eyeball Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Similarly, in Canada, the political branches can and should make clear that there are lines that should never be crossed in a democracy. Speaking for myself, I'd be taking up arms against any political branch of Canada's government that tried to use democracy to justify doing what you've been talking about. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You are correct. This is the key to understanding Canada. Really though, most of us are quite open to most forms of immigration. I like what the current government is doing, with their decision to put skills and language at the top of consideration. This should help build an even better economy, and provide for even more integration of Canada's diverse population. Quote
Smallc Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) New Brunswick is officially bilingual as well, or is that the one to which you referred? Yes, it is the only officially bilingual province. Most services are available in both languages in Manitoba and Ontario, and somewhat less in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI....the rest simply do what they have to, which isn't much. Edited January 16, 2012 by Smallc Quote
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Similarly, in Canada, the political branches can and should make clear that there are lines that should never be crossed in a democracy. Courts can only render judgements based on interpretations of written law, common law, and precedent. If a law passed by parlaiment is so loosely worded as to permit judges wide interpretation of the law itself, then it is the responsibility of parliament to amend the law to tighten up the wording. The courts in no way, that I know of, anyway, have overstepped their bounds; parliament remains supreme in our system. Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Speaking for myself, I'd be taking up arms against any political branch of Canada's government that tried to use democracy to justify doing what you've been talking about. The point I'm trying to make is that the Court should have at least some respect for what overwhelming majorities of the population want. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 But you resolve nothing by offering a deal that no one signs up for. As PM you would not have the ability to offer a 'take it or leave it' deal. Are you certain that none of the groups would sign up for a better deal then what they currently have? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Speaking for myself, I'd be taking up arms against any political branch of Canada's government that tried to use democracy to justify doing what you've been talking about. How would you take your (fire)arms out of the collective gun arsenal without the tyrannical Government knowing, thanks to the GPS tracking devices? I think you and the rest of the unarmed public would have to “lump it”. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun ~ Mao Edited January 16, 2012 by Derek L Quote
eyeball Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The point I'm trying to make is that the Court should have at least some respect for what overwhelming majorities of the population want. Overwhelming? You mean like the 40% that's overwhelmed our Parliament at the moment? Don't forget this really only represents about 25% of the electorate. An overwhelming majority of a population is an entirely different thing and when it comes to basically committing an entire nation to starting a war, 25% doesn't even come close. When you start factoring in how little influence an electorate really has these days compared to the influence corporations have, who knows how many wars have been started on the basis of support that's really closer to nothing compared to an overwhelming majority of a population. Of course we'd never know given the layers of secrecy and opacity that governments bury themselves under. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 How would you take your (fire)arms out of the collective gun arsenal without the tyrannical Government knowing, thanks to the GPS tracking devices? That'll all have to wait until after I guess. One thing at a time. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 That'll all have to wait until after I guess. One thing at a time. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 No he can't. Yeah, he actually can. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Really, no. Canada has always been made up of diverse populations. The Irish, Scottish, and French and even the English were all looked upon the same way many people look upon immigrants (who come from all regions of the world) today, with the same pointed fingers and accusations. This was a British colony with a British culture largely made up of British people. The general local culture in Toronto and Kingston was not much different than in London or Leeds, regardless of the fact that, as in those cities at the time, not everyone was a homegrown citizen. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You are correct. This is the key to understanding Canada. Or misunderstanding its history. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Probably, and I don't necessarily approve of what was done....although the street names are still easy enough to recognize. Still, Quebec is as bilingual as it has to be (it must provide certain government services in English), and as bilingual as at least the two most western provinces. The two western provinces don't have large minorities of French speakers living there. Nor is there a deliberate societal move to marginalize them as there is in Quebec. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Yeah, he actually can. The Prime Minister doesn't control how Parliament or the Senate votes. So, no he can't. For what it's worth, he also has to follow the law. Edited January 16, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 This was a British colony with a British culture... Leaving aside the Chinese, Ukranian, and other immigrants that came to what was to become Canada before it was Canada, define "British culture". Quote
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The Prime Minister doesn't control how Parliament or the Senate votes. So, no he can't. He also has no control over the provinces; so, no, he definitely can't. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The two western provinces don't have large minorities of French speakers living there. Nor is there a deliberate societal move to marginalize them as there is in Quebec. I live in the Maillardville section of Coquitlam BC.......At one point, Maillardville was the largest French community west of Manitoba......Also, here in Greater Vancouver and in Victoria, there are large Chinese communities that can trace their establishment prior to Confederation. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Or misunderstanding its history. I don't think so. Accommodating diverse views was done from the outset, and was an aspect of the break between Canada and the US. From before confederation there had to be accommodation of different religions and ways of life. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Evening Star Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Some votes must be confidence measures. This is the nature of our system. Confidence measures cannot be free votes. You can try to argue to increase the number of free votes but getting rid of whipped votes is impossible unless the system is changed. In any case, I am not sure I want a system where individual MPs have that much automony because it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party. Look to the US to see what happenes when individual congressmen are free to sell their vote to the highest bidder. I don't think we need free votes on every issue but since voters do only vote for their local representative, I do think these representatives should have greater power and autonomy to act as representatives as opposed to placeholders. Otherwise, if we must have the level of party discipline that we currently have, if MPs largely function to toe the party line and people are thus voting for parties rather than individuals, then I think we should move towards some type of proportional representation that actually recognizes this. I don't have a problem with a party winning an election with 35-40% of the vote but I don't agree that this should give the leaders of that party the level of control that it gives them now. I didn't like it anymore under the Liberals btw. However, I would much prefer a FPTP system where MPs just have a little more autonomy than they have now. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The Prime Minister doesn't control how Parliament or the Senate votes. So, no he can't. For what it's worth, he also has to follow the law. The prime minister who has a majority does indeed control how parliament works, as we've seen from all the complaints from the opposition about the Tories running roughshod over them. The Senate is made up of trained seals. And the law is whatever the PM decides he wants it to be. The only brake on his power, really, is how willing his party is to go along with him. He can rewrite laws or override the constitutions if he desires. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You clearly have no idea how our country functions. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I don't think so. Accommodating diverse views was done from the outset, and was an aspect of the break between Canada and the US. From before confederation there had to be accommodation of different religions and ways of life. The French were tolerated, yes, if you call that accommodation then I'll go along with it. Nevertheless, the population of Canada in 1911 was about seven million people. Four million of those people were British, two million French. Of the 1 million others, half were German (though interestingly, we hear very little about the contribution of Germans to Canadian history, as opposed to say Ukrainians or Chinese). English Canada made very little cultural or political accommodation even to the French, never mind the Germans or anyone else. As for the French, they pretty much did their own thing. Even by 1941 90% of Canada's population was either British or French. When your numbers are that high you just don't 'accommodate' third parties. There was no multiculturalism. You learned to speak English, and the ways of British society or you were ignored entirely by the government, the media, and couldn't fill out forms or even vote. The overwhelmingly dominant culture, and the only one the mainstream paid the slightest attention to, was British. Edited January 16, 2012 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You clearly have no idea how our country functions. You clearly have no idea how our country functions. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
guyser Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You clearly have no idea how our country functions. No No, trust us, you have no idea. Gbambino will be along shortly to school you on this. Good idea to pay attention when he does. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.