Beliefs That Will Destroy The World
2018-12-21
2018-12-17
Christmas – Whose Holiday is it Anyway
It is time for the
annual discussions about the “War
on Christmas” and putting “Christ
Back in Christmas”, but whose holiday is it anyway.
The Christians
claim it as theirs because, well, it has “Christ” in the name and
celebrates the birth of Jesus
Christ. But yet they chose the timing to coincide with existing
Pagan
celebrations of the Winter
Solstice, basically because they did not have a clue as to when
Christ was actually born.
The Christians only
have one high holy day during the season, Christmas.
However, the capitalists
have several, seemingly celebrated, at least in North America, by
many more people (or should we call them consumers
as the capitalists consider them) than Christmas. They have Black
Friday, Cyber
Monday, and Boxing
Day, not to Mention Black Friday Week and Boxing Week. And then
there are the December 25th celebrations of the Patron
Saint of Consumers, Santa
Claus.
In Canada, the
Christmas holiday season, to many. is more a celebration in line with
the original Winter Solstice celebrations, a celebration of winter
and snow and ice and winter activities.
Of course there are
other than just Christian religious celebrations
at this time, including the secular Festivus
celebrations for fans of a certain television show.
In reality these winter
holiday celebrations belong to all of us to celebrate however we
choose and to call whatever we want.
2018-11-16
On the Justice System, Presumption of Innocence & the Me Too Movement
Me Too
Movement
The Me Too movement
(or #MeToo movement),
with many local and international alternatives, is a movement against
sexual
harassment and sexual
assault.[1][2][3]
#MeToo spread virally
in October 2017 as a hashtag
used on social media in an attempt to demonstrate the widespread
prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the
workplace.[4][5][6]
It followed soon after the
sexual misconduct allegations against Harvey
Weinstein.[7][8]
Tarana
Burke, an American social activist and
community organizer, began using the phrase "Me Too" as
early as 2006, and the phrase was later popularized by American
actress Alyssa
Milano, on Twitter in 2017. Milano and Michael
Baker encouraged victims of sexual harassment to tweet
about it and "give people a sense of the magnitude of the
problem".[9][10]
This was met with success that included but was not limited to
high-profile posts from several American celebrities, including
Gwyneth
Paltrow,[11]
Ashley
Judd,[12]
Jennifer
Lawrence,[13]
and Uma
Thurman.[14]
Source:
Me Too
movement - Wikipedia
Believe
Women
"Believe women"
is an American political slogan arising out of the Me
Too movement.[1]
It refers to the perceived necessity of accepting women's allegations
of sexual
harassment or sexual
assault at face value. Sady Doyle, writing for
Elle,
argues that the phrase means "don’t assume women as a gender
are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false
allegations are less common than real ones."[1]
The slogan has been criticised for encouraging a
presumption
of guilt. Michelle
Malkin, writing for The
Daily Signal, suggests that it is a
form of virtue
signalling.[3]
Source:
Believe
women - Wikipedia
While
much of this movement has focused on the entertainment industry it is
for all women and particularly those exploited by men in positions of
authority over them. While it goes beyond criminal activity and
extends to inappropriate and socially unacceptable behaviour much of
it is focused on how the justice women treats women who are victims
of sexual assault and exploitation.
The
Big Five Principles of Our Justice System
So
we will start by looking at what I see as the big five principles of
our Justice System.
Blackstone's Ratio
In
criminal
law,
Blackstone's
ratio
(also known as the
Blackstone ratio
or Blackstone's
formulation)
is the idea that:
As
expressed by the English jurist William
Blackstone
in his seminal work, Commentaries
on the Laws of England,
published in the 1760s.
Other
commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin
Franklin
stated it as, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape
than that one innocent Person should suffer".[4]
Presumption
of Innocence
The
presumption
of innocence
is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven
guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin
maxim
ei
incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
(“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who
denies”).
In
many states,
presumption of innocence is a legal
right of the accused in a criminal
trial, and it is an international human
right under the UN's
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under
the presumption of innocence, the legal
burden of proof is thus on the prosecution.
The
principle, now protected by section 11(d) of the Charter,
that everyone accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until the
Crown has proven the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to
the satisfaction of a judge or jury.
Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable doubt
is a term used in jurisdiction
of common
law countries. Evidence that is beyond
reasonable doubt is the standard
of evidence required to validate a criminal
conviction in most adversarial
legal systems.[1]
Generally,
prosecutors bear the burden
of proof and are required to prove their
version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition
being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that
there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a
"reasonable
person" that the defendant is guilty.
There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not
affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the
defendant is guilty.
The evidence here must be so complete and convincing that any
reasonable doubts as to the guilt of the accused are erased
from the minds of the judge or jury.
The evidence here must be so complete and convincing that any
reasonable doubts as to the guilt of the accused are erased from the
minds of the judge or jury. This is the rigorous standard of proof
that the Crown prosecutor is required to meet for each element of the
offence in a criminal case.
Jury
Trials
A
jury trial,
or trial by jury,
is a lawful
proceeding in which a jury
makes a decision or findings
of fact. It is distinguished from a bench
trial in which a judge or panel of judges
makes all decisions.
Jury
trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in
almost all common
law lawful systems (Singapore,
for example, is an exception), and juries or lay judges have been
incorporated into the legal systems of many civil
law countries for criminal cases.
Adversarial
Justice System
The adversarial
system or adversary
system is a legal system used in the
common law
countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or
position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a
jury
or judge,
who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment
accordingly.[1][2][3]
It is in contrast to the inquisitorial
system used in some civil
law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman
law or the Napoleonic
code) where a judge investigates the case.
The
adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal
trial courts operate that puts the prosecution
against the defense.
The Question of
Consent and Credibility
The Law of Consent in Sexual Assault
Canada has a broad definition of sexual assault. It includes all
unwanted sexual activity, such as unwanted sexual grabbing, kissing,
and fondling as well as rape.
Sexual
activity is only legal when both parties consent. Consent is defined
in Canada’s Criminal Code
in s. 273.1(1), as the voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual
activity in question. The law focuses on what the person was actually
thinking and feeling at the time of the sexual activity. Sexual
touching is only lawful if the person affirmatively communicated
their consent, whether through words or conduct. Silence or passivity
does not equal consent.
Further information:
Let us start by
rephrasing Benjamin Franklin's version of the Blackstone ratio with a
more specific reference.
"it is better 100
rapists should escape than that one innocent man should suffer"
It
does not sound quite so enlightened when made more specific. But that
is close to reality due to the difficulty obtaining convictions in
sexual assault cases. These are cases where there are often no
witnesses except the victim and the accused and while there might be
forensic evidence this can only prove whether a sexual act took place
but not the key factor in guilt which is whether or not there is
consent. So we are left with a “he said she said” scenario.
And
in the “he said she said” scenario the truth become a matter of
credibility and in our society one's credibility has been tied to
one's social status – the ”he's a respected member of the
community, he couldn't be lying” factor. Not to mention the
reluctance to even report assaults committed by people in positions
of power over others because of potential repercussions and the fact
one won't be believed anyway. With the Me Too Movement we have seen
that particularly in the entertainment industry.
But
it is even more insidious (and evil) in regards to the exploitation
and sexual assault of children. We have seen numerous cases of what
can only be called sex assault rings comprised of so-called
respectable members of the community targeting vulnerable at risk
children with perceived low credibility simply because these
“respected” people knew they could get away with it. And they did
for too many years just because of the credibility attached to their
social status.
The
social standing and supposed moral credibility of religious leaders
left them immune from suspicion for years and even when their
institutions (one in particular) were made aware of numerous
instances of assaults they was swept under the rug because protecting
the reputation of the institution was more important than justice or
protection for the victims.
So how do we deal with assessing credibility in sexual assault cases
where it is a case of believing the victim or the accused.
Should we abandon the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and
adopt the preponderance of evidence/balance of probabilities concept
used in civil cases.
Preponderance of the evidence
Preponderance
of the evidence, also known as balance
of probabilities, is the standard
required in most civil
cases and in family
court determinations solely involving money,
such as child
support under the Child
Support Standards Act. It is also the burden
of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative
defenses or mitigating
circumstances in civil or criminal court. In
civil court, aggravating
circumstances also only have to be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt
(as they do in criminal court).
The standard is met if the proposition is more
likely to be true than not true. The standard
is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the
proposition is true. Lord
Denning, in Miller
v. Minister of Pensions,[12]
described it simply as "more probable than not." Until
1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United
States.[13]
Balance of Probabilities
A standard of proof satisfying a judge or jury that the facts at
issue probably occurred as alleged. Sometimes referred to as a
preponderance of the evidence or a 51 percent likelihood of
occurrence.
I would
suggest we do not want to abandon the principle of proving guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt and create a potential new problem of
increased unwarranted convictions.
Rather I
would suggest instead that judges instructions to juries make it
clear that the standard for believing accusers and witnesses is not
certainty, which is impossible to have, but rather reasonable belief
in the credibility of the witness. In the words of the Me Too
Movement judges must give jurors the right to Believe The Women if
they reasonably believe them to be credible. The ultimate safeguard
being that all 12 jurors must concur for a conviction to occur.
Broader
Problems with the Justice System
There are are broader problems with our Justice System than how it
deals with sexual offences.
The fist thing we should note is that we did not choose our Justice
System. There was no process of examination of options or analysis
undertaken . We simply inherited it, like our system of
constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government, from the
British. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
But our adversarial Justice System does have its problems.
It has been described as a matter of story telling with whoever tells
the best story being the winner. In modern day story telling, which
is done most often through TV and movies, the best story telling
often involves who employs the best actors and the most effective
special effects. In the case of the Justice System we are talking
about the most expensive lawyers, investigators, and expert
witnesses. No matter what the facts are the quality of the legal
defence can be the biggest factor in a court's decision.
As well, all the facts are not necessarily available to the court for
various legal reasons. If the state uses illegal means to gather
evidence it is not available to the court. This is done to ensure the
game is played fairly. This is, of course, a difficult matter and
peoples' legal and constitutional rights are hardly “technicalities”.
But would it not be better to punish those involved in illegal
activity separately rather than having courts make decisions without
all the facts.
Money can be the biggest factor in the outcome of a case. If you are
poor, depending on legal aid or public defenders, you are at a
disadvantage against the resources of the state. On the other hand if
you are extremely wealthy your legal resources are much greater than
those of the state.
There are other options than the adversarial system.
Inquisitorial
system
An inquisitorial
system is a legal
system where the court
or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the
facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial
system where the role of the court is
primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution
and the defense.
Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil
legal systems as opposed to common
law systems. Countries using common law,
including the United
States, may use an inquisitorial system for
summary hearings in the case of misdemeanors
such as minor traffic violations. The distinction between an
adversarial and inquisitorial system is theoretically unrelated to
the distinction between a civil legal and common law system. Some
legal scholars consider inquisitorial
misleading, and prefer the word nonadversarial.[1]
The function is often vested in the office of the public
procurator, as in China,
Japan,
Germany,
and Scotland.
Source:
Inquisitorial
system - Wikipedia
The
main criticism of such system is that you have one institution, the
court, acting as prosecutor, defence, judge and jury. It is a system
that would require a huge degree of confidence in the impartiality of
the state for it to have credibility with the public.
My
own sense is that we would be better off reforming our current system
and I would start by looking at sentencing.
Sentencing
The
first thing we need to look at are minimum sentences. Zero tolerance
and minimum sentences are both concepts based on the idea that
circumstances do not matter and no one can be trusted to exercise
discretion.
Background on Minimum
Sentences
Sentencing
Based on Accountability, Restitution and Rehabilitation
When
it comes to sentencing, one thing the adversarial nature of our
Justice System does is create an inclination for sentencing based on
punishment and revenge rather than accountability, restitution and
rehabilitation.
But
there is a sentencing model that does just that, Restorative Justice,
using processes such as Sentencing Circles to bring offenders,
victims and communities together.
Restorative
Justice
Restorative justice
is an approach to justice
in which the response to a crime
is to organize a mediation between the victim and the offender, and
sometimes with representatives of a wider community as well. The goal
is to negotiate for a resolution to the satisfaction of all
participants. This may include a restitution to be given from the
offender to the victim, or to take steps to prevent the offender from
causing future harm.
A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take
responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have
caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to
discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, its goal is
to give them an active role in the process.[1]
Restorative justice is founded on an alternative theory to the
traditional methods of justice, which often focus on retribution.
However, restorative justice programs can complement traditional
methods.
Academic assessment of restorative justice is positive. Most studies
suggest it makes offenders less likely to reoffend. A 2007 study also
found that it had the highest rate of victim satisfaction and
offender accountability of any method of justice.[2]
Its use has seen worldwide growth since the 1990s.[3]
Restorative justice inspired and is part of the wider study of
restorative
practices.
Source:
Restorative
justice - Wikipedia
Restorative justice
An
approach to justice issues that focuses on reconciliation and repair
of harm as opposed to conventional retributive approaches. In R.
v. Gladue,
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. wrote: “In general
terms, restorative justice may be described as an approach to
remedying crime in which it is understood that all things are
interrelated and that crime disrupts the harmony which existed prior
to its occurrence, or at least which it is felt should exist. The
appropriateness of a particular sanction is largely determined by the
needs of the victims, and the community, as well as the offender. The
focus is on the human beings closely affected by the crime” (at
726).
Source:
Restorative
justice - Irwin Law
Sentencing circles
Sentencing
circles (sometimes called peacemaking circles) use traditional
circle ritual and structure to involve all interested parties.
Sentencing circles typically employ a procedure that includes: (1)
application by the offender; (2) a healing circle for the victim; (3)
a healing circle for the offender; (4) a sentencing circle; and (5)
follow-up circles to monitor progress.
Circle sentencing
A
method of sentencing sometimes used with Aboriginal offenders (and
occasionally with other offenders). Typically, the judge, lawyers,
police, offender and parents, victim, and other community members and
professionals sit in a circle. Everyone has an opportunity to express
their feelings about the offence and offender, and their views about
an appropriate sentence. If a consensus emerges about an appropriate
sentence, the judge will usually impose this sentence, though the
judge is not obliged to do so. A body of jurisprudence deals with the
appropriateness of circle sentencing for adults, and section 41 of
the YCJA
recognizes the judicially convened “conference,” which includes
the possibility of circle sentencing.
Source:
Circle
sentencing - Irwin Law
Postscript
Outside
of the Justice System we can believe as we choose, no “beyond a
reasonable doubt” is required for individuals to use their own
judgment as to their own beliefs about individuals' guilt.
As
well, individuals, employers, organizations, etc. are completely
entitled to hold people to higher standards than whether they
committed a crime or not. In fact they should. Criminal
responsibility is a pretty low standard, especially for people in
positions of public trust or control over others lives, whether it be
in the workplace or elsewhere.
2018-10-13
On Democracy
What
a better way to restart The Fifth Column than by a treatise on how to
make our democracy actually democratic. Hopefully this will be the
first posting in a newly regenerated Fifth Column.
I write this at a time when there are so many examples of democracy
failing us from the “republic” to the south to our own provincial
government in Ontario. Much of the emphasis has been on our First
Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) electoral system but
the problem goes much deeper than that.
Democracy
Defined
But what is “democracy”. Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent
definition here:
Democracy (Greek:
δημοκρατία dēmokratía,
literally "rule by people"), in modern usage, has three
senses—all for a system of government where the citizens exercise
power by voting. In
a direct
democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote
directly on each issue. In a representative
democracy the citizens elect representatives from among
themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such
as a legislature.
In a constitutional
democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the
framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits
the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment
by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or
freedom of association.
Direct
Democracy
Let us first dismiss the idea of a direct democracy, not just because
it can too easily become the tyranny of the majority but because
modern government is too complex for us to all have the expertise and
knowledge required to govern our societies while maintaining our
normal lives. That is to say governing has become a full time job if
one wants to make rational informed decisions. Thus we have invented
representative democracy where we chose from among ourselves those we
trust to have the wisdom to make judgments in our best interests,
usually those are people that share our philosophical approach to
society. I fear, in this day and age direct democracy, such as a
system of online voting on individual issues (similar to the
“initiatives” used a great deal in the aforementioned republic to
the south), would turn voting into shopping where the best marketing
campaign wins.
Representative
Democracy
Choosing representatives that are accountable to us and represent the
views of all of the voters, not just the majority, to meet and debate
and make laws is what distinguishes democracy from electing a
dictator every four years, which is what the present state of our
democracy appears to be moving towards.
Public
Participation
So we have our first big problem. Democracy requires the
participation of all the people to work. Just looking at voting
statistics, never mind greater participation in the political process
such as choosing candidates and influencing political parties
policies. We have barely over a majority of citizens participating.
Adding the fact that the wealthy and privileged have a greater
participation rate, not to mention greater political influence, than
the poor and vulnerable in our society and we can see that our
democracy is not truly representative.
So how do we increase the participation of the public in the
political process. We have to look first at what is suppressing it,
and to that I see a conspiracy of sorts, not a conspiracy of secret
meetings and plots but a conspiracy of shared interests on behalf of
the ruling class that control our media that influences public
opinion. There is a concerted effort to turn government and
politicians into an evil them and taxes into our money that they take
from us. There is a concerted effort to distance the people from
their government and turn it into the enemy. Ironically that allows
the “ruling classes” to take control of it and make that claim
come true while discouraging the general population from becoming
engaged and involved in evil politics.
Government
is the People
The truth is quite simple. Government is how the people as a whole
make collective decisions for the common good and taxes are how we
spend our money collectively for the common good. It is your
government and your money. Don't let them convince you there is
something evil about it. It is your right and your responsibility to
participate.
First
Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) Electoral System
The other big factor discouraging public participation is that many
feel that with our First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality)
electoral system their votes do not count, that they do not help
determine the composition of the legislature if they do not vote for
the winning candidate, or they feel forced to vote strategically
against the candidate (or party) they least favour rather than for
the candidate (or party) they prefer.
Political
Parties
So let us talk about political parties. Political parties have become
the way that we elect our representatives, at least at the federal
and provincial level. There have been exceptions of independent MPs
or MPPs, but in most of those cases they have been individuals who
were elected as a member of a party and then left it.
Political parties allow individuals with similar ideas to come
together to select candidates to seek election on policies agreed to
by the party members. They also allow elected members with similar
ideas and policies to caucus and work together in the legislature.
And not of least importance they finance election campaigns so
candidates do not have to be wealthy in order to run for office.
Political parties are what makes modern democracy work but in many
ways they are it's biggest problem.
Back in my day, when I was politically active, political parties were
run by party activists, the ones who attended meetings, canvassed
during elections, called voters and put up signs. These were the
people that voted for the parties policies, chose the candidates and
elected the leaders.
Nowadays political parties have decided that it is expedient to use
nomination meetings and leadership votes as a way to recruit new
members. Whoever can recruit the most new members tends to win
nomination votes and leadership candidates that can sign up the most
new members tend to win leadership contests. It is no longer long
term members choosing party candidates and leaders but new members
that tend to make the difference when it comes to these decisions.
And during election campaigns the policy is not taken from the party
policy book but dictated by the leader.
The
Loss of Responsible Government and the Cult of the Leader
We are supposed to be a Westminster style Parliamentary government
with responsible government. Our Prime Ministers and Cabinets are
supposed to be responsible to and accountable to the elected
legislatures and can only hold power when they retain the confidence
of the elected MPs (or MPPs) and they must answer to them with in the
legislature, through such means (but not exclusively) as a daily
question period.
However the power of not only individual MPs but also of Cabinet has
been decreasing ever since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called MPs
nobodies off of Parliament Hill and started centralizing power in the
Prime Minister's Office. This practice was extended by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper and taken to new heights by Ontario Premier Doug Ford,
whose caucus and Cabinet seems extremely reluctant to put any form of
common sense restraint on his exercise of power.
So we have an Ontario Premier who is only in power because of the
votes of new members signed up by the anti-abortion/anti-sex ed lobby
to support their pet candidate who transferred her support to Ford
which tipped the balance of support to him. He did not originally
have the support of the majority of the Tory caucus or a majority of
long term Ontario PC members. Yet now he seems to rule by decree with
neither his cabinet nor caucus willing to exercise their
constitutional role of actually governing.
The
Effect of the First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality)
Electoral System and The Power of Party Leaders
But this, of course is only an extreme case. The more routine
situation is for a party to gain a majority of 60% of the seats of
the legislature with 40% of the total votes. It needs to be noted
these are votes cast for individual members in different
constituencies. However most voters are voting for the party, if not
the leader, rather than the individual MP or MPP.
This leads to one party with 100% of the power and with that 100% of
the power more likely than not to be exercised by the leader, Prime
Minister or Premier.
It is not only the sense of fealty that individual MPs (or MPPs) feel
to the leader that gives him power but party leaders' powers start
with a veto over who can be nominated as a candidate and extend to
allotment of question period time and committee memberships and
critics roles, and paid positions as Cabinet Ministers and
Parliamentary Secretaries for Prime Ministers and Premiers, not to
mention caucus membership. No wonder few MPs or MPPs go against the
leader.
Electoral
Reform, Mixed Member Proportional (MPP) and the Power of Parties and
Leaders.
There is a way to eliminate the absolute power of parties elected
with a minority of votes and
the absolute power of their leaders while electing a legislature that
reflects the will of the voters. It is called Mixed Member
Proportional or MMP.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent definition here:
Mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation
is a mixed
electoral system in which voters get two votes: one to decide the
representative
for their single-seat constituency,
and one for a political party. Seats in the legislature are filled
firstly by the successful constituency candidates, and secondly, by
party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide
votes that each party received.
Canada is not a two-party state. We have a wider variety of political
views than that and a reasonable number of political parties
expressing them. The main effect of a proportional representation
system is that the make-up of the legislature actually reflects views
of the voters and no party gains a majority of the seats with a
minority of votes and and no leader has absolute power. The
government must actually be responsible and accountable to the
legislature. Critics say this is inefficient and a bad thing. But if
efficiency was our goal for government we would not be looking at a
democracy at all.
The fact that a government must be responsible to legislators from
other parties means its own caucus members will expect the party and
leader to be responsible to them also. Indeed there is not one
governing party but a governing legislature as it should be in a
democracy. Practice meets theory.
How would this work in practice. Federally I would propose a
Parliament of 300 members elected as they are now from individual
constituencies using the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system and 100
members allocated proportionally so the make-up of the legislature
reflects the voters party vote preferences. Each voter would have a
vote for an MP representing their constituency and a vote indicating
their party preference.
The proportional representatives would come from party lists known to
voters ahead of time. To ensure greater democratic representation
voters could be given the option to rate the names on their party's
list preferentially and that would be used to select the priority in
which the proportional members are selected from the lists.
Both constituency candidates and party list candidates must be chosen
by a democratic process and not just selected by the party leader,
nor should the leader have an undemocratic veto over the candidates
chosen by this democratic process.
To those concerned about the increased size of the House of Commons
and greater number of politicians I would also eliminate the Senate
so that overall their would be fewer federal politicians than there
are now.
Fringe
Parties and Proportional Representation
One of the criticisms of proportional representation is that it
empowers fringe parties, either of the frivolous kind or more
dangerously those espousing bigotry and hate, providing them with a
voice in the House of Commons (or provincial legislatures).
The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
provides that its provisions are not absolute
1.The
Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society.
Parliamentary
Reforms
If
we want to make party leaders, and Prime Ministers and Premiers,
accountable to Parliament and the Legislature we have to decrease
the powers party leaders have over individual MPs and MPPs. We can
start with eliminating their control over question period access and
committee appointments by making them based on seniority (but still
distributed by party according to percentage of members that would
now be based on popular vote) and having that administered by the
Clerks at the Table. Party critics appointments should be determined
by a democratic process within caucus, not simply by the leader.
Also only a vote of caucus should be able to expel members from a
party caucus, not the dictatorial power of a party leader.
And most importantly party leaders (including Prime Ministers and
Premiers) should not be determined in a dubious process by a small
number of newly recruited party members but chosen by the people's
elected representatives, the members of their Parliamentary or
Legislative caucus and be accountable to them. With this process the
Parliamentary and government leaders are not determined till after
the election by the people's chosen representatives. This puts more
emphasis on the people we actually vote for, no longer leaving them
as a second thought as we vote according to party leaders. While this
will perhaps require a great deal of political will it puts the
representative and responsible back in our democratic system.
And of course Prime Ministers and Premiers (and their Cabinets) must
also retain the confidence of a majority of members of The House of
Commons or provincial legislature.
The House of Commons (and legislatures) should also establish a
review of all parliamentary rules aimed at ensuring the role of the
democratically elected members are strengthened and enhanced.
These proposed electoral and Parliamentary reforms are designed to
ensure that we have a truly representative democracy and not simply a
process to elect a dictator every four years.
Municipal
Elections and Preferential (aka Ranked Ballot) Voting
Some may have noticed that I have not yet written about preferential
or ranked ballot voting where voters list their choices in order of
preference, 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice etc. The main advantage of such a
system is that it prevents the election of the candidate disliked by
the most voters from being elected, as often happens with the First
Past The Post system. But it depends on voters second and third
choices to elect the winner and can, and likely will, result in an
even greater discrepancy between the number of MPs or MPPs elected
per party and the popular vote (according to first choices) received
by each party.
This of course is why it was Justin Trudeau's choice for electoral
reform. Liberals see themselves as a centrist party and everybody's
second choice. They believe preferential voting would likely ensure
them easy victory in every election and even more dominance in the
House of Commons and power for their leader. When it became clear
that federal electoral reform was not likely to take that form they
quickly abandoned their promise of a new electoral system for the
next election.
But there is a place for preferential voting, and that is where
parties are not involved, as in most municipal elections in this
country.
Without parties competing municipal elections tend to be about the
popularity of the incumbent. The other thing about municipal politics
is that a large part of the job of a councillor is considered to be
about participating in community events and being out and about in
the community meeting constituents. In other words, incumbents are
paid to campaign for the next election as part of their job.
Defeating an incumbent is very difficult. Even when most voters want
to throw out the incumbent their votes are usually divided among
several candidates. Preferential ballots allow in effect, holding
simultaneous run-off elections until one challenger is left competing
against the incumbent thus somewhat levelling the playing field where
incumbents have so many advantages.
So I would certainly endorse preferential or ranked ballot voting
for municipal elections.
2017-04-17
Unable to “View in Google Earth” GPS tracks opened in Garmin BaseCamp or Mapsource – Solution
When
I first installed Garmin MapSource (and later BaseCamp) I could open
GPS tracks (gpx files) in it and select “View in Google Earth”
and Google Earth would open and I would be able to see the tracks in
Goggle Earth.
Like
many of you, as my recent online research discovered, a while back I
became unable to do that but instead I saw a message saying I had to
have Google Earth installed (which I did). At that time the solution
was as simple as opening Google Earth before attempting to “View in
Google Earth” from within MapSource.
However
more recently that stopped working and even after re-installing
Goggle Earth I could not view the tracks I had open in MapSource (or
BaseCamp) in Google Earth.
That
is when I went looking online for solutions. The first solutions I
found involved editing the Windows registry which I am very leery of
attempting so I passed on that solution.
The
solution I used involved uninstalling Google Earth and installing an
older previous version of Google Earth which I found at
http://www.oldversion.com/.
The version I installed was version 7.0.2.8415 from
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/google-earth-7-0-2-8415.
This
returned the original functionality of being able to open GPS tracks
in it and select “View in Google Earth” and Google Earth would
open and I would be able to see the tracks in Goggle Earth.
This
did mean that I did not have all the benefits of the newest version
of Google Earth but that was solved by also installing the latest
version of Google Earth Pro now
available free from
https://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html.
After
saving the tracks in the older version of Google Earth I simply
opened the latest version of Google Earth Pro and the tracks were
there to view and edit or manipulate as I wished.
I
should point out that through this troubleshooting process I
uninstalled and re-installed Google Earth several times and never
lost the GPS tracks I had saved in Google Earth and they were all
available in the installed older version of Google Earth and the
newly installed version of Google Earth Pro.
I
hope this solution is helpful to others who have experienced the same
problem as I did.
It
appears I will still need to use the computer version of Google
Earth (version 7) to create Google Earth view maps, though I may
experiment with importing the tracks into the new version to see if
there are any advantages to viewing them from it.
UPDATE
2017-04-18
Today
the new Google Chrome only web-based version of Google Earth (version
9) was released.
On
the basis of a preliminary examination I have discovered the
following.
It
does not appear to have the gpx file import (via MapSource or
BaseCamp) nor the track editing capability that version 7 of Google
Earth or Google Earth Pro does.
You
can, however, get your tracks from Google Earth 7 into the new
version by exporting them to your computer as kml files and then
importing them into Google Earth version 9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
