ISLAM – AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MOVEMENT – NOT A RELIGION

 

1. Introduction

This posting argues that Islam is not a religion as defined by western democratic countries. Many non-democratic mid-eastern countries call it a religion. However, nothing compels western democracies to agree with that definition. In fact, Islam is an anti-democratic political movement masquerading as a religion using features of fascism and communism. Al Queda and the Taliban are its barbaric Gestapo/KGB like enforcers.

Many peace loving Muslims probably bear no ill will to citizens of western democracies. But, within Islam’s political movement are leaders and followers who seek the end of democracy by violent means. It is not up to the western democracies to cull the jihadists from the non-violent Muslims. That is up to the Muslims themselves. Failing to do so, suggests that every Muslim is a potential jihadist unfit for work in government or the military.

2. Islam - an anti-democratic political movement

Here are several differences between anti-democratic Islam and religions in western democracies.

(a) Separation of church and state

Islamic law developed by Islamic religious leaders regulates the day to day life of Muslims including, politics, economics, banking, family matters, etc. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. The unelected theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law and religion are one.

Roman Catholicism has some similarities to Islam since adherents supposedly subscribe to Papal infallibility. But unlike Islam, that Christian religion accepts the principle of separation of church and state. As well few western practicing Catholics accept Papal doctrine about birth control, censorship of reading material, priestly celibacy, etc.

Most western democracies believe in the separation of church and state. This means that government lacks legislative authority in the realm of individual conscience including religion since government has no right to intrude on that personal "liberty of conscience."

b) Anti-democratic fascism, communism and Islam

Fascist and communist political leaders are appointed without contested democratic elections. So are the top Islamic leaders who are called Imams.

Western democracies elect their political leaders by popular vote.

c) Anti-democratic law making by fascist, communist and Islamic Imams

Unelected fascist, communist and Islamic political leaders rule by decree or edict, rather than through laws made by elected legislators.

Western democracies enact laws made by popularly elected legislators. No one is above the law.

d) Anti-democratic law interpretation by fascist, communist judges and Islamic Imams

Fascist and communist judges interpret the laws in accordance with directives from their political leaders.

Islamic Shi'a law believes that Imams are chosen by God to be perfect examples for the faithful and to lead all humanity in all aspects of life. They also believe that all the Imams chosen are free from committing any sin and have a status directly parallel to those of a prophet, infallibility which is called ismah. These leaders must be followed since they are appointed by God.

Judicially independent judges in western democracies interpret the laws enacted by elected legislators without any influence by political leaders.

e) Anti-democratic suicidal practices by the Islamic political movement.

In World War II the Japanese fascist government encouraged suicide Kamikaze pilots to sacrifice their lives for Japan. Islam encourages its believers, including children, to sacrifice their lives for the cause of Islam.

Western democracies consider such conduct to be a crime because they value the life of every human being.

　

f) Anti-democratic hatred of Jews by fascist Germans and the Islamic political movement

Fascist Nazi Germany tried to kill all Jews before and during WW II. So do many Islamic leaders and their followers want to do that today.

Western democracies treat Jews as equals and value their contribution to our societies.

g) Intellectual superiority of Jews over Muslims

There are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Nobel prizes were first awarded in 1901. Since then, Muslims have only managed to win 8 prizes. Five were for Peace; two for literature and one for Chemistry.

Today, there are about 12 million Jews in the world. At least 179 Jews have won Nobel prizes including prizes for Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics.　

Jews have done a great deal for the betterment of mankind. Comparatively speaking, the Muslim contribution is insignificant.

Ordinary Muslims do not have the right of free speech, particularly when it comes to interpreting the Koran. Most western democracies give their citizens the power to interpret the Bible without religious clerical intervention.

Muslim clerics control Islamic thinking through censorship. This robs individual Muslims from expanding their intellect and condemns them to worldwide ignorance. If Muslims were allowed to think for themselves there would be no need for the intervention of Muslim clerics.

That would raise the level of intellect in the Muslim community and make it a contributor to the betterment of mankind.

h) Muslim Women and Islamic headdress

A hijab is the type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women. Most Islamic legal systems define it as covering everything except the face and hands in public. Muslims differ as to how "hijab dress" should be enforced, particularly over the role of religious police enforcing hijab in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A burka is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body. It is worn over the usual daily clothing and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household. The face-veil portion is also called purdah, a Persian word meaning "curtain".

Both of these publicly advertise their religious beliefs as Muslims.

Western democracies know that the public exhibition of religious belief is divisive. That is why most Christians do not publicly hang large crosses around their necks to advertise their religious beliefs. And, most Jews do not wear their religious skull caps in public for the same reason.

The wearing of a hijab or burka signifies that Muslim women’s’ devotion to their anti-democratic political movement takes precedence over the western democracy in which they live.

i) Women and Islamic law

The study of women in Islam deals with the attitudes and beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women within the religion of Islam. The complex relationship between women and Islam is defined by both Islamic texts and the history and culture of the Muslim world. According to some sources, women are equal to men before God.

But that does not square with the many anecdotal stories coming from mid-eastern Islamic states. In some of these states women are not allowed to drive cars. They are sometimes stoned to death for alleged acts of adultery by order of Islamic courts. They can be one of four wives of a man. They can be abused and degraded by men with impunity. They sometimes suffer genital mutilation. They cannot divorce their husbands. If their husband divorces them, they lose their children. Their testimony in Islamic courts is worth half that of their husbands. And so on.

In western democracies women have the same rights as men and those rights are protected by law.

3. Eliminating Islam as a religion in Canadian society

As a western democracy, Canada has the legal right to decide which organization is a religion and which one is not. From the above discussion, it seems clear that Islam is an anti-democratic political movement and not a religion.

If Canadian cities and municipalities declined to define Islam as a religion, it would remove any local property tax benefits that Islam may now have. Islamic Mosques and buildings would be treated as commercial property and subject to municipal taxes based on their fair market values.

Similarly, if federal and provincial taxing authorities found Islam did not meet the qualifications of a religion, monies that Muslims or others pay to the Islamic political movement would no longer be tax deductible as charitable donations.

Unlike Islamist countries, Muslims would have the right to prove in Canadian courts before independent judges that Islam is a religion as that word is commonly used in Canada.

If they lose, they can still carry on as Muslims but with a huge stigma attached. Other levels of government may then seek to marginalize them from our democratic society.

Bottom line:

1. Canada and western democracies can no longer tolerate the acceptance of Islam as a religion.

2. In fact, it is an anti-democratic political movement with overtones of fascism and communism. If allowed to flourish, that will be the end of western democracies.

3. Should western democracies embrace the Trojan Horse of Islam, they will be dragged down to its level of ignorance,

23 November 2009

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CANADA AND QUEBEC – AN ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT

1. An apology.

   Over the past three months I have been affected by a serious health problem and could not keep up with my postings. I am hopeful for a complete recovery but there may be some bumps along the way. To my loyal visitors and others I apologize for not keeping you better Informed.  Thank you for your patience.

2. Introduction

   Even if we do not engage in the much needed constitutional changes as mentioned on this site, something must be done to resolve the constant political and legal battles that Quebec and the Rest of Canada (ROC) fight on an almost daily basis. It is a waste of both our energies.
   Canadians in one province should never be forced to remain in Canada if the majority of their constituents wish to leave. Nor should the ROC be forced to bribe them to remain within Canada using federal tax breaks and other benefits not generally available to Canadians in other provinces.

3. Geography

   If Quebec voted to separate from Canada that would likely impede land and water access to the Maritime Provinces and the St. Lawrence by citizens from the ROC. How can this be accommodated?

4. The European Union model for Canada and Quebec
  
   Nations who are members of the European Union (EU) elect their own governments and enact their own local laws to meet the needs of their local citizens. They can also travel back and forth between EU countries without having to pass through customs and immigration and provide a passport. Those are only necessary when they enter the EU from a non EU country; e.g. Canada and the USA.

5. Adapting the EU model to Quebec and the ROC

    Assuming a majority of Quebecers vote to separate from Canada, then Canada and Quebec should enter into an EU type agreement:
• Just as Polish citizens work in EU countries such as Ireland, a Canadian/Quebec arrangement would allow Canadians and Quebecers to travel back and forth and work freely in one another’s country without showing a passport.
• Quebecers could make French their national language and Canada would make English theirs.
• Quebecers could use the Canadian dollar, the French Franc or any  other currency they might select.
• Quebec and Canada would need similar legislation governing visas and immigration into their nations as well as similar fees and taxes payable on the importation of goods and services.
• Instead of a European Union type Parliament and its enormous bureaucracy there would be a Canada/Quebec Commission with a neutral Chairperson that would resolve inter-jurisdictional disputes.
• Etc.

Bottom Line:

1. The European Union seems to meet the needs of various European nations who speak many different languages and have many different customs.
2. Canada and Quebec could learn from this experience and craft a similar arrangement.
3. Each could then concentrate on improving their own situations without having to involve the other.
22 August 2009

CANADA’S NEW CONSTITUTION – REJUVENATING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE

Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progressof the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed,
and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances,
institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.

Thomas Jefferson
12 July 1816  

1. Introduction

   Jefferson’s words apply today. Canada’s Constitution is the product of English Parliamentary thinking in 1867. Today, circumstances are quite different. Between elections, we do not want the ultimate power of government to exist in the hands of Prime Ministers and Premiers. It must be shared by them with legislators and the judiciary through a system of checks and balances. Only then can we call ourselves a democracy.
   The following is a primer outlining the highlights for a new democratic Constitution.

2. English dissatisfaction with its Parliamentary system

   Like Canada, English political observers are beginning to comment critically on how its Parliamentary system has descended into one person rule between elections. In an 11 August 2009 article a Conservative columnist Frederick Forsythe remarked that every five years the public troop to the polls “to elect a parliamentary dictator.” Once in power as Prime Minister that person does “virtually what he wants.”
   Party members are “terrified of the whips and are timorous little serfs of the party machine terrified of the whips and slavishly obedient. They are supposed to represent us out here in the provinces, yet between elections we are just about irrelevant. This utter sense of utter helplessness causes a national turn off from politics.”
   These observations are no different in Canada’s yet politicians in all political parties pretend the situation does not exist. There do not appear to be any English or Canadian writers who offer an alternative. This site attempts to do so by recommending a democratic system similar to that of America.
 
2. Comparing the American federal House of Representatives with the Canadian House of Commons

   The American House of Representatives is roughly equivalent to our House of Commons. America has a population of about 330,000,000. Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, often called Congressman/ Congresswoman, has a constituency of about 600,000 people.
   Canada has a population of about 3,300,000. Each of the 308 members of the House of Commons (MPs) represents about 10,700 Canadians.  Comparably, we are grossly over governed. Part of this may be necessary since our population is more spread out than it is in America.

3.  Relationship between the President and the House of Representatives

   Presidents of the United States are not members of the House of Representatives. Presidents may submit legislation for the consideration of the Congressmen but they are not legally bound to enact it.  Congressmen who are members of the same political parity as the President are not duty bound to vote in favour of the legislation. Party loyalty is not strictly enforced. Congressmen may amend the legislation if they deem it necessary or they may reject it altogether. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Presidents eventually get their way about 75% of the time with or without amendments.

4.  Relationship between Canadian Prime Ministers and the House of Commons

   Canadian Prime Ministers are both the heads of the executive (civil service) branch and heads of the political party that has the majority of members in the House of Commons. Prime Ministers propose legislation for passage by the House of Commons. Members of the Prime Minister’s political party must vote for legislation proposed by Prime Ministers under the political doctrine of party loyalty.

5. Benefits to Canadians of a reformed House of Commons

   Under a new Constitution making the House of Commons a separate but equal branch of government, Prime Ministers will not be members of the House. They will be free to submit legislation for consideration of the House. It may enact the law in whole or in part. Here are some features that will make government more representative of the people and will divide power between the three braches of government.

 The End of Question Period

• Question Period will be a thing of the past since Prime Ministers will not be members of the House of Commons. Canadians will no longer have to tolerate the embarrassing spectacle of MPS shouting and yelling insults at one another. It is not the way that laws should be made and it degrades the sanctity of Parliament.

Members Speaking in the House

• When MPs wish to speak on a motion they will address the Speaker of the House who presides over its procedures from the front centre of the room.  Other MPs will have their backs or sides to those listening instead of raging at the speaker from across the aisle.

Initial control over taxation legislation

• All money bills will initiate in the House of Commons either though proposed laws sent to the House by Prime Ministers or by MPs themselves, of whatever party they belong.

Fixed four year elections for MPs and Prime Ministers

• MPS will stand for election every four years at the same time elections are held for the position of Prime Minister. Prime Ministers will be confined to two four year terms of office.

End of loss of confidence procedures
• No longer will Canadians be inconvenienced by interim elections because loss of confidence votes will be a thing of the past. Bills introduced by MPs or sent by Prime Ministers for consideration by the House fail to pass will just require the proponents to try harder the next time.

MPs may vote against the party leaders’ directions from time to time
•  Bipartisanship will be an important feature. Freed from the rigid constraints of strict party loyalty, MPs will have the opportunity to vote outside the party line from time to time if they believe that is in the best interests of their constituents and the nation.

MPs will control committee policies and membership
• MPs will control the number of Committees and who will serve on them. Prime Ministers will no longer control Committee membership or the authority of the Committees since Prime Ministers will not be members of the legislative branch

MPs and Senators will have their own investigation branch
• Together with the Senate, the House of Commons will have an investigative accountability office that conducts investigations of their behalf including how effectively the executive branch administers their legislation.

3. Comparing the American Senate with the Canadian Senate
 
 The American Senate 

   With a population of 330,000,000, America has a total of 100 Senators divided into two Senators for each of the 50 states. Senators possess a great deal of control over presidential powers. For example, Presidents must get the approval of the Senate to sign foreign treaties; to appoint federal judges, cabinet ministers and other executive branch officials; etc.
   The Senate may present non-money bills for debate. Any bill does not become law until it receives the approval of the House, the Senate and the President.

The Canadian Senate

    With a population of about one tenth the size of America, Canada has 105 Senators. Their numbers are spread disproportionately across the nation.  Canadian Senators are not elected. They are appointed by Prime Ministers as vacancies or needs arise. They must retire at age 75. Because they are unelected, they tend to do the bidding of the House of Commons and Prime Ministers. Their main purpose is a place of sober second thought with respect to legislation passed by the House of Commons.
   So much has been written about Senate reform that it is impossible to summarize them in a few words. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

4. A new Canadian Senate

    Electing Senators

• Picking the number of Senators to represent each province must be arbitrary. Besides, all the Senators in any province may or may not vote as a bloc. Some may come from different political parties. Others might have more concerns about rural issues as opposed to city ones. Etc.
Here is a comparison between the number of Senate seats now allowed by the Constitution and the reduced numbers for the new Senate:
Province                     Present Senate               New Senate
1. British Columbia                   6                               5
2. Alberta                                 6                               5
3. Saskatchewan                      6                               5
4. Manitoba                              6                               5
5. Ontario                               24                             11
6. Quebec                              24                             11
7. New Brunswick                   10                              4
8. Nova Scotia                        10                              4
9. Prince Edward Island           4                               4
10. Newfoundland & Labrador 6                               4
11. North West Territories*      1                               0

12. Yukon Territory*                1                               0
Total                                     104                             56

*Notes: Because they have relatively smaller populations and are not provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory should not have a seat in the Senate. Instead they should be granted additional seats in the House of Commons. The list comes from s. 22 of the Constitution Act. It only adds up to 204 seats instead of 205. The additional seat may have been given to the Territory of Nunavut but it is not mentioned in s. 22.  Again it might receive an additional seat in the House of Commons to make up for the loss of a Senate seat. 

 Senators as law makers
    Besides supervising Prime Ministers’ appointments, and supporting or amending House legislation in conference, the Senate may also propose non-money legislation for approval by the House and the Prime Minister.

Bottom Line:
1. This is just a sketch of how a new Constitution might come together. It will require the best brains with open minds and a nation wide grass roots debate.
2.  Probably, existing political parties will condemn it with vigor since it will mark the end of their leaders' opportunities to govern Canada autocratically.
18 August 2009

CANADA’S NEW CONSTITUTION – RE-ARRANGING FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL JURISDICTIONS

To make us one nation as to foreign concerns, &
keep us distinct in Domestic ones, gives the outline
of the proper division of powers between the
general and particular governments.

James Madison
16 December 1786

Introduction

   James Madison’s astute observation applies to nations with large geographical areas such as Canada, Australia and American. They reveal an obvious truth. The more power a Constitution gives to local authorities for resolving local issues the more loyal they are to their far away central governments.
   Canada’s 1867 Constitution in the form of a British Statute tries to divide up the legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments. With few exceptions, provinces just have the right to legislate on property and civil rights. Almost everything else falls within federal jurisdiction. It is a recipe for disintegration.
   After 1867, an English court called the Privy Council resolved constitutional disputes between the provinces and the federal government. For the most part, Privy Council decisions favoured the provinces.
Canada abandoned appeals to the Privy Council in 1949. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) then replaced it as the court of last resort. Since then, most experts agree that SCC constitutional decisions on intergovernmental disputes tend to favour the federal government.
   This posting argues that because of Canada’s population growth since 1867 some areas of federal constitutional authority should now be turned over in whole or in part to the provinces. They have the advantage of local circumstances that often vary from province to province. They can better craft a solution than can national legislators from ten different provinces and three different territories. None of them reside in more than one province.

CANADA’S NEW CONSTITUTION – DIVISION OF POWERS – LEGISLATORS - PRIME MINISTERS AND PREMIERS

The way to have good and safe government,
is not trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many,
distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Thomas Jefferson, 1816

1. Introduction

   Under our existing 1867 Constitution, Canadian Prime Ministers and Premiers possess enormous unchecked powers allowing them to govern autocratically during their terms of office.
   They control the legislative branch as leaders of the political party with the most number of seats in their legislative bodies.
   They also control the executive branches as First Ministers of their respective governments. Dangerously, Prime Ministers claim a third right of appointing senior judges to Canadian superior, trial and appellate courts as well as the Federal Court. Premiers have similar rights with respect to Provincial Court trial judges.
   This right to exercise absolute power is not mentioned in the written part of our 1867 Constitution. Instead it arises from unwritten practices called conventions. Without them, the English Parliamentary system of government could not function.
   Jefferson was right when he said in effect that for good and safe government, powers must be divided among many and not just given to Prime Ministers and Premiers.
   This posting outlines how a new Canadian Constitution would rid us of Prime Ministers and Premiers who govern autocratically by using unwritten conventions and compel them to rule democratically under a written Constitution.

2. Name changes for Canada’s executive branch leaders

    Americans call the heads of their federal executive branch leaders “Presidents”. Canada calls them “Prime Ministers”.  American States call their executive branch leaders “Governors”. Canadian provinces call them “Premiers.”
   In recognition of our English heritage, a new Canadian Constitution, should continue calling the elected leader of the federal executive branch; “Prime Minister”. Leaders of the new provincial executive branches would retain the title of “Premier.” Instead of having “Vice Prime Ministers” and “Vice Premiers,” we should use the prefix “Associate” rather than “Vice.”

3. Preserving names for Canada’s governmental institutions

   Canada calls its lower legislative chambers the “House of Commons.”
Americans call their similar legislative branch the “House of Representatives.” Canada and America call their upper chambers the “Senate.” Canada calls their two legislative chambers “Parliament.” America calls its two, “Congress.”
   For the reasons set out above I prefer retaining English titles of Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the Senate.
   Every Canadian province has just one legislative body. Every American state but one (Nebraska) has two.
  American state Constitutions vary from state to state. States often are referred to as the “laboratories of democracy.” 

4. Discarding the positions of federal Governor Generals and provincial Lieutenant Governors – fixed election dates

   Theoretically, federal Governor Generals and Provincial Lieutenant Governors represent the reigning British Monar ch. Federal appointees of Governors General are made by Prime Ministers. Provincial appointees of Lieutenant Governors are made by federal Governors General. Probably they act on the advice of Provincial Premiers. They usually have a five year term of office, subject to renewal. A recent Globe and Mail survey found that 65% of Canadians believe ties to the British Crown should be dropped once Queen Elizabeth dies. That would mean the end of our Consitution since Governor Generals are appointed by the reigining British Monarch and Canda would no longer have "a constitution similar to that of the United KIngdom."

    Another unwritten political convention arises when the majority members in the federal House of Commons vote no confidence in the party in power. Governor Generals are then called upon to decide whether that party should continue governing, whether the opposition should govern in its place or whether there should be an election. When similar circumstances occur in the provinces, Lieutenant Governors make those decisions.
   A new Canadian Constitution will set fixed elections dates every four years for Prime Ministers and Premiers. Occasions may then arise when the minority party rejects the majority party’s proposed legislation. This will not result in an election or a change in power as can happen today. Nor will it affect the heads of the executive branches who will not be members of the legislative branches.
   Political parties will just have to sort out their differences internally and not bother the public with unwanted elections.
   Consequently, the position of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor will become redundant. Canada may still choose to be a member of the British Commonwealth. 

5. Major Constitutional Reforms – Prime Ministers and Premiers

  Canada’s new Constitution should include the following major reforms

• Electing Prime Ministers and Premiers
   Today, leaders of political parties who seek the position of Prime Minister or provincial Premier run for election in their own separate constituencies. Just a few electors vote for the person who will be the next Prime Minister or Premier.
   Reform:
Candidates for the position of Prime Minister or Premier should be elected by all eligible federal or provincial voters for a term of four years.

• Additional lengths of time in office for Prime Ministers and Premiers
  Prime Ministers and Premiers may now stay in office so long as their political party continues getting the majority of seats in the House of Commons. That is unreasonable.
   Reform:
Prime Ministers’ and Premiers’ terms of office will be restricted to four years, renewable once for another four years.

• Appointing senior members of the executive branch

   While in office, Prime Ministers and Premiers now administer laws enacted by their respective legislators through the Cabinet Members they appoint.
   Reform:
   The new Constitution will still allow Prime Ministers and Premiers to appoint these senior executive branch members. Federally, they will require approval from the federal Senate. Provincially, they will require approval from their State legislators.

• Legislative authority of Prime Ministers and Premiers

   Today, Prime Ministers and Premiers present legislation to their legislative bodies for their consideration and passage. During that process legislators debate the quality and necessity for the new legislation.
   Reform:
   The new Constitution will still give Prime Ministers and Premiers the right to deliver proposed legislation to their respective legislators for their approval. Outside the legislative debates Prime Ministers and Premiers may still lobby these legislators to enact the legislation.

• Vetoing legislation passed by the federal Parliament or by  provincial Legislators

   Today, laws enacted by the federal House of Commons and the Senate, as well as those enacted by provincial legislators, come into effect on the signatures of federal Governor Generals or provincial Lieutenant Governors. Those individuals act on the advice of Prime Ministers or Premiers. In modern times, they accept such advice and pen their signatures.
   Reform 
   Under the new Constitution, the offices of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor will disappear. Prime Ministers and Premiers will then sign those documents into law.
A new Constitution will give Prime Ministers and Premiers the right to veto legislation enacted by their respective legislators. However, their legislative bodies may override the veto with a two-thirds vote of their members.

Bottom line
1.  These are but a few changes designed to make Canada’s governmental systems more democratic. Other recommendations will follow in future postings.
2.  Without these reforms, political leaders will contine to govern autocraically and Canada will never achieve its rightful destiny.
30 June 2008

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A NEW BEGINNING – AN OVERVIEW

There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers
are united in the same person or body or magistrates or, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

Montesquieu
1689-1755

1. Introduction

   Canada’s 1867 Constitution places almost all the trust and power of government in the hands of federal Prime Ministers and provincial Premiers. That arrangement does not qualify us as a democracy. To become one, we must have a division of authority between the head of the executive branches controlled by Prime Ministers and Premiers and the elected legislators who represent the people.
   This and following postings outline how we can achieve this desirable democratic status. Without that accomplishment, Canada will remain an autocratic state with touches of democracy here and there.

2. The American model

   I make no apology for recommending many American constitutional principles. They will help convert Canadian governments from autocratic to democratic rule.
   In 1791 the constitutional rights of individuals became part of the American Constitution in its Bill of Rights. About 191 years later in 1982 Canadians received similar rights by the passage of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let’s not wait another 191 years after Canadian confederation in 1867 to get a democratic Constitution.

3. Inspirational language

   In 1867 Canadian politicians gave British parliamentary draftsmen a brief summary of the important features they wished included in the BNA Act. Its final form is like any ordinary statute lacking statements of hope and aspirations.  Nor did it make Canada independent of Great Britain. It just raised Canada’s status a bit above that of a British colony. Embarrassingly, a section of the 1867 Act still gives the British government the power to disallow federal Canadian statute laws within one year of their making.
    A new Constitution must have words that inspire Canadians, not just words used by Parliamentary drafters. Framers of the Constitution should include eloquent statements of democratic principles for all Canadians to read before the final draft is circulated. Once accepted by a Constitutional Convention, the draft must be approved by a vote of the people or by a vote of their representatives.
   It will not be just a statute of the British or Canadian Parliaments. Rather, it will stand independently as a document approved by the Canadian people binding upon all law makers and every citizen.

4. Opposition to change

   Besides the natural reaction of most people to change, politicians and others in high office tend to resist it more feverishly. They naturally favour the status quo since it allows those in command to exercise power, relatively free of constitutional restraints.
   Opposition parties seldom criticize the system. Apparently, they want it left intact so if they achieve power, they too can then impose their will on the people arbitrarily.
   Through the collective good sense of the Canadian public these politically entrenched attitudes can be overcome.

4. Schedule of postings

   Three main topics highlight the following debate. They are:
• The position and authority of Prime Ministers and Premiers
• The organization and authority of legislators
• The role of the judiciary
   Others might get added.
25 June 2009

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE DEMOCRATIC FAILURE OF THE BRITISH AND CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

Preamble to the British North America Act 1867

1. Introduction

   In 1867 the British government gave Canada its Constitution by way of a British statute called the British North America Act.
   This posting argues that the Constitution no longer meets the needs of Canadians. It should be abandoned and replaced by a modern Constitution acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
I start with the circumstances that existed in Britain from about 1832 to the late 1800s and how they played a part in the development of Canada’s governmental institutions.  At the end, I mention recent remarks by British commentators about the failures of the British Parliamentary system of government.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – 2009 B.C. ELECTION – VOTER TURNOUT – MANDATORY VOTING

1. Introduction

   British Columbia just completed a general election. Media commentators and politicians worry about the relatively poor voter turnout. In 1983 it was 70.5%. Gradually it declined and in 2005 it was down to 58.19%. In 2009 it fell to 48.13%.
   To get some idea of whether B.C. is out of step with similar democratic jurisdictions, this posting compares the voter turnout situation in other comparable nations. It also discusses probable reasons for the decline not often mentioned in polite company.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EXCESSIVE POWER- CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

1. Introduction

   Not one of the three candidates for Premier in the 12 May 2009 election has elevated the quality of political debate by discussing and answering important questions relating to the Constitution and the civil and criminal justice systems. 
   On the other hand, members of the public often mention these issues in their letters to newspaper editors and their calls to radio talk shows.
   Here are issues and questions that the public and interviewers could ask the three candidates to test their suitability for high office.

CANADA’S CONSTITUTION – A BROKEN MODEL – TIME FOR A CHANGE

1. Introduction
 
   In 1867 the U.K. Parliament enacted the British North America Act (BNA Act). Its purpose was to create a Constitution for Canada by establishing a federal state led by a hereditary British monarch.
The four British Colonies of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia became provinces within a federal government located in Ottawa. What are now the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, P.E.I. and Newfoundland & Labrador joined the federation by 1949.
   This posting tries to illustrate how our 1867 British made Constitution no longer meets the needs of our modern Canadian society. It also recommends how and what changes should be made.

2. The United Kingdom’s unwritten Constitution and conventions

   In 1867 the U.K. did not have a written Constitution. It still doesn’t. Unwritten U.K. customs or conventions and a few British statutes govern the relationship between the Monarch, the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary. Similar conventions control the authority of U.K. Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and many U.K. Parliamentary procedures.
   The preamble to the 1867 British statute declares that Canada desires to have “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” Canadian politicians often use those words to invent unwritten “conventions” that become constitutional principles.
 Sometimes Canadian Parliamentarians ignore U.K. constitutional conventions. For example, until recently the head of the English judiciary (Lord Chancellor) also was a member of the U.K. Cabinet and the House of Lords. That is like having Canada’s Chief Justice a member of federal and provincial Cabinets and a member of the Canadian Senate!

4. Federal and provincial application of conventions

   Canadian Prime Ministers invent and enforce these unwritten conventions. Provincial Premiers do the same for each of their provinces. Some follow U.K. conventions and some are homemade. Here are a few Canadian examples in the federal field:
• Governor Generals must act on the advice of Prime Ministers in most instances.
• Prime Ministers may appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers.
• They may exclusively appoint individuals to the Senate.
• They may also appoint the members of the Supreme Court of Canada, all Chief Justices of the provincial superior trial and appellate courts and of the Federal trial and appellate Courts.
• They may call elections within five years of the preceding election at any time of their choosing.
• On the advice of a Canadian Prime Minister, Her Majesty the Queen may deny Canadian citizens the right to accept an honourary U.K. title (Conrad Black).
http://www.realwomenca.com/archives/newsletter/2001_july_august/articles_1.html
• Etc.
   Written sections of the BNA Act are subject to judicial review. Unwritten Conventions are not, no matter how arbitrary they may be.

5. Provincial Constitutions

   Provinces have Constitutions enacted by their legislators. Unlike true Constitutions legislators can alter them without public approval.
   Provinces only have one elected chamber called by various names such as the Provincial Legislature, the Legislative Assembly, etc. They do not have a second chamber such as a Senate. The political heads of the provinces are called Premiers. These Premiers also invent and act on conventions that are similar in nature to those in the federal field.

6. Disallowance of federal and provincial legislation

   The 1867 B.N.A. Act gives Britain’s executive branch of government the right to disallow any laws enacted by Canada’s federal parliament within one year of their passage. Canada’s executive branch has a similar right to disallow any laws enacted by the provinces within two years of their enactment.
   Those rights fell into disuse around the mid 1940s. Nonetheless, they remain an embarrassing part of Canada’s written Constitution destroying our image of an independent nation..

7. Division of federal parliamentary powers

   Federal legislators enact federal laws. Federal executive branch members administer those laws – except for criminal law. It is administered by provincial executive branches. The executive branch is by far the most important since it collects the taxes and controls how that money is spent.
   A U.K. and Canadian Parliamentary convention pretends that the executive branch of government is responsible to the legislative branch. That is only true in limited circumstances.
   Flouting the principle of democratic responsible government, the B.N.A. Act allows Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers to be both members of the legislative and executive branches of government. Under the convention of party loyalty Prime Ministers control the majority vote in the House of Commons.   This allows Prime Ministers to control both the federal governments’ executive and legislative branches. They then are just responsible to themselves!
   Consequently, there is little in the way of checks and balances whereby Canada’s elected legislative branch can control or supervise the day to day activities of the mostly non-elected executive branch.

8. Repatriating Canada’s Constitution - 1982

   In 1982, Canadian politicians misled the public by alleging they were bringing back or repatriating Canada’s Constitution (the B.N.A. Act) from the U.K. to Canada.
   Firstly, it could never be “brought back” to Canada since it was never here in the first place. It was and still is an 1867 U.K. statute law.
   Secondly, as a statute of the U.K. Parliament, theoretically it can be amended or repealed by that Parliament at any time, with or without Canada’s consent.
   Thirdly, the upsetting sections on disallowance remain in place giving the U.K. Cabinet the power to set aside any Canadian federal laws it does not like.

Bottom Line:

1. Prime Ministers and Premiers are not necessarily to blame for the state of our written and unwritten Constitution. Without unwritten conventions government probably could not function.
2. Ancient mid 19th century thinking on the constitutional organization of government in the form of the B.N.A. Act no longer works for modern day Canada because the executive branch is not accountable to the legislative branch. 
3. Slowly, the U.K. is becoming part of the European Union. Its interest in Canada steadily dwindles.
4. Canada should have a Constitution developed and approved by Canadians: not one legislated by British Parliamentarians.
5. We should convene a Constitutional Commission whose limited number of members would be selected by popular vote.
6. The new Constitution should contain checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
7. Prime Ministers as heads of the executive branch should be elected by all Canadians, subject to term limits.
8. Every constitutional principle should be in writing thereby eliminating unwritten conventions.
9. Matters dealing with the constitutional authority of the legislative and executive branches should be subject to judicial review.
10. Provincial Constitutions should be similar in principle to the federal Constitution with the option of having just one legislative body instead of two.  
4 February 2008