Canada more democratic than the U.S.?

[Tonington]

Justice and equality are separate matters.

Really, EagleSmack? That is news to me. I thought equal justice for all was the hallmark of democracy. Justice and equality are integrally linked together.

I'm not Eaglesmack.

Equal justice is the hallmark of a liberal democracy. That doesn't mean all democracies are liberal. Hezbollah were elected democratically.

Democracy is simply a system for governance by elected representatives, elected by a jurisdictions eligible voters.

That is where we differ. To your definition, I would add ‘with strong protections for minority rights built in into the constitution.’

Republicanism is a direct response to criticisms of democracy, and mob rule. Again, you're adding things to democracy that aren't a given. Reading it on Wikipedia is one thing. In practice, there are a number of democracies that aren't ideal. The world is anything but ideal.

The makeup of democracies around the world is as varied as earth's inhabitants.

Sure it is, but the common thread is the guarantee of minority rights.

No, not the common thread. You find it in the majority of democracies, but not in all. The common thread is voters selecting representatives to govern.

How criminals are treated, has nothing to do with whether or not a government is elected by a citizens or not.

It has everything to do with it. You only have to see how criminals are treated in democracies and how they are treated in dictatorships to realize that.

Do you include Kingdoms in that list? Again, Afghanistan is a democracy, and they are moving away from equality. How do you reconcile that?

Maybe, it's not democracy that is what brings equality, but something else? Like maybe enlightenment?

There is nothing intrinsic to democracy that says the weak must be protected. That's solely the domain of Constitutional law.

Again, that is where we differ. I don’t think a country can call itself a democracy without a constitution, without constitutional law. Democracy without constitutional law is mob rule. Constitutional law is an integral part of democracy.

What about constitutions that allow inequality? How do you square that one?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do you include Kingdoms in that list? Again, Afghanistan is a democracy, and they are moving away from equality. How do you reconcile that?

Maybe, it's not democracy that is what brings equality, but something else? Like maybe enlightenment?

That may be it, Tonington, maybe we are arguing about semantics. I wouldn’t call Afghanistan a democracy. Any country that would pass such a draconian legislation stripping a portion of its population of any rights, I wouldn’t call that a democracy.

In fact, that is what I said in one of my posts, during all this outcry, nobody even asked if this law has the majority support in Afghanistan. Maybe it does, I don’t know. But in a true democracy, that should be irrelevant.

In my opinion, a system cannot be called democracy without ironclad, robust protection for the minorities, build in into the constitution (so that majority cannot take away the rights by a majority, 50% + 1 vote).

Incidentally, they can do that in USA (like they did in California). Perhaps that may be another reason why they rated USA lower than Canada when they ranked the counties according to democracy.

 

[Tonington]

That may be it, Tonington, maybe we are arguing about semantics. I wouldn’t call Afghanistan a democracy. Any country that would pass such a draconian legislation stripping a portion of its population of any rights, I wouldn’t call that a democracy.

What political system would you call it?

And

What would you call California?

 

[JLM]

What political system would you call it?

And

What would you call California?

Afghanistan - Would dictatorship work? California, democracy I would say- while not everyone would agree with gay marriage, I don't think allowing it infringes on anyone's rights.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Afghanistan - Would dictatorship work? California, democracy I would say- while not everyone would agree with gay marriage, I don't think allowing it infringes on anyone's rights.

Quite right, JLM, I would definitely call USA a democracy, no question there, just that it is a flawed democracy.

So is Canada, for that matter. I don’t think there are perfect democracies in the world, they are all a work in progress.

However, I would call USA perhaps slightly more flawed than Canada.

And no, I definitely wouldn’t’ call Afghanistan a democracy. Perhaps a democratic Sharia,, or dictatorial democracy, or mob rule, I don’t know. But certainly not a democracy.

 

[wulfie68]

However, I would call USA perhaps slightly more flawed than Canada.

I would agree that USA is a flawed democracy (I don't think a perfect one is possible) but how do you continue with this contention that we're better off than they are? Colpy put a list of 5 points (disguised as 7 ;-) ) on the first page of democratic "advantages" the USA has over us. I'll add in the fact that their voting populace actually is involved in voting on policy through the propositions on their ballots: again its not perfect (in terms of question wording issues and the number of people able to vote on them, etc.) but the last times I remember Canadians voting on anything aside from their representative were the yea or nay for Meech Lake and the Quebec seperation referendums.

For those who believe we are truly more democratic than the US, is there a logical basis for this belief, and if so, what is it?

 

[Zzarchov]

A democracy is not a democracy without protection of minority rights, else it stops being a democracy when the voting is curtailed.

When the men vote to remove the voting rights of women, thats not a democracy. If you consider it one, then an absolute dictatorship is a democracy, one man has voting rights, and he voted everyone else shouldn't have them as they aren't elligible voters (not being him).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Duplicate Post.

 

[Machjo]

JLM, I don’t know who came up with the index, but that may be one of the reasons why USA ranks below Canada as a democratic country. Most democracies just don’t have the death penalty. The only exception I can think of is Japan (and I don’t know how often they carry it out).

Death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, ands ranks along with torture. I can see how any country that practices death penalty is not considered fully democratic.

That's a matter of opinion. I don't call myself a democrat myself, but do believe in the death penalty in some cases as long as it is metted out by the cold hand of justice and not by a desire for revenge.

Pure by definition is nothing more than the will ofthe majority, for good or bad. Genocide of the minority by the maority would still classify as democracy whether we like it or not. Democracy in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It's an administrative structure like any other, which can be used for good or evil. So I really don't see why it's so important whether country X is more democratic than country Y when democracy is not even necessarily an accurate measure of justice in the first place. Just as a democratic state can degenerate into mob rule, an undemocratic phylosopher-king can ensure justice in a state.

Again, democracy is no more than an administrative stucture, not worthy of worship.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

but the last times I remember Canadians voting on anything aside from their representative were the yea or nay for Meech Lake and the Quebec seperation referendums.

Not Meech Lake, Wulfie, that went down in flames without a referendum. We had a referendum over Charlottetown Accord.

Incidentally, welcome to the forum. It is good to hear from you again.

 

[Machjo]

I don’t think it is irrelevant at all. Democracy does not only mean that the will of the majority is always done, that is mob rule.

Though democracy does not necessarily equate with mob rule (after all, a nation comprising a spiritual votership will likely have just men voted into office who will take the responsibilities of the population into due consideration, with the population accepting this sensor ofthemselves), mob rule is by definition a form of democracy.

Suppose majority of people in a country support slavery, and they legalize slavery. Would you call that country democratic?

I would, as it would be democratic by the very definition of the word. Just, no; democratic, yes.

I wouldn’t, even though slavery was legalized because a majority of people were for it.

You can choose to call it undemocratic if you want, but it would still be democratic by definition. Sure it could be classified as mob rule, but as I've mentioned above, mob rule itself is a form of democracy, like it or not. We should recognise democracy for what it is: a state administrative structure, no more, no less. We should not impose some idealized moral virtue to it that does not apply. That virtue should apply to the votership, not the structure itself which is essentially, like any other such structure, amoral.

Democracy means that the will of the majority is done, subject to strong protection of minority rights in the constitution. Without the protection of minority rights it is not a democracy.

Wrong. Democracy is by definition the will of the people. If the people want to pass barbaric laws, that makes them barbaric, yet still democratic.

Indeed, the recent outcry over the draconian legislation passed in Afghanistan (severely curtailing women’s rights) is striking. While condemning Hamid Karzai for signing the legislation into the law (where women are striped off their property rights, a man now has the right to rape his wife, a woman is not allowed to leave house without express permission of man etc.), nobody bothered to ask if the legislation is supported by majority of Afghanis.

I guess we'll know come the next Afghan election, won't we.

And rightly so. Whether majority of Afghanis support it or not does not matter. In a democracy, such a legislation is not passed; there must be strong protection for minority rights in the constitution.

That's illogical. How can you curb the will of the people in a democratic manner? I can agree with limiting the will of the people when the people are not mature enough to rule themselves. But I won't pretend that such restriction of democratic rights to be democratic. It is by definition undemocratic. What you are proposing is restrictions on democracy, not more democracy. I agree with you on that, but won't pretend that I'm a democrat. You on th ether hand are trying to portray yourself as a democrat when your views are no more democratic than mine. Yes, I agree that there must be limits to democracy for the sake of the minority. But by definition, that is anti-democratic. Just, yes. Perhaps even more just than democracy. But democratic it isn't.

In my opinion, death penalty comes in the same category; it is the violation of most basic of human rights, right to life. So I can understand how a country where death penalty is legal would be considered less of a democracy, because of it.

If the death penalty is supported by the will of the majority, then it is democratic by definition.

 

[wulfie68]

I stand corrected I knew it was one of Mulroney's constitutional ammendment ideas...

 

[Machjo]

A democracy is not a democracy without protection of minority rights, else it stops being a democracy when the voting is curtailed.

When the men vote to remove the voting rights of women, thats not a democracy. If you consider it one, then an absolute dictatorship is a democracy, one man has voting rights, and he voted everyone else shouldn't have them as they aren't elligible voters (not being him).

Then let's take Canada's disregard for its treaty obligations as an example. Canadians of European descent are a majority in Canada. We (not necessarily me personally, but the ethnic groups I belong to, which is to say the Anglo-saxons and French) have chosen as a majority to dishonour ourtreaty obligations towards the First Nations. Though they do have a right to vote, they can still be outvoted. For us to disregard treaty obligations entered into in good faith by the First Nations is democratic. We are a clear majority that has chosen to exercise this decision through democratic means. That does not make that decision just, however.

The same example applies with Ontario's Catholic school boards. They are supported by the majority of Ontarians, which by definition is democratic. So if you're a poor Catholic, your child can get a free public Cathlic education paid for by the taxpayer. But if you're a Jew, you can kiss religious equality goodye. How can this happen? Simple: democracy can equal mob rule as is the case in Canada for the First Nations and in Ontario for the Cathlic School boards.

It might be unjust, but democracy it is none-the-less.

 

[Machjo]

What about constitutions that allow inequality? How do you square that one?[/quote]

That's a good point. Let's look at Canada. Canada's two largest ethnic groups have managed to impose their languages as official languages in the constitution with total disregard for the land's original inhabitans. It also neglects the needs of the deaf. Why do we not have an official sign language? Because the deaf are a small minority and so were forgotten about as the hearing members of the two largest ethnic groups imposed their languages?

Wouldn't that be an example of constitutionally backed mob rule?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Machjo, I suppose it is a difference in perspective. What you call democracy (where majority can decide to absolutely anything they want, including denying women the vote, or lynching people), I call mob rule. On the other hand, what I call democracy (rule by majority with strong, robust protection for minorities), you call limited democracy.

Let us just leave it at that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

For those who believe we are truly more democratic than the US, is there a logical basis for this belief, and if so, what is it?

Wulfie, I will give you my take as to why USA is more flawed than Canada. It has to do with referendums (the very reason you think that US system is superior to ours). Now, the idea of referendums itself isn’t bad, it makes sense. Majority should have say in how some issues are decided.

But only some issues, the problem is in USA they can decide most of the issues by 50%+1 vote in a referendum. A proper subject for a referendum is something that affects all the citizens.

Thus, some proper subjects would be, whether we should have proportional reorientation, whether we should continue with single payer health care system, whether CPP should be privatized etc. These issues affect everybody, and it is proper that everybody should have a say in it. Incidentally, Charlottetown accord was a perfect subject for a referendum.

My problems is with majority community deciding what rights minorities should have, by 50%+1 vote. Thus, by 50%+1 vote, majority can legalize death penalty (thereby depriving murderers of right to life), can ban gay marriage (thereby depriving homosexuals of their rights), can ban abortion (thereby depriving child bearing age women of their rights) etc.

In USA, protection for minority rights is much more flimsy than it is in Canada. In my opinion, that is what makes US system more flawed than Canadian system.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed, it is instructive to see the stark contrast between how Canada handled the same sex marriage (SSM) issue and how California handled it.

In Canada, courts declared that ban on SSM violates the Charter. After that, we had a vigorous, passionate debate on the issue, but nobody called for a referendum. Even those who were opposed to SSM did not call for a referendum (with a few exceptions), and rightly so.

SSM is the issue of fundamental rights, human rights and as such should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had a vigorous debate on the issue, Parliament voted on it and legalized SSM. Then when Harper became he PM, Parliament again voted on it and reaffirmed the SSM (with even a bigger margin). The issue was settled, dead and buried, we have moved on.

Contrast this with California, where the majority voted to deprive homosexuals of their equal rights by the slimmest of margins (52:48 ),and to what end? The issue is not going to go away, it will keep festering for several decades yet (eventually resulting in legalized SSM).

In my opinion, the way Canada handled the issue was a lot fairer, a lot more compassionate and more democratic. The issue of human rights is the purview of the Courts and the Parliament, and should not be subject to the whim of 50%+1 majority.

 

[Colpy]

Indeed, it is instructive to see the stark contrast between how Canada handled the same sex marriage (SSM) issue and how California handled it.

In Canada, courts declared that ban on SSM violates the Charter. After that, we had a vigorous, passionate debate on the issue, but nobody called for a referendum. Even those who were opposed to SSM did not call for a referendum (with a few exceptions), and rightly so.

SSM is the issue of fundamental rights, human rights and as such should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had a vigorous debate on the issue, Parliament voted on it and legalized SSM. Then when Harper became he PM, Parliament again voted on it and reaffirmed the SSM (with even a bigger margin). The issue was settled, dead and buried, we have moved on.

Contrast this with California, where the majority voted to deprive homosexuals of their equal rights by the slimmest of margins (52:48 ),and to what end? The issue is not going to go away, it will keep festering for several decades yet (eventually resulting in legalized SSM).

In my opinion, the way Canada handled the issue was a lot fairer, a lot more compassionate and more democratic. The issue of human rights is the purview of the Courts and the Parliament, and shod not be subject to the whim of 50%+1 majority.

No.

The way Canada handled the issue was certainly legitimate, but to call it "more democratic" is just silly.

Rightly or wrongly, the way California handled it was more democratic.....it is called direct democracy, and is as democratic as you can get.......

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, I suppose it is a difference in perspective. What you call democracy (where majority can decide to absolutely anything they want, including denying women the vote, or lynching people), I call mob rule. On the other hand, what I call democracy (rule by majority with strong, robust protection for minorities), you call limited democracy.

Let us just leave it at that.

Fair enough. But either way we define it, whether we are supporters of democracy or not, I'm sure we can agree that a country's laws, regardless of whether they are achieved though a democratic, monarchist, or whatever other system, must be just. If they are just, it shouldn't matter that they were enacted by a just monarch, president, PM, or whatever. We should support that law. If they are unjust, whether they are democratically supported or not, we should oppose such a law, even if it means opposing the will of the people.

The only way that can be achieved, however, is by placing restrictions on the will of the people. A constitution is one way of doing that. But as presented above, a constitution itself may have been written on the basis of mob rule! Then what?

We could turn to a constitutional monarchy in the hopes that, since the monarch is not democratically elected, that he might be able to restrain the people from abuses of democracy. But if the monarch degenerates into nothing more than a timid and fearful figurehead who simply capitulates to the will of Parliamen no matter what the law, then that defeats the very purpose of a constitutional monarchy. It can only work if the monarch is of strong character and prepared to confront the people. Otherwise, we might as well let the mob choose their president too.

So if the constitution itself might be nothing more than a charter guaranteeing the rights of the mobbish majority, and the constitutional monarch is too timid to restrict mobbish abuses of democracy, then we can turn to a higher level of government. I can see two ways of doing that:

1. We switch to an international federation whereby no ethnic, linguistic, religious or other group forms a majority, with an international parliament that has the power to override unjust laws passed by national governments. In other words, we sacrifice some democracy and sovereignty to protect the minorities from abuses of democracy. But the problem with this one is that the mob woudl obviously oppose any curtailment of their abusive powers.

2. We form an executive branch comprising a religious scholarly class, essentially transforming us into a theocracy. What religion should we choose? Chances are, it wold be the majority religion of course, and there's the added risk that the religious majority coudl then use this new power to restrict the rights of minority religions should the majority then be able to dictate their definition fo the religion.

So it would seem that no system coudl protect the rights of minorities. Yet if no system can protect the rights of minorities, then we're left with but one option: education!

We must educate the people not to worship democracy, and that democracy in and of itself is amoral, a mere reflection of the will of the majority. We must teach the students spirituality and morality so that they will vote in conformity not with their own personal interests, but with justice.

So in the end, if we want real change in Afghanistan, it's not through the political system, but rather through the education system, that we are to achieve this. Patience will be required. And this will also mean having to place less importance on democracy and more on education in our foreign policies. This would be the most radical shift in foreign policy since the beginning of the cold war, if not WWII! We woud essentially be asking that we abandon a source of identity we have cherished until now, and that is only now starting to be challenged on a larger scale.

 

[ironsides]

So if someones money comes from ALLEGEDLY selling crack to crack heads, they don't get to use any what may ( , legally they aren't guilty) have been hard earned cash to prove they aren't guilty.

But if someones money comes from allegedly destroying peoples pensions they worked for 40 years to build and cannot rebuild, he SHOULD get to use that money to prove they aren't guilty?

A crime is a crime, either seize assets or don't, for everyone.

Not even close, don't even try to compare the two. If it wasn't for the world economies tanking, poor Bernie would still be in business.