Geneva, Switzerland, and troublesome protests

Did you know that in Geneva, Switzerland, a bastion of Direct Democracy, they held in March a   referendum upon a seeming popular subject; - the  disruptions caused by "protest" movements. The people voted by referendum to allow their government to fine organizers who do not obtain   approvals for a demonstration. The amount of the potential fine is Sw.F 100,000. That is not very dissimilar to what Quebec's legislature  ultimately had to do to get some control of the anarchy disturbing that province by masses of students who thought they had some sort of entitlement to cheap education.
Such a much better manner to handle rebellions. Determine what the majority wish by letting them have a referendum on the subject. But, do it before the issue gets out of hand.  Might  Ontario  some day attain such a level of democratic action, before it becomes unduly disrupted?

Wisconsin's newest democratic decision

One can recall the daring efforts of the governor of Wisconsin last year to try to get control of his state's terrible debts, by attempting to curtail certain aspects of the state employee's union's bargaining rights. A traditional bastion of socialism, the unions there had considerable might. The legislature was flooded by opponents; a significant portion of representatives actually left the state for awhile  to reduce the chances of a proper vote from happening. Well, the governor ultimately managed to get his way. But, his opponents were not finished. They decided to utilize a   state law permitting them to try to "recall" their governor. They needed a petition signed by 300,000 citizens. They got 600,000. And the referendum upon that issue was held. But, lo and behold, the majority of the citizens actually agreed to the governor's efforts to obtain control. They opposed the recall effort. What an example of Direct Democracy!  Why are not more such processes used in this modern age? Clearly in Quebec where many students seem to think their opinions are in the majority, such process is not available. Nor is it anywhere else, except in an awkward way in B.C. But, shouldn't it be? Students, -  start thinking out of the box - and towards Direct Democracy and its processes of petitions and referendums. You might actually improve the world, instead of making a nuisance of yourselves.

Electing mayors in Britain?

Did you know that most cities in England do not have elected mayors? The current government there thought that having such might improve local governing. And so, what did they  do?  PM Cameron authorized referendums for ten of the biggest  communities in Britain. And the result? Only one city approved the idea - Bristol. The majority of communities seemed to be wary of allowing a semi-strong local, elected  personage to sort of rule over them. London's experiment where, since the year 2,000, elected mayors tended to accumulate influence, even without formal powers may have swayed them negatively. An interesting difference from the fount of democracy, compared to our own; where we seem to like the idea of having heads of local government elected just about everywhere. But, the most interesting aspect of this process was - establishing referendums where the people's wishes would determine the outcome. Direct democracy was certainly put well into play. Sometimes the results are surprising - but very clearly it was what the  citizens wanted that counted.

Protesting Quebec students improving democracy?

Can one say anything favourable about the demonizing efforts of the young, but oh so wise(?)  protesting students of Quebec? They are trying to force their government to undo a proposal to reduce the debilitating debts of their province, by increasing their too low tuition fees? They have almost brought the operation of the government to a halt. The one semi-good thing about it is their allegation that what they are doing is trying to improve the democracy of their province. Democracy does need to be improved. Our method of representative democracy has hardly altered since its creation 150 years ago. But, why cannot they appreciate that the improvement that is needed is Direct Democracy, not anarchy? Have their poli-sci classes not taught them about it?  If their claim is so sound, it could be properly proven via a petition of sufficient numbers (possibly 5% of the citizenry) followed by a referendum. If properly instituted into the law, the results of that referendum would be binding upon the government. That would be the civilized, modern manner of improving democracy, and society; not wild and damaging protests.

Rights of citizens being trampled upon by judges.

So many recent issues - which could be determined by citizens, through their votes. If only we had the right to do so. Talk about democratic "rights" and the 30th anniversary of the charter of rights. Where within it does it give to the Canadian citizens, if enough are concerned about the issue, to vote democratically to see if their concern is shared by a majority of others? The only groups to which the charter gives power are unelected judges.

And so, how about them just the other day declaring prostitution a right; and also, giving a right to heroin users free access to centres at which to indulge their terrible habit? And of course all women must have a right to abort their expected daughter if they wish (now that they can have a right to know(?), of the expected sex long before the date of birth).

Maybe some or all of those issues are indeed favoured by a majority of Canadians. If so, in a democracy wherein by definition the majority of citizens should be the rulers, those matters could be part of the law. But, not yet in Ontario, or Canada, are we allowed that sort of right to decide. Is this the 21st century , or are we still mired back in 1867 - or even 1982?

Little Slovenia shows its democratic muscle.

The people of the new, little country of Slovenia, most recently a part of Jugoslavia, have, it seems, a modern form of Direct Democracy to help run it. Recently their parliament passed a law permitting homosexuals to adopt children. But many of the citizens did not want that, and after obtaining enough names on an "initiative", required that the issue be put to a vote. And some 55% of the people voted against the idea. Such law was therefore annulled. According to their rules such question cannot be attempted again for at least a year. .

The North Bay Nugget in its issue of March 26, headlined the story by saying that "Slovenians reject homosexual rights". One may (or may not) disagree with their conclusion, but one cannot deny that a majority of the people do not want such "rights". And that is surely the essence of "democracy". Would that Ontario or Canada had any opportunity whatever of permitting their citizens to bring an issue of which many of its people want a say upon, to vote and be able effectively to show their opinion - as within new Slovenia.

Controlling Education in Quebec

English as a second language in the Province of Quebec. Would you not think that was a good idea - within the public school system? Most citizens there seem to agree, according to polls. But, it is not being implemented well, it seems. The teachers union there is opposed to needed improvements in that area, according to recent news reports from that province.

Well, regardless of different opinions on that subject would not that be a good sort of matter for a referendum? Would not that be the sort of question that citizens of a reputed democracy should be allowed a definitive vote upon?

It clearly would be, if they had Direct Democracy rules in Quebec. Of course, we do not have similar rules permitting citizens to have their say in Ontario, either. If they had do you think it would have been possible to have clamped down upon calamitous government indebtedness before it got out of hand - as now seems here to be the case? An awakened, and potentially accountable populace could do a lot to improve our fracturing system, it seems clear to me, at any rate.