Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
My point has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with people who think that because they define words one way, and that the courts and the government define them another, that the latter are wrong and can be "exposed" as illegimately exercising their power.
Yet - exposed by whom? By the courts that have upheld these laws for 40-odd years already? These challenges expect the ridiculous. It's stupid and lunatic and utterly naive.
Bobble's comparison to "Free Men on the Land" is apt, as this is another attempt that goes far beyond evolving the interpretation of law to an attempt at the utter overthrow of it. Who elected these clowns to set monetary policy and define the basis of the Canadian economy? How arrogant - and incidentally, non-democratic - is their belief that their opinions should become the law of the land thru the courts alone? If they're so sure they're right, why don't they start their own political party and get enough people to agree with them to put them in power and change the law?
|
It is also naive to think that someone can create a political party and gain a majority in order to exercise a policy that isn't already on the agenda of the top 3 parties. The closest we ever got to a 'new' political party making waves was the reform party, and it was successful on the backs of the rich and affluent, as opposed to the disenfranchised, with little economic clout.
The reason that this was brought to the courts is because there wasn't an avenue to explore this option within our system of government.
This issue is arguably one of the biggest that modern democracies have faced in the last couple of decades, but because it is not in the personal interest of the people running for office, and their backers, it is never on the agenda.
The government agenda is set by the parties, and not the people or the media, as would be healthy. Issues that challenge the power structure of the affluent in Canada are glossed over or ignored.
There has been 40+ years of history showing us that this system of banking is inferior to the previous one. But the people getting rich off of this current system are the ones setting the political agenda for the country, and they make sure this is not debated.
I guess I would also point out that this is a governance issue, and not a legal issue, so arguments about legal tidbits are running in circles. The reason that this was brought to the court, by a crazy people or by anyone else, was because no one would listen or act in a position of government.
The whole situation is actually very sad.