for the advice he gives to the monarch or her representative, because he faces next to no threat from his MPs. It's no dictatorship--contrary to what the hyperbolic like to say--but responsible government is diminished and so is representative democracy.
[ed.: +]
-
This is just hilarious, there is something called a confidence vote.
The bill doesn't propose to limit anything except the party leaders' control over their MPs; in essence, its intent is to return us to the way our parliament used to function.
Confidence votes decide the prime minister (to put it very simply), not a party leader. In a majority parliament, MPs in the governing party are not going to vote non-confidence in the sitting prime minister, since, while they may be able to put their collective confidence behind another individual (whom the governor general would then appoint as PM), they will still have the same, now-ex-prime-minister as party leader, there until the next leadership convention, which happens whenever the leader says so. That means, in a subsequent election, the governing party's MPs who decide to run will rely on the approval of the very person they voted out of the prime minister's office. It would also likely be unworkable to have the prime minister and the leader of the governing party be two different (and probably, by that point, adversarial) people.
Chong's bill keeps the positions of prime minister and party leader fused.
-
I'm not sure I would characterize Stephen Harper as a strong leader... n a democracy leadership implies being able to communicate where you want to go and convince others to support you and join you in making it happen... He communicated that he wanted more open, responsible government for example, quite clearly. But we never got it. He communicated that he would be fiscally responsible, but cutting taxes to score political points was evidently more important. Just like a strong military isn't as important as reaching his artificial timeline for balancing the budget in time for next election.
He was evidently communicative enough and convincing enough to lead his party to a majority in the Commons. As for the rest of what you say above, you're describing pretty well every political leader there ever was. Lies can be communicated convincingly (as politicians and voters alike know).
-
Standard Dear Leader/Submission to Authority complex of the political Right duly noted...
What? As though leftist organisations all the way to the far, far left haven't had and don't now have leaders....
-
I can't help but be put off by the fact that she calls herself a Prime Minister. Canada does not have 2 Prime Minister. She is a premier.
Really, 'premier' and 'prime minister' are synonyms; they both mean the chief minister of the Crown; 'first' or 'prime' in French is, of course, 'première'. If I recall correctly what I read in old history books and newspapers--from the early 20th century and older--provincial premiers used to be regularly referred to as 'prime minister'.
-
All three of those you mention are revenue dependent undertakings, all are expected to sustain themselves in whole or part through fees charged.
I highly doubt any of them could survive on fees charged. If they could, why are moneys allocated to them in the budget, either directly or indirectly?
-
Many European nations have privatized their postal services.
I wonder, though: why does a mail service have to make a profit? Why can't it simply be a government service, like the passport office, Parks Canada, public works, etc.? It is allocated an amount of money in the budget and operates on that until the next budget is passed.
-
[T]he Harper heirs... [T]he one to inherit the crown.
Odd terminology in the context.
-
Rex get's my vote if he runs.
Only if you live in the riding he's competing to become MP for.
-
IMO they crossed the line of decency and published articles based strictly on anonymous sources and drug dealers at that.
Such as?
-
Due process has nothing to do with Senate rules.
Do you mean it isn't written into the Senate rules? Or that it can't work with Senate rules?
-
I guess Segal has had enough of this government .
Yeah, 'cause that's why so many senators have quit over the years. They never have the endurance to outlast a government they personally don't agree with.
-
Indiscriminately calling someone a pedophile...
Ah, but he didn't actually call Dale a paedophile. And we all know how Ford loves semantics.
-
Zoomer does have editors, so why did they let obvious (and potentially if not egregiously slanderous/libelous) falsehoods and outright lies to go on air?
Controversy attracts eyes, I guess.
-
Seems to me nobody has to ask Ford hard questions: Just put a mike on him and he smears himself.
I think the point of an interview is to get answers and the side of the story from the person smeared. Even if an interview of Ford hasn't been tame, the more pointed questions are simply batted aside by this buffoon with automated responses like "I've admitted I did crack", "I'm only human", "you enjoy a few drinks on the weekend, don't you?", "it's a politically motivated attack on me", "I saved taxpayers a billion dollars", "I have the biggest mandate in Toronto history", etc. Often these are given in retort to a question on a subject not even remotely related.
[ed.: sp.]
-
godfacturing falls apart when you stop to consider; who made God?
Our state of being and the entire cosmos operates on the concept of ebb and flow. Things built up to a point, then receding back to component parts. Over and over.
Where did the component parts come from?
-
C Black just dropped down a couple of pegs in respectibility with the airing of that interview. He, of all people, knows what slander/libel is and he allowed it to be perpetrated by His Honer the Fat Man.
The editors and producers have final say in what gets aired. And--though I didn't watch but have read about--the interview seemed barely any softer on Ford than Peter Mansbridge's was (and that--which I did watch--was disappointingly soft).
-
This is quite an insulting generalization.
Grandpa PIK has spoken. And shaken his fist. Gosh darn whipper-snappers!
-
If only there were some other way to put a value on the disparity between wages in foreign countries and ours.
Well, I'm not sure what that means, but there is a disparity and that's why certain companies move their facilities elsewhere and I'm still not sure what Harper's supposed to do about that.
-
An exporting nation where Harper allowed our exporting industries to fold.
Allowed? How would he have stopped it? Augment the salaries of manufacturing employees in Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and the like so their wages would be the same as their Canadian counterparts', thereby eliminating the cost benefit to companies of moving manufacturing to Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and the like?
[ed.: c/e]
Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi
in Political Philosophy
Posted
What?