Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilverSeeker who wrote (6406)	4/19/2005 8:43:52 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 8273

As I pointed out in several posts it as the Conservatives under Diefenbaker who led the way with the Bill of Rights, which although constitutionally limited in its lack of enforcement upon the provinces was the first rights declaration in Canada's history. It is more comprehensive than the constitution itself, which is very wishy washy with respect to what sort of rights we can expect. All the Mr. T's constitution says about rights is that we get "what we expect in a free country such as this one". More or less the actual words. Which begs some basic questions. What limitations can law put on individual rights and can law enable rights where there is some question of them? It is also not clear if Parliament can amend the constitution and by what process it can be amended. What are the rights of an accused under law, the right of a citizen to petition law or parliament? An oppressed citizenry's rights of usurpation of wrongful authority? Is authority right even it it is wrong? All is very hazy still. Dief's conservatives were the first group to champion women's rights, aboriginal rights and ethnic minorities. No Parliament had paid much attention to these matters, but some progress had been made under Borden. Pearson championed Biculturalism and talked about unity. He felt the rumblings coming from Quebec. Then followed the Levesque years, where a long unicultural education began in Quebec, sowing the seeds of a separatiste outlook in the grassroots. Mulroney countered no-trump with multiculturalism. The Liberals have since frittered away time, albeit successfully turning people against the Reform and new Conservatives by whispering they have some kind of anti-cultural agenda. Except for a few loose cannons this has not been in evidence in the party as a whole. They spared the Bloc's much narrower cultural appeal from their big guns. This double-headed attack dog approach has left them speaking out of both sides of their mouth on their favourite topic with no clear solutions. National unity. Much of the dissatisfaction with Mulroney comes from the PQ reps who felt that Meech was a betrayal of their demands and expectations. They wanted a two state status for Canada. A country called Quebec, and the rest of Canada divided into provinces, with power going to Ontario. No wonder the rest of the premiers took a dim view of that arrangement. Functionally PQ got its way. It ignores Ottawa with a passion and dictates its cultural fabric with an iron hand. No thin edged cultural wedges in their bailiwick. Similar treatment of minorities in the rest of Canada would be met with outrage and drastic action. The trouble with democracy is it is only a thinly disguised mob rule. When the ruling party is too popular everything gets done by a few power brokers who hide their actions and prep the public carefully telling them what they should believe and then acting by fiat. Consultation is hypocrisy. No amount of intelligent protest can turn the tide back of bad legislative action. EC<:-}