Thoughts on an International-Harmonization Act?

[Machjo]

At present, Canada's word means little on the world stage. We are NATO members who do not fulfill our NATO obligations. We are still signatories to the International Convention on civil and Political Rights even though the UNHCR has repeatedly criticized Canada for the religiously-discriminatory separate-school provisions of the constitution conflicting with that Convention. We have signed onto the Paris Agreement even though we are not meeting our targets. We are member-states of the UN and UNESCO yet do not conform to all of their resolutions.

We could harmonize our laws to our international obligations in a few ways:

1. We could withdraw our membership or signature from an international organization or agreement.

2. We could renegotiate the agreement or our membership in an organization to have it conform to our laws.

3. We can revise our own laws and constitution to conform to our international obligations.

We may have other options too besides just signing away the trustworthiness of our word on the world stage.

One solution would be an International-Harmonization Act that would give the monarch the authority and the obligation to enforce harmony between Canada's national and international obligations. For example, once the governor general is informed of a conflict between our national and international obligations, she could give Parliament a formal five-year notice to be read in Parliament requiring Parliament to harmonize the two in some way with the warning that should it fail to do so within five years, the governor general herself will force a referendum to choose between the two to coincide with the following federal election.

For example, it could be a referendum on whether Canada should meet its NATO obligations or withdraw from NATO, or on whether it should revise the constitution to conform to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights or withdraw Canada's signature from that Convention, or on whether Canada should meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement or withdraw its signature from it, or whether Canada should respect UN and UNESCO resolutions or whether Canada should withdraw its membership from these organizations.

While this could mean Canada withdrawing from many agreements, it would also mean that the world could trust that Canada will honour any agreement that it does sign in the future. In other words, the world would trust that Canada word is more than just ink on paper.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Machjo

[eyeball]

Sounds good so long as harmonization doesn't conform to Singaporean values and standards.

I'm all for getting humanities governance under one roof, I'd suggest more colourful helicopters though - black seems to put certain people off. 

[Machjo]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sounds good so long as harmonization doesn't conform to Singaporean values and standards.

That would depend. If Canada signs an agreement of any kind with Singapore and then does not meet its obligations according to the agreement, then yes, the governor general could give Parliament five years to harmonize its laws to that agreement or, should Canada fail to do so, force a referendum coinciding with the following federal election on whether Canada should conform its laws (and constitution if necessary) to the agreement or withdraw its membership from it. I assume you believe in a government keeping its word I hope.

 

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm all for getting humanities governance under one roof, I'd suggest more colourful helicopters though - black seems to put certain people off. 

Hmmm.... Would you mind elaborating.

[turningrite]

It's difficult to imagine that our laws could fully comply with all the rights and conditions stipulated in various international declarations. The most prominent of these declarations, of course, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in sections 22 to 27 outlines social and economic rights that would require a vast expansion of current laws and government-financed social programs even in many advanced Western countries like the U.S. and Canada. And other declarations, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, contain contentious provisions, including reparations, that in addition to being costly may in fact be unfair to majority populations. At the end of the day, all of these things have to be considered in relation to broader economic and political considerations.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

It's difficult to imagine that our laws could fully comply with all the rights and conditions stipulated in various international declarations. The most prominent of these declarations, of course, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in sections 22 to 27 outlines social and economic rights that would require a vast expansion of current laws and government-financed social programs even in many advanced Western countries like the U.S. and Canada. And other declarations, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, contain contentious provisions, including reparations, that in addition to being costly may in fact be unfair to majority populations. At the end of the day, all of these things have to be considered in relation to broader economic and political considerations.

I agree. My point is that we should not be signing onto anything we don't intend to comply with. That just waters down the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

Let's suppose for a moment that under the International-Harmonization Act (IHA), the governor general forces Canada through a referendum to withdraw from a wide range of agreements and organizations the obligations of which we weren't honouring. Where would be the harm in that? Since we would not have been fulfilling those obligations anyway, what would it really change other than to strengthen the value of Canada's word on the world stage?

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Machjo said:

That would depend. If Canada signs an agreement of any kind with Singapore and then does not meet its obligations according to the agreement, then yes, the governor general could give Parliament five years to harmonize its laws to that agreement or, should Canada fail to do so, force a referendum coinciding with the following federal election on whether Canada should conform its laws (and constitution if necessary) to the agreement or withdraw its membership from it. I assume you believe in a government keeping its word I hope.

Sure but I also assume the Singapores of the world be the ones conforming their laws and constitutions to a higher standard not us.

Quote

Hmmm.... Would you mind elaborating.

The idea of a one world government freaks a lot of people out, usually and ironically, the sort of people who like death penalties and the heavy moral weight of the state's boot on people's backs.  

Edited July 4, 2018 by eyeball

[Machjo]

Just now, eyeball said:

Sure but I also assume the Singapores of the world be the ones conforming their laws and constitutions to a higher standard not us.

The idea of a one world government freaks a lot of people out, usually and ironically by the sorts of people who like death penalties and the heavy moral weight of the state's boot on people's backs.  

So such an act would probably suit you well then since it would probably end up forcing the government of Canada to withdraw its membership from various organizations and its signature from various agreements. One would think you'd support this then.

[Machjo]

By the way, and perhaps ironically, while Singapore's laws do conform to the International convention on civil and Political Rights (since it does allow the death penalty for more serious crimes), Canada's constitution does not since the Convention prohibits state discrimination on the basis of religion.

 

Ironic, isn't it. with that in mind, why would you want for Canada to be a signatory to that Convention? One would think you'd be happy with a law that could force Canada to withdraw its signature from it.

[eyeball]

Like I said I support having one government.  It would make souveillance a lot easier.  That said I also support a lot more local autonomy in the form of regional management according to principles of biogregionalism.

I'd start the harmonizing process in Canada with a process that dismantled and eliminated provincial governments at the same time it established and enabled bioregional management.

You realize this sounds like pure communism to people that get freaked out about helicopters right?

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Like I said I support having one government.  It would make souveillance a lot easier.  That said I also support a lot more local autonomy in the form of regional management according to principles of biogregionalism.

I'd start the harmonizing process in Canada with a process that dismantled and eliminated provincial governments at the same time it established and enabled bioregional management.

You realize this sounds like pure communism to people that get freaked out about helicopters right?

Hmmm... I'm actuall a world federalist and decentralist too. Heck, I even speak Esperanto and believe that an international auxiliary language could save money on non-literary translation and interpretation.

That said, i don't see the value in the government joining this and that organization and signing this and that treaty or agreement for the photo op and then forgetting about it afterwards. In fact, that undermines internationalism since no one can then trust that any agreement is worth the paper it's signed on.

[turningrite]

12 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I agree. My point is that we should not be signing onto anything we don't intend to comply with. That just waters down the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

Let's suppose for a moment that under the International-Harmonization Act (IHA), the governor general forces Canada through a referendum to withdraw from a wide range of agreements and organizations the obligations of which we weren't honouring. Where would be the harm in that? Since we would not have been fulfilling those obligations anyway, what would it really change other than to strengthen the value of Canada's word on the world stage?

My understanding is that in many cases we treat the details of these declarations as "aspirational" rather than operational objectives. Perhaps we shouldn't sign them unless we're willing to comply with all their terms within a reasonable period of time. But we should also be able to hold other signatories to these declarations as well - and good luck with that. How many countries are fully compliant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance? Very few, if any, I suspect, and yet it's been in effect for decades. Some just informally opt out or ignore the UDHR. The Islamic countries, which consider the UDHR too Western, have created their own counter-document (i.e. the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam) as a substitute to apply to themselves. Maybe the more relevant question here is whether these sweeping declarations should exist at all?

[Machjo]

9 minutes ago, turningrite said:

My understanding is that in many cases we treat the details of these declarations as "aspirational" rather than operational objectives. Perhaps we shouldn't sign them unless we're willing to comply with all their terms within a reasonable period of time. But we should also be able to hold other signatories to these declarations as well - and good luck with that. How many countries are fully compliant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance? Very few, if any, I suspect, and yet it's been in effect for decades. Some just informally opt out or ignore the UDHR. The Islamic countries, which consider the UDHR too Western, have created their own counter-document (i.e. the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam) as a substitute to apply to themselves. Maybe the more relevant question here is whether these sweeping declarations should exist at all?

Canada has little control over other states, so I'm focusing more on strengthening the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

One thing with the UDHR is that its wording is quite open to interpretation so it should be reasonably easy to fulfil its obligations according to a narrow understanding of that declaration. Though even according to the narrowest understanding, Canada's separate-school system definitely conflicts with it.

The International Convention on civil and Political Rights is more precisely worded so as to allow less wiggle room and that one was never intended to be inspirational but applicable to all signatory member states. Canada has been formally criticized as a signatory due to our separate-school system which theoretically should be an easy fix.

 

If we insisted on some kind of international standard, perhaps Canada could call on all UN members to adopt their own versions according to their own systems of government of the International-Harmonization Act. While this could lead to the utter collapse of many organizations, at least the ones that remain and any new ones that spring up afterwards would stand on a more solid footing.

 

Furthermore, the fact that some of the few surviving agreements and organizations would have passed through a referendum in some member states would further strengthen the foundations of these remaining or new organizations and treaties.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Machjo

[Queenmandy85]

We don't do referendums in this country. Treaties and foreign relations are the jurisdiction of the Crown, though often in consultation with Parliament. The referendum on conscription was a joke and the one on Meech was a disaster. What happens if the result is unconstitional? We can't change the constitution, so what do we do? 

[turningrite]

8 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Canada has little control over other states, so I'm focusing more on strengthening the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

If we insisted on some kind of international standard, perhaps Canada could call on all UN members to adopt their own versions according to their own systems of government of the International-Harmonization Act. While this could lead to the utter collapse of many organizations, at least the ones that remain and any new ones that spring up afterwards would stand on a more solid footing.

My own preference would be to get rid of all these declarations or, otherwise, declare them to be simply aspirational, which in the latter case would render them consistent with your approach. There's no point in Canada flagellating itself to comply with the terms of these things if they're unenforceable elsewhere. On principled grounds, we opposed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The only states to vote against it were all Western countries with excellent or reasonably strong legal and human rights regimes of their own.

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We don't do referendums in this country. Treaties and foreign relations are the jurisdiction of the Crown, though often in consultation with Parliament. The referendum on conscription was a joke and the one on Meech was a disaster. What happens if the result is unconstitional? We can't change the constitution, so what do we do? 

Yes we can change the constitution with a majority in Parliament and more than half of provinces together representing more than half of the population. That's in the Constitution. The Constitution itself says that we can change it, so we most certainly can change it.

Such a referendum would force Canada into a corner. Imagine the following scenario:

In accordance with the International Harmonization Act (IHA), the Governor General reads a proclamation in Parliament requiring Parliament within five years of that day to either revise the constitution to conform the separate-school system to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, renegotiate the ICCPR to have it allow discrimination on the basis of religion, withdraw its signature from the ICCPR, or do something else to remove the conflict between the Canadian constitution and that Convention. Should Parliament fail to conform its national and international obligations in some way within that five years, the Governor General would then obligated to call a national referendum to coincide with the following federal election on whether to conform Canada's laws and Constitution to that Convention or withdraw Canada's membership from it. Whichever way the population votes, Parliament would feel the pressure. I could imagine Parliament trying to conform the constitution within four years and, failing that, withdraw its membership before the Governor General forces the referendum so as to avoid embarrassment.

 

For example, should the people of Canada vote to revise the Constitution, but the provinces refuse because most in their province voted to leave the ICCPR, leaving Parliament at a standstill, then Parliament could choose to just withdraw from the ICCPR anyway. should it still refuse either option, then after five years the Governor General would have a legal obligation to force yet another referendum on the matter until Parliament smartens up and somehow conform its laws to its international obligations whether by formally withdrawing from its obligations or revising our laws to conform to them. That's up to Parliament, but the Governor General would now have the authority and the obligation to pressure Parliament into making a decision on the matter. The same would apply to our NATO obligations, the UNDRIP, etc. etc. etc.

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

My own preference would be to get rid of all these declarations or, otherwise, declare them to be simply aspirational, which in the latter case would render them consistent with your approach. There's no point in Canada flagellating itself to comply with the terms of these things if they're unenforceable elsewhere. On principled grounds, we opposed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The only states to vote against it were all Western countries with excellent or reasonably strong legal and human rights regimes of their own.

True. We could propose revising these declarations so as to state explicitly that they are inspirational. failing that, we either fulfill the obligations or withdraw.

[Queenmandy85]

16 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Yes we can change the constitution with a majority in Parliament and more than half of provinces together representing more than half of the population. That's in the Constitution. The Constitution itself says that we can change it, so we most certainly can change it.

Remember the last time we opened up the constitution? Every tiny special interest crawled out to get their little amendment. We should have left the BNA act alone so nobody could mess with the bloody thing. At least after the Canada Act, the one time they tried to amend the constitution turned into such a shambotic fiasco, no government in their right mind will ever try it again.

Governments can only do so much. Our NATO contribution is restricted by our signing on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Canadian's reluctance to pay taxes or join the military. Our climate change commitments are curtailed by Canadians reluctance to endure the sacrifices required. On the otherhand, these commitments add pressure to try.

I do not understand your issue with separate schools. They work very well in Saskatchewan.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Remember the last time we opened up the constitution? Every tiny special interest crawled out to get their little amendment. We should have left the BNA act alone so nobody could mess with the bloody thing. At least after the Canada Act, the one time they tried to amend the constitution turned into such a shambotic fiasco, no government in their right mind will ever try it again.

I do not understand your issue with separate schools. They work very well in Saskatchewan.

I'm not saying I'm for or against separate schools. I'm just saying that defending and remaining a signatory to the ICCPR undermines Canada's trustworthiness on the world stage. I agree that most governments do not want to open the Constitution. So with that, if the Governor General gives Parliament the choice between revising the constitution or withdrawing its signature from the ICCPR, most likely Parliament would withdraw its signature from the ICCPR within a few days. Problem solved and then Canada would find that its word holds more weight on the world stage since other states could trust Canada more to do what it says it will do. It's word would no longer just be ink on paper anymore.

[Queenmandy85]

What does the ICCPR say that puts us in a position of non-compliance? (Forgive my ignorance)

Edited July 4, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What does the ICCPR say that puts us in a position of non-compliance? (Forgive my ignorance)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldman_v._Canada

'Mr. Waldman wished to provide his children with a Jewish education, and he faced therefore a financial hardship, which was not experienced by a Roman Catholic parent. He contended that the Education Act violated Articles 2, 18, 26, 27 of the Covenant.^[3]'

 

Article 2. is perhaps the most pertinent of these:

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

 

[Queenmandy85]

Thanks. Okay, I guess we can scrap that one.The separate schools act is required for national unity. Education is a Provincial matter and Mr. Waldman should be speaking with his MLA to get funding.

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Thanks. Okay, I guess we can scrap that one.The separate schools act is required for national unity. Education is a Provincial matter and Mr. Waldman should be speaking with his MLA to get funding.

From what I'd read about it, he did in fact try to go through his MPP but the Ontario government of the time was determined to defend it. That's a choice Ontarians can make of course; but for the purpose of the international trustworthiness of Canada's word, I do think Canada should withdraw its signature from the ICCPR so as to harmonize Canada's domestic laws to its international obligations.

 

Unfortunately, Canada's word has become exchangeable for cheap photo ops and so an International-Harmonization Act could help to reverse this trend and so strengthen the trustworthiness of Canada's word on the world stage.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Machjo

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Unfortunately, Canada's word has become exchangeable for cheap photo ops

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. Remember MacKenzie King. He was a master of it. It is nothing new nor is it a Canadian phenomenon. Go back to Rufus (William II), or back 50,000 years. That is human nature.

[Machjo]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. Remember MacKenzie King. He was a master of it. It is nothing new nor is it a Canadian phenomenon. Go back to Rufus (William II), or back 50,000 years. That is human nature.

Oh I agree. It even goes back to our indigenous treaties when we stabbed our indigenous peoples in the back real fast. But the fact that we've always done it doesn't mean we don't need to change this culture of two-facedness between our national and international obligations.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Machjo said:

Hmmm... I'm actuall a world federalist and decentralist too. Heck, I even speak Esperanto and believe that an international auxiliary language could save money on non-literary translation and interpretation.

That said, i don't see the value in the government joining this and that organization and signing this and that treaty or agreement for the photo op and then forgetting about it afterwards. In fact, that undermines internationalism since no one can then trust that any agreement is worth the paper it's signed on.

That's why we need souveillance above all else.  I'd monitor the government to an extent that would make Orwell himself blush.

AFAIC Without airtight accountability government just isn't worth the effort anymore.