Liberal democracy, a SHAM?

[Leafless]

Good old Liberal democracy gives the illusion of FREEDOM by advocating tolerance and diversity BUT with an ultimate source of authority, AKA, as the good old CHARTER, fully consented by most freedom loving, unsuspecting Canadians.

This is freedom?

Liberal democracy AKA, as MULTICULTURALISM is really a SHAM, as it fully accommodates unspoken limits protecting a singular identity as we just finished witnessing with the Ontario provincial elections and what 'should not have been', Mc.Guinty and company protecting ONLY Catholic interest.

[Canadian Blue]

You have a right to complain here and in public, thus we now know why liberal democracy is good.

[Leafless]

You have a right to complain here and in public, thus we now know why liberal democracy is good.

And you fully have the right to make totally nonsensical statements.

The Charter is nothing more than a tool that serves the interest of Quebec.

[M.Dancer]

And you fully have the right to make totally nonsensical statements.

he does but that wasn't one of them. His statement debunked your argument full and square.

[guyser]

If it rains, is it the Charters fault?

[Canadian Blue]

The Charter is nothing more than a tool that serves the interest of Quebec.

Well I'm against any constitution or charter simply because I don't think it's required to have a successful democracy.

The Charter is nothing more than a tool that serves the interest of Quebec.

How so?

[Leafless]

Well I'm against any constitution or charter simply because I don't think it's required to have a successful democracy.

In Canada we do not have 'direct democracy' and are represented by a Liberal democracy meaning you don't have a choice but to abide by a Liberal democracy.

No other form of democracy is available.

How so?

In Canada we have an 'illiberal democracy, a liberal democracy where protections that form a liberal democracy are not enforced.

The Charter racially discriminates against Canadians by the same Charter that is supposed to protect all Canadians but racially and undemocratically advances other groups.

IOW-nullifies the Charter.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Leafless

[Canadian Blue]

In Canada we do not have 'direct democracy' and are represented by a Liberal democracy meaning you don't have a choice but to abide by a Liberal democracy.

It's called representative democracy, you elect representatives to represent your constituency.

No other form of democracy is available.

There are many forms of democracy, however respresentative is the most common.

The Charter racially discriminates against Canadians by the same Charter that is supposed to protect all Canadians but racially and undemocratically advances other groups.

No it prohibits racial discrimination.

[Leafless]

It's called representative democracy, you elect representatives to represent your constituency.

Yes, and that is what you call a liberal democracy.

I know what a representative democracy is.

Your the one who said: " Well I'm against any constitution or charter simply because I don't think it's required to have a successful democracy."

No it prohibits racial discrimination.

Read the Charter sometime.

It is a dictatorial, socialist, undemocratic piece of GARBAGE and does racially discriminate on the basis of language and culture.

[Higgly]

Mc.Guinty and company protecting ONLY Catholic interest.

Come on. McGuinty didn't make this an issue, Tory did. All he did was resist Tory's advance. I think the polls indicate that he was not off-side with the electorate. What did you expect him to do? Let Tory dictate the agenda and suddenly announce, "No, I don't support faith-based schools, and I am going to disband Catholic schools to prove it?" Why should he commit Hari-kiri on Tory's sword?

[Higgly]

It is a dictatorial, socialist, undemocratic piece of GARBAGE and does racially discriminate on the basis of language and culture.

Well to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson*, "It may be garbage, but it's our garbage!"

-------------------------------

* Johnson said of some murderous Latin American dictator (I forget which one), "He may be a sunovabitch, but he's our sunovabitch!"

[Leafless]

Come on. McGuinty didn't make this an issue,

Sure he did by refusing to fund faith based schools and at the same time discriminating against non-Catholics violating Charter rights.

Tory did. All he did was resist Tory's advance.

And why shouln't he.

Mc.Guinty didn't have a leg to stand on while discriminating against other faiths.

We all know why Catholic teachers support Mc.Guinty who's wife is also a Catholic teacher.

Teachers contracts are coming up shortly and do you suppose Mc.Guinty is going to give them whatever they ask for?

Total hypocrisy and will most likely prove Mc.Guinty is no friend of the tax payer of Ontario relating to maintaining Catholic dominance and highly paid Catholic teachers while referring to Ontario's schools as public schools.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Leafless

[bk59]

It is a dictatorial, socialist, undemocratic piece of GARBAGE and does racially discriminate on the basis of language and culture.

Let's see... the Charter says every one is equal and that every person has the same rights to express themselves, hold religious beliefs, associate with others, etc. If this is your definition of dictatorial and undemocratic then I'd be very curious to know what a democratic society would be like in your universe.

Teachers contracts are coming up shortly and do you suppose Mc.Guinty is going to give them whatever they ask for?

Total hypocrisy and will most likely prove Mc.Guinty is no friend of the tax payer of Ontario relating to maintaining Catholic dominance and highly paid Catholic teachers while referring to Ontario's schools as public schools.

You must live in a crazy world if you think someone isn't going to vote for the government that they think will help them the most. If a teacher thinks the Liberals will make their lives better then of course they will vote that way - as is their right. But I think it's clear that many Ontarians felt that they wanted a Liberal government, not just Catholic teachers.

[Canadian Blue]

Leafless what kind of democracy do you want exactly?

[jennie]

It is a dictatorial, socialist, undemocratic piece of GARBAGE and does racially discriminate on the basis of language and culture.

Please explain how?

[Leafless]

Let's see... the Charter says every one is equal and that every person has the same rights to express themselves, hold religious beliefs, associate with others, etc.

This part of the Charter is a carry over of 'fundamental rights' Canada's 1960 Bill of Rights and there is nothing new there is there?

But under 'equality rights' when combined with 'fundamental freedoms' the government can legally put its own spin on whatever postion it feels like taking, through the courts.

This is not 'democracy' but the actions of a 'totalitarian government', IOW a BANANA REPUBLIC.

If this is your definition of dictatorial and undemocratic then I'd be very curious to know what a democratic society would be like in your universe.

DEMOCRACY = 50 + 1%, equating to the majority.

You must live in a crazy world if you think someone isn't going to vote for the government that they think will help them the most. If a teacher thinks the Liberals will make their lives better then of course they will vote that way - as is their right. But I think it's clear that many Ontarians felt that they wanted a Liberal government, not just Catholic teachers.

On what issues do you think Ontarians wanted a Liberal Mc.Guinty government?

Health care tax?, Broken promises, Lies?

[Leafless]

Leafless what kind of democracy do you want exactly?

I would like what the U.S. incorporates on the federal level a democratic republic and on the State level 'direct democracy'.

In Canada Quebec comes closest to mimicking the U.S. model with its own provincial Charter fully discriminating against other provinces who are denied that opportunity to possess their own Charter by the federal government, who should have offered all provinces the same.

[Leafless]

Please explain how?

Our Charter 'WAS NOT RATFIED' by Canadian citizens.

Remember DEMOCRACY = 50+1% relating to the majority.

[bk59]

This part of the Charter is a carry over of 'fundamental rights' Canada's 1960 Bill of Rights and there is nothing new there is there?

There is a lot that is new there. A constitutional document is not the same as a regular federal law.

But under 'equality rights' when combined with 'fundamental freedoms' the government can legally put its own spin on whatever postion it feels like taking, through the courts.

You're talking nonsense again. Anyone, including the government, can take whatever position it wants in the courts. The government doesn't need the Charter to do that. It's also worth pointing out that the courts have both agreed and disagreed with various government positions. This is hardly a totalitarian government. I think you need to wake up and realize that just because you don't agree with something the government does, that does not mean that the government is totalitarian.

On what issues do you think Ontarians wanted a Liberal Mc.Guinty government?

Health care tax?, Broken promises, Lies?

No expansion of public funding for faith based schools? A holiday in February? A government that talks to its employees and does not purposefully antagonize them? It doesn't really matter does it? The fact is, Ontarians chose a majority government under McGuinty.

[bk59]

It is a dictatorial, socialist, undemocratic piece of GARBAGE and does racially discriminate on the basis of language and culture.

Our Charter 'WAS NOT RATFIED' by Canadian citizens.

Remember DEMOCRACY = 50+1% relating to the majority.

Saying something was not ratified does not mean it is dictatorial, socialist or discriminatory. If the Charter is against the wishes of Canadians perhaps you could point to anything that would indicate that many Canadians are in favour of getting rid of it? Perhaps you could point to a political party that includes getting rid of the Charter in its platform? Not only was the Charter brought into being by representatives of the people at both the federal and provincial levels, but after two decades the Charter continues to find overwhelming support in Canada. That doesn't really seem dictatorial to me. Maybe you should take a look at a real dictatorship before you continue to engage in this exaggeration.

Also, the Charter is not discriminatory. But feel free to say it over and over again without ever showing proof or even some shreds of logical argument. Luckily the Charter has given your right to express yourself constitutional protection.

[Leafless]

There is a lot that is new there. A constitutional document is not the same as a regular federal law.

This is what makes it totalititarian and DANGEROUS.

You're talking nonsense again. Anyone, including the government, can take whatever position it wants in the courts. The government doesn't need the Charter to do that.

Yes it does.

As, for instance, with the case of SSM.

It's also worth pointing out that the courts have both agreed and disagreed with various government positions. This is hardly a totalitarian government. I think you need to wake up and realize that just because you don't agree with something the government does, that does not mean that the government is totalitarian.

In Canada, justices are highly partisan and loyal to the federal party and PM, that put them in their position.

This could very well make the courts corrupt.

Regardless, any important issue that could detrimentally affect the lives of Canadians, should be by all democratic rights be decided by Canadians by national referendum.

[Leafless]

Saying something was not ratified does not mean it is dictatorial, socialist or discriminatory. If the Charter is against the wishes of Canadians perhaps you could point to anything that would indicate that many Canadians are in favour of getting rid of it?

On what 'official basis' are you basing your twisted rhetoric... a manipulative TELEPHONE POLL?

Please state your official source.

Perhaps you could point to a political party that includes getting rid of the Charter in its platform?

You know very well, that after many years of federal Liberal rule any national federal political party favouring elimination of the Charter would be political suicide, with most of the objection coming from 'La belle Province'.

I fully believe the Charter will be eventually scrapped as dysfunctional politics is destroying the country.

Not only was the Charter brought into being by representatives of the people at both the federal and provincial levels,

Canadians are currently not served by functional federal or provincial representation but rather by federal and provincial self interest.

Smell the coffee, friend.

but after two decades the Charter continues to find overwhelming support in Canada.

I know more telephone polls or at least quote your official democratic source.

Also, the Charter is not discriminatory. But feel free to say it over and over again without ever showing proof or even some shreds of logical argument.

Well it is.

It was written by the Liberals and racially discriminates (again) on the basis of language and culture and if extended to the Aboriginals, skin colour is included.

Many different kinds of Canadians, isn't there?

Luckily the Charter has given your right to express yourself constitutional protection.

That part is from our old 1960 Bill of Rights.

[Melanie_]

Our Charter 'WAS NOT RATFIED' by Canadian citizens.

Remember DEMOCRACY = 50+1% relating to the majority.

Someone here used to have a signature that said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." The state still has to have some jurisdiction in ensuring that minority rights are protected from the majority. I'd like to think that the majority understands the value of equal rights for all, but on the off-chance that they don't, the state needs the power to ensure that they represent the interests of all of their constituents, not just the majority.

[bk59]

As, for instance, with the case of SSM.

Wrong again. The government did not NEED the Charter to make a case for SSM. Even if there was no Charter, the government could have decided to extend marriage to same sex couples.

In Canada, justices are highly partisan and loyal to the federal party and PM, that put them in their position.

This could very well make the courts corrupt.

Nonsense. Please show me how you reached this conclusion. I do not put a lot of stock in baseless accusations.

Regardless, any important issue that could detrimentally affect the lives of Canadians, should be by all democratic rights be decided by Canadians by national referendum.

Gee, you're right. I guess if there was ever a national emergency the government should wait six weeks, set up a referendum and then see what the people want to do about it. We elect representatives for a reason. To represent us. Is there an argument that the Charter should have been voted on by the population? Yes, there is. But this is not the same as saying that because there was no vote the Charter is somehow invalid or undemocratic. It was still put in place by our elected representatives.

[bk59]

On what 'official basis' are you basing your twisted rhetoric... a manipulative TELEPHONE POLL?

Please state your official source.

Please state my official source? Really? I say to you if the Charter is against the wishes of Canadians then please point to some proof of this. And your response is "please state a source"? If you have no proof that significant numbers of Canadians are against the Charter then just admit it. But I will not be presenting any sources just because I asked you to back up your claim.

You know very well, that after many years of federal Liberal rule any national federal political party favouring elimination of the Charter would be political suicide, with most of the objection coming from 'La belle Province'.

Would you like to know why it would be political suicide? Because Canadians SUPPORT the Charter. If Canadians were opposed to the Charter then they would support a party that also opposed the Charter. It wouldn't matter which party had been in charge.

I know more telephone polls or at least quote your official democratic source.

What do you mean by "official democratic" source? What exactly is a democratic source in your mind? Nonetheless, I will do what you refuse to do - show something to back up a claim. Link.

Recent academic polling bears this out. A survey of 2,000 Canadians in 1987 and 1999 conducted by several academics, including Peter Russell, University of New Brunswick's Paul Howe and the University of Toronto's Joe Fletcher, found 82 per cent of Canadians think the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good thing. This number was slightly lower in Quebec at around 64 per cent in 1987 while rising to more than a 70 per cent approval rating in 1999. The surveys were published in a volume called Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy.

A poll done in February 2002 backs up these findings. The poll, conducted for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, found that 88 per cent of Canadians felt the charter was good for Canada.

It is also interesting to note that despite your claims about how the Charter favours Quebec, support for the Charter in Quebec is lower than other areas of Canada. If your claim had merit I would expect the polls to show the opposite.

Well it is.

It was written by the Liberals and racially discriminates (again) on the basis of language and culture and if extended to the Aboriginals, skin colour is included.

Many different kinds of Canadians, isn't there?

"Well it is." What a reasoned response. Very eloquent. How exactly does the Charter discriminate? Because statements like "Every individual is equal before and under the law" seems non-discriminatory to me (see section 15(1) of the Charter). Section 16(1) also puts English and French on an equal footing: "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada." How then is the Charter discriminatory? (Try not to respond with more "Yes it is!" type posts.)

That part is from our old 1960 Bill of Rights.

I said constitutional protection for a reason. The old Bill of Rights was not part of any constitution.