Friday, December 31, 2004

Force = Democracy in Canada??

Happy New Year? Fine me you thugs!

Canadians should be forced to vote in federal elections or face a hefty fine, a Liberal senator is proposing in draft legislation. Mac Harb has tabled amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would require all eligible voters to cast ballots. His bill, S-22, has cleared the first of three required readings to become law.

"Despite its name, mandatory voting will actually enhance Canadians' rights in our democratic society," Harb said in a prepared statement.

"Low turnout rates disenfranchise the most vulnerable in our country and this legislation will boost the legitimacy and efficacy of our democratic institutions."

Harb's bill also proposes the ballot have an additional "none of the candidates" option if voters don't like the choice of candidates.
Unbelievably, it would seem that only Maria McClintock of the London Free Press has reported on this proposed legislation. A google search brings up the draft of the bill from the parlimentary website and the free press article. Maybe I am missing something, but this seems like a potentially serious violation of personal freedoms and hence something that I would have thought would be reported in sources of mainstream and 'lowstream' media alike. Anyone remember Communist Russia?

On the subject of mandatory voting, I submit the following excerpt, courtesy of Libertocracy,
All political-states, (being the monopolization of violence over a given territory and its people) must manufacture legitimacy, because no one in their right mind would surrender their freedom and consent to be robbed, enslaved and continually victimized by a criminal organization who is at war against their fundamental human rights and will destroy the lives of those who dare to be free. The appearance of legitimacy under monarchist and theocratic regimes traditionally came from the myth of a divine being who put the tyrant on the throne and spoke for the people by presuming to give their permission to be his slaves. Once the divine right myth was shattered, aspiring tyrants had to invent new lies to deceive the people and manufacture new illusions of legitimacy. The illusion of legitimacy of the so-called democratic and republican "consent of the people" systems comes from the point of a gun, only the tactics and lies that are used are different.
   While under a dictator, the people know that they are slaves and the dictator is their enemy, they can then cooperate to overthrow the dictator and liberate themselves. However, the victims of democracy are deceived into thinking that they are the government and every atrocity perpetrated against them is with their consent. Democratic regimes are more aggressive in corrupting the hearts and minds of the people in turning them into millions of little dictators who continually work to coerce others into submitting to a system ruled by avaricious savages who fight for power to impose their opinions on others and rob their neighbors to fund their own preferred agendas. Democracy knows no limits to the intrusion on the individual's body, behavior or even one's mind, a democracy, in fact, acts as a poisonous religion that seeks to contaminate the souls of its victims and destroy the resistance of individual freedom and conscience. In democracies' war against the individual conscience, it is not enough to merely force the subjects to submit to mob rule at the point of a gun, democrats have more contempt for the individual than most monarchs who simply wanted to force the subjects to work to serve royal power, while democrats want not only that, they want the minds and souls of their victims as well by forcing them to consent. While a slave master forces the body of the subjects to work, the democrat primarily attacks the mind of the subject to control thought and behavior, with physical slavery being the secondary manifestation of the tyranny over the conscience. While democracy attacks all individual rights, the next step in democratic tyranny is to go beyond mob rule force that allows individuals at least the dignity of choosing not to participate in the indignity of voting to select their masters, to manufacturing artificial consent by forcing the subjects to vote at the point of a gun. That's what some democratic tyrants now support, mandatory voting, rounding up subjects and marching them to the polling place and forcing them to choose their masters. This seemingly most undemocratic action is seen by the democrats as a way to develop democratic participation in the political system. Several countries enforce mandatory voting, which makes their corrupt masquerade of a government completely illegitimate.
Update: The Toronto Sun and The Ottawa Sun have printed the story.


Mike said...

Did Paul Martin meet with Puff Daddy while he was in Libya?

VW said...

Remember that there are two other hurdles for this bill to pass, and the first hurdle is a biggie: passage in the House of Commons.

This means that Senator Harb has to find someone to introduce and sponsor the bill in the House. The odds of this happening are not all that good; Senator Harb spent most of his MP career as a backbencher and thus is more inclined to follow orders rather than be a leader and take the initiative, and this would hamper his ability to get an MP to listen to him.

Bear in mind that this, like the majority of bills which originate in the Senate, is essentially a private member's bill and something not initiated by the government. Since the Liberals tend to rely on the power of public indifference / inertia to stay in power, and since this bill would cause the indifference to evaporate, odds are that the PM and Cabinet will not be enthusiastic.

Senator Harb should be aware that education, not legislation, is the key to public participation in democracy. The citizen will vote not because he's ordered to, but because he's been persuaded that it's a good idea.

MapMaster said...

Senator Harb SHOULD be aware that education and not legislation would make the difference in getting people to vote. But he is clearly not aware of this - look at his comments about the vulnerable in society benefiting from compulsion - and how many others feel this way too? It's not legislation that has got me thinking about quitting smoking, but there's that legislation anyway.

I imagine you're right, VW, about the chances of this bill becoming legislation. I certainly hope so! But if he's going to go to the trouble of drafting a bill to make me do something I don't want to do on a particular day, I'm at least going to go to the trouble of pointing out the idiocy of his arguments!

The real idiocy is thinking that forcing people to vote would somehow legitimize any government of free people.

Lisa said...

I agree that this bill is not likely to pass; I suppose my point is that this even reached a draft stage in the first place. Many might rightly point out that the London Free Press was seemingly the only news source to draw attention to this proposed piece of legislation - I suppose in a round about way this changes but parodoxically reinforces my viewpoint on this issue: get it into the public consciousness. Afterall, mandatory voting exists in Australia and let us not forget communist Russia

Anonymous said...

Damnit guys... I've been reading your stuff trying to figure out if you're right or left wing.. Lisa's opinions are pretty cut and dried, but how is one to do a review of a site based around ideas that I support if the idealogy keeps changing? *sigh*

I guess I'll just keep reading and make up my mind in time.. I'm all for the "London politicians are right-wing, annoying, pandering lapdogs" though.. (I know, you didn't say it, but I did..)

Anyhow, though my confusion means nothing but a delay in my review, keep up the posting. :) Well done from a dedication perspective, anyhow. :)

gm said...

"London politicians are right-wing, annoying, pandering lapdogs" though.. (I know, you didn't say it, but I did..)

The correct word is "Left" in "London politicians are left-wing, annoying, pandering lapdogs"

MapMaster said...

Thanks, gm, for pointing that out. That was confusing! As far as the distinction between right and left wings, I cannot do any better than send you to
Mike's post above, Ceci n'est pas un pipe, if you haven't seen it already. That all said, if you want to call me a right-winger, I don't really mind. I know what it means to me, anyway, even if others don't.

Speaking of mandatory voting, however, one of the interesting comments about the subject came from Canada's own chief electoral officer in 2000, for anyone who thinks that it can't happen here. Sen. Harb ain't an original thinker, it wouldn't seem. Also from Libertocracy if you haven't read the whole thing:

"After a record low of 60.5% of eligible voters turned out for the 2000 Canadian elections, the country's chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, [warned] that Parliament might have to pass a statute forcing the citizen-slaves to vote ... if voting continues to decline.
He claimed "he finds the idea of a law compelling citizens to vote "repugnant," reported the National Post,(2) he said "it might be needed if the participation rate continues to decline."
"So far, I didn't think it was necessary, but if we start dipping below 60%, I'm going to have to change my mind," the enemy of humanity said. Asked point blank if he would support mandatory voting, he replied: "If the participation rate continues to drop, yes." Showing a dangerous mental instability and violent disregard for human rights, he said: "Sometimes, in order to save democracy, you have to do things that might seem to run a little bit against it." "

Anonymous said...

Nah, I stay with my right-wing call. They are the puritans incarnate. Nudie bars = bad. Sin = bad. They're like george bush, without the texas...

MapMaster said...

I'm going to go with Mike Brock's words on the subject of right vs. left wings:

"It seems to me, that ... people have some crazy belief that the label of right-wing carries with it intrinsically, a set of social and theological agendas, of which one must a part of, if one considers oneself a right-winger...

I happen to define Left vs. Right on a much more basic socioeconomic plain. People on the left support bigger government, the welfare state, and a more centrally managed economy, whilst people on the right support smaller government, more individualism, and a much more free and market-oriented economy; with that comes absolutely no social agenda such as gay marriage rights, abortion rights, or other such absurdities. Being against gay marriage is NOT a right-wing stance, there are many “left-wing Liberals” for instance who openly oppose it; there is at least one member of the NDP who opposes it. [The] idea that by saying you are “right-wing” automatically brings with it, the implication that you take a certain stand on social issues is crazy."

City council is, ergo, almost completely left-wing in makeup (Paul van Meerbergen is an exception). Have you heard the stuff that comes out of the mouths of Susan Eagle, Sandy White, Harold Usher, David Winninger, etc.? Does not city council pay handsomely for social services with property tax money, money that by definition if anything should be used for services that benefit property (roads, sewers, etc.)?