Canadian Musings

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is running a "Greatest Canadian" show, and something looks a bit funny to me in the rankings. A quick look at the standings as they're broken down here suggests that the voting is being dominated by people over the age of 50, and likely over the age of 65. Since when did people over the age of 50 get involved with online voting? It's important to note that voting procedures include typing in an obscured set of characters - not exactly a friendly challenge for those unfamiliar with computers.


Current Standings:
as of Wednesday, November 17th
# Name
1 Tommy Douglas
2 Terry Fox
3 Sir Frederick Banting
4 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
5 Don Cherry
6 Lester B. Pearson
7 David Suzuki
8 Sir John A. Macdonald
9 Wayne Gretzky
10 Alexander Graham Bell

Ranking of Top 10 Nominees among age range 18 and under
as of Monday, November 15th
# Name
1 Terry Fox
2 Tommy Douglas
3 Sir Frederick Banting
4 Don Cherry
5 Wayne Gretzky
6 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
7 Lester B. Pearson
8 David Suzuki
9 Sir John A. Macdonald
10 Alexander Graham Bell

Ranking of Top 10 Nominees among age range 19-34
as of Monday, November 15th
# Name
1 Terry Fox
2 Tommy Douglas
3 Sir Frederick Banting
4 David Suzuki
5 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
6 Don Cherry
7 Wayne Gretzky
8 Lester B. Pearson
9 Sir John A. Macdonald
10 Alexander Graham Bell

Ranking of Top 10 Nominees among age range 35-49
as of Monday, November 15th
# Name
1 Terry Fox
2 Tommy Douglas
3 Sir Frederick Banting
4 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
5 Don Cherry
6 Lester B. Pearson
7 David Suzuki
8 Sir John A. Macdonald
9 Wayne Gretzky
10 Alexander Graham Bell

Ranking of Top 10 Nominees among age range 50-64
as of Monday, November 15th
# Name
1 Tommy Douglas
2 Terry Fox
3 Sir Frederick Banting
4 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
5 Lester B. Pearson
6 Don Cherry
7 Sir John A. Macdonald
8 David Suzuki
9 Wayne Gretzky
10 Alexander Graham Bell

Ranking of Top 10 Nominees among age range 65 and over
as of Monday, November 15th
# Name
1 Tommy Douglas
2 Sir Frederick Banting
3 Terry Fox
4 Lester B. Pearson
5 Sir John A. Macdonald
6 Pierre Elliott Trudeau
7 Don Cherry
8 Wayne Gretzky
9 David Suzuki
10 Alexander Graham Bell

It has been a pillar of American Constitutional analysis that the country was founded on the principle of the separation of Church and State. And, to the extent that the government are not well-equipped to interpret the Word of God, and to the extent that religious leaders are not the best at roadbuilding and immigration policies, this is a very good thing.

But Canada's attempt at creating a constitution, built into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is sadly lacking.

We are currently facing a reference by the Parliament of Canada to her Supreme Court on the question of whether religious institutions could be forced to marry gays, should Parliament actually act on the whole question of gay marriage. After all, the Charter supposedly guarantees religious freedom in Canada.

But what trumps that religious freedom?

There was a terrible crime recently committed in The Netherlands whereby Theo van Gogh was murdered, allegedly by some Muslim zealots. There is no question but that those responsible should be punished.

But could they be, if this same crime happened in Canada? Aren't religious freedoms guaranteed by the Charter? Wasn't this a religious act? There would be no question in the U.S: the principle of separation ensures religion does not trump the right of the state to enforce its criminal law.

But in Canada this gets cloudy. After all, if an 'ordinary' law (in the sense that it's not part of the constitution) such as the criminal code will trump a 'fundamental' right in the case of murder, then how do we decide what other crimes will trump religious freedoms? What other laws will take precedence over the right to practise one's religion?

Even if the Supreme Court rules today that churches will not be forced to marry gays, in Canada this is no guarantee: respect of legal precedent is limited to judges who choose to respect it. If they want to rule differently in the future, they will rationalize it using whatever means they see fit at the time.

I do not for one instant condone the lawlessness, murder, hatred, and general abuse of our society as demonstrated by any group. The problem here is with the bad law created by an egocentric socialist: the Canadian Charter needs a complete overhaul.

Canadian Prime Minister booted Carolyn Parrish from the Liberal caucus this week, after she had attacked Americans for years, and started in on the Canadian government under the leadership of Paul Martin.

Enough pundits have wondered about the curious timing of events, just a couple weeks before President Bush makes his way to Ottawa for a quick visit. Or was the tipping point reached when she started to demonstrate disloyalty to her chief? After all, attacking Americans is one thing: attacking Canadians is something to get upset about.

I prefer to see it as a study in Proportional Representation. After all, there are calls from several corners of Canada to enact some form of PR so that those who perennially vote for unpopular candidates and causes can finally elect someone to claim to speak on their behalf.

Personally, I have always thought that every Member of Parliament was there to speak on behalf of all of their constituents, even those with whom they do not agree. But party discipline has undermined that voice. And rather than addressing the problem (party discipline), many would rather attack the symptom.

But if we had PR, what would be the outcome in the case of Ms. Parrish? Her constituents would argue that they are now completely underrepresented in the House, as they voted for a Liberal. So perhaps they would require her to resign her seat. Others might cynically comment that there is just the right percentage of nutbars in the population at large, that she is their voice in the House.

No, Proportional Representation causes many more problems than it solves, and should not be part of the Electoral System in Canada.