How long before Canadians get mad??

[Truncador]

I take it that you never read the Meech Lake Accord or ever had any idea what it was about, for the Accord would have done none of the things you suggest. The sheer ignorance of many Canadians about the precise terms and conditions of this agreement was appalling.

I use the terms "Constitutional elector" and "aristocracy in Confederation" for very well-considered reasons, to wit:

Link

2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with

[...]

(b) the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.

101B. [...]

(2) At least three judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.

101C. [...]

(3) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;

(e) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

(f) subject to section 43, the use of the English or French language;

(g) the Supreme Court of Canada;

(h) the extension of existing provinces into the territories;

(i) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and

(j) an amendment to this part.

(Bold mine)

Kind of all speaks for itself.

 

[langeweile]

No, Canada is so far left that moderate conservative positions seem extreme to you.

This is true

 

[langeweile]

I kind of resent some of you here that call Americans right wing extremist. Or somehow far behind Canada or Europe or that they are somehow less free tha nothers.

This is just plain nonsense.
Bush is by no means a conservative in the traditional sense. The main reason he got reelected was that numbnuts Kerry. Bush was merely the lesser of the two evils.
He won by 2%. Why can anyone conclude from this that America is a haven for the rightwing extremist?
You can explain or define America in a singular narrow way. The differences between the regions are immense. It is a melting pot. There are smart people, dumb people and anybody in between.

I have lived in Germany for 25 Years, three years in Holland, 15 years in the USA and three years in Canada. In my experience neither of those countries hold the edge over the other when it comes to intelligence or freedom
There is however a sharp contrast in opportunity between Europe and North America. The "cast" system is very much alive in Europe.
Having a bluecollar backround I can assure to you, that hard work and a little bit of luck can take you farther in North America than any place in Europe.


However in the USA you have to take care of a lot more by yourself than in Canada and Europe. The goverment in the USA is much more hands off.
i.e.Unemployment benefits are meager and very limited in time. So you are forced to go back to work much quicker than in Europe.
The much touted social security benefits barely provide enough money to cover the essentials so you better start saving money early.

Neither system is perfect. There is certainly some room for improvement on both sides.
If you are ambitous, hard working and a little lucky..live can be very good in Canada or the USA.

 

[someone]

Re: Freedom in America: America is, of course, far from being some kind of theoretical libertarian paradise or something like that. Furthermore, it's admittedly difficult to generalize about a country that's at once extremely diverse and puts a lot of power in local hands. No doubt, every one of the several states and various jurisdictions have some onerous, or just plain silly, rules and regulations. Nonetheless, it's a fair generalization to say that, all in all, basic rights are better protected and more deeply entrenched than any other English-speaking or G-8 nation:

-right to freedom of political speech, which is absolute, and moreover vigorously exercised

Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere. I can only think of one major example where it could be argued that American have more free speech rights (hate speech). Can you name other examples? Your statement that it is vigorously exercised in the U.S. is questionable (relative to other countries).

-right to property: personal taxes in particular are about as low as can be in a big, complex, and powerful State

Currently American taxes are as low as they are because Americans are borrowing from future generations. It is true that as a proportion of GDP, government is still smaller in the U.S. than most countries. However, the government (especially at the local level, see a couple of examples below) interferes in the American economy in other ways (see a couple of examples below).

-legal limits on the power of the State, which are severe, inflexible, and very difficult to alter.

I guess you have not heard of the Patriot Act.

-right to keep and bear arms: America is presently the only major democracy that understands the importance of, or recognizes, this bedrock right at all (although it was almost universally understood in Western democracies and in democratic political theory until early in the last century).

That is true but it is also effects very few people. The Canadian federal government would never have been able to pass such extreme gun control rules if it affected many people. In the U.S., governments (especially at the local level) interfere in ways that affect far more people in more serious ways. Examples include MANY dry counties in the south (in most countries far more people drink than own firearms), and many other attempts at legislating morality. Until very recently, at the State level governments could even tell people what type of sex they could have (e.g. outlawing anal sex). Moreover, at the federal level, the U.S. government tells people where they can travel, who they can trade with, etc.

Also, there are far more avenues and instruments of direct democracy (referenda, election of judges and local public servants, etc.) than in any of America's peers by far.

The question of direct versus representative democracy is not necessarily a question of more or less freedom. However, that is a big topic so I will stop now.

 

[Keebler Elf]

-right to keep and bear arms: America is presently the only major democracy that understands the importance of, or recognizes, this bedrock right at all (although it was almost universally understood in Western democracies and in democratic political theory until early in the last century).

*Sigh*. Here we go with the guns fetish again.

Funny how I don't recall greek democracy mentioning the need for its citizens to be armed to the teeth...

 

[someone]

*Sigh*. Here we go with the guns fetish again.

Funny how I don't recall greek democracy mentioning the need for its citizens to be armed to the teeth...

Actually in ancient Greece to be a citizen you were required to serve in the military when needed and you were responsible for maintaining the equipment/weapons necessary to do so. As the weapons of war changed so did the equipment/weapons needed. Thus, for them it was more of a responsibility than a “right”. I agree that many Americans carry the right to bare arms to an extreme but I don’t think your Greek comparison is a good one.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Gun nuts don't claim they need the right to bear arms to support the gov't/military; they claim they need it to prevent the gov't from taking over. Big difference.

 

[Truncador]

Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere. I can only think of one major example where it could be argued that American have more free speech rights (hate speech). Can you name other examples?

It is my understanding that it's much easier for Americans to hide behind the 1st Amendment when it comes to being sued for libel than it is elsewhere. Many European countries regulate and censor the Internet; in Canada, while no action has been taken yet to my knowledge, the Federal human-rights commission claims competency to do so, and present Justice Minister Cotler has encouraged the Martin government to do so as well.

Artistic freedom also seems to be extremely well protected, at least at the Federal level. The UK and Europe, in particular, aren't as open in this regard as everyone thinks they are, and the State in many of those places can and does regularly censor and/or ban movies and rock albums (especially those deemed too violent). It should also be noted that Canada's recently revamped obscenity law was designed by radical feminist legal theorists and intended to ban all porn, although the case law has seemingly frustrated that legislative intent.

Religious freedom of expression and conscience are also far better protected in both the USA and Canada than in much of Europe, especially Germany and France, where new religious movements are often outright persecuted by the State.

Your statement that it is vigorously exercised in the U.S. is questionable (relative to other countries).

In the USA (and Canada, for that matter), there's an unprecedented market for political books, and it seems that everybody and his brother either has a blog and/or debates policy online, time constraints of work and family notwithstanding. I don't really get the impression that this is the case in Europe, at least not to the same extent (a journalist from The Guardian recently expressed astonishment at the market for popular political books in the USA as against UK where the most popular books are books about gardening and cooking, according to the author). All of this is a subjective impression, to be sure, but it seems plausible in light of historical influences(i.e. the doctrine of passive obedience and others like it were never accepted on a widespread basis in America, but are endorsed by every major religious denomination in Europe).

I guess you have not heard of the Patriot Act.

Much ado about nothing IMO. The genuinely troubling aspects (esp. denial of habeas corpus) already have been or will be patched by the courts. Interesting to note that even terrorists tried by military tribunal enjoy rights such as presumption of innocence that no citizen of, say, France enjoys.

In the U.S., governments (especially at the local level) interfere in ways that affect far more people in more serious ways. Examples include MANY dry counties in the south (in most countries far more people drink than own firearms), and many other attempts at legislating morality. Until very recently, at the State level governments could even tell people what type of sex they could have (e.g. outlawing anal sex).

Once again, I question whether or not moral regulation is really more pervasive in the USA than elsewhere (Canada's Federal anti-sodomy statute, for instance, is still in the books, albeit heavily abrogated). To the extent that this actually is so, IMO it's because American conservatives are more aggressive about political activism than conservatives elsewhere in the world, who are far more likely to be influenced by the aforementioned doctrine of passive obedience and be content to merely grumble.

The question of direct versus representative democracy is not necessarily a question of more or less freedom. However, that is a big topic so I will stop now.

Agreed. I merely cite it as a rough indicator. Generally, people who have a greater say in decision making don't like being told what to do. They do, however, sometimes use that say to tell others what to do.

 

[Truncador]

Gun nuts don't claim they need the right to bear arms to support the gov't/military; they claim they need it to prevent the gov't from taking over. Big difference.

The idea that those without arms eventually become the slaves of those who do originated in Greek philosophy, namely the political theory of Aristotle.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Yes, but Aristotle's teachings involve a tyrant/despot or an oligarchy removing arms from the people. In Canada, as in most western democracies, the regulation/limitation of firearms is done with the sanction of the majority of people themselves. Yes, the gun nuts oppose any limitation of their perceived "right" to own firearms, but the majority of Canadians do not. If Canadians truly opposed firearm regulation, we wouldn't have any. But the majority of Canadians, silent or not, don't mind strict firearm regulations.

You can argue over whether you believe you have the "right to bear arms" or not all you want, but Canadians as a whole have already decided the issue. Continuing to cry that "the people" (in other words, YOU) deserve the unfettered right to bear arms just makes you look like more of a conservative extremist - something that is definitely not going to help the Conservative Party win the next (or any!) election.

But I'm off on a tangent and I don't mean to hijack this thread into a discourse on gun control. My point in raising the issue was that bringing up gun control as a conservative platform is the same sort of "planning" that has brought defeat after defeat to the Conservatives/Reform/Alliance/whatever the hell they call themselves this month. If the CP wants to win the next election, they need to do better in Ontario. And the average Ontario voter who currently votes Liberal is not going to be at all impressed with calls for looser gun control regulations. The CP is going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that...

 

[WoodPeckr]

Gun nuts don't claim they need the right to bear arms to support the gov't/military; they claim they need it to prevent the gov't from taking over. Big difference.

In the US the gun/militia nuts use both arguements for needing guns, for defense against home gov't excesses and defense against an outside invasion. Had a buddy go on about this all the time, he was a US Army Res., of some 20+ yrs. I told him he, of all people, should know better. I would ask him how long would he and his militia pals survive, in minutes, if they were up against any US or foreign Army regulars after exposing their positions in any action? .....All he could respond was.....well we have to defend ouselves and at least go down fighting!.....

 

[bigpackage]

bla bla bla bla................

 

[Argocock]

I think most Canadians think like me, POLITICS IS BULLSHIT.. It doesn't matter who is elected they will steal our money. Look at those computers that Tie Domi's brother sold to city of Toronto? Is Tie Domi's brother a liberal or a conservative? Do you think Tie Domi cares if his brother gives a shit about being a liberal or conservative as long as he can steal the money? So when Canadians have already come to the conclusion that it does not matter WHO is going to steal your money, than it becomes a popularity contest of who should be entitled to steal your money...and the liberals come across to most Canadians as nicer guys that the Conservatives.

Every time I see Paul Martin he's always in a day care center fingerpainting with pre-schoolers, and so it sends a positive message. So Canadians see that, and they say, "o.k so this guy is stealing our money but at least he looks like a nice guy" Instead the other guy Harper, he always looks like someone just finished rubbing hot chile peppers up his asshole. So it comes down to MARKETING. So Canadians look at the 2 of them, and they conclude that the Liberals are nicer people and so they should be entitled to steal our money instead of the conservatives stealing it.

The conservatives have to come to the conclusion that they will never win because Canadians don't like angry red necks. Just look how many times they changed the name of thier party?

And they changed the name, to keep getting rid of the perception they are REDNECKS> First was the reform, then I think it was something else, then it was the Alliance of Canada, and now its the Conservatives?? If they lose the next election, they have 2 choices on their next name.

#1)if you can't beat them, join them. They should just call themselves the LIBERAL REPLACEMENT PARTY, where they have the exact same policies of the liberals, and they do everything exactly like the liberals. This way when the real Liberals steal too much money...then people will not be afraid to vote for the natural replacement, the LIBERAL REPLACEMENT PARTY of CANADA. In that case, they will win a landslide.

or

#2)They should just come clean with what they really are, the CANADIAN RED NECK PARTY. And in that case, they will only win in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and they can have a big rodeo and shoot live animals from the back of their pick up trucks and play the banjo and go line dancing inside the house of commons.

 

[Truncador]

And the average Ontario voter who currently votes Liberal is not going to be at all impressed with calls for looser gun control regulations. The CP is going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that...

If Liberal voters in Ontario believe that the Liberals were right to siphon a few billion dollars of corruption money away from the taxpayers and give them an incomplete failure of an attempt to register, for no sound policy reason, every hunting rifle and skeet gun in the country in return- they're never going to vote Conservative in a million years. It would arguably be better for the country in the long run for the Conservatives to settle into a role as a regional/opposition party that could present a dissenting point of view to Parliament and the public, as opposed to doing something that somebody else did first and does better.

Any attempt by the Conservatives to become the Liberal Party junior under the Conservative brand name would likely be about successful as trying to market, say, grape juice that looked and tasted exactly like orange juice under the name "Grape-a-licious" or something. The hardcore orange juicers won't look twice and the grape juice devotees will spit it out and never buy it again.

 

[Truncador]

One final word about guns:

In the US the gun/militia nuts use both arguements for needing guns, for defense against home gov't excesses and defense against an outside invasion. Had a buddy go on about this all the time, he was a US Army Res., of some 20+ yrs. I told him he, of all people, should know better. I would ask him how long would he and his militia pals survive, in minutes, if they were up against any US or foreign Army regulars after exposing their positions in any action? .....All he could respond was.....well we have to defend ouselves and at least go down fighting!

You conquer a people with troops. You govern a people with policemen and civil servants. A conquered, but armed, populace can't be governed without its consent. Ask Pres. Bush. He knows

 

[happygrump]

If Liberal voters in Ontario believe that the Liberals were right to siphon a few billion dollars of corruption money away from the taxpayers and give them an incomplete failure of an attempt to register, for no sound policy reason, every hunting rifle and skeet gun in the country in return- they're never going to vote Conservative in a million years...

It's easily forgotten, my friend, that one of the primary reasons the gun registry became so expensive is because it was put under seige by gun-rights advocates. Local NRA groups got volunteers to jam the registry 800# phone lines, causing delays and increasing costs. (I've tried to find the link to the news item that broke this. Once I find it I'll post it as a reference.)

But beyond the fact that a lobby group from another country was interfering in the legislative process in Canada, it remains a solid fact that Canadians support gun registry.

Last I heard, that's called democracy.

 

[cyrus]

One final word about guns:
.... A conquered, but armed, populace can't be governed without its consent. Ask Pres. Bush. He knows

This is 2000-2100 my friend not 1773 - 1774 or 1861-1865.
We are now dealing with tanks and f-18 not muskets & rapiers . . . having populace with small fire arms in the homes means nothing but civilians killing civilians! Why don’t we argue with a bit of brain than just our testicles for once!
In another word we shouldn't be using out dated old mottos and quotes in our argument unless we don’t mined to show off how naive we are just to put it as mildly as possible!

 

[Truncador]

It's easily forgotten, my friend, that one of the primary reasons the gun registry became so expensive is because it was put under seige by gun-rights advocates.

And because it was implemented by the Libranos at their height Do you not recall that the Auditor General's report on the registry money that disappeared was what led to the breaking of Adscam (=chump change by comparison) ?

it remains a solid fact that Canadians support gun registry.

Last I heard, that's called democracy.

Let's clear the air about democracy and who supported what in this case. In a survey done the year the law was passed, 62 per cent of people in Ontario said that Canadians should have a right to own guns. The study also found that Canadians do indeed support things like registering guns in large numbers- until they find out what goes into the implementation end of things. Then public support falls through the bottom of the graph.

Link to study

Canada has a gun registry because a special-interest group composed of a few feminists and medical bureaucrats wanted it and because the Liberals saw a chance to pretend they were doing something about crime instead of getting tough with criminals (which is what the public really wanted), to divert attention from how they were slashing social spending (OK, this one is excusable- some other national governments did this too), and finally, to line their pockets.

having populace with small fire arms in the homes means nothing but civilians killing civilians!

Law-abiding, non-criminal civilians in places where there aren't extremely serious social or political problems don't tend to use their small arms to kill each other. There are millions of legally owned rifles and handguns in this very country.

 

[happygrump]

It's also often forgotten, or buried by the likes of the NRA, that when the amendment was created, the United States had no standing army, and therefore had to rely on militia - essentially, civilians with access to weapons - to defend itself.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

With the advent of a standing, regular army, the second amendment became outdated.

By the way, if you read it like the NRA reads it, then there should be absolutely no restrictions on bearing arms, up to and including tanks, fighter aircraft, bombs and even nuclear weapons.

 

[cyrus]

.....
Law-abiding, non-criminal civilians in places where there aren't extremely serious social or political problems don't tend to use their small arms to kill each other. There are millions of legally owned rifles and handguns in this very country.

Gee . . .looks like you missed the whole damn point!