babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

It's time to afford non-citizens some voting rights in Canada

71 replies [Last post]

Comments

pookie
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2005

Erik Redburn wrote:

scottbern wrote:

Well, it's not tit-for-tat with America that's the issue, but since you brought the point up actually non-citizens can vote in some jurisdictions in the states after a period of residency.  In my home town of Chicago, for instance, non-citizens can vote for School Trustees.  A better comparison might be to the UK, where Canadians who are permanent residents there can vote in all of their elections, but UK citizens here don't get the reciprocal right.

Nor should they.  If a few other jurisdictions decide to allow it thats their problem, but a handful of exceptions don't make it right IMO, in either sense of the word.

Quote:

There are no "basic rules" of a democracy, as you suggest.  Who's in and who's out of the category of "people allowed to vote" changes.  See my OP for examples of non-citizen voting in Canada across the country up to 1970 and in Nova Scotia until 2003.

 

Actually there are, but many ways to play them.  And many ways to game them as well.   Living in a democracy means always being vigilant.   IMO, not allowing people who have the right to vote in other countries to vote in ours as WELL should be one, even if a few others don't see it that way.  However you spin it its allowing some people more rights than others.  Rights I don't have.  If you want to vote on how your taxes paid here are allocated then you can always aply for citizenship.  Conversely, if you don't like how things are done here you have other options as well.

 

Quote:

I'm trying to think of what obligations you have in Canada that I am not bound to as well.  I don't think there are any.  There's no draft (and besides, I am a bit too old to serve).  I pay the same taxes.  As far as the municipality is concerned, I am under the exact same obligations as any other resident.  In fact, voters approved $180 million in borrowing yesterday that I will have an obligation of underwriting through my taxes as long as I am here.  But, as a non-citizen I'm not afforded certain privileges that you are - such as preferential government jobs or the unrestricted right to enter and live in Canada.

You make a good looking argument, and I of course was simplifying, but your apparent sense of entitlement is getting me a little irritated now.  So you have to pay for somethings here that yopu may not approve of?  Well so do we all, even if we have a vote. Incuding foreign residents in the US.  If you don't like it you still have options, including some I may not have.  True that citizens have few statutory obligations to the state anymore(as it should be) beyond obeying the law and paying taxes but I do believe we still have certain obligations others don't.  We don't have a draft, good example, which is also good policy IMO, but if we Were attacked for example, its always possible the draft could be returned.  I'm too old to be called but I have family who might not be. We also have jury duty, as mentioned, and judging by your following post I suspect alot of CAnadins may indeed pay more in taxes than you do, though I doubt you'd admit it and I have no way of proving it.   Taxation has become very secretive up here among the wealthy.    Meanwhile though you get most of the basic services we do, even if you think its unfair you shouldn't be able to get preferential treatment for public service jobs and face some travel restrictions. I haven't dared cross the border since Bush got in.

Quote:

I'm not claiming a constitutional right to vote in the municipal election, only that it's unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against me when it hands out privileges.  Those are two different things, Erik.

 

Actually voting isn't a privilege but a right -albiet a limited one-- though as a foreign resident I don't know what your constitutional rights are Here exactly, that could be a worth investigating.   One right however is that most of us can only vote for leadres in our own country, fpr a variety of rather obvious reasons -though to digress again I wouldn't be entirely averse to some sort of international bodies becoming more directly democratic either.  Depends on how it was done, but OC it won't be.  

The 'differences' you allude to might prove entirely semantic if you somehow win this challenge.  The fact remains you are demnding extra voting rights in another nation you freely chose to enter, and how narrowly or broadly that could be interpretted if you win could indeed affect other levels of governments.  The sizeable 'allocations' you mentioned for example sound like more than a municipal issue to me, but of course your proprtion of it couldn't be much more than the average Canadians of similar income or networth.  Probably less if you also have property in the States.   

If I sound jingoistic here to others I will add that I'm all for easing unfair restictions on immigration, eve illegal refugees, and allowing non-citizens all the basic legal protections we have.  Unlike many in the States and elsewhere.  I do Not however want US citizens gaining even more influence over us in our own naive country, especially not in our post NAFTA world.  Not even without NAFTA, given the unchangeably skewed demographics between our two nations and the long unbroken history of US meddling in others backyard for noone elses benefit but their own.  Well, those who inherit ninety percent of their wealth and power that is, and claim an increasing amount of ours.  I hope this explains my 'nationalistic' militance on this abit better.

 

You're very concerned with "extra" voting privileges.  How is that any different for the dual citizen, a category that Canada already recognizes?  It seems to be a pretty formalistic distinction.


scottbern
Offline
Joined: Nov 20 2011

My constitutional rights as  permanent resident are almost the same as a citizen.  The Charter applies, for example.  In the case of s.3 of the Charter (voting rights for citizens) - it applies to me, but is irrelevant because it's about voting rights for citizens.

It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that voting is a "right".  In some cases, such as citizen voting in provincial or federal elections, that is true - it *is* a right.  In other cases, such as voting in a municipal election, voting is not a right.

The definition of a "right" in this case is that it is something that is legally guaranteed.  In contrast, a privilege is a legal benefit that is conferred upon someone.

In the case of provincial and federal elections, Canadian citizens have a right to vote that is guaranteed by the Charter s.3.  I do not have a right to vote in a provincial or federal election, BUT - should the government pass a statute that says I could - I might have a privilege to vote in those elections.  In the case of municipal elections, there is no such right - i.e. there is no *guarantee* - to citizens or anyone that they will be allowed to vote in these elections.  Since the power of voting is granted to the people through ordinary statute, the government could take away the vote and replace it with something else (I used the example of random selection of a Mayor from the phone book).  That's the legality of it.  If the province did that, what would be your recourse??  The answer is "nothing".  It would be within their power for them to do that and - as you only have a guaranteed right provincially or federally - you have no recourse to challenge the statute on those grounds (you might have some other grounds though, such as the decision was done arbitrarily, etc.).

@Caissa -

"Municipalities are the responsibility of the provinces under section 92 of the BNA/Constituion Act. I think that in and of itself would lead to voting in municipal elections being limited to Canadian citizens."

As much as I appreciate your "to the point" attempt to dismiss my claim on this ground, you too are legally incorrect. What is the connection between a person having a right to vote in a provincial election and the fact that municipalities are the responsibility of the province? The answer is that there is none. I am not arguing that the province doesn't have the power to make election laws and eligibility restrictions, only that when they do so it has to be done in a non-discrimnatory manner.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Rebecca West wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Hell, there are millions  of Canadian citizens whose votes are not counted on election day. One Canadian should equal one vote. But sadly, it's just not the case in our Northern Puerto Rico.

Our worst Past the Post system is as mathematically absurd as it is unconstitutional. First past the post is electoral fraud!

Fidel, you've been asked, repeatedly, not to use the term "Northern Puerto Rico" and have had it explained why it is offensive.  Here's a day off to think about why you continually offend.

 

Sorry. And now that I know it's a suspendable offense after several years using it on babble without incident, I think I may even remember to refrain from doing so. The why not is still a complete mystery to me, though.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

pookie wrote:

 

You're very concerned with "extra" voting privileges.  How is that any different for the dual citizen, a category that Canada already recognizes?  It seems to be a pretty formalistic distinction.

 

Not really.  By having our courts recognise the right of non-citizens to vote in our elections then it nolongers a privilege but a legally recognised right -as I already wrote.  And therefore could be expanded once the precedence is set.   I also said I don't like dual citizenship much -along with alot of other stupid laws already standing -as I also wrote- but it's a minor matter, affecting a tiny percentage of the population and theerby having little vaffect on ourv eolections, not something altering a fundamental pecept of democracy, long recognised everywhere, even where not practiced.  I must say I'm surprised how un-concerned others here are.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

pookie wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Glenl wrote:
With respect to snowbirds, and I've never been one, I think they pay full income taxes in Canada. They obviously miss out on PST and GST while they are away but otherwise are paid up I believe.

 

Are you sure about that?  I've known a few snowbirds who admit they move south to avoid some of our 'high' taxes, as much as to enjoy the sun and surf.  I don't believe someone who only has to spend six month a year up here would pay the same as us overwintering mammals. I certainly don't believe theyd pay MOre, assuming the US does tax them something during their stay.

 

The only way for snowbirds to avoid paying taxes is to satisfy the extremely onerous reqiurements to be determined to no longer "reside" in Canada - including disposal of property.  Maybe those snowbirds you talked to are mere tax evaders, but 99 to 1 they owe Canadian taxes.

 

Alot of people OWE taxes here but will they ever get paid?    Of course they pay SOMe but do you really think they pay the same or More?    I thought it was common knowledge that most snowbirds are looking to pay less without giving up their privileges, but I guess not.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Fidel wrote:
The why not is still a complete mystery to me, though.

I might be reaching here with this, but it might have something to do with the fact that as loyal beneficiaries and subjects of an oppressor nation, being currently under the stewardship of the Harper regime and lest we forget, the Liberals before them; and with another pretender twiddling it's thumbs in the wings for a chance to preside over everything that comes by way of being an oppressor nation, we are hardly in a position to compare ourselves with Puerto Rico.  That's pretty much what comes across in saying 'northern Puerto Rico' or 'bananada' or 'day-o' and other such derivitives.  We're voluntary members of the imperialist's club in good standing.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

Lachine Scot wrote:

Don't forget that this wouldn't only allow Americans to vote, but also plenty of Non-citizens from other countries. When I think of "permanent resident", people from the US are about the last thing that comes to mind, but rather the PRs I know from lots of Asian, European and Latin American countries.

 

I'm concerned more about our immediate neighbours, who still outumber us ten to one, but I'm also worried about a international class of citizens getting votes whereever they happen to reside.  A privilege the rest of us don't have, if only because most lack the funds to emigrate let along buy multiple residents  --an argument that unfortunately wouldn't bother propertarians on the right and centre -but one which would further undermine our already tenuous sovereignty.   Most offshore 'citizens' already tend to vote to the right most elections but thats a political consideration that couldn't be made in court, even if it a very real consideration elsewhere.

As I mentioned earlier some non-resident Gulf islands owners tried (ultimately unsuccesfully) to get an extra municipal vote (and influence over the hated Islands Trust) by virtue of buying a piece of land out there -even just a small undeveloped lot they never even visit-  and I suspect this is part of the same broad movement.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

scottbern wrote:

My constitutional rights as  permanent resident are almost the same as a citizen.  The Charter applies, for example.  In the case of s.3 of the Charter (voting rights for citizens) - it applies to me, but is irrelevant because it's about voting rights for citizens.

It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that voting is a "right".  In some cases, such as citizen voting in provincial or federal elections, that is true - it *is* a right.  In other cases, such as voting in a municipal election, voting is not a right.

The definition of a "right" in this case is that it is something that is legally guaranteed.  In contrast, a privilege is a legal benefit that is conferred upon someone.

In the case of provincial and federal elections, Canadian citizens have a right to vote that is guaranteed by the Charter s.3.  I do not have a right to vote in a provincial or federal election, BUT - should the government pass a statute that says I could - I might have a privilege to vote in those elections.  In the case of municipal elections, there is no such right - i.e. there is no *guarantee* - to citizens or anyone that they will be allowed to vote in these elections.  Since the power of voting is granted to the people through ordinary statute, the government could take away the vote and replace it with something else (I used the example of random selection of a Mayor from the phone book).  That's the legality of it.  If the province did that, what would be your recourse??  The answer is "nothing".  It would be within their power for them to do that and - as you only have a guaranteed right provincially or federally - you have no recourse to challenge the statute on those grounds (you might have some other grounds though, such as the decision was done arbitrarily, etc.).

 

You're just repeating yourself now.  Tell me, when and where is this case expected to come up exactly, any dates set yet?


Lachine Scot
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2010

Erik Redburn wrote:

 I'm also worried about a international class of citizens getting votes whereever they happen to reside.  A privilege the rest of us don't have, if only because most lack the funds to emigrate let along buy multiple residents

OK, but citizenship--heck, even permanent residency-- is also an expensive process out of reach of many working people who came here from other countries.

Besides, there may be more Americans than us, but there are far fewer American residents of Canada than there are Canadian Citizens, so I don't see how that figure comes into play. For example, one could say that Chinese outnumber Canadians 45 to 1, and therefore one ought to be worried about Chinese influence as well. I think it's more useful to just ignore those numbers and ask "Who are these residents in Canada who live here for a while but aren't allowed to vote? Why aren't they?"

I'm hardly an activist on this issue, but I'm just sympathetic to the way the original poster raised it, since my partner is a permanent resident who has lived here their entire adult life and never once been able to vote.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
The why not is still a complete mystery to me, though.

I might be reaching here with this, but it might have something to do with the fact that as loyal beneficiaries and subjects of an oppressor nation, being currently under the stewardship of the Harper regime and lest we forget, the Liberals before them; and with another pretender twiddling it's thumbs in the wings for a chance to preside over everything that comes by way of being an oppressor nation, we are hardly in a position to compare ourselves with Puerto Rico.  That's pretty much what comes across in saying 'northern Puerto Rico' or 'bananada' or 'day-o' and other such derivitives.  We're voluntary members of the imperialist's club in good standing.

 

Most benefit from trading with corporate America has not come to us by NAFTA. Puerto Rico has not benefited from its servile relationship with Washington, and geographic size has nothing to do with that either. It's about the corruption, kick-back and graft. Gasp! Am I suggesting that certain leaders in Latin America are bought and paid for by marauding trans-national corporations, many of them based in the U.S.? Yes, yes I am. It would be incredibly racist or bigoted, one or the other, to suggest that any ethnic group is immune from being influenced by bribery, kick-back and graft. Puerto Rico probably has the highest child poverty rates in a direct comparison with all of the rest of the union states possessing voting privileges.  Puerto Rico is occupied militarily and by U.S. corporations which bribe their corrupt stooges into being lax on corporate taxation and allowing so much concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite few same as here in the ... Northern colony. That's imperialism. Whether Canadians have a nominally higher standard of living than Puerto Ricans on average has more to do with how much natural wealth is looted from Canada long time. We are a subserviant nation of incredible natural wealth and a tiny population by comparison with colonially restrictive immigration policies - our imperial masters don't want us growing too large or rivalling them in very many ways.  We have absentee corporate landlords and banks running the country - Harper is just a figurehead leader. Canada is not so far removed from the way Hong Kong used to be run by an appointed white leader from Britain and a few bankers based out of the Hong Kong jockey club. And we all know how rich everyone was in HK. They were so rich that they didn't need anyone to work in a low wage economy. There was no poverty in HK, or at least, not according to cold war era propagandists at the time. [/off topic rant]

 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Regarding the topic, you can mark me down as being emphatically against affording non-citizens voting rights.  It's a tough enough slog as it is to try and convince the ones who can legally vote now, to opt out of that servile nonsense entirely.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

Lachine Scot wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

 I'm also worried about a international class of citizens getting votes whereever they happen to reside.  A privilege the rest of us don't have, if only because most lack the funds to emigrate let along buy multiple residents

OK, but citizenship--heck, even permanent residency-- is also an expensive process out of reach of many working people who came here from other countries.

Besides, there may be more Americans than us, but there are far fewer American residents of Canada than there are Canadian Citizens, so I don't see how that figure comes into play. For example, one could say that Chinese outnumber Canadians 45 to 1, and therefore one ought to be worried about Chinese influence as well. I think it's more useful to just ignore those numbers and ask "Who are these residents in Canada who live here for a while but aren't allowed to vote? Why aren't they?"

I'm hardly an activist on this issue, but I'm just sympathetic to the way the original poster raised it, since my partner is a permanent resident who has lived here their entire adult life and never once been able to vote.

 

I'm sorry to hear that.  Can't s/he gain citizenship after all this time? 

Re my argument, I don't want to overstate the case, given the potential dangers of national chauvinism, but to me this is fundamental issue of one-vote-per democracy, the powers of which still reside in the old nation-state. (one of the core problems of globalized economies, though a boon to the transnationals)  Even a few percent points shift, a figure ScottB recites, could tip the balance in elections here.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

Slumberjack wrote:

Regarding the topic, you can mark me down as being emphatically against affording non-citizens voting rights.  It's a tough enough slog as it is to try and convince the ones who can legally vote now, to opt out of that servile nonsense entirely.

 

You think thats clever?   Since this is the nth time I've seen you made anti-democratic remarks here, I'll just remind you that the authority to draft and enforce our laws, make or avoid war, and collect and redistribute taxes still lie within Parliament and it's one of the few remaining public processes that still has at least some legitimacy anymore.  

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Slumberjack wrote:

Regarding the topic, you can mark me down as being emphatically against affording non-citizens voting rights.  It's a tough enough slog as it is to try and convince the ones who can legally vote now, to opt out of that servile nonsense entirely.

 

This is shameful. We have more than 200000 agricultural workers from other countries working in Canada at different times of year.

They come from Latin America and do backbreaking work picking produce and other labour-intensive tasks. They take hits on wages for EI premiums and medicare and yet can not access these social programs. Many have worked in Canada the better part of a quarter century and selflessly send hard-earned money home to loved ones not living very well. And yet our corrupt stooges say they aren't entitled to citizenship. They must return to their modern day townships in sunny maico and Central America on a regular basis. And you say they don't deserve a vote in this bloody country? These are people I would not mind at all if they lived beside me in Canada and were allowed to vote. 

I can think of a long list of scum of the earth allowed into Canada during the course of a cold war. And these hard-working honest people are not among those. Of course those other sonsobitches I'm referring to lived very well in Canada and other English speaking countries since 1945 forward. Many of them given top-notch jobs in government and industry in Canada, the USA and Britain. They collected full public and private pensions in their golden years and were even allowed to vote.


Erik Redburn
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2004

I'm all for opening the door wider to third world refugees Fidel, even economic ones.  I'm even more in favour of allowing third world countries the ability to export more than their produce and labour. 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I agree, Erik. No human bean is illegal. We should never lower ourselves to aping the imperialist theory of labour markets and all that mumbo jumbo associated with the old ways. Their ways are not our's. Fascists do not actually believe in free labour markets or freedom for the vast majority of humanity. They call it freedom when themselves are free not us working class slobs regardless of what country we were born in. 

Viva la revolucion!


pookie
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2005

Erik Redburn wrote:

pookie wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Glenl wrote:
With respect to snowbirds, and I've never been one, I think they pay full income taxes in Canada. They obviously miss out on PST and GST while they are away but otherwise are paid up I believe.

 

Are you sure about that?  I've known a few snowbirds who admit they move south to avoid some of our 'high' taxes, as much as to enjoy the sun and surf.  I don't believe someone who only has to spend six month a year up here would pay the same as us overwintering mammals. I certainly don't believe theyd pay MOre, assuming the US does tax them something during their stay.

 

The only way for snowbirds to avoid paying taxes is to satisfy the extremely onerous reqiurements to be determined to no longer "reside" in Canada - including disposal of property.  Maybe those snowbirds you talked to are mere tax evaders, but 99 to 1 they owe Canadian taxes.

 

Alot of people OWE taxes here but will they ever get paid?    Of course they pay SOMe but do you really think they pay the same or More?    I thought it was common knowledge that most snowbirds are looking to pay less without giving up their privileges, but I guess not.

 

Lots of people who never set foot outside of this country owe unpaid taxes.   What does PAYING taxes have to do with voting?  If you are resident in Canada, you will owe taxes citizen or not.  Whether or not you pay them is another story, and that is Canada's business to follow up.

As an aside, I think an earlier post had it right when they said the main appeal for snowbirds is the lower cost of living.  Which is sort of related to taxes, but not in the way you are suggesting.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Let's not forget about filthy rich people dodging and refusing to pay their share in support of society which they depended on to make their money.

And there are profitable corporations that legally owe tens of billions of dollars in deferred and unpaid corporate income taxes to our corrupt stooges in Ottawa.  If you did not pay taxes legally owed to the feds, well, you'd be sent to prison for it. Not so with the upper crust creme de la creme of pond scum living off rent and compound interest, and other free lunch schemes so corrosive to civilized society in general. And yet they are treated like first class citizens with full rights plus. They are the ones buying governnments in Ottawa and gaming the system in their favour.


scottbern
Offline
Joined: Nov 20 2011

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it seems like some people are missing the nuance of the legal argument.  That's not surprising, I suppose, because it's a nuanced argument and not everyone's a lawyer.  Hopefully the judge gets it... The case is brand new, so it will be a while before a court hears it.  I'll keep people informed on the progress though.

One final plea here from an emotional place rather than a legal one.  Yes, I came from America.  I can't change that.  But, here I am now, living in Vancouver - a city I love like no other place I've lived before - and becoming more and more Canadian every day.  I don't miss the US, except for family, and can't really picture myself living there again.  I find the idea that somehow if given a vote I would vote the interests of US citizens over those of Canadians quite ridiculous (and, I'm not even sure what US influence in Vancouver's municipal election would even look like - what does the US care what happens in Vancouver?) 

If I have any sense of entitlement to a voice in the municipal election, it's got nothing to do with the fact that I'm American by birth, but that I've been here for five years and have taken some expensive and difficult steps to stay here (and continue on that process to citizenship eventually) that I feel demonstrate an honest and real commitment to Canada.  I'm well educated, support equality and fairness for all people, believe in fiscal responsibility and good government.  I'm very knowledgeable about municipal politics, the candidates and the issues.  I can't understand why - given all of that - my vote shouldn't be welcomed at even the municipal government level.

Given that 65% of eligible voters in the last election sat out, why wouldn't welcoming people who actually WANT to vote be a legitimate aim?  It seems like people want to reserve for themselves the right to NOT vote in elections.


bagkitty
Online
Joined: Aug 27 2008

hmmm, I have relatively severe doubts about this. I see it raising the possiblity that the large American contingent here in the oil industry (writing from Calgary, y'all) will have even more influence on the local body politic then they already exert via economic levers (hey, it is Calgary, where would the PCs be without those money donated by the oil industry types, regardless of their citizenship)... even though they have little (if any) commitment to staying in the region -- they are here to make their money and get out. Do I really want to afford them the opportunity to go even further in making this the Dallas of the North? There is also a very large contingent here (at least that I have been exposed to) that emigrated from Europe 40/50 years ago, and have made no effort to actually become Canadian citizens... given the very accomodating fashion in which Canada views dual or multiple- citizenship I have often wondered about this - although. in some instances, they may be from countries that refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of dual citizenship and would strip someone applying for Canadian citizenship of their previous status.

If this had been framed in terms of the process of becoming a citizen taking too long, I would have more sympathy for it. I would also have sympathy for an argument that our immigration process is both too stringent and grossly unfair (nod to Fidel's reference to seasonal agricultural workers and an eye north to the "guest workers" in Fort Mac) -- but I am left wondering, of these percentages that are referred to in the OP, the 13% in Vancouver and the 15% in Toronto... can it be broken down into categories... like what percentage are already in the process of getting citizenship, what percentage have consciously decided NOT to apply for citizenship, and what percentage are somehow being barred from applying for citizenship and if so, why?

 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Erik Redburn wrote:
 You think thats clever?   Since this is the nth time I've seen you made anti-democratic remarks here, I'll just remind you that the authority to draft and enforce our laws, make or avoid war, and collect and redistribute taxes still lie within Parliament and it's one of the few remaining public processes that still has at least some legitimacy anymore.  

The authority to make war actually resides in the PMO's office.  The last few votes on the matter were take note sessions.  Try not to get all bent out of shape explaining our 'democracy' and our 'laws.'


Freedom 55
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2010

Erik Redburn wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

It's a tough enough slog as it is to try and convince the ones who can legally vote now, to opt out of that servile nonsense entirely.

You think thats clever?

 

I did. Tongue out


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

Regarding the topic, you can mark me down as being emphatically against affording non-citizens voting rights.  It's a tough enough slog as it is to try and convince the ones who can legally vote now, to opt out of that servile nonsense entirely.

Irrespective of my own (undecided) views on the matter under discussion, I have to say the above is hilarious.

 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Actually I was aiming for consistency F55.  I'll take clever though just because I'm hardly ever.  But then citizens Fidel and Eric went off all half-cocked about the shamefulness of considering it undesirable to add more legitimacy to processes which only serve to perpetuate the very same circumstances they're against.  Not very clever if you ask me.


pookie
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2005

Scott, are you anticipating more judicial resistance to the initial finding of discrimination, or to justification under section 1 (or are they equally tough)?


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

scottbern wrote:

As much as I appreciate your "to the point" attempt to dismiss my claim on this ground, you too are legally incorrect. What is the connection between a person having a right to vote in a provincial election and the fact that municipalities are the responsibility of the province? The answer is that there is none. I am not arguing that the province doesn't have the power to make election laws and eligibility restrictions, only that when they do so it has to be done in a non-discrimnatory manner.

 

We'll have to disgaree on this one. Since municipalities are the creation of provinces and since only citizens can vote in provincial elections, I highly doubt that any province or a judge will extend the municipal franchise to non-citizens. I might be deeply surprised but I doubt I will. YMMV.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Caissa wrote:

scottbern wrote:

As much as I appreciate your "to the point" attempt to dismiss my claim on this ground, you too are legally incorrect. What is the connection between a person having a right to vote in a provincial election and the fact that municipalities are the responsibility of the province? The answer is that there is none. I am not arguing that the province doesn't have the power to make election laws and eligibility restrictions, only that when they do so it has to be done in a non-discrimnatory manner.

 

We'll have to disgaree on this one. Since municipalities are the creation of provinces and since only citizens can vote in provincial elections, I highly doubt that any province or a judge will extend the municipal franchise to non-citizens. I might be deeply surprised but I doubt I will. YMMV.

I agree that given the two part nature of our Charter analysis it is almost certain to fail. Scott some of us get your legal argument and as I said above even if you convinced a judge it was a breach of a Charter right in the second part of the Oakes test you will fail.  Is that technical enough for you?  For instance the SCC says that being sent to prison for possessing pot is a breach my Charter rights. It also says thats fairs and reasonable in a democratic society for parliament to make laws to incarcerate me.  It is the second part of the test that is often the hurdle because judges in Canada (rightly many would argue) prefer to bounce the ball back to the elected politicians. 

Eric given your views about one person equals one vote am I to presume you agree with me that property owners should also be restricted to one vote?


As a thread drift the most passionate defender of the supremacy of parliament during the repatriation talks was Allen Blakeney. He fought hard for things like the Not Withstanding clause. because he had a deeply held believe that the will of the people through its parliament had to be sovereign.

Quote:

Practice of Parliamentary Supremacy

Another important characteristic of Canada’s parliamentary system is the practice of Parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, which generally means that Parliament is to be regarded as the highest political institution in Canada’s political system, with no limits on its powers and authority. Essentially, Parliament may make or unmake any laws as it deems, and no other political institution may undermine Parliament’s ability.

The concept of parliamentary supremacy is rooted in British tradition and its democratic evolution. Britain was dominated early in its history by two non-democratic institutions: the Monarchy and the Church. As the nation moved towards democratic reform in the 16th and 17th centuries, it sought to undermine the power of these institutions and replace them with government by the people. As such, the democratic institution of Parliament was recognized as the highest political body in the nation – a body that would not be limited by other forms of authority, such as the Monarch or the Church. The practice was formally carried over to Canada at the time of Confederation in 1867.

In Canada, however, there are several important limitations on Parliamentary supremacy. One limitation stems from the organization of Canada as a federal state with multiple levels of government. The federal Parliament is not the only legislature in the country; there are also several provincial legislatures with their own constitutionally protected powers and jurisdictions. This means that parliamentary sovereignty is limited in Canada, with the federal Parliament having to share law-making supremacy with its provincial counterparts. This differs from non-federal parliamentary nations, such as Britain, where there is only one level of government and the British Parliament does not share law-making supremacy with any provincial or state counterpart.

Another limitation on parliamentary supremacy stems from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which was formally included within the Canadian Constitution in 1982. TheCharter provides all citizens with certain rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures, such as freedom of speech, democratic rights, and the right not to be discriminated against. Accordingly, the judiciary has the power to review any legislation passed by Parliament to ensure it is consistent with these Charter entitlements. This represents an important limit on the Parliament and juxtaposes the courts as an important check on the law-making ability of parliamentarians.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliamentary-government-canada-basic-organization-and-practices

 

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Slumberjack wrote:

Actually I was aiming for consistency F55.  I'll take clever though just because I'm hardly ever.  But then citizens Fidel and Eric went off all half-cocked about the shamefulness of considering it undesirable to add more legitimacy to processes which only serve to perpetuate the very same circumstances they're against.  Not very clever if you ask me.

So altogether, which basic rights are you in favour of throwing out with the bathwater? Do you have a list, or is universal suffrage your only beef? What about one Canadian making equal to one vote? Is that not worth a hey you old white men in the halls of power, give us our damn votes?

Turn on a news channel. Those people out in the streets are demanding our corrupt stooges respect and uphold noble ideas, like liberty, freedom, social justice and democracy. And they are demanding these things on behalf of all of us.

The noble struggle for democracy continues with or without us, SJ. I'm in. I would stand in line for this.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

So what about one person one vote in municipal elections?  I think that would be democratic but it doesn't look like Canada is going to go that far in its democracy anytime soon. In our current system property owners have more voting rights than other citizens.  That to me is the antithesis of democracy but it is a Canadian tradition. Much like the Senate where it is a requirement to hold office. No coop members need apply.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Fidel wrote:
Turn on a news channel. Those people out in the streets are demanding our corrupt stooges respect and uphold noble ideas, like liberty, freedom, social justice and democracy. And they are demanding these things on behalf of all of us.  The noble struggle for democracy continues with or without us, SJ. I'm in. I would stand in line for this.

The difficulty I'm having is in locating anything noble about standing in line before the nobility, making demands that are laughed at by their media court jesters, and where the presenters of the demands are subsequently beaten down by their paramilitary services.  There's nothing noble about poverty, about injustice, about oppression or about any struggle which seeks to crawl out from under these devices by way of petition to the ones inflicting all of it.  An animal that finally turns on its cruel master is more noble than one that just sits there and whines for the cruelty to stop, but which never does.  It just becomes an object of pity, not admiration.  Lieutenant-General 'Hugo Sperrle' Bouchard will receive a Meritorious Service Award for the Libyan campaign, and you'll continue to vote for the ones who placed their mark upon the record in support of his actions.  I don't believe you have any idea as to what you're actually standing in line for.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments