Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <873@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 16:50:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.873
Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:50:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 02:11:31 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <195@fornax.uucp> <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science
Lines: 55

In article <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:

>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.

I'm not sure whether to describe this as nonsense or twaddle. Apart from
being historically and legally incorrect, it is also logically inconsistent.

First: Nazi Germany was governed in accordance with the Weimar constitution
until 1934. In 1933, the Reichstag passed a law (actually an extension of 
the emergency decrees issued by the non-Nazi Bruening and Schleicher
governments of the previous year), called the "Law for the Protection of the
People and Reich", and another one called "The Law for the Relief of the 
Distress of the People" which gave the Chancellor emergency powers.
The first illegal thing Hitler ever did (apart from perhaps cheating on 
his taxes) was to merge the offices of Reich Chancellor and President into
one after the death of Hindenburg.

Under the Weimar Constitution, citizens had an extensive array of rights,
including freedom of speech and freedom of association. Under the Nazis,
too much free speech led to association with a concentration camp.

Now to the legally incorrect part: the Charter of Rights is what the courts
say it is, and, in any case, the Charter contains the infamous
"notwithstanding" clause which allows a government to overrule it. For
example, the government could pass a law which ensured that all persons of
Albanian background were to be rounded up and shot. When the law was struck
down by the courts, the law could be re-passed with a statement that it
superseded the Charter. Such laws expire (I think in 5 years), but by that
time, all the Albanians would be dead.

Logic: if the Charter supersedes the will of the people, then the majority
doesn't rule. 

>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.

No, but there was an idiotic proposition in 1978 to bar gay teachers from 
the schools. Last year, an idiotic proposition making English the official
state language was also passed.

>... 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.

I agree with Jim's point here that majority rule is a bad thing. (Of course
as a Burkean radical conservative socialist, I'm bound not to support
majority rule).