Poli Sci and the Charter

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:53 pm

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm mean warp in that they could warp the issue at hand (whatever it may be) to be a part of the Charter. Just declare that the issue falls within the Charter even though it's not implicitly suggested.

[PX]Kal Bob · Post by **[PX]Kal Bob** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:00 pm

What we are saying is the Government passes a law "Asian's many not work within the lands of canada. This is passed Not-with-standing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

This been said, there is no way the Courts can strike down the law.

Also, Jew, you must hate the Charter, Not being allowed to take anvantage of the little guy? That is the basis of Capitalisum and Free enterprise! :lol:

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:16 pm

I don't hate it. I just don't like it.

All anybody seems to do anymore is whine about their rights and freedoms and political correctness. That and I feel people abuse it too much.

[PX]Kal Bob · Post by **[PX]Kal Bob** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:19 pm

Amen to that!

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:46 pm

The charter of rights and freedoms is undemocratic. The very idea of individual rights is technically an undemocratic concept, due to the fact that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of many. If one person can turn the whole system upside down it's not a democratic action.

Canada isn't a democratic nation anyway. No nation is. The closest we have come is a "false representative" dictatorship. I say this because the people have no say in the law-making process, and don't decide on any of the major national issues. I have yet to see a government representative that I would want to represent me, so technically I have no voice. Even if I write to the MP the letter just gets thrown into a stack with all the other mal-contents.

Personally I would rather see an all-out dictatorship, because at least it would be honest. I am a firm supporter of monarchy, because no matter how ugly it gets, everybody knows where the power is and they don't get some false idea that they are being properly represented.

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:05 pm

The charter of rights and freedoms is "Undemocratic" by the definition of democracy... However, Canada isn't a democracy. Its a liberal democracy (No pun intended). A democracy where the rights of the individual are respected but the majority still makes the decisions etc... No nation on the planet is a pure democracy. Hell, I dont think there ever has been a pure democracy in the span of its existence, everything has been either a liberal democracy or a placebo democracy.

Anyways, the not-withstanding clause bypasses the charter in pretty much any circumstance anyways, so it doesnt matter. Thats why Quebec can get away with so much bull$hit.

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:18 pm

True, but the majority don't rule. That's the problem. It's the majority of people in the house of commons who rule, and after they're elected they do whatever they want. The only time any country resembles a democracy is during the election when politicians are making their promises out on the street corners, and the public act like a bunch of whores who flock to the side of the highest bidder, who doesn't pay up in the end.

Canadian politics can all be explained by a trip to East Hastings in downtown Vancouver.

It's not the polititions who are the problem, it's the people. And the reason for that is that people are stupid and will go home feeling satisfied that they've done their part once they've cast that one vote every few years. Everybody is cynacle about the way the country is run, but the people never get a say in anything.

Tempus · Post by **Tempus** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:23 pm

you are all right about the not-withstanding clause of course... hate that BS anyways...
The authors point was valid though, i dont think i posted it but he indeed talked about people whinning about rights even though really that should be a moot point
as for being a liberal democracy your right Ghost... and the author recognizes that... he states
the charter has led the shift in emphasis in candian liberal democracy. the balance has been tilted in fabour of liveralism and away from democracy...

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:34 am

The Greeks came pretty close to a true democracy.

As long as you were a male non-slave who just happened to live in Athens, that is.

Canada, in essence, is run by an elected dictatorship. That's why the parties call a re-election if they don't win a majority. The Scandinavian countries are offering alternatives to this. Online voting referendums are becoming popular over there.

On a side note...............I really hate our Senate and how voting in the House isn't done by private ballot. But I digress.