Canada more democratic than the U.S.?

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm not saying Harper would be any different if he was afforded that same majority,

Here I disagree, Wulife, I think Harper will be a lot different if he had the majority. Harper belongs to the right wing of the Conservative Party; he comes from the Reform and Alliance mould. He is not centre right, but very much right wing.

However, he is also a pragmatist; he knows he has to govern from centre right if he is going to survive in a minority situation. So currently his government appears as a centre right government. However, if he ever gets a majority, his claws will come out and he will be revealed in full right wing glory.

If Harper gets a majority, that will be the most right wing government we will have had for a long time.

 

[wulfie68]

Ah but you're missing the point, SirJoseph, in fixating on the ideology rather than the commonality of personality of the leaders: I contend that they all have that taste for being an autocrat just Trudeau, Chretien and Mulroney were allowed to indulge theirs by the voting populace. They all did what they wanted or felt they needed to do and everyone else be damned. I think Martin would have if he'd been able, just as Harper or Ignatieff would if they had the chance.

 

[Colpy]

I'm not saying Harper would be any different if he was afforded that same majority,

Here I disagree, Wulife, I think Harper will be a lot different if he had the majority. Harper belongs to the right wing of the Conservative Party; he comes from the Reform and Alliance mould. He is not centre right, but very much right wing.

However, he is also a pragmatist; he knows he has to govern from centre right if he is going to survive in a minority situation. So currently his government appears as a centre right government. However, if he ever gets a majority, his claws will come out and he will be revealed in full right wing glory.

If Harper gets a majority, that will be the most right wing government we will have had for a long time.

I'm gonna keep slapping you on this Sir Porter.

The Reform Party was a supporter of universal health care, and a well-kept social security net for the disadvantaged.

the Reform Party WAS a centre-right party.......in fact, every political party in Canada that ever elected an MP has been a centrist party......from Social Credit to the NDP..........they have much more in common than there is that separates them........

Now take Harper, who has dragged we old Reformers, kicking and screaming, right onto the yellow line.....there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference in the placing of the federal Liberal and Conservative parties on the political spectrum......just shading of political ideas.

To call Reform (and by inference, former Reform Party members) "far right" is insulting. Simple as that.

 

[Cannuck]

Now take Harper, who has dragged we old Reformers, kicking and screaming, right onto the yellow line.....there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference in the placing of the federal Liberal and Conservative parties on the political spectrum......just shading of political ideas.

To call Reform (and by inference, former Reform Party members) "far right" is insulting. Simple as that.

I would ask SJP to actually point out major policies the the Conservatives have that are "far right" but that would be a waste of time so I won't.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

the Reform Party WAS a centre-right party

I don’t’ think so, Colpy, that is your interpretation. The following policies of Reform Party (which were pretty much kept intact by the Alliance) can only be considered right wing, at least here in Canada.

Referendums – the party supported referendums on just about everything, subject to obtaining a ridiculously small number of signatures (remember, Rick Mercer obtained enough signatures to put an initiative for referendum changing Stockwell Day’s name to Doris Day?)

Gay rights – not only Reform was opposed to gay marriage, but it was also opposed to the legislation Liberals introduced, banning discrimination against gays. It voted against that bill. Definitely a right wing policy.

Senate Reform – Equal Senate (where every province has an equal number of senators) is considered a right wing policy, at least here in the east.

So I don’t agree with your contention that Reform and Alliance were centre right parties. Reform represented the right wing portion of the old PC party. The center right portion was represented by the Quebec MPs. After Mulroney, PC party fractured into two parts, the blue Tories became the Reform party (and Alliance), while Red Tories became the Bloc.

 

[JLM]

on the democracy index Canada is 11th the U.S.A 18th Canada is more democractic than the U.S.A

Maybe but there's also some adverse ramifications to democracy, in the U.S. at least if someone bumps you off they can expect to sit in Old Sparky for a few minutes, in Canada they get to spend a couple of years in an all expense paid resort.

 

[Tonington]

Senate Reform – Equal Senate (where every province has an equal number of senators) is considered a right wing policy, at least here in the east.

It's actually equal representation they wanted, which is not the same as equal numbers of Senators from each province.

But this is an amusing point you're making. Being democratic, is a feather in the cap of those with a right wing bent? Equality is a right wing trait, yet not a few responses ago you were calling them right wing extremists?

You're not making a very good argument here. You're making Colpy's points for him! :lol:

 

[Colpy]

SirJosephPorter;

I don’t’ think so, Colpy, that is your interpretation. The following policies of Reform Party (which were pretty much kept intact by the Alliance) can only be considered right wing, at least here in Canada.

Referendums – the party supported referendums on just about everything, subject to obtaining a ridiculously small number of signatures (remember, Rick Mercer obtained enough signatures to put an initiative for referendum changing Stockwell Day’s name to Doris Day?)

First of all, Mercer did not get enough signatures on the silly question, a mocking of democracy.

The proposal to have referendums is democratic at its base, a return of power to the people, limited to the protections of individual rights laid out in the Constitution. I never thought of democracy as exclusively a right-wing initiative, but if you insist that is what direct democracy is, then I am proud to be a right-wing extremeist.......
When did democracy become a far-right wing initiative?:roll:

Gay rights – not only Reform was opposed to gay marriage, but it was also opposed to the legislation Liberals introduced, banning discrimination against gays. It voted against that bill. Definitely a right wing policy.

You should study up on the history of SSM in the House....here, let me help:

In 1999, the House of Commons overwhelmingly passed a resolution to re-affirm the definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others".[22] The following year this definition of marriage was included in the revised Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act 2000, which continued to bar same-sex couples from full marriage rights.The draft bill was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court; see below.
On 16 September 2003, a motion was brought to Parliament by the Canadian Alliance (now the Conservative Party) to once again reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage. The same language that had been passed in 1999 was brought to a free vote, with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."[24] Motions are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes. The September vote was extremely divisive, however. Prime Minister Chrétien reversed his previous stance and voted against the motion, as did Paul Martin (who later became Prime Minister) and many other prominent Liberals. Several Liberals retained their original stance, however, and thus the vote was not defined purely along party lines. Controversially, over 30 members of the House did not attend the vote, the majority of whom were Liberals who had voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 1999.[25] It was speculated that they had ignored the vote on the wishes of Chrétien, who did not want to have the symbolic importance of the moment undermined by his own party.[25] In the end, the motion was narrowly rejected by a vote of 137-132

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

So , according to your analysis in 1999, the government of Jean Chretien was far-right......and stayed far-right until late 2003...........and, indeed, even then it was really far-right because far-right Liberals had to stay out of the House to permit the bill to pass....by five votes.

Yep, obviously support of the traditional definition of marriage is far right. Uh Huh. Just ask Tommy Douglas, that icon of right wing extremeism in Canada.....he thought homosexuality was a mental disease. :roll:

Senate Reform – Equal Senate (where every province has an equal number of senators) is considered a right wing policy, at least here in the east.

I live in the east, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop telling me how I'm supposed to think, AND, I'll have you know........Senate Reform is popular everywhere outside of Ontario and Quebec.....especially the latter.....

Once again, ou equate democratic principles with far-right thought......I don't get it.

So I don’t agree with your contention that Reform and Alliance were centre right parties. Reform represented the right wing portion of the old PC party. The center right portion was represented by the Quebec MPs. After Mulroney, PC party fractured into two parts, the blue Tories became the Reform party (and Alliance), while Red Tories became the Bloc

What you have done is taken three policies that are not particularly aligned with any ideology on the political spectrum, two of which are democratic reforms, and announced them to be far-right policies.

Unfortunately, Sir Porter, your problem is obvious.....if you agree with a policy, you proclaim it to be reasonable and centrist....if you disagree, it is "far-right"....no logical reason, simply your declaration.

Sorry to break it to you, but you just ain't that important.:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But this is an amusing point you're making. Being democratic, is a feather in the cap of those with a right wing bent? Equality is a right wing trait, yet not a few responses ago you were calling them right wing extremists?

You are starting a whole new discussion here, Tonington. I don’t think equal Senate is democratic at all. It is nonsense to give equal number of Senators to Ontario (population 12 million) and Prince Edward Island (population 100,000)

Anyway, I don’t think Senate discussion belongs here. Post a separate thread and we will talk.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Maybe but there's also some adverse ramifications to democracy, in the U.S. at least if someone bumps you off they can expect to sit in Old Sparky for a few minutes, in Canada they get to spend a couple of years in an all expense paid resort.

Didn’t you say this before? Is it a repeat of one of your earlier posts? It sounds awfully familiar.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry to break it to you, but you just ain't that important.

Really, Colpy? You sure had me fooled.

So , according to your analysis in 1999, the government of Jean Chretien was far-right......and stayed far-right until late 2003...........and, indeed, even then it was really far-right because far-right Liberals had to stay out of the House to permit the bill to pass....by five votes.

I am not talking of gay marriage here at all. Sure, during the gay marriage debate, reasonable people were on both sides of the issue. I wouldn’t call those who opposed gay marriage when the discussion was taking place, belonging to far right.

However, I am talking of way before gay marriage debate, before courts legalized gay marriage. Before gay marriage was ever an issue, Chrétien introduced legislation in Parliament outlawing discrimination against homosexuals. Reform Party (I think it was Reform at that time) opposed the legislation. That I would call extreme right position, to oppose legislation banning discrimination against gays.

I remember, justice minister Alan Rock was very skittish about going ahead with the legislation. He was afraid that Reform would get a lot of political mileage out of it, by opposing the legislation. For a long time bill went nowhere, until Chrétien put it on the fast track.

But the Reform position, opposing a ban on discrimination against gays, was very much a right wing position.

 

[Cannuck]

Anyway, I don’t think Senate discussion belongs here. Post a separate thread and we will talk.

Of course Senate reform belongs here. You've brought it up and suggested it was a far right policy.

Your biggest problem is that you view everything as left/right with yourself squarely in the middle. Aside from the obvious silliness of the claim, it's also a ridiculous oversimplification.

See The Political Compass as just one of the sites that expand on right/left thinking.

I score
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

So, let's see where everybody fits so we can cut the "far-right" nonsense.

 

[Cannuck]

Gay rights – not only Reform was opposed to gay marriage, but it was also opposed to the legislation Liberals introduced, banning discrimination against gays. It voted against that bill. Definitely a right wing policy.

I am not talking of gay marriage here at all.

This may com as a shock to you but people can look back at previous posts. You can't bring up gay marriage and then claim you aren't talking about gay marriage...well, OK...you can.

 

[Machjo]

the Reform Party WAS a centre-right party

I don’t’ think so, Colpy, that is your interpretation. The following policies of Reform Party (which were pretty much kept intact by the Alliance) can only be considered right wing, at least here in Canada.


Referendums – the party supported referendums on just about everything, subject to obtaining a ridiculously small number of signatures (remember, Rick Mercer obtained enough signatures to put an initiative for referendum changing Stockwell Day’s name to Doris Day?)

Though I don't agree with referendums for every little issue, I don't see how that is a uniquely right-wing thing. I'd describe it as populist rather, but not necessarily right wing.

Gay rights – not only Reform was opposed to gay marriage, but it was also opposed to the legislation Liberals introduced, banning discrimination against gays. It voted against that bill. Definitely a right wing policy.

I would classify myself as moderate left, yet even I oppose gay marriage. As for banning discrimination against gays, I could agree with that, but not against gays specifically, but against anyone.

So yes, opposing gay marriage is generally a right-wing thing, but again, some on the moderate left will oppose it too. The right does not have a monopoly in that domain.

Senate Reform – Equal Senate (where every province has an equal number of senators) is considered a right wing policy, at least here in the east.

Perhaps right wing, but certainly not extreme right. Though I don't support a triple-e senate myself (I support a unicameral government), and though I don't know of any left-wingers who do support a triple-e senate, I don't see how it conflicts with fundamental left-wing ideologies per se. In fact, I don't even see how it would necessarily conflict with a socialist state!

So I don’t agree with your contention that Reform and Alliance were centre right parties. Reform represented the right wing portion of the old PC party. The center right portion was represented by the Quebec MPs. After Mulroney, PC party fractured into two parts, the blue Tories became the Reform party (and Alliance), while Red Tories became the Bloc.

The Reform Party was certainly a right-wing party, even by self-definition, and it certainly attracted members from the far-right. This does not mean that the official policies of the Reform Party were far-right though. The NDP has as a similar problem with members of the far-left joining its ranks too, but again we shouldn't blame the NDP for the actions of individual members any more than we should blame the Reform Party for its.

I myself was debating between the NDP and the Reform Party at the time. I'd ended up voting for the NDP candidate, but it was a close call. I liked the NDP's stance on foreing diplomatic relations and the Reform Party's pro-free-trade stance.

To say that the Reform Party had some far-right members within its ranks might be fair enough. But the Party's official policies were centre right, not far right, as were many of its members.

 

[Colpy]

Ahh....the tragedy of the old Reformer analysed



Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

 

[Machjo]

But this is an amusing point you're making. Being democratic, is a feather in the cap of those with a right wing bent? Equality is a right wing trait, yet not a few responses ago you were calling them right wing extremists?

You are starting a whole new discussion here, Tonington. I don’t think equal Senate is democratic at all. It is nonsense to give equal number of Senators to Ontario (population 12 million) and Prince Edward Island (population 100,000)

Anyway, I don’t think Senate discussion belongs here. Post a separate thread and we will talk.

Sorry, Sir, but you brought it up. Now I can see your point here that equal representation by province and territory in the senate might not necessarily be just. I stress 'necessarily' because in some cases regional representation might be more just than proportional by population. Imagine if China had proportional votes in the UN General Assembly. It would hold about 25% of the voting power to itself. Should the UK get five times the number of votes in the UN General Assembly as Canada? And the US ten times?

Essentially, I'd say that within a nation (in the ethnic and not necessarily policital sense), representation by population might be fairer than representation by region.

But between nations (again in the ethnic sence), to protect the rights of minorities, regional representation might be appropriate. Look at Nunavut. Most of its population comprises Nunavummiut, not those of European descent. About 8% of its population speaks neither English nor French. Their religions are likely quite different too. Clearly their rights could be crushed in a simple majority vote by population. If we should ever decide to take away their rights, they might as well not even bother to try to defend themselves democratically. We could simply revert to mob-rule at the polls and crush them underfoot.

So as to whether representation by region is fair or not, that depends on how ethnically homogeneous our population is. Seeing that most of us can't even communicate with one another, there's no denying that Canada comprises a number of nations within its borders. Should a simple ethnic majority be able to make voting pointless for the minorities?

 

[Cannuck]

Ahh....the tragedy of the old Reformer analysed

8O Good gawd you're a Leftard!!!

 

[Machjo]

I'm starting to feel bad for Sir Joseph. It seems we're all ganging up on him.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm starting to feel bad for Sir Joseph. It seems we're all ganging up on him.

Not surprising since we are all on the far right.

 

[Machjo]

I wouldn't consider it very accurate. I would identify myself more as moderate libertarian left on the scale presented above, though there are right-leaning and authoritarian sides to me.

I think one reason for the inaccruary is that many of the statements were open to interpretation, thus making it possible to agree and disagree at the same time to the same question depending on the interpretation chosen.

Many of the statements were thus not wel worded.