Current situation of Omar Kahdr, the Government at fault?

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gtpUdw5XRvJlU-TxhwSmyxRJ-JuA

We have all heard of Omar Kahdr, and his detainment at Guantanamo Bay since he was 15. He is now 21 years of age and has still not been released or tried. We are now on the second Canadian government (the liberals in his first years of detainment, now the conservatives) that has not guaranteed or furthered agreements with the U.S. for Omar’s release. As the article points out, our PM states we have “no real alternatives”. At the same time the PM (Harper) condemns poor treatment and torture in other countries, like china, but does nothing for one of our own. Even if he is a war criminal he is a Canadian and that’s got to count for something. Omar has undergone nothing less but standard U.S. torture, including but not exclusively sleep deprivation, a horrible practice where the inmate is kept awake for unbearable amounts of time at once to “soften” them up for integration. A Fact that make this negligence on behalf of the Canadian government even worse is that we are alone in our abandon of our fellow citizen, I quote from the article Professor of law Amir Attaran ” Without exception, every other leader of a Western country has got their citizens out of Guantanamo”. Many other Canadians form academia, law related and not, have state their dismay and concern on the matter. Attaran even goes as far as saying that officials that were aware of the torture should be prosecuted under Canadian law for “aiding and abetting torture”.

Why has Canada and its officials remained so silent on the matter? Are we nothing but puppets in the hands of the United states?

Direct democracy vs. Representative democracy

Direct democracy is a democracy in which the people fill in the role of the government by holding assemblies or referendums. One of the advantages of a direct democracy is that it eliminates interest groups and party agenda’s. No one can take the power for themselves; it is the truest and purest form of democracy out there. However there are some drawbacks. Most countries around the world are far too big to be able to use a direct democracy efficiently. Any political decisions would be sluggish and untimely, thus crippling the country, and even more dramatically in a crisis. Furthermore the lack of parties with agendas, is a good thing ideally, but let’s face it, they are the driving force behind our politics, parties bring up concerns and push forward on debates, passing laws in a timely fashion. Representative democracy however also has it’s drawbacks. The power of government is removed from the people in a representative democracy, thus allowing a less accurate decisions/representation for the people. The decisions in a representative democracy are guided by parties and their goals, So in a sense representative democracy I more like giving turns at decision making rather than true democracy, however the turns being decided by the people is a sort of justification. Representative democracy is more prone to corruption simply because it is easier to corrupt fewer people rather than everyone. One must consider that direct democracy is not incorruptible either, as officials are still required to count the votes etc. These people are key figures that must be carefully watched at all times.

Which is better?

Which do you agree with more?

Do you have any alternatives?

Party Discipline? yay or nay?

Party discipline in Canada is a heated debate. As you may or may not know, members of Parliament in Canada are often required by their party to “tow the party line”, meaning to vote for the party agenda or more specifically to vote in a certain way on some votes. The different political parties however do not always force their members of parliament to tow the party line. That would be much too undermining, and disrespectful of base democratic principles. Even so there are many supporters against party discipline, who think that any forcing of members of parliament to vote in favor of the party agenda is undemocratic. Votes are divided into 3 different kinds of votes. The so called Single Line Whip is a vote where party members are not influenced by their party beyond their adherence, and attendance is not mandatory. The Two Line Whip is when attendance is mandatory but party vote preference is not imposed on members of parliament. And last but not least the kind of vote that has sparked the debate, the Three Line Whip. When a vote is a Three Line Whip members are obligated to attend and vote as the party sees fit. Disregarding Party policy may lead to expulsion from party. The integration of the word Whip comes from a party office, the party “Whip” who is in charge of enforcing party discipline. Three Line Whips are usually called on very important issues, such as votes of confidence, etc. Still even when Three Line Whips are rare they cause much commotion amongst some citizens that are not happy with this blemish on their shinny democracy.

Do you think Party discipline should be relaxed or even abolished? Or are you in favor?

Amero

Ever heard of the Amero? Well it hasn’t been advertised much even though some thought has gone into it. The idea is very similar to that of the European Union, an economic synergy represented by a single currency to accelerate economies in all countries involved. If the effect would be anything like in Europe, which they should be, at first it would seem to batter the economy even more, however in the long run it would cause currency stability and high value. However there is one fundamental difference between North America and Europe. Europe has engaged in inter-European projects and alliances, before introducing the Euro, which allowed for a smooth cooperation during and after the transition to the new currency, while North American countries seem more compartmentalized. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is a sense of Europe united as one, but I can seem to picture North America. I think at least now at the present moment the Amero is a dismal idea. While the Euro had a baseline of economic fecundity and fortitude for entry, the driving force of the Amero, the U.S., is in a economical down time. Also not all countries are of similar wealth conditions, obviously Mexico is economically weaker than either of its two theoretical partners, and this would undoubtedly put more strain on the other economies. This combines with the unknown U.S. economic predicament could possibly bring down any other countries associated with that currency. There appears to be no tangible proof that the Amero is in the work. In 2007, however, conspiracy theorist got a bit too excited as Daniel Carr (coin designer) made a hypothetical Amero coin to raise public interest, unfortunately he attracted the wrong crowed. Is the Amero coming, and does it bode well for its participants?

Compulsory voting

Voter apathy has swept many nations globally. This, as you may recognize correctly is a threat to democracy due to some less obvious tendencies discovered by political scientists. For example, when voter turnout is low it is common for the lower sections of the society to vote the least, creating distinct socio-demographic inequalities. Other concerns might be, decreased legitimacy of government due to poor representation, and simply decay of the whole democratic system. To save their democracies some have instituted compulsory voting. This might be rarely advertised fact, but many countries out there do enact compulsory voting, and some even enforce it strictly. Australia is often the preferred case study for compulsory voting as it one of the highest voter turnout counties in the world. How do they enforce it? They do it with a fine for not showing up on a vote day, unlike some countries that retract candidacy rights after a certain amount of missed votes (Belgium). I should clarify that voting for a candidate, specific or general, is not in any way compulsory. Merely showing up on a vote day at a poll is obligatory, one is free to vote how s/he wants, and it is also perfectly acceptable to spoil the ballot. Compulsory voting could help Canada and other countries such as U.S. greatly with their voter turnout problem as it has for other nations big and small around the world.

don't you agree?

Canadian border guards to check iPods for infringment

A new international intellectual property agreement is in the works people! You didn’t know? Oh that’s right they didn’t tell us. Here is an article on it :http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e&p=1

At first the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)­ _­was proposed to hinder large scale piracy for profit, however, now it seems that this document and its consequent enforcement could bode bad for travelers. As you may, or may not know, in Canada the border patrol already checks laptops and similar items for child pornography, but now this scrutiny is extended to one of the most common items while traveling, IPods and mp3 players. The government must be nuts to want to try and check peoples personal media devices. I would love to see the look of the border patrols face when he realizes that iPods have ridiculous storage space, for example my iPod can hold up to 60 GB of data, that is roughly equivalent to 50 000 songs depending on length and quality. How impractical would it be to ask a border guard to look through my 50 000 song collection and determine which songs are illegal, because apparently the officer checking is at liberty to decide what is considered infringement (I hope they at least release some form of guideline for the poor officers). The agreement is said to possibly alter the status quo of ISPs holding out for their customers, as of now there must be reasonable suspicion and a court order to access ISP info for individuals, but all that might change. Anti piracy laws are important as intellectual property becomes more and more of a commodity in our modern civilization. Then why is it that this agreement is being formulated behind closed doors?, and also kept relatively secret from the people. For us Canadians in particular the people don’t even need to be asked in this matter, since it is a federal trade agreement, we the people have no say! It is preposterous that such an important matter will not be run by the people for approval. Even if it was just ongoing information about the establishment process to keep us up to date, it would be a big step towards fair democracy. This agreement could prove tricky an turbulent for Canadian politics since once this international agreement is signed it will be hard for Canada to back out (as outline in the article above), so the Canadian government could be putting itself between a rock and a hard spot, namely the Canadian people and the other nations abiding by the ACTA. The ironic thing in this situation is that a few details of the ACTA were obtained by a leak that fortunately found its way to the internet, possibly the most concerned audience. This leak in a way is intellectual property theft, (even thought this agreement is probably not copy written).

What do you think of the fact that the Canadian people don’t need to be asked on this matter?

What do you think about the way this agreement is being formulated?

How effective do you think this agreement will be at eradicating piracy?