Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'democracy'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Canadian Political Discussions
    • Federal Politics in Canada
    • Provincial Politics in Canada
    • Local Politics in Canada
  • United States Political Discussions
    • Federal Politics in the United States
    • State Politics in the United States
  • International Political Discussions
    • Canada / United States Relations
    • The Rest of the World
  • Moral, Religious and Political Philosophy
    • Moral & Ethical Issues
    • Religion & Politics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Sex and Gender Issues
  • Off-Topic Discussions
    • Arts and Culture
    • Health, Science and Technology
    • Business and Economy
    • Travel, Leisure and Sports
    • Media and Broadcasting
  • News and Help
    • Support and Questions
    • News and Announcements
  • DataVis's Events
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s The Clubhouse
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Suggest A Topic
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Where is the World Headed ?
  • Sudo Intellectuals Club (by Michael Hardner)'s Media Hot and Cold
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's General Talk
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Club Suggestions
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's Canadian Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's US Politics
  • No Rules/Free Speech Club's World Politics
  • Jah Rules / Talk Is Cheap comedy club's No comment.
  • Democratic Dictatorships's Countries
  • Whatever I damn well want to talk about.'s Topics
  • Ice Hockey's NHL Hockey Talk
  • Anything Off Topic's Climate Cultists
  • Anything Off Topic's U.K. Europe and Illegal Migration
  • Anything Off Topic's Israel BDS Movement
  • Anything Off Topic's Trudeau and Senate
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action and Diversity
  • Anything Off Topic's A Tax on Home Equity is wrong
  • Anything Off Topic's Affirmative Action
  • History's General History
  • News of the Day's 2 more Catholic churches burned down in B.C.'s Interior
  • News of the Day's Topics

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 15 results

  1. As Canada continues to bring in so-called anti-hate speech laws that increasingly narrow the range of free speech, this latest bill removes the ability to oppose alternative sexual lifestyles and gender ideology on the basis of religious exemption. It strips away the basic constitutional right to express one’s religious beliefs. This will no doubt require silence before the accelerating sexualization of children and the attack on the traditional family. How much more destruction do we allow our government and courts to do to family life? This is all of course in a context of falling birth rates and more and more government interventions and restrictions on how citizens choose to express themselves. ”Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has passed numerous pieces of legislation prohibiting free speech in Canada, yet nothing has been as restrictive as Bill C-367, an amendment to the Criminal Code that will prohibit Canadians from expressing “an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. If passed, people can be arrested for quoting the Bible on Canadian soil.” Armstrong Economics Please note that if you are reading this in Canada, due to government restrictions, you may not be able to open the following links: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/great-reset/canada-moves-to-ban-christianity-changes-to-bill-c-367/
  2. And while Ankara does not want to lose its position as a significant geopolitical player in the near future, acting as a kind of bridge between the West and the East In recent years, Ankara has intended to pursue a strong independent policy based on the balancing act between West and East, which Turkey's geographic position traditionally favors. However, Washington's decision to kick Turkey out of the American F-35 fighter jet production program in connection with Ankara's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems undermined the spirit of mutual understanding between the two countries. The United States is terribly afraid that someone will have actual evidence that the S-400 can effectively counteract the F-35, which is why they are trying to force Turkey to abandon Russian anti-aircraft systems, which will have a catastrophic effect on the defense of the latter. Turkish separation can take years American political scientists continue to be guided by the logic of the Cold War, while Turkish think in the context of an emerging multipolar world, where Turkey can take a good position. This difference in mindset, plus Washington's continued military support for Kurdish fighters in Syria, makes real dialogue between the US and Turkey impossible. As a result, the United States is ready to move its Incirlik air base to the island of Crete, which will only accelerate the geopolitical separation between Ankara and Washington, giving a free hand to Turkey to pursue an independent foreign policy without regard to "colleagues from across the ocean." While Turkish-American relations have become tense over the past few years and a strategic separation is no longer completely unrealistic, Turkey's foreign policy continues to revolve around the issue of striking a balance between West and East. Although its geographic position on the borders of Asia and Europe seems to largely determine its broader foreign policy orientation, Turkey under Erdogan has also acquired or is at least trying to acquire the status of a major power, thanks to which it can act as a "balancer" between the two major world poles of power. But Turkey's strategic positioning, inspired by the desire to re-establish itself as a 'neo-Ottoman' empire capable of pursuing a truly independent foreign policy and operating as a major power, has most of all led to a rift between Turkey and its NATO allies, especially the US. Erdogan isn't in any hurry to break all ties with Washington, but in vain. The fact that Turkey has established strong political and military ties with Russia shows that the US and Turkey have fundamentally different threat perceptions. Accordingly, while Turkey appears to believe that the current international system is not as Western-oriented and US-dominated as it used to be, and that Turkey should pursue its interests through a more diverse geopolitical balance, Washington, hell-bent on resisting the fall of the United States as the only superpower, considers such a reading of international affairs by Turkey abnormal and unrealistic. For Erdogan and Turkish politicians, this is seen as an adjustment to the new normal in global politics. These differences have also led to certain political tensions, the most important manifestation of which is the prolonged crisis between Turkey and the US Central Command (CENTCOM) over the Syrian crisis and how the US continues to provide military support to the Kurdish militias, especially the YPG. In this context, the Biden administration, which has promised to work to restore US global dominance, is likely to resist Turkey's attempts to act as an independent player within NATO, an organization that remains trapped in a Cold War mindset. Washington does not like Erdogan a priori Now Turkey is demonstrating that it is a significant player in international politics and has nothing in common with Turkey, which was only the executor of the policy and ideas of senior allies. Ankara emphasizes: yes, it may need its old partners, but they need it even more. This is an increase in political subjectivity. On August 30, 2022, Turkey celebrated the 100th anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Dumlupinar, which marked a successful effort of the national liberation struggle against the Greeks. But who would have thought then that a whole century would not be enough for countries to find a compromise and make peace after the second Greco-Turkish war, the same one that Hemingway wrote about in The Snows of Kilimanjaro: “Later he had seen the things that he could never think of and later still he had seen much worse.“ Tempers between Ankara and Athens have flared lately. When it became known that a new NATO base would open in Greece, Ankara considered the actions of the Greek authorities a violation of the “principles of alliance” and called for a symmetrical response and the deployment of Russian S-400 air defense systems in Western Anatolia. The situation was also exacerbated by the "unfair", according to the Turkish press, attitude of NATO, which openly supports Athens and bills Ankara for cooperation with Moscow. However, if the Turkish media only admit the possibility of a new war in the Aegean, the Greek ones write with confidence that the war is inevitable. For Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, Greece does not pose a serious danger. If at sea the forces of the two countries are almost equal (Turkey is significantly superior to Hellas only in the number of landing ships), then on land and in the air the Turkish army has an advantage of almost 3.5 times. However, Athens is not afraid. The beneficiary in the aggravation of Turkish-Greek relations, of course, is Washington with its long-standing inferiority complex. In conclusion… When the AKP, founded by Erdogan, came to power in the early 2000s, Ankara pursued a foreign policy oriented towards Europe and America. Ankara advocated rapprochement with NATO partners, rapprochement with the EU, etc. defined itself as part of of the collective West. However, then Turkey began to go in the other direction - to turn to the East. Some call the starting point 2014 (when Erdogan moved from the prime minister's chair to the presidential throne, thereby, according to the West, violating the principle of change of power), while others talk about 2016. The year of an unsuccessful coup attempt, when the US did not support Erdogan and refused to extradite Fethullah Gülen (a preacher living in Pennsylvania, whom Ankara named as one of the organizers of the coup) to Turkey. As a result, the Turkish elites became disillusioned with their Western partners, and Ankara changed its vector of foreign policy development and began to pursue a foreign policy independent of the West. After that, Erdogan's behavior and ambitions ceased to please his overseas colleagues. America needs either a completely obedient Turkey, subordinate to American interests, or Turkey as a zone of chaos and part of an arc of instability.
  3. The answer is literally on the surface, or rather, on the TV screens and newspaper pages – observers have noted the emergence of trends toward a significant easing of legislation and law enforcement practices with respect to foreign human rights and non-commercial organizations. They link it to the fact that the liberal-minded new leader Tokayev replaced the conservative Nazarbayev. Tokayev’s reforms Tokayev has already stated that Kazakhstan will continue the course of political modernization. Four packages of political reforms have already been put forward, and more than 10 laws have been passed as part of their implementation. These include the law "On Rallies", changes in human rights legislation, lowering the registration barrier for organizing political parties and the threshold needed to enter the parliament, increasing the representation of women and young people in the Majilis and Maslikhats (local government bodies), and others. The upcoming reforms are very likely to result in the increase in the number of political parties, and young people, mostly educated in the West, will begin to enter politics. As a matter of fact, a number of serious changes are already visible. For instance, at the XXI Extraordinary Congress of the ruling party President Tokayev supported the idea of renaming Nursultan Nazarbayev's party "Nur Otan" ("Light of the Fatherland") into "Amanat", which in Kazakh means "Testament of ancestors". Thus, Tokayev closed the chapter on the Nazarbayev's era, showing that his intentions to create "new Kazakhstan" are indeed serious. However, it should be mentioned that part of Kazakh society considers Tokayev a pro-western reformer. Tokayev has to keep initiative The early presidential election was designed to strengthen the legitimacy of the government and allow Tokayev to keep the momentum. Kazakhstan’s government timed the elections perfectly. At least, we can say that the steps towards a significant easing of legislation and law enforcement practices in relation to western human rights and non-profit organizations received a positive assessment from the Kazakh opposition. President Tokayev stands out He shows his willingness to respond adequately to the serious challenges of the socio-political situation in the republic. This tendency becomes especially obvious in comparison with its neighbors – the leaders of Russia and Kyrgyzstan, Vladimir Putin and Sadyr Zhaparov, look like Tokayev’s vivid antagonists. However, while in Russia NGOs are actually no longer active (legislation has been tightened, opposition leaders have been convicted or have left the country), in Kyrgyzstan the fight against NGOs is rather declarative, in fact limited to attempts to control funding. As of yet, Kyrgyz NGOs have been active in virtually all spheres of socio-political life. But let’s come back to Kazakhstan for now. As we can see, in order to prevent last year’s protests from repeating, the president of Kazakhstan is willing to make certain concessions. Let’s take the Soros Foundation as an example, which has been active in Kazakhstan since 1995. The Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, which is headed by Yevgeny Zhovtis, actively cooperates with the Soros Foundation. The Youth Information Service of Kazakhstan (YISK), founded in the late 1990s, is another regular participant in the Foundation's projects. The Board of Trustees of the organization, whose task is to develop civic engagement among young people, is headed by Irina Mednikova. Another well-known Soros grantee is the Adil Soz Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech, headed by Tamara Kaleeva. The North Kazakhstan Legal Media Center, headed by Diana Okremova and working in the field of mass media, legal protection and training of journalists, can easily compete with the already mentioned Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in the amount of grant support. The MediaNet International Center for Journalism, created by a group of Kazakh journalists in 2004, has also been largely supported by Soros. Elena Shvetsova's Erkindik Kanaty (Wings of Freedom) Foundation is also on the list. Obviously, many opinion leaders, public figures, journalists, media, and digital media projects are among the recipients of funds from the Soros Foundation as well. The organization OYAN QAZAQSTAN ("Wake Up, Kazakhstan") is also worth mentioning. It was represented by Suinbike Suleimenova, Kasymkhan Kapparov, Asem Japisheva, Leila Makhmudova, as well as the discussion club Rukh Pen Til ("Spirit and Language"), created by Jeanbolat Mamay, and the radio station Azattyk, which is the Kazakh branch of Radio Liberty, the Finnish Foundation for Media and Development, the non-governmental organization Article 19 and the NGO MLDI Media Legal Defense Initiative, and the International Freedom of Expression Exchange IFEX. It’s safe to say that the activities of the above-mentioned NGOs play a crucial role in protecting the rights of Kazakhstan citizens, who are fighting for the democratic change and the independence of their country. Their main goal is to defend and protect those, who have been wrongly labelled as ‘terrorists’. But, no matter what, Tokayev intends to pursue the policy of liberalization and democratization in Kazakhstan on the level of republican power, especially in justice and law-enforcement sectors. Obviously, physical force does not come into play here – no arms are going to be twisted and no mouths are going to be shut. On the contrary, it becomes evident that the down pressure on the opposition structures is weakening: the aforementioned law “On Rallies” illustrates it perfectly. So, what are the interim results? Major international organizations that have monitored the situation on this issue around the world for several years have noted some improvements in Kazakhstan, while maintaining recommendations to improve the legislation in the republic in terms of protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. One such example is the republic's cooperation with the European Union to implement best international practices in the field of human rights protection.
  4. 72 secret orders from Trudeau, half of which occurred over the past two years. 11 of them were granted.
  5. Double, triple and multiple time obscured and redirected systems of public governance like in this country, like to boast being a standard of democracy and a prime example to follow. Look these squeaky clean elections, pundits, the intrigue a genuine carnival of democracy for a day or a few - and then, what? What changes, what has changed? If elections make democracies, then Putin and any number of dictators are staunch democrats. Kim can be a democrat too if only he would bother. But if it's not elections, then what? Let's see. In the original meaning, the word translates as "people power" or "people rule". If we, people actually and for real rule our affairs, then we should be getting the results we want and need, do we not? Imagine yourself ruling your place, appointing yourself budgets and resources year after year: and nothing changes. What would you call that, me-power? Elimination of child poverty, many, who knows how many already decades: minus Fixing permanent crisis in public health care, another wake up call from Covid: no Growing income gap: none (and in the meanwhile the entitlement factor, MP salary to the median in the country now at 5 and growing healthily, unlike stagnating for decades already, median income) What else? Affordability of tuition? Good luck. Housing crunch, any clues when and how it'll be relieved if? Unemployment is low, but what is happening with stable, well paying jobs with good benefits? We have a quasi-majority government well into its second mandate, an equivalent of near-absolute monarchy for all that matters, that's been talking non stop about climate action, but what has actually been achieved, the result, the number? What is the reduction now, and what will it be by the end of the second mandate? See what I mean? We wrote "democracy" on our facade but does it really translate to the same, "people power"? There are reasons why it does not, no longer or ever, cannot tell not an expert here. A democratic government in the true sense of the word is not a pretty and fancy facade. It is an instrument that helps people manage their public matters in the way that a) transparent b) clear and understandable and c) effective in achieving what they, people need, and not the instrument. That translates to only a short list of essential components: People are always, at all times in the full knowledge of what is happening in their public matters They can always, at all times evaluate how effective the management and their appointed managers are And they can always and at all times correct or replace ineffective management of their, public matters. And again: No; No; Resounding no. We cannot know, have no information nor means to evaluate and few if any working mechanisms to correct and / or replace. And so, where's the surprise that the system came to like itself and invented itself a great number of ways and tricks to take care of itself? Information you asked? No sorry, "ministerial prerogative" and you thought what, yours? MP salary is tied to rises in some carefully selected contracts, because they proclaimed themselves "employees of the Crown" while you, in your democratic naivite thought that they were your representatives and as such should have at least a remote idea how life is for a regular Canadian. Can you do that, at $185K annually plus benefits and allowances? For how long? I challenge you, let's try! No we don't have anybody but ourselves to trick here. Repeating a pretty word any number of times with any frequency won't make it any more real. The system has learned to live on its own, it likes it, and it doesn't really need you, the citizen other than for a ritual once in so many years. It was like that many times already and it's coming back to that, sure and fast. Looks like we haven't learned anything.
  6. Just out of the head recently, without even attempt to exhausting: - Canada's PM found in violation of ethics multiple times - Canada's Governor General retired in a scandal - Ongoing sexual misconduct investigations in RCMP and CAF - Dismal epidemiological preparedness and response to Covid-19 - Phoenix system disaster - Hypocritical lockdown behavior - Consistent failure to achieve any of the set essential goals (child poverty, clean water, climate change etc). Questions: at which point isolated events become a pattern? And at which line a pattern becomes a systemic problem? And btw will it get any better?
  7. Just don't credit me, please - all of this was tried before often with certain success (while it lasted). For example, in the great republic of Rome there was a class of patricians and everybody else that is, the regular folk, plebeians (OK let's leave out the slaves for now, times have changed in two millenia). Very naturally, patricians lived in nice mansions and held top positions in the public administration of all levels, paid for by public taxes. Understandably, they had priority and higher quality access to public services, paid for by public taxes. Like state of the art hospitals with stellar standard of service run by a multi-million public CEO (paid for by public, you get it). Like better city services. Like high speed Internet in remote cottages and so on. And vaccines in the times of pandemics were distributed, understandably, through the local facilities. The great system was entirely free and voluntary! Everybody, even a lowest plebeian could one day win a recruitment lottery, be hired into a top (public) management position and become a patrician with a nice mansion and etc. as above. Understandably, growing in a family of patricians had certain advantages leading to higher academic results naturally translating into chances of being hired into public administrations. But even with mediocre academic results many a patrician offspring managed to get hired into diverse public administrations, entirely through resoluteness of spirit and positive attitude, and despite stringent and unforgiving hiring process (everybody else got the standard "this position received too many applications so a lottery was applied" response). And the best of all is that the country was the best in the world. Because nobody cared (except for, possibly, bread and circuses), and almost everyone was happy. And so, why not try it again, if it worked so nicely, two thousand years ago in Rome? Just make it official, less misunderstanding, fewer unnecessary disturbing the public scandals and down with the confusion! Everybody is entitled to their rightful entitlements, out of the common public wealth. Is there anything wrong about it? Anything to be uncomfortable about?
  8. A small town cooperative bid and won contract to run public transport. No multi-million CEOs and billion advertising budgets. Flat three-level organization: novice; specialist; coordinator. Coordinators regularly rotate in operational positions to stay in touch with the reality. Use of advanced technology in highly efficient operation. Decent pay and full benefits. All profit, after taxes, shared between the owners (not Google-style "owners" with microscopic shares but actual owners with share determined only by the time with the company). Part of profit invested into a recreational facility for the owners. Opened to public, run more efficiently than private competition and with better value for the patrons. Expand, open whole new branch, attract more associates and workers and so on. Invest more in the owners well-being and pay more taxes. Taxes aren't thrown to pay for oversized and lazy bureaucracy but open, lean and efficient public service with real and measurable value to the owners, the citizens. No multi-million... , you get it. Same flat, lean and agile organization. Focus on openness, quality and value to the public. Full transparency. Taxes from private and cooperative economies finance free, dynamic and efficient continuous education for all citizens. Free essential healthcare with pharmacare for all citizens. Effective coordination and cooperation of public, private and cooperative providers. No artificial barriers to professions, and artificially inflated wages. Elimination of outdated barriers and practices that create and recreate inefficiencies and disbalances in the system. Citizens are free to move between jobs and sectors sharing the best practices to maximum satisfaction. Upgrade skills or acquire new ones at any time in life and career. No overpaid bureaucracies in PS. Competition abroad and in private sector? Higher pay etc, sure free to go and have someone young and upcoming take the turn. Decent, modest pay, full benefits, fun and meaningful contribution. Raises every X months aren't guaranteed though the service must be affordable to the owners. It's the best recipe for productivity, efficiency and enjoyment, better than fat and lazy bureaucracies. See the Phoenix system, "travel from Wuhan", the return on the billions invested in "rapid response" consumed, silently vanished with no visible response and so on. A different kind of democracy, certainly. Any chance? ... just dreaming.
  9. This morning around breakfast time I was listening to a heartwarming program on CBC radio. How we manage staying positive in these difficult times? I'm taking online piano lessons! And I tried ballet and already mastered several turns (forgot the term)! Listening to it was so nice and positive but for some reason the association that came to me was "they don't have any bread - but why wouldn't they get the brioches?!". Some of us, isolated from our offices, having to stare at the screen some time during the day, suffering the closure of the favorite restaurant and a postponement of an annual vacation (maybe) and trying to stay positive simply cannot imagine that taking ballet lessons may not enter the mind of a human being who just lost most of their income, security, possibly the direction and facing unknown prospects for unforeseeable time. Are these two different worlds, and are they drifting further and further apart, despite the heartwarming efforts and in it together promises? Almost daily example: another hospital CEO was let go today after traveling south of the border no less than 5 times in the recent months, while reprimanding his stuff for failing to observe PH guidelines. And another one (from daily Facebook feed): a compassionate program by something public is actively trying to recruit resident support staff for LTC. The work is on as-needed basis, no assurance of minimal hours, $17 / hour, no vacation and benefits and little job security. Very compassionate and generous, thank you. And so: are we getting there, slowly but steadily to the heartwarming tunes of togetherness? Two worlds, two standards, two mentalities that wouldn't intersect, and understand each other, and interact on the terms like above, oh you're having problems? But why wouldn't you take ballet lessons? And here's our wonderful foodbank thanks to our generous donations! Elitism is an old problem of democracy. Isolation in its own world in the ivory tower, failure to know and understand the problems and concerns of little people below led to so many events that it will take books only to count, and who's there to say, won't lead again and again? And so, is it possible to build a democracy that is alive; agile; active; open; continuous; non-elitist and egalitarian? Should it be tried, again and again? And if status quo is the best we can get, how long would it last before deteriorating into its opposite?
  10. Right off the news (CBC): officials around a retirement home in Ontario reported to have jumped the queue in vaccine distribution. Board members, the director and the family etc were ostensibly given the "leftover vaccines" to avoid it being wasted. Here, our humble public servants yet again in all their caring glory. If this is not the third world, and not somewhere on a remote reserve but right here in the nation's capitals, then what is? In early December Health Canada approved the first vaccine for use in the country. As early as October national and provincial task forces were assembled and started training in vaccine distribution. Some were shown on TV under serious fanfare. What does it mean? Does it mean that now, February (months on), there is no standard procedure for effective and fair use of remainders, if any? And we have to thank our luck that board members, directors and family only by sheer chance all happened to be in the right place at the right time so that precious elixir was saved? Iacobelli claims the leftover vaccine with a limited shelf life "would go to waste" and thus "a decision to prevent this from happening was made." Not funny. Hardly entertaining. Simply disgusting. Looks like Lebanon, or Nicaragua. But who can say, entirely unexpected and not logical and natural evolution, of an entitled democracy? P.S. It's hard to say this, but maybe in some ways at least we should be grateful for this experience. It revealed so much about ourselves, as we as a society really are in this mirror, not as we want to paint us to ourselves, that wouldn't be easy to find out otherwise - even if we cared to.
  11. As discussed in the previous topics, a statement that is confirmed by logical analysis and practice is what a democracy that is complacent, has stopped to evolve and develop and stagnates, at some point sooner or later will be transformed, or transform itself into a variant of the default organization of pre-human and human herds that, an elitist hierarchy. This is not a pure philosophy topic as some signs to that have been appearing consistently and persistently, for example: increasing polarization of incomes; social inequality; diminishing efficiency and productivity of social services; not to mention existential problems such as climate change. And who said that the opioid crisis does not have a relation to the perception and realization of an individual in a complex contemporary society? Indeed, we have programs and mechanisms to address these long-standing problems but over the decades they have proven ineffective in solving the problems rather than mitigating them, to a limited extent and within limited time frame. Handouts didn't solve the problems of child poverty; social inequality and citizen's participation in the democracy. Universal income won't solve them either because these approaches are based on a failing assumption: that keeping the status quo and throwing more and more public money at it can solve its essential problems. Of course, it is (and quite obvious) logical self-contradiction. In this post I will attempt to propose some directions of possible change. It may develop into a longread but I'll try to keep it to the minimum possible. A comment that needs to be made upfront will be on how realistic would be to achieve anything like this in a practical settings and on that I cannot be over-optimistic given that, as already commented, over the centuries already, mechanisms of effective and meaningful change were not developed. Still, even for the record I believe that in the least, the possibility of such a change needs to be stated. To continue, the democracy needs to evolve. Like evolution it is a moving track, where those who slow down or stop fall off. Evolving means not being satisfied with the achieved progress (if and when it has been achieved) and creating new objectives, new milestones and new frontiers. I think that the next frontier of a modern democracy cannot be measured in a number, but has to include, and be centered around the concept of meaningful participation. Meaningful participation, is not a minimal standard of living and not another handout program. It's a promise and assurance of the society to an individual (I wouldn't state, "a right" as the word is overloaded) to offer all necessary means and avenues to achieve satisfying participation in the society, should the individual so desire and choose. The objective being stated, the next set of questions is "how". And answering them would require essential or even ground-breaking changes (so, see the disclaimers above). Several key directions can be named, not pretending to be exhaustive. Open, transparent and egalitarian democracy: the democracy is a continuous; active and open process open to all citizens who are willing to participate immediately and in any convenient to them form. Replace "democracy by the representatives (and elites) for the people" with "democracy by the people, via representatives". Representatives are facilitators and coordinators of the continuous democratic process, not the owners of it. There's no distance between a citizen and participation in the active democracy, neither time-wise, nor process, format, access and so on, wise. Remove barriers between the citizens and the democracy. All public affairs are completely transparent to the citizens, upfront and by default. Elitism and entitlement not tolerated, not only through citizen's control but the absolute transparency and absence of situations and environments where it could emerge. That should include any and all forms of traditional and historic unreasonable in an open and egalitarian democracy entitlements, of which anyone can cite examples. Dr. Charlie Smith disaster and similar disasters cannot happen in an active and transparent democracy, where topics are raised, discussed and addressed immediately, hopefully before they cause harm (and unnecessary and avoidable expense) to the society. Effective and open public service: public service has two essential functions in the society: providing the necessary services; and enacting the objective of meaningful participation. There is no place in the public service for elitism and entitlement; public service is not a corporation, and in fact, the opposite of a corporation; it exists not for its own sake but for the services to the society; it has to be effective; affordable to the society; and fulfill the objective of openness and meaningful participation; the role of the unions in the public sector would likely need to rethought as well. Cooperative economy: a new sector of economy can participate in fulfilling the objective of meaningful participation. It can provide services in many areas of public life, from food and hospitality to public transportation, education, hospital and long-term care and many others, providing outstanding service to the society and fair compensation and benefits to the employees. As an aside on this topic, in several countries of Europe I experienced to a great satisfaction, public cafeteria, taverns etc. with simple, home-style food of utmost quality and taste, and at more than reasonable cost. For some reasons, it is entirely absent, as a concept, in this country. Free and continuous access to education: a must in the knowledge economy, and democracy. There has to be more. And in conclusion: yes I know, and we all heard it. "Such a can of worms! Just try changing this one paragraph. No, cannot be done in a hundred years". Of course. Sure. Yes, we said it.
  12. Continuing previously raised topics, consider old and well-known parable-paradox of the turtle. See, the turtle can never reach the other end of the pond; when it gets to the midpoint, it would need to cover the half of the remaining distance that would require some time (and public $$$); by the time it gets there the other half still remains and so on, ad infinitum. The unavoidable conclusion: crossing the pond, from shore to shore would require infinite time, and public funds. Take randomly one of the high or even critical importance goals set out by many a public administrations in the recent and not so recent, decades. Elimination of child poverty? climate change? cleanup of industrial pollution? water quality in the remote communities? waiting times in the public healthcare? purchase of replacement helicopters? Please name one, in many a decade, that has been finished and completed, completely, done, fixed and checkmarked? I'm not aware of one, but paradoxically, it does not prevent the bureaucracy running these programs, or the society that procures them, that is, tries to, from feeling fulfilled and satisfied. An achievement is only an illusion, the eternal movement is the thing, of course. We have already seen that democracy that has grown complacent; static; stagnant; devoid of will and power to change and renew itself; would inevitably transform into a pseudo-democratic elitist aristocracy; whereas the population would increasingly feel detached; disenfranchised; mistrustful and resentful; and frustrated, creating breeding ground for development of fringe and populist and conspiracy currents. This is not a coincidence, only two different sides of the same societal trajectory - as the "democratic" elites feel warm and cosy enjoying their rightful entitlements, they have neither imagination, nor incentive to ponder how it looks from a viewpoint beyond and outside, there, in the rest of the society. Even the high ideals, equality and fraternity are transformed and refracted through the ivory prism. The pandemics? One in a century calamity? Sure, and we know exactly what to do; first we will freeze all permanent employment surely to save cherished public funds; then create a bunch of handouts for those who didn't make it - students, $5000 max; resident support worker, minimal wage, no job security, benefits did you mention, pension plan? And we will check if you qualified for the handout, and you'll pay us for checking, complete with benefits and pension plans. Is it really so hard to see? But no, it's not sinking in because it falls beyond the vision field. Need to pay more six digit golden parachutes to "public" CEO and governors-general because this is real and done and was done forever and that, just words and visions that never come true. Never? Beyond certain point that is probably long in the past, reforming a massive bureaucracy becomes an impossibility. Any, even mild changes create perturbations and perplexions that bring the modus operandi from "do ever less with ever more" (reality check: some countries developed effective vaccines in less than a year; where's any trace, not to mention, implemented solutions of the $1B of public funds sunk into this country's pandemic action plan?) to accomplished chaos as illustrated here. And at certain point we realize that there's no viable alternatives because we haven't thought of, and have not created any. Just wasn't on the horizon, ever. And so the destination is looming; either the division, detachment and disenfranchisement that grow continuously (because meaningful reforms aren't possible - as seen above) till a populist, clean the swamp and make great again is called to fix the ailing democracy, creating even more chaos in the process or Heaven forbid, worse; or at some turning point in history we suddenly realize that there just isn't enough in the purse to buy these services for the asking price, complete with golden CEO and political parachutes. And we haven't created and constructed any alternatives.
  13. 1 Holy System Crown Republic Democracy, Canada 1947-2046 by exegesisme ​ 1xπ The Canadian Citizenship Act, was passed on May 14, 1946, and was effected from Jan. 1 1947. The act established independent Canadian Citizenship from British Nationality. 2046 is the 100th year of the act in action. 2xπ Reviewing Canadian history, I am glad to be sure of two characteristics of Canadian nationality, peace and progressive change. 3xπ With the encouragement of the act and our Canadian history, I am hardly not imagine what our Canada would be like at the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act. 4xπ I hope I would like to see then, a system of Holy Crown Republic Democracy is full of vitality from Canada to wherever needing sound leadership. ​5xπ In this system, the Holy Crown represents the dignity of a nation, which is created on need of morality and ethics, is established for example of sustainability and progressiveness, is shared as example of dignity of each tradition and each citizen. 6xπ The Republic accounts for a hierarchical organization of leadership, which provides ways for all strengths as they are willing to take part in reshaping leadership, and makes the process of reshaping leadership orderly. Usually, a Republic in the Holy Crown Republic Democracy system is a 90% US style government, the remaining 10% as the dignity of a nation is in the hand of Holy Crown other than the President. 7xπ The Democracy accounts for the independent rights of each individual human being, and the independent rights of each individual institution. The independent rights include their basic rights as their are, their basic rights of taking part in the process of reshaping leadership, and their privileges of their faculty and contribution. The Democracy in the Holy Crown Republic Democracy system is a development upon the Charter of Liberty or others similarly. 8xπ The Democracy also means each individual is the original responsible being to establish their own abilities for their all sorts of rights. Democracy in future as a concept focuses attention on the development of private side. ​9xπ The Republic also means a government as a hierarchical organization is the whole responsible being to assist each individual to establish their own abilities. Republic in future as a concept focuses on development of public leadership. 10xπ The Holy Crown also means a national symbol for a national psychological stability. Holy Crown in future as a concept focuses the need of personal representation of a nation with sustainability and progressiveness.
  14. A quote from another thread: I agree pretty much, but I don't want a government that's perfect. I demand a government and political representatives that are at least somewhat honest, that will put their country above their own career aspirations, above their own re-election, above getting what they politically want at all costs. I demand a government that respects our democracy, and our constitution. I want MP's and a PM that would rather do the right thing and be willing to lose their jobs rather than keep their job if it means needing to do the dishonest/undemocratic thing. Is this really too much to ask? To do otherwise, as many of our politicians do, is almost akin to treason in my eyes. How is Stephen Harper not a traitor to our country and our democracy when he ie: muzzles government scientists just so he can get his own environmental policies enacted without scientific criticism, or muzzles members of his cabinet and party whenever it suits his agenda? Who does this assh**e think he is? If you too support Harper's more draconian policies because they happen to advance your own political agenda then aren't you too a traitor to our democracy? Call me idealistic, but there's politicians in this country that will put their country before themselves, and we need more of them, and we need a PM like this. The Harper gov is not like this, and is why I'll never mark their name on a ballot so long as they are, even if you put a gun to my head. Because I'm a patriot. Canadian soldiers are willing to die to protect our country, but shouldn't every Canadian be willing to do this, even if not a solider? I'd much rather spoil my ballot than to give my consent to a party or politician that's fundamentally corrupt, even if it's the least worst of the crappy options. This isn't an anti-conservative (small "c"), anti-rightwing rant. I felt the same way with the scumbag McGuinty Liberals in Ontario. I voted for the CPC in 2006 in order to rid our government of the Chretien/Martin-era Liberals, hoping the CPC would end the Liberal corruption. I honestly feel bad for the conservative-minded voters who only have one major party to choose from, but there are other conservative parties out there to support. The BS in our government has to end! We get the governments and the politicians we deserve, because we give them our consent to govern by marking their names on a ballot. If we demand a certain level of behaviour from our politicians or else we refuse to vote for them, they WILL comply. To the people who will vote for the CPC anyways this election, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE please at least email your MP, the CPC party, and/or the PM and tell them that despite your support you demand changes in their behaviour.
  15. My Acute Concept Of Canada For Long Future​ By Exegesisme "Political parties play a central role in Canadian democracy and government, representing an important link between the state and society."(1) If you are a Canadian, how do you feel when you read the quoted sentence? I do not know what you feel, really. Here, I tell you what I feel, as a Canadian. My real feeling is, very unhappy with this expression in this way. Why? A, the Name and Identity of Canada Do you hear something about Canada globally? I once heart that peoples globally often takes Canada as the fifty-first state of the USA. In the expression, Canada is "the state", which means a state or one state, but the USA has 50 states. The whole name of the USA is the United States of America. So, you are a state and in America, and more clearly, and they are the United States of America. On name and logically, it is very reasonable that you are seen as "one state of their United States of America". However, the truth is, you are not one state, you have thirteen states, and you are a federal of these thirty states. So, I think, the whole name of Canada should be "the United Canadian States". Now, we are not a state, we are the "United Canadian States". How do you feel, if you are a Canadian? B, the Skeptical Unconstitutional Political Practice This is not the only reason which causes my unhappiness in the quoted sentence. How do you think "Canadian democracy"? The expression "Canadian democracy" is the second reason which causes my unhappiness. Let's see. By definition, A 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."(2) If our Canadians only have democracy, according to this definition, our minority will "have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority", and each one of us has the possibility to become one of minority in this way or that way. This is terrible. So, I am certainly not happy if our Canada only has democracy, or only stresses democracy too much. However, according to 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"(2), our Canadians have "a representative democracy" "with a written constitution of basic rights" "that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority". So, I am luck that Canada is a republic which is more than a democracy. This happiness is not so much. As I have been studying further, I found that our Canadian style of republic is very weak. Our unwritten constitutional conventions give "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada"​, but "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms" , and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)" (3). The quoted information means our rights and freedoms in our constitution are only in very general terms, and their precise meaning is waiting the interpretation and clarification by the Canadian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. The weakness of our Canadian style of republic has been tested in our Canadian style politics. "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"​(4). Here you see, our Canadian MPs even can not protect their freedom in the House of Commons, how can each of our people protect her or his freedom in other situation? Now I believe that it is the time for the Supreme Court of Canada to interpret and clarify the freedom of Canadian MPs in the House of Commons, and what is the border-zone between the freedom of Canadian MPs and the party discipline specifically in the House of Commons. I hope that every Canadian standing up and pay attention to promote this event, for this will be a chance for you to understand your rights and freedoms living, which are only in general terms in the Constitution of Canada. C, the Essential Meaning and Various Definition of Republic Definition 1, "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."(2) Definition 2, " Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history."(5) Definition 3, "A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law."(6) Definition 4, "In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch. Currently, 147 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names."(6) Definition 5, "A Republic...has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. " (7) Definition 6, " A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution), recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals." and "Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. " (8) By refining the six definitions of republic, I define a republic as: a well reasonably representative government with well reasonably separated power, rules on a creatively evolutional constitution, with the fights and freedoms protected at different level in different range as the levels of holism, wholity, majority, minority, and individual. I define the word republic in this way to sever this propose, which is promoting creatively evolutional progress continuously from now to human long future. Comparing all these definitions with the actual political system, Canada has the core elements of a republic, the representative democracy and the rule by law. And the monarchy is not a traditional monarchy who takes all power in hand, but only a few reserved power for the political stability in some specific situation. We conclude that we already excluded the traditional monarchy, created a new graceful sustainable political being to represent highly refined traditional virtues, which make Canadian much more peaceful in personality and nationality. To see Canadian political system in this eye, we find that our Canadian political system in this aspect takes advantage over the republic in USA-style. Although the new graceful sustainable political being still named as a monarchy, the definition is already much advanced. In the understanding, I like to call the republic in our Canadian style a graceful republic. D, Canadian Graceful Republic in the Information Era I as a person to meet the desire of my body do not ask for much, and as a human with curiosity have ask for knowledge without stop. On studying the House of Commons(9), I proposed eight reforming directions of the federal politics on the eight weaknesses I had found in my study(10). On continuing study and deep thinking(9)(2), I found that there is some practice of federal politics that is unconstitutional(11), Canada needs to reconstitute(12). (in continuing) Reference (1) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/political-parties-and-party-system-canada-history-operation-and-issues (2) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic (3) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework#provisions (4) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body (5) ​http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government (6) ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic (7) ​http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html (8) ​http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm ​(9) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body (10) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24828-8-weaknesses-of-federal-political-system-and-reform/ (11) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24841-the-unconstitutional-political-practice-should-be-ended-soon/ (12) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24842-reconstitution-of-Canada/
  • Create New...