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

Wed, 2011-11-23 05:37

Slumberjack

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.'

Wed, 2011-11-23 05:55

#53

Freedom 55

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.

Wed, 2011-11-23 07:22

#54

Unionist

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.

Wed, 2011-11-23 07:30

#55

Slumberjack

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.

Wed, 2011-11-23 07:46

#56

pookie

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

Wed, 2011-11-23 07:58

#57

Caissa

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.

Wed, 2011-11-23 11:36

#58

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

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-bas...

Wed, 2011-11-23 20:54

#59

Fidel

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.

Thu, 2011-11-24 10:59

#60

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

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.

Thu, 2011-11-24 12:17

#61

Slumberjack

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.

Thu, 2011-11-24 15:19

#62

Fidel

I hear you loud and clear. I just think that the old three-pronged trident punch attack as per WWII era fascists might work against ... the fascists! I think proles should focus our efforts, pick their weak spots, and go hard. No prisoners. You have to admit it at least sounds like a plan.

Mon, 2011-12-19 19:26

#63

Erik Redburn

Slumberjack wrote:

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.'

hhmm. The constitutional right to actually vote out bad politicians and their parties shouldn't be confused with the corruption of the present political process. Otherwise we end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

My earlier point to you was rather simpler though, whether we approve or not, our elected authorities have the authority to pass laws and decide how they are enforced, which affect us all. Dropping out is not an option.

Mon, 2011-12-19 21:32

#64

Cribs

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents.

Mon, 2011-12-19 21:32

#65

Cribs

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents.

Mon, 2011-12-19 21:54

#66

autoworker autoworker's picture

I think the question is actually about nationalism, and what it means to be a citizen.

Mon, 2011-12-19 22:03

#67

Fidel

Cribs wrote:

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents.

Never happen. It would be comprable to the former South African apartheid government's feeble attempt to grant voting rights for black South Africans in the 1950s. I suspect our own anti-democratic forces would place a two-thirds majority threshold House vote as a barrier between change and their grip on power.

Mon, 2011-12-19 23:34

#68

Erik Redburn

Cribs wrote:

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents.

That's my concern too.

Wed, 2011-12-21 17:12

#69

3130sputter 3130sputter's picture

the charter is for citizens only, the right to for is a privilege afforded to citizens only and rightly so. if a premanent resident wants to vote then become a citizen and add their voice to this country.

Wed, 2011-12-21 18:16

#70

Unionist

Sewer's backin' up again...

Wed, 2011-12-21 18:53

#71

Sineed

Erik Redburn wrote:

Cribs wrote:

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents.

That's my concern too.

Me too. And bagkitty has the same concern, expressed in earlier posts.

Citizenship is relatively easy to acquire in Canada, with a short residency requirement. The OP is a knowlegeable and thoughtful guy, but in most cases I would be concerned that if folks didn't live here for at least 3 years, they wouldn't have the background to make an informed choice.

Just to review:

Quote:
To qualify for citizenship an immigrant must: be a permanent resident of Canada and have lived in Canada for at least three of the four years preceding his or her application; be able to communicate in English and/or French; and be able to demonstrate basic knowledge of Canadian history, geography, law and political institutions. Applicants must also swear an oath of allegiance, pay a fee of $200 and not be deemed a threat to national security or have a record of certain criminal offences.

This is a pretty low bar. Granted, it's more than those of us who were born here have to do, but it's less than many countries demand. And many immigrants have the added advantage of having another country to go to if things don't work out here. My father is a citizen in the country of his birth as well as Canada, with all the benefits of two countries to call home; he can travel there without hassle, work, or buy property if he likes.

And if somebody with more than 3 years' residency can't be bothered applying for citizenship, are they going to be bothered to vote? According to Wiki, countries that enfranchise non-citizens see a low voter turnout in that group.

Fri, 2011-12-23 02:46

#72

Erik Redburn

Sineed wrote:

And if somebody with more than 3 years' residency can't be bothered applying for citizenship, are they going to be bothered to vote? According to Wiki, countries that enfranchise non-citizens see a low voter turnout in that group.

Hm, that little bit of info makes me breathe a little bit easier; still makes me nervous though.

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

Pages