Democracy

[Leafless]

The chief distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

In a democracy, the Individual and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy, like we have in Canada called a Parliamentary Democracy.

Whoa, along came the 'The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' that allows courts or judicial rule, rather than representatives of the electorate make decisions for the citizen's of Canada.

So, in effect Canadians are no longer directly represented by their Mp's but rather 'judicial rule', meaning we no longer have the type of democracy that we are lead to believe as being majority rule, pertaining to majority vote concerning MP's voting on issue's.

So every time we go to vote, with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' in place, we are in fact agreeing to the political concept of a 'nation being ruled by the courts' with Canada no longer being ruled by the old 'Parliamentary Democracy' it was prior to the Charter.

Canadians as far as I know never agreed to this concept by referendum or anything else and if parliament continues to rule under the title of a 'Parliamentary Democracy', it can be seen and is absolute 'outright fraud' against the rights of the electorate of Canada.

Agree or disagree?

[ScottSA]

More and more this is the case. Whether its the politicians leaving the unpopular decisions to the judiciary or an activist judiciary siezing more power, one way or another much of the decision making is falling to judges. Whether this is in spite of representative democracy or because of it is the question. I'm not fan of the charter, and to my dying day I will never understand the concept that everyone is equal, "especially" [insert special extra-equal group].

[Posit]

Ah, but you miss the point.....

It was the democratic majority that decided that minorities and Canadians in general needed protection from the oligarchy pretending to represent the majority. As a majority member of the democracy, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there by my (and others like me) blessing.

[M.Dancer]

The dictatorship of the majority can if left unchecked be as brutal and as ignorant as a dictatoship of a few, or one.

That being said, the rest of leaf's post isn't worth commenting on.

[Drea]

That's why I prefer a minority government.

That way no one's ideals can run roughshod over another's. (or shouldn't at any rate)

[sharkman]

You've got a point, Drea, a normal Cdn majority government amounts to a soft dictatorship. At least in the States, the congress and senate can provide balance. In Canada, we have no such mechanism.

[Leafless]

Ah, but you miss the point.....

It was the democratic majority that decided that minorities and Canadians in general needed protection from the oligarchy pretending to represent the majority. As a majority member of the democracy, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there by my (and others like me) blessing.

That is basically what we have now, oligarchy pretending to represent the majority, otherwise known as unelected judges and courts.

But what exactly do you call our present form of government as with the Charter calling a lot of the shots it no longer is a 'Parliamentary Democracy'.

[Leafless]

The dictatorship of the majority can if left unchecked be as brutal and as ignorant as a dictatoship of a few, or one.

This is exactly how I view our present form of government, a dictatorship.

[Leafless]

You've got a point, Drea, a normal Cdn majority government amounts to a soft dictatorship. At least in the States, the congress and senate can provide balance. In Canada, we have no such mechanism.

Any type of democratic government (Direct or Representative , majority or minority) amounts to a dictatorship when compared to to the U.S. which is a Republic with the Majority Limited (vs. Canada majority unlimited) under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.

[speaker]

Courts are there to see that the rules of the land are obeyed, and to determine, in the interests of the country, the best course of action where there are conflicting views. There are occasions when this doesn't work. Like an American Senate, or a Canadian one for that matter, like an opposition party, or parties. Not one of them works all the time and none of them are perfect. If there are concerns about specific rulings of the courts the other option is to get together with like minded people and take it to the politicians and to the courts.

On the other hand if people complain because the courts occasionally disagree with those peoples world views then this argument is simply being overdone to make a point. What's really wanted is government in MY image.

[Leafless]

Courts are there to see that the rules of the land are obeyed, and to determine, in the interests of the country, the best course of action where there are conflicting views.

This is still tyranny by the majority being parliament, the judges and courts overriding individual rights.

This defines Canada as a dictatorship.

On the other hand if people complain because the courts occasionally disagree with those peoples world views then this argument is simply being overdone to make a point. What's really wanted is government in MY image.

Understandably, what you want and I (since the Canadian government offers no alternative) is a Republic, a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution, adopted by the people and changeable from its original content or meaning by the people (citizens or electorate) only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

[speaker]

Courts are there to see that the rules of the land are obeyed, and to determine, in the interests of the country, the best course of action where there are conflicting views.

This is still tyranny by the majority being parliament, the judges and courts overriding individual rights.

This defines Canada as a dictatorship.

On the other hand if people complain because the courts occasionally disagree with those peoples world views then this argument is simply being overdone to make a point. What's really wanted is government in MY image.

Understandably, what you want and I (since the Canadian government offers no alternative) is a Republic, a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution, adopted by the people and changeable from its original content or meaning by the people (citizens or electorate) only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Leafless, I suppose it depends to an extent on your definition of tyranny. Judges in Canada, as far as I know, never make a decision that affects anything without taking into consideration the opinions of interested parties. There are occasions when this isn't ideal such as when one side or the other impedes an interested party from participating. This isn't a fault of the system, but of human personality and agendas. However this is the case in any governmental model.

What I do not want is an American model as it relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues.

[Leafless]

Leafless, I suppose it depends to an extent on your definition of tyranny.

My definition of tyranny, if you want to make it an issue, is the same definition of what the minorities have been screaming about for years: "Tyranny of the Majority"...inducing our beloved tyrannical 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

Judges in Canada, as far as I know, never make a decision that affects anything without taking into consideration the opinions of interested parties.

How can judges and courts possibly intervene when it is out of there jurisdiction to do so under our form of government. It none of their business. They are out of order, there not even supposed to be there.

In our country our political system is both a Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy.

The electorate in Canada are represented in individual ridings across Canada by their respective elected member of parliament (MP) who represent their concerns in parliament.

MP's relating to issue's of importance, vote in the House of Commons and the winner of that specific issue wins with 50+1 of that vote.

Also there is NOTHING stopping parliament from implementing a national referendum relating to important constitutional issues or other important issues that involve all Canadians.

What I do not want is an American model as it relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues.

Sorry, I misunderstood when you said: "What's really wanted is government in MY image."

When you say: "it relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues", this means democracy is working and is something you should want.

Don't forget, basically there are always two sides to any issue.

Those for it and those against it. I would much rather see an issue democratically resolved than accept a forced government decision.

[Charles Anthony]

Don't forget, basically there are always two sides to any issue.

Those for it and those against it. I would much rather see an issue democratically resolved than accept a forced government decision.

There can also be a third side to an issue. How should such an issue be democratically resolved?

By the way, what do you think is the best patrolling policeman to population ratio for your city? I am sure everybody in your city has a different opinion on that one.

[Leafless]

There can also be a third side to an issue. How should such an issue be democratically resolved?

I did say "basically" there are two sides two an issue but then again there could be three or four.

But relating to what system our 'Parliamentary Democracy' or a 'Republic'.

Basically either way if your not represented with winning numbers, you lose.

The use of the Charter in this country allows judges and courts to intervene, but at the expense of loosing individual rights by those affected by a courts imposed decision.

By the way, what do you think is the best patrolling policeman to population ratio for your city? I am sure everybody in your city has a different opinion on that one.

What a comparison.

What does the "best patrolling policeman population ration for my city" have to do with preserving individual rights?

The two main criteria that determines that IMO are:

(a) The actual proven requirement for 'x' number of patrolling officers pertaining to proper law enforcement.

( What the city can actually afford in relationship for the actual proven number of patrolling police officers.

[Charles Anthony]

What does the "best patrolling policeman population ration for my city" have to do with preserving individual rights?

Nothing.

I was trying to demonstrate a real-life situation where there is more than two opinions on the same issue. I think I failed.

The two main criteria that determines that IMO are:

(a) The actual proven requirement for 'x' number of patrolling officers pertaining to proper law enforcement.

( What the city can actually afford in relationship for the actual proven number of patrolling police officers.

Both of those things are debatable and can lead to more than two opinions.

[speaker]

Leafless, So if I understand, you are being a bit sarcastic about the use of the courts to protect the rights of minorities, and believe that this infringes on the rights of those of us in the majority? I don't know what it is specifically that is bothering you but I think that the courts are required to look at issues of equity and personal freedom and come down with rulings that will do the least harm, to either minorities or the majority. Our personal right or freedom is not a right or freedom if it substantially reduces others and vice versa.

It's true that there are options within the Canadian system for having decisions made for example by the MPs. But if the issue is one that requires a certain amount of legal training then the MPs are going to rely on advice from the legalese bureaucracy because the politicians to a large extent just don't have it. And I don't think we want to rely on bureaucrats. The same problem is true with referendums, whose advice are you going to take on the legal aspects of any issue. It could turn into even more of a windfall for lawyers than having the thing resolved in court.

If something relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues it means that democracy isn't working. It means that the old boy network is working and the American system is certainly no better than ours from that perspective, and it certainly isn't something that I want.

[Leafless]

Leafless, So if I understand, you are being a bit sarcastic about the use of the courts to protect the rights of minorities, and believe that this infringes on the rights of those of us in the majority?

I don't intend to be sarcastic, I am being critical if anything, of a tyrannical government intent on stripping individual rights away. Incidentally raises another question concerning the financial expenditures relating to supporting the federal vision of equality for all, at the huge financial expense of the majority.

Of course this single aspect does not bother you at all, of course not. Simply continue to allow our rotting infrastructure, health care and the likes to continue to fall apart.

I don't know what it is specifically that is bothering you but I think that the courts are required to look at issues of equity and personal freedom and come down with rulings that will do the least harm, to either minorities or the majority.

Things just are not suppose to work that way in a Parliamentary Democracy. The federal government, if it wants to change the system, do it. Stop playing with Canadians constitutional rights.

Our personal right or freedom is not a right or freedom if it substantially reduces others and vice versa.

Every Canadian initially has the same rights.

Canadians are protected against acts of discrimination and have been since the 60's.

What the Charter does is pit societies against one another, when in fact there should only be a single Canadian nation or country. The Charter disicriminates.

Why should nationalistic Quebec a 'have not province' have more powers than all other Canadian provinces and why should the federal government cater to its obsolete language stripping away individual rights of other Canadians in the process?

If something relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues it means that democracy isn't working. It means that the old boy network is working and the American system is certainly no better than ours from that perspective, and it certainly isn't something that I want.

When you start breaking down the country into groups, you are looking for trouble and that is what Canada has allowed to happen.

The U.S system is superior and does not compare to Canada's Parliamentary Democracy.

The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguards the rights of the Individual and the Minority.

[speaker]

Leafless, ok so Quebecs language laws might be a little over the top, excessive from my point of view, however I can understand the need to maintain a cultural identity and I can understand that that possibility is under extreme pressure from the tyranny of the majority. I figure one deserves the other.

I accept that programs like multiculturism cost money and to a minor extent those taxes restrict an individuals ability to buy more. I don't see it as a systematic stripping of individual rights. If this is what you mean I'm sorry you feel this way. The fact is we are a multicultural society and as such we have the opportunity to do what no other society in history has ever done and that is to make it work. Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Being the richest people on the face of the planet doesn't hurt either. If we were really poor and we had to put up with this strain it might be a bit much. I hope the rest of the world appreciates the effort. We have some of the best infrastructure and health care, etc. in the world too, possibly because we have a rich diversity of national interests to draw from. If we don't get carried away in side issues perhaps we can keep ourselves focused on that and maintain the economic strength we have.

It's true that each Canadian is protected from descrimination by the charter. It is also true that every hockey player was protected by the rules of hockey as far back as the turn of the last century. That hasn't stopped Hockey Canada from constantly introducing more specific rules to deal with specific violations of that first single page of common sense rules. The Courts have the same job as the referees. Understanding the rules, interpreting them, making rulings, and making suggestions on improvements. As much as I dislike the arrogance and billing rates of some of the legal profession, I think we need them at least as much as we need parking lot attendants, bouncers, and bakers.

The American system is not better than the Canadian. It may have had a chance at one time early in their history to be so but has been long since corrupted and demeaned by it's own practioners so that now it is only a shadow of what it might have been. Much as Chinese Communism is only a front for the power greedy.

Canada has not broken down into groups, despite the quebec and alberta separatistes best efforts. Rather we have always been a collection of groups that is learning through necessity and often the hard way to work together. Cheer up it could be worse.

So I cheered up and sure enough it got worse.

[PolyNewbie]

Canada is an economic dictatorship just like any country that uses private banks to finance its debt. Your income tax is brought to you by this economic dictatorship. Your tax on your paycheque rules you more than any other law and you must take one or two days work a week to pay for just income tax.

If we lived in a democracy we would not live in an economic dictatorship because no one would vote for an economic dictatorship. They are mutually exclusive therefore we do not live in a democracy.

Everyone who pays income tax should know what income tax is alll about and why we need to pay it.

Money As Debt cartoon

If the government financed its activities from the Bank Of Canada instead of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Du Ponts, etc we would not have income tax.

The bankers rule by increduluity as much as anything else.

[Leafless]

Leafless, ok so Quebecs language laws might be a little over the top, excessive from my point of view, however I can understand the need to maintain a cultural identity

Please do tell me what the need is, as maintaining an obsolete language should not be the responsibility of Canada or Canadians.

I can understand that that possibility is under extreme pressure from the tyranny of the majority. I figure one deserves the other.

'Tyranny of the majority' under our system of a Parliamentry Democracy is a socialist fable as you know Quebecers are represented just as equally by their MP's as any other Canadian.

The only problem is they don't like to LOSE, and to that I say, to bad.

I accept that programs like multiculturism cost money and to a minor extent those taxes restrict an individuals ability to buy more. I don't see it as a systematic stripping of individual rights.

Now we are talking, REAL, 'Tyranny of the majority', the 'Majority Unlimited' relating to the unlimited powers of the federal government itself.

It does strip our individual rights away.

Not because of the imposed multicultural policy ( although doing so and not including the electorate to be part of thee process shows a federal level of contempt against Canadians) but from the after effects caused by problamatic, improperly planned, immigration and cultural policies.

The Charter discriminates racially and strips away individual rights.

The American system is not better than the Canadian. It may have had a chance at one time early in their history to be so but has been long since corrupted and demeaned by it's own practioners so that now it is only a shadow of what it might have been. Much as Chinese Communism is only a front for the power greedy.

Compared to other countries in the world, the U.S. provides its citizens with a higher level of freedom and rights than any other country in the world.

Immigrants are trampling over each other to become a U.S. citizen, unlike Canada who sells out the individual rights of its citizens to attract immigration.

[speaker]

Obsolete language? that's quite the statement there. I think that each language has something to offer us in terms of ways we can learn to express ourselves better, and thereby perhaps avoid misunderstandings which can lead to predjudice and bigotry.

While each Quebec person has a vote, this does not negate the idea that there are considerably more non french in Canada which places them in a minority which over the centuries has tried with mixed success to deal with the "French Question" occaionally in quite tyrannical manners.

Unlimited powers of the Federal government? I think that our system is pretty much headed down the same slippery slope of corruption, and back room politics as the American and other governments around the world. Aside from our propensity for voting into power people who are powertropic, and their constant attempts to solidify their individual or party power, the federal government as a government is not enjoying unlimited power. Think of all the things Canada cannot do to it's citizens that other nations don't seem to have any restraints about.

It's my impression that so many people are trying to get into Canada that our government has fallen to the level of picking and choosing from the wealthy and the educated of third world or other countries who are willing to pay what amounts to a head tax to get in.

[Shakeyhands]

Ah, but you miss the point.....

It was the democratic majority that decided that minorities and Canadians in general needed protection from the oligarchy pretending to represent the majority. As a majority member of the democracy, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there by my (and others like me) blessing.

That is basically what we have now, oligarchy pretending to represent the majority, otherwise known as unelected judges and courts.

But what exactly do you call our present form of government as with the Charter calling a lot of the shots it no longer is a 'Parliamentary Democracy'.

ahh yes, those pesky "activist judges!!"