America Envy/Anti-Americanism - Whence it Came

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In the end, there is a vast chasm between left-wingers and right-wingers. The views of both groups are polarized as to how government should interact with citizens. Thankfully, our respective democracies provide the best vehicle to find a balance for all our needs.

I must contest that statement. I find little democracy in the Canadian system. No fixed election dates, no recall, the whole question about the partisan voting in the HoC, no elected leader, the list is almost endless. We don't even have the right to own property in this nation. We are far from free and far from democratic.

[capricorn]

I must contest that statement. I find little democracy in the Canadian system. No fixed election dates, no recall, the whole question about the partisan voting in the HoC, no elected leader, the list is almost endless. We don't even have the right to own property in this nation. We are far from free and far from democratic.

Jerry, it was not my intention to critique the elements of our Canadian system of democracy or lack thereof. I agree our democratic system needs improvement. I too think property rights should be entrenched in our Constitution.

We do have fixed federal election dates now thanks to the Conservatives and many provinces are following suit.

As for electing our leader directly, as long as we operate under the Parliamentary system of government, this will never happen.

Democratic reform comes much too slowly. Yet our system is far superior to what is found in some countries around the world and for that I am grateful.

[kengs333]

We do have fixed federal election dates now thanks to the Conservatives and many provinces are following suit.

Wow. Big deal. The only reason we have fixed election dates is because the Liberals managed to use the former system to their advantage to rightfully keep the conservative parties out of power for much of the last 40 years. Anyone who believes that this is somehow indicative of the Conservative's attempt to democratize the Canadian electoral system is a fool. If they really wanted to accomplish this, they'd institute a PR voting system, keep the senate the way it is, and stop eroding Canada's ties to the Monarchy.

Edited December 26, 2007 by kengs333

[capricorn]

Wow. Big deal. The only reason we have fixed election dates is because the Liberals managed to use the former system to their advantage to rightfully keep the conservative parties out of power for much of the last 40 years. Anyone who believes that this is somehow indicative of the Conservative's attempt to democratize the Canadian electoral system is a fool.

I sense a deep seated anger because the Liberals lost their grip from around the country's throat. As for attempting to democratize our system, I suppose that makes a whole lot of Canadians fools because they agree with fixed election dates.

If they really wanted to accomplish this, they'd institute a PR voting system, keep the senate the way it is, and stop eroding Canada's ties to the Monarchy.

Ontario turned down PR in a recent referendum. This is a clear indication that there would be a similar result nationally. The Senate is no longer the chamber of sober second thought and should be abolished. As for the monarchy, there are 2 sides to the argument. I tend to want the tie maintained since it is the last vestige of a common Canadian identity.

Edited December 26, 2007 by capricorn

[jbg]

I must contest that statement. I find little democracy in the Canadian system. No fixed election dates, no recall, the whole question about the partisan voting in the HoC, no elected leader, the list is almost endless. We don't even have the right to own property in this nation. We are far from free and far from democratic.

Much in the way of rights is derived from the unwritten British Constitution, which is not repealed or superceded by the Charter of No Rights and Special Pleadings.

[Guest American Woman]

We don't even have the right to own property in this nation.

What do you mean by that statement? People own houses in Canada, so that would be "owning property."

[jbg]

What do you mean by that statement? People own houses in Canada, so that would be "owning property."

The Charter does not enshrine right to due process and fair compensation before taking of property. The Canadian equivalent of the Fifth Amendment provides the right to preservation of liberty, and some protection against self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment does protect property as well as liberty.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Charter does not enshrine right to due process and fair compensation before taking of property. The Canadian equivalent of the Fifth Amendment provides the right to preservation of liberty, and some protection against self-incrimination....

Even more interesting are the "limitation" and "notwithstanding" clauses, which could further erode such rights as absolute.

[jbg]

Even more interesting are the "limitation" and "notwithstanding" clauses, which could further erode such rights as absolute.

Is this what you're referring to by the "limitation clause"?:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it

subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

( c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Edited December 27, 2007 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this what you're referring to by the "limitation clause"?:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it

subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Yes....in practice, the courts can affect the same "limits" in the USA, but I am not aware of equivalent language in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights).

[jbg]

Yes....in practice, the courts can affect the same "limits" in the USA, but I am not aware of equivalent language in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights).

It's not really the same at all. If you remember the "Pentagon Papers" case, where the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the publication of astolen Pentagon report on the Viet Nam War, the restrictions on speech requires close to an emergency, not limitations that a "reasonable" democracy could impose.

The US standard is almost impossible to meet, as a practical standard.

[Higgly]

Yep it's penal envy, Left leaning leaders look towards Eurabia for policies. They shun the US, it after all is successful global leader and Eurabia well it's a socialist hellhole. After 12 years of liberal rule, tadaaaaaaaa the majority of Canadians believe in Socialism.The Left's problem with being elected in the US is similar lack of pragmatism. The fact is, responding to Moxie first, is that Europe has never worked. Their best, not their worst, people emigrated to the US and Canada when settlement opened.

As time went on, Europe has been in a state of continual persecutions and wars. The people who stay are people too settled in their ways, lacking the initiative and drive to move on to new, more promising frontiers. The ruling class was always hatching the next persecution of some religious or ethnic group, or war. The US and Canada were busy developing.

As Monty Burns points out, the Left envies what America has, and wants to hobble it. Examples are Kyoto and Bali.

On the other hand, if you look at the history of immigration from Europe, you'll see that much of it has derived from the persecuted classes: Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses... Isn't that how it goes? The Quakers, the Irish, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese...

Is it any wonder that they might favour left-leaning policies once they get here?

[Higgly]

It's not really the same at all. If you remember the "Pentagon Papers" case, where the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the publication of astolen Pentagon report on the Viet Nam War, the restrictions on speech requires close to an emergency, not limitations that a "reasonable" democracy could impose.

The US standard is almost impossible to meet, as a practical standard.

Yes it is and that is because the state is so friggin powerful! It should be a hard standard to meet.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not really the same at all. If you remember the "Pentagon Papers" case, where the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the publication of astolen Pentagon report on the Viet Nam War, the restrictions on speech requires close to an emergency, not limitations that a "reasonable" democracy could impose.

The US standard is almost impossible to meet, as a practical standard.

Perhaps, but it does happen: Gag orders, rape shield laws, sealed cases, etc. The significant point is that Canada accepts the lower standard from the 'git go, while the US forces a confrontation in the courts, where such "limitation" laws can be found unconstitutional.

I think we agree which nation has the higher standard.

[jbg]

On the other hand, if you look at the history of immigration from Europe, you'll see that much of it has derived from the persecuted classes: Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses... Isn't that how it goes? The Quakers, the Irish, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese...

Is it any wonder that they might favour left-leaning policies once they get here?

Certain ones did, and certain ones didn't. There's nothing left-leaning about the Irish, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians and the Chinese. The Quakers split down the middle (remember Richard Milhous Nixon was a Quaker, and at least moderately conservative). The Jews are really the only left-leaning group, at least among the peoples you mentioned. That derives from their prominence in academic and labor-leadership circles, and from the so-called "Jewish ethic" (one which I don't totally buy).

[jbg]

Yes it is and that is because the state is so friggin powerful! It should be a hard standard to meet.

I hope we're understanding each other. What I'm saying is that the government has an essentially impossible standard to meet in order to suppress free speech.

Perhaps, but it does happen: Gag orders, rape shield laws, sealed cases, etc. The significant point is that Canada accepts the lower standard from the 'git go, while the US forces a confrontation in the courts, where such "limitation" laws can be found unconstitutional.

Having recently lost a bruising battle to seal a client litigation from public view, getting cases "sealed", other than commercial secret cases, divorce cases and cases involving rape is almost impossible.

Rape shield laws do one of two things:

1. Limit a defendant's ability to cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour; or
   
2. Prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.
   

Both are exceedingly narrow exceptions to freedom of speech and/or press, and exist more to protect individual privacy than to proscribe press freedom. The important thing is that the government, and public figures cannot use these to protect themselves from criticism. Gag orders are similarly narrow and temporary in scope.

I think we agree which nation has the higher standard.

No question. The US's is about the highest in the world.

[Higgly]

Certain ones did, and certain ones didn't. There's nothing left-leaning about the Irish, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians and the Chinese. The Quakers split down the middle (remember Richard Milhous Nixon was a Quaker, and at least moderately conservative). The Jews are really the only left-leaning group, at least among the peoples you mentioned. That derives from their prominence in academic and labor-leadership circles, and from the so-called "Jewish ethic" (one which I don't totally buy).

Well I don't know. How about those German and Italian union agreements? Wasn't communism invented by a Jew? As for the Ukrainians, weren't socialism and medicare brought to us by a Saksatchewan politician? How you can say the Chinese are not left-leaning is beyond me, given the fact that they finally escaped Imperial rule only by force of a communist leader (admittedly an idiot) whom they supported big time.

Yes, it is dangerous to say that any given people are of a particular bent. But they all came here as persecuted minorities, typically the source of left-leaning voter movements.

[bush_cheney2004]

Having recently lost a bruising battle to seal a client litigation from public view, getting cases "sealed", other than commercial secret cases, divorce cases and cases involving rape is almost impossible.

Delightful..I knew the examples would appeal to your experience.

Rape shield laws do one of two things:

1. Limit a defendant's ability to cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour; or
   
2. Prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.
   

Both are exceedingly narrow exceptions to freedom of speech and/or press, and exist more to protect individual privacy than to proscribe press freedom. The important thing is that the government, and public figures cannot use these to protect themselves from criticism. Gag orders are similarly narrow and temporary in scope.

Understood, but I think the former are no longer warranted (assault is assault) and the latter should rarely be used.

No question. The US's is about the highest in the world.

Yep....Canada got a taste of this standard when the Captain's Quarters blog divulged Gomery "secrets".

[jbg]

Yes, it is dangerous to say that any given people are of a particular bent. But they all came here as persecuted minorities, typically the source of left-leaning voter movements.

Sorry, I meant those people as in North America, not in their own countries.

[jbg]

Delightful..I knew the examples would appeal to your experience.

How did you know that?

Understood, but I think the former are no longer warranted (assault is assault) and the latter should rarely be used.

Not really. People generally don't voluntarily get themselves assaulted. People do voluntarily have sex and should have the freedom, if a crime victim, not to have their consensual activity explored other than to test for "consenusal semen".

Yep....Canada got a taste of this standard when the Captain's Quarters blog divulged Gomery "secrets".

That's a good thing.

[Moonlight Graham]

I like the U.S. overall, they are a good neighbour. I have some great American friends. Canada's peaceful independence from Britian has the American Revolution to thank. The American Founding Fathers were brilliant men, & the U.S. Constitution has been a wonderful example for other countries to follow toward their own democratic reform. There's a good portion of Americans i don't like however, but there's a portion of Canadians i don't like either hehe.

The thing i detest about America is its government, most specifically its foreign policies post-WWII. The U.S. is a super-power, and it could/can do a much, much better job on the foreign stage. The arrogance of the U.S. government is overwhelming. U.S. interventonism has gone much too far, and is only now starting to backfire in her face. The American public has much to blame for this.

I'm glad that a stable, democratic country is the world's only super-power, but i would much rather that super-power be a country less right-leaning, more progressive in human rights, & less obsessed with blowing people up. The fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President says a lot about how far the U.S. still has to go. I know that many Americans do not feel this way, and are in fact wonderful people, but unfortunately they haven't rubbed off on some of the "smaller-brained" individuals yet. Its unfortunate that some of these "smaller-brained" people end up in important positions in government.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The thing i detest about America is its government, most specifically its foreign policies post-WWII. The U.S. is a super-power, and it could/can do a much, much better job on the foreign stage. The arrogance of the U.S. government is overwhelming. U.S. interventonism has gone much too far, and is only now starting to backfire in her face. The American public has much to blame for this....

Interesting...so do you feel that the imperialist and arrogant America that existed before WWII and helped preserve the Empire and Commonwealth was OK? America is the same as it ever was, including the government.

[M.Dancer]

The thing i detest about America is .........

Personally for myself I find the lack of vinegar for french fries to be detestable.And don't get me started about breakfast diners and their inability to carry HP Sauce.

Aside from that, the world's most stable democracy has a governmental system that is the envy of almost every nation outside of Canada and the west...

[capricorn]

I like the U.S. overall, they are a good neighbour.

You could have fooled me if it wasn't for the rest of your post.

I have some great American friends.

Show them this post and see how long they'll remain your friends.

Canada's peaceful independence from Britian has the American Revolution to thank.

Peaceful? Read your history! Peaceful my foot.

The American Founding Fathers were brilliant men, & the U.S. Constitution has been a wonderful example for other countries to follow toward their own democratic reform.

You don't believe a word you're saying so save it.

There's a good portion of Americans i don't like however, but there's a portion of Canadians i don't like either hehe.

Spoken like a true self-hating Canadian.

The thing i detest about America is its government, most specifically its foreign policies post-WWII. The U.S. is a super-power, and it could/can do a much, much better job on the foreign stage. The arrogance of the U.S. government is overwhelming. U.S. interventonism has gone much too far, and is only now starting to backfire in her face. The American public has much to blame for this.

I bet your American friends would love you for this pronouncement.

I'm glad that a stable, democratic country is the world's only super-power, but i would much rather that super-power be a country less right-leaning, more progressive in human rights, & less obsessed with blowing people up.

You've been talking to Jack Layton again.

The fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President says a lot about how far the U.S. still has to go.

How do you know this? The US hasn't even had their Presidential elections yet and you know the outcome. What's your secret? Tea leaves?

I know that many Americans do not feel this way, and are in fact wonderful people, but unfortunately they haven't rubbed off on some of the "smaller-brained" individuals yet. Its unfortunate that some of these "smaller-brained" people end up in important positions in government.

Admit it, you wouldn't know a small brain from a large brain if it hit you in the face.

[M.Dancer]

How many black leadership candidates have there been in our history? How many women have been elected PM?