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: <2767@hcrvx2.UUCP> Date: Sun, 1-Mar-87 20:40:26 EST Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2767 Posted: Sun Mar 1 20:40:26 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 2-Mar-87 21:05:52 EST References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <195@fornax.uucp> <2760@hcrvx2.UUCP> <873@ubc-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Distribution: can Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto Lines: 110 Summary: In article <873@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >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. [I guess the above is Vince's incredibly subtle way of saying he doesn't agree with me] Historically incorrect, Vince? Why? Because you go on to present an undoubtedly accurate exposition on Nazi Germany and the Weimar Constitution after I *admitted* to not even knowing whether such a constitution existed, much less knowledge of how it was used and abused? >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superseded the Charter.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. My claim was *not* legally incorrect, merely incomplete. A piece of legislation that contravened the Charter in an obvious manner, e.g. shooting all persons of West Indian background, *would* indeed be struck down in any court in this country. It would then be possible for the government of the day to use the ridiculous "notwithstanding" clause to exempt that legislation and get on with this "important" task. However, this state of affairs is really a non-issue since it would not be a result of majority rule. It is the result of a weak Charter which at this very moment would allow a government to legally apply such a "Final Solution" to any class of people it so desires. I should like to point out something that Vince did *not* say. He did not claim that minorities would have *less* protection under majority rule than they have now. He merely stated a problem that presently exists and attempted to pass it off as a consequence of direct democracy. >Logic: if the Charter supersedes the will of the people, then the majority >doesn't rule. Strictly speaking Vince is correct. If I had realized that he (and possibly others) were going to take such a literal view of my words I would have said - "Voila: majority rule, for the most part, *and* protection for minorities". Hope this makes ya all happy. >>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. First let's take gay school teachers. I agree with Vince (for once) that the proposition in question was idiotic. However, it is to be expected that in a direct democracy ridiculous propositions will occasionally make it to the ballot box (just take a look at some of the policy resolutions voted on and passed at NDP conventions; resolutions which would be *binding* on any NDP government). However, what was the outcome? The proposition failed. Net result: zilch. So what does this prove, Vince? Only what one might expect: that a minority of anti-gay people live in California. The same can be unequivocally said for BC and Ontario. Now on to making English the official state language. Since idiocy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, how about informing us as to why you consider this proposition idiotic. Why should a state/province not have an official language? Should French not be Quebec's official language? Should English not be BC's official language? Should French and English not be Canada's official languages? It's okay to have an official currency, an official system of measurement, but *not* an official language, eh? Who's being illogical now? >>... 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). Who ever said Vince didn't have a sense of humour? The above situation is *NOT* a manifestation of majority rule. The above situation is a result of weaknesses inherent in Canada's political structure which allow minority organizations to force their self-serving policies on the majority. Direct democracy, i.e. majority rule, would not allow this to happen. Policies would not be decided on the basis of how many votes and/or how much bad press are at stake. The only criteria necessary for a policy to pass and be implemented would be that a majority of the voters believe it to be a good policy and that it could be upheld in the courts. J.B. Robinson BTW, Vince, I've got thesis writing to do and I'm sure you have papers to mark so why don't you just admit I'm right and we can call it a day :-)?