Liberal democracy, a SHAM?

[Moonlight Graham]

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

No state or province in the U.S. or Canada even comes close to having total direct democracy. That would mean having a referendum or similar on every single issue, which is virtually impossible on that scale. While direct democary would be great & is ideal, we'd have to split Canada up into 800 little countries. Or go Anarchist or something.

I think you're mixing 2 seperate issues here: a) liberal democracy sucks, and The Charter sucks.

[Leafless]

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.

Did they?

No, they did NOT. They used the Charter.

Where is your proof to back your ridiculous statement.

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

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.

It seems you are happy with a 'Banana Republic' type government.

Good for you.

[Leafless]

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.

This is the nature of a totalitarian country, to only advocate the view of the government.

Obviously, the federal government will never allow a legally binding national referendum on the issue.

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.

Thje Charter was not ratified by Canadians but rather politicians and it will be politicians that eventually scrap it.

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.

Most Canadians do not know the Charter from a hole in the ground.

They are mostly like you who think it is all about the old 1960's 'Bill of Rights'.

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.

Goes to show you, Quebec will never be happy until the federal government designates them a country.

"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?

It divides and racially discriminates and categorizes Canadians on the basis of language and culture into three basic societies, majority White English speaking Canadian, The French Canadian, and the Aboriginals.

To put society on equal footing is not the business of government. Quebecers were never discriminated upon. They refused to assimilate into the majority. Whose fault is this, White English speaking Canadians? Why make French problems a problem of society for all to pay when all they have to do is separate if they don't like it.

For instance Charter Item 16(1) states: "English and French are the official languages of Canada's and have EQUAL rights and privledges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada."

Why then mandatory 'official bilingualism' under all entities under federal control?

Why then under Charter Item 16(3) states:"Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French".

And we know the fed's are not talking about the status of majority English but are concerned about the further promotion of minority French, like in Ottawa where they provided incentives for that city to adopt an 'official bilingual policy' to an already Liberal friendly mayor who complied, even changing English street signs to FRENCH via a federal grant.

[Leafless]

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

The old 'Bill of rights' was protected federally as well as each individual province having their own human rights legislation.

[Leafless]

No state or province in the U.S. or Canada even comes close to having total direct democracy.

There are I believe 35 U.S. states that have their own constitution and use referendum on a regular basis including SSM.

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/legal/statebystate.html

And on the federal level:

The third principle of American democracy is the system of checks and balances. The three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial—restrain and stabilize one another through their separated functions. The legislative branch, represented by Congress, must pass bills before they can become law. The executive branch—namely, 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 Supreme Court may invalidate acts of Congress by declaring them contrary to the Constitution of the United States, but Congress can change the Constitution through the amendment process.

[bk59]

Did they?

No, they did NOT. They used the Charter.

Where is your proof to back your ridiculous statement.

You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here. On the one hand, you say that the government needed the Charter to recognize same sex marriages. On the other hand, you say that the Charter was not needed to recognize equality and other rights because these were covered in the 1960 Bill of Rights. Which is it? Either they needed the Charter for SSM, and therefore it has something the Bill of Rights does not have, or the two are equivalent with respect to equality rights and freedoms and therefore the Charter was not needed to recognize SSM.

The government did look to the Charter when recognizing SSM. But you seem to be unaware of one of the most basic principles of Canadian government - the Canadian Parliament can pass laws recognizing things like SSM without relying on any previous constitutional document or legislation.

[bk59]

This is the nature of a totalitarian country, to only advocate the view of the government.

Obviously, the federal government will never allow a legally binding national referendum on the issue.

Once again you fail to provide any information that would support your view that Canadians oppose the Charter. Of course this has not stopped you from demanding that other people support their positions with facts. I wonder at what point you will realize that your hypocrisy only hurts your arguments.

It divides and racially discriminates and categorizes Canadians on the basis of language and culture into three basic societies, majority White English speaking Canadian, The French Canadian, and the Aboriginals.

Have you even read the Charter? Where does it mention "white Canadians"? Where does it categorize anyone based on their culture? The Charter says that Aboriginal rights and freedoms are not affected by the Charter - it gives nothing new to Aboriginals as a specific group of people.

Why then mandatory 'official bilingualism' under all entities under federal control?

Yes, we all get that you hate French. But whether you like it or not, this country was founded by people who spoke English and French. And ensuring that the federal government, in all of its forms, provides services in both of those languages is not a bad thing. By providing services in BOTH languages, it does not discriminate against either language.

[bk59]

The old 'Bill of rights' was protected federally as well as each individual province having their own human rights legislation.

Yes, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding a normal federal law and a constitutional document. A normal federal law is not binding on future Parliaments and can be changed or repealed on a whim. The constitution has a very specific formula that must be followed in order to change it. The Charter ensures that rights are respected despite attempts at government to do otherwise - or at least makes it much harder for a government to disrespect those rights. A normal federal law does not give that advantage.

[Leafless]

You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here. On the one hand, you say that the government needed the Charter to recognize same sex marriages. On the other hand, you say that the Charter was not needed to recognize equality and other rights because these were covered in the 1960 Bill of Rights.

SSM was not recognized under the old 1960 'Bill of Rights'.

Svend Robertson was basically responsible for the passage of Bill C-38 making SSM legal under Sec.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[bk59]

SSM was not recognized under the old 1960 'Bill of Rights'.

Svend Robertson was basically responsible for the passage of Bill C-38 making SSM legal under Sec.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

OK, let's have the cite then. Show everyone where in the Bill it relied on the Charter.

Incidentally, by admitting that some things were not recognized under the Bill of Rights you are admitting that the Charter offers rights and freedoms that the old Bill of Rights did not. So how about we stop hearing from you about how all the rights in the Charter were just a copy of the Bill of Rights.

[Leafless]

Once again you fail to provide any information that would support your view that Canadians oppose the Charter. Of course this has not stopped you from demanding that other people support their positions with facts. I wonder at what point you will realize that your hypocrisy only hurts your arguments.

I am saying we are ruled by a totalititarian government and kept oppressed with improper proof.

You are saying the opposite.

So where is your 'offical proof', or 'official document' to back your statements?

Have you even read the Charter? Where does it mention "white Canadians"? Where does it categorize anyone based on their culture? The Charter says that Aboriginal rights and freedoms are not affected by the Charter - it gives nothing new to Aboriginals as a specific group of people.

Just because the Charter does not mention 'White Canadians' or Aboriginals skin colour or the French language being part of Francophone's culture does not mean that the Charter does not discriminate on the basis of colour, language, culture or even religion. It does as it divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights or implies this.

Aboriginals are a specific group of people and they are not 'White'.

French is a minority foreign language and is part of Francophones culture.

White English speaking Christian Canadians are the majority culture.

Yes, we all get that you hate French. But whether you like it or not, this country was founded by people who spoke English and French.

I hate to disappoint you but this country was founded by the British and you know, all the things you hate along with it, God Save the Queen, the Queen, constitutional monarchy, majority English language, Don Cherry, English only movies etc.

And ensuring that the federal government, in all of its forms, provides services in both of those languages is not a bad thing. By providing services in BOTH languages, it does not discriminate against either language.

You know it is not about providing services in both languages, as that is the easy part, even computers can do alone, for the most part.

You know it is providing a Francophone culture throughout its own province Quebec and trying to further propagate it to the provinces with varying levels of success, including the entire federal public service of Canada, all at the expense of the English sucker tax payers of Canada.

If you don't call that discrimination then I don't know what is.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Leafless

[Moonlight Graham]

There are I believe 35 U.S. states that have their own constitution and use referendum on a regular basis including SSM.

But no state uses direct democracy on every issue. Most issues at every level of govt are decided my representives the people vote for. Ontario just had a referendum on election reform, but the majority of decisions are still made by representitives as i'm sure u know.

I agree that i'd like to see more referendums in Canada like they have in the U.S. In terms of liberal democracy, looking around the rest of the world & throughout history i'm very happy living in Canada as we speak. While not perfect, the best countries to live in throughout the world use liberal democracy. I'd like to see something better, but as we've seen with Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Fascism etc. its not usually best be the first country to employ a new political ideology. Until we see another country find something better than liberal democracy, i'm happy tinkering with what we have.

[bk59]

I am saying we are ruled by a totalititarian government and kept oppressed with improper proof.

You are saying the opposite.

So where is your 'offical proof', or 'official document' to back your statements?

Once again you have made a claim (about Canada's "totalitarian" government) and offered no proof. I asked you for proof, and none is forthcoming. You want "official" proof that we do not have a totalitarian government? I can offer proof of a democracy. Take for instance all of the elections that have been held across the country recently. Is that "official" enough for you? But let me guess, you think these are shams, and not real elections. Tell you what - why don't you offer some actual FACTS to back up your position that we have a totalitarian government instead of continually demanding "official proof" from others?

Just because the Charter does not mention 'White Canadians' or Aboriginals skin colour or the French language being part of Francophone's culture does not mean that the Charter does not discriminate on the basis of colour, language, culture or even religion. It does as it divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights or implies this.

Aboriginals are a specific group of people and they are not 'White'.

As I said, the Charter did not give Aboriginals any new rights. So if you want to complain about Aboriginal rights you need to look at something else other than the Charter.

But now you claim that the Charter divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights. Fine. Please give examples of these different groups and the rights that they have been given by the Charter. Aboriginal rights do not count, as the Charter did not give any rights to Aboriginal peoples. I would particularly like to see how the Charter has created discrimination based on colour or religion (as you claim above). See below for my comments about the French language.

French is a minority foreign language and is part of Francophones culture.

White English speaking Christian Canadians are the majority culture.

...

You know it is not about providing services in both languages, as that is the easy part, even computers can do alone, for the most part.

You know it is providing a Francophone culture throughout its own province Quebec and trying to further propagate it to the provinces with varying levels of success, including the entire federal public service of Canada, all at the expense of the English sucker tax payers of Canada.

If you don't call that discrimination then I don't know what is.

French is not just a foreign language. It is also a Canadian language and has been since Canada's beginning. Actually, computers are not at the point where they can offer full service in any language. Sure we have automated phone systems that guide you through different services, but when you really need assistance you talk to a real person. The bottom line is, I'm glad we have a government that can offer French services to French speaking people outside of Quebec and offer English services to English speaking people inside of Quebec. You disagree, and that's fine. But trying to ensure that people can get access in their native tongue is not a bad idea when the languages in question are those that this country was founded on.

I hate to disappoint you but this country was founded by the British and you know, all the things you hate along with it, God Save the Queen, the Queen, constitutional monarchy, majority English language, Don Cherry, English only movies etc.

Oh, do I hate those things? Thank you for telling me what I hate. Could you also please tell me what my favourite colour is, or what foods I dislike? I'm so glad you came along to tell me what I think. Here's an idea - don't pretend you know me. You make ridiculous claims about the Charter and our government and I call you on it. Nowhere does that imply that I hate any of the things you mention above. No wonder you have such a hard time coming up with facts to support your claims. You are too busy assuming you already know what is going on.

[Leafless]

Ontario just had a referendum on election reform, but the majority of decisions are still made by representitives as i'm sure u know.

A rare event indeed, with next to impossible conditions to be met relating to the passage of MMP, set by Mc.Guinty.

The U.S. has Canada democratically beat hands down, to protect their majority interest.

[Leafless]

Once again you have made a claim (about Canada's "totalitarian" government) and offered no proof. I asked you for proof, and none is forthcoming.

Forget about the once again bit.

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 want "official" proof that we do not have a totalitarian government? I can offer proof of a democracy. Take for instance all of the elections that have been held across the country recently. Is that "official" enough for you? But let me guess, you think these are shams, and not real elections.

Shams they are.

Unless you have proof your political interest are being represented.

Tell you what - why don't you offer some actual FACTS to back up your position that we have a totalitarian government instead of continually demanding "official proof" from others?

Well, all we have to look at is the recent Ontario provincial election where the main issue ( funding for faith based schools) overshadowed and dominated the real issue's that affect the daily lives of Ontarians.

This election was a sham as the system failed to address the important issues.

Fault lies mainly with Mc.Guinty and the press who did not want the Conservatives in power and had created a corrupt totalititarian power grab.

The same tactics are used by the federal parties to divert attention from the real problems that plaque Canada.

As I said, the Charter did not give Aboriginals any new rights. So if you want to complain about Aboriginal rights you need to look at something else other than the Charter.

But now you claim that the Charter divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights. Fine. Please give examples of these different groups and the rights that they have been given by the Charter. Aboriginal rights do not count, as the Charter did not give any rights to Aboriginal peoples.

I think one would have to be very shortsighted not to understand the Charter was written for the benefit of Quebec while trying to impress the fact other groups are important, even Aboriginals but not a mention of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadian who is not even mentioned in the Charter.

This is blatant discrimination.

Obviously all Canadians are equal and included in Sections 1-15(2) and separate legislation should have been incorporated relating to the province of Quebec and Aboriginals identifying them in need of special treatment for whatever reason.

Bur then again this would even be more discriminating

The Charter discriminates on the basis of culture by granting rights on the basis of culture specifically to the French culture. Language, religion are components of culture as is religion.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Leafless

[Canadian Blue]

Thje Charter was not ratified by Canadians but rather politicians and it will be politicians that eventually scrap it.

You mean the politicians we elected supported the Charter. If Canadian's didn't like the charter all that would be required is for them to vote out the politicians.

As for totalitarian government, I think your smoking the pipe. America doesn't beat us hands down in terms of democracy, if you didn't notice the president of the United States was basically appointed by the supreme court.

[Leafless]

You mean the politicians we elected supported the Charter.

There is no possible way due to unknown factors or the ambiguity relating to the Charter, could the premiers know at that time, what they were actually ratifying.

As for totalitarian government, I think your smoking the pipe. America doesn't beat us hands down in terms of democracy, if you didn't notice the president of the United States was basically appointed by the supreme court.

I am not quite sure how accurate your description is and if you would care to elaborate, but in Canada our prime minister is basically appointed by members of parliament.

[bk59]

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.

A government is not totalitarian simply because it doesn't do exactly what you want. Welcome to democracy. Our representatives have to listen to everyone, but that does not mean that they have to advance everyone's position on every issue. That would be impossible.

All of your ranting seems to come down to the fact that you have different views than most Canadians and have decided to blame the government rather than look at why it is your views are not accepted by most Canadians.

Shams they are.

Unless you have proof your political interest are being represented.

Prove that Canadian elections are shams.

My political interests are being represented. I can identify positions in various party platforms that I agree with. Sometimes those parties win, sometimes they lose. It's called the will of the people. I don't cry just because I'm not always on the winning side.

Well, all we have to look at is the recent Ontario provincial election where the main issue ( funding for faith based schools) overshadowed and dominated the real issue's that affect the daily lives of Ontarians.

This election was a sham as the system failed to address the important issues.

Fault lies mainly with Mc.Guinty and the press who did not want the Conservatives in power and had created a corrupt totalititarian power grab.

That does not show the election was a sham. It shows that most people were more concerned about an issue that you did not think was important. People still had the option to look at the other positions taken by the parties. People still had the option to vote for what they wanted. It wasn't a power grab - no one forced people to vote a particular way. Perhaps you need to start realizing that not everyone agrees with you. And start realizing that maybe people did look at what they thought was important in the Ontario election and voted accordingly.

I think one would have to be very shortsighted not to understand the Charter was written for the benefit of Quebec while trying to impress the fact other groups are important, even Aboriginals but not a mention of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadian who is not even mentioned in the Charter.

This is blatant discrimination.

No, it is not. Giving white, English speaking, Christian Canadians special status in the Charter would have been discriminatory. White, English speaking, Christian Canadians were given the exact same rights as everyone else. That seems equal to me. And to everyone else who can understand the definitions of equality and discrimination.

The Charter discriminates on the basis of culture by granting rights on the basis of culture specifically to the French culture. Language, religion are components of culture as is religion.

You mention religion once again. Show me how a religious group was given special status by the Charter. You can't, because that didn't happen. Yes, religion is a part of culture. But there is no special status given to any one culture in the Charter. You claim that Quebec gets special status, but it doesn't. There are French speaking populations outside of Quebec that get the same language rights, and there are English speaking populations within Quebec that get the same language rights.

[bk59]

There is no possible way due to unknown factors or the ambiguity relating to the Charter, could the premiers know at that time, what they were actually ratifying.

I think they had a good idea. It's not like the idea for a Charter came out of nowhere one night. It was debated on, proposals were modified, the provinces and federal government negotiated aspects of it, etc.

[jennie]

in Canada our prime minister is basically appointed by members of parliament.

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.

[Canadian Blue]

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.

[Moonlight Graham]

A rare event indeed, with next to impossible conditions to be met relating to the passage of MMP, set by Mc.Guinty.

The U.S. has Canada democratically beat hands down, to protect their majority interest.

On the other hand, we have a multi-party system compared their 2 choices. We also brought down the Liberal gov't over a money scandal, while Mr. Bush & most of his cronies remain in office after lying their way into a war that has caused the deaths of likely 100,000+ innocent people (among other things).

But yeah, we agree on the referendum thing.

[guyser]

There is no possible way due to unknown factors or the ambiguity relating to the Charter, could the premiers know at that time, what they were actually ratifying.

Since the Charter has been around for many years, the Premiers have had plenty of time to see the wrinkles and conundrums in said Charter and fix them. But they deem none of the rights and freedoms a problem.

So they did know what they were ratifying , and it seems , as history is showing most of us that want to listen, that it works and works well.

But then, 80% approval means squat in someones world .

Edited October 15, 2007 by guyser

[Leafless]

A government is not totalitarian simply because it doesn't do exactly what you want. Welcome to democracy. Our representatives have to listen to everyone, but that does not mean that they have to advance everyone's position on every issue. That would be impossible.

All the more justification for mini-referendums every federal election on important issues that affect ALL Canadians.

In turn this would provide the ground work for federal parties platform relating to the serious issues of the day.

All of your ranting seems to come down to the fact that you have different views than most Canadians and have decided to blame the government rather than look at why it is your views are not accepted by most Canadians.

Prove that Canadian elections are shams.

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.

My political interests are being represented. I can identify positions in various party platforms that I agree with.

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.

Sometimes those parties win, sometimes they lose. It's called the will of the people. I don't cry just because I'm not always on the winning side.

That does not show the election was a sham.

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

It shows that most people were more concerned about an issue that you did not think was important. People still had the option to look at the other positions taken by the parties.

You make it sound like we have dozens of choices.

Smell the coffee friend.

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

White, English speaking, Christian Canadians were given the exact same rights as everyone else. That seems equal to me. And to everyone else who can understand the definitions of equality and discrimination.

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

You mention religion once again. Show me how a religious group was given special status by the Charter.

I simply mentioned religion to impress the fact it is part of culture, period

[Leafless]

I think they had a good idea. It's not like the idea for a Charter came out of nowhere one night. It was debated on, proposals were modified, the provinces and federal government negotiated aspects of it, etc.

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.