Categories: Polls

Do you care who gets appointed to the Senate?

…

by macleans.ca on Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:23pm - 49 Comments

coastlogger

Harper must have read the Liberals play book. At least this will make the senate a little more even, even though it is still a waste of precious taxpayers dollars.

Loyal Canadian

I firmly believe that each senator should be elected by the people.After all this is a democracy is it not.
Loyal Canadian

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

It is not, it is a tyranny under the Queen of England.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

And long live the Queen!

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Come on, Jack.

If we really wanted to be ruled by ludicrous, undemocratically appointed, octogenarian mountebanks with a supposed divinely inspired authority, and adorned in more sequins that Liberaci's handbag… we could just become Catholics.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

The Crown has no legislative function; the monarchy exists so that we can all swear allegiance to something that is invulnerable to cheap demagoguery, like they have in the States with the President, the flag, etc. That's the real potential tyranny. For me, the Crown is a symbol of liberty.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Your symbol of liberty is something you swear allegiance to?

The monarchy still exists because people are extremely slow-moving to embrace modernity. When anachronistic relics of our credulous, superstitious pasts come in to direct conflict with our, agonizingly slowly, evolving values and ideas, usually a compromise is made. The outmoded custom or institution is watered down until it is capable of serving two functions: First, that it admits the flow of the current zeitgeist, and, second, that it allows people to appease their conservative impulses to refuse to allow the things that they have become accustomed to simply be discarded.

A good example of people acceding to modernity, but with conditions, is the system – around here, anyway – of publicly-funded religious schools. I suspect many would be outraged at the suggestion to cut these schools, but, I think, also, that the same people would be outraged if the curriculum of these schools became "too" religiously focussed, or if the schools refused to permit pupils of other religions. Much like the pornstar who has a tattooed cross on her body, people think there is no contradiction.

The real potential tyranny is people who want to be tyrants. The fertile ground for aspiring tyrants is populations of credulous, spiritual, dogmatic, saviour-seekers who fetishise tradition and think loyalty is a virtue. In other words, those who would swear allegiance.

Jehova's Witnesses do not allow their children to stand for the National Anthem. They understand, correctly, that to do so is an act of devotion, and that, when it comes to seeking devoted followers, states and religions are in the same game. Personally, I think the only thing worse than a religion is a state-religion. The Queen of England has managed to be accepted as the Supreme Leader of both.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

"The fertile ground for aspiring tyrants is populations of credulous, spiritual, dogmatic, saviour-seekers who fetishise tradition and think loyalty is a virtue. In other words, those who would swear allegiance."

Unfortunately for your position, such a description applies to a large majority of our citizenry, including (minus the negative connotations) myself. So either you can educate the nation, to emancipate them from tradition, or you can give them a neutral totem on which to lavish their credulity, spirituality, dogmatism, and fetishisation of tradition. If you do neither — and let's not underestimate how hard #1 would be — you will end up with a howling mob ready to sign up with the first tyrant who captures their imagination. Which heaven forfend.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Educating the nation is undoubtedly a difficult – if not impossible – task.

But, Jack, would having such an emancipated populace be desirable?

From your reply, I do not know whether you support the Monarchy for reasons of pragmatism or principle. Your defence of the Crown is that it keeps the moronic mob pacified – which I'm not sure I would agree with, but let's save that for later.

So my question is: Can the Monarchy be legitimised upon principles of logic and justice, or is its only merit that it acts as a convenient Santa Claus to keep the unruly good for goodness' sake?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Dude, what have you got against Santa Claus? He may not exist, but he's a very useful fiction as far as young children are concerned; and even for us cynical adults he's a handy symbol of the spirit of Christmas gift-giving. That he does not in fact exist is neither here nor there. His symbolism certainly exists. It is much the same with the monarchy.

The logic and justice of the Monarchy, according to yours truly, is as follows: all society is arbitrary, and it naturally arranges itself into various arbitrary hierarchies, based mostly on accident (including, primarily, accident of birth). In order that we may recognise the fundamental injustice and illogic of such social arrangements, which are not in themselves a social ill but rather the inevitable structure of complex human societies, it is useful to have a symbol of the arbitrary, but eternal, nature of authority and power, such as a King.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Dude, what have you got against Santa Claus? He may not exist, but he's a very useful fiction as far as young children are concerned; and even for us cynical adults he's a handy symbol of the spirit of Christmas gift-giving. That he does not in fact exist is neither here nor there. His symbolism certainly exists. It is much the same with the monarchy.

The logic and justice of the Monarchy, according to yours truly, is as follows: all social order is arbitrary and accidental, and it naturally arranges itself into various hierarchies, based almost entirely on accident (including, primarily, accident of birth). In order that we may recognise the fundamental injustice and illogic of such social arrangements, which are not in themselves a social ill but rather the inevitable structure of complex human societies, it is useful to have a symbol of the arbitrary, but eternal, nature of authority and power, such as a King.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Dude, what have you got against Santa Claus? He may not exist, but he's a very useful fiction as far as young children are concerned; and even for us cynical adults he's a handy symbol of the spirit of Christmas gift-giving. That he does not in fact exist is neither here nor there. His symbolism certainly exists. It is much the same with the monarchy.

The logic and justice of the Monarchy, according to yours truly, is as follows: all social order is arbitrary and accidental, and it naturally arranges itself into various hierarchies, based almost entirely on accident (including, primarily, accident of birth). In order that we may recognise the fundamental injustice and illogic of such social arrangements, which are not in themselves a social ill but rather the inevitable result of complex human societies, it is useful to have a symbol of the arbitrary, but eternal, nature of authority and power, such as a King.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Dude, what have you got against Santa Claus? He may not exist, but he's a very useful fiction as far as young children are concerned; and even for us cynical adults he's a handy symbol of the spirit of Christmas gift-giving. That he does not in fact exist is neither here nor there. His symbolism certainly exists. It is much the same with the monarchy.

The logic and justice of the Monarchy, according to yours truly, is as follows: all social order is arbitrary and accidental, and it naturally arranges itself into various hierarchies, based almost entirely on accident (including, primarily, accident of birth). In order that we may recognise the fundamental injustice and illogic of such social arrangements, which are not in themselves a social ill but rather the inevitable result of complex human societies, it is useful to have a symbol of the arbitrary, but eternal, nature of authority and power, such as a King. By thus acknowledging the irrational basis of social order, we are free to approach particular problems more rationally, because we are not led astray by an irrational belief that we can ultimately achieve total rationality in our society.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Dude, I think Santa Claus is the Western World's greatest threat to liberty. His rumoured propensity and ability for invigilation is enough to make Big Brother look like Baby Sister. He is clearly spreading propaganda, as all Socialist dictators do, about his production capacity being enough to satisfy all – toys for every child in the word. His workshop, one must assume, is a slave-labour camp. He considers himself above the law and enters any home without seeking permission or a warrant. His welfare-statist approach to gift-giving conditions children to grow up dependent and self-insufficient. He has more songs sang about his benevolence and wisdom than Kim Jong-Il. And, have you noticed, he looks suspiciously similar to Karl Marx?

Santa Claus is the true Red Menace. If his story hadn't already existed, Orwell would have created it.

Do you always side with the Red Coats?

To the second point: Why should authority be arbitrary and/or eternal? Arbitrary and eternal authority seems to me to be the very definition of unfreedom.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

"Do you always side with the Red Coats?"

LOL!! I had never thought of Saint Nick as a die-hard Marxist, but you make a very convincing case.

You know Lenin and Bublov and Dan and Krylenko
Stalin and Zhdanov and Serge and Ovseenko,
But do you recall
The most famous Bolshevik of all?

Trotsky the red-nosed Bolshevik
Had a very radical programme.
And if you ever read it,
You might even say, Hot Damme!

All of the other Bolsheviks
Used to conspire to have him purged
They never let poor Trotsky
Guide the Communist Intertational the way that he had urged.

(bridge)

Then one foggy October eve,
Lenin came to say:
"Trotsky, you're a clever lad:
Won't you relieve Petrograd?"

(end bridge)

Then all the Bolsheviks loved him,
And they shouted out with glee,
Trotsky the red-nosed Bolshevik,
You may or may not go down in history!

"Why should authority be arbitrary and/or eternal? Arbitrary and eternal authority seems to me to be the very definition of unfreedom."

Welcome to mortality.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I don't know what you mean by "Welcome to mortality."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I mean that, given the selfishness of human nature and the inertia of human institutions, we are not (IMHO) likely to find sources of non-arbitrary authority or a rational basis for social order on this side of the grave.

"Love can't buy you money" is excellent, btw.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

They are more likely to be found on this side of the grave than the other.

Not all forms of authority are arbitrary. Autonomy is, I think, authority over one's self, and isn't arbitrary. Property rights are not arbitrary – unless you work for the Government and have someone else's property misappropriated to you.

Anyway, if the goal is to abolish, or to reduce as much as possible, arbitrary authority, why not start by getting rid of the least just (obviously, if one were being thorough, one would necessarily have to first determine what is just), least participatory, least logical, and least principled, institution of power (however mild) – the hereditary monarchy?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Because it serves as a reminder that, whatever reforms you enact, the authority that remains — and it will be considerable, unless you want anarchy — will be arbitrary.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Because it serves as a reminder that, whatever reforms you enact, the authority that remains — and it will be considerable, unless you want anarchy — will ultimately be arbitrary, like our social order.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Constitutional republican government is not arbitrary.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Dude, what have you got against Santa Claus? He may not exist, but he's a very useful fiction as far as young children are concerned; and even for us cynical adults he's a handy symbol of the spirit of Christmas gift-giving. That he does not in fact exist is neither here nor there. His symbolism certainly exists. It is much the same with the monarchy.

The logic and justice of the Monarchy, according to yours truly, is as follows: all social order is arbitrary and accidental, and it naturally arranges itself into various hierarchies, based almost entirely on accident (including, primarily, accident of birth). In order that we may recognise the fundamental injustice and illogic of such social arrangements, which are not in themselves a social ill but rather the inevitable result of complex human societies, it is useful to have a symbol of the arbitrary, but eternal, nature of authority and power, such as a King. By thus acknowledging the irrational basis of social order, we are free to approach particular social problems more rationally, because we are not led astray by an irrational belief that we can ultimately achieve total rationality in our society.
K Morton

Santa Claus I believe in because I have seen him. God OTH has never come around.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

"God" is just a euphemism for "nobody".

Jim

I guess you're right, since Martin appointed Conservative partisans to the senate too.

citizen ron

Those who think that these appts are unfair – THINK AGAIN- All gov'ts have done this. Unfortunately, the senate is not the voice of the people.

Harper tried to make changes to this system but the Liberals voted it down. Had he gotten the bills thought parliament, the Liberal dominated senate would have voted it down or blocked its passing for an indefinate period of time.

The only way around this is to appoint persons that will encourage the laws passed to become law.

The best way for Canadians to have their voice rule the country is to abolish the senate once and for all. What a savings. OR to have an elected senate.

ED LYONS

VOTERS IN TORNTO ARE ALREADY UNDERREPRESENTED IN THE COMMONS. TO HAVE AN ELECTED SENATE WITH REAL POWER WOULD NKE US EVEN MORE UNDERREPRESENTED. NOTE THE POWER OF A VOTE IN PEI.

coastlogger

Actually they are not. B.C. has several ridings that are larger than the entire GTA. So do most other provinces.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

I think he means in terms of eligible voters per riding, not eligible trees per riding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LoyalSubject LoyalSubject

Or, what about an hereditary Senate?
Marilyn

Abolish the senate once and for all…I vote for this!!!
Plato

Didn't we learn last year that in order to make substantial changes to the Canadian parliamentary system (like the ability to call elections) you can't just pass non-binding legislation that any PM can break when it suits his whim?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

A very good point plato. While the last three governments have all waxed eloquent about the need for, and their commitment to, undertaking reform to strengthen our democracy, all three have been incredibly consistent in their unwillingness to formally undertake such an effort in pursuit of their visions (as desirable or undesirable as those visions may be).

DAH

Good for Harper. At least the government will not always get blocked now. If the others don`t want to change things so things are more equitable, this is what has to be done.
David

re Citizen Ron– I couldnt agree more. The only thing I agree with the NDP on is the abolition of the senate, but, because of Liberal intransigence, the upper house has been so loaded with shills from Chretien,Martin,etc.etc, what other choice does Mr.Harper has. Again he has stated that he must do this to achieve a majority in the Senate where he can then proceed to make it an elected, not appointed body. Remember the Triple E mantra of the Reform Party. It is even more apropos now. David
Michel Brazeau

Whatever… the political party representation shifts back & forth anyway. Lots of things that impact our lives more than that in our society.

This is a news non-issue.
John

I voted No because as long as Senators are appointed who really cares? Triple E or nothing at all.
Ross

HEY!! David, thats the problem,we have A government electet as conservatives ,which is bad enough,but the're governing as "REFORMERS" Thought that party was dead ,so Iguess that's what we have trying to run the country.
Avens

And go forth and consult with wizards and magicians.
Mars

More power to him–Harper. the opositions won't agree to passing –any– bills– so by putting these senators -in-was his only option! We should have an elected senate– perhaps now he can work toward this!
The LIberals have had their day–they did the same thing– & ruled for how many years!!! Shrewd & clever–picking up" Doer "for ambassador!!!
T. Good

The Senate is an unfair, unjust, unrepresentative dinosaur from 1867 and a disgrace in a modern democracy. It should be abolished. In its place there should be an elected REGIONALLY representative body similar to the Senate of United States where there are two elected Senators for EACH state regardless of population. The Senate of Canada would then provide a BALANCE to representation by population in the House of Commons which, at present, is unfair, unjust, unrepresentative dinosaur form 1867. No wonder the governance of Canada is so sick. No province would allow such gross under representation / over representation to exist in ridings within provincial boundaries. Equality is a foreign word for elector representation within the Government of Canada.

Bela Cos

Well, T. Your opinions are clear. Now, is the Senate equally unjust and unfair to each minority group, to each province? How is it unjust and unfair? Or, explain your credentials as an authority on this issue. The last time I looked all parties had some representatives in the Senate. Aboriginals were represented as well as other minority groups. A lot might well agree that PEI should have power equal to Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Or not!

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

At least he didn't appoint Incitatus.

Bill

A horse by any other name is still a horse (a Tory workhorse, that is)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Oh yeah? It's just random chance, or merit, that elevates someone like George W. Bush to the throne, eh? Privilege has nothing to do with it? Come on, the only difference between that and the monarchy is that it makes a lot of simple people think they have a chance to rise when they don't.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Oh yeah? It's just random chance, or merit, that elevates someone like George W. Bush to the throne, eh? Privilege has nothing to do with it? Come on, the only difference between that and the monarchy is that it makes a lot of simple people think they have a chance to rise to the top when they actually don't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Obviously democracies get the governments they deserve, and, in my opinion, they will always be mediocre or worse. However, the President's power is constitutionally bound, he can be removed, his authority is not supposed to be divinely ordained (no matter what his votaries believe), and nobody is guaranteed to the position just by virtue of being born.

If American voters choose to vote for dauphin candidates and want to turn politics into a family business, they are free to do so. It is to my immense dissatisfaction that Canadians seem compelled to prefer heirs over candidates, like the McGuintys, Trudeaus, MacKays, LeBlancs. But at least I got to cast a ballot that was not in favour of Dalton McGuinty, I have never had the pleasure to do likewise for Prince Charles.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Fortunately neither the monarch nor her representative has absolutely no real authority in Canada, as I'm sure you know.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Right, because Englightenment values have largely won out. But the system we are left with is so embarrassing due to its illogicality. As I interpret the public mood, Canadians would be outraged if the GG began ordering troops around as the Commander in Chief. However, I think Canadians would be as equally outraged if someone suggested doing away with the monarchy, because…. well, I really don't know why.

So we have a Queen whose responsibilities include little more than throwing tea parties and waving, yet few are struck by the thought that, perhaps, this does not justify living in a publicly-funded palace(s).

Our current system is not an affront to justice, it is an affront to logic.