Ontario's Referendum

[M.Dancer]

You did not answer my question. Can the "will of a majority" impose itself upon the minority?

The concept of democracy and majority rule are foreign to you?

Okay, in canada we have a parliament and the parliament has two sides. Traditionally one side is the government and the other the opposition. If the government has more seats that all the others, it is called a amjority government, if it has less (as is now) it is called a minority goverment.

Parliament deals with the issues of the day and debates and passes laws that affect all canadians.....

Are you still with me?

[lost&outofcontrol]

The concept of democracy and majority rule are foreign to you?

Okay, in canada we have a parliament and the parliament has two sides. Traditionally one side is the government and the other the opposition. If the government has more seats that all the others, it is called a amjority government, if it has less (as is now) it is called a minority goverment.

Parliament deals with the issues of the day and debates and passes laws that affect all canadians.....

Are you still with me?

So you agree that the "will of a majority" can and does impose itself upon the minority. You agree that a majority government can and does impose itself upon the other parties. This as you so elegantly put is the way our political system works. We then both (at the very least) agree that each decision is given (during a majority government) as dictatorial decrees. Now that we have established this as fact we can move on.

Do you agree that decisions should be taken in a dictatorial manner?

Unfortunately, it appears as tough you want the picture of the cake instead just of eating it. Overall we do have democracy since most* major political parties get a turn at telling us what to do. If all individual decisions within this Whole which we call a democracy are taken as dictatorial decrees then are we not in a dictatorship? The philosopher Hegel once said :

For they [speaking of animal] do not stand stock still before things of sense as if these were things per se, with being in themselves: they despair of this reality altogether, and in complete assurance of the nothingness of things they fall-to without more ado and eat them up.

* 2 different parties for the past 140 years or so

[M.Dancer]

We then both (at the very least) agree that each decision is given (during a majority government) as dictatorial decrees. Now that we have established this as fact we can move on.

Nope sorry, you still don't get it. Perhaps you should go back and study Canadian Parlaimentary democracy before you waste any more time.

Or at very least persue what the constitution and the courts mean before you utter such ridiculous childish statements again.

Overall we do have democracy since most* major political parties get a turn at telling us what to do.

* 2 different parties for the past 140 years or so

Canadian political history might benefit as well.

[kengs333]

Actually they would not go so far as to promote the 'white' race. All they would do is promote their platform of no immigration, no special rights for anyone (including freedom of religion apparently), no burkas, no turbans, no headscarves, etc etc etc.

Sara,

So you believe that it's okay for women to come to Canada, a supposedly free country, and still have to submit to oppressive orthodox religious practices? People like you seem to use "freedom of religion" as a means of making themselves look just, tolerant, liberal, yet have no qualms about the fact that this is in effect tacit approval of an unjust, intolerant, archaic way of life. So what happens when these people have many children and raise them with their values and not those of Canada, and what happens after X amount of years of allowing similarly-minded people to emigrate to Canada, and they get political power and begin to change the laws so that women start to be oppressed. I know that by generalizing in a couple of sentences I may sound a bit alarmist, but realistically this could happen.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Nope sorry, you still don't get it. Perhaps you should go back and study Canadian Parlaimentary democracy before you waste any more time.

Or at very least persue what the constitution and the courts mean before you utter such ridiculous childish statements again.

Canadian political history might benefit as well.

I enjoy wasting time.

My position is that the ruling majority has dictatorial power within a predetermined (constitutional) framework. If a majority can impose its will upon a minority such as the liberals did with Kyoto then how is this not a dictatorial decree?

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

I enjoy wasting time.

My position is that the ruling majority has dictatorial power within a predetermined (constitutional) framework.

In that case your position is a contradiction .

[lost&outofcontrol]

In that case your position is a contradiction .

I promise this to be the last time I ask you a question* but why is it a contradiction?

* It's not like you've answered any of my other questions.

[M.Dancer]

I promise this to be the last time I ask you a question* but why is it a contradiction?

* It's not like you've answered any of my other questions.

Because you can't have absolute power in a constitutional democracy. The rule of law dictates what and what a ruling party can do, not the whim of the majority, no matter how much power the party has, the courts and the constitution trump all.

The mere fact that a governing party can pass a law in the face of a minority opposition doesn't make it either dictatorial or a decree. Consider the hoops needed to pass a law, it doesn't matter how small the minority is, if it wants to hinder the process it can through the various comittees that the law must pass before a vote is taken or be dragging out a debate. Bills they are debated on the floor and further admendments might take place with the assistance of the minority and the bill might even be sent back to committee for further study.

So, in a nut shell, calling what is a fine example of paliamentary democracy a dictatorship is hollow and false rhetoric.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Because you can't have absolute power in a constitutional democracy. The rule of law dictates what and what a ruling party can do, not the whim of the majority, no matter how much power the party has, the courts and the constitution trump all.

The mere fact that a governing party can pass a law in the face of a minority opposition doesn't make it either dictatorial or a decree. Consider the hoops needed to pass a law, it doesn't matter how small the minority is, if it wants to hinder the process it can through the various comittees that the law must pass before a vote is taken or be dragging out a debate. Bills they are debated on the floor and further admendments might take place with the assistance of the minority and the bill might even be sent back to committee for further study.

So, in a nut shell, calling what is a fine example of paliamentary democracy a dictatorship is hollow and false rhetoric.

Let’s take an example then. How did the Kyoto bill pass if the conservatives could (stop) hinder the process?

You cannot have it both ways. Either the "will of [a] majority", no matter how confined it is, can impose itself on the minority or it cannot.

If the minority is dead set against the bill (which happens every time a vote is taken, if not then why would they vote at all?) then how can Kyoto or any other bill pass without unanimity?

[quick edit]

You apparently equate dictatorship with absolute power upon all. Confine it to your "constitutional democracy" as I have done just so we can get this discussion anywhere.

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

Let’s take an example then. How did the Kyoto bill pass if the conservatives could (stop) hinder the process?

You cannot have it both ways. Either the "will of [a] majority", no matter how confined it is, can impose itself on the minority or it cannot.

Yes and so what? is the government above the law?

If the minority is dead set against the bill (which happens every time a vote is taken, if not then why would they vote at all?) then how can Kyoto or any other bill pass without unanimity?

Often the opposition votes with the government. Your assumption is false. Why should their be unanimity? A simple majority is needed.

[quick edit]

You apparently equate dictatorship with absolute power upon all. Confine it to your "constitutional democracy" as I have done just so we can get this discussion anywhere.

I equate dictatorship with what dictatorship means.

dic·ta·tor·ship (dĭk-tā'tər-shĭp', dĭk'tā'-)

n.

The office or tenure of a dictator.

A state or government under dictatorial rule.

Absolute or despotic control or power.

So lets say then that PR passes in a vote. 61% vote in favour of pr. I assume then you will be against it becasue the 61% are acting like dictators and are trampling upon the wishes of the 39%?

[lost&outofcontrol]

Absolute or despotic control or power.

The majority is imposing itself on the minority by the use of absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution.

Often the opposition votes with the government. Your assumption is false. Why should their be unanimity? A simple majority is needed.

I'm not suggesting that we have to have unanimity at all. At the very root of our political system is a contradiction which forces an imposition of a will. Whether some of the minority votes with the majority or not is inconsequential. If the NDP were to vote with the Conservatives on a bill, they would be part of the majority imposing itself upon the minority.

So lets say then that PR passes in a vote. 61% vote in favour of pr. I assume then you will be against it becasue the 61% are acting like dictators and are trampling upon the wishes of the 39%?

Yes I am.

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

The majority is imposing itself on the minority by the use of absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution.

Listen carefully. There is no absolute power if it is confined by the constitution......read that again 20 times till it sinks in.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Listen carefully. There is no absolute power if it is confined by the constitution......read that again 20 times till it sinks in.

So I can have absolute power over the minority by forcing them to accept a bill but I still don't have absolute power because the constitution says so?! Why is it so complicated for you to just accept to logical development of the "will of [a] majority" imposing itself upon the minority to our current political system?

Absolute power does not imply power over everything in existence. One can have absolute power over one and not all. The majority in parliament has absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution over the minority. The majority cannot tell the minority to walk around naked in parliament but it can force the minority to accept Kyoto.

[M.Dancer]

I think you have absolutely no idea what absolute power means. Maybe you should absolutely stop using it till you do.

Absolute power does not imply power over everything in existence.

As I said above.......

Absolute power, also called absolute authority, is a term used in political science to describe a head of state and head of government that holds supreme executive, judicial and legislative powers. Most modern forms of absolute power are deemed undesirable, especially by proponents of democracy. People that wield such power are often called dictators and tyrants.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe...on&ct=title

Do you see now that what you are suggesting is an oxymoron.

The majority in parliament has absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution over the minority

That is an oxymoron, a contradiction, like saying superman is invunerable but it still subject to the normal laws of nature.

[Michael Hardner]

So lets say then that PR passes in a vote. 61% vote in favour of pr. I assume then you will be against it becasue the 61% are acting like dictators and are trampling upon the wishes of the 39%? ph34r.gif

That's an excellent point. Amazingly, though, l&oc agrees.

So we shouldn't have pr then ? I'm confused.