Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Trudeau and la Loi 21


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Repatriation of the Constitution 1980
Meech Lake Accord 1987-1990
Free Trade Agreement 1988
Quebec Sovereignty 1967, 1970, 1976, 1980, 1995 and forever
Native Peoples in Canada 1990, 1991-1996, 2008-2017, 2021... oh never mind ... forever

Those are the big ones.

I did not mean talking heads debate on TV but a public debate in the society. There's a difference. The difference is that as a result of a national debate society reaches certain understanding if not agreement, whereas talking head debates can go on forever without much conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I disagree.  "Society" is exactly who was to give direction, if you use the 2nd definition of society: "an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity."  There was a relatively small public of white, Christian, male landowners who wrote letters to publications, debated, wielded influence... and VOTED.  

2. We are at the dawn of an era wherein democracy has the possibility to work according to its stated goals.  

1. I agree , we have shown that we the people do have a voice and can make changes...Take that chick that was about to be transferred to a healing lodge, the public were shocked, and within a few weeks her transfer was cancels, OK it is a weak example but it does demonstrate we do have a voice. 

2.i disagree, i think like every system, is plagued with corruption, and controlled with those that have money or so it seems. and while the paper may lean way to the right it does not mean the story is full of S*** I agree we do have the technology to make it work, but are being held back..

Sabrina Maddeaux: The Trudeau Liberals shrugging at WE ethics report proves the rot runs deep (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, wheeling past the point of reasonableness, progressive liberalism makes itself contradictory and difficult to understand rationally; is it for liberating people from ideological influence like religious; or for allowing ideologies to impose themselves under the banner of inclusiveness?

This confusion is not accidental in my view. It is an indication that this is no longer about universal goodness, but a claim by certain group to dictate what is right and wrong to the society. Moreover, a claim that is self-appointed, without broad agreement of the society that can be achieved only in a public debate that the group actively avoids.

And at this point, an average citizen or many of them may feel if not realize that something changed and it's now about power and domination. And that is a recipe for Trump and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

I did not mean talking heads debate on TV but a public debate in the society. There's a difference. The difference is that as a result of a national debate society reaches certain understanding if not agreement, whereas talking head debates can go on forever without much conclusion.

Well a lot of the examples above involved a vote, or public hearings. Of course they were covered on television also, but these were conversations people were having as citizens. I'm not sure what your vision for engagement would look like, can you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what your vision for engagement would look like, can you explain?

National discussions of Loi 21 in Quebec is a good example. But there's no set rules and frameworks, each society if it is democratic and engaged has to find and create channels and instruments for national conversations on important matters. If only political elite is involved in making these decisions it can be only two variants, disengaged population or disappointed parts of population and neither is good in the longer perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The first and most obvious example how liberal claim of freedoms becomes liberal dictate is the freedom of speech. It took centuries for humanity to realize and admit that it is fundamental to prevent oppression and tyranny. Zip forward to the 21st century, do we have freedom of speech to discuss essential matters without suppression of opinions (and we aren't talking hate certainly not violence for that there's criminal justice)?

Simple answer: no we don't. Examples are plenty, but it's very clear that there's a set and a growing one of topics where only one direction of opinion is accepted and tolerated. And so, at which point a freedom becomes suppression?

These decisions aren't even made by a broad consensus of the society (some societies lived for generations without this freedom and it's been fine for them) but rather by indifferent society and activist elites that are prepared to sacrifice not their, society's freedoms to advance their agenda. And however the agenda is explained and defended, there's no good conclusion, point of arrival on this well trodden over the centuries road. Recall persecution of Galileo and even worse, from our perspective now, acts by Catholic church in the times past; was it done out of spite, or for the better goodness of the society? There we go - nothing is really new under this Sun.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, myata said:

National discussions of Loi 21 in Quebec is a good example. But there's no set rules and frameworks, each society if it is democratic and engaged has to find and create channels and instruments for national conversations on important matters. If only political elite is involved in making these decisions it can be only two variants, disengaged population or disappointed parts of population and neither is good in the longer perspective.

Okay, I see now. Yes you really need to read the Neil postman book.  He specifically talks about how democracy was designed around in person town halls in New England.  What you're talking about is a throwback to that kind of thing, presumably scaled on new technology. I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Okay, I see now. Yes you really need to read the Neil postman book.  He specifically talks about how democracy was designed around in person town halls in New England.  What you're talking about is a throwback to that kind of thing, presumably scaled on new technology. I agree with you.

Well yeah, dinosaurs were designed to stand up and grab plentiful leaves from abundant trees everywhere around and then they were all gone. Democracy that is designed once and for forever and no matter what cannot live in the real world. Adapt or perish is a daily reality of life since long forgotten ages and do we need books and never-ending panel discussions to remember that?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How do you expect the masses to learn?  They're on Facebook angry about lockdowns.

It is not the masses though that imposed the overreaching lockdowns without as much as an attempt to explain or justify the measures. One reaps only what they have sown. And yet another illustration that benevolent intentions without checks and oversight can be ineffective - or / and outright disastrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, myata said:

It is not the masses though that imposed the overreaching lockdowns without as much as an attempt to explain or justify the measures. One reaps only what they have sown. And yet another illustration that benevolent intentions without checks and oversight can be ineffective - or / and outright disastrous.

They had to use the tools they had, and frankly there are people who take advantage of the ignorant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They had to use the tools they had, and frankly there are people who take advantage of the ignorant

What kind of an excuse is that, we can only be as good as our back brain? Does it help, in evolution?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, "taking advantage of" sounds paternalistic. It assumes that there's the enlightened ones who know what's best for the unwashed, uncapable of thinking and deciding for themselves (otherwise one would need not "tools" but open and honest information and communications). Can this frame of thinking be a solid foundation of a modern, this century democracy?

Yes there are examples of good management including the epidemics. They however are based on intelligence; responsibility and open communications with the society that is quite the opposite of the top-down entitled to entitlements centuries-old way of doing things. And who's surprised then of the apparent difference of the outcomes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...