Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcr!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 18:11:18 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2760
Posted: Wed Feb 25 18:11:18 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Feb-87 01:35:16 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <195@fornax.uucp>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto
Lines: 40
Summary: 

In article <195@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp claims:
>> >So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it?
>> >I don't know any country that actually runs that way.
>> >I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the
>> >rights of minorities.
>> 
>>    The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey.  In a democratic
>>    state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen.  If the
>
>This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see
>the problems such an attitude engenders?

I don't know if Nazi Germany had a Charter of Rights, but we certainly
do. Given this state of affairs I see no reason why most/many/some
issues cannot be left up to majority rule. If the majority attempts to
implement a piece of legislation that would contravene the Charter it
would be struck down by the courts. Voila: majority rule *and*
protection for minorities.

In California ordinary citizens have the right to introduce legislation
which is then voted on by the populace. I still haven't noticed any
goose-stepping going on there.

>>     in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority
>>     somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. 
>No, parliament should do what "it" thinks is "right" not just what is
>going to be popular (i.e. what will get them re-elected).

Given the way the Canadian system works there is virtually zero
incentive for them to do this. As long as every SIG (special interest
group) is getting its share of the loot it will keep quiet and
occasionally heap a bit of praise on the government. However, if the
government should annoy a well organized SIG it knows it can count on
an indefinite amount of bad press. The easiest course of action then
becomes to simply buy the SIG off with the taxpayers' money. It costs
them (the individual MPs) nothing and increases their chances of
re-election. Of course there is the minor problem of spending money
that isn't there, however, that becomes someone elses concern.

J.B. Robinson