I suspect that most politicians are fairly ideological on a narrow set of issues and much more "flexible"/pragmatic on the rest of them.
The gay marriage issue was especially weird because it was more or less universally understood for years that almost all Democratic politicians favored legalizing gay marriage but were unwilling to go out on a limb for it.
Well, there is a huge difference to giving disingenuous public lip service to being personally against it, and being so rabidly anti-LGBT rights that you push for a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and woman, which Bush did. Without the gay marriage issue on the ballot in Ohio in 2004 to get evangelicals out to vote, I doubt he gets re-elected at all. Obama slow-walked the issue until the Supreme Court decided it. Gay marriage had enough problems getting to where it's at. The last thing it needed was the baggage of having the political lightning rod of the first African-American President being added to the mix. He also ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell within two years.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
I don't believe Obama was ever personally against it. I think, much like how American society would view a non-Christian President as anathema, up till Obama's Presidency, the same expectation of the American public was that they be against gay marriage (which is basically tied to the first). And it really doesn't matter a hell of lot, since his record on gay rights is light years ahead of any of his predecessors. Again, it was a herculean enough feat to get elected as a black man in America. The last thing he needed was another cultural lightning rod added to the mix. It's not a profile in courage by any means, but what matters is what was actually done during his 8 years for gay rights. And the marriage issue was headed for a solution in the courts long before Obama was elected. That was always the end-game. I suspect that was part of the calculation.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
As a secular institution recognized by the government for tax purposes and what not I actually agree. It's when they want a religion to recognize it that I don't agree. Religions are generally not inclusive to everybody and if one doesn't like it, they're free to join another religion (or even create one if they're so inclined).
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
As a secular institution recognized by the government for tax purposes and what not I actually agree. It's when they want a religion to recognize it that I don't agree. Religions are generally not inclusive to everybody and if one doesn't like it, they're free to join another religion (or even create one if they're so inclined).
I don't think any religions ARE expected to recognize it, nor should they have to. That said, I also think it's long past time religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Because most of them are clearly nothing by businesses looking to make money. Thieves and charlatans have been hiding behind God for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The rank and file in any political party is probably motivated primarily by ideology. You wouldn't stick around if you didn't really believe in the candidates or the mission. But the people who actually run as candidates in a political party are much more likely to be pragmatic and calculating, simply because people who aren't are going to have a hard time staying in office, and someone who keeps losing elections is going to lose the faith of their party and get replaced.
That said, I think a lot of politicians do genuinely care about at least some issues, even if they have to campaign about stuff they don't care about for the sake of winning an election ("I don't have strong feelings about abortion, but my voters sure do"). If you really want money and power and so forth, you're better off running a business than running an election campaign.
A democratic election is a very dicey and very unreliable route to power. And given the situation of our campaign finance system, in which the average politician can't win elections unless he or she kowtows to special interests and begs for campaign contributions, I think a power-mad sociopath would find public office to be a lot less sexy than a position as an executive in a corporation.
Personally, I'd feel much more powerful as the president of a company than the President of the United States; the latter involves a lot of scrutiny, a lot of limitations, and a lot of pressure from everyone telling you what to do (on top of making less money!). The only reason I'd prefer being the latter is because I care about political issues.
What about you guys? Would you rather be in charge of a company, or in charge of a city or a state or your nation?
The rank and file in any political party is probably motivated primarily by ideology. You wouldn't stick around if you didn't really believe in the candidates or the mission. But the people who actually run as candidates in a political party are much more likely to be pragmatic and calculating, simply because people who aren't are going to have a hard time staying in office, and someone who keeps losing elections is going to lose the faith of their party and get replaced.
That said, I think a lot of politicians do genuinely care about at least some issues, even if they have to campaign about stuff they don't care about for the sake of winning an election ("I don't have strong feelings about abortion, but my voters sure do"). If you really want money and power and so forth, you're better off running a business than running an election campaign.
A democratic election is a very dicey and very unreliable route to power. And given the situation of our campaign finance system, in which the average politician can't win elections unless he or she kowtows to special interests and begs for campaign contributions, I think a power-mad sociopath would find public office to be a lot less sexy than a position as an executive in a corporation.
Personally, I'd feel much more powerful as the president of a company than the President of the United States; the latter involves a lot of scrutiny, a lot of limitations, and a lot of pressure from everyone telling you what to do (on top of making less money!). The only reason I'd prefer being the latter is because I care about political issues.
What about you guys? Would you rather be in charge of a company, or in charge of a city or a state or your nation?
The main problem we have right now is that Trump now thinks the United States government is now an extension of his personal business empire. He thinks he acquired it in the same way he would acquire property or real estate.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
As a secular institution recognized by the government for tax purposes and what not I actually agree. It's when they want a religion to recognize it that I don't agree. Religions are generally not inclusive to everybody and if one doesn't like it, they're free to join another religion (or even create one if they're so inclined).
I don't think any religions ARE expected to recognize it, nor should they have to. That said, I also think it's long past time religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Because most of them are clearly nothing by businesses looking to make money. Thieves and charlatans have been hiding behind God for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Ouch! I wonder how many people would still tithe if that happened?
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
As a secular institution recognized by the government for tax purposes and what not I actually agree. It's when they want a religion to recognize it that I don't agree. Religions are generally not inclusive to everybody and if one doesn't like it, they're free to join another religion (or even create one if they're so inclined).
I don't think any religions ARE expected to recognize it, nor should they have to. That said, I also think it's long past time religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Because most of them are clearly nothing by businesses looking to make money. Thieves and charlatans have been hiding behind God for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Ouch! I wonder how many people would still tithe if that happened?
It's never going to happen. That being said, the collection plate passing I've seen in my life is almost zombie-like in the first place. It's just something people do without thinking about it.
What about you guys? Would you rather be in charge of a company, or in charge of a city or a state or your nation?
I'd rather be in charge of nothing, but given the above choice it would clearly be a company. However, I dislike the idea of being in the public eye and making decisions for others. I suspect the motivation for at least some politicians is that they want to do both of those. It's not just about the exercise of power per se, but the validation of self from all the public attention.
The rank and file in any political party is probably motivated primarily by ideology. You wouldn't stick around if you didn't really believe in the candidates or the mission. But the people who actually run as candidates in a political party are much more likely to be pragmatic and calculating, simply because people who aren't are going to have a hard time staying in office, and someone who keeps losing elections is going to lose the faith of their party and get replaced.
That said, I think a lot of politicians do genuinely care about at least some issues, even if they have to campaign about stuff they don't care about for the sake of winning an election ("I don't have strong feelings about abortion, but my voters sure do"). If you really want money and power and so forth, you're better off running a business than running an election campaign.
A democratic election is a very dicey and very unreliable route to power. And given the situation of our campaign finance system, in which the average politician can't win elections unless he or she kowtows to special interests and begs for campaign contributions, I think a power-mad sociopath would find public office to be a lot less sexy than a position as an executive in a corporation.
Personally, I'd feel much more powerful as the president of a company than the President of the United States; the latter involves a lot of scrutiny, a lot of limitations, and a lot of pressure from everyone telling you what to do (on top of making less money!). The only reason I'd prefer being the latter is because I care about political issues.
What about you guys? Would you rather be in charge of a company, or in charge of a city or a state or your nation?
Personally, I'd rather be in charge of neither. Too many headaches running a business and the general public would drive me insane!
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Not sure I'd like to live in a Canadian county that has a big prison in it. Just a thought...
Of course this is what comes to mind when I think of Canadian prisons so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Not sure I'd like to live in a Canadian county that has a big prison in it. Just a thought...
Of course this is what comes to mind when I think of Canadian prisons so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
You mean like Kingston, ON? Who elected Sophie Kiwala in the last provincial election. The area is also going to be voting for both Municipal and Provincial governments this year too. There is nothing drastically special about it.
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Those are not political prisoners. They are murderers who were political activists. Leonard Peltier killed FBI agents, and Mumia killed a cop.
That website and organization is a freaking joke. Its like claiming the Bundy family are political prisoners.
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Not sure I'd like to live in a Canadian county that has a big prison in it. Just a thought...
Of course this is what comes to mind when I think of Canadian prisons so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
You mean like Kingston, ON? Who elected Sophie Kiwala in the last provincial election. The area is also going to be voting for both Municipal and Provincial governments this year too. There is nothing drastically special about it.
That last post was meant to be tongue in cheek, not a criticism. I love that scene from Canadian Bacon. Especially the reasons the prisoners are incarcerated and the argument about the capital of Canada being Toronto and not Ottawa!
In Canada, Prisoners still have the right to vote and contrary to the fear tactics that is displayed, they do not sway elections drastically.
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Those are not political prisoners. They are murderers who were political activists. Leonard Peltier killed FBI agents, and Mumia killed a cop.
That website and organization is a freaking joke. Its like claiming the Bundy family are political prisoners.
Well, alot of people think that both Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal were framed. I'm not going to try convince anyone that is the case, since I don't know if I believe it myself. But given that I've seen more than a handful of videos the past few years of cops planting evidence on people they just shot, I'm not ruling it out either. It's not like it's unprecedented. The Central Park Five and West Memphis 3 come to mind immediately as 8 people who were 100% innocent who between them spent decades upon decades in prison after being railroaded by cops and prosecutors.
It's best to read up on the cases. Peltier himself did not get a "without a reasonable doubt" conviction if you actually read about it. Others involved in the shoot out were found not guilty due to self defense.
My point though is that it is far more likely there are political prisoners in America than it is that serial killers will be able to dictate government policy by giving them the chance to vote.
And a citizens rights should never be taken away from them regardless of their actions. You can debate if voting is a right or a privilege but in a country that considers itself the bedrock of democracy, it should be a right.
Why does it make a difference if voting is a right or a privilege? I don't agree that it is never appropriate to take rights away - if that was the case there would be no prisons as that infringes the personal right to freedom (and in the US the right to life is not absolute either).
I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that even if Peltier and Mumia are innocent and "political prisoners", the idea that their arrests is part of the single most incompetent voter suppression conspiracy of all time is nonsensical.
Somehow I doubt that their arrests (and convictions) were part of a secret plot to rob them of their right to vote. Just a guess!!!
Indeed, the list has about 50 political prisoners, tops (which includes members of FARC who wouldn't even have voting rights to begin with). So they would have less influence on elections than the 150 or so serial killers you reference in your initial post. So if we are going to use raw numbers (which is a silly metric here) you're only hurting the case for allowing prisoners the right to vote.
Canadians enjoy: freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
When the word Freedom is used, it refers to the above not freedom of incarceration.
Canadians also have the right to vote according to section 3. Legal rights are covered from sections 7 to 14.
None of these rights or freedoms are taken away if a person is incarcerated. There is a limitation clause but it has to follow strict guidelines (called the Oakes Test) to be used.
~
Why does it make a difference if voting is a right or a privilege? I don't agree that it is never appropriate to take rights away - if that was the case there would be no prisons as that infringes the personal right to freedom (and in the US the right to life is not absolute either).
Privileges usually need to be earned, such as the privilege to drive a car once you obtain a licence to do so. But just because you have a licence doesn't mean you have the right to drive. That privilege can still be taken away because of many factors, including medical ones.
If voting is a privilege, then yes, it can be taken away from an individual. But usually privileges are in place instead of rights to protect society or the public as a whole. I do not see how taking away a person privilege to vote protects a society.
Which of these rights is absolute? Are you saying there is no limitation on the right to free speech in Canada? Because I know that for an absolute fact to be untrue. All rights are subject to limitations.
Incarceration also puts severe limitations on the rights to speech, assembly, and association.
But the biggest restriction is under Section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Or how about Section 6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
and that is just from reading a wiki article for one minute. There are tons of limitations on rights in Canada and every other nation in the world.
And this all ignores the fact that were are arguing whether or not the incarcerate should vote, not whether it is consistent with law in a certain jurisdiction.
I'm not particularly invested in allowing currently incarcerated people to vote, but I still haven't seen a good argument for why they shouldn't.
I think deterrence was suggested, which may or may not have been serious. Given how few people even bother to vote, it seems obvious to me that suspended voting rights would not be an effective deterrent for crime.
It was also proposed that (some?) criminals have proven themselves unqualified or unworthy to make political decisions. But if that's the argument, why would it be acceptable to restore their voting rights once they're released?
The comment about living in a county with a big prison is potentially more persuasive, but that would depend on how prisoners' residency is handled in local elections.
Posts were coming pretty fast earlier; did I miss something?
Privileges usually need to be earned, such as the privilege to drive a car once you obtain a licence to do so. But just because you have a licence doesn't mean you have the right to drive. That privilege can still be taken away because of many factors, including medical ones.
If voting is a privilege, then yes, it can be taken away from an individual. But usually privileges are in place instead of rights to protect society or the public as a whole. I do not see how taking away a person privilege to vote protects a society.
I still don't see the difference. I understand you need to obtain a license as a precondition for driving, but there are pre-conditions for voting as well, e.g. the need to get placed on a register (I'm assuming that or some equivalent is a requirement to vote in Canada).
As for protection I agree that removing a person's vote while they are in prison is not intended to protect society. It does, however, provide a signal about the acceptability of the actions that led someone to be incarcerated. Essentially it reflects that the prisoner has chosen not to meet the responsibilities of a citizen and should therefore not get the rights either.
I don't have strong feelings about this issue and can in particular sympathize with the argument for keeping the vote as part of an overall effort to rehabilitate prisoners. However, intellectually, depriving someone of their vote at the same time as their liberty seems entirely consistent to me.
There is a very easy middle ground--if you are a convicted felon you lose your right to vote while you are in prison and then after you are released while you are on parole. Once you keep your nose clean for the time required to be released from parole you immediately regain your right to vote. On the other hand, following the usual "three strikes" mode of thought, if you get convicted on your third felony you lose that right forever--you have clearly demonstrated that you do not wish to be a responsible member of society so you no longer get to have a voice in that society.
re: raising the minimum age to vote...no. Remember--there were people who were being sent to die in Vietnam who could not vote, which is why we corrected that situation beginning in the late 1960s and finished correcting it in 1971.
re: the victims in Florida being angry.... They have every right to be angry--they experienced a traumatic event at a young age. Unfortunately, their anger will fade with time (it always does) even if their frustration at a lack of progress does not. Their anger is misdirected at Trump, though--there is absolutely *nothing* he can do about gun control other than to use the "bully pulpit" power of his office to motivate Congress...but that isn't going to happen, so their energies would be better spent trying to motivate their State and Congressional representatives.
Anyway...if they think they are angry now just wait until Congress doesn't do what they think is sufficient in terms of gun control legislation or increased background checks. Trying to call the NRA "child murderers", though, just makes the person leveling the accusation look foolish--the NRA didn't shoot anyone.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Since almost all political arguments and what side of the debate you come down on are most of the time decided upon emotion and feelings anyway, I think the visceral impact of calling them child murderers is the exact way to go. The NRA has been opposed to ALL background checks, including people on the terrorist watchlist. Their primary function is as a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers, and their intent is to flood this country with as many guns as humanly possible. They actually BENEFIT from mass shootings, because everytime one happens, the ammosexuals run out and buy more guns and ammo, thinking that another of these mythical gun-grabs is right around the corner. 17 kids getting killed is a dream come true for both the NRA and the gun manufacturers.
I also think we should take a moment to congratulate the executives and workers who manufacture these AR-15s. They make a wonderfully efficient product. Their assault rifle ripped up the bodies of those high school students in the exact manner it was supposed to, as it was designed to do as a weapon of war:
I hope they all sleep well at night. They are providing such a wonderful service to all of us. They can be proud of their work. Their product did exactly what it was always intended to to.
I think it's obvious they don't care about anything at all except the money they make selling guns. They figure who cares, they themselves are fabulously rich. They gave Trump $30 million dollars with a smile. They don't care what those other people are doing, they are getting rich baby. They never even see those people from their mansions and gated communities.
Which of these rights is absolute? Are you saying there is no limitation on the right to free speech in Canada? Because I know that for an absolute fact to be untrue. All rights are subject to limitations.
Incarceration also puts severe limitations on the rights to speech, assembly, and association.
But the biggest restriction is under Section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Or how about Section 6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
and that is just from reading a wiki article for one minute. There are tons of limitations on rights in Canada and every other nation in the world.
And this all ignores the fact that were are arguing whether or not the incarcerate should vote, not whether it is consistent with law in a certain jurisdiction.
The only right that is considered absolute is section 12 - the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment (and that has only been mused about and not tested. It was about to be tested in the Omar Khadr case before the government settled to a tune of $10 million, but I digress.) All others go through the first section "reasonable limits clause" to justify a limitation on a person's Charter rights.
Rights can be limited by the government if such a limit could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The courts devised a test called The Oakes Test that must be taken if a person accuses the government of infringing on their Charter rights. The test is as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial objective for the law or government action. 2. The means chosen to achieve the objective must be proportional to the burden on the rights of the claimant. i. The objective must be rationally connected to the limit on the Charter right. ii. The limit must minimally impair the Charter right. iii. There should be an overall balance or proportionality between the benefits of the limit and its deleterious effects.
You can read the Supreme courts case from 2002, called Sauvé v. Canada to see how this applied to voting rights for prisoners. Basically the government can not show why taking away a prisoners right to vote is justifiable, therefore, prisoners can vote. They do not vote where they are incarcerated but vote for the riding they last resided in prior to being sentenced.
Comments
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
That said, I think a lot of politicians do genuinely care about at least some issues, even if they have to campaign about stuff they don't care about for the sake of winning an election ("I don't have strong feelings about abortion, but my voters sure do"). If you really want money and power and so forth, you're better off running a business than running an election campaign.
A democratic election is a very dicey and very unreliable route to power. And given the situation of our campaign finance system, in which the average politician can't win elections unless he or she kowtows to special interests and begs for campaign contributions, I think a power-mad sociopath would find public office to be a lot less sexy than a position as an executive in a corporation.
Personally, I'd feel much more powerful as the president of a company than the President of the United States; the latter involves a lot of scrutiny, a lot of limitations, and a lot of pressure from everyone telling you what to do (on top of making less money!). The only reason I'd prefer being the latter is because I care about political issues.
What about you guys? Would you rather be in charge of a company, or in charge of a city or a state or your nation?
What it does do, is it gives prisoners the opportunity to keeps correctional institutions in check to make sure their human rights aren't being violated, such as what Joe Arpaio has been able to get away with in Arizona.
The fear of the less than 150 serial killers still incarcerated in the United states getting to dictate how society is govern is a baffling argument to tell you the truth. I think that is less likely than someone going away to prison due to political reasons.
Of course this is what comes to mind when I think of Canadian prisons so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.
That website and organization is a freaking joke. Its like claiming the Bundy family are political prisoners.
My point though is that it is far more likely there are political prisoners in America than it is that serial killers will be able to dictate government policy by giving them the chance to vote.
And a citizens rights should never be taken away from them regardless of their actions. You can debate if voting is a right or a privilege but in a country that considers itself the bedrock of democracy, it should be a right.
So, that begs a simple question: do you or do you not believe in prisons?
Somehow I doubt that their arrests (and convictions) were part of a secret plot to rob them of their right to vote. Just a guess!!!
Indeed, the list has about 50 political prisoners, tops (which includes members of FARC who wouldn't even have voting rights to begin with). So they would have less influence on elections than the 150 or so serial killers you reference in your initial post. So if we are going to use raw numbers (which is a silly metric here) you're only hurting the case for allowing prisoners the right to vote.
Here is Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canadians enjoy:
freedom of conscience,
freedom of religion,
freedom of thought,
freedom of belief,
freedom of expression,
freedom of the press and of other media of communication,
freedom of peaceful assembly, and
freedom of association.
When the word Freedom is used, it refers to the above not freedom of incarceration.
Canadians also have the right to vote according to section 3. Legal rights are covered from sections 7 to 14.
None of these rights or freedoms are taken away if a person is incarcerated. There is a limitation clause but it has to follow strict guidelines (called the Oakes Test) to be used.
~
Privileges usually need to be earned, such as the privilege to drive a car once you obtain a licence to do so. But just because you have a licence doesn't mean you have the right to drive. That privilege can still be taken away because of many factors, including medical ones.
If voting is a privilege, then yes, it can be taken away from an individual. But usually privileges are in place instead of rights to protect society or the public as a whole. I do not see how taking away a person privilege to vote protects a society.
Incarceration also puts severe limitations on the rights to speech, assembly, and association.
But the biggest restriction is under Section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Or how about Section 6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
and that is just from reading a wiki article for one minute. There are tons of limitations on rights in Canada and every other nation in the world.
And this all ignores the fact that were are arguing whether or not the incarcerate should vote, not whether it is consistent with law in a certain jurisdiction.
I think deterrence was suggested, which may or may not have been serious. Given how few people even bother to vote, it seems obvious to me that suspended voting rights would not be an effective deterrent for crime.
It was also proposed that (some?) criminals have proven themselves unqualified or unworthy to make political decisions. But if that's the argument, why would it be acceptable to restore their voting rights once they're released?
The comment about living in a county with a big prison is potentially more persuasive, but that would depend on how prisoners' residency is handled in local elections.
Posts were coming pretty fast earlier; did I miss something?
As for protection I agree that removing a person's vote while they are in prison is not intended to protect society. It does, however, provide a signal about the acceptability of the actions that led someone to be incarcerated. Essentially it reflects that the prisoner has chosen not to meet the responsibilities of a citizen and should therefore not get the rights either.
I don't have strong feelings about this issue and can in particular sympathize with the argument for keeping the vote as part of an overall effort to rehabilitate prisoners. However, intellectually, depriving someone of their vote at the same time as their liberty seems entirely consistent to me.
re: raising the minimum age to vote...no. Remember--there were people who were being sent to die in Vietnam who could not vote, which is why we corrected that situation beginning in the late 1960s and finished correcting it in 1971.
re: the victims in Florida being angry.... They have every right to be angry--they experienced a traumatic event at a young age. Unfortunately, their anger will fade with time (it always does) even if their frustration at a lack of progress does not. Their anger is misdirected at Trump, though--there is absolutely *nothing* he can do about gun control other than to use the "bully pulpit" power of his office to motivate Congress...but that isn't going to happen, so their energies would be better spent trying to motivate their State and Congressional representatives.
Anyway...if they think they are angry now just wait until Congress doesn't do what they think is sufficient in terms of gun control legislation or increased background checks. Trying to call the NRA "child murderers", though, just makes the person leveling the accusation look foolish--the NRA didn't shoot anyone.
I also think we should take a moment to congratulate the executives and workers who manufacture these AR-15s. They make a wonderfully efficient product. Their assault rifle ripped up the bodies of those high school students in the exact manner it was supposed to, as it was designed to do as a weapon of war:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356
I hope they all sleep well at night. They are providing such a wonderful service to all of us. They can be proud of their work. Their product did exactly what it was always intended to to.
Rights can be limited by the government if such a limit could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The courts devised a test called The Oakes Test that must be taken if a person accuses the government of infringing on their Charter rights. The test is as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial objective for the law or government action.
2. The means chosen to achieve the objective must be proportional to the burden on the rights of the claimant.
i. The objective must be rationally connected to the limit on the Charter right.
ii. The limit must minimally impair the Charter right.
iii. There should be an overall balance or proportionality between the benefits of the limit and its deleterious effects.
You can read the Supreme courts case from 2002, called Sauvé v. Canada to see how this applied to voting rights for prisoners. Basically the government can not show why taking away a prisoners right to vote is justifiable, therefore, prisoners can vote. They do not vote where they are incarcerated but vote for the riding they last resided in prior to being sentenced.