Big Guy Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 A little over 20 years ago in Ireland, homosexuality was decriminalized. Now it looks like gay marriage is legalized; http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/referendum-2015-live-its-a-resounding-yes-for-samesex-marriage-in-Ireland-31238126.html How quickly this world changes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Good for them. While I am a little concerned about the very idea of putting "rights" up for referendum, the result was a good one in this case. I wonder what the response would have been if the vote had been no. Edited May 23, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Agree with bcsapper on voting for rights. Also - BG - please note that I EDITED the thread title to make it more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Good for them. While I am a little concerned about the very idea of putting "rights" up for referendum, the result was a good one in this case. I wonder what the response would have been if the vote had been no. Everything should be based on referendum. Democracy is the idea that the people make the rules. Majority rule...or at least they should. It's shameful that the people can vote one way on an issue, only to have one single judge (sometimes a couple more, I suppose) overturn the wishes of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) No, I disagree with the "everything" there. I can see some things, I guess. The upcoming vote in the UK on remaining in the EU, for instance. To me, democracy is the idea that you elect a government to make the rules. Not that you make them yourselves. Edited May 23, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 It's shameful that the people can vote one way on an issue, only to have one single judge (sometimes a couple more, I suppose) overturn the wishes of the people. I think it's the "whims" of the people, and I agree that there are times when a judge needs to overrule the popular tastes. In fact, setting up a situation of creative tension (as in, the electorate balanced against the judiciary) will engender dialogue to help mitigate the effects of change. Even better would be to have a nonymous "public" to discuss these things, rather than anonymous masses watching TV or commenting on web boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 No, I disagree with the "everything" there. I can see some things, I guess. The upcoming vote in the UK on remaining in the EU, for instance. To me, democracy is the idea that you elect a government to make the rules. Not that you make them yourselves. Like a ruler or a king! Not me, If the majority says OK to gay marriage (or guns or abortion etc.) - then so be it, that's democracy at it's best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 I can't remember the last time I had to vote for the Queen. Maybe I've repressed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Maybe I've repressed it. I'm thankful that, at least, Ireland voted for the queens this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 I can't remember the last time I had to vote for the Queen. Maybe I've repressed it. The point is; you're ok giving one person absolute power - I am not. What if the PM in Ireland (I know he was a yes vote), said "No, I won't allow it"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) The point is; you're ok giving one person absolute power - I am not. What if the PM in Ireland (I know he was a yes vote), said "No, I won't allow it"? It isn't absolute power. Absolute power comes with the systems other than the democratic. Take the recent example of Alberta. Do you think Rachel Notley has absolute power? She has a majority, so in theory, sure. What do you think would happen if she put that into practice? She would be out of power at the next election. One would assume that the Irish referendum went ahead with the PM's blessing, so he would hardly be likely to deny the result. I would imagine his ouster would follow any attempt to do so. Questions for you: How does a country go about democracy by referendum? Should Quebec be able to vote to leave Canada? Should Canada vote on the same issue? Should Montreal be allowed to vote to stay in Canada? Should the (pick) community in Montreal be allowed to stay in Quebec? Or Canada? Or form a new nation? Should a vote on the death penalty be held after a Clifford Olson trial? Should it be held again after a David Milgaard or a Steven Truscott execution? Should a vote on gun laws be held after a Polytechnic Massacre? When should it be held again? And after that one, when should it be held again? The populace make their voices heard and if the government doesn't hear them, they have the option of voting them out at the next election. As I stated, I'm not totally against a referendum in all cases, but it's no way to run a country. Edited May 23, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Canada did vote on releasing Quebec. As for all the other things, Clifford Olson and whatnot does not directly concern the public - that's what courts are for. Courts should not decide on public policy any more than religion should - that should be left to the people. For example; A politician shouldn't be allowed to pay for a new sports facility without a vote from the people. A government should manage our money, create jobs and tend to infrastructure, not decide our moral compass for us. Our government wanted to put forth Harmonized sales tax, the people voted against it - that's democracy. Cretien was called "the crazy king of Canada" because he walked around saying "I make the decisions for all Canadians". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Canada did vote on releasing Quebec. As for all the other things, Clifford Olson and whatnot does not directly concern the public - that's what courts are for. Courts should not decide on public policy any more than religion should - that should be left to the people. For example; A politician shouldn't be allowed to pay for a new sports facility without a vote from the people. A government should manage our money, create jobs and tend to infrastructure, not decide our moral compass for us. Our government wanted to put forth Harmonized sales tax, the people voted against it - that's democracy. Cretien was called "the crazy king of Canada" because he walked around saying "I make the decisions for all Canadians". I don't remember that vote on Quebec. Maybe that one was before I arrived. The harmonized sales tax is a good example of something that can be decided by referendum, I agree. You are going to be taxed. No choice in that. You can have a choice how, after hearing both sides argue their case. There will be no referendum on whether or not taxes will be levied. Or at least, there should not be, in my opinion. My point about referendums, which I think you have acknowledged above, is that you can't run a country with them. In my posts to which you have responded, I was arguing against your contention that "everything" should be decided by referendum. You can't change the laws based on what the people are thinking right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 I wonder what the response would have been if the vote had been no. There would have been no end to the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) There would have been no end to the issue. True. It does seem like some issues, if they go to referendum, just keep going until the "correct" answer is reached. The SNP in the UK is already talking about another vote on secession. I can't imagine there ever being a vote to rejoin the UK if they get their way. Same with Quebec. Edited May 23, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 There is only one major issue in Canada where a number of different governments have voted against the will of the people - Capital Punishment. Any poll that I have seen indicates that the majority of Canadians believe in the death penalty in certain cases - yet subsequent governments have ignored the will of the people. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Maybe because the courts have found people guilty of a crime that would have meant their death only to see them found innocent later. To my mind the only reason to not have a death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 Now if only they could get rid of blasphemy laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.