1  2  3  4  Next

Here is one issue that no party is talking about: the so-called democracy in Canada. The reality is that 40% of population can elect majority government which would be able to practically dictate anything they please to the remaining 60% of the population who didn't want this government in the first place.

The word democracy implies rules of majority, so isn't it about time to change Canadian electoral system in such a way that minority would not be able to establish a dictatorship?

Fabrikant

   

This has been discussed often enough. Actually we have discussed pretty much any system under the sun and no matter how you look at it, every system will create a different set of problems.

The current system is fine, for what it's worth.

   

What kind of problem would create the following system: after the first round of voting, introduce second round in which only two top contenders will decide the election. This way the winner will get over 50% of votes. What is the negative side of this?

And far as money for additional round is concerned, put in jail Prime Minister, who breaks the law: the election should be once in four years and not any moment he thinks he might get a majority.

Fabrikant

   

Sock is right - this has been covered numerous times. Perhaps try a search as this has been successfully addressed.

The system is fine and you may want to expand your conception of democracy as a plurality is used in FPTP systems.

Oh...and maybe you could avoid resorting to silly, banal rhetoric like "dictatorships" (which have NEVER existed in Canada) as it tends to cheapen the point.

   

And how do you call the situation where members of Parliament stand up one by one and like puppets say "yes" or "no" depending on which party they belong? If a party has a majority, it can pass any law it pleases. If not this is not a dictatorship, what is?

I can agree with you that this dictatorship might be temporary, but it is still a dictatorship.

By the way, dictatorship of Nazis or Communists was also temporary.

   

In a dictatorship usually 1 man holds supreme power. That is the whole concept behind a supreme "DICTATOR".

This is party politics. And we have a senate.

We can hold our local MPs somewhat responsible. We can vote them out of power.

If a party passes unreasonable bills it shall be punished (See PC getting raped in early 90s for 5 years of stupidity)


This is a far cry from a dictatorship.

   

It's called parliamentary democracy - and guess how long it's been around.



Seriously? You honestly think this is on par with Stalin or Hitler? Get a grip and read up on this because that's pitiful



It's not a dictatorship - there's a constitution, and there's consent of the populace. Please read up on this as you really have no idea as to what you are talking about



And? Since when is duration a deciding factor? They're dictatorships (totalitarian to be precise) and WE don't have one nor have WE ever had one. Your inability to apply basic political science concepts may be to blame for this misinterpretation, but Canada isn't a dictatorship. Sorry.

   

No it isn't. Punishment comes after dictatorship is overturned, and until it is done, Prime Minister can pass any law he bloody pleases. Can you deny that?

As far as senate is concerned, it has no power whatsoever and again, the same party crooks are sitting there.

   

Wow you have no idea what you are talking about....

   

Yes.

   

See Sock's answer, since you have dodged my responses.

   

It is you who does not know the history. The fact that Canada has not at present placed part of its population in concentration camps does not mean that it has no capacity to do so. Just go a little bit back in 1940's: women were forcefully sterilized according to law, it happened in Canada. There was no such thing in Soviet Union. Children were taken by force from parents just because they were of different ethnic origin. They were placed in schools where they were beaten and raped. It happened in Canada, there was no such thing in the Soviet Union. At the entrance to the Parc Mont-Royal (Montreal), there was announcement: no Jews or dogs allowed. It was also according to the law. And no such thing happened in the Soviet Union. You want me to continue?

Does the above look very much like action of Nazi Germany, which was a dictatorship? Have in mind, that Hitler came into power in a perfectly democratic kind of way, and he was elected by majority and all his anti-Jewish laws were adopted by Parliament.

Now, if you think Charter protects you, you obviously didn't read it. Check out section 33. Government is allowed to adopt any law that breeches the Charter. All it has to do is to mention that it is breeching the Charter and this will last for 5 years. And if it wants to breech Charter for another 5 years, all it has to do is to mention it again. Nobody in Government will be punished for this. Now, give me the situation where government might be allowed to breech right to life provision. Even Soviet constitution didn't have section which would explicitly allow the government to break it.

Now, if you think that Government would be reluctant to break the Charter, here is one example for you: right after the adoption of the Charter, Quebec Government revoked all of its laws and re-introduced all of them back with notwithstanding clause included, for the sole purpose of showing the finger to everyone.

Is all this enough for you? Want more?

   

Coming from you? I'll chalk it up as projection



Actually, we have placed members of the population in concentration camps - on numerous occasions (and with legal justification). Want examples? And you're accusing me of not knowing my history? Get bent - that's another mistake for you (i'm keeping score)




So? 1940s? And was that Canadian law? You look it up. It also has NOTHING to do with dictatorships, but thanks for playing



That's because they were busy killing MILLIONS with silly economic programs and class warfare. Another mistake by you.




And the raping was under Canadian law? Really? Another mistake.




Really? What about during the final days of WWII where Soviet troops committed heinous acts against eastern Europeans that included torture, killing and raping. Another mistake - sensing a trend?



So? An antiquated notion that no longer exists (like the USSR), but tell me how the Kulaks (under deKulakization) were treated under Stalin again? Methinks it wasn't better than the anti-Semitism that existed in Canadian history (and not to mention National Socialist Germany!)



Will you be getting history right this time? I'll wager, nope.



Nope. Not even close. Another mistake.



Hitler's decrees - especially the virulent anti-Semitic ones like Nuremberg - were AFTER he seized power and, oh, he was actually wasn't elected by a majority (again, another mistake) - it was a plurality. Ahistorical nonsense - another mistake



Actually, i did read it and the difference between be and you is I GET IT! Sec. 33, my ignorant chum, only allows the government to temporarily override sections 2, 7-17 - NOT THE ENTIRE CHARTER! How many errors is that now? Seriously, this is just an exercise in correcting your litany of missteps. You have absolutely NO IDEA as to what you prattle on about!




Nope. Wrong again. The legislature - which cannot sit indefinitely - must reenact the notwithstanding clause after its 5 years (or whatever term they gave >5). This was designed to recognize this nation's past of parliamentary tradition. Had you actually understood any of it, you'd know that.



How? Where was the USSR's provision to defend the Kulaks?



Say What?!?!? This isn't the FEDERAL Government, it's the Quebec PROVINCIAL Government! You were bemoaning the alleged Canadian dictatorship and the best you can do is misinterpret a province's "legal" action?!?!? You're done here.



Enough for me? Sorry, i'm not here to wade through this ahistorical swill. Too many mistakes. Too many corrections.

   

General remark: your response is either false or of the kind "and your mother is a whore". This is not a proper way to discuss things.

First, I certainly knew it and this was one of the things I had in mind when I asked you, do you want more. You say it was legal. Using your logic, Gulags were also legal. Canadian Government's argument was that people placed in concentration camps were POTENTIALLY dangerous. None of them did anything wrong. Stalin claimed that these people WERE enemies of people and that he did it because he wanted to save the country. See much difference? Placing innocent people in Concentration camps is a crime against humanity and any law to that effect proves my point of dictatorship in Canada.



What do you mean it wasn't a Canadian law? If it was a provincial law, is it less Canadian than Federal law? Federal government was well aware of this practice and could have stopped it very easily and it didn't. This is yet another crime against humanity.



This is exactly what I call an argument of the type "and your mother is a whore". How do Soviet atrocities justify Canadian atrocities? Something is wrong with your brain.



Taking children away and placing them in obvious danger was under Canadian law. This should not have happened period. Children obviously complained, people around them certainly knew what was going on and nobody stepped up to stop it. Do you still feel that Canada is great? More than that, check some Court cases of the raped people who tried to get justice. Almost all their cases were dismissed by corrupt Canadian judges and it didn't happen 100 years, look at the cases dated 2006.

I spent 39 years of my life in Soviet Union and believe me, I hate Communism much more than you do, but I can tell you that there was not a single case of child rape in Soviet schools, and if such thing ever happened, the person would be lynched then and there. Russians do not tolerate these kinds of things. You might not like to hear, but both French and English have some very serious defects in their DNA, since they consider children as sex objects. The fact that Canada enacted the law that picture of naked child is child pornography shows how sick and perverted you are. No normal person would ever consider picture of naked child to have anything sexual in it.



This is yet another argument of "your mother is a whore", but more than that, this is also a bloody lie. Why don't you quote your sources? In exchange, I'll quote you mine. My father has been at war since the first day to the last one. Back in 70's , when this ugly rumour appeared, I asked him about it. This is what he told me: as far as Eastern European women are concerned, they met Soviet army as liberators and there was need to rape anyone, they were very happy to oblige. As far torture is concerned, why would there be need for that?

It was different story in Germany. There were some cases of revenge killing and much less that of rape. All this stopped very quickly because Stalin had zero tolerance to this kind of misbehaviour. He wanted to project his army as army of liberators of everybody including Germans, so those murderers and rapists were quickly court marshalled and shot dead, and this sent a message to everybody else. You may be assured that Haditha murderers in Stalin times would be long dead. You probably know that their charges were withdrawn.

I lived in Germany from 1946 to 1949, I was then between 6 and 9 years of age, and I could walk any place among Germans and it was absolutely safe. There was genuine respect from Germans towards Soviet Army.



Something is wrong with your brain. Stalin was bad, Nazis were bad, does this make Canadians look good? Get a grip!



Ok, let's take a look. A person is judged by some dumbheads to be not sufficiently intellectually developed, grabbed by force and sterilized. How is it bloody different from Jews, being grabbed and placed in concentration camps? There is no better crime against humanity and there is no worse crime of humanity. All are crimes against humanity. The difference is that Germans got hanged, and Canadians didn't. And this is sad. Do you want me tell you about Duplessis children?



When I say majority, I mean Canadian majority. Hitler got more votes than any other single party, and that was enough for him to become chancellor, exactly as it is done in Canada. So, what is the bloody difference? He didn't seize power, he was offered power of chancellor, by president Hindenburg, exactly as it is in Canada.



It is bloody astounding the way you are writing, that the government can ONLY override section 2 and 7-15 (not 17). What the hell is there else that is important? Section 7 is the RIGHT TO LIFE. I am asking you for the second time, give me the situation that government could be justified overriding this section.



Also, something is very wrong with your brain if you do not understand that overriding for 5 years and then possibility of repeated renewals for another 5 years and another 5 years and another 5 years does mean indefinitely. Extend it 20 times and everybody will be dead before abuse of charter stops. Am I getting through to you?

Please connect this nonsense with Canadian parliamentary tradition. Are you taking about breeching of human rights? Or some of other tradition?




First, you are not answering my question. Second, defence was that country was in danger and that was enemy of people. As absurd and criminal as it is, how does Soviet crime justify Canadian crime?



What does it matter whether it is federal or provincial government which breeched the charter? My point is that it is so easy to do, that all Canadian laws are ready should a new Hitler appear. He wouldn't need to change a single solitary thing. We are lucky that we do not yet have a Hitler.

   

Sorry...learn some history - i'm not dignifying that litany of ahistorical nonsense with a protracted response. Bye.

   

1  2  3  4  Next