Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'unconstitutional'.
Forgive the non-mainstream source but there are plenty of corroborating articles out there - but this one seemed to sum things up quite nicely. The "fear mongering" that the Harper government is accused of is hardly that - and if the media would take the time to educate Canadians, we'd all be better for it......knowledge does tend to temper the divisiveness that the opposition parties would like to propagate.... Link: http://www.therebel.media/canada_s_proposed_niqab_restrictions_mild_compared
The Unconstitutional Political Practice Should Be Ended Soon By Exegesisme The definition of democracy: is ruled by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.(1) The definition of republic: A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.(1) From the definitions of democracy and republic, I found that politically a republican regime is more advanced than a democratic regime, and a republic is developed for overcoming the trap of democracy. The definition of republic includes the good part meaning of democracy, but the definition of democracy does not the more advanced meaning of republic. If I have right to choose, I choose to live in a republican regime other than a democratic regime, and I choose to live in a more republican regime other than a less republican regime. The reason is that, if I am one of majority, I dislike the omnipotent power, and if I am one of minority, I hope my fundamental rights are in good protection. As I measure the politics in Canada, I believe that it is a republic other than a pure democracy. We have a written constitution, we have the Chapter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I also notice that, in political practice, because of the Canadian political history, even the rights and freedoms of the representative function of a MP are under the limitation of the discipline of her or his own party. "Whether MPs should act as delegates or trustees, both views of representation are constrained by another reality of Canada's parliamentary tradition: party politics and discipline. Most MPs are members of a political party and, as such, are required to follow the wishes of their party when deliberating and acting in the House. In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."(2) This corrupt custom, the discipline of a party has been put over the constitutional rights and freedoms, and also over the representative function, is unconstitutional, and should be ended as fast as we can. We, the Canadian people, should ask strongly that each MP should be really responsible for her or his riding, and we need more republic and good democracy, we do not need a false democracy! reference (1) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic (2) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body