An Individual's Freedom

[Pliny]

Neither Canada nor any of its provinces and territories are participatory democracies. The are parliamentary democracies that turn out to be oligarchies. Neither do they obtain a consensus among the voters, but rely upon fragmentation and dissension to obtain seats. This leaves opposition as "official" and there is little stomach to co-operate to get things done.

A participatory democracy does not have leaders but "representatives"who can be removed for failing to represent their constituency. Whenever a politician says he wants to be your "leader" should should run as far as you can away from them. Those kinds of promotions indicate that corruption is deep in the mind of the candidate.

I see.

But shouldn't "leadership" be qualified by constitutional parameters? If it is so qualified and understood to be a criminal offense to step outside those parameters what do we have to fear?

Fear of government basically depends upon what powers the government has. A "parliamentary democracy" constrained by a constitution would not allow it to infringe upon the citizenry in areas where it had no mandate and if it evolved into an oligarchy, as you suggest, it would not be a problem either - only when it starts to centralize powers, engineer society and create monopolies does it seem threatening.

I am sorry to disagree with you regarding representation. I think your concept of government is that all points of view should be represented on all social matters and that government itself be responsible for social engineering. My concept is that humanity as a social organism can only agree on the most basic of interests of the individual, i.e., security, freedom, liberty, and these are the things that government should concern itself with. Consensus on things beyond that are impossible to be reached and the enacting of legislation to solidify or enforce concensus, be it the desire of the majority or the demands of any minority are not conducive to unity or any national identity. They should not be the concern of a federal government anyway.

The sanctity of person and property are all I see as necessary to government power. If a person is gay - he has the right, as an individual, to not be forcibly infringed upon. The "homophobe" in turn has the right to not be forcibly infringed upon and has the right to hold his views. The governments role is not to determine that gays or homophobes are morally superior, one over the other, but to ensure neither violates the individual right to the sanctity of person and property and respects the views of others, that is a government's mandate. It must blindly enforce it's mandate. This way the homophobe can have the freedom to be prejudiced and the gay can have the freedom of an alternative lifestyle. They will never reach a consensus but under the force of law, which can only favor one side over another, one side will always feel oppressed and the other favored.

[charter.rights]

I am sorry to disagree with you regarding representation. I think your concept of government is that all points of view should be represented on all social matters and that government itself be responsible for social engineering. My concept is that humanity as a social organism can only agree on the most basic of interests of the individual, i.e., security, freedom, liberty, and these are the things that government should concern itself with. Consensus on things beyond that are impossible to be reached and the enacting of legislation to solidify or enforce concensus, be it the desire of the majority or the demands of any minority are not conducive to unity or any national identity. They should not be the concern of a federal government anyway.

The will of the majority is not consensus. Ideally, in a participatory democracy all opinions on matters of law and social issues are sought. Those who happen to want to participate can and do and those that do not do not have a right to interfere with the outcome, if they refuse to be engaged. Security, freedom and liberty should never be left in the hands of the government because they become tools of the oligarchy to oppress and segregate people. And much like it is in the US Constitution, should be "of the people, by the people". Impeachment even at the state level becomes an important tool for maintaining control of the legislature.

The sanctity of person and property are all I see as necessary to government power. If a person is gay - he has the right, as an individual, to not be forcibly infringed upon. The "homophobe" in turn has the right to not be forcibly infringed upon and has the right to hold his views.

Providing those views do not infringe upon another's security and liberty. Such is the case when personal views are codified and the collection expressions promote the destruction or harm of others. The promotion of hate is dutifully a crime.

The governments role is not to determine that gays or homophobes are morally superior, one over the other, but to ensure neither violates the individual right to the sanctity of person and property and respects the views of others, that is a government's mandate.

The government was never given the mandate to protect individual rights. In fact the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the construct of the Monarchy. Government in Canada is nothing but a corporation, whose job it is to redistribute the wealth and "has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" Pierre Elliot Trudeau

When it comes to individual or collective rights the government is most often the offender and people must fight them all the way to the Supreme Court. And in many cases despite the SCoC ruling against the government, the bureaucracy still continues without change, forcing anyone to keep challenging them.

Believe or not protest is often the impetus for change. And by criminalizing protest the government does not abide by its own law. Instead we must stand up against an oligarchy whose personal agendas often outweigh their responsibilities.

The latest protest at the Seaway International Bridge is a perfect example since an election promise to arm border guards attempts to usurp an international agreement with the Akwesasneron (as they like to be called). There is no law calling for the CBSA to be carrying sidearms. It is merely an policy decision, without not only public input, but government input as well.

It must blindly enforce it's mandate.

As mentioned above, the government does not enforce the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (this is left up to the courts as representatives of the Crown) but is more often than not the offender of rights.