lol Quite right, but why is more or less irrelevant too as the women in Switzerland HAVE the vote NOW. It has very little to do with the fact that ANYthing the gov't does has to have the permission of the people.
Canada more democratic than the U.S.?
- Thread starter Sublime
- Start date
Nice in theory. But what happens when the mob writes the Constitution? Sure we can up the majority from 50%+1 to 2/3 and support from so many provinces, etc.. Yet even with that, if the mob itself makes up a 2/3 majority and a majority in most provinces, then the mob can still write the constitution in its favour! So a constitution itself does not guarantee protection from the majority. In fact, we can legitimately argue that Canada's own Constitution is ethnocentric in favour of the two largest ethnic majorities of the country to the unjust detriment of the indigenous ethnic groups of the continent.
I can agree with that as long as we have universal compulsory education founded upon certain principles. We do have universal compulsory education, but I fundamentally disagree with the principles upon which it is founded: materialism and nationalism. And then we wonder why we vote the way we do, and why the mob rules the country. They are literate, but have been raised to value not much more than money and the country (defined in an ethnocentric manner itelf).
Why do we insist on going as far as Africa? Is the truth on our own soil too painful to contemplate? Bil 101, the Ontario Catholic School Boards, our neglect of legal historical treaties, heck, even our own Constitution reflect the values of certain ethnic, religious, and linguistic majorities. We are the same as Africa, jst to a lesser extreme? Does moderate mob rule excuse itself on its moderation?
We can draw the exact same parallel in Canada. In Nunavut, 8% of the population knows neither English nor French. If one of the people in that category should ever become an MP in Ottawa, he would essentially be silenced from expressing his opinions owing to his lack of knowledge of either of the languages of Canada's two largest ethnic communities. We have ensured of course that interpretors are available to allow ful democraic participation for the majority groups. Why have we not ensured that Canada's minorities not have the same access to democratic participation, especially on their own land?
I fully concur. Look at the Canadian constitution. We give symbolic protection, but little to no concrete protection. Of what use are all the protections in the Constitution for Canada's indigenous peoples who might know neither English nor French? Those protections are really nothing more than PR, but the substance of power remains in the hands of the majority ethnic groups. Let's look at the deaf. Sure they have lip-service given to them in the constitution, as long as they know English or French. So much for that? In some countries, the Constitution itself recognizes the national sign language as an official language of the country. In Canada, our constitution gives you 'rights' as long as you can assimilate to the majority ethnic communities, hearing communities at that. Failing that, your 'rights' mean little.
It is not my idea, Colpy; I am only quoting what I have read time and again in American publications. I think it was written by a liberal (though a conservative could make similar argument).
His point was that many of the Supreme court decisions originate from the freedoms given in Bill of Rights. Right to abortion stems from right to privacy. Gay rights originate from right to equality. Right of Muslims to promote their beliefs, their faith originates in the right to worship. Decision to remove Ten Commandments from schools, or getting rid of school prayer originate from freedom of religion and so on.
If the ten amendments are put to the vote and it is pointed out to people at large what the consequences were of those amendments (gay rights, abortion rights, feminism, absence of Christianity from public sphere, Imams preaching hatred from the mosques all over USA), chances are very good that people would vote down those amendments.
This was the reasoning behind what he said. Whether he is right or not remains speculative. But I can see a conservative making the same argument and claim that liberals would vote against the Bill of Rights, if a referendum were held.
When people support equal rights, right to worship, free press etc., they usually support it for their side, not for the other side. Thus during Iraq war there were demands to try two New York Times columnists for treason, because they criticized George Bush. When a few years ago an artist exhibited his art (crucifix immersed in a jar of urine), there were demand to close down the exhibit. Same thing about the movie, Last Temptations of Christ. There were demands that the move be shut down.
Anyway, so I am only quoting what I read, and I do see some truth I what he says.
But what happens when the mob writes the Constitution?
Machjo, when mob writes the constitution, then there are problems. Fortunately, in most democracies, constitution was written by learned scholars, statesmen, by progressives etc. In fact, that is why in almost every democracy, it is very difficult to amend the constitution (except for some states in USA).
Yet even with that, if the mob itself makes up a 2/3 majority and a majority in most provinces, then the mob can still write the constitution in its favour!
I assume what you mean is that the mob can change the constitution in its favour. Sure it can, it is very difficult to change the constitution, it is not impossible. It is very difficult to amend the Charter, almost impossible, not impossible.
Suppose tomorrow the whole country, whole of Canada goes crazy, they can convert Canada into any kind of society they want. They can convert it into slave owning, women hating Islamic dictatorship, a Christian Fundamentalist dictatorship, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they can convert it into anything, by amending the constitution and amending the Charter. Thus they can mandate that women must wear veils, by amending the Charter.
However, to do that, there has to be a broad, general agreement in the country and that is almost impossible to achieve. But you are right, if there is such an agreement, Canada can legislate itself into any kind of dictatorship. Then international pressure would be the only remedy left.
And then we wonder why we vote the way we do, and why the mob rules the country.
The mob may rule the country (and that is really how it should be in a democracy). However in Canada we have almost ironclad guarantees absent discriminating against minorities. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, Charter bans discrimination against blacks, women, gays etc. and it is very difficult for the mob to get rid of these provisions.
So Canada is working as it should, majority rule, mob rule, with strong safeguards for the minorities.
Machjo, when mob writes the constitution, then there are problems. Fortunately, in most democracies, constitution was written by learned scholars, statesmen, by progressives etc. In fact, that is why in almost every democracy, it is very difficult to amend the constitution (except for some states in USA).
Yet even with that, if the mob itself makes up a 2/3 majority and a majority in most provinces, then the mob can still write the constitution in its favour!
I assume what you mean is that the mob can change the constitution in its favour. Sure it can, it is very difficult to change the constitution, it is not impossible. It is very difficult to amend the Charter, almost impossible, not impossible.
Suppose tomorrow the whole country, whole of Canada goes crazy, they can convert Canada into any kind of society they want. They can convert it into slave owning, women hating Islamic dictatorship, a Christian Fundamentalist dictatorship, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they can convert it into anything, by amending the constitution and amending the Charter. Thus they can mandate that women must wear veils, by amending the Charter.
However, to do that, there has to be a broad, general agreement in the country and that is almost impossible to achieve. But you are right, if there is such an agreement, Canada can legislate itself into any kind of dictatorship. Then international pressure would be the only remedy left.
And then we wonder why we vote the way we do, and why the mob rules the country.
The mob may rule the country (and that is really how it should be in a democracy). However in Canada we have almost ironclad guarantees absent discriminating against minorities. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, Charter bans discrimination against blacks, women, gays etc. and it is very difficult for the mob to get rid of these provisions.
So Canada is working as it should, majority rule, mob rule, with strong safeguards for the minorities.
The thought just occured to me what the big difference between the Swiss and most of the rest of the world is: the Swiss gov't does not lead, it merely governs. The rest of us seem to want to be led.
Make a lot of claims. Where are the links? ...ISBN numbers? ...library index? Talk is cheap...
Yet you called America a democracy, despite the fact that there are not equal rights for all.
What about voting rights? Where does your definition end? Should 12 year old get to vote too? If the answer is no, then why not?
Can you call a country "democracy" if its head of state was not elected by its people? Where the people are required to worship the holder of an inherited post, with absolutely no visible sign that that person - king/queen/emperor etc. has an IQ greater than their shoe size? And their human modesty and humility is a perfect match?
Democracy = "the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives "
princeton.edu
princeton.edu
"Sorry Tonington, but that is where our definitions differ. To me, any system that does not practice equal rights and equal justice for all in not a democracy, that is mob rule." - Then I guess we are governed by mob rule. A person has to be naive to think every Canadian has equal rights. Dollar for dollar we may have equal rights. Let's just suppose that you are involved in a car wreck with Stephen Harper and you both suffer the exact same injuries- who is going to get treated first? Let's say you are brought into the hospital suffering from burst appendix at the exact same time as an N.H.L. player or a prisoner from a federal institution suffering the exact same ailment, who is going to get treated first? Let's say a pan handler down on skid road is seen staggering drunkenly along the sidewalk at the same time the Premier of our province steps out of a bar onto the same side walk in the same enebriated condition. Who is going to get arrested first and who is going to spend time in jail while the other is released on his own recognizance? That will tell you how equal we are. It's a nice sentiment but ain't never gonna happen.
"To me, any system that does not practice equal rights and equal justice for all in not a democracy, that is mob rule."
80% of the population believes in God, yet prayer and Christmas display in a public place is forbidden.
90+% of the population is straight, yet their will is ignored.
Miniscule percentage of the population is Muslim, yet they can go and insult and ridicule - along with atheists - Christians and promote their death.
Using SirJosephPorter's logic, the definition of democracy in any given country is inversely proportional to the number of the minority in that country.
Thus, the tyranny of the minority is democracy, but the will of the majority of the people is abuse of power and "mob rule". REMEMBER, though: NO minority EVER asked or aspired for EQUAL treatment. They've always wanted preferential treatment, because that "levels the playing field".
As to the question of which country is more democratic, U.S.A. or Canada, WHY oh WHY people inflicted with inferiority complex always must compare our two countries? I would understand this obsession if:
1. Canada had a history comparable to that of the U.S.
2. Canada had a population similar to that of the U.S.
3. Canada had similar influence on the world stage as the U.S.
4. Canadians, just once, admitted that in some respects the U.S IS better than Canada.
80% of the population believes in God, yet prayer and Christmas display in a public place is forbidden.
90+% of the population is straight, yet their will is ignored.
Miniscule percentage of the population is Muslim, yet they can go and insult and ridicule - along with atheists - Christians and promote their death.
Using SirJosephPorter's logic, the definition of democracy in any given country is inversely proportional to the number of the minority in that country.
Thus, the tyranny of the minority is democracy, but the will of the majority of the people is abuse of power and "mob rule". REMEMBER, though: NO minority EVER asked or aspired for EQUAL treatment. They've always wanted preferential treatment, because that "levels the playing field".
As to the question of which country is more democratic, U.S.A. or Canada, WHY oh WHY people inflicted with inferiority complex always must compare our two countries? I would understand this obsession if:
1. Canada had a history comparable to that of the U.S.
2. Canada had a population similar to that of the U.S.
3. Canada had similar influence on the world stage as the U.S.
4. Canadians, just once, admitted that in some respects the U.S IS better than Canada.
Last edited:
You are making the mistake of assuming that an academic education equates with a spiritual and moral education. A man with a simple high school diploma can truly have a sense of spirituality and morality while the scholar who is educated only in an academic sence (as is often the case in Canada) can be bribed or corrupted, can still hold prejudices and hate against other groups, and can still write an unjust constitution. Goebels had a PhD after all. And the ethnic biases of the writers of our own constitution shine bright as day in spite of their academic scholarship. The only saving grace is the restraint they'd shown in restricting the discriminatory parts of the constitution to systemic as opposed to systematic injustice, unlike more explicitely prejudiced governments.
Yes, that's what I meant.
True.
But then we have to care about international pressure. The UN itself has already passed a resolution against Ontario's discriminatory policy funding Catholic schools to the exclusion of others, but the mob managed to re-interpret the Constitution to overrule it (TheSpec.com - Opinions - Debate flares again on dual school funding). So clearly in Canada, the minority cannot trust the Constitution to protect their rights, and neither can it trust a toothless UN to protect them either. And obviously the majority in any given country would oppose giving the UN the military clout it would ever need to defend worldwide minorities. So as for the Catholic School Board issue in Ontario, to whom should the minority turn? The majority has let them down. The Constitution has let them dowm. And the UN has upheld their rights in principle but lacks the necessary clout to enforce its principles. So Canada's minorities are essentially at the mercy of the goodwill of the majority to not wish to discriminate against them more than it does already. If we look at it that way, then we can see that the issue of making refusal to have sex with one's husband illegal in Afghanistan is not an issue about protecting equal rights for all per se (if that were the case, we would respect UN resolutions against us too), but rather with the fact that that while the majority of Ontarians, and thus politicians, officially defend certain forms of injustice, the policy now passed in Afghanistan is not among them. It thus becomes a matter of degrees, with the charcoal kettle calling the jet-black pot black. If injustice is not only condoned, but even defended in our constitution, then on what moral grounds can we criticize Afghanistan for its laws other than by claiming that it is more unjust than us?
That is not how it should be. The uncivilized mob is to be transformed into a majority educated in spirituality and morality so as to know how to use its right to vote responsibly. No political system can achieve this. This must be achieved through education. One problem with that though is that the education system itself may reflect the prejudices of its creators, thus perpetuating the injustices. In Ontario, for example, I'm sure Catholic school teachers may teach pupils that it is acceptable to favour them legally because they are the chosen of God. That being the case, the next generation of voters will vote accordingly, again defending the discriminatory practices already in place.
You're living in your own dream world. The UN General Assembly has already criticized passed a resolution against Onario for its favouring Catholic School Boeards but not other religious school boards. Yet the Ontarian majority has shrugged it off, and we've even managed to interpret our Constitution in its defence.
Same problem with Quebec's Bill 101, though they proved to have a little more class than Ontario. Ontario simply shrugged off the UN Resolution against it. Quebec actually tried to defend its case before the UN. It failed, but at least it felt a little bit of humiliation at its injustices, unlike Ontario whose only defence was tradition!
I distinguish majority rule from mob rule. Though both are forms of democracy, mob rule is majority rule with either some or total disregard for the rights of minorities. Majority rule may or may not be mob rule, depending on whether the majority looks out for the rights of the minority.
Considering that our Constitution defends Bill 101 (through the Notwitstanding Clause) and Ontario's Catholic School Boards in spite of UN resolutions against both, we must thus conclude that we do have mob rule in Canada to a certain degree. Not as bad as in some countries where the majority group might exercise its democratic power to exterminate the minority, but to a lesser extent, our country still suffers frommob rule.
Is there any democracy that does not suffer frommob rule, whereby the minorities do have the same rights as the majority, whereby the majority does in fact look out sacrificially for the interests of the minorities? I won't say none exists, but I will say that i don't know of any myself. That should still be the objective though, and that can only be achieved not through democratic institutions, but rather through spiritual education.
Gilbert, I will match your definition with mine. This from Wikipedia:
Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes
The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[4][5][6]
This to me means protection for minorities, written in the constitution.
Head of the state has nothing to do with it, Yukon Jack. In Britain or Canada, head of the state is simply a figurehead. You are confusing Canada with USA, where head of the state (President) has real powers.
Sure I did, I also called it a flawed democracy. They still have to go some way before they guarantee equal rights for all, especially gays.
I think Canadian constitution is fairer, in that we have gays (now) included in the Charter. But we still have some ways to go. As I said before, they are all work in progress.
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 ).
If expert opinion, consensus changes about this, I can see voting age being lowered.
Let's just suppose that you are involved in a car wreck with Stephen Harper and you both suffer the exact same injuries- who is going to get treated first? Let's say you are brought into the hospital suffering from burst appendix at the exact same time as an N.H.L. player or a prisoner from a federal institution suffering the exact same ailment, who is going to get treated first? Let's say a pan handler down on skid road is seen staggering drunkenly along the sidewalk at the same time the Premier of our province steps out of a bar onto the same side walk in the same enebriated condition.
Quite so, JLM. I didn’t say our system was perfect. It does have flaws. But at least in the constitution, we have managed to accommodate most of the minorities, and that is more than most democracies have done.
As to there being one justice for the rich, for the famous and one for the poor, for the average, that probably will continue. Here we are talking about human nature, and not any system of government.
Quite so, JLM. I didn’t say our system was perfect. It does have flaws. But at least in the constitution, we have managed to accommodate most of the minorities, and that is more than most democracies have done.
As to there being one justice for the rich, for the famous and one for the poor, for the average, that probably will continue. Here we are talking about human nature, and not any system of government.
The UN itself has already passed a resolution against Ontario's discriminatory policy funding Catholic schools to the exclusion of others, but the mob managed to re-interpret the Constitution to overrule it
Machjo, I live in Ontario, and I am not happy about public funding for Catholic schools. But apparently it is in Ontario constitution, and so is likely to continue for a while
anyway.
Last election John Tory, leader of the Conservative Party wanted to extend public funding to all the private schools, but was defeated.
As to other points you raise, Canadian system is not perfect, it still has plenty of flaws in it. As I said before, there isn’t a perfect democracy in the world; they are all work in progress.
Machjo, I live in Ontario, and I am not happy about public funding for Catholic schools. But apparently it is in Ontario constitution, and so is likely to continue for a while
anyway.
Last election John Tory, leader of the Conservative Party wanted to extend public funding to all the private schools, but was defeated.
As to other points you raise, Canadian system is not perfect, it still has plenty of flaws in it. As I said before, there isn’t a perfect democracy in the world; they are all work in progress.
Baloney.
You weren't paying attention in January, were you?
the G-G, as representative of the Queen, made one thing very clear when Harper asked her to prorogue Parliament: she could say "no".....she could ask Dion to be PM....that is power.
the simple fact is, Sir Porter, you are wrong.....canada has much going for it.
the United States is more democratic, Constitutionally or otherwise.
BTW, I think you, of all people, need to pick up Ezra Levant's book Shakedown
Then see if you can say "Canada" and "Human Rights" in the same sentence with a straight face.
Wow. Where to begin...
I guess I'm one of those who believes that mob rule is democratic: it IS the will of the people above all else. I concede a need for protecting the rights of minorities but those protections should not come at the expense of the majority.
With regard to "education" and voting, call it the fascist in me, but I (and some of my friends) have reflected at times on how much better our current governments might function if there was a standard that had to be met in order to cast a vote, not in basic education but with regard to awareness of the issues themselves. Its elitist of me but I would rather have a gov't elected by a small group that has bothered to become informed about what a region/province/country faces than a base population that votes for Party X because its what they've always voted for and their parents and grandparents voted for. It would never happen but...
I have to confess I find it amusing how little relevance people put on the fact that our head of state is unelected and ignore the power that she has but chooses not to exercise, calling her a figurehead. Her Majesty DOES have very real powers in this country that she can exercise should the need arise. I don't think its a bad thing, but so many people think that because she doesn't get involved in the day-to-day affairs of the country, she has no powers. In some ways perhaps we're lucky in that Queen Elizabeth is the furthest thing from an autocrat, so that she doesn't look to get involved unless she must, but as pointed out by Colpy, the GG and the Monarch do have real power.
I am still struggling with the point(s) Machjo is trying to make. Does he/she think every gov't agency should be run like the UN with scores of interpreters present to render every service into every native dialect in the country? Who should pay for such a set up? Yes, my ancestors were immigrant as opposed to idigenous/migrant but I don't see the issue with learning to cope with society as it has evolved, including learning the language (my forbearers had to learn English too). Thats fundamentally democratic too: learning to exist with the majority even if you are not necessarily part of it. Honour and preserve your culture if you are proud of it, but don't automatically think its relevant to me and expect me to bear the cost for you.
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.). I remember the massives criticisms he faced in the media from the coverage we saw of the Ontario election. Personally, I'm with those who would prefer no religion in schools but if the constitution mandates Catholic education, then apply the brush equally to everyone else: be they protestant, fundamentalist christian, jew, muslim, hindu, sikh, etc. And it is the Canadian constitution (not the Ontario one: do our provinces actually have constitutions of their own?) that mandates catholic schools, as one of those holdovers from the French origins of Quebec.
I guess I'm one of those who believes that mob rule is democratic: it IS the will of the people above all else. I concede a need for protecting the rights of minorities but those protections should not come at the expense of the majority.
With regard to "education" and voting, call it the fascist in me, but I (and some of my friends) have reflected at times on how much better our current governments might function if there was a standard that had to be met in order to cast a vote, not in basic education but with regard to awareness of the issues themselves. Its elitist of me but I would rather have a gov't elected by a small group that has bothered to become informed about what a region/province/country faces than a base population that votes for Party X because its what they've always voted for and their parents and grandparents voted for. It would never happen but...
I have to confess I find it amusing how little relevance people put on the fact that our head of state is unelected and ignore the power that she has but chooses not to exercise, calling her a figurehead. Her Majesty DOES have very real powers in this country that she can exercise should the need arise. I don't think its a bad thing, but so many people think that because she doesn't get involved in the day-to-day affairs of the country, she has no powers. In some ways perhaps we're lucky in that Queen Elizabeth is the furthest thing from an autocrat, so that she doesn't look to get involved unless she must, but as pointed out by Colpy, the GG and the Monarch do have real power.
I am still struggling with the point(s) Machjo is trying to make. Does he/she think every gov't agency should be run like the UN with scores of interpreters present to render every service into every native dialect in the country? Who should pay for such a set up? Yes, my ancestors were immigrant as opposed to idigenous/migrant but I don't see the issue with learning to cope with society as it has evolved, including learning the language (my forbearers had to learn English too). Thats fundamentally democratic too: learning to exist with the majority even if you are not necessarily part of it. Honour and preserve your culture if you are proud of it, but don't automatically think its relevant to me and expect me to bear the cost for you.
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.). I remember the massives criticisms he faced in the media from the coverage we saw of the Ontario election. Personally, I'm with those who would prefer no religion in schools but if the constitution mandates Catholic education, then apply the brush equally to everyone else: be they protestant, fundamentalist christian, jew, muslim, hindu, sikh, etc. And it is the Canadian constitution (not the Ontario one: do our provinces actually have constitutions of their own?) that mandates catholic schools, as one of those holdovers from the French origins of Quebec.