Our leaders don't want to know what we think

By Ted Byfield

If anything characterizes the prevailing Ottawa attitude on government, it is dread, doubt, suspicion, contempt, loathing and fear of the Canadian people.

At bottom, they simply do not think we can be entrusted with any real power over government.

In American politics, that the public should have the final say goes without saying.

In Canada, every expedient is invoked to prevent this from happening.

"We do not want to be ruled by the mob," said one editorialist, arguing against a referendum on gay marriage.

And who is "the mob?"

The mob is you and I and everybody else qualified to vote. We can't be trusted, you see. We might vote wrong -- meaning not the way the "sensible people" and the "people who really understand the issues" know we should vote.

The contrast between the two countries has never been sharper than it became last week.

In Washington, the Republican president's nominee for the Supreme Court came under such scrutiny from Republican senators that she withdrew.

Their complaint: She was not conservative enough. It was a major embarrassment to the Bush administration and it will force the president to propose instead someone of far stronger conservative convictions.

How did the opposing senators discover what they discerned as the candidate's latent liberalism? By examining her speeches, by the advice she gave the president in her former role as his adviser, by everything right back to the thesis she wrote in law school, her record became an open book. The senators, and through them the public, was given full knowledge of what she might do on the Supreme Court.

Thus armed, so many people pressured the senators to reject her that she withdrew, knowing her nomination certain to be defeated. That's how the system works. It's called democracy.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, a very different system prevails. For years, our judges have simply been appointed by the minister of justice. Who they are, what they think, how they have ruled on key issues in the past, what if any church they belong to -- all highly relevant questions to the decisions they will be called on to make -- these things are considered none of the public's business.

They're strictly confidential. Only once they're in office do we discover answers to these questions. There they make the laws -- quite literally make the laws that we are to live under.

However, reform is now in the air. Perhaps, only perhaps, our MPs will be allowed to interview the minister of justice on the appointment he is about to make, but the interview must be brief.

And the appointee? Will MPs get to interview the proposed candidate?

Certainly not. "I'd hate to see a situation where we had a public ratification process where the prime minister nominated someone and then the Liberal party forced him to withdraw his nomination," says Edward Ratushny, professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

In other words, save us from rule by "the mob," defend us against democracy.

We're Canadians. We don't believe in it. And because we don't believe in it, we now have a Supreme Court jammed to the rafters with ideological liberals, none of them elected or even publicly scrutinized, and all of them making laws for the whole of the country.

Precisely this same attitude prevails on the use of referendums.

We are continually being lectured on "the Canadian way," meaning the lib-left slant of our legal code, effected over the last 30 or so years.

Yet not one of these so-called "moral issues" was submitted to a public referendum and for a self-evident reason.

The electorate is not trustworthy. It might vote wrong.

Any time some liberal points to our laws as reflecting "the way we Canadians think," ask him if he would be in favour of putting some "moral" issue to a referendum.

Watch the alarmed expression, while he describes the horrors of "mob rule."

He doesn't want to know what Canadians think, only what "sound Canadians," or "informed Canadians," or "enlightened Canadians" think.

Will a price be paid for all this arrogance? There will indeed.

Gradually, imperceptibly, the word "Canada" means less and less to more and more people.

Their patriotism evaporates; the country itself becomes a joke.

That is the price.


The Sun

   

Ted Byfield, eh?

Canadians elect a party that Byfield doesn't like so now we're a dictatorship...

   

I wrote dictatorship not him and he's right on with this account of Canadians.

   

Kee Rist Crispies. Unless you've lived under a real dictatorship, you can''t even begin to realize how ludicrous this claim is. Any Canadian can tell the PM he's a fucking knob to his face, and not have to worry about becoming familiar with creative uses of tools or imprisonment. They'll likely make it on TV and be interviewed by news programs, but that's as far as it goes.

   

I didn't take that from the article. The writer is pointing out that the government and the judiciary need to be more transparent to the public in their goings on and that the public needs to have a greater say in what goes on with their country.

That "mob" comment was rather telling. Imagine the horrors of people actually voting on a national policy! Ohmigod!!!!

It bespeaks the notion that an elite minority is effectively running Canada and that the current process of elections & etc. is more or less a sham.

   

There are no degrees of liberty: it is an absolute.

In the early days of the Third Reich no one would have called it a dictatorship, yet it was.

I've seen it posed that a liberal court could possibly ban conservative parties for "hate speech" violations. If this is being imagined then the machinery to do so is likely in place, it is just a matter of political will to take the next step.

   

But our dictators are so friendly...

   

With almost half of us not voting and even less paying attention to politics, it's a self imposed dictatorship. They say, we deserve the gov. that we get...
Well, who are these morons who keep voting for this crap?

   

Canadians know the electoral system they live under, and they vote accordingly. If enough Canadians wanted change of the sort that Byfield advocates we would get that change.

Personally, I would love to see a major overhaul of Canada's electoral system, but as things stand Byfield's contempt for the "elite" is in fact contempt for the Canadian electorate which has consistently cast him to the political margins where he belongs.

In any case, flawed though our system may be Canada is not a dictatorship.

   

I don't agree with the article submitted at the start of this thread, but it is, as most political essays/articles, a sensationalist piece.

These pieces are used as a wake up call. They make sensationalist claims in order to spark discussion. I don't believe the author believed everything he was writing, but he knew that in order to have an impact with the Canadian public, he'd have to say some things that would force people to stop and think.

The theme of the article stands, there needs to be reform in the way our Judges are appointed. Saying just that or putting just that in print, will have the effect of every Canadian 'the mob' just glazing over and forgetting it.

Read between the lines, understand the scope, and understand the intended audience. It's amazing the clarity with which you'll read articles in the future.

How naive would we be if we believed every word that we read?

   

Horsecrap.

If you're talking about absolute liberty, then yes, it is by definition, absolute. Just like red tomatoes are by definition, red.

But who's talking about absolute liberty? Doing so would be ridiculous anyway, because it doesn't exist in any society on earth. Good thing too! I sure wouldn't want to live in a society where my neighbour was given the liberty to kill me because a dog farted in his yard.

Comparing the relative liberties of different countries is a tool that is used very frequently.

Now, I agree that we Canadians should have more scrutiny into the appointment of Supreme Court judges through our MP's.

I am ready to admit that particular weakness of our system.

But I'm not ready to throw in the towel and declare that our political system is totally clueless as to the people's opinion.

I mean let's give this a little context: The U.S. is currently governed by a president who was originally elected to office with LESS votes than his rival (an event which has happened at least 4 times in U.S. history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... tion,_2000 ). No government in the world is picture perfect with regards to representing exactly what the people want.

   

More to the point this is not that abnormal, the senate has already blocked a number of Bush's nominees, many of them, whats different here, is the senators that blocked and killed it this time we’re pretty much all of the presidents own party. And this was done on a US supreme Court nominated, under the circumstances of previous arguments it looks bad. Congress men are ultimately more after their own or State’s interest and the people in their state with whom they represent than that of their political party. Republican especial stand more upon “printable” than upon party-line. The thing you got to remember here, is US Political leaders like to walk to the walk and act as if they speak entirely for their party. In reality that is pretty much never entirely true, especial of republicans who place special and additional value upon this, but also very un true of democrats to an equal degree, relative to ya’ll. Actual party line votes in the US are quite rare!
This basic confrontation among interest in the USA in its self is really not all that unusual either, but it hasn’t happened on any judicial Nominees in at least a year so the media has to pick up on it. most of them get blocked by democrats in the minority, using a variety of means, ultimately the only way the president and conservative supports can get them thou, is take them to he people directly and sell them, then the we the people of the 50 United States of America have to write our senators and tell them we want them to vote for and support this man, and if they want to keep their jobs they will, republican democrat what ever! it doesn’t matter! party line is really a lot more symbolism than anything else.
In the US if you want to get anything passed of serious long term consequences in the US federal government is can take a long time! because you general have to build a collation of support across the country, which is general indiscriminate, in both regional(State based support(Senate)) and popular(population based support(House of reps, which is basically the follower of your house of common’s) and then if the majority is large enough like 75% or more you can just bypass the president all together, other wise if its just more than 50% of both houses, the president has to sign on to it. who represents the nations over all interest, as 1 unit, but he of course is extremely limited in powers most seriously to that which congress will allow him to do, in terms of laws but most of all budget. The one thing none of them can over rule is that of the US constitution which rains supreme over all of them and us. It is also the signal most vital tool for just about any argument in power as if it doest comply with the US constitution it doesn’t happen in the US federal government, End of story!
Now all 50 states run, manage, make the laws for, and generally other wise do their own elections, these elections are at best over seen by the federal government who is in really just an external tool for which the states can uses to bypass the problems in their own state system, should they become corrupt. The same is true vise versa, only the federal government has almost no actual power, to enforce any thing practically with in the States, if the states are not willing to do it for them, in general. Hint’s illegal immigration problem in many states.
The feds can’t and wont be able to deport them if they don’t know where they are. And a lot of states and local mansupalitys just ignore federal laws requiring them to report them when they run across it, and don’t. The FBI is not a practical national police force by any means! Basically the FBI are just taken form he best police officers across the nation in investigations and stuff like that, are given additional trading and put on internal problems of national interest as well as give aid to state and local departments who need them. In turn theses departments have agreements to help the FBI in return.
The FBI in general have no where near the numbers nor forces to overwhelm just about any state’s police forces in practice! And technical that states police forces can arrest and detain them, if the state government thinks its needs to be done, it would cause a huge political problem for them but it could be done in practice, if not theory.
As your state is the one who is in actual local control, and that control remains in your hands unless, unless your state violates the rules, to a degree that forces the rest of the union to stop you, such as waging war against anther state. even then the state normally still retains practical control over all its state forces, the cache is, if such a breach becomes serious enough, it will force the rest of the union to take action and stop it, by moving in union forces to stop them. Such a situation could potential escalate, into what mite be called a civil war, but is almost never allowed to get there, with the exception of 1 time, as we all know the cost of such an action.
So was Hitler to the “Germans”

   

The Libs are afraid of referendums cuz they know People will vote in a way they disagree with.They do not feel that the people have the capacity to vote on important national policies.They do not want a Triple E senate cuz that will take away their power.The appointed senate we have now is not accountable to the people but the Liberal Party and will vote which ever way Martin tells them to or risk losing their position.An elected senate will be accountable to the people and will make decisions based on the wishes of CDN's and not the ruling party.Our judges should be voted to the bench and recalled if needed by the House of Commons and screened by the HoC (parliament).This includes allowing all parties to fully participate in the selection process of judges.