In Canada it is easy to see where elite consensus lies. Marijuana legislation is barrelling ahead (potheads rejoice!) and electoral reform is dead in the water and slowly sinking out of the public’s consciousness.
This is how electoral reform died in Canada:
“In response, Trudeau pointed to a difference of opinions among the major political parties.
“As people in this House know, I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite [in the NDP] wanted proportional representation. The Official Opposition wanted a referendum,” he said, gesturing toward the Conservatives.
“There is no consensus. There is no clear path forward. It would be irresponsible to do something that harms Canada’s stability.”
Later, in response to a question from May, Trudeau expanded on his explanation.
“Anything a prime minister or a government must do must be in the interest of Canada and all Canadians, particularly when it comes to transforming our electoral system. I understand the passion and the intensity with which the member opposite believes in this and many Canadians mirror that passion and that intensity.”
“But there is no consensus, there is no sense of how to do this. And, quite frankly, a divisive referendum, an augmentation of extremist voices in this House, is not what is in the best interests of Canada.”
It is quite odd that ‘building consensus” and “augmentation of extremist voices” were of such a deeply troubling concern to our dear Prime Minister. The Liberal Party currently holds a majority in our House of Commons – 184 seats (14 more than the required 170) – so they can pass whatever damn legislation they choose, at any time, and the opposition can do precisely diddly-squat about it.
Enter the consensus building. Or, to look at things slightly more Machiavellian, why would the government dismantle the electoral system that has brought it to power tweny-four times since the inception of Canada as a nation?
I’m pretty sure that’s all that needs to be said on the issue of electoral reform.
The other half of the story is the legalization of marijuana and that folks is an example, par excellance of Canadian Government policy careening downhill on the greasiest of skids. Nothing is going to stop this fully loaded freight-train of weed goodness. (I have heard nary a whisper of building consensus on this issue – it’s just getting done). From the Liberal Party website –
” Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.
Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses. At the same time, the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs.
To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.
We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code, and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.”
Oh the principled anguish!
I’m not buying it for a second. The legality of marijuana is a trivial issue. It will not affect those in the halls of power one iota. And, thus we have this great commitment and expressed vigour to helping all Canadians and making things better for the country. (Clearly, reforming the skewed FPP electoral system won’t benefit Canadians or the country…)
“OTTAWA — The Canadian government has introduced sweeping legislation designed to permit the recreational use of marijuana throughout the country by July 2018, fulfilling an election promise by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The bill, inspired in part by the experiences of cannabis regimes in Colorado and Washington state, goes well beyond the U.S. situation, where marijuana remains prohibited at the federal level. In Canada, the federal government will change criminal law nationally and will license growers and set product standards while leaving it up to the provinces to handle distribution and manage retail sale.
Canada will become the first large industrialized nation with a broad system permitting recreational as well as medical use of marijuana. At present, only Uruguay has a national legal regime permitting widespread use of cannabis.”
*sigh* – Oh, Canada. :/
16 comments
January 9, 2018 at 6:04 am
Carmen
I’ve always leaned toward decriminalization. I’ve never read anything that convinces me legalizing it will be a better decision for the country. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the classroom (I’m talking High School level).
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 9, 2018 at 6:21 am
Miep
My guess is that in ten years Monsanto will be the major stockholder in Cannabis Inc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 9, 2018 at 6:22 am
Miep
LikeLike
January 9, 2018 at 11:27 am
raunchel
Of course cannabis is important, it allows them to look good without doing anything serious. I mean, it’s not like they’re not massively benefitting from the current system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 9, 2018 at 12:18 pm
Bob Browning
Drug laws are a tool to keep a thumb on most of us- the privileged don’t do time. Europeans are much less reactionary than N. Americans.
Some day voters will be smart enough and have good alternatives rather than electing corporate pawns who spout gobbel-de-gook like Turdoh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 9, 2018 at 12:55 pm
lovetruthcourage
I am unsure of what the need for electoral reform in Canada is, as I do not live in Canada, and these issues are not widely reported where I live. However, I don’t think marijuana legalization is a trivial issue. Too many people are having their entire lives destroyed over a plant. They are incarcerated, ripped from their families, jobs, and communities — over a nontoxic plant that’s less dangerous than perfectly legal alcohol and cigarettes. It’s senseless and counterproductive. Keeping marijuana illegal does nothing to stop Canadians from actually obtaining it, enriches criminal cartels, and has no advantages. Legalizing, regulating, and controlling marijuana is the answer. Currently, kids report that marijuana is easier to obtain than alcohol because illegal marijuana dealers don’t check IDs. Take this business outside of the realm of criminals and put it into the hands of more conscientious people. Tax it and derive benefit from it, because people are using it either way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2018 at 12:14 pm
The Arbourist
@Carmen
I’m guessing not that much. Maybe increased rustling of all the chip bags.. :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2018 at 12:15 pm
The Arbourist
@Miep
It’s always nice to have a legal cartel, rather than a dark shadowy illegal one…
LikeLike
January 10, 2018 at 12:17 pm
The Arbourist
@Raunchel
That’s the entire thing, other than the 420 stoner segment and the conservative greybeards who rail against *any* change in society – no one cares. I’m not sure what is worse the slow death of 1000 cuts via the Liberals or the in your face guillotine-ing of the Conservatives.
LikeLike
January 10, 2018 at 1:00 pm
lovetruthcourage
So, you “don’t care” and consider it unimportant that millions have been arrested and many jailed for an unjust reason? It’s unimportant because it doesn’t affect you personally? Wow. At least be internally consistent and lobby for the arrest and imprisonment of alcohol drinkers and tobacco users. Those 2 substances are much more deadly and damaging. Why the hypocrisy?
LikeLike
January 11, 2018 at 11:44 pm
bleatmop
I am in favour of decriminalization of marijuana. The legalization I am somewhat ambivalent about, although I think it is slightly worse than decriminalization. I do think that we will no longer be putting people in jail for smoking a joint is a very good thing. I also don’t think this is per say a distraction from their lack of electoral reform although they are advertising their successes and not their failures. Both were of the LPC’s election promises and I support both those goals.
Don’t get me wrong. I am pisses they didn’t meet their goal of electoral reform. Justin thinks he can get away with saying he always prefered STV even though that isn’t what they campaigned on. Justin also forced out Dion because he was actively championing his own version of electoral reform, one that would have moved our democracy forwards by leaps and bounds. It balanced both rep by pop and regional representation. It ensured that everyone within a riding would likely have a MP that could represent them and their views in the House. Dion Was forced out because Justin wants STV to help solidify LPC power due to the trend to have middle ground candidates elected with a STV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2018 at 10:52 am
lovetruthcourage
Electoral reform and legalizing marijuana, one has nothing to do with the other. The former, I do not know enough about and the latter I am for. Why is electoral reform needed in Canada? Is there a problem like gerrymandering in the USA, or is this totally different? What are the main arguments for and against? What is a “riding”? Is that a district? Doesn’t everyone have a MP representing them in their district? If not, why not?
LikeLike
January 12, 2018 at 11:25 am
The Arbourist
@LTC
In the Canadian context, if we jailed millions, that would be roughly 3 to 5% of the population.
I am referring specifically to the Canadian aspect of this issue. We do not have a failed war on drugs, nor do we have a private for profit prison system (to the extent it is in the US). The Canadian justice system is much less punitive when it come to drug offences.
I’m sorry, I should have been more specific with regards to the scope,in my responses.
LikeLike
January 12, 2018 at 11:32 am
The Arbourist
@LTC
The relationship is that back in 2015 they were both campaign promises made by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Why I mention them in the same article is to juxtapose the relative importance of each of the issues with regards to the political process and thus determining who governs Canada.
This is about moving, per riding federally speaking, from a first past the post system to a system of proportional representation, or preferred balloting.
The change promised and then reneged on by our Liberal government would have changed the electoral landscape and given Canadians a more responsive electoral system in which more minority voices could have been heard.
LikeLike
January 12, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Meg
Like other commenters, I’m more for decriminalization than I am for legalization. I can’t speak about Canadian issues (obviously) but I can say here in the US there is a massive problem with substance abuse. It’s not just marijuana but also that people are willing to steal their family’s medication or chug cough syrup just to get stoned. I’ve talked to single working mothers who raised their teenage sons alone all to have them steal from them so they can buy pot or whatever other kind of drug they’re on. Of course they can’t go to the cops because mothers are blamed for everything, and what will become of their darling boys if they’re sent to jail?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think locking up nonviolent drug users is a solution. I just don’t think legalization is a solution either, especially not in a society with a sociopathic disregard for how women’s lives will be impacted by it. IMO a lot of American proponents of legalization haven’t experienced the worst aspects of marijuana abuse, and sort of brush off any negative affect as non-weed related. Well of course, it’s the person who abuses it that is responsible, but to ignore that weed is also a mind altering substance is ridiculous and gaslighting.
It is also telling that in Western cultures, it’s women who were primarily proponents of prohibition and temperance movements. People write off pro-sobriety women as prudes and fuddy duddies while ignoring the very real problems these women faced – their husbands drinking all the money away and leaving them with no way to feed their ten kids, their husbands getting drunk and sleeping around and bringing home venereal diseases, their husbands getting drunk and beating on them and the children. It’s not hard to understand why these women thought alcohol was the problem and why they thought getting rid of alcohol was the solution. Their lives were made a living hell because of alcohol, and anyone living today who has grown up with an alcoholic parent or family member knows this to be true as well.
There will of course be the argument that weed and alcohol are different, but it doesn’t erase the fact that whatever negative affects of weed legalization will be felt primarily by women and second by any children in her care.
As far as politicians go, the same concept applies – they can afford to champion the weed cause because it makes them look good and they aren’t the ones who will be dealing with the negative affects afterward.
LikeLike
January 12, 2018 at 2:49 pm
bleatmop
@lTC Electoral reform and marijuana are linked together because they are the two major campaign promises during the last election cycle. The adoption of these two issues is largely thought to be one of the reasons why the LPC was able to bleed so many voters off the NDP; that being a big key to the LPC able to form a government.
Electoral reform is needed in Canada for one of the very reasons that USians are freaking out in the USA about Trump. A big sticking point about Trump is that he lost the popular vote. Well here in Canada virtually every government ever has only got 35-45% of the popular vote. With that 35%-45% they can get anywhere from 51% to 80% of the seats in the house. When a government in Canada manages to get a majority in the HOC it is much like controlling the POTUS, Senate, and House of Representatives in the US.
So basically we need electoral reform so that 35% of the population cannot impose a government on the other 65%. However running pure proportional representation also isn’t the answer here in Canada as that would allow three cities and their suburbs (GTA, Montreal, and Vancouver) to effectively determine the government for the rest of the country. Canada needs a system that balances regional representation with representation by population. This is why I like the Dion system as described here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLeClCrfgQ
So that answers the Why is electoral reform needed. As to your other questions, no gerrymandering isn’t a big deal here. Electoral districts are usually drawn by impartial bureaucrats and they usually try and make the based on communities.
For/Against? – Addressed above and in the video.
A riding is an electoral district. They currently elect one Member of Parliament whom then represents the entirety of their riding in the House of Commons. The party that can gather the most MPs has the first opportunity to petition the Queen’s representative, the Governor General, to form the government. The party who is the government get to have their leader as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gets to appoint a Cabinet, which is usually but not exclusively composed of MPs, who have the executive and administrative powers of the government. The House of Parliament, consisting of the Senate and the House of Commons, has the legislative powers of the government. Since this is usually a majority government this usually gives the Prime Minister absolute control of the legislative and administrative/executive powers of government.
Everyone has a MP representing them in their riding yes. However if you say live in Alberta and have an issue you need represented in the House and it just happens to be a left leaning issue then you effectively have no representation. Your MP won’t even lift a finger for you. This is another reason why I like Dion’s model because not only would I cast a vote that actually mattered for the first time in my life but I would also have a representative that might actually respond to the mail I’ve sent to them.
LikeLike