Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

C'mon now ...what's in a word?

The following was originally published on the web site: The Modern Feudal Serf . It has been reproduced here in its entirety. I believe it says a lot about the state of Canada today and I hope you find it as interesting and thought provoking as I did.


C'mon now ...what's in a word?

Answer: Way too much at times!

Step into a court room and a 'word' can mean the difference between success or failure. Read the history of the BNA Act and a single word made the difference between economic freedom and carrying a tax burden far exceeding that of a medieval serf! In everyday Canadian life, certain words have created a mindset that is contrary to the essence of a democracy ... at the centre of those words is 'govern' ...and following are all the extensions, variations and metaphors of that word, and most importantly the subliminal effect of it!
Another word to pay attention to is "democracy" ...we talk about it, and we even go through some motions ...but we don't live it!

Lets begin by defining what we are supposed to be -- a "democracy".

Definition: Democracy is literally "rule by the people" and "the democratic method" is the institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions that realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will." Period, full stop.

So clearly, by long-standing, accepted definition, a 'democracy' is a society where the people (collectively) are the rulers of their own land and therefore the will of the people is what 'governs' that land. As such, that arrangement is not complicated or vague, and it makes complete, logical sense. Generally, it's what the average person honestly believes to be the case!

How do we exercise and voice our collective will -- our collective governance of our own country? We do it by electing people to represent our collective will every so often through the elective process. The elective process amounts (simply) to a 'job interview' that lasts several weeks. Those seeking the job come before us and tell us why they are the best choice for the vacant job and why we should employ them on a short term contract (the period between elections). At the ballot box we convene to make a collective decision as to who that contract employee will be. Democracy at work!

So far this makes a lot of sense, is logical and is a rational way to manage the affairs of a large geographic area inhabited by a large number of people ...except for one problem. What problem? The problem we have is that those who begged for jobs at the podium are under absolutely no obligation to pay any attention at all to what their 'employers' want! The proof of this lays in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice, E.A. Marshall's decision concerning docket number 9012000725 on the 10th of December 1990. Citizens brought suit against their MP for his failure to represent their wishes. In Justice Marshall’s decision he said:

“ I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement.”

This applies to all of us, no matter what province we reside in! Did we, the people, give permission to have our wishes ignored by the politicians we hire? NO. Did the politicians give themselves that prerogative? YES. Does this sound like democracy? NO. And this brings us to the use of the word "govern" and all the other words that go along with it!

To think of ourselves as "governed" implies acceptance of subservience on our part, and suggests 'superiority' on the part of those elected to "govern". The mindset is the complete opposite of what the real 'power structure' is in an actual 'democracy'. In a democracy we hire (elect) individuals to 'manage' certain of our affairs on our behalf ...period. In effect such elected people are merely the custodians of our will ...not our masters, betters or superiors ...that would be too feudal. The biggest problem (with this ingrained perception) lays with those elected individuals who have abused the moral trust their offices properly and rightfully include.

We in Canada, although touting ourselves as an enlightened democracy, have bought into paying homage to a foreign monarch, giving free (and free-spending) reign to that monarch’s representative in Canada (The Governor General – note the authority implied with both “governor” and “general”) and this has trickled down to a pompous elected ‘elite’ who deem themselves our masters!

In a democracy the elected do the bidding of the electors to manage necessary infrastructure essential to the country. This is not the reality in Canada as politicians over generations take a host of liberties, experiment with their own flavour of ‘social engineering’ and lately treat ill-gotten tax dollars as if that money is their personal pocket change! These examples are tips of icebergs but represent the backward and destructive power structure in Canada that disguises itself as a democracy and smooth talks the population into believing so. The reality is that every few years we do nothing less than ‘elect’ feudal dictators and give up our natural right to a voice in our own affairs!

Some questions to ask yourself and each other …and think about next time you are inclined to just accept things as they are:

· Who owns Canada ..the people or the politicians?

· Who asked politicians to re-subject Canadians to British rule?

· Who gave politicians permission to vote themselves gold-plated pensions and perks?

· What right do politicians have to tell you that you’re not free to purchase medical attention with your own money?

· Who told politicians to write a Charter of Rights on our behalf?

· Who told politicians it was OK to tax people to ridiculous levels?

· Who told politicians it was OK to turn issuance of money in Canada over to private banking concerns?

· Who told politicians it was OK to indebt generations of Canadians in order to fund political promises and social engineering experiments?

· Who told politicians to go easy on criminals and pay more attention to criminal rights than victim rights?

· Who told politicians to make a sex offender registry with no retroactive teeth? (Oh yes, that was Chretien …probably because his step son would have been on the list?)

· Who told politicians to do most of what they have assumed they can do because they assume themselves our masters?

The Answer: It wasn’t us!

Do we get any say in how this country is run?


NL-ExPatriate said...

Do we get any say in how this country is run?

Not until we abolish the partizan practices of the socially elite parties and vote INDEPENDANT! www.NLfirst.ca

Similar to our municipal elections. I'll go one step further and add that the leader of these independants should be either voted for or chosen from the elected independants by a vote of the elected independants.

The winds of change are upon us don't let the political spin doctors of the day stop it by buying your vote again with YOUR money. Vote for the good of the country and be damned about who it is, Its for the good of the country!

NL-ExPatriate said...

Independence through Independents!

Start a group, organization, or party if you will to support independents. Similar to a co-op unsure about the co-op fees issue partisan and sponsorship issues? (Sponsorship pun intended)

Statement of intent!
-Municipal politics principles and format.
-Everybody votes independently in the House of Commons.
-Leader is chosen voted on from among the elected independents by the elected independents.
-Could even go one further and have municipal electees voted amongst them selves to represent province or federal?
-If possible a common set of base goals and policies. This may not be appropriate detract from the independent spirit?

Shared objectives and campaigning practices
-Centralized Fund raising
-Centralized list of candidates, emails, Ph numbers, Web pages
-Help Enlist candidates
-Enlist volunteers to help independents
-Sharing of thoughts and ideas discussion to hone campaign platforms
-Internet fund raising centralized and accountable with all books open and published online.
-Dissemination of funds according to number of constituents or possibility of election?
-Bulk advertising cheaper.
-Centralized head quarters for all candidates.