Canada more democratic than the U.S.?

[Machjo]

As for English and French in the Constitution, it does block 8% of Nunavummiut from full democratic participation in Canada. You were lucky to have moved to an English-speaking part of Canada. There are entire comunities in Nunavut where neither English nor French are present in day-to-day life. Seeing that their languages are indigenous to Canada, it would make sence that they be allowed to participate fully in Canadian politics in their own language if English and French proove too daunting considering the local environment. That would seem reasonable enough. But unfortunately, we've shown ourselves concerned only with the democratic rights of Canadians of European descent or who can learn their languages only.

How do you propose that the Nunavummiut who know neither English nor French participate in Canadian democracy? We coudl say: lern French or English. But you know as well as I do that few English-speakers learn French well and few French-speakers learn English well too.Why should we expect higher standards for them than for ourselves.

I'm not giving an answer myself, but clearly a more just solution needs to be found. And if we cared, we would have found one. But we don't care, so the Nunavummiut who know neither official language are marginalized because they can't learn the languages that most of us have failed to learn ourselves.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Colpy, I had heard Levant’s name before (in reference to Mohammed cartoons), I thought he was a conservative. Anyway, so I decided to look him up. This is what I found in Wikipedia, under ‘Ezra Levant’.

Levant favoured Quebec separatism and a yes vote during the 1995 Quebec referendum in a Calgary Sun column titled "10 Reasons to Hope for a Yes Victory"[4

In 1996, Levant wrote a column saying that if the federal Liberals were re-elected, Alberta could separate from Canada making it "free from Quebec's demands."[5]

An active political organizer in the Reform Party, Levant guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer and Rob Anders to win party nominations.[9]

He is a committed conservative activist, belongs to the right wing of the conservative party. Anything he says is suspect as far as I am concerned. He is clearly an extremist (in my opinion anyway). Anybody who supports Alberta separation and Quebec separation is an extremist as far as I am concerned.

So you can have him, I want no part of him. I am not in the least interested in what a right wing extremist is saying about anything.

Incidentally, I supported his right to publish Mohammed cartoons.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

the simple fact is, Sir Porter, you are wrong.....canada has much going for it.

Colpy, evidently Ezra Levant does not agree with you. He wants both Quebec and Alberta to separate from Canada. Incidentally I do agree that Canada has much going for it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I concede a need for protecting the rights of minorities but those protections should not come at the expense of the majority.

Wulfie, I disagree. Sure there is a need to protect minority rights. And why would you say that minority rights can only be protected at the expense of the majority? Minority members are entitled to fully as many rights as the majority members. There is nothing wrong in enshrining those rights in the constitution, so that majority cannot muck about with them.

Constitution must guarantee equal rights to minorities. I don’t see how granting equal rights to minorities can be at the expense of the majority. In my opinion, when minorities have equal rights, everybody wins, including the majority. It is not a win/lose proposition, but a win/win proposition.

 

[Tonington]

As to voting rights, it is a question of what the experts say, as to when a person comes of age. Experts say it is 18 years, so currently it is 18 (it used to be 21 in USA, they passed a constitutional amendment in the 70s to lower it to 18 ).

No, not experts. Our constitution says that. There is no justification for allowing an 18 year old to vote, and denying a 17 year old.

What is fair about that?

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, I had heard Levant’s name before (in reference to Mohammed cartoons), I thought he was a conservative. Anyway, so I decided to look him up. This is what I found in Wikipedia, under ‘Ezra Levant’.

Levant favoured Quebec separatism and a yes vote during the 1995 Quebec referendum in a Calgary Sun column titled "10 Reasons to Hope for a Yes Victory"[4

In 1996, Levant wrote a column saying that if the federal Liberals were re-elected, Alberta could separate from Canada making it "free from Quebec's demands."[5]

An active political organizer in the Reform Party, Levant guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer and Rob Anders to win party nominations.[9]

He is a committed conservative activist, belongs to the right wing of the conservative party. Anything he says is suspect as far as I am concerned. He is clearly an extremist (in my opinion anyway). Anybody who supports Alberta separation and Quebec separation is an extremist as far as I am concerned.

So you can have him, I want no part of him. I am not in the least interested in what a right wing extremist is saying about anything.

Incidentally, I supported his right to publish Mohammed cartoons.

Ezra Levant is far from a right-wing extremeist, although he is a little to the right of me........I find it insulting you would refer to a man dedicated to the principles of liberty an "extremist"....Nazis are extremists....Islamofascists are extremists.......Reform Party members are not "extremists", neither are seperatists, in most cases. I was a member of Reform practically from its inception, I am not an extremist..........

My point was that you need to read his book, as it is a wonderful study of the use of "human rights" to supress the actual rights we all enjoy under the Charter.......

For instance: Did you know that, in 30 years, no one has EVER been acquited before a HRC for charges under section 13? (promoting hatred) Does that not seem.....odd to you?

Do you approve of the state being able to require your attendance at interogation on the state of your political thought?

Do you approve of the state being allowed to tell a public figure what he can, or can not say about homosexuality?

Read the damn book.....it is a study of how you are being hoodwinked, how the left is hijacking our liberty, under the guise of human rights.........

Oh, BTW, you can't stand to read a man with different opinions than your own?

Then WTF are you doing here?

 

[Machjo]

And last but not least, I am amused by the fact that John Tory's plan for religious based schools was closer to compliant with international law/human rights rulings than that of his detractors (namely McGuinty and Co.).

Why would that amuse you?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, not experts. Our constitution says that. There is no justification for allowing an 18 year old to vote, and denying a 17 year old.

What is fair about that?

There is nothing fair about it, Tonington, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I know if somebody is 18 years old he can vote, if somebody is a day short he cannot. But that problem will exist no matter that limit is put upon the voting age. As I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[JLM]

There is nothing fair about it, Tonington, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I know if somebody is 18 years old he can vote, if somebody is a day short he cannot. But that problem will exist no matter that limit is put upon the voting age. As I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe it should be changed to age 25 but only for those paying income tax.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And last but not least, I am amused by the fact that John Tory's plan for religious based schools was closer to compliant with international law/human rights rulings than that of his detractors (namely McGuinty and Co.).

That may be so, Wulife, but it was still a nutty plan. I think it is wrong that Ontario funds Catholic schools, but we shouldn’t compound the felony by funding other religious schools as well.

If you remember, we had a vigorous debate when Tory proposed his plan (I am SRM, but I assume you already figured that out). At that time my point was that he would be funding Fundamentalist Christian schools or Islamic madrasaas under his plan. Who knows what they teach the kids in their basement schools. Creationism? Jihad? Who knows?

So it may be UN compliant but it was a nutty plan nevertheless. We should be working to getting rid of Catholic school funding, not try to compound the problem by funding more religious schools.

 

[Tonington]

There is nothing fair about it, Tonington, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I know if somebody is 18 years old he can vote, if somebody is a day short he cannot. But that problem will exist no matter that limit is put upon the voting age. As I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Why? It's a right, why should this right have conditions, and others not? You'll note that in Canada, our Charter makes no mentione at all about eligibility for voting in elections, one only has to be a citizen:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Further, if you look at equality rights, age is explicitly mentioned as a protected group:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Equal rights are equal rights. You might think the line needs to be drawn somewhere with age and voting. Some other person might think a line needs to be drawn with respect to who can marry whom.

Using your definition, we can't call Canada a democratic nation. In fact, I don't think there is a single nation on Earth that we could call a democracy.

 

[YukonJack]

Re #139.

Colpy advised SirJosephPorter:

"BTW, I think you, of all people, need to pick up Ezra Levant's book Shakedown"

Read SirJosephPorter's response in #142.

Typical liberal name-calling. Typical close-minded know-it-all attitude.

Mind solid as concrete. All mixed up and permanently set.

Waste no time on him.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Typical liberal name-calling. Typical close-minded know-it-all attitude.

Mind solid as concrete. All mixed up and permanently set.

Waste no time on him.

Sorry Yukon Jack, but I don’t want to waste my time by paying attention to a right wing extremist. (and with all due respect to Colpy, I think Levant is a right wing extremist).

Same as I cannot waste my time listening to the right wing nut, Limbaugh (although as I said before, I have listened to him occasionally, in the past).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Using your definition, we can't call Canada a democratic nation. In fact, I don't think there is a single nation on Earth that we could call a democracy.

You have a point, Tonington, I don’t think there is a perfect democracy in the world. However, I think Canada does a better job at being a democracy than many other nations (including USA, in my opinion).

Anyway, so what is your solution to voting and age limit? That we have no age limits, that a person is allowed to vote form the moment of birth (or from the moment of conception, since according to prolifers, it is a human being at conception)?

 

[Cannuck]

Oh, BTW, you can't stand to read a man with different opinions than your own?

The epitome of closed mindedness.

Then WTF are you doing here?

Careful, SJP has an aversion to that type of talk.

 

[JLM]

Typical liberal name-calling. Typical close-minded know-it-all attitude.

Mind solid as concrete. All mixed up and permanently set.

Waste no time on him.

Sorry Yukon Jack, but I don’t want to waste my time by paying attention to a right wing extremist. (and with all due respect to Colpy, I think Levant is a right wing extremist).

Same as I cannot waste my time listening to the right wing nut, Limbaugh (although as I said before, I have listened to him occasionally, in the past).

Are right wing extremists any worse than left wing extremists? Most politicians are extreme anyway- extremely corrupt.

 

[Tonington]

Using your definition, we can't call Canada a democratic nation. In fact, I don't think there is a single nation on Earth that we could call a democracy.

You have a point, Tonington, I don’t think there is a perfect democracy in the world. However, I think Canada does a better job at being a democracy than many other nations (including USA, in my opinion).

Anyway, so what is your solution to voting and age limit? That we have no age limits, that a person is allowed to vote form the moment of birth (or from the moment of conception, since according to prolifers, it is a human being at conception)?

Can't be conception, because voting is provided to citizens. Citizens require ID.

My solution would be to have no limits. That's what the Charter says, so why should there be any limits by age at all?

 

[gerryh]

riiiiiight....because 6 year olds would be able to make informed desisions concerning who should be running the country.:roll:

 

[Cliffy]

riiiiiight....because 6 year olds would be able to make informed desisions concerning who should be running the country.:roll:

Are they any less informed than most "adults"? Most adults think we live in a democracy and that they actually have some influence in government. Harper has proven them wrong on all counts and they still believe. Politics is just another brain dead religion.

 

[gerryh]

Are they any less informed than most "adults"? Most adults think we live in a democracy and that they actually have some influence in government. Harper has proven them wrong on all counts and they still believe. Politics is just another brain dead religion.

considering the responses by you and tonnington....you may have something there.