Liberal democracy, a SHAM?

[Leafless]

HUNH??

The Party leader is elected by the party. The Prime Minister is voted in by the people.

You must be only in Grade 9, because you obviously have not yet taken mandatory Gr 10 Civics.

N0, MP's are voted by the people, you don't vote for the PM in this country.

The party with the most MP'S elected, their leader becomes prime minister.

I think your still in primary school and won't admit it.

[Leafless]

I believe the PM was at one time elected by the MP's.

However if Leafless thinks adopting an American system will be the end of all of our political woes he should read up on history. Especially the elections where the candidates with the largest portion of the popular vote lost, some due to the electoral college, others due to the fact a statewide recount wasn't allowed in a close election.

The U.S has their legalities just like we have ours.

All I am saying about the U.S. system is that it provides a higher level of personal rights for most individual Americans to help maintain their majority interest, mostly from a state perspective.

[bk59]

I don't rant.

I seriously debate and you have absolutely no proof to back your self-righteous statements unless you think manipulated telephone polls form legal proof.

Really? You claim that our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that you want. That is not debate. You claim that the Charter was forced upon Canadians and that Canadians do not even know what it is about. Yet you offer no proof of this. You even claimed a certain bill (Bill C-38) used the Charter to legalize SSM, but still no citation. You have yet to offer any facts that show the polls I cited were manipulated. Lots of claims - no facts - seems a bit like ranting to me.

Just because you can identify and agree certain issues in various party platforms could certainly mean that the more serious volatile problems that affect this country have been convenietly omitted.

What are these serious volatile problems that are not being addressed?

It only shows once again Canadians have been played off as gullible suckers.

So let me get this straight. In order for an election to not be a sham, the people you want to win must win? Or the people who win must talk about only the things that you think are important? Sorry, but it sounds like you want a country where you are a dictator and just tell everyone else what to do.

In reality in Canada we have only two federal parties that matter, Conservatives and the Liberals, just like our Southern cousins, having two choices.

With your love of the US system, you must love this then.

You must be one twisted little puppy to think minority interest must be equal to majority interest!

I think minority rights are equal to majority rights. And that is what the Charter is about. Not interests, but respecting rights. And that includes the right to receive services from the federal government in your choice of official language.

[bk59]

Then why do we need courts and parliament to interpret rights relating to our ironed out Charter?

The Charter is a socialistic instrument designed to feed the minds and pocket books of power grabbing socialist who continue to rip off majority interest.

Passing a law or a constitutional document does not mean that you see into the future and decide the outcome of every possible legal case that might come up from now until forever. It is about setting up a framework to deal with the scenarios that you cannot think of. The Charter lays out what rights are protected and, in some cases, how they are protected.

If your criteria is that a law cannot be passed unless it will never need interpretation in the future, then your criteria would ensure that no law would ever get passed. Nothing would get done.

Besides, you seem to love the US so much. If you object to the Charter being interpreted, then do you also object to the US Constitution being interpreted?

[Leafless]

Really? You claim that our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that you want.

Those are words coming out of your mouth, not mine or perhaps you can quote where I supposedly said "our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that I want."

That is not debate. You claim that the Charter was forced upon Canadians and that Canadians do not even know what it is about. Yet you offer no proof of this.

It was not ratified by Canadians, so Canadians never had the opportunity to explore its concept and our federal government don't pursue or make those kind of statistics public, that is why it is totalitarian.

You even claimed a certain bill (Bill C-38) used the Charter to legalize SSM, but still no citation.

"Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act

You have yet to offer any facts that show the polls I cited were manipulated.

I don't have to.

Since it is your claim, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that the polls were NOT manipulated.

What are these serious volatile problems that are not being addressed?

So let me get this straight. In order for an election to not be a sham, the people you want to win must win? Or the people who win must talk about only the things that you think are important? Sorry, but it sounds like you want a country where you are a dictator and just tell everyone else what to do.

You sound like your in a position of authority, when your not.

Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post.

With your love of the US system, you must love this then.

I think minority rights are equal to majority rights.

All Canadians are supposed to have the same rights but to steal majority interest under the guise of rights is totally corrupt and fraudulent and that is what Canadians are living with in Canada, a corrupt, fraudulent, totalitarian Charter not worth the paper it is written on.

[bk59]

Those are words coming out of your mouth, not mine or perhaps you can quote where I supposedly said "our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that I want."

OK.

You said that your political interests were not being represented by your MP and then said that this was the same as ignoring all citizens of Canada and was totalitarian:

My political interest are NOT being represented by my MP, it is as simple as that, on top of the fact MP's generally tow the party line.

This is ignoring citizens of Canada and is totalitarian by nature.

You feel that your MP does not represent you. Fine, fair enough. But that does not make our system of government totalitarian.

"Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act

In terms of entertainment value, this may be the best thing you have posted in this thread. You claim that the Charter was required to pass same sex marriage legislation through Parliament. Did you even read the section that you quoted above? That is the section of the law that says people, based on their freedoms of religion and expression in the Charter, can oppose same sex marriage without suffering repercussions. This section says that the Charter allows people to not perform same sex marriages and even allows them to say that same sex marriages are against their religion. Maybe next time you should quote the entire section...

Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I don't have to.

Since it is your claim, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that the polls were NOT manipulated.

That really is a valiant effort. I said that the Charter has support in Canada and then I gave proof of that. You then accused those polls of being manipulated. This means it is YOUR claim that YOU need to back up. If you want to say those polls are manipulated then show us how. The burden of proof lies with you on this one.

You sound like your in a position of authority, when your not.

Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post.

All Canadians are supposed to have the same rights but to steal majority interest under the guise of rights is totally corrupt and fraudulent and that is what Canadians are living with in Canada, a corrupt, fraudulent, totalitarian Charter not worth the paper it is written on.

Once again you assume you know something about me. How do you know I am not in "a position of authority"?

As for meaningful contributions... well, if that was an actual criteria on this forum I assure you that your post count would drop dramatically. For instance, you could have posted something "meaningful" by answering my question regarding the "serious volatile problems" that were "conveniently omitted" from the Ontario election. Instead you told me that I am not in a position of authority (what you actually mean by that is unclear).

[Canadian Blue]

"Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. "

Most polls showed a majority supported it.

[Leafless]

OK.

You said that your political interests were not being represented by your MP and then said that this was the same as ignoring all citizens of Canada and was totalitarian:

In this country our only democratic right is MP representation.

In fact how does government tabulate which issues are partially important, semi-important, very important?

No one ever polled me on the subject and if one did over the telephone or coming to my door, I would not respond as it is a question of total privacy.

In saying this I doubt very much if very many Canadians would divulge concerns relating to potentially volatile or incriminating issues.

This is why we must do this in the secrecy of a polling booth every federal election where a series of questions would identify important or constitutional issues that affect all Canadians.

How else can the federal government 'read' what Canadians consider important outside of their usual way, telling them what the issues are with no proof those are indeed the issues of the day.

This is what makes it totalitarian.

In terms of entertainment value, this may be the best thing you have posted in this thread. You claim that the Charter was required to pass same sex marriage legislation through Parliament. Did you even read the section that you quoted above?

You only wanted a cite , proof, a link, right.

You got it.

That really is a valiant effort. I said that the Charter has support in Canada and then I gave proof of that. You then accused those polls of being manipulated. This means it is YOUR claim that YOU need to back up. If you want to say those polls are manipulated then show us how. The burden of proof lies with you on this one.

I cannot prove polls are manipulated and you cannot prove polls actually were undertaken.

Polls do not constitute any kind 'official proof' unless names, addresses and telephone numbers are also released.

Even then there is room for fraud.

The only way is federal government mini-referendums or referendums to determine that Canadians are indeed receiving proper representation and being democratically served.

Once again you assume you know something about me. How do you know I am not in "a position of authority"?

I don't care who you are.

I am talking about the way you reply to me.

You are not my superior, so reply like an adult instead of a drama queen.

As for meaningful contributions... well, if that was an actual criteria on this forum I assure you that your post count would drop dramatically. For instance, you could have posted something "meaningful" by answering my question regarding the "serious volatile problems" that were "conveniently omitted" from the Ontario election.

Serious volatile problems in Ontario, yes there are.

I will give you two,

(1) Politicians that are totally unaccountable for their actions.

(2) Gangs and Crime in Toronto.

[bk59]

No one ever polled me on the subject and if one did over the telephone or coming to my door, I would not respond as it is a question of total privacy.

In saying this I doubt very much if very many Canadians would divulge concerns relating to potentially volatile or incriminating issues.

This is why we must do this in the secrecy of a polling booth every federal election where a series of questions would identify important or constitutional issues that affect all Canadians.

You complain that no one consults you on the issues that you think are important, but then you would refuse to tell people what issues you think are important? Or what you think about those issues? How would talking about this be incriminating? If you aren't willing to tell your MP what you think then don't complain when he or she does not do what you want. And you don't need a referendum to find out what Canadians think about every single little issue. Whether you want to accept it or not, polling is an accurate way of finding out what issues are important to Canadians and what Canadians think about those issues.

You only wanted a cite , proof, a link, right.

You got it.

I asked you to support your claim. What I got was something that proved my point, not yours. The section you linked to shows how the law regarding SSM accommodates those who oppose SSM on religious grounds and states that it does this because the Charter protects freedom of religion. Simply being able to copy and paste does not mean you have proven anything. You have to actually read what you are copying.

I cannot prove polls are manipulated and you cannot prove polls actually were undertaken.

Polls do not constitute any kind 'official proof' unless names, addresses and telephone numbers are also released.

Even then there is room for fraud.

The only way is federal government mini-referendums or referendums to determine that Canadians are indeed receiving proper representation and being democratically served.

This sounds like conspiracy theory talk to me. Obviously there is some proof that the polls were undertaken. For example the information about who did the polls, etc. But yes, fraud is a possibility, even if it is a very small possibility. Then again, there is room for fraud in referendums as well. The only difference is, polls are an accurate and cheaper way to cover a wider range of questions than referendums. Not to mention the fact that if the government was constantly running referendums it would never actually get anything done.

I don't care who you are.

I am talking about the way you reply to me.

You are not my superior, so reply like an adult instead of a drama queen.

You have to love internet forums like this. Drama queen? You are calling the Canadian government totalitarian because they don't represent your interests even though if asked you wouldn't tell them anyway. Now that's drama. As for replies, well... here are some good ones:

"I think your still in primary school and won't admit it."

"You must be one twisted little puppy"

"Smell the coffee friend."

"Where is your proof to back your ridiculous statement."

If I am coming across as condescending then at least I'm not the only one.

Serious volatile problems in Ontario, yes there are.

I will give you two,

(1) Politicians that are totally unaccountable for their actions.

(2) Gangs and Crime in Toronto.

Ontario just had an election where it would seem that everyone had the chance to hold politicians accountable and did so to their satisfaction. So I'm not sure your first point is that big of a deal. I realize that you think differently, but without proof that the election was rigged or stolen, I think you just have to accept that most people in Ontario voted differently than you did.

Gangs and crime are a serious issue. And perhaps it should have been discussed more during the campaign. But I'm not sure that it's such an important issue that it overshadows everything else.

[Leafless]

You complain that no one consults you on the issues that you think are important, but then you would refuse to tell people what issues you think are important?

Don't use the word 'complain' you lackey socialist 'oink'.

I have every right to voice my concerns in this totalitarian country.

And you don't need a referendum to find out what Canadians think about every single little issue. Whether you want to accept it or not, polling is an accurate way of finding out what issues are important to Canadians and what Canadians think about those issues.

I will tell you, a referendum is the only official, democratic way to find out what Canadians want.

Polls do not reflect any level of officially or offer the standard referendums do.

Prove that polls are valid official option relating to the democratic right of Canadians to be heard and represented by their MP as policy of the federal government of Canada?

I asked you to support your claim. What I got was something that proved my point, not yours. The section you linked to shows how the law regarding SSM accommodates those who oppose SSM on religious grounds and states that it does this because the Charter protects freedom of religion. Simply being able to copy and paste does not mean you have proven anything. You have to actually read what you are copying.

Then what Charter rights is the 'Civil Marriage Act'based on?

This sounds like conspiracy theory talk to me. Obviously there is some proof that the polls were undertaken.

The only proof would be to supply publicly the names and addresses of those polled.

All socialist are satisfied with the corrupt system we currently have in place they like it that ways because it fills their pockets with dollars just like how Quebec have manipulated the system in their favour with socialist ideologies that have never been democratically approved by the citizens of Canada.

The only difference is, polls are an accurate and cheaper way to cover a wider range of questions than referendums.

For instance if referendums were incorporated initially on whether or not to keep Quebec in confederation and the referendum indicated no, Canada could have saved an amount surpassing to-days national debt.

Gangs and crime are a serious issue. And perhaps it should have been discussed more during the campaign. But I'm not sure that it's such an important issue that it overshadows everything else.

What is more important than innocent citizens being shot dead by gangs having shoot outs in crowded public places or having so many deaths in TO relating to handguns?

[Canadian Blue]

I have every right to voice my concerns in this totalitarian country.

That's quite the contradiction, you say you have the "right" to voice your concerns in this "totalitarian" country. In a totalitarian country you wouldn't even have any rights.

I will tell you, a referendum is the only official, democratic way to find out what Canadians want.

An extremely costly way at that as we would need a referendum on every issue. That's what our elected representatives are for.

All socialist are satisfied with the corrupt system we currently have in place they like it that ways because it fills their pockets with dollars just like how Quebec have manipulated the system in their favour with socialist ideologies that have never been democratically approved by the citizens of Canada.

Except election after election where those from the centre to the left tend to get around 60% of the vote.

What is more important than innocent citizens being shot dead by gangs having shoot outs in crowded public places or having so many deaths in TO relating to handguns?

So should we then ban all handguns? You'll probably never get rid of handgun crime or gang crime unless we happened to be a totalitarian state. The only real solution is to find ways of reducing crime through tougher laws, stiffer sentences, and increasing funding to community groups, education, etc.

[guyser]

Don't use the word 'complain' you lackey socialist 'oink'.

Oh looks like you losing it again. This time no pink wearing chardonnay sipping slags?

I have every right to voice my concerns in this totalitarian country.

I will tell you, a referendum is the only official, democratic way to find out what Canadians want.

Yes , yes you do, however you have admitted you would not want to say what those concerns are so in your myopic fantasy world , the referendum ballot would be blank and we can just fill it out for what we want.

Great, you still lose. Somewhere a few people will vote for something different.

Prove that polls are valid official option relating to the democratic right of Canadians to be heard and represented by their MP as policy of the federal government of Canada?

Do you even read your own posts? Has anyone pontificated that polls are a "valid official option"?

The only proof would be to supply publicly the names and addresses of those polled.

Why, so you can call them up and berate them for pinko oinks or some other dumb name like you always do?

For instance if referendums were incorporated initially on whether or not to keep Quebec in confederation and the referendum indicated no, Canada could have saved an amount surpassing to-days national debt.

And all indications IIRC where that they would have voted "YES". Damn lost another huh?

What is more important than innocent citizens being shot dead by gangs having shoot outs in crowded public places or having so many deaths in TO relating to handguns?

What the hell would you know about this.Innocents? Sure it happens, quite infrequently as 81% of all deaths are done by known entities to the murdered party.

But no, I would not expect you to take any time to find out.

By the way, you are in Ottawa arent you? Take care of your own city first, the rate of criminal code offences in your city surpass ours.

[Leafless]

That's quite the contradiction, you say you have the "right" to voice your concerns in this "totalitarian" country. In a totalitarian country you wouldn't even have any rights.

Well we don't have any democratic rights concerning Canadian citizens and democratic participation affecting our lives.

MP representation is a joke.

It seems your happy with the federal government basically controlling all aspects of politics in Canada, even intruding into provincial affairs but allows Quebec to have its own Charter and to control its French identity and even immigration to that province.

If you don't consider these few points alone grounds enough for a revolution then you don't understand the dynamics of democracy and probably don't care.

Reminds me of 'What is the definition of a Canadian'?

Answer- 'A Canadian is one who lives in Canada'.

This is an absolutely amazing description of a Canadian and tags them what they really are----NOTHING.

An extremely costly way at that as we would need a referendum on every issue. That's what our elected representatives are for.

Well look what the cost factor is now throwing money around like water , supporting all these costly socialist cultural initiatives.

This is the thing with federal politics in Canada, we basically have two federal parties the Conservatives who want to run Canada like any other country and the Liberals who want to run Canada on the bases of French power and culture and phoney Charter rights that back many of their cultural iniatives all there for one purpose, to preserve the political influence of Quebec and advance their political ideologies.

What country in the world would tolerate this kind of politics, outside of wimpy Canada?

Except election after election where those from the centre to the left tend to get around 60% of the vote.

So should we then ban all handguns? You'll probably never get rid of handgun crime or gang crime unless we happened to be a totalitarian state. The only real solution is to find ways of reducing crime through tougher laws, stiffer sentences, and increasing funding to community groups, education, etc.

The real solution is to clamp down on undesirable immigration to Canada and promptly deport the troublemakers.

Harper has the right idea but mandatory jail sentences for handguns should have been implemented years ago with much tougher sentencing for manslaughter and murder with no parole.

[bk59]

Don't use the word 'complain' you lackey socialist 'oink'.

With reasoned debate like that it's hard to believe that some people consider internet forums to be full of rambling idiots.

I have every right to voice my concerns in this totalitarian country.

You have every right to voice your concerns in this democratic country. No totalitarian country would allow you to speak that way about the government. Thankfully I am not the only one on here pointing that out.

I will tell you, a referendum is the only official, democratic way to find out what Canadians want.

Polls do not reflect any level of officially or offer the standard referendums do.

Prove that polls are valid official option relating to the democratic right of Canadians to be heard and represented by their MP as policy of the federal government of Canada?

You love to use the word official a lot. What exactly do you mean by official? Because if you are talking about methods to find out what Canadians want, referendums are clearly not the only option.

Then what Charter rights is the 'Civil Marriage Act'based on?

Weren't you the one saying that this law required the Charter? So why aren't you answering this question?

Better yet, don't bother. The fact is, the government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. Because the federal government is entitled to do that, with or without the Charter.

All socialist are satisfied with the corrupt system we currently have in place they like it that ways because it fills their pockets with dollars just like how Quebec have manipulated the system in their favour with socialist ideologies that have never been democratically approved by the citizens of Canada.

Wow, really? Seeing as you called me a socialist lackey earlier, when should I be expecting these truckloads of cash to show up at my door? I hope it's soon.

For instance if referendums were incorporated initially on whether or not to keep Quebec in confederation and the referendum indicated no, Canada could have saved an amount surpassing to-days national debt.

Gibberish.

What is more important than innocent citizens being shot dead by gangs having shoot outs in crowded public places or having so many deaths in TO relating to handguns?

How about making sure our soldiers in combat are equipped properly? It seems like they might be facing more dangerous conditions than the citizens of Toronto. How about finding ways to reduce long term negative impacts on the environment that could affect generations to come? (And that doesn't necessarily mean supporting Kyoto.) How about dealing with the poverty issues that still face many Canadians, including significant numbers of children? That seems to be a very complex issue that perhaps should get more attention. In this last Ontario election it seemed like a lot of people were concerned about the future of their education system.

Rest assured there is no shortage of issues facing Canada today. Urban crime is certainly on that list. But let's not pretend that it outweighs all of the other issues.

[bk59]

If you don't consider these few points alone grounds enough for a revolution then you don't understand the dynamics of democracy and probably don't care.

...

What country in the world would tolerate this kind of politics, outside of wimpy Canada?

The real solution is to clamp down on undesirable immigration to Canada and promptly deport the troublemakers.

Maybe we should start by deporting all of the people calling for revolution?

Harper has the right idea but mandatory jail sentences for handguns should have been implemented years ago with much tougher sentencing for manslaughter and murder with no parole.

I guess that's one way to go about it. Or we could actually try to build a justice system that is flexible and can deal with individuals and their individual cases. Using harsher sentencing where appropriate, and using alternative means where appropriate. The harsh sentences will still be there for those who need them, but we won't be clogging up our corrections system with people who don't need to be there.

[Leafless]

With reasoned debate like that it's hard to believe that some people consider internet forums to be full of rambling idiots.

More arrogance from a self-righteous French propagandist backed mainly by by a double crossing federal Liberal government out to destroy the ruling English majority with an oppressive, undemocratic language laws and a racist Charter.

You have every right to voice your concerns in this democratic country. No totalitarian country would allow you to speak that way about the government. Thankfully I am not the only one on here pointing that out.

Thank God for the British.

You love to use the word official a lot. What exactly do you mean by official?

The standard a government uses to establish an authorized legitimacy to a word, a bill or whatever they choose it for.

I.E.. Official Multiculturalism, Official Languages.

Because if you are talking about methods to find out what Canadians want, referendums are clearly not the only option.

I think it is, as government clearly knows what the feedback is relating to important issues that affect this country via the press and citizens of Canada.

But of course this is only the preliminary step.

The government must the compile this information and present it to the people of Canada to let them determine what the priority or importance of issues are via a referendum or mini referendum every federal election.

Of course I am not talking EVERY problem but especially the more serious constitutional, immigration issues that have a direct impact on the lives of all Canadians in a detrimental way or a way that unfairly burdens or discriminates against the lives of law abiding, tax paying Canadians.

Weren't you the one saying that this law required the Charter?

Nope.

I mentioned that the federal government cited its own Charter to back the Civil Marriage Act, but do not agree with the Charter and feel it should be scrapped as it is to powerful of a document in the hands of a power seeking corrupt government and could be used to adversely align society to that governments corrupt ideologies.

Better yet, don't bother. The fact is, the government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. Because the federal government is entitled to do that, with or without the Charter.

That statement clearly describes the actions of a Banana republic.

In this last Ontario election it seemed like a lot of people were concerned about the future of their education system.

I would be worried to about Ontario's education system.

And I am glad premier Mc.Guinty is taking steps to boost the literacy rate in Ontario schools.

It appears Ontario's highly paid school teachers are currently incapable of teaching children to read and premier Mc.Guinty is going to throw in millions of dollars more at the system to accomplish this. And more highly paid teachers that obviously whose only worries are their over stuffed bank accounts.

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2004/...mp;lang=_e.html

I mean is this not the MAIN function of any school is to teach children to read and write along with a little math and why Ontario cannot accomplish this without an army of more teachers and money boggles the mind.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Maybe we should start by deporting all of the people calling for revolution?

French propagandist would love that.

It seems you have the qualities as a future dictator, here or elsewhere.

[Canadian Blue]

It seems your happy with the federal government basically controlling all aspects of politics in Canada, even intruding into provincial affairs but allows Quebec to have its own Charter and to control its French identity and even immigration to that province.

Because Quebec never signed the Charter. If people don't like the charter they can vote against it, however it seems most prefer to have it.

This is the thing with federal politics in Canada, we basically have two federal parties the Conservatives who want to run Canada like any other country and the Liberals who want to run Canada on the bases of French power and culture and phoney Charter rights that back many of their cultural iniatives all there for one purpose, to preserve the political influence of Quebec and advance their political ideologies.

What country in the world would tolerate this kind of politics, outside of wimpy Canada?

No we have four parties, and it looks like we may have a fifth.

More arrogance from a self-righteous French propagandist backed mainly by by a double crossing federal Liberal government out to destroy the ruling English majority with an oppressive, undemocratic language laws and a racist Charter.

Wow, so much rhetoric.

Why doesn't the english majority elect MP's to fight the charter. It seems to me that your more angry that not everyone shares your opinions.

[bk59]

More arrogance from a self-righteous French propagandist backed mainly by by a double crossing federal Liberal government out to destroy the ruling English majority with an oppressive, undemocratic language laws and a racist Charter.

Hilarious. If you can show me how your insult (as sad as it was) was reasoned debate, then I will gladly take back that comment. Your own arrogance is astounding. You refuse to believe that Canadians do not think the way you do about their government, the Charter, etc. Again, if people were so opposed to these things, they would be doing something about them.

The standard a government uses to establish an authorized legitimacy to a word, a bill or whatever they choose it for.

I.E.. Official Multiculturalism, Official Languages.

Governments use polls all the time. I guess there is your answer.

Nope.

I mentioned that the federal government cited its own Charter to back the Civil Marriage Act, but do not agree with the Charter and feel it should be scrapped as it is to powerful of a document in the hands of a power seeking corrupt government and could be used to adversely align society to that governments corrupt ideologies.

OK, but you still have not shown where the government cited the Charter to back the Act. The only place you could cite (so far) is where the Charter was used to support people who opposed the Act.

That statement clearly describes the actions of a Banana republic.

Do you consider the USA to be a "Banana Republic"? Because here's an interesting bit of info for you - the US Congress can also pass whatever laws it wants without citing the US Constitution. As long as the laws abide by the Constitution. This is exactly the same in Canada. Canadian governments do not need to cite our Constitution and the laws must abide by the Constitution. I guess you'll have to retract all of those statements about how great the US is. Either that, or retract the statement regarding Canada's "Banana Republic" status.

And I am glad premier Mc.Guinty is taking steps to boost the literacy rate in Ontario schools.

It appears Ontario's highly paid school teachers are currently incapable of teaching children to read and premier Mc.Guinty is going to throw in millions of dollars more at the system to accomplish this. And more highly paid teachers that obviously whose only worries are their over stuffed bank accounts.

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2004/...mp;lang=_e.html

First, I hope you didn't think that was current press release. It's from 2004. So maybe you want to say McGuinty "took steps", instead of "is taking steps".

Out of curiosity, is there any profession you won't needlessly insult?

It seems you have the qualities as a future dictator, here or elsewhere.

Let's see... you refuse to believe that Canadians have different opinions than you on many issues. You insult people and resort to name calling. You want to deport everyone you consider to be a troublemaker. Someone here has the qualities of a dictator. I'm not sure that most here would guess me though.

[bk59]

Why doesn't the english majority elect MP's to fight the charter. It seems to me that your more angry that not everyone shares your opinions.

Agreed

[Leafless]

Because Quebec never signed the Charter. If people don't like the charter they can vote against it, however it seems most prefer to have it.

Can you quote or supply the list of Canadians who support it?

Vote against the Charter?

It is up to the federal government to call a national referendum on the issue, then we can vote on the issue.

No we have four parties, and it looks like we may have a fifth.

For all practical purposes relating to federal politics we have two parties that only matter, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the others are political nobody's that only slightly complicate politics in Canada.

Why doesn't the english majority elect MP's to fight the charter.

Relating to conventional politics this probably will never happen since Canadian politicians currently continue to believe Quebec is part of Canadian confederation despite Quebec's hateful attitude towards federal government control and English speaking domination of Canada.

But, for instance if Harper or any other PM of the day believes Quebec can no longer be tolerated in in our confederation the PM simply has to revoke the Charter and presto--its gone and along with it probably Quebec.

But probably within a few short months we would have 8-million Quebec refugees sitting on the borders of Canada, since federal hand outs would cease to exist. But nevertheless this is a real problem and one that should have been solved by the Brotish at the time by shipping all Francophones back to France where they belong.

It seems to me that your more angry that not everyone shares your opinions.

Who is everyone YOU and bk59, LOL.

I fully realize many minorities try to dominate political sites like this one in an effort to convince Canadians most agree with their socialist, dictatorial views and opinions. Most Canadians don't even bother to get worked up over Quebecers and Francophones who want to dominate federal jobs because the English are capable of working elsewhere and don't need the services of government to create employment for them.

But nevertheless the twisted politics that created this federal bilingual misfit policies out of the confines of the province of Quebec so racially discriminates that it is beyond comprehension that a federal government would politically and racially discriminate against its own majority English speaking population.

On the other hand most people I know or DON"T KNOW, make my opinions look pretty lame compared to what they have to say about politics in Canada, although out of courtesy I purposely limit and partially censor my own opinions relating to Canadian politics.

[Leafless]

OK, but you still have not shown where the government cited the Charter to back the Act. The only place you could cite (so far) is where the Charter was used to support people who opposed the Act.

Are you realy as thick as you are letting on?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Charter and the Constitution.

The Government believes that same-sex couples should have equal access to marriage - anything short of that is less than equal and discriminatory. The Government cannot, and should not, pick and choose whose rights they will defend and whose rights they will ignore. If the fundamental rights of one minority can be denied, so potentially can those of others. This bill will respect and defend the Charter rights of all Canadians.

Courts in eight jurisdictions have recognized that the right to equality without discrimination requires that couples of the same sex have equal access to civil marriage. And thousands of same-sex couples are already legally married.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31376.html

Do you consider the USA to be a "Banana Republic"? Because here's an interesting bit of info for you - the US Congress can also pass whatever laws it wants without citing the US Constitution. As long as the laws abide by the Constitution. This is exactly the same in Canada.

Not quite, as the president can veto bills passed by Congress, thus preventing them from becoming law.

In turn, by a two-thirds vote, Congress can override the president’s veto.

The president would really have to pull a bummer for this to happen.

Canada is still a 'banana republic' in comparison.

First, I hope you didn't think that was current press release. It's from 2004. So maybe you want to say McGuinty "took steps", instead of "is taking steps".

I have not heard of any improvement in such basic education.

Have you and if you did please cite them.

[Canadian Blue]

For all practical purposes relating to federal politics we have two parties that only matter, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the others are political nobody's that only slightly complicate politics in Canada.

Except when it comes to a minority government and they hold the balance of power.

Can you quote or supply the list of Canadians who support it?

Yes, all those who voted with the parties that supported it.

Relating to conventional politics this probably will never happen since Canadian politicians currently continue to believe Quebec is part of Canadian confederation despite Quebec's hateful attitude towards federal government control and English speaking domination of Canada.

Unfortunately Quebec is a province in Canada. Don't know why I had to point it out.

But, for instance if Harper or any other PM of the day believes Quebec can no longer be tolerated in in our confederation the PM simply has to revoke the Charter and presto--its gone and along with it probably Quebec.

I think their is a bit more to it than that. I don't see why Quebec would be gone as they didn't even sign on to it.

But probably within a few short months we would have 8-million Quebec refugees sitting on the borders of Canada, since federal hand outs would cease to exist. But nevertheless this is a real problem and one that should have been solved by the Brotish at the time by shipping all Francophones back to France where they belong.

That has to be one of the more absurd comments of the day. Really, do you think people would be deported that easily without any outbreak of violence.

Who is everyone YOU and bk59, LOL.

As well as the Canadian electorate, that's why the Charter is still around don't you know.

I fully realize many minorities try to dominate political sites like this one in an effort to convince Canadians most agree with their socialist, dictatorial views and opinions.

I'm fairly certain 99% of Canadian's don't even know this site exists.

Most Canadians don't even bother to get worked up over Quebecers and Francophones who want to dominate federal jobs because the English are capable of working elsewhere and don't need the services of government to create employment for them.

There are a ton of english people working in the federal government. I've worked with French Canadian's, and strangely enough they weren't foaming at the mouth.

But nevertheless the twisted politics that created this federal bilingual misfit policies out of the confines of the province of Quebec so racially discriminates that it is beyond comprehension that a federal government would politically and racially discriminate against its own majority English speaking population.

Most of the French Canadian's I've met are also white. Really I don't see whats wrong with having certain government employees learn french and english, it's just common sense.

On the other hand most people I know or DON"T KNOW, make my opinions look pretty lame compared to what they have to say about politics in Canada, although out of courtesy I purposely limit and partially censor my own opinions relating to Canadian politics.

I find that the people who bash the French the most are the ones who have never been to Quebec. In Alberta I hear the stereotypes often because it riles up the base, in the end it's nothing but simple minded ignorance.

Canada is still a 'banana republic' in comparison.

As are most western democracies apparently.

By the way, most polls around the time of the same sex marriage debate showed that a MAJORITY of Canadian's supported SSM. However apparently polls are useless, despite the fact that a MAJORITY of elected MP's supported SSM in a Liberal minority, and coincidentally a Conservative minority.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[guyser]

By the way, most polls around the time of the same sex marriage debate showed that a MAJORITY of Canadian's supported SSM. However apparently polls are useless, despite the fact that a MAJORITY of elected MP's supported SSM in a Liberal minority, and coincidentally a Conservative minority.

Yes but it works this way.

If it agrees with him, then it is valid.

If it doesn't agree, its a sham, invalid as to the Charter, done by immigrants ...or worse some French Canadian .

But the laugher is the thought that this board has minorities trying to dominate it .

[Leafless]

But the laugher is the thought that this board has minorities trying to dominate it .

Isn't guyser who is a minority, always or mostly trying to protect other minority concerns from what he or she views as unwarranted attacks from the horrible 'White' majority or others, with an array of mostly unwarranted senseless or tit for tat replies.

Is this not an instance where a minority is trying to control and protect minority interest on this board and shame the majority from speaking out with cheap shots.

We do not need nor want 'guyser' censorship interfering with others free speech relating to patriotic majority concerns.