Statue to freedom - the famous
Victory - was erected on the island of Samothrace,
possibly to commemorate a naval victory by the Greeks against foes who would
enslave them.
(If you click on
the image above it will lead you to some Greek history)
Pour version française cliquez ici
DEMOCRACY
Democracy is in fact the very
last thing that politicians (liars) and those who finance their political
campaigns want to see.
If we would live in a
democracy, we would be able to solve such problems as unemployment, homelessness,
poverty, overpopulation,
pollution, global warming, the
wars that we will have to face up to in the coming years, to name only a
few. Moreover, our fiscal burden would
be reduced by at least 50%. Unfortunately, history shows that only armed
revolutions bring about significant changes.
Election of politicians and their stay in power
In a democracy, politicians are
elected, but also removed from office upon the will of citizens.
A system of voting via the
Internet (toll free numbers to verbal menus for those who do not have access to
the Internet); which system would enable citizens to vote, on an ongoing basis,
on the stay of any politician in power, and; should a politician not receive
more than 50% of votes for three consecutive months, he/she would automatically
be dismissed. Hence, politicians would have to submit their views to citizens
for approval before attempting to impose them.
A voting system accessible by telephone or
the Internet would enable citizens to vote for the institution or removal of any politician, senator,
and political appointee; it would also enable citizens to vote on their pay
scale, etc. A guaranteed pay (e.g., say
$100,000 without any added pension)
for a minimum of 12 months would appeal to a lot of citizens to act as
politicians. Politicians' accountability
would become reality. Hence, politicians
would have no other choice but to submit, for citizens’ approval, their twisted
ideologies, insanities, and fantasies out of touch with reality, before imposing them upon an
entire population. For all practical purposes, the present system of electing
politicians for a 5 years term in office enables them to do whatever they
please, and get away with it.
All citizens could vote, at any time, on the stay of any politician
or political appointee in government.
Citizens could cast their votes simply by dialing up a toll free number,
entering their password and social security number, and then voting according
to a verbal menu. Such a voting system
would be full proof, and a lot less costly then the present voting system that
requires citizens to show up at voting boots.
We do have a wired country, don't we?
So why not use it? Any reason as
to why our governments should not be run like corporations? If people can be fired on a moment's notice
in a corporation, why would the same not be applicable to politicians in
government?
Example: Say an idealist would
fancy a firearms registry (at a cost of $10 million, then said Jean Chrétien);
he would have to propose his firearms registry to citizens before putting it into place. If citizens would not want of
it and he would decide to bypass their will, the idealist would simply be removed
from power, following a 90 days period if during that time span a majority vote
of citizens would be against his “brilliant idea”. NOTE: To date, the firearms
registry of Jean Chrétien has cost taxpayers a minimum of $2,000,000,000, and
it is totally useless; In other words, if an idealist would succeed in getting
elected to power, he would not stay there for much time causing damages. It would therefore be in the interest of
those elected to power to act as a function of citizens’ will; in other words,
as a function of reality, rather than as a function of their twisted ideas and
views.
It is possible to verify this fact by
trying out such a voting system as a pilot project on a small scale (e.g., say
on a city scale the size of Montreal). That would also require, of course, that
citizens be able to debate the proposed laws on the public place, which could
be composed of the Medias, the Internet, and any other mean of communication
deemed appropriate.
Senators and Political Appointees
I do not think that the purpose of senators should be for the government to
fill up their pockets with taxpayers' money, disguised as their legitimate fat
paychecks. I think that senators should
be in government for the honor of serving their country and fellow
citizens. I have no objection at paying
them their expenses justifiable as a result of their function, but most
certainly would not pay them a salary.
If they do not want to be in the senate for the honor of serving their
country and citizens, then what do we need them for?
http://www.radio-canada.ca/url.asp?/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200306/23/006-demissionradwanski.shtml
A democracy cannot survive if its structure can be influenced by
corruption
Concerning the method described here in order to guarantee a democracy
without corruption, if you are aware of a better method, I would like to hear
about it;
In order to enforce the integrity of dépanneurs, with respect to the law
that forbids the sale of tobacco products to minors, the Canadian government
currently has a program staffed with civil servants that go from dépanneur
to dépanneur, enticing the latter to sell cigarettes to minors, using
minors disguised as adults. Heavy fines
result for dépanneurs that fall prey
to their scheme. That same government does,
however, strongly object to testing the integrity of its own politicians and
civil servants, for its public office holders know themselves to be subject to
corruption. If public office holders are
not subject to corruption, then why do they object? Because they have more “integrity” than dépanneurs? A few years ago during a request by Quebec
judges that they receive a pay raise, one judge representing them said that if
they would not receive a pay raise that their “integrity” would be threatened
as a result. In other words, he was
saying that they do not have any integrity, for integrity is not a function of
money.
In order to clean up our governments, in
the same spirit of thoughts as the Abscam
trial which took place some years ago in the US, an effective solution would be
to form an organization with mandate to test the integrity of politicians and
civil servants;
Example: Say three distinct teams (say each team formed by members of federal,
provincial, and municipal police forces), and each team working independently
and without knowledge of the others, with mandate to attempt to corrupt, by
whichever means would be appropriate to the context, any politician or government
employee (federal, provincial, and municipal) which they would deem
appropriate to test. No one would be
spared, be it the judges at the Supreme Court of Canada, the prime minister,
his/her political appointees; whoever you care to name, down to the lowliest
bureaucrat. Anyone caught accepting a
bribe (real or fictitious under this scheme), or its equivalent worth more than
$20, would be sentenced to ten years in jail, without any possibility of
parole, whatsoever; unless it would be proven, by at least three independently
acting psychiatrists, that the accused was insane at the time of accepting a
bribe. Moreover, a large sign would be
posted in every government office, right at the entrance for everyone to see
when they'd come in, stating:
“Do not accept bribes, anyone found guilty of accepting a bribe, or
its equivalent, of $20 or more, will face 10 years in jail, without any
possibility, whatsoever, of conditional release; If you are not certain if what
you are being offered constitutes a bribe, do not take it, talk to your boss
about it.”
Moreover, all government employees (politicians and civil servants) could be
reminded, once a month, of the ongoing testing of those who receive government
paychecks, and the consequences of taking bribes. If any of them would not like the idea of
being sent to jail for ten years for taking a $20 bribe, all they'd have to do
is not take it. Does it have to be
complicated? If such a system would be
implemented you would see rats exiting from our governments like you never
thought possible.
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200509/01/009-immigration-corruption.shtml
http://radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200306/06/003-CISR-corruption.shtml
Free Speech
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. The contents of free speech are never
politically correct. Free speech as such
does not exist in Canada; for in Canada and other countries of the so-called
Free World you can say anything you want, provided that what you say is
politically correct (in agreement with the twisted ideologies of politicians of
the so-called Free World). Were some
Canadians sent to unemployment, social welfare, total destitution, and for some
of them, suicide as well, as a result of a desire to maintain a State of political
correctness? Is it not destroying us all
- political correctness imposed upon us and our children by idealists and
pseudo-intellectuals (politicians, and some special interest groups)? Instead of sending tens of thousands of
Canadians to bread and soup kitchens (for all practical purposes, to their
death) in order to maintain a politically correct State, why not get rid of
political correctness and those who want to impose it upon us and our
children?
Racism is one of Nature’s fundamental laws. Have you ever seen a seagull copulate with a
crow or a vulture? Why?
The Medias are currently free to print whatever they want, about anyone and
anything, without those whom they speak of having an opportunity to effectively
contest what is said about them, for the medias have the choice to publish, or
not publish (and if they do publish, then the choice to edit), responses to
their news reporting and comments. What
if the Medias would be obliged, by law, to provide equal writing space or air
time to those whom the Medias reported or commented about? Would such a law curtail the freedom of
speech of the Medias?
Taxpayers’ Money
Fed up of seeing your hard earned money distributed to special interest groups,
or squandered on whatever it is that politicians and their friends fancy? Income tax forms could easily contain a
section reserved for donations to nonessential services and special interest
groups.
Example: Say you think the National Ballet of Canada is under funded - you
could opt for a donation of, say $100, specifically for funding the National
Ballet of Canada. If you would not like
the idea of seeing your money go to the National Ballet of Canada, you would
simply not give anything to the National Ballet of Canada. In other words, with a democratic system, you
would have the option of paying taxes on the bare essentials, or paying taxes
on the bare essentials and whichever cause(s) you’d think should get your
money.
— Daniel J.M.
Guibord
Erich Fromm, au sujet de la liberté et de
la démocratie
Pro-liberty and anti-liberty quotes
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will
make violent revolution inevitable. — John F. Kennedy
|
This Web page to democracy was maintained in
place by the following people, while I was imprisoned, in inhuman conditions
of incarceration, for fighting for democracy, liberty and justice: |
|
VIF
Internet. They are one of the best, if not the best Internet service
provider, here in Canada. |
|
Tennyson Maxwell Information Systems, Inc. They
engineered the best web spider of all web spiders on the Internet: Teleport
Pro |