BC Provincial Politics Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

I actually think that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, and it's a shame that it's such a taboo. My view of human rights is that they are derived logically from human needs and net benefits to society. As such, one segment of the population shouldn't have a different set of rights simply for having arrived first. Yeah there's treaties, but I don't believe that a signed treaty should have precedence over equal rights.

Are you arguing the legality or the morality of it?

EDIT: You also don't think that sometimes legislation is needed to protect various groups in a society?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are you arguing the legality or the morality of it?

EDIT: You also don't think that sometimes legislation is needed to protect various groups in a society?

I am arguing that the legality should be changed to reflect the morality. The supporting argument is that a law should not remain law simply because it declares itself to be unchangeable (or perhaps, unchangeable without the consent of the group it priveleges). I'm not an expert, but I believe this principle was legally affirmed when the Conservatives changed the law regarding the Wheat Board, despite the previous law saying that it could not do so without the consent of the Wheat Board members (which they did not get).

As far as protecting groups goes, you can protect people from discrimination based on race or ethnicity. That protects groups of people, but it does so equally.

[Matty81]

NDPs were running a muppet here as it is a Liberal fortress. I see her every morning walking her dog and I couldn't believe crazy big hair lady was their candidate, that hair is even bigger in person.

Story to me is a non issue since the NDP dropped her, but what has raised my interest and hasn't been mentioned in the media much is that she posted those ideas on a board very similar to calgarypuck. Never identified herself as who she was explicitely, and the website is run by a very conservative local business owner who invested a lot of his money and ran a large ad campaign in our last municipal election to displace our greenie mayor in favor of a 75-80 year old pro development guy and succeeded.

Really makes you question how freely you discuss things on message boards. She was easy to link since she went by her first name which is unique and mentioned a business she owns and thus couldn't deny but still suspect.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

I am arguing that the legality should be changed to reflect the morality. The supporting argument is that a law should not remain law simply because it declares itself to be unchangeable (or perhaps, unchangeable without the consent of the group it priveleges). I'm not an expert, but I believe this principle was legally affirmed when the Conservatives changed the law regarding the Wheat Board, despite the previous law saying that it could not do so without the consent of the Wheat Board members (which they did not get).

As far as protecting groups goes, you can protect people from discrimination based on race or ethnicity. That protects groups of people, but it does so equally.

So then what you're actually saying is that the government should be able to tear up contracts it signs whenever it can mount a reasonable explanation to do so?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So then what you're actually saying is that the government should be able to tear up contracts it signs whenever it can mount a reasonable explanation to do so?

If no other reasonable path exists, yes.

If the government signed a contract that says SebC and/or his descendents gets a billion dollars a year no questions asked, and that can only be revoked with the permission of SebC and/or his descendents (or cannot be revoked at all), would you argue that my funding must remain in place because there's a contract?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

If no other reasonable path exists, yes.

If the government signed a contract that says SebC and/or his descendents gets a billion dollars a year no questions asked, and that can only be revoked with the permission of SebC and/or his descendents (or cannot be revoked at all), would you argue that my funding must remain in place because there's a contract?

Yes? You really want to set up a legal precedent that allows the government to start tearing up legally binding agreements on the grounds of subjectivity?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes? You really want to set up a legal precedent that allows the government to start tearing up legally binding agreements on the grounds of subjectivity?

The law should not have supremacy over the government's ability to change laws. Tearing up contracts isn't ideal, but it's better than any alternative I can come up with.

"If the government signs a bad deal, then the country is stuck with it forever" doesn't work for me.

Edit: The precendent already exists, I would not be "setting it up".

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the government signed a contract that says SebC and/or his descendents gets a billion dollars a year no questions asked, and that can only be revoked with the permission of SebC and/or his descendents (or cannot be revoked at all), would you argue that my funding must remain in place because there's a contract?

If you give me a cut, yes.

You should pull out an extract of Wheat Board that supports this, I haven't read that case since law school.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

The law should not have supremacy over the government's ability to change laws.

What exactly do you think the Charter is?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What exactly do you think the Charter is?

The Charter could be changed through a democratic process (albeit one with a high threshold). It is not irreversible. Furthermore, if the Charter were to prove itself detrimental, and yet the legal threshold to change it could not be reached, then a moral case could be made for changing it through the threat or application of power.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Charter could be changed through a democratic process (albeit one with a high threshold). It is not irreversible. Furthermore, if the Charter were to prove itself detrimental, and yet the legal threshold to change it could not be reached, then a moral case could be made for changing it through the threat or application of power.

But who is deciding what's moral or detrimental? What is your criteria?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But who is deciding what's moral or detrimental? What is your criteria?

Ultimately, it's whoever has power (that is not in itself a moral argument, but rather a statement of fact). I can't change the Charter because I lack the power required to do so. But if I could persuade enough people that it needed to change, then perhaps we would be able to change it. And there is nothing inherently "wrong" with that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Ultimately, it's whoever has power (that is not in itself a moral argument, but rather a statement of fact). I can't change the Charter because I lack the power required to do so. But if I could persuade enough people that it needed to change, then perhaps we would be able to change it. And there is nothing inherently "wrong" with that.

So you're advocating for authoritarianism?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So you're advocating for authoritarianism?

No. With democracy ingrained into our society, power generally comes from numbers. I am okay with that.

I would say that having strict loyalty to signed contracts is actually a form of authoritarianism, where the contract is acting as the authority at the expense of democracy.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Can anyone speak knowledgeably about what the NDP plan to do with the energy industry and the LNG projects planned?

http://www.bcndp.ca/issues/resources

In addition to forestry, BC’s agriculture, mining, and oil and gas industries generate enormous wealth for our province, and provide tens of thousands of jobs for British Columbians. But BC Liberal neglect means that they too are looking for economic stability, policy direction, and a long-term vision from government.

Mentions nothing specific.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

No. With democracy ingrained into our society, power generally comes from numbers. I am okay with that.

I would say that having strict loyalty to signed contracts is actually a form of authoritarianism, where the contract is acting as the authority at the expense of democracy.

Right, because majoritarianism does such a bang up job of protecting minorities.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right, because majoritarianism does such a bang up job of protecting minorities.

Originally Posted by SebC

As far as protecting groups goes, you can protect people from discrimination based on race or ethnicity. That protects groups of people, but it does so equally.

Circle complete! Our majority actually does support protecting minorities.

I, however, do not believe that "giving special rights to" is the same as "protecting".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

Circle complete! Our majority actually does support protecting minorities.

I, however, do not believe that "giving special rights to" is the same as "protecting".

And how exactly do you protect based on discrimination without laws that do so? Also, as it stands the government does possess the power to not honour treaties, it just requires a constitutional amendment, but I would argue that's a lot different than just allowing parliament to tear up contracts at any time.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And how exactly do you protect based on discrimination without laws that do so? Also, as it stands the government does possess the power to not honour treaties, it just requires a constitutional amendment, but I would argue that's a lot different than just allowing parliament to tear up contracts at any time.

Ultimately, minorities are protected because those in power, which in our society is the majority, choses to protect them. The majority protects the minorities via law and enforcement. (Again, to be clear, this is not a moral argument, merely a description of how I see things working.)

As to the second part of your post, I'm rather curious about that. What would the legal procedure be to nullify the treaties? If there is a valid legal path (that does not require the consent of minorities priveledged by the treaties), then there'd be no need to "tear up" the contract in a sense that is different from nullfiying them legally.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

As to the second part of your post, I'm rather curious about that. What would the legal procedure be to nullify the treaties? If there is a valid legal path (that does not require the consent of minorities priveledged by the treaties), then there'd be no need to "tear up" the contract in a sense that is different from nullfiying them legally.

Treaty rights are enshrined in both the charter under s.25 and the Constitution Act under s.35. A government could theoretically remove these with a constitutional amendment. It would also be political suicide to do so.