Social Justice

[Canuckistani]

That point doesn't acknowledge that there's such a thing as forward direction and progress. The countries that didn't have democracy are now demanding democracy. The countries that have democracy will soon demand open government and real accountability.

And that point doesn't acknowledge regress. I think we've already seen some in the US and Canada with regards to using terrorism as a reason to restrain liberties. And, with the US Supreme court's Citzen's United decision, and ever increasing economic disparity (money = power), I wouldn't say it' clear that we are necessarily moving forward.

[Michael Hardner]

And that point doesn't acknowledge regress. I think we've already seen some in the US and Canada with regards to using terrorism as a reason to restrain liberties.

I don't know that this is an example of regress exactly. Maybe the example of restrained liberties involved here would help.

[Canuckistani]

Patriot Act. Detention without trial. We also seem to be skirting on the edges of those things in Canada.

[Canuckistani]

Lest the picture that I now paint appear too rose-coloured, I would begin with

important concessions to what some critics have said regarding what has transpired in

Canada. Post 9/11 Canada, they contend with some justification, is less free, not

more. Many Canadians deeply resent this loss of liberty and many have been directly

affected by Canada’s new laws and policies. For example, although racial profiling

plays no role in the formal requirements of these laws immigrant and minority groups

have repeatedly complained that the expanded range of official discretion coupled

with new more expansive laws has left them vulnerable to such practices and they

have contended that the law as practiced has been used in discriminatory ways.

Instances of actual abuse and hardship in other areas of the anti-terrorism law’s

application have also surfaced, as the case of Liban Hussein demonstrates.

http://isrcl.org/Papers/Cohen.pdf

[Michael Hardner]

Patriot Act. Detention without trial. We also seem to be skirting on the edges of those things in Canada.

Those are new responses to new challenges. Some of them are about new technology. Although I don't support them, I don't think that they represent turning back the clock. Maybe they're about a new perception that rights aren't universal, and shouldn't be universal.

[Canuckistani]

I'm not sure I agree. But I'm actually more concerned about how money can buy the government. Maybe it's always been that way, but if we look at outcomes, at one time the govt seemed to care more about the average person. And I'm concerned about how robocalling seems to be a new low in election dirty tricks (or a new new low, since apparently they were quite dirty in times gone by as well) with not much the CPC has to worry about being caught. Look at the in and out scandal. The CPC paid a fine, declared victory and that's it.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure I agree. But I'm actually more concerned about how money can buy the government.

Okaaaay.... let's move on then...

Maybe it's always been that way, but if we look at outcomes, at one time the govt seemed to care more about the average person.

Maybe it has, but these things do change as time goes on. The current situation is different in Canada and the US. The Canadian system was a lot more corrupt under the Liberals, IMO, and the Conservatives helped bring about change that makes our system better - again in my opinion.

And I'm concerned about how robocalling seems to be a new low in election dirty tricks (or a new new low, since apparently they were quite dirty in times gone by as well) with not much the CPC has to worry about being caught. Look at the in and out scandal. The CPC paid a fine, declared victory and that's it.

The biggest left wingers in recent US politics (arguably Kennedy and Johnson) got a boost from so-called dirty tricks, as did the Liberals in Canada more recently with the adscam scandal. Those operations represented a bigger factor in corrupt elections than the robocalls, IMO.

- - - - -

If it will make you feel better, and I hope it does, buying elections makes more sense if you are able to buy the whole debate. It would take a lot of money to bribe a politican to definitely lose an election. So what we're calling bribes and corruption is actually money to buy legislator votes, and fund campaigns to sway individual voters too.

This is important, because the big way that that is done today is by buying television time. Television campaigns, as a way of debating issues, are going to leave us. When they're gone, we'll be left with the web, which will be a better way to move issues forward IMO.

[Canuckistani]

I don't have time to think about this. Except to say at the moment, big money seems to be able to have huge sway on elections, especially in the US, which in turn influences us. People voting against their economic interests because their patriotic and socially conservative buttons are being pushed. Can't really say what will happen in the future.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have time to think about this. Except to say at the moment, big money seems to be able to have huge sway on elections, especially in the US, which in turn influences us.

But in Canada ?

People voting against their economic interests because their patriotic and socially conservative buttons are being pushed. Can't really say what will happen in the future.

It sounds to me like they're making a choice of some kind, in any case.

[cybercoma]

But in Canada ?

It sounds to me like they're making a choice of some kind, in any case.

When you look at the legislation that has been introduced under Harper, especially when cabinet ministers seem to have no idea what's in the legislation that they are presenting (see Vic Toews on the internet spying bill), it would appear that "big money" does have an influence on not only politics, but also our laws. The seemingly baffling omnibus crime bill that was even criticized by Texas begins to make a hell of a lot of sense if you look at it through the lens of making money for privatized prisons.

[Michael Hardner]

When you look at the legislation that has been introduced under Harper, especially when cabinet ministers seem to have no idea what's in the legislation that they are presenting (see Vic Toews on the internet spying bill), it would appear that "big money" does have an influence on not only politics, but also our laws. The seemingly baffling omnibus crime bill that was even criticized by Texas begins to make a hell of a lot of sense if you look at it through the lens of making money for privatized prisons.

How do we separate this "big money" monicker from general economic policy ? Or do we ? Who is donating to the Conservatives so that they can spy on our internet ?

[Argus]

yes, we are all equal human beings. you have a very twisted view of social justice.

And you have a twisted view of reality and human motivations. If the person who is lazy and does nothing benefits equally with the person who works hard, then soon, very few will work hard. Hell, I will quit my job tomorrow if you promise I'll get just as much income as everyone else who is working. Why would I get up early and trudge off to work for no personal benefit?

Soon much of the population is sitting at home not working and there's not enough money to go around. No doubt your answer to that is to just print more...

[cybercoma]

How do we separate this "big money" monicker from general economic policy ? Or do we ? Who is donating to the Conservatives so that they can spy on our internet ?

Should companies have a vote in elections?

[Michael Hardner]

Should companies have a vote in elections?

No, we're already giving them less of a say so why would we do that ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Patriot Act. Detention without trial. We also seem to be skirting on the edges of those things in Canada.

I doubt it, as Canada already has its own brand of such things. Security Certificates pre-date the American PATRIOT Act by at least ten years. As for detention without trial, presidents Lincoln, Grant, and Bush did so in accordance with Article One, Section 9 of the US Constitution.

Edited May 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

But in Canada ?

No....not because of anything seen while watching American media or political discourse. What happens in Canada is mostly because of...Canadians.

[Michael Hardner]

No....not because of anything seen while watching American media or political discourse. What happens in Canada is mostly because of...Canadians.

In this case, the Conservatives saw how the Liberals had a lock on raising money and came at the situation with a more socialist approach, one that was also cleaner and less corrupt.

'big money' in our example is $1000 per person maximum, not that big.

[g_bambino]

Not until its smashed to pieces, no.

What is that going to do to make people want to hear the truth?

[ed.: sp]

Edited May 29, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The countries that have democracy will soon demand open government and real accountability.

Terms like "open government" and "real accountability" make for appetising sound bites, but what do they actually mean?

[g_bambino]

The only thing we're all really entitled to is near total transparency and honesty within and from our government - the one thing that should be equally available to all is access to the information that the state has in it's possession.

This is not an unachievable feat with the technology that is available in this day and age.

Social justice will be brought about because I have access to your health records and other states have access to all the information our state possesses? You dream a lot, eyeball, but you don't seem to think things through to their logical end.

[Canuckistani]

Terms like "open government" and "real accountability" make for appetising sound bites, but what do they actually mean?

I think we know what they mean. Creating and maintaining them is another matter.

[g_bambino]

I think we know what they mean. Creating and maintaining them is another matter.

Well, I know what the definitions of "open" and "accountable" are. I should've asked "what does an open and really accountable government look like?" I'd like some specifics, to see if it would actually work.

[Michael Hardner]

Terms like "open government" and "real accountability" make for appetising sound bites, but what do they actually mean?

Are you asking me to explain them to you because you don't like the idea, or because you're actually curious ?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I know what the definitions of "open" and "accountable" are. I should've asked "what does an open and really accountable government look like?" I'd like some specifics, to see if it would actually work.

The answer is that nobody really knows. "Open" means "open information" and information in 1867 isn't the same as information in 2012. Access to Information Acts were enough to keep government "OPEN" in the 1970s, but not enough today.

[Canuckistani]

Here are some people trying to push for open and accountabel govt. How successful they are is another matter. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773595

I don't think we can have it without an engaged citizenry. And most people have just retreated into cynicism against the govt, any govt, because of the power of big money arrayed against them.