Inspired by Mark Steyn in the Spectator, and derivatively quoted in the Oz this morning ...

Sip every time multiculturalism is blamed for the random ills of the world ...

Quaff every time multiculturalism is conflated with problems of governance, in this case an all too familiar and tragic welfare paternalism ...

And the upshot of Canadian taxpayers' generosity? Two years after the new town opened, the former Mushuau chief and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police both agreed that there were more drugs, alcoholism, gas-sniffing etc., than ever before. Also higher suicide rates.

Drain your glass every time a public figure happily throws out the innovations of the Enlightenment.

All Men Are Not Equal (free reg reqd).

Giorgio Agamben's thesis in his books have been that the state of exception has become a common form of governance to get around constitutionalism. The most recent excuse for governing under a state of emergency has been terrorism. This subversive form of governance has not been limited to national or state governments.

Washington DC is a rather large city that is run as a city council form of government with an elected mayor and eight representatives chosen from the wards and five other elected positions. The other issues facing the DC Council is that their budgets can be vetoed by the national Congress.

The Council has been adopting emergency procedures to get legislation through council. This requires a majority of nine instead of seven, but avoids the legislation having to go through a process of public comment.

About one-fourth of the bills before the D.C. Council became law this way during the current two-year legislative session, including a package of anti-crime measures that alarmed civil rights groups and contentious legislation authorizing pricey parking garages for the new Washington Nationals baseball stadium.

At last Tuesday's meeting, legislators determined emergencies existed to pay multimillion dollar sums to mental health and developmental disabilities contractors, to authorize tax breaks and to move forward on a public-private partnership to build a controversial economic development project.

A $48,000 pay raise for the mayor and the council chairman first came to the council as emergency legislation but was withdrawn after several council members noted the lack of public scrutiny. Permanent pay raise legislation received preliminary approval last week after public hearings.

Most governments like to reserve the right to act absolutely even though it is in contradiction to democratic principles. Usually war is used as the excuse for an executive to act absolutely, commonly with the excuse of having to suspend the constitution to save it.

Often constitutional bodies will put in emergency powers so that the executive and legislative can act in an absolute manner without contradicting the constitution or law. A good example of this is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are not an inalienable listing of rights as the government reserves the right to come first and act in emergency to suspend those very rights. Three sections: 2,7 and 15 can be overridden by an act of the legislature for a maximum of five years - before requiring renewal.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included

in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. ...

3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

There is no reason for government to have exceptions or emergency legislative powers. Government can act quickly, and gain people's agreeance on the necessary speed of action without having to resort to a state of emergency or a state of exception.

Lisa Adamson has an interesting article on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and the speeches Steve Harper and Rob Nicholson made on the issue. Adamson writes that Harper and Nicholson are opposed to constitutional rights due to the conservative belief in the supremacy of the legislative. This is an incorrect reading, especially in a parliamentary system which collapses the executive and legislative into the one body in the lower house. She should have written that conservatism believes in executive supremacy.

From the article:

The Conservative government retains its continued allegiance to pre-Charter legislative supremacy. This is the reason why they praise the Bill of Rights, although it effected negligible change in public policy and no change in institutional function. Indeed, that is why they praise it.

Apparently Canada had a statutory bill of rights, like New Zealand does, prior to entrenching rights in the constitution with the Charter. The purpose of a constitutional Bill of Rights is twofold: one, to create areas of pure liberty that the executive and legislative cannot intrude into. The judicial becomes the body which determines if the executive and legislative have intruded or not.

Two, it gives a direct legal means for the people, who are sovereign, to sue the government for its intrusion on their liberties. In both cases this acts as a constitutional break on the government and parties.

John Howard uses a similar argument to Harper in an Australia Day speech :

Some Australians have argued in recent times that the balance has moved too far. They want to shift it in the other direction, principally through a Bill of Rights. I believe this would be a big mistake for our democracy. A Bill of Rights would not materially increase the freedoms of Australian citizens. It will not make us more united, indeed I believe it would lessen our ability to manage and to resolve conflict in a free society.

It would also take us further away from the type of civic culture we need to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. No matter how skilfully crafted, a Bill of Rights always embodies the potential for misinterpretation, unintended consequences or accidental exclusion. History is replete with examples of where grand charters and lyric phrases have failed to protect the basic rights and freedoms of a nation's citizens.

This is another statement that is arguing, not for legislative supremacy, but for executive supremacy. Howard is arguing that the only way freedoms can be protected is through vigorous executive government which decides what freedoms can be practically maintained within the confines of political order.

A Bill of Rights would increase the freedoms of Australians as it would explicitly limit executive and legislative action. It would create a sphere of liberty that government cannot intrude in to, and if they do, those that have been intruded upon can sue the government directly through the judicial arm of government.

The only way social order in Howard's speech makes sense is if it is phrased in the meaning of executive allowed order. This is where conservatism and liberalism come adrift. In Harper 's and Howard's parliamentary world, order, civilisation and freedom are fragile things that can only be maintained if the executive is the dominant political body. Under liberalism, government is the frail and corrupt body that is permanently politically inferior to the individual and the capability of individuals in maximum liberty to maximise order through spontaneous self-organisation.

Conservatism sees the state as the dominant political entity, while Liberalism sees the individual as the dominant political entity. The competition in philosophies is not left and right anymore - it is between liberalism and conservatism. With nearly all of the old left, and much of the old right both being in the liberalist bucket. The left-right is now an artificial and meaningless political differentiation.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system. A significant difference between Canadian and Australian government is that Canada has an appointed Senate unlike Australia's which is elected. The Governor-General appoints the Canadian Senate from recommendations by the Prime Minister. Canada is a federal system and has a bill of rights known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is entrenched into the Canadian Constitution of 1982. Canada has had a bill of rights since 1960, however, prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it was a statutorial act, not a constitutional one.

So what is the platform of the Canadian Republicans?

The goals of Citizens for a Canadian Republic are; a Canadian head of state, an elected head of state and the removal of monarchy from Canadian Government.

Canada has a pretty good history of applying reform. A good example is transitioning from a defaced red ensign to the maple leaf flag. Another is the constitutional rejuvenation in 1982, though that was made easy by Canada formalising its government into one Constitutional Act rather than being spread across numerous statutorial documents as Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia are.

The Citizens for a Canadian Republic are more focused on having an elected head of state than any one model of republican government:

Please note: The objective of Citizens for a Canadian Republic is solely to promote the concept of Canada becoming a republic and present the options available for discussion. For that reason, we do not endorse or promote any of the above [head of state election models] formulas.

Democratism appears to be the main drive behind the group - which is not a bad thing by any means.

This is Calgary's new Mayor. I watched this talk while at work recently, I think because of hacker news. I often watch Ted talks while waiting for tests and jobs to complete.

I don't know how powerful a Mayor is in Canadian politics as they have National and Provincial [state in Au/US] government before you get to municipal government. I don't know if local government is more powerful than it is in Australia or if it is constantly interfered with by the state government as it is in the likes of NSW.

A big deal has been made that he is North America's first muslim mayor. I think that pales in comparison to he is a mayor who has a fascinating talk on Ted prior to being mayor. That is awesome, and I hope other thoughtful people follow the same path.