The Instigator
thefact
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MistahKurtz
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

Canada is not a democracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,551 times Debate No: 7794
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (53)
Votes (10)

 

thefact

Pro

The legal definition of a democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of E R E E citizens directly or indirectly...
When were you free to create and ratify a constitution to your liking; giving the government any power to do anything?
The B.N.A.Act was a British bill as to how the British wanted to govern their united collony they called Canada.
In 1931 the Statute of Westminster was passed to allow for the people and provinces to become free from colonial rule if they wanted; but the colonial government never resigned allowing for this to happen, they just became a dictatorship..
MistahKurtz

Con

Apparently my opponent has confused the wonderful, sovereign state of Canada with the 'People's Republic' of China.

Canada is the world's 9th most democratic country, beating out our neighbors to the South and our former colonial rulers. The main attack against our democracy is that it's too boring, it does not contain the same thrills and romanticism as the American system. I would say that this is a vital sign that we are a robust, vibrant and patient democracy. Our system of parliamentary democracy has proven time and time again that accountability is not impossible in modern governments. When Paul Martin was tied up in the sponsorship scandal, the voters reacted accordingly. Mulroney's poor negotiation of the NAFTA agreements led to his party's decimation.

Beyond simply party politics, major progressive advancements have happened due solely to the voters. Because of a grass roots push, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. We've also recognize a woman's right to choose and experimented with decriminalizing marijuana and banning handguns. Perhaps the largest display of self-determination and direct democracy was the sovereignty referendum in Quebec, where the French population of Canada chose to stay with Canadian democracy, knowing full well its shortcomings. Why did the Quebecois decide to stay with us? Because they know that despite feeling underrepresented at the time, they could use the system to their advantage rather than just divorcing themselves from it. The most obvious illustration is of their progress is in the (largely symbolic, probably misguided but well intentioned) recognition of Quebec as a 'nation within Canada.'

My opponent must prove in this debate that Canada represents a "a government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives" and furthermore he must produce actual instances in the recent history of Canada where the government has actually done so.

I anticipate his response, in itself dripping in irony because it is due to the fact that Canada is an open democracy that he is allowed to make such outlandish statements.
Debate Round No. 1
thefact

Pro

Read my comments
MistahKurtz

Con

My opponent apparently has total contempt for the system on debate.org, but so be it.

The proposition side today has suggested that Canada is not a democracy merely because there is nothing to suggest it is as such, despite fitting every definition of the world and being internationally ranked as one. My opponent has further charged me to prove that Iraq, or rather; 'Iraque' (the Canadian spelling, I presume) is a democracy. While it may be plagued by corruption and instability, the government was democratically elected by the people to enact laws on behalf of the people. In 2005, almost 80% of eligible voters came out to exercise their political clout. Unless my understand of democracy is different than my opponent's, I believe this constitutes a democratic government.

The proposition side has taken my arguments out of context in a purely shameless way. Of course I was not suggesting that gay marriage is a precipitate for a democratic government, instead I was illustrated that public opinion and grass roots movements can affect federal decisions in a very real way.

My opponent is furthermore trying to create some misdirection in his use of The Statue of Westminster of 1931 but he ignores that Canada was not a democracy in a legal way until 1949 thereby making the statue more or less void. If one wishes to get even more technical, it could be argued that Canada did not become a fully independent state until 1982 and the passing of the Constitution Act. The fact of the matter is that this is a game of semantics.

My opponent may plug as many books as he pleases, but it boils down to this; if I am a Canadian citizen who is at least 18 years of age, I can chose candidates in my riding to represent me on federal, provincial and municipal levels. These candidates, assuming they become MPs, MLAs, councilors, mayors, etc. based on a plurality of votes, must represent me and my constituents by enacting legislature based on his or her party affiliation and/or stated platform. If any citizen are not satisfied that their representative is doing so, or for any other reason, they are open to;
A. Contact their representative and express their concerns
B. Not vote for said person/encourage others to do the same
C. Run in the next election in opposition.

Until you can prove any of this untrue, you side unequivocally fails.
Debate Round No. 2
thefact

Pro

What did the free sovereign people do in 1949 as reported in hansard to become a democracy. Did you vote in a referendum in 1942 to adopt a constitution as created by the people of Canada or was it just a government bill. Their is nothing in hansard record showing the people of Canada voted by a referendum to adopt a constitution giving the government any power to govern. You keep making statements of what you were indoctrinated to believe but have not produced any hansard record to back up your claim. You defeat your own argument by your statement ," Canada was not a democracy in a legal way until 1949 ". Post what you think Canada was before 1949; and what has changed to make it a democracy. The same B.N.A.Act is use as the governments source of power before 1949 and after 1949?
And The B.N.A.Act is still the source of government power ; which you stated was not a democracy . Their is a difference between what you believe and what you can prove; as your post has demonstrated. Your argument is only based on your belief and not on any documented hansard record. The people of Canada were never free from colonial rule; which is the bases for a democracy as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as defined earlier. In order to have a democracy you first have to have free sovereign people and you have not produced any hansard record as to when the colonial government resigned, allowing for a democracy to be formed. No country can pas a bill giving another country a democracy; and you have not produced one document to support your position. Do you know the difference between indoctrination and education?
MistahKurtz

Con

The answer to this is simple, clear-cut and factual;

Canada was a dominion; a subsidy of the British Empire, before 1949 for all practical purposes. While Canada had a fairly large clout in terms of its own fate, England still had the final say. After 1949, Canada was given full political sovereignty and the right to have the people of Canada determine what is best for Canada. In 1982, all the legal brush was cut away by means of the Canada Act and Canada, on paper, was given full independence rather than just in practice.

Yes, England determined Canada's sovereignty, but the Canadian people took it the rest of the way. Of course a country can be 'given' democracy and its disingenuous to say otherwise. Most of the countries in the world were given democracy either by means of military intervention or legislative action. Apparently you think that the only countries in the world that are 'democracies' are those born out of revolution, such as the United States (or are they run by Masons too?)

The fact of the matter is that you can produce as many laws as possible, but they're all irrelevant. Canada could have become a democracy by means of divine intervention and, as long as its people own the right to participate actively in the governmental process, it is a democracy. This debate suffers from a serious crisis of definition in that you have not followed your original presentation of a Democracy. Let me present it once again;

"The legal definition of a democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of E R E E citizens directly or indirectly"

You have no proven anything to the contrary, only that you believe that the form of government was created under faulty pretenses, which does not constitute a dictatorship.
Debate Round No. 3
thefact

Pro

You are wanting to debate if Canada is a dictatorship; but the debate is that Canada is not a Democracy, by the legal definition, which requires free sovereign people. You have not posted any document that States when the people became free from colonial rule; or when the people ratified a constitution of the people giving the government any power to govern. You have not posted anything to demonstrate what changes took place in how the government gets its power to govern when you said it was not a democratic government to what changes the people gave the government to make it a democracy. The government as a colonial government swore allegiance to the king or queen and still do as their source of power.
Canada is not a democracy and never was. You have the right to vote for whichever indoctrinated politician you want; as long as that politician swears to obey and protect the queen and her laws , not a constitution as would be the practice in a democracy. In the supreme court case refereed to as the Lord Nelson Hotel case the ruling was that the constitution belongs to the people and that neither the federal or provincial governments could change it alone or together; yet that is exactly what was done as is possible in a dictatorship; not a democracy. In a democracy the government can not change the constitution without a referendum by the people. You have not posted the results of any referendum giving the government the power to change the sic B.N.A.Act a British bill as your constitution.
Read Federal invasion become permanent.
Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1942. Canada was a centralized state, it could only remain so by a successful amendment to the BNA Act or by repudiating the Taxation Agreement act of 1942 and refusing to give up control of the income taxes. In the Dominion- provincial conference of 1945-46 Mr. Lisley stated that it was not the intention of the Dominion Government to consider a return to pre-war arrangements and no it is not proposed to seek a constitutional amendment. The act of a dictatorship government, doing what it wanted despite of what the constitution allowed it to do..
The federal government tried twice to legitimize itself by fraud in attempting to get the people to pass an amended BNA Act as their constitution. The Meech Lake Accord 1989 failed, so did the Charlottetown Accord1992..
Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the ---enact as follows
!. This bill is introduced before consideration of the throne speech to P E R P E T U A T E the established right of parliament through the representatives elected by the people to sit and act without leave from the crown.
Assertion of right.
2. This bill theiefor asserts the right to give precedence to matters O T H E R than thouse expressed by the Sovereign
This demonstrate a dictatorship as the government can not do what it wants but only what her majesty allows.
In a democracy the government could give precedence to matters given to it by a constitution without any restrictions by her Majesty.
Your CRA is not your government agency but agencies of the IMF.
You have no constitutional right of innocent or a fair trial in tax court, which would be the case in a democracy.
Who would be stupid enough to give the CRA such powers; only indoctrinated people who believe they have a democracy , when in fact they have a dictatorship.
Ask your government to provide you with its bank balance ? It has no bank balance as it is in receivership to the IMF.
How can a democratic government have no bank account to which it writes cheques on ? How can Cheques which are not issued on any bank account be honoured by the banks . Only because Canada is not a democratic government but a government controlled by the IMF.
MistahKurtz

Con

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has absolutely failed to prove that Canada is not a democracy. He criticizes me for using the word 'dictatorship', yet he was the first to use it. His argument rests solely on technicalities and conspiracy theories (I sincerely doubt Canada is run by a team of undercover Masons.) My argument needs no reiteration, yet I will do so briefly; in 1949 Canada was given political sovereignty and in 1982 it was given legal sovereignty. It has since exercised this power on countless occasions. If Canada is not a democracy, why am I able to participate in the democratic process? Why am I able to choose from four (or more) fundamentally different parties? How else could the majority of the provinces ratify a constitution giving us political freedom and civil liberties almost unparalleled in the Western world? No democratic system is perfect, but we're damn close.

My opponent's arguments are misleading. He says that politicians must swear to the Queen and 'her laws', yet Canada's legal system is entirely its own. In Quebec, they were free to adopt a Napoleonic code of laws, flying in the face of English rule. No voter is casting his or her ballot for a constitution, as Canada has one that all of us can (more or less) agree on and have done so in the past (democratically.) If the people were to want a change in the constitution (an unlikely event) then they would be well in their democratic right to do so. What's more, my opponent seems to suggest that the British created our constitution, which was only true before the advent of the Constitution Act of 1982 (which I have been tirelessly saying, though my opponent ignores it.)

The debate boils down to this; are you permitted to vote? May you go to a fair trial? Is your leader the one who garnered the plurality of votes, or a British Mason working for the IMF?

The case is clear, thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca...
and how many more? Will mulroony admit he is a mason?
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
http://dandeilgat.blogspot.com...
democratic government ?
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...
go to 1783- if the U.S. after declaring it's independance is still a colony ; how can Canada be a sovereign country; when it is still obaying the queen and the colonial BNA act?
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
Volkov- what a bad post-
Post your good post documenting when the people and provinces became free from British colonial rule and the BNA act; your failure to do so shows how little you know about Canadas government.
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
In a reply from Dian S Rampone Manager Acces to Information Access to information and Privacy Directorate Vancouver BC . Canada Revenue Agency " An extention of time of up to 30 days beyond the 30 day statutory time limited will be required in order to process this request. This extention is being applied since meeting the original time limited would UNREASONABLY INTERFERE with Canada Revenue Agency operations.
If you have any questions about the above , please contact Grant Inglis."
Tipical government accountability; why not contact Dian S, Rampone ?
Why was the letter not sent by Grant Inglis in the first place?
No accountability , just passing the buck.
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...
Which family are you ?
Give us your documentation when The Canadian colonial government resigned and gave the people their right of self determination.
MistahKurtz you are the one is hiding from reality. You have not produced any documented evidence ,showing when the queen and the british government ; gave up control of their collony Canada; allowing for Canada to become a socvereign country, and a democratic government.
Post your best effort in your documented evidence . Wake up.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
What an interesting debate, yet with such a bad PRO argument.
Posted by MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
If you have a problem with the Canadian government, fine, I do too, but the exactly WRONG thing to do is to hide from reality and use create a disconnect from you and your government in a way to say "Well it's not my fault, Masons run the government." The exactly way to become totally and utterly discredited by your government is to say they're all Masons. You could be spouting the most logical, intuitive things in the world, which I assure you that you are not, and nobody would take you seriously because of all this nonesense. And frankly it cheapens the entire dialog for you to come out and spew these fringe theories because it creates an environment where no one else will want tot discuss these issues.

Grow up.
Posted by thefact 7 years ago
thefact
What a pile of bs. Why could the deal not be renegotiated? The liberals ran on the promis of scraping the deal . Politicians are just pons in a mason ruled government . Politicians can promise anything and then when elected do as they are told by the masons, not what they promised to do; always lieying just to give you a choice of one idiot lier or another.
Ask your politition to give you the list shareholders in the bank of Canads; and what excuse they have for not having any comntrol over what it does.
Posted by MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
If you knew anything about Canadian politics, you'd know that this is not a 'ridiculous analist', as the people were mad the deal was done, but it could not be renegotiated. To cut off NAFTA wold result in a trade war that would destroy Canadian industry everywhere. People were angry at the fact it was signed, even though it hurt certain Newfoundlanders and Quebecois severely, yet it did it can't be denied that some parts of the deal are good for Canada.

Anyway, I'm not debating NAFTA with you, you're trying to defeat my case through semantics even though it's quite evident I have won.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 6 years ago
BobMarleyIsDead
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LuxEtVeritas 7 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
thefactMistahKurtzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07