Televised "Debate"

[moeman]

I'm actually surprised there isn't a Bloc Alberta yet, although many would argue that the PC/Reform party is just that .

But seriously, what's to stop Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC from forming a "Western Bloc" or something that only represents the interests of our Western provinces? Would there be an uproar if they got together with the Bloc Quebecois to take over Parliament and impose their will upon Ontario and the rest of Canada? Face it. People west of Ontario are a little fed up of being told who's going to be in power by Ontarians and to a lesser extent the Eastern provinces. The Bloc was formed because they were tired of having a Federal party represent Quebec. So when does the country's political system fragment into Regional parties instead of National ones? How do we stop it from happening?

[Mitch Cronin]

Yep... How?

woxof is right on, from almost any angle. Democracy in action can be a beautiful thing. And if nobody stands in the way, Canada could be stripped into fragments that would very probably not all survive the US interest...

So here are some questions that hit me now...

If the end result is foreseeable, how do you stand by and watch as a democratic process takes you to where the majority would not want to go, if they all saw it coming?

Is it unreasonable for rules to be written in law that protect a nation from having it's government infiltrated by those who seek that nation's destruction?

In a much grander sense, this is all nonsense. Arguing over who owns what soil, who governs, what we call that, what we call ourselves... it's all trivia when deeper concerns arise.... But all of that plays a major role in the shape of our lives, and ultimately, how likely, or not, it may be that deeper concerns will arise...

From that point of view, I have to say I'm pretty fond of this country the way it is. If it turns out that a majority of Canadians are willing to let Canada lose Quebec, then so be it.... But I'd be arguing Quebec is not theirs alone to take, and all Canadians should have a voice before we just let it happen.

I maintain the belief that a regional interest party has no place in our federal politics. The answer that permitting it to exist is just true democracy seems pretty shallow to me... Agreeing not to permit it would also be democracy. Isn't allowing a lynch mob to do their thing a form of democracy? What if you let them all vote first? How about all the neighbors vote me off the street? Seems to me democracy only works right if it's got boundaries and rules to safeguard those boundaries.

What would be wrong with a law that says something like at least X% of the popular vote is needed, in at least 5 provinces, in order to maintain your status as a federal party? Something like that should cover it? That certainly fits the definition I read for "democracy".

[CD]

Is it unreasonable for rules to be written in law that protect a nation from having it's government infiltrated by those who seek that nation's destruction?

That is an interesting question, Mitch. It is one that has likely been struggled with by people for many years in an attempt to maintain the balance of democracy. I agree with your view of Canada and assert that I, too, am fond of the country the way it is.

However, once upon a time there was a people that felt (justifiably) that a change in government was necessary. That group of people wrote a rather direct document that puts things into perspective, for me at least:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Complete text of the Declaration of Independence

Is our little Confederation there yet? I would argue not. However, it is something to remember...

[Guest rattler]

However, once upon a time there was a people that felt (justifiably) that a change in government was necessary.  That group of people wrote a rather direct document that puts things into perspective, for me at least:

Complete text of the Declaration of Independence

Is our little Confederation there yet?  I would argue not.  However, it is something to remember...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Yes a great document but too bad it was not followed. Slavery existed in the US for quite some time after this document was signed and of course even after they were freeded, blacks were not considered to be equal at all. 1960s Civil rights calendar.

I could go on .....................

[handyman]

What would be wrong with a law that says something like at least X% of the popular vote is needed, in at least 5 provinces, in order to maintain your status as a federal party? Something like that should cover it? That certainly fits the definition I read for "democracy".

Unfortunately it would be received like another attack against the French.