Democracy

[August1991]

By my reckoning, there are about 15 regular posters on this forum. On Rabble, there are about 30 regular posters. On Free Dominion, about 20 posters. Poltiquebec has about 20 regular posters.

Yet, "Canada" has millions of voters.

IMO, I have seen many silly arguments on this forum. I was banned on Rabble. I have barely (never) posted on FD. I post occasionally on politiquebec.

IMV, freedom of speech should be paramount. Internet forums are a new forum of communication.

Whither democracy? Ordinary people love to gossip.

Are Internet forums the future of society? Like law firms? Novels?

I create this thread to wonder. Should we defend a right to express a viewpoint? What is an Internet forum?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

What is an Internet forum?

It is a place where one tries to change the silly and often pointless opinions of others with their own.

Seriously, the lack of regular posters is indicative of the pall that has come across the Canadian voter. The Canadian voter feels that they have just as much chance influencing gov't here as at the polling station. Even more so here, I would expect, because here they can at least explain 'why' they feel the way they do.

The only way internet forums can legitimately influence the gov't is through a 'town hall' atmosphere, and that would require it to be run by the gov't itself. It has been done, I had participated in a 'foreign policy discussion' run by the gov't. It was tightly moderated, no deviance from the topic at hand allowed. While I doubt I had any influence, it was nice that they gave me at least the illusion of participating in gov't policy-making, and I thanked them for it.

[ndpnic]

Sorry, Canada is not the land of democracy!

It is the land of Elected Dictators!!!!

[Argus]

By my reckoning, there are about 15 regular posters on this forum.  On Rabble, there are about 30 regular posters.  On Free Dominion, about 20 posters.  Poltiquebec has about 20 regular posters.

Yet, "Canada" has millions of voters.

There are a number of reasons. As has already been suggested, I believe many people have given up on our democracy because they feel their wants and desires are not going to be taken into consideration. Which is unfortunately often true, but who is to blame but those very same people? If you vote for politicians who lie to you, then go out and vote for them again, who is to blame but you?

The internet is still, in large measure, the province of the relatively young. This is a group which has distanced itself even more from politics. Most of the people I know in their twenties have little or no interest in politics. Those who do spend little effort familiarizing themselves with complexities. They want simple answers to all their problems, and are earnestly sure those answers will work perfectly. This is also a group which reads less than any generation we've had. They haven't got any patience either. Writing out a complicated statement (which many are incapable of doing), then waiting a day or two to read someone elses response is just too dull for them. They'd rather be playing video games or doing something else with constant and immediate feedback.

It's just as well, frankly, that most of them don't vote.

For older folk, I believe many are on the internet, but, though there are certainly exeptions, are too timid to insert themselves in the somewhat robust discussions over politics.

At the heart, though, of Canadians' distancing themselves from politics is continuing disappointment over the parties and leadership. Not since Trudeau have we had a politician who could inspire (not that I liked him either). Instead we have bland, crooked, dishonest self important men and women of no substance throughout the parties. What's to get excited about? The last time any party raised the excitment level of Canadians it ws the Reform Party, which had the shocking habit of speaking plainly! They spoke out on issues which angered millions of Canadians, but which all the other parties were united behind. They dared to criticise Bilingualism. They dared to criticse Immigration. They stood for traditional values. They were a breath of fresh air to many millions of Canadians. But they slowly mutated, under the constant barrage of the Central Canada media, and began to use their own spin doctors, and to hide their opinions behind doubletalk. Now they're the "conservatives" and they don't talk about immigration any more, unless it's to call for more. They don't talk about crime and law and order much. They don't dare talk about bilingualism except to say they support it. They've become just another of the political elite, joined at the hip, despite the party, agreeing on all major issues despite what the electorate thinks or wants. More than half of Canadians oppose the current concept of Official Bilingualism. But all parties fully support it. Huh? Probably half of Canadians want a drastic slowdown in immigration but all parties fully support the current level or more. Huh? Very close to half of Canadians are opposed to same sex marriage. Some politicians oppose it too, but all party leaders are in support except Stephen Harper, who won't even give his opinion. Huh? Our Health Care system is falling apart. Does anyone have any real ideas how to fix it? Is anyone willing to try something new? Not publicly.

Is there anyone who has enthusiasm for the Liberals? I doubt it. But they won anyway. Why? Because no one has enthusiasm for the Tories either. Why would they have? And no one who pays taxes can have any enthusiasm for the NDP.

[Guest eureka]

I think that "Reformers" don't talk about those things any more because they have been found out by a significant sector of the Public. If they talked about those destructive notions, they would be wiped out as a political force - deservedly.

Instead, they, like Harper, keep silent while waiting their turn in power when, no doubt, they will attempt to press on with their formerly declared agenda of destroying the country.

Democracy, as perceived by them, is a form of government that allows the populace to be manipulated under the illusion that they are participating in a democratic exercise.

[Argus]

I think that "Reformers" don't talk about those things any more because they have been found out by a significant sector of the Public. If they talked about those destructive notions, they would be wiped out as a political force - deservedly.

Would you care to back that up with a smidgen of logic? Polls have shown a majority of Canadians do not support official bilingualism, very close to a majority want immigration cut back, and outside Quebec anyway - where they have no support to speak of - a majority of Canadians is opposed to same sex marriage.

Instead, they, like Harper, keep silent while waiting their turn in power when, no doubt, they will attempt to press on with their formerly declared agenda of destroying the country.

The only party which has actually shown an interest in destroying the country is the NDP - through stupidity, social engineering, anti-free speech laws, mass immigration and massive tax increases - to say nothing of bankruptcy.

Democracy, as perceived by them, is a form of government that allows the populace to be manipulated under the illusion that they are participating in a democratic exercise.

This is pretty much how all politicians in all political parties see things.

[Guest eureka]

The illogic is yours. Why do polls show those things? They show them because of manipulation of public opinion. That manipulation comes from the ex-Reformers.

The Public is exposed to a constant barrage of nonsensical fear mongering about consequences of things such as Official Bilingualism. How many have no more idea of what it is than to complain of "French on the cereal boxes."

As for what the "Conservatives" really stand for. take one example. Harper wrote the Caucus Statement on Healthcare for the Reform Party. In it, he called for means tested access to healthcare. He has never repudiated his view. Does the Public know that or are they told something different.

You write of the NDP wishing to destroy the country but all you post to support that is an ideological belief: a belief that has been shown to be arrant nonsense and economically unsound.

You ignore the desire of the so-called Right to Balkanize the country. You ignore their declared desire to "decentralise" the most decentralised nation in the world. You ignore their desire to convert the provinces into near sovereign states and to, in this way, remove any taint of Canadianism from its inhabitants. We are all to be citizens of the member states of the latter day Hanseatic League.

You ignore the desire of the ex-Reformers to convert a civilized nation into a dog-eat-dog copy of the social structure of the United States. A copy that will not have the saving grace of a federal government to prevent it from falling apart as a country and to maintain some semblance of programs for the benefit of the people as a whole.

You ignore the anti-democratic and manipulative nature of proposals such as referenda and recall. You ignore the reality that this "Right" is made up exclusively of business interests and that portion of the population that has been seduced by promises of tax cuts.

You ignore reality.

[August1991]

The Public is exposed to a constant barrage of nonsensical fear mongering about consequences of things such as Official Bilingualism. How many have no more idea of what it is than to complain of "French on the cereal boxes."

Do you mean that people are afraid to participate in Canadian democracy?

You ignore the desire of the ex-Reformers to convert a civilized nation into a dog-eat-dog copy of the social structure of the United States.

How is your point related to democracy in Canada?

As has already been suggested, I believe many people have given up on our democracy because they feel their wants and desires are not going to be taken into consideration. Which is unfortunately often true, but who is to blame but those very same people?

Democratic deficit? PM PM talked about it. But why?

In Quebec, half the population feels disenfranchised because of money and ethnics.

In Toronto and Vancouver, people can't talk about federal immigration policies because that's racist.

In fact, I think it's great that Canadians are knee-jerk liberals. I am more concerned that Canadian politics are regional.

And I am seriously concerned about democracy. Given history, democracy is not viable. When the Left Wing claims that democratic governments are better than "trans-national corporations", or democratic socialism is better than capitalism, I cringe.

Civilization is a thin veneer. But democracy is a malleable lens.

[PocketRocket]

  Sorry, Canada is not the land of democracy!

It's not???? Oh dear!!!!! So I guess all along I've been voting for nothing.

  It is the land of Elected Dictators!!!! 

Oh well, at least we get to elect them every now and then. But hey, we get to ridicule them, too.

Comments like that in a thread which speculates about why there isn't more participation in forums.

I think it just may be a clue.....

[ndpnic]

QUOTE (ndpnic @ Jan 3 2005, 11:43 AM)

Sorry, Canada is not the land of democracy!

It's not???? Oh dear!!!!! So I guess all along I've been voting for nothing.

That's right, you have!

In canada, we go to the polls on voting day, mark our little paper, and off we go!

The winning party then gets to play god and basically do whatever they want for the duration of thier term, with little fear of being stopped.

This is something realised by younger generations, and why so many of us have "exteme" Left views.

They say reality is according to perspective. Maybe it's time for the Right to see the Reality of our Canada, and we try to find a balance, before the poor take to the streets in violent social revolution. I'm sure many french canadians will join in, so that they can have thier Independece!

[Argus]

The illogic is yours. Why do polls show those things? They show them because of manipulation of public opinion. That manipulation comes from the ex-Reformers.

Drivel. If the "ex reformers" were capable of manipulating public opinion they'd be in office now. No, what they did, at first, was simply address the longstanding refusal of the existing three parties to show any interest in the anger of many millions of Canadians on certain issues. In later years they retreated under a barrage of criticism from the media (where is that manipulation of public opinion?).

The Public is exposed to a constant barrage of nonsensical fear mongering about  consequences of things such as Official Bilingualism. How many have no more idea of what it is than to complain of "French on the cereal boxes."

Using that old cliché is insulting to the intelligence of most of the readers here. Official Bilingualism basically leads to Quebec controlling Canada. We haven't had a non-Quebec Prime Minister (essentially an all powerful dictator while in office) since Pearson. With the continuing expansion of what Official Bilingualism stands for we are seeing Anglophone numbers at all levels in the federal public service decline, and Francophone numbers soar. Within a decade or so over 90% of all senior positions in the public service will be held by Francophones (mostly Quebecers) and they will be deciding all aspects of policy as well as guiding the hands and thinking of their alledged political masters. This is a bit more important than French on cereal boxes.

As for what the "Conservatives" really stand for. take one example. Harper wrote the Caucus Statement on Healthcare for the Reform Party. In it, he called for means tested access to healthcare. He has never repudiated his view. Does the Public know that or are they told something different.

The public knows that health care is in trouble, and that no one is doing anything about it. The public generally understands that just continuing to pour more and more money into it as the NDP proposes will not work.

You write of the NDP wishing to destroy the country but all you post to support that is an ideological belief: a belief that has been shown to be arrant nonsense and economically unsound.

By whom? Certainly not yourself.

You ignore the desire of the so-called Right to Balkanize the country.

This country is already Balkanized. Both the Liberals and NDP competed to see which could turn neighbour against neighbour, gender against gender, province against province, language against language, and ethnic group against ethnic group to better political profit.

You ignore their declared desire to "decentralise" the most decentralised nation in the world.

We are nowhere near the most decentralized in the world. And the desire to decentralize is unquestionably arising out of decades of disgust and contempt for the corruption in Ottawa, a corruption entirely on the left side of the political spectrum.

You ignore their desire to convert the provinces into near sovereign states and to, in this way, remove any taint of Canadianism from its inhabitants.

Interestingly, whenever I attempt to defend what it means to be a Canadian against lefists bent on destroying every trace of our history and traditions they sneer at me and say "What is a Canadian anyway?" and say we have no culture and there is nothing to being Canadian but a piece of paper. This is particularly true on immigration discussions, where as far as the left is concerned the instant you get off the boat and pick up your passport you are every bit as much a Canadian as those born and raised here.

You ignore the desire of the ex-Reformers to convert a civilized nation into a dog-eat-dog copy of the social structure of the United States.

Nonsensical invective. Merely because we don't share your hatred and jealous outrage at the success of the Americans. Sorry, but we recognize the ways in which the US works very well, as well as the mistakes they have made.

You ignore the anti-democratic and manipulative nature of proposals such as referenda and recall.

This is stalinist doublespeak. Referendums are anti-democratic? Of course, we can't let the ignorant public make any decisions! It is anti-democratic to take the decision making power away from the bureacracy!! It is undemocratic to insist that politicians who lie during elections be made to pay for it. It's just not Canadian to let the people make decisions! What if they make decisions the political class doesn't like!?

You ignore the reality that this "Right" is made up exclusively of business interests and that portion of the population that has been seduced by promises of tax cuts.

Translation: Taxpayers. Sorry, sonny, but this is semi-marxist babbletalk. There are all kinds of people in Canada who are conservative about many things completely unrelated to economic interests.

You ignore reality.

Such arrogant self assurance would be better accepted if you had even a hint of factual knowledge to support your unconvincing, and rather childishly stated opinions.

[Pateris]

Well written Argus - I agree wholeheartedly

[caesar]

Fleabag; I was on that forum too. thought you were the same. It was a good forum; I liked the tightly moderated. We were much more responsible and willing to discuss. I would like to see another forum like that. I sure learned a lot; much of it I would probably prefer not to know. It was a good bunch of people even those with whom I didn't agree.

[Guest LLL]

(ndpnic @ Jan 3 2005, 11:43 AM)

So I guess all along I've been voting for nothing.

=ndpnic,Jan 9 2005, 12:26 PM]That's right, you have!

ROTFL

[Big Blue Machine]

Everyone should vote. Governments do alot of things for the common man, and what do they do to repay their government's generousity, they don't vote. I think we should have a tax refund for people who vote.

[caesar]

The winning party then gets to play god and basically do whatever they want for the duration of thier term, with little fear of being stopped.

Not true at all. If the citizens make a big enough noise the ruling party listens or faces a problem come election time. Conservatives whine because Chretien made his decision on Iraq due to public pressure, We do need to get more voters involved and making their voice heard year round to have the government make the decisions we want. I say democracy must work every day not just election day. Whether that did influence Chretien's decsion or not; I don't know but it certainly should. The politicians are there to do our bidding not just whatever suits them.

[Guest eureka]

You clearly have no grasp of what "Official Bilingualism" is. It is no more than the provision of federal public services in both English and French wherever numbers warrant that. You indulge in the same scare tactics that I have accused the Reformers of doing.

You must be blind or incapable of reading a newspaper if you do not know that your talk of an anti Reform barrage by the media is not true. The National Post; the Aspers through their control of many outlets; columnists and commentators (Andrew Coyne, for example) have gained exposure far beyond their weight in pushing the program.

Referenda, except on limited and unambiguous matters, are inherently undemocratic. They cannot be otherwise when they are nothing but advertising campaigns for a gullible and uninformed public. Recall is the most absurd idea ever invented for a democracy. It guarantees only that a politician pays no attention to his duties but attends only to the wishes of vocal residents of his own riding.

Reform addressed no issues that were not part of any other party program. All it brought to the scene was the exacerbation of regionalism; lies about the Canadian tax structure - which is not an onerous one. It brought the false notion of prosperity through brutality. It led to the decimation of social programs for no purpose other than to counter its destructive propaganda.

Canada is indeed the most decentralised nation in the world: by a very wide margin. I believe I have proved that many times in different "discussions." I doubt , though, that it would get through to you; mired as you are in your ideology. There is no nation where regional or provincial governments have the jurisdictional or fiscal powers that Canadian Provinces have.

I can provide some information for you on that but not in this post since you will only believe what you want to believe.

Can you deny what I wrote about Harper and healthcare? Read the Caucus statement for yourself - 1988 was, I think the year and it was the official policy of the Reform Party. Means tested healthcare and the withdrawal of the federal government from the field.

Tax policy! There have been many studies that show no difference in economic performance between high and low taxed regimes. They show only superior social conditions in the higher taxed. The most notable of these was by Sen who presented the results to an international conference of economists in Sweden. No one challenged the findings.

There have also been countless reports of Canada's mid-range status in the developed world in taxation. Sonce the tax-cutters gained the upper hand in Canada - as a consequence of Reform's lies and propaganda - Canada is now in the lower middle. And, our social programs have deteriorated accordingly.

Canada's healthcare was never in crisis. It was never in danger of becoming unsustainable. We spend now a slightly smaller proportion of GDP than we did a dozen years ago. Where costs are rising is in those sectors of healthcare that are public.

Your labeling of logic and fact as drivel is typical of your side of this "debate." it substitutes for intelligence and informed argument. You write quite well but your eloquence does not quite make up for ignorance and narrow unconcern for the health of the nation. Health in every sense of nationhood.

[Argus]

You clearly have no grasp of what "Official Bilingualism" is. It is no more than the provision of federal public services in both English and French wherever numbers warrant that. You indulge in the same scare tactics that I have accused the Reformers of doing.

Don't you ever question the wisdom of making blanket statements like that without the first idea of what you're talking about? Are you aware that some government agencies are already over 70% Francophone by the government's own figures? This number rises ever year, and is now accelerating due to continued emphasis on the need of French in government. Within ten years or so, with the retirement of the largely English boomers and the promotion of Francophones 90% of the senior ranks of the public service will be Francophones. The majority of the rest will be Anglos from Quebec - the only group which can pass the stringent French tests.

When policies are designed, programs interpreted, budgets set, it will be done largely by Quebecers, most of whom have little interest or care for the welfare of those outside their "nation". As our External Affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew once said "If Quebec seperates I go with it. My loyalty is to Quebec."

You must be blind or incapable of reading a newspaper if you do not know that your talk of an anti Reform barrage by the media is not true. The National Post; the Aspers through their control of many outlets; columnists and commentators (Andrew Coyne, for example) have gained exposure far beyond their weight in pushing the program.

Oh indeed. I must be blind not to notice that there was one newspaper that was not utterly hostile to Reform. What could I have been thinking. Naturally this more than balanced the hostility of the CBC, the CTV (whose president called Chretien the greatest prime minister in history), and Global, run by the Aspers - the Aspers!? The Liberal Party of Canada Aspers? Where on Earth would you get the idea the Aspers were ever anything but hostile to Reform?!

Referenda, except on limited and unambiguous matters, are inherently undemocratic. They cannot be otherwise when they are nothing but advertising campaigns for a gullible and uninformed public.

This is such a comical statement I may well save it for prosperity, as a delicious example of the contempt for democracy among so many on the left.

Reform addressed no issues that were not part of any other party program.

Half the population opposed Official Bilingualism. Yet all three parties strongly supported it. Reform filled the void. At that time something like 75% of Canadians said in a survey that immigration should be halted to give Canada a chance to absorb the numerous newcomers we had taken. All three parties supported continued mass immigration. Reform filled the void. Half the population, or near enough, were opposed to abortion. All three parties were united in support of abortion on demand. Reform filled that void too, allowing many of its members to openly campaign against abortion. There were numerous others issues Reform pushed, including deficit spending and soft laws against violent crime which were not being addressed by the very cozy, almost incestuiously cozy mainline parties at that time.

All it brought to the scene was the exacerbation of regionalism; lies about the Canadian tax structure - which is not an onerous one. It brought the false notion of prosperity through brutality. It led to the decimation of social programs for no purpose other than to counter its destructive propaganda.

Drivel. You can't support any of that. Regionalism was exacerbated by the Liberals and then the Tories playing off one region against the other for political gain. As for social programs - they were damaged, hardly decimated, by the Liberals. Or have you forgotten who was in power?

Can you deny what I wrote about Harper and healthcare? Read the Caucus statement for yourself - 1988 was, I think the year and it was the official policy of the Reform Party. Means tested healthcare and the withdrawal of the federal government from the field.

Who cares? The Health Care system is not sustainable as it is presently designed. I'm willing to accept means testing and private funding if that will help improve things. I think most Canadians have now come around to the acceptance of the need for private money. Western Europe has generally better health care than us with shorter waits, and they have private health care.

Canada's healthcare was never in crisis. It was never in danger of becoming unsustainable.

Utter nonsense. It is still unsustainable. Even Ontario's very liberal premier bemoaned the rising percentage of the budget now devoted to health care and pointed out that before long two thirds of the provincial budgets would be going to health care. As for crisis - waiting a year for treatment is a crisis in my eyes. Perhaps I simply have more care for those forced to wait than you, though.

Your labeling of logic and fact as drivel is typical of your side of this "debate."

I suppose logic is simply a different thing to those who aren't quite sane. Perhaps you would care to tell us more about what constitutes logic while wearing a tnifoil cap.

[caesar]

We are not given a vote to reward governments for using OUR money wisely; we vote to determine which candidate or party will spend OUR money in a manner of which we approve. A vote is a right if one does not exercise that right; they have no right to complain about any government actions. We ddon't need to be rewarded for voting.

[caesar]

Who cares? The Health Care system is not sustainable as it is presently designed. I'm willing to accept means testing and private funding if that will help improve things. I think most Canadians have now come around to the acceptance of the need for private money. Western Europe has generally better health care than us with shorter waits, and they have private health care.

That just shows how ill informed you are Argus. You arrogantly dismiss others who do not agree with your American Israel BIAS but ignore the truths that do not suit your agenda.

[Argus]

Who cares? The Health Care system is not sustainable as it is presently designed. I'm willing to accept means testing and private funding if that will help improve things. I think most Canadians have now come around to the acceptance of the need for private money. Western Europe has generally better health care than us with shorter waits, and they have private health care.

That just shows how ill informed you are Argus. You arrogantly dismiss others who do not agree with your American Israel BIAS but ignore the truths that do not suit your agenda.

Which truths would that be? That Europe has private health care? That they have generally better health care? That Canadians have come around to the thought that we need private health care? Speak up. Enlighten me.

[caesar]

Canadian

Want our public health Care. Despite your insistence to the opposite. Why should we care what Europe or any other country has. Thius system can be fixed if the politicians quit playing games. Where did you get the idea that most Canadians are willing to accept privatized health care. Your views do not make a majority.

[Guest eureka]

You seem to have run out of ideas. Your posts are simply repetition of the same Reform inspired nonsense. If you have an inspiration or gather any information to support your non-argument, let me know.

Just to correct a coupkle of your supposed statements of "fact," regarding healthcare: the proportion of the provincial budget going to healthcare has increased entirely due to decreased revenues as a consequences of tax cutting. The proportion of GDP is, as I said, slightly lower. Healthcare is not even becoming more expensive reelative to the economy.

Your tirades on bilingualism are tiresome and have the same bigoted inspiration. Your figures are an absurdity. You do not even seem to be aware that the requirements are only for designated positions where they are the entitlement of all Canadians, including that quarter of the population that is French speaking.

The Aspers are right wingers pure and simple. They encouraged the groth of Reform and the oddly named Alliance.As for other elements of the media, your ignorance is sublime. Most of the independent media in Canada leans to the right: some far enough to have only a precarious balance. The New Right got as far as it did only because of media support. Its policies were a lie from alpha to omega.

I will excuse your ignorance about the impact of referenda or the manner of the campaigns that fall behind them. After all, you seem to be unaware of anything else about a democratic system.

Half of the Canadian population opposes Official Bilingualism, so you say. Who told you that? Manning? It would mean that three quarters of the population outside Quebec oppose it and that is not true. Half of the population do possibly oppose the version of Bilingualism that your favourites purported the policy to be. That is, as I said earlier, French on the cereal box. I don't think too many now fall for that terror. Even the new Conservative Party has wriggled away from that one.

70% of the population have never wanted immigration to be halted. A fair number did for a short time fall for the veiled racism of the "Right," but not for long.

Half of the population did not oppose abortion which was made an issue for a core base after it was already accepted by the general population. Like our neighbours of the South, the Right was playing to a certain constituency.

Our social programs were indeed damaged by the Liberals. They were damaged as a defensive measure against the propaganda of the Right that was gaining influence because so many were like you and believed in the idea that a lillte less money in your taxes would bring you all manner of benefits. It woud have been nice if some of our political leaders of the times had the courage and integrity to bring into the open the demagoguery; the deceit; and the outright lying of Manning et al. I would fault the Liberals for taking the easy road.

The Tories did exacerbate regional tensions. They did so by attempting to pacify certain provinces (appease them) with offers of yet greater powers in a new Confederational system. They did that to appease those provinces and to steal the thunder of your Party favourite who was promising to tear the country apart.

All in all, you don't seem to have a clue about any of these issues. And, if you would care to try your luck on decentralisation, I can expand on the reality of that also.

[Guest LLL]

Healthcare is not even becoming more expensive reelative to the economy.

How can it when the government imposes limits on health care spending?

The Liberals don't give a shit if people die.

[Guest eureka]

Is that supposed to convey something?