Jump to content

Canadian Framers


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, myata said:

1. And that process of conscious construction of democracy, that includes effective, efficient and independent functions and institutions has not happened as yet.

2. Can it still happen, this late in the lifecycle? Anybody's guess.

3. But without these means, functions and institutions the public is voiceless and powerless.

1. Perfect is the enemy of good.  You are coming across as waiting for a savior, a democratic Jesus, to come and fix our problems.  We aren't perfect but we are, by our own efforts, amongst the least corrupt, most inclusive and reflective democracies.  So how bad is it really if this is the case ?

2. Late ?   Lots of human history left to go.

3. This is hyperbole, ie. exaggeration.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I see what you are saying, but maybe we can meet half-way and frame this issue as a lack of imagination on all sides at least.

Definitely on all sides. The society has to determine the way and define the narrative. Lazy, apathetic, disenfranchised public is almost sure recipe for a weak and ailing democracy. Even in far away backwaters, only may take longer.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, myata said:

Does it ever occur to us anymore that just spending may not be enough? How to spend, and on what can be important too. Too bad, we used to know it but forgot.

Another great point.  I find your position intriguing: you criticize exactly the right things, and yet you are overly pessimistic and don't see any value in our systems or their prospects IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Another great point.  I find your position intriguing: you criticize exactly the right things, and yet you are overly pessimistic and don't see any value in our systems or their prospects IMO.

OK let's analyze. What is criticize? It means comparing the observed status quo with another possibility, a model, presumably or possibly, better one. What is needed to observe and compare? Only intelligence, little else.

In the next step, if one thought of changing and presumably, improving the status quo, only observations wouldn't suffice; one would need tools, instruments, and not in the least if the change is social, the will of the society itself to change. In the absence of these constituents the intent would be pointless: change would not be possible, no matter how desirable or even needed. Would it clarify my position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, myata said:

1. It means comparing the observed status quo with another possibility, a model, presumably or possibly, better one. What is needed to observe and compare? Only intelligence, little else.

2. In the next step, if one thought of changing and presumably, improving the status quo, only observations wouldn't suffice; one would need tools, instruments, and not in the least if the change is social, the will of the society itself to change. In the absence of these constituents the intent would be pointless: change would not be possible, no matter how desirable or even needed. Would it clarify my position?

1. Which model are you comparing to ?  You seem to be comparing to an ideal, not a model.  It's not a problem to do so ,but at least acknowledge you are being idealistic.

2. I would like to hear some specific ideas from you also, as that would be interesting to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 8:56 AM, myata said:

A recent TV panel discussion mentioned our own Canadian "Constitution framers". While everybody, probably five year old children in the southern neighbor country would know about founding fathers of their democracy possibly down to the names, this was the first time in years I came across the term in Canada, in any way. So yes, we too have our framers just like / unlike them.

While the discussion went on about important matters, as the Charter, the notwithstanding clause and federal-provincial jurisdictions, it occurred to me that some two centuries after their southern brethren our framers left out completely and entirely, if not absolutely? (please correct me if wrong or exaggerating) one essential for democratic government matter and area: oversight over the government; checks and balances; accountability and responsibility of the government to the people.

Is there any (literally) oversight over a majority government? What are the mechanisms to ensure accountability for actions of a majority PM?

Can the Parliament be fully functional as a representative institution of the citizens if even its ability to conduct investigations is controlled, almost absolutely, by majority government?

In some 150 years of history has an acting PM ever been under investigation by an independent institution?

Without answering these and other similar and related questions, the parallel "founding fathers - framers" may not extend beyond terms to the essence of the meaning, that is, designers of modern and functional democracy. Democracy by the citizens may not be the same democracy as from above for the folk. Which of the two was framed for us? And could it be at least part of the reason why while everybody knows founding fathers and what they did, this country's framers are relegated to political and around circles? It's who uses the product, and who it is working for, not so?

the narrative of Framers as applied to Canada is simply false

to invoke Canadian "Framers" is to lack understanding of what framed the constitution in America

the framing is in the Declaration of Independence preamble, the frame is that they were overthrowing the Crown

Canada has never overthrown the Crown, Canada is a Confederation founded by bureaucrats

and that wasn't founded on 1 July 1867, but rather not until 25 March 1982

and that founding was by, for,  and through the Liberal Party of Canada

it's the Liberal Party of Canada flag, the Liberal Party of O' Canada anthem, a one party state for all intents & purposes

perhaps someday Canadians will have some Framers

that would be whoever goes to war against the Liberal Party of Canada to overthrow their despotic rule

in terms of why the PM is not investigated by a third party, that is because the PM is the Queen's Executive

Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy invests the office of PM with the authority of the Monarch

there is no third party above the Queen, the authority of the Queen is unimpeachable

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Which model are you comparing to ?  You seem to be comparing to an ideal, not a model.  It's not a problem to do so ,but at least acknowledge you are being idealistic.

Is it an ideal to have a responsible and accountable government in a contemporary democracy, given the level and complexity of problems it has to handle? One direct quote: "travel from Wuhan - not a problem!". There's no yes or no answer - it depends, on who's asking.

Granted, accountability is not possible if there's no sovereign subject to whom the government and any authority is responsible. Such a subject is the only possible source and foundation for effective independent institutions of oversight and control. It's clear that media and traditional two-party political system are no longer effective, if ever were. And this is a very difficult situation because traditional candidate for this role, representative Parliament is dysfunctional as a result of stale partisan politics. I don't see easy solutions.

As to ideas, one has to examine and understand whether the society prepared to be invested and assume responsibility for the democracy. This is the main factor, without it I doubt there would be easy fixes that would just do the trick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Is it an ideal to have a responsible and accountable government in a contemporary democracy, given the level and complexity of problems it has to handle?  

2.   It's clear that media and traditional two-party political system are no longer effective, if ever were.
 
3. As to ideas, one has to examine and understand whether the society prepared to be invested and assume responsibility for the democracy. This is the main factor, without it I doubt there would be easy fixes that would just do the trick.

 

1.  Of course not, but you are using common and subjective terms and then holding the reality up to an impossible standard for "responsible and accountable"

2.  Not clear to me, no.  Propose something else and a plan to get there and we'll see.

3. Ok, so not easy but... what ? [EDIT TO ADD] It's kind of telling if you decry how bad things are but don't have concrete suggestions to offer.  I think I offered some early on in the chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Of course not, but you are using common and subjective terms and then holding the reality up to an impossible standard for "responsible and accountable"

2.  Not clear to me, no.  Propose something else and a plan to get there and we'll see.

3. Ok, so not easy but... what ? [EDIT TO ADD] It's kind of telling if you decry how bad things are but don't have concrete suggestions to offer.  I think I offered some early on in the chat.

There was a clear specific example. Could someone, somewhere - who and where? obtain from that unnamed bureaucrat an explanation: what does it mean? Why is it not a problem? Can it be proven (after SARS and MERS, see the numbers) that there is no problem? Simple fact, as many similar facts and experiences before proves factually, that no accountability and responsibility does exists. Nobody can ask, there's no place, no media or fora to ask and so, logically and unavoidably, no answers will be forthcoming.

Note that right at this time as unnamed graves of children are being discovered highlighting the same, almost to the letter problem only a century on.

Some bureaucrat somewhere made a decision somehow. There was no transparency; no public questioning; no oversight from the society and no detection of wrong, both morally and practically, decisions.

We will know how did the children die. But there's enough already: why nameless? Why families were not told? This is barbaric, difficult to find another word for it.

Granted, no formal institute is a panacea it's always up to the society to be invested, vigilant and active. But we are talking here about the opposite: intentional and entrenched practice of obscurity and absence of any accountability in important decisions for and on behalf of the society. And it cannot be good for all I understand and care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if more evidence were needed right off the news: "the government refused to release the documents on deadly viruses sent to China to the Parliament". Documents were provided to select MPs appointed by the PM to deal with national security issues.

Find one trace of accountability in this picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. There was a clear specific example. Could someone, somewhere - who and where? obtain from that unnamed bureaucrat an explanation: what does it mean? Why is it not a problem? ...  Nobody can ask, there's no place, no media or fora to ask and so, logically and unavoidably, no answers will be forthcoming.

2. Some bureaucrat somewhere made a decision somehow. There was no transparency; no public questioning; no oversight from the society and no detection of wrong, both morally and practically, decisions. We will know how did the children die. But there's enough already: why nameless? Why families were not told? This is barbaric, difficult to find another word for it.

3. Granted, no formal institute is a panacea it's always up to the society to be invested, vigilant and active. But we are talking here about the opposite: intentional and entrenched practice of obscurity and absence of any accountability in important decisions for and on behalf of the society. And it cannot be good for all I understand and care.

1. They would direct you to your MP.  I am pretty confident that some kind of answer would come, but maybe not one that would satisfy you.

2. "No public questioning" is on the public, not on the government.  With the example you gave, one could hold up myriad parallels today in different areas.

3. Agreed.

Still need a suggestion, or you can just take mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before, the real problem is with the government and their woke liberal ideology which ignores human nature.  Amalgamating men and women is the military might sound like a bright inclusive idea but it completely ignores the reality of two opposite sexes being lumped together.  They will never solve the sexual abuse problem and this ideology of inclusiveness in the military plays very well with our Communist adversaries in the world who see this is a wonderful way to weaken, demoralize, and wreck the Canadian Forces (and American because they are doing the same thing).  Nobody could come up with a better way to weaken and wreck the armed forces in the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. As I have said before, the real problem is with the government and their woke liberal ideology  

1. As expected, you are parroting FOX News whining points and don't have any idea of the real problems...

-Unity
-Allocation of resources to our real problems 
-Reorganizing our economy towards the future
-Reforming democracy, education, public services...

Just to start.  

But people like you see a guy wearing a dress as the biggest threat imaginable.  Please stop posting, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I have said before, the real problem is with the government and their woke liberal ideology which ignores human nature.  Amalgamating men and women is the military might sound like a bright inclusive idea but it completely ignores the reality of two opposite sexes being lumped together.  They will never solve the sexual abuse problem and this ideology of inclusiveness in the military plays very well with our Communist adversaries in the world who see this is a wonderful way to weaken, demoralize, and wreck the Canadian Forces (and American because they are doing the same thing).  Nobody could come up with a better way to weaken and wreck the armed forces in the west.

female soldiers are fine so long as they are not placed as a group in the close combat role

the reason is evolutionary biology

people think the problem is one of physical strength, how many push ups you can do, but that's not it

the infantry is all about the male dominance hierarchy

that is why we fight, for the brothers to the left & right of us

females just don't feel it, that bonding brotherhood, they don't have the same evolved ethos

so in order to integrate females in the close combat role, you have to civilianlize it

but this is where an army like Canada's lost its edge

the only reason the Canadian Army could punch above its weight class ?

Johnny Canuck was just was more hardcore than the rest, out to prove himself

but if you turn it into an armed civil service with office politics ?

then it's not the elite Canadian Corps it once was

more British than the British themselves, in the face of the Americans, upon the Heights of Queenston

God save Queen Victoria, Mother Canada, and Her Mohawk Warriors

 

 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. They would direct you to your MP.  I am pretty confident that some kind of answer would come, but maybe not one that would satisfy you.

Certainly not "some answer" equals "meaningful and responsible and complete answer". This transition usually happens around 2-4 years of age. Just indicates the age of our democracy, in equivalent terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I have said before, the real problem is with the government and their woke liberal ideology which ignores human nature. 

Yet we saw Conservative governments shutting inconvenient debate as easily as Liberal ones. No it's not about ideology, it's about accountability, responsibility and oversight. And lack, vacuum thereof works perfectly well for either government party. And that's why it would be utterly naive to expect real and meaningful change from that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find it ironic that just as the "framers" framed an obscure system without any form of meaningful accountability and oversight by the society where decisions are made by faceless bureaucrats in unknown process behind closed doors, their roles are just as obscure to the broad society and they are known and celebrated mostly in bureaucratic circles and ceremonies, behind same doors.

Every time I walk by "J B C" government building may think for a second and who's that then attention moves on. Compare with G. Washington, A. Lincoln, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, myata said:

Certainly not "some answer" equals "meaningful and responsible and complete answer". This transition usually happens around 2-4 years of age. Just indicates the age of our democracy, in equivalent terms.

Well, maybe.  But my point is that there is something, not nothing.  And, again, we agree that it needs to be better but my model seems to be the one on the table presently.

Buckminster Fuller said something like the best way to remake something is to build an alternative and let the inferior model fail slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, maybe.  But my point is that there is something, not nothing.  And, again, we agree that it needs to be better but my model seems to be the one on the table presently.


Buckminster Fuller said something like the best way to remake something is to build an alternative and let the inferior model fail slowly.

"No problem, plop!" I consider it exactly nothing, zero of meaningful answer. Did not explain, defend and justify anything. Just zero, apart from useless theatrics.

That makes sense, but for the new alternative there needs to be energy, will and driver. It cannot be found inside the political system, plainly it does not need anything to change, very happy as things are thank you. There were reports on real income of middle class stagnating from mid 90-s but has anyone checked how MP's have been doing in this time? Looks like a non-starter.

Maybe this is the case when all good comes back not a blessing but the opposite. If there are still good leaves to munch why bother to seek something new and evolve?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. As expected, you are parroting FOX News whining points and don't have any idea of the real problems...

-Unity
-Allocation of resources to our real problems 
-Reorganizing our economy towards the future
-Reforming democracy, education, public services...

Just to start.  

But people like you see a guy wearing a dress as the biggest threat imaginable.  Please stop posting, thanks.

The fighting forces are all about masculinity, not the liberal woke ideology of inclusiveness of sexes and genders.  They don't mix well together in the same fighting units because males will always be attracted to females.  On top of that, men in combat put their lives on the line for their unit and country.  They shouldn't feel they are there to defend females, which would be natural if women are part of the unit.  You can't call the problem bad culture and expect to change it somehow.  It will never work.  You can't see it because you are a diehard believer in liberal ideology.  However, I have stated what I believe is the problem. You are free to accept it or reject it.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a plain word for the salaries and entitlements of MPs compared to living standard of a regular citizen: obscene. This is near complete detachment from the reality of the country. This is how the system buys complacency of purportedly, "representatives". And in no way, even lightyear remote, is it just compensation for pushing buttons under the tune of PMO.

It appears already well into degradation mode and for all I can see, it's one way. The system cannot change and has no interest in changing. I don't make predictions often but will venture that it is not sustainable, and will not last this century. And I have no idea where the necessary adjustment could come from, and how. Curious to see how it'll play out.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government bureaucrats with outrageous entitlements making questionable decisions affecting entire country after playing golf with business buddies really, yawn. Does anyone even care anymore? Is it what it looks like or just an appearance?

CRTC president held multiple one-on-one meetings with big telcos, National Post

One can bet that we, taxpayers footed the bill for the productive meetings and it wasn't in pennies. Any why not? Who doesn't know yet that our purse is bottomless?

A system of power without any checks, accountability and oversight evolves only one way. Fathers, if not framers, knew it two hundred years back. And the destination is in sight, already.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

A system of power without any checks, accountability and oversight evolves only one way. Fathers, if not framers, knew it two hundred years back. And the destination is in sight, already.

I see two basic issues here. Ignorance of the public, and the bought media. Both are related in a way.

Mr. Trudeau has done a fine job learning from his authoritarian Sinoese task-masters. As long as the CBC is there to photograph him smiling radiantly, like the sun.

"Sunny ways."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is no longer possible (if ever was) to separate the system of public governance from privilege and entitlement, sometimes unjustified and often plain outrageous. Where there's government there's privilege. They have become all but synonymous. Governing elites recruit known and respected individuals into the system of privilege to support them in return in unchecked and unlimited claim to power. Is it still about representation? or mostly about privilege? Impossible to tell, all is grey and boundaries long gone, if ever existed.

But that is a dead end road. Privilege and entitlement cannot grow indefinitely without upsetting the entire system as inevitable result. A hiccup in the world economy could fold up both ineffective and expensive bureaucratic public system, and lazy and uncompetitive enterprise thriving not on excellence, creativity and efficiency but on monopolistic practices, with a massive impact on the society.

Questions were asked what solutions can be proposed? Here's a direction for a new, contemporary, citizens democracy:

1. Decisions are made with maximum transparency and maximum involvement of citizens. The more decision is important to the society, the more transparency and involvement of citizens, not less. As just illustrated, we don't have that now despite all commissions and ombudspeople with added overhead privilege. No, we have just the opposite.

2. Privilege is taken out of public service, any function and level, no exceptions. Privilege engenders more privilege and so on zip to the status quo. New public service is not about privilege, minus the privilege. Privilege means out of public service.

And now of course and as always it is up to the citizens to decide what they want and need? Something new, a way forward? Or status quo leading into evolutionary dead end? In the end, the reality always catches up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...