# Is democracy in trouble, or is this just a 'drive by' smear?



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2012)

This opinion piece is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pierre+Trudeau+decaying+democracy/6902852/story.html


> Pierre Trudeau and our decaying democracy
> *Canadians were once warned about the types of abuses of liberty that are currently taking place*
> 
> By Michael Den Tandt, Ottawa Citizen
> ...




First: Trudeau. In my opinion there is nothing _special_ about Trudeau's writings in the 1950s and 60s; he was against Maurice Duplessis, hell's bells, *everyone* with an IQ with more than one digit in it was against Duplessis; I have no doubt my late Aunt Florence's overweight pet cat was against Duplessis and she, the cat, could probably have penned a coherent anti-Dulessis diatribe, too. It is 'good' that Trudeau recognized that Duplessis was a real threat to liberty; he, Duplessis, created laws and rammed them through his legislature that aimed to discriminate against people for e.g. religious reasons, or, at least, which aimed to secure the _primacy_ of the Roman Catholic church in Quebecers' daily lives; Duplessis needed to be stopped because he was corrupt (nepotism and patronage rather than personal enrichment) and stolid. He was stopped, by nature, not by the rantings and ravings of self styled _liberals_.

Second: _"Stephen Harper is not Maurice Duplessis,"_ Michael Den Tandt says, but he spends most of a column making the case that they are of the same, anti-democratic ilk.

*Bullshit!*

It is fair to oppose Prime Minister Harper's use and abuse of existing, legal and proper, parliamentary and constitutional procedures (prorogation) and political propaganda to achieve his ends; it is beyond fair, it stretches the truth it is dishonest to suggest that his practices and _philosophy_ are akin to Duplessis'.

This bit of 'journalism' is, at best, a drive by smear.


----------



## Staff Weenie (9 Jul 2012)

Ah yes, but they need to keep bringing this to the fore to bolster the young messiah in the wings. Save us Justin.......or not.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2012)

I would suggest the greater threat to Democracy is the ever increasing growth and power of the unelected Bureaucracy. This article: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/john-ivison-conservatives-may-be-government-but-the-public-service-is-still-in-power/ outlines the nature and scope of the problem.

The Prime Minister's approach, to slowly reduce the scale and scope of the civil service, is one approach, but the proliferation of bureaucracies at all levels of government effectively reduce the power of the elected officials, so this is a problam that needs to be tackeld at all levels of government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2012)

Our democracy is decaying, but not for the reasons Den Tandt thinks.  We're working our way through to aristocracy (or, if you prefer, technocracy).  But the force pushing in that direction is progressivism, not conservativism.  Den Tandt confuses the conservatives' push-back using the techniques favoured by progressives (ie. ram through whatever they can, by any means necessary) with the aim of following the vector of progressivism.

It is not the conservative (right-leaning) political parties of the world which enthuse over government by the elite; and the behaviour of the elite makes it pretty clear they have no intention of living among the masses.  Yes, the right-wingers are subject to the same temptation to be a governing elite and succumb to it (eg. country club Republicans, big business/big finance elites), but the basic principles favouring individual liberty over submission to authority tend to counteract that decay.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2012)

And the economic counter argument (which could have equally been placed in the Libertarian thread) which shows how regulatory favours and other crony capitalist tricks also threaten democracy and free markets:

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/carney-building-the-free-market-case-against-big-business/article/2501562/?page=1&referrer=http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/



> *Carney: Building the free-market case against big business*
> By Timothy P. Carney
> 
> The most dangerous enemies of capitalism today are capitalists. This is becoming clearer every day to people committed to free markets.
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (11 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I would suggest the greater threat to Democracy is the ever increasing growth and power of the unelected Bureaucracy. This article: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/john-ivison-conservatives-may-be-government-but-the-public-service-is-still-in-power/ outlines the nature and scope of the problem.



Isnt this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?  Seems to me we used to have a lot of DND/CF employees and soldiers who 'retired' and then turned arround to become reserve force or civilian employees with similar jobs.  Or is it believed that the two activities not comparable?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2012)

On the micro scale, I really don't care who works in the Bureaucracy. 

On the macro scale, the fact that bureaucrats can essentially create laws by passing regulations with the same force of law, who manipulate the agenda of the elected officials through their control of information and work to increasing the size and budget of their bureaucratic kingdoms while being unelected and unaccountable which is the major threat to democratic governance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2012)

*Caution* and _caveat lector_; this is a strongly worded opinion and the *Mods* might want to consider whether it crosses the line. (I don't believe it violates our site guidelines, otherwise I would  not have posted my comments, but, as always and like everyone, I defer to the good judgement of our staff.)

Another drive-by smear, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, this one below the belt even by the incredibly low moral and intellectual standards to which Lawrence Martin adheres:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/religions-fair-game-if-it-motivates-politics/article4450326/


> Religion’s fair game if it motivates politics
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




It is hard to know where to begin; this article is so sub-standard that I am, frankly, surprised it was published.

Lawrence Martin begins by saying _".. religion is a personal business. Many of our prime ministers have been of faith, and it has not been in our tradition to pry,"_ and he goes on to add that _"...  Mr. Harper,_ [perhaps] _restrained by public opinion, has not pursued a strong social conservative agenda,"_ and, finally, he affirms that _"..._ [only] _if his government’s policy-making in important areas like the environment is being motivated by religious faith at the expense of reason, it is cause for debate."_

Martin, however, lacking any evidence at all that any of Prime Minister Harper's "policy-making," in any area, important or not, is motivated by anything at all other than his principles, goes on to hint, to suggest, to insinuate that there *might* be some religious base for them. He has no evidence, he cites noting except someone else's unfounded rumours and innuendo but he smears the prime minister anyway.

And Martin tells us the reason; he tells us that despite the rumour mongering by he and his fellow travelers, _"...  the Conservatives’ image has not suffered much, if at all, from the affiliation_ [with evangelical religion]." And that's a problem for Martin because Stephen Harper, "Bush Lite" in Martin's parlance, is the problem; he ought not to be leading Canada, that's the role of someone 'worthy' of the mantle of Saint Pierre Trudeau.

To solve the problem Lawrence Martin resorts to innuendo, distortion and aspersions to make his "case," which clearly, in non-existent. What is he doing in this column? Simple: he's lying and he knows he's lying, he even, in the penultimate paragraph admits that he has nothing to say except the lies because there is nothing to support them and, indeed, plenty of evidence to refute them. But he  lies anyway because Stephen Harper is not entitled to the truth or fairness or even human decency. 

The _Globe and Mail_ editorial board ought to be washing the dirt off their hands for allowing this pack of lies to see the light of day, but I guess they are shameless.


----------



## dogger1936 (31 Jul 2012)

I believe The honorable Prime Minister is doing a great job smearing his parties reputation. I don't believe this article diving into his personal beliefs is warranted however. For anyone with a dislike for the current government; I'm certain they provide enough blunders on what seems like a weekly basis to feed the media. 

Attack Mr Harpers blunders; leave his personal life out of it.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Attack Mr Harpers blunders; leave his personal life out of it.



if only that were the case, one could expect a certain amount of silence.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2012)

Confirms my opinion, held for years, on Lawrence Martin. 

Isn't PM Harper a Mormon?


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Confirms my opinion, held for years, on Lawrence Martin.
> 
> Isn't PM Harper a Mormon?



No Idea.....does it matter?  Unlike Stockwell Day, Harper never even mentions his religion, nothing he does seems religious based, thus, it's a non issue.


----------



## GR66 (31 Jul 2012)

I am not a religious person and I certainly do not agree with a great many of the beliefs of the so-called "religious right".  However, what difference does it make where the Prime Minister (or any other politician for that matter) gets his/her motivation?  There are many things on the "looney left" that also make my brain hurt but are their motivations more "acceptable" because they are fanatical followers of a non-religious ideology rather than a religious ideology?  Look at what they say and DO.  Judge them on that.  If someone gives me "Peace, Order and Good Government" I couldn't care less if that person had his ideas beamed down from the mothership.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2012)

Romney is a Mormon and has been taking hits for it. Romney - conservative. PM Harper - conservative. The left wing media attacks their religion.

I do not know the PM's religion, or care.


----------



## JorgSlice (31 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> No Idea.....does it matter?  Unlike Stockwell Day, Harper never even mentions his religion, nothing he does seems religious based, thus, it's a non issue.



One of the many reasons why I like Mr. Harper as our national leader. If in fact he is a church/temple/synagog/mosque-goer, he doesn't drag it into politics. He checks his personal life at the door.

Just too bad that Mr. Prime Minister is left with all the mess of the liberals to clean up and is most of the reason for shortfalls and budgetary problems. Hell, even the messed up F-35 procurement was done at the wise command of the liberals. Yet, Mr. Harper just happens to be the "Anything not Left of Centre" flavour of the season that gets slagged on.  :facepalm:


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2012)

If only people would learn to read.  From the article posted above:



> The Prime Minister is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.



I also just noted this in the article.  Mr. Martin says:



> ...just as being Catholic does not necessarily mean one believes a communion wafer is literally the body of Christ.


[pedant]
Mr. Martin makes a bit of an error.  More accurately, to make his point, he ought to have said "just as stating that you are Catholic does not necessarily mean one believes a communion wafer is literally the body of Christ". 

That the consecrated host is the actual body of Christ is essential to being a Roman Catholic.  If you don't believe it, you aren't Catholic

(Article 1413 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is rather clear:



> 1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity



[/pendant]


----------



## elderly2 (31 Jul 2012)

What makes our dearly beloved Harper worth electing is his non-vindictiveness. You can say anything you want unlike in other uncivilized states where a "constructive criticism" would cost one's job. If you want proof, have an interview with the author of the book whose criticisms of Harper were not only libelous but blasphemously libelous! Nobody in America would dare conclude "Damn Right". Who are you? Are you God?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

I cannot make up this stuff, I lack the imagination. A group of more that 80 immigration lawyers has, according to an article published in the _Globe and Mail_, stated, in an open letter to Minister Jason Kenney (also published in the _Globe and Mail_), that it is _"not credible that the decision taken in relation to the Conrad Black Temporary Resident Permit was made without any input from yourself."_ Why is it not credible? They say because Kenney uses a "high degree of control" in managing his department and, further, that they cannot _"believe that you_ [Kenney]_ did not give your consent, either express or tacit, in relation to the request."_

The proof? Who needs that? They're lawyers, rallying around one of their own because Kenney's staff have had the temerity to launch a legal complaint.

It reminds me of a fellow named Robert Liburdy. Liburdy has a PhD in biochemistry and was, in the 1980s and 90s, employed in the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - that made him a credible scientist. In 1992 Liburdy published a study that made a direct, causal link between mobile phone use and brain cancer. It, the Liburdy study, sparked a rash a lawsuits, HUGE anguish for many thousands of people and masses of follow-up research. The follow-up research was interesting: no one, in any labs, anywhere could replicate Liburdy's results. Finally, in 1999, the National Institute of Health found that Liburdy had lied; he had faked his research. Why did he do it? It was, Liburdy claimed, obvious that there must be some connection between RF radiation and cancer, or something. The only problem was he couldn't find a link - maybe there is one but nobody has found it yet, by 2012 - 20 years after Liburdy's lie.

So, 80 Canadian immigration lawyers and Robert Liburdy have the same problem: something is "intuitively obvious" to them so they tell the world. The fact that they have no proof to back their claims is not a problem - they "believe" so it must be true.

Like I said, I cannot make up this stuff.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2012)

The smear is what makes the news and receives publicity.

The follow-ups and retractions will also make the news (technically), but not necessarily much publicity.

"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say."  (John McCarthy)


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2013)

"Fewer than two dozen people – most of them other anti-Keystone activists – turned up for the “What Happened to Canada” event at the National Press Club" in Washington DC,  according to the reports, but the _Good Grey Globe_ still prominently features a story entitled "David Suzuki slams Harper science policy in Washington speech." The story says that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper was accused of trampling on citizens’ right, suppressing science, and deliberately misleading the United States over oil sands development" by David Suzuki and other _activists_.

I call "drive by smear," not journalism.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2013)

And in its story the CBC didn't even mention that this little mutual masturbatory circle couldn't even draw an audience of 25 people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2014)

This _Ottawa Citizen_ story about Conservative MP Paul Calanra's ten year old internal family dispute, a nasty one, to be sure, hangs, as *news*, by one tenuous thread: _"Calandra, the government’s point man on the Senate expense scandal, has become notorious for responding to opposition questions in the House of Commons with heartwarming stories about his parents and children, but the acrimonious 2005 legal dispute suggests a far less convivial family dynamic."_ But that's enough for a full, 30+ paragraph "news" story ~ a story about something that happened before Mr Calandra stood for elected office but which, I suppose, _exposes_ his character.

It caused Prof Emmett Macfarlane, Waterloo University, to wonder aloud (on _Twitter_) about why Mr Calandra's domestic feuds are news but Jack Layton's 1996 visit to a Toronto "rub and tug" _massage parlour_ (brothel) was not.

Now, the _Globe and Mail_'s Christie Blatchford, suggested, back in 2011 that *a)* Canadians, broadly and generally, didn't care about Mr Layton's foibles (nor about his living in a government subsidized, rent controlled co-op despite having, way back then, a $120,000 family income), but *b)* that, perhaps, they should have.

Now, on a personal level I don't think Mr. Layton's visit to a (apparently pretty clearly marked) brothel was "news," not even "news" about his character. I though his living arrangements were "news," minor league news, because public money was involved. I do think voters have every right to consider Mr Calandra's _character_ and, indeed, what his decade old family feud might say about his character, but I cannot find a similar "in depth" analysis of, say, Justin Trudeau's illegal drug us while in office and some thoughts about what that may say about _his_ character and fitness for office.

Another "drive by smear," in my view ... muck raking and yellow journalism from the _Ottawa Citizen_.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2014)

I have given up pretty much on the Ottawa Citizen as being any real means of journalistic publication.  I have found more relevance in news reported in the Sun.  The Citizen is existing well past its prime on its name.


----------



## pbi (10 Jan 2014)

Lawrence Martin is probably not the most authoritative source one might care to find on anything.

IMHO the most important function that faith serves, perhaps arguably its only valid function, is to inform the way a faithful person lives their life. If it doesn't do that, I'm not quite clear what it's for.

If that is true, then it's only reasonable to expect that a person's faith will, at a minimum, be a part of their judgement and decision making processes. Perhaps not the sole decisive part, but up there somewhere. If it isn't, then what's the point of having it?

So, it wouldn't be odd or unusual, or even necessarily wrong, that the PM (or any other public figure) might reflect on his faith as he considers what must be done. Trudeau, for an example, was a Catholic trained by Jesuits: difficult to imagine that he just dumped all of that when he got elected.

Where the problem arises (I think) is if a politician forgets that he has a responsibility to many other people, lots of whom (especially in Canada...) may not share or even recognize his particular tenets of faith. At that point he has to engage in a tempering process to decide what is best for the public good he was elected to serve, vice his own beliefs. Ideally they are fairly compatible. In a bad case, the leader has a crisis of conscience and resigns (not very common...)

The very worst case, and what those of us who harbour some suspicion of the extreme evangelical/political right as we see it manifested in the US, is that the leader decides to impose and inflict his beliefs on the rest of us. Personally, I don't think the PM really means to do that, although there may have been (and might still be...) people in the CPC tent who would love nothing better.

The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.


I think such a separation is not merely good, but in a multicultural society, absolutely necessary.


And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.     :dunno:


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> So, it wouldn't be odd or unusual, or even necessarily wrong, that the PM (or any other public figure) might reflect on his faith as he considers what must be done. Trudeau, for an example, was a Catholic trained by Jesuits: difficult to imagine that he just dumped all of that when he got elected.


And it's evident that he didn't dump it.  He decriminalized homosexuality (he saw it as sinful, but certainly not criminal behaviour) and of course, lost the death penalty.  His social programs could be argued to be in line with Catholic social justice theory.  


			
				pbi said:
			
		

> The separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, in the long run.


Indeed.  Keep the state out of the church (which is how it's supposed to be)


----------



## pbi (10 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think such a separation is not merely good, but in a multicultural society, absolutely necessary.
> 
> 
> And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.     :dunno:



On second thought, we might not actually enjoy a full separation of the Church and State. The Queen, being our Head of State, is also the Protector of the Faith as Head of the Church of England. One could argue that the Anglican Church of Canada is not technically the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...) but the connection is there.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Keep the state out of the church (which is how it's supposed to be)


And the church our of the state, ie - religious leaders demanding legislation to suit their religious beliefs?    




			
				pbi said:
			
		

> .... the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...)


Oohhh...them's fighting words to my Scottish Presbyterian grandmother; she despised those "Papist Church of England bastards and their heresy"  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> On second thought, we might not actually enjoy a full separation of the Church and State. The Queen, being our Head of State, is also the Protector of the Faith as Head of the Church of England. One could argue that the Anglican Church of Canada is not technically the Church of England (and really not a very "extreme" Church, unless you consider silly ladies' hats and strawberry teas...) but the connection is there.




But "Defender of the Faith" (_Fidei defensor_ in Latin)  an _papal honour_ that Pope Leo X gave to Henry VIII in 1521 in recognition of Henry's book _Assertio Septem Sacramentorum_ (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) (otherwise the "Henrician Affirmation") which was a spirited and scholarly attack on Martin Luther and what, eventually, become the central doctrines of the Church of England.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And yet, while I'm not remotely a "Christmas-y" person, I'm more than happy to take the time off that the State gave me, ostensibly in the name of that Church event.[/size]     :dunno:



Don't worry about it: Start calling it "Nowell" (Noel) instead - no reference to Christ and, more appropriate, it was the height of pagan celebrations in continental europe and a joyous occasion to celebrate the days getting longer until it was hijacked by the Papacy so as to remove any reason to celebrate for the poor followers of the Faith.


----------



## pbi (12 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But "Defender of the Faith" (_Fidei defensor_ in Latin)  an _papal honour_ that Pope Leo X gave to Henry VIII in 1521 in recognition of Henry's book _Assertio Septem Sacramentorum_ (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) (otherwise the "Henrician Affirmation") which was a spirited and scholarly attack on Martin Luther and what, eventually, become the central doctrines of the Church of England.



Yes, quite. And it's probably worth recalling that as Anglicans, we are really only loosely and incorrectly called "Protestants". The Church of England (and its descendants the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopalian Church in the US, etc) are really just "Catholic Lite" (OK-that's an exaggeration, but I'm going somewhere with this..). We like saints, big clerical hats, bells and smells. (at least in High Church we do...)

Churches that are more commonly called "Protestant" today generally came into being quite some time after Henry pulled the plug on Rome (but kept a Church that looked, smelled, felt and acted pretty much like it did before). In fact, the Church of England frequently engaged itself in the persecution of  these  protesting "Dissenters" or "Nonconformists", which probably contributed to the perception by many of these groups (ie: the Puritans and Journeymans' Grandma's Presbyterians...) that they had merely exchanged the persecution of Rome for the persecution of Canterbury.

As an Anglican, I attend Mass with my Catholic wife and generally feel at home. There are some issues on which our Churches differ, but we are still much closer on the denominational spectrum than we would be to, say, the United Church, Methodist, Knox Presbyterians, etc.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> We like saints, big clerical hats, bells and smells. (at least in High Church we do...)



:rofl:

"Bells and smells" Love it 
And you're right, there are of courses differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (and its offshoots around the world), but in the end, they aren't that much.

In my diocese, recently, an Anglican Priest (and his family) formally converted to Roman Catholicism.  Of course, no baptism was required, only the sacrament of confirmation.  And the priest is doing training to retain his priesthood.  Married and all.  

Anyway, I'm just waiting for Groundhog day...  

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Churches that are more commonly called "Protestant" today generally came into being quite some time after Henry pulled the plug on Rome (but kept a Church that looked, smelled, felt and acted pretty much like it did before). In fact, the Church of England frequently engaged itself in the persecution of  these  protesting "Dissenters" or "Nonconformists", which probably contributed to the perception by many of these groups (ie: the Puritans and Journeymans' Grandma's Presbyterians...) that they had merely exchanged the persecution of Rome for the persecution of Canterbury.




Oh, you know I love this ...  :nod:

Actually there were pretty committed _protestants_, many of a very strict variety, long before Henry VIII broke with Rome. In fact his Queen, Anne Boleyn, seems to have been one of them. William Tyndale, the real author of much of the _King James version_ was a committed protestant when Henry VIII was on the throne, and well before he broke with Rome.

The 1530s and '40s were a time of hot religious debate in Britain - in both England and Scotland. Henry VIII's church, _your_ "High Church," was just one of many sects contesting for public (and royal) favour. Some of Elizabeth I's courtiers, including Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of her Council, were even _Puritans_.

John Knox came back from the continent in 1544 to begin the Protestant Reformation in Scotland (JM's Presbyterians, and all that) and eventually authored the wonderfully titled misogynistic diatribe, "The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women."

I was a tumultuous time ... not at all dull and boring.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2014)

As we move farther from the Reformation (and the various pre reformation movements that laid the groundwork), we see more and more divergence from the Catholic Church. Of course, the Orthodox church, the Cathars, Nestorians and Mandaeans might also beg to differ as well...

Key point (as the kerfuffle at York U should highlight) is that your religious beliefs are _private_, you can share your opinions and even ask if I'd like to join, but I have the rights to do the same, and everyone has the right to politely refuse. _NO ONE_ has the right to use force (real or implied) to push their views on other people and make them conform.


----------



## pbi (13 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Key point (as the kerfuffle at York U should highlight) is that your religious beliefs are _private_, you can share your opinions and even ask if I'd like to join, but I have the rights to do the same, and everyone has the right to politely refuse. _NO ONE_ has the right to use force (real or implied) to push their views on other people and make them conform.



Agreed. How exactly this gets put into practice may pose problems, but it should be the guiding principle in a liberal democracy. 

However you want to interpret "liberal".


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2014)

I'm going to change the focus of the topic a bit. Stupid comments by uneducated or uninformed people are not the real threat to Liberal democracy (in fact one of the exercises that makes Liberal democracy strong is _more and better speech_), but rather unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is a well developed theme in Canada (Ontario apparently has more named provincial "agencies" and departments than the State of California, which is esimated to have over 500), so even though the article is American and uses American examples, the problem is the same:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/crisis-of-the-administrative-state.php



> *CRISIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE*
> 
> Studying administrative law in law school, I don’t think we read anything that raised questions about the legitimacy of the agencies giving rise to to it. We took it as a given and picked up the story with the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. We should have taken a look at the question of legitimacy in constitutional law, and probably did, though the standard New Deal account I would have received is extremely misleading.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (14 Jan 2014)

Any organization that is not held strictly publicly accountable is going to go bad. The Church, the Army, educational institutions, business, political parties, intelligence and security services, or the civil service: it doesn't really matter.

While I believe very strongly in the vital importance of a broadly-based and independent media, and in autonomous watchdogs like Ombudsmen, Auditors General, the Parliamentary Budget Office, etc. none of these can be a substitute for an informed and engaged electorate, (as opposed to narrowly based but vocal and industrious special interests factions)

And we don't have that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2014)

OK, back on topic ... this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is, intentionally, a "drive by smear," but, after you get past the "motley crew" (the _Wall Street Journal's_ editorial staff) and giving Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin credit for the recovery from the _Great Recession_, there is also some substance. Stephen Harper has, indeed, bailed our fat-cat corporations, cut defence spending to and past the point of ridiculousness, and he is, indeed, a "pragmatic meddler" in the best traditions of e.g. Louis St Laurent. He is not, except in his dislike of defence spending, a Margaret Thatcher, but he is a much better national manager than are the clowns in Washington:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/look-closely-us-conservatives-harpers-not-a-new-thatcher/article20806046/#dashboard/follows/


> Look closely, U.S. conservatives: Harper’s not a new Thatcher
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, I could begin by suggesting that Mr Yakabuski couldn't be hired by the _Wall Street Journal_ due to his lack of business/economic background, but that would be a _cheap shot_ so I'll let it pass ...  

A note about _conservatives_ and military spending. *Real conservatives*, like Mrs Thatcher and, yes, like  Mr Harper, too, do not like defence spending. They _believe_, based on the writings of some pretty good economists and the musing of none other then Dwight D Eisenhower, that some, indeed much of the money spent on the national defence is wasted, and some is not just unproductive, it is downright _counter-productive_. It's not that they are anti-military, nor do they hesitate to use their militaries to foster their political/national ends, it's just that they _believe_ that there is a "military-industrial complex" and they believe that it sucks up too much of the national treasury for suspect ends.

I, _personally, think_ that Mrs Thatcher was about to cut too far (until Argentina intervened) in the 1980s, and that Mr Harper has cut too far, today. I _believe_ that Canada can and should _*productively*_ spend 2% of GDP, for decades to come, on its national defence if, and it's a *Big IF* the defence procurement system regime is radically reformed to take away the "jobs, Jobs JOBS!!!" slush fund aspect that infects every nook and cranny today.


----------

