Preamble to Charter of Rights....

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/28/2019 at 8:07 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I worry about it because I see a trend of watering down at play.  I’m not sure that as an atheist-humanist who wants to keep the free speech and liberties required to express your views that you want to scrap the underpinnings of those rights and freedoms, which ultimately stem from a story of unshackling oneself from the bonds of servitude because of a higher calling than Baal and Caesar. It’s in the name of higher ideals such as justice that we build our society, not simply serving pharaoh.  If you don’t want to call the higher force God, then perhaps creator or source.  

Just an anecdote:  Stalin actually relented and allowed churches to reopen during the Great Patriotic War because even fervent communists thirsted for a spiritual outlet when millions of soldiers and civilians were killed by the German army and during the siege of St. Petersburg.  People needed to come together and feel a sense of hope, that not all was futile.  They needed to experience a sense of transcendence or a higher purpose.  

The constitution has to retain a sense of higher purpose and significance, I think.  

'Watering down'?  ...'scrap the underpinnings of rights and freedoms'? You have a strange sense of logic. Having the present clause is ANTI-free speech because it permits the right of legislation to censor by some arbitrary ruler of a religious nature rather than to compete to appeal through logic and reason amongst living people here on Earth. 

I proposed a clear INCLUSIVE example of a preable that I find odd that you'd dismiss.?

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/28/2019 at 9:35 PM, Zeitgeist said:

... the privileging of bilingualism and biculturalism is a big part of the Canadian-ness of our constitution.  Remove that and there isn’t as much to distinguish Canada from Britain or the US.  Canadians won’t accept returning to British colony status, nor would they accept being a US protectorate.  Most Canadians are committed to trying to make Canada work, and surprise, it works quite well.  

You can't speak for all Canadians as you do here. You no doubt reap particular benefits in your own world and are presuming it to be shared to all the rest of us in ignorance. 

[Queenmandy85]

Scott, how would you get the removal of the current preamble and the switch to one official language passed? You are speaking of major amendments.

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

Scott, if we have only one official language, tradition would make French the official language.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Scott, how would you get the removal of the current preamble and the switch to one official language passed? You are speaking of major amendments.

It would be like trying to take Genesis out of the Bible.

Edited December 30, 2019 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It would be like trying to take Genesis out of the Bible.

Amending the Canadian Constitution would be far more difficult and strewn with landmines than re-writing the bible. As we saw with Meech, as soon as you open it a little bit, every crackpot (like me) will want to get their pet amendment inserted. We should have left it as the BNA act and forget trying to amend it. 

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You can't speak for all Canadians as you do here. You no doubt reap particular benefits in your own world and are presuming it to be shared to all the rest of us in ignorance. 

Most Canadians have some kind of faith.  I think a generic “source” or organizing principle might be accepted instead of being as specific as the Hebrew God worshiped by three of the five major religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). but we’re even making an assumption when we say that when we refer to “God” it’s the Hebrew God instead of something different from our understanding of what a supreme being might be.  Hindus believe in a godhead.  The name God isn’t fixed to one individual or group’s idea of God. 

it’s a mistake to make the state the supreme master of individuals, as the state is always flawed and has crushed its own citizens time and again.  If you’re willing to ascribe that level of authority to the government, I think you’d prefer living in China.  

We’re fools to give up an iota of the constitutional protection of our founding cultures and languages.  They have been major ingredients of our success.  If you want Canada to be much less Canadian, emigrate.  What official language would you choose, some unnatural Esperanto-type hybrid?  It would never fly because language develops organically over time, passed on first and foremost orally in families and communities.  

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You can't speak for all Canadians as you do here. You no doubt reap particular benefits in your own world and are presuming it to be shared to all the rest of us in ignorance. 

No I do understand that you disagree and so do others.  We’re free to disagree.   However, we live in a democracy, thankfully, and you have to sway enough people to agree with you to make the changes you propose.  I think your proposal contains more dangers than you see.  Probably the best secular democracy that would fit your description is France, a country which is having to dig its heels in the ground on the use of the French language and bans on religious garb in the public sphere because they have nothing but the French consumer economy left to protect, so now it’s about making sure you look like a Frenchman in order to protect their way of life.  Meanwhile the suburbs of Paris are aflame with class warfare and threats of Jihadi terror.  What is left to rally the French now in a time of crisis?  When the Brits, Americans, Canadians, and our allies liberated France and the rest of Europe from Nazism, the next challenge to freedom was Bolshevism, another form of totalitarianism.  Too much suffering, time, and money have been wagered to throw out the freedoms we enjoy in Canada, including freedom of religion.  Stop compromising Canada.  

Edited December 30, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Amending the Canadian Constitution would be far more difficult and strewn with landmines than re-writing the bible. As we saw with Meech, as soon as you open it a little bit, every crackpot (like me) will want to get their pet amendment inserted. We should have left it as the BNA act and forget trying to amend it. 

We wouldn't have to open the stupid thing to outlaw in-camera lobbying. 

Like the preamble's appeal that everyone recognize God, there must be some notion/ belief that same God plays a role in checking the abuses of politicians and high ranking public officials because of the magic words these utter when they're sworn into office.

They're used to being monitored for compliance so cameras and microphones shouldn't be reason for much concern. Just fly right and stay in their lane so to speak.... how hard can it be?

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/30/2019 at 8:37 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Scott, how would you get the removal of the current preamble and the switch to one official language passed? You are speaking of major amendments.

The concept is simple. But the process to change anything here is next to impossible when we lack power as citizens to actual participation in creating a people's constitution let alone the original creation of the Constitution. You complained about fears of past attempts but the WAY our system is set up is itself limiting and is NOT inviting of the general public's access. It is Eastern-centric to top it off because it assumes predominant significance to a time when the country was merely Ontario (British Loyalists) and Quebec. 

Me speaking here though is a start. It is ALL I have power to do. As it stands now I am disenfrancized in this system, don't approve of ANY of our selections and lack the money to do anything about it myself. I personally think that the Constitution itself was unfairly developed by and for the specific people in the absence of concern of the people. Thus it is a non-democratic (and theocratic) constitution. 

Besides, why would past failures of challenging something so significant suffice to justify NOT challenging this? 

On 12/30/2019 at 8:52 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Scott, if we have only one official language, tradition would make French the official language.

NO. While it is relatively arbitrary which languages are used, world-wide, English is the standard for most. It is also the more adaptable as it lacks borrows from all other languages. The original problems in Quebec was the FEAR that their kids were losing a desire to learn French as much as English given our association to the U.S., Britain and the Commonwealth countries, and the rest of Canada outside Quebec. If the generations of kids were to vote, they'd prefer English even within Quebec. The major reason of imposing forced laws of French signs in Quebec, for instance, is due to the actual natural tendency of kids to CHOOSE English. 

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/30/2019 at 11:31 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

On 12/30/2019 at 11:02 AM, eyeball said:

It would be like trying to take Genesis out of the Bible.

Amending the Canadian Constitution would be far more difficult and strewn with landmines than re-writing the bible. As we saw with Meech, as soon as you open it a little bit, every crackpot (like me) will want to get their pet amendment inserted. We should have left it as the BNA act and forget trying to amend it. 

Besides the general question I already posed of this, although it would be nice to look at the whole Constitution, I was only talking about taking tiny steps with one issue, the preamble here. That is one issue and if we lack the power to challenge it simply because of forces too powerful, this kind of thinking would justify accepting ANY government's power to make altering Constitutions too difficult to overcome.  

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/30/2019 at 11:37 AM, Zeitgeist said:

it’s a mistake to make the state the supreme master of individuals, as the state is always flawed and has crushed its own citizens time and again.  If you’re willing to ascribe that level of authority to the government, I think you’d prefer living in China.

That clause MAKES our system more dangerous of individual freedoms since it PERMITS those in power to utilize any ARBITRARY justification for some legislation based upon some PARTICULAR religious insight. You sound like a right-wing anarchist. If so, let me point out that 'governent' is a management system. If it is NOT owned by the people, then it STILL exists but is granted to those with power in a way that assures those who aren't privileged to be slaves. You cannot have an anarchist state, whether it be right-wing (National Socialism at one extreme) nor left-wing (Communism at the other.) 

I would say that considering China has been adapting Western ideals, they too are more mixed of an economy now. They are not as 'extreme' as you may be led to believe. So it is also a poor example of comparison. 

[Queenmandy85]

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

impossible when we lack power as citizens to actual participation in creating a people's constitution

We tried that with the Spicer commission during the Meech debate. I presume you took advantage of that opportunity. We all had our chance for input and then we, the people, voted it down

French has been the language of Court for much of our history. It was the mother tongue of Canada's longest serving Head of State. Eliminating French as one of our official languages would not only be turning our backs on one of our most important heritages but would almost certainly ensure the separation of Quebec. It would be a betrayal of the promise to maintain French language rights. 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We tried that with the Spicer commission during the Meech debate. I presume you took advantage of that opportunity. We all had our chance for input and then we, the people, voted it down

French has been the language of Court for much of our history. It was the mother tongue of Canada's longest serving Head of State. Eliminating French as one of our official languages would not only be turning our backs on one of our most important heritages but would almost certainly ensure the separation of Quebec. It would be a betrayal of the promise to maintain French language rights. 

 

I was too in high school then. Also, most meets of these are set up to bias participation. ....like how everything gets done mostly in only Ontario or Quebec. Some of us can't afford a car let alone to afford such luxury of participation.

Note that the Meech Lake Accord was:

It was intended to persuade the government of Quebec to symbolically endorse the 1982 constitutional amendments by providing for some decentralization of the Canadian federation.

This was NOT about changing the Constitution is this definition about it is correct. We need to devise the Constitution by people ONLY, not politicians outside of preparing the conventions. The way this was created was itself deceptive. 

You speak of 'betrayal'?? Is it not a betrayal to have ceated such a document outside of the people's direct participation. While we can have a good reason for representative government, when we are considering its constitution, this is inappropriate to leave to the present paradigms of those representatives to create something that may go against their present interests. This has to be either devoloped BY the people's consent without the politicians nor parties, OR it would have to be absolutely neutrally designed without favoring any supposed 'heritage'. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Besides the general question I already posed of this, although it would be nice to look at the whole Constitution, I was only talking about taking tiny steps with one issue, the preamble here. That is one issue and if we lack the power to challenge it simply because of forces too powerful, this kind of thinking would justify accepting ANY government's power to make altering Constitutions too difficult to overcome.  

I have no time or patience for taking tiny steps on one issue. Greenland will be free of ice by the time you ever put a dent in the stupid thing.

The older I get the less I care and the more I tune it out. Fishermen went down this road when Ottawa was dismantling our fishery on the westcoast and before long you find yourself contemplating the Magna Carta when trying to figure out how to turn things around.

It's hopeless. We're just better to let the whole stupid edifice collapse under the weight of its own crap and us older timers can start the process of passing down tales about the Before Times to see people thru the next interregnum.

[Queenmandy85]

The Spicer Report was based on the input of everyone who participated and was designed to make it possible for everyone to participate. We all had the opportunity to vote on the Meech accord. We voted it down. How do you propose having 25 million people offering up their ideas in a viable form that could be put in a constitution. You would have 26 million conflicting ideas. It would then have to go through the amendment process and you would have 24,999,999 people disatisfied with it. Any provision affecting the authority of the Crown would require the unanomous consent of all of the Provincial legislatures and the Federal Parliament. 

[Scott Mayers]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Spicer Report was based on the input of everyone who participated and was designed to make it possible for everyone to participate. We all had the opportunity to vote on the Meech accord. We voted it down. How do you propose having 25 million people offering up their ideas in a viable form that could be put in a constitution. You would have 26 million conflicting ideas. It would then have to go through the amendment process and you would have 24,999,999 people disatisfied with it. Any provision affecting the authority of the Crown would require the unanomous consent of all of the Provincial legislatures and the Federal Parliament. 

Whatever. We still need then a NEUTRAL non-religious system or it is illegitimate in my 'vote'. It's either that or everyone start seeking 'cultural' justification to be heard. And,. ....we get what has evolved to the conditions of the Middle East. Everyone there is required to utilize religious means precislely because of this very arrogance. I also think that every generation has to have power to vote on whether a Constition is just. Otherwise, they just inherit the system regardless of democratic will. 

[eyeball]

Like I've said many times I'm quite certain we could sidestep much of the gunk our Constitution coats our governance with by simply outlawing in-camera lobbying of politicians.  There is nothing at all in the Constitution that says we can't do that.

Turning the Telescreens around might finally put some teeth in the Magna Carta and I think Orwell would be particularly proud of us.

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Like I've said many times I'm quite certain we could sidestep much of the gunk our Constitution coats our governance with by simply outlawing in-camera lobbying of politicians.  There is nothing at all in the Constitution that says we can't do that.

Turning the Telescreens around might finally put some teeth in the Magna Carta and I think Orwell would be particularly proud of us.

When Trudeau got in, (and Trump in the U.S.), I proposed that for any right of government to censor, we should require that all politicians have cameras on them 24/7 for all of us to witness. [Why is "in camera" the term used, by the way, to HIDE them from the cameras? Shouldn't the term be 'out-of-camera'? ]

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

When Trudeau got in, (and Trump in the U.S.), I proposed that for any right of government to censor, we should require that all politicians have cameras on them 24/7 for all of us to witness. [Why is "in camera" the term used, by the way, to HIDE them from the cameras? Shouldn't the term be 'out-of-camera'? ]

I don't know. In-camera is a legal term so I guess its just ambiguous by nature.  I'd amend the Transparency Act so that governments would have to apply to make something secret as opposed to us having to apply to find something out.

Monitoring politicians in the manner they would monitor us has never been done in human history although as I pointed out before politicians who subscribe to the Being referenced in the Constitution's preamble and who utter the magic words will feel right at home knowing everything they say and do is being judged.

Edited December 31, 2019 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I don't know. In-camera is a legal term so I guess its just ambiguous by nature.  I'd amend the Transparency Act so that governments would have to apply to make something secret as opposed to us having to apply to find something out.

Monitoring politicians in the manner they would monitor us has never been done in human history although as I pointed out before politicians who subscribe to the Being referenced in the Constitution's preamble and who utter the magic words will feel right at home knowing everything they say and do is being judged.

I think that the spirit of the preamble’s reference to “God” is to warn all who seek power and authority that no person or group has ultimate authority over people.  The state’s authority is limited.  What’s more, if there is a higher, perfect, all knowing authority beyond humanity, it would serve people well to be careful not to knowingly act in such a way that would be inhumane or damaging to the society.  It’s a safeguard. 

 

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

That clause MAKES our system more dangerous of individual freedoms since it PERMITS those in power to utilize any ARBITRARY justification for some legislation based upon some PARTICULAR religious insight. You sound like a right-wing anarchist. If so, let me point out that 'governent' is a management system. If it is NOT owned by the people, then it STILL exists but is granted to those with power in a way that assures those who aren't privileged to be slaves. You cannot have an anarchist state, whether it be right-wing (National Socialism at one extreme) nor left-wing (Communism at the other.) 

I would say that considering China has been adapting Western ideals, they too are more mixed of an economy now. They are not as 'extreme' as you may be led to believe. So it is also a poor example of comparison. 

Any political figure who sets forth legislation, for example a private member’s bill, has to make the case for its support by Parliament, which debates and tables the bill.  In Canada the only opportunity for unchecked action by the leadership is for the sake of national security, for example, when under attack.  Even then the PMO would be in close consultations with the DND.  Any prolonged or more involved non-emergency military action would no doubt be debated in Parliament in accordance with tradition.  If of course the PM acted irresponsibly in any kind of unitary act, the Governor General could decide that the PM is acting against the interests of the people and dissolve Parliament.  

On China, you’re way off base.  China still arrests and detains individuals without anything like the due process Canadians would expect.  A Canadian government wouldn’t dare micromanage family planning as China has done, in clear violation of human rights, nor would Canada imprison members of a religious group because of ideological disagreement as has been done with Uighurs.  The state in China is far too powerful.  It is totalitarian.  Where you are coming up with some bizarre idea that my defence of maintaining mention of God in the preamble of our constitution has anything to do with “right-wing anarchism” is beyond me.  I really do worry about where we’re headed when I hear such a confused indictment of ideas that many Canadians value.  This is Canada, not the People’s Republican of China.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think that the spirit of the preamble’s reference to “God” is to warn all who seek power and authority that no person or group has ultimate authority over people.  The state’s authority is limited.  What’s more, if there is a higher, perfect, all knowing authority beyond humanity, it would serve people well to be careful not to knowingly act in such a way that would be inhumane or damaging to the society.  It’s a safeguard.

Well, we're nuts to leave that safeguard up to the fear of God - especially now that the Pope just negotiated a Deferred Purgatory Agreement with Him/Her/It/Them/Q?2 for even the worst amongst us.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, we're nuts to leave that safeguard up to the fear of God - especially now that the Pope just negotiated a Deferred Purgatory Agreement with Him/Her/It/Them/Q?2 for even the worst amongst us.

Hell too, I think.  You've no idea how relieved I am, as a lapsed Catholic.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Hell too, I think.  You've no idea how relieved I am, as a lapsed Catholic.

It's a pretty far-reaching appeasment to Beelzebub alright. You were actually on your way to Hell?  What did you do to deserve that?

Careful what you wish for Pat Robertson says Heaven is like Sunday School except it goes on forever.  I bet after 17 billion years of singing Standing by the River a little AC/DC would be a nice change.

I'll give you black sensations up and down your spine
If you're into evil you're a friend of mine
See the white light flashing as I split the night
'Cause if good's on the left,
Then I'm stickin' to the right

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's a pretty far-reaching appeasment to Beelzebub alright. You were actually on your way to Hell?  What did you do to deserve that?

Dirty thoughts about nuns when I was a teenager.

I was hoping Hell would be like the South Park version.

Edited December 31, 2019 by bcsapper