There is a very simple solution, the government lifts the restrictions and resigns. New elections are held and then the people decide if they want a new government that will punish protesters or not.
I feel that's either an external or minority opinion.
Not everybody outside of Canada may realize we just HAD an election. I personally don't think it was necessary or useful; in fact I think it was a colossal waste of money; but we did. And Canada tends to have relatively stable governments, our period between elections tends to be reasonably lengthy. Some people may not LIKE the result of elections, but there's nothing that indicates government does not have support of majority of Canadians. Polls tend to indicate most people are Canadians about covid. And elections tend (not always) to be about majority.
Second, many outsiders and even many inside Canada don't seem to realize vast vast majority of public health policy and restrictions is done on provincial level. That includes virtually all restrictions that impact majority of citizens. Further, many if not most are done by conservative governments - Alberta and Ontario as obvious examples, as well as conservative municipal governments like Toronto.
So I never understand on any level why anybody feels "federal government to resign" is an "obvious solution", let alone what, exactly, is it meant to accomplish when it comes to covid response.
They're protesting the quarentine when re-entering the country. That's why so many Americans are involved as well. My girlfriend lives there but I can't visit her because of this.
This would encourages minorities to try and block governments all the time, to force new elections.
Why not have the second chamber of parliament made of randomly picked citizen [0] with the responsibility to approve the work of the first chamber (of elected representatives), with the power to cast motions of no confidence?
That is just one side of the slippery slope though. Assuming we took this recommendation as a rule, it seems that a convoy of truckers could organize, shut down an economy, and force an election any time they disagreed with something. This does not seem like a recipe for effective government.
No? It seems a recipe for a perfect government. Whenever X% of the population wants that much to throw down the government, that's probably a good time for a remodel.
Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.
That’s a seductively simple idea. Using the Emergencies Act to bring to an end of the protests was unprecedented. Without having thought too deeply about it the suggestion to then call for elections seems like a brilliant one. I almost think it should be written into the act. At the surface it makes sense that if the redress of grievances is so disruptive that the Act must be invoked then the cost of invoking it is to call for elections and let the people decide.
Lifting the restrictions? The ones which are (at least in name, I am not qualified to discuss further than that) about protecting the health of the population? That seems contrary to the best interests of a nation.
And I’m expressly not saying the Canadian government picked the right response here — I don’t know if they did or didn’t — but what you’re suggesting is way too far in the other direction.
Making it the norm to resign in response to protests makes it very easy for any political opponent on any issue to do a soapbox equivalent of filibustering.
You're absolutely right that the "peacemaker" in situations like this should be a secret, anonymous, properly held elections.
However, resigning every time there is a protest, even a spectacular one, is obviously not an option for any democraticaly elected governement.
Pick a cause you defend, and a right you'd want to preserve ; browse recent history to find out when was the last time a massive protest was held by people with the opposite side of view.
Western democracies are warry of calling elections for anything but picking representatives. More direct forms of democracy would clearly help in this case.
The current scenario is that the elected governement takes harsh measure, and the people will have to wait and vote them out of office.
(Which, I believe, is a fundamental difference between most western democracy and more autocratic regimes - I'm ready to reevaluate that when there is suspense again in a russian / NK / china election.)
This is _very_ unfortunate for governements that have been recently elected and have strong parlementary majorities.
I wonder if a better "better scenario" in such crisis would be to have different level of population oversight, depending on the time scale of measures.
As in: first, the elected governement takes extraordinary measures, with relatively free reign for short period of times (days / weeks.) "Extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures", etc...
Than, parlimentary oversight kicks in, to prolong measures in the "months" scale (I'm one of those annoying people who believe representatives have a role in democracy. Sorry.)
Than, referendum / votations need to occur for anything longer than a few months.
It would not "solve" the issue - because, a vaccine mandate might very well have been agreed by referendum in Canada, and truckers would _still_ have blocked roads. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have this process.
NikolaNovak|4 years ago
Not everybody outside of Canada may realize we just HAD an election. I personally don't think it was necessary or useful; in fact I think it was a colossal waste of money; but we did. And Canada tends to have relatively stable governments, our period between elections tends to be reasonably lengthy. Some people may not LIKE the result of elections, but there's nothing that indicates government does not have support of majority of Canadians. Polls tend to indicate most people are Canadians about covid. And elections tend (not always) to be about majority.
Second, many outsiders and even many inside Canada don't seem to realize vast vast majority of public health policy and restrictions is done on provincial level. That includes virtually all restrictions that impact majority of citizens. Further, many if not most are done by conservative governments - Alberta and Ontario as obvious examples, as well as conservative municipal governments like Toronto.
So I never understand on any level why anybody feels "federal government to resign" is an "obvious solution", let alone what, exactly, is it meant to accomplish when it comes to covid response.
pinephoneguy|4 years ago
rcMgD2BwE72F|4 years ago
Why not have the second chamber of parliament made of randomly picked citizen [0] with the responsibility to approve the work of the first chamber (of elected representatives), with the power to cast motions of no confidence?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Selection_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence
tyleo|4 years ago
throwawayay02|4 years ago
Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.
syki|4 years ago
NiloCK|4 years ago
ben_w|4 years ago
And I’m expressly not saying the Canadian government picked the right response here — I don’t know if they did or didn’t — but what you’re suggesting is way too far in the other direction.
Making it the norm to resign in response to protests makes it very easy for any political opponent on any issue to do a soapbox equivalent of filibustering.
notpachet|4 years ago
throwawayay02|4 years ago
phtrivier|4 years ago
However, resigning every time there is a protest, even a spectacular one, is obviously not an option for any democraticaly elected governement.
Pick a cause you defend, and a right you'd want to preserve ; browse recent history to find out when was the last time a massive protest was held by people with the opposite side of view.
Western democracies are warry of calling elections for anything but picking representatives. More direct forms of democracy would clearly help in this case.
The current scenario is that the elected governement takes harsh measure, and the people will have to wait and vote them out of office.
(Which, I believe, is a fundamental difference between most western democracy and more autocratic regimes - I'm ready to reevaluate that when there is suspense again in a russian / NK / china election.)
This is _very_ unfortunate for governements that have been recently elected and have strong parlementary majorities.
I wonder if a better "better scenario" in such crisis would be to have different level of population oversight, depending on the time scale of measures.
As in: first, the elected governement takes extraordinary measures, with relatively free reign for short period of times (days / weeks.) "Extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures", etc...
Than, parlimentary oversight kicks in, to prolong measures in the "months" scale (I'm one of those annoying people who believe representatives have a role in democracy. Sorry.)
Than, referendum / votations need to occur for anything longer than a few months.
It would not "solve" the issue - because, a vaccine mandate might very well have been agreed by referendum in Canada, and truckers would _still_ have blocked roads. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have this process.