"...we hereby raise our voices against the arrogance and the ruinous policies of our own government..."
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
3/22/09
Orlando Tea Party
"...we hereby raise our voices against the arrogance and the ruinous policies of our own government..."
2/22/09
Meanwhile, In The EU
Czech Pres. Vaclav Klaus makes a stand for democracy:
Not too many clear heads in the European Parliament. No wonder Klaus is persistently vilified and disrespected in the Parliament. He makes sense.
...The present decision making system of the European Union is different from a classic parliamentary democracy, tested and proven by history. In a normal parliamentary system, part of the MPs support the government and part support the opposition. In the European parliament, this arrangement has been missing. Here, only one single alternative is being promoted and those who dare thinking about a different option are labelled as enemies of the European integration. Not so long ago, in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that permitted no alternatives and therefore also no parliamentary opposition. It was through this experience that we learned the bitter lesson that with no opposition, there is no freedom. That is why political alternatives must exist.
And not only that. The relationship between a citizen of one or another member state and a representative of the Union is not a standard relationship between a voter and a politician, representing him or her. There is also a great distance (not only in a geographical sense) between citizens and Union representatives, which is much greater than it is the case inside the member countries. This distance is often described as the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, the decision making of the unelected – but selected – ones, as bureaucratisation of decision making etc. The proposals to change the current state of affairs – included in the rejected European Constitution or in the not much different Lisbon Treaty – would make this defect even worse.
Since there is no European demos – and no European nation – this defect cannot be solved by strengthening the role of the European parliament either....
Not too many clear heads in the European Parliament. No wonder Klaus is persistently vilified and disrespected in the Parliament. He makes sense.
And What of Democracy?
This week my husband and I attended one of several public 'townhall' forums being held to discuss the draft constitution and bill of rights for the Cayman Islands. This is the draft , after several years of starts and stops, that the British gov't has decided to sign off on. (The Cayman Islands is a British Overseas Territory.)
The CI Human Rights Committee has some problems with the draft bill of rights, the major one being that there is not an open, unlimited non-discrimination provision. (This was presented by the HRC chair, as something 'taken away', when in fact the new constitution and bill of rights goes much farther than the 1972 edition to protect 'rights' of Caymanians from gov't abuse.)
The proposed non-discrimination provision reads:
"subject to subsections (3) (4) (5) and (6), government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution."
The HRC objects to the 'bolded' phrase, and would like the provision to be unqualified. (Discriminatory is defined in the document as "affording different and unjustifiable treatment to different persons on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical disability, property, birth or other status.)
The forum was side-tracked by the usual (for Cayman) bogeyman of homophobia, in that the 'opposition' to the current draft, were concerned that the qualification included was in fact there solely for the purpose of protecting the Islands from being over-run by gay rights activists. For this they seemed to blame the churches, who had representaion equal to the HRC, on the negotiating team . (Something we'd never see in North America , I'm sure!) Although, the church representatives, and certainly many parishioners at the forum, have a fear and concern about this (who can blame them, considering the ridiculous things happening in Canada and Europe!), the greater concern is much more serious.
The HRC, in supporting their contention that the non-discriminatory provision should be unqualified, had several supporters
with moving personal stories of hardship that could have been alleviated by the gov't. One was a blind woman who had trouble renting because of her guide dog. Of course, since the CI proposed bill of rights is vertical, and applies only to the gov't treatment of its people, she was not a great example. Her case would only be relevant if she was denied an apartment in a gov't building. The gov't representative pointed this out, and suggested that local legislation was the answer to this kind of difficulty.
He was right. Local legislation is how a citizen has the ability to address needs in a democracy. The interesting thing was the HRC chair's response to that. She suggested that Caymanians would be better served by depending on unelected judges to sort out what the gov't owes them.
See the problem? Very few, of even the draft bill supporters, saw the problem.
The 'independent body' designated as a support for human (not just Caymanian) rights, the HRC, proposes to reduce the citizens input by handing over legislative responsibilities to the courts.
(How's that working out for you, CANADA??)
Is the HRC suggesting 'less power to the people' because the Caymanian people can't be trusted ?
And why does the Cayman media do nothing to 'enlighten' their readers? Do they also not trust the Caymanian voters?
Do the HRC, their supporters, and the media have a 'secret agenda'....?
...........................
Why is it that people who have never known any other life than that under a democratic system , have no idea when their democratic 'rights' are being siphoned off. Why don't they care?
I call it 'stealth socialism'.
I'm hoping that our haven of personal freedom, the Cayman Islands, doesn't have to suffer the degradation and repression of their society the way the once proud Canadian people have. And I say that as a Canadian.
The CI Human Rights Committee has some problems with the draft bill of rights, the major one being that there is not an open, unlimited non-discrimination provision. (This was presented by the HRC chair, as something 'taken away', when in fact the new constitution and bill of rights goes much farther than the 1972 edition to protect 'rights' of Caymanians from gov't abuse.)
The proposed non-discrimination provision reads:
"subject to subsections (3) (4) (5) and (6), government shall not treat any person in a discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution."
The HRC objects to the 'bolded' phrase, and would like the provision to be unqualified. (Discriminatory is defined in the document as "affording different and unjustifiable treatment to different persons on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical disability, property, birth or other status.)
The forum was side-tracked by the usual (for Cayman) bogeyman of homophobia, in that the 'opposition' to the current draft, were concerned that the qualification included was in fact there solely for the purpose of protecting the Islands from being over-run by gay rights activists. For this they seemed to blame the churches, who had representaion equal to the HRC, on the negotiating team . (Something we'd never see in North America , I'm sure!) Although, the church representatives, and certainly many parishioners at the forum, have a fear and concern about this (who can blame them, considering the ridiculous things happening in Canada and Europe!), the greater concern is much more serious.
The HRC, in supporting their contention that the non-discriminatory provision should be unqualified, had several supporters
with moving personal stories of hardship that could have been alleviated by the gov't. One was a blind woman who had trouble renting because of her guide dog. Of course, since the CI proposed bill of rights is vertical, and applies only to the gov't treatment of its people, she was not a great example. Her case would only be relevant if she was denied an apartment in a gov't building. The gov't representative pointed this out, and suggested that local legislation was the answer to this kind of difficulty.
He was right. Local legislation is how a citizen has the ability to address needs in a democracy. The interesting thing was the HRC chair's response to that. She suggested that Caymanians would be better served by depending on unelected judges to sort out what the gov't owes them.
See the problem? Very few, of even the draft bill supporters, saw the problem.
The 'independent body' designated as a support for human (not just Caymanian) rights, the HRC, proposes to reduce the citizens input by handing over legislative responsibilities to the courts.
(How's that working out for you, CANADA??)
Is the HRC suggesting 'less power to the people' because the Caymanian people can't be trusted ?
And why does the Cayman media do nothing to 'enlighten' their readers? Do they also not trust the Caymanian voters?
Do the HRC, their supporters, and the media have a 'secret agenda'....?
...........................
Why is it that people who have never known any other life than that under a democratic system , have no idea when their democratic 'rights' are being siphoned off. Why don't they care?
I call it 'stealth socialism'.
I'm hoping that our haven of personal freedom, the Cayman Islands, doesn't have to suffer the degradation and repression of their society the way the once proud Canadian people have. And I say that as a Canadian.
12/30/08
Coming Soon To A Gov't Repressing You
Brussels Journal:
Communism seems on the verge of conquering Germany. Individual former Marxist-Leninists already occupy high positions in the Federal Republic of Germany. Now it looks increasingly likely that the Left Party, the successor of the East German Communist Party, might be in government in the foreseeable future.
Dieter Althaus, 50, is the Christian-Democrat prime minister of the German state of Thuringia. Before 1990, when Thuringia was part of Communist East Germany, Herr Althaus was a teacher at a Thuringian high school. Last October the German media published a letter which Herr Althaus sent to the Communist leadership on 9 November 1989, ironically the very day when the Berlin Wall fell, in the evenings. In the letter he advocated that in preparation of their “youth consecration”, a secular coming of age ceremony for 14-year olds in Communist East Germany, the children should be indoctrinated more strictly with Marxist-Leninist ideology. His ardent Marxist-Leninist fervor did not prevent Herr Althaus from becoming the Christian-Democrat leader of his state....(much more)
Anybody wondering why homeschooling is illegal? Read 'Animal Farm' lately? Have any knowledge of recent German history? WAKE UP PEOPLE! (I know, everybody has to suffer first - its human nature to be stupid, and THEN cry.)
..and I'm not just talking to the Europeans. The machinations supporting 'global government' are coming from the same place. The 'post democracy' place, where personal freedom is trumped by 'papa gov't', and its spreading like cholera. (They all drink the same water...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)