Democracy -- our best bet for freedom

One of the things that struck me forcefully during election day was the beautiful, breathless breadth and depth of democracy. Here we were, casting our ballots, in one electoral district, to elect an MP to represent the local community, and to vote for the Party and Prime Minister we wanted in office. And this was being acted out, in innumerable ways, across this vast land of ours by millions of ordinary Canadians. Three hundred and eight representatives in the House of Commons, representing the common wisdom and collective aspirations of the nation.

How can this be a bad thing?

Well, apparently it can. Trudeau first poisoned the national well when he used the phrase, "the tyranny of the majority", and we were so overcome by his charisma and his breathless vision of a "just society" (whatever that is), that we bought it. We should have lynched him (at the polls). Trudeau preferred to commit our rights and freedoms to writing in a document, and then, put that document out of our reach. Which might be OK. But within whose reach did he put it? Nine lawyers-made-judges appointed by -- him!

Think about that for a minute. He set up a process which undermined the supremacy of Parliament, but did not undermine him -- he got to appoint the nine members of the august, infallible court. That made the PM very, very powerful. And played into his elitist views very well.

Every Liberal PM since Trudeau is really just following in his chartered steps. Paul Martin talked about the "oppression of the majority". Thanks Paul. That should help the national psyche. If the majority is oppressive, then the only voices we should pay any attention to are those of minorities.

Minorities, apparently are not oppressive. Even though a tiny minority of the population has inflicted its definition of marriage on the country, and will now insist that all Canadian school children (and not just those born of their sexual unions) be taught this minority group's sexual ideology. Any thing less would be "oppressive".

I believe there is a place for a Charter, and even for Charter-judges protecting rights. But these rights should be well-defined, and, where necessary, further defined and clarified by Parliament. Instead we have a document that has served as a judicial Rorschach test.

If you actually read the Charter document, you will be struck by how plain and straightforward it is. It is in the hands of leftist courts that abortion and homosexuality are "discovered", and in places were they are not even suggested. The judges are no longer interpreting law. They are defining (and re-defining) public morality. And what uniquely qualifies them to do this? Their success at getting through law school? Their proximity to the Liberal Party of Canada? Their successful lobbying efforts at getting themselves appointed to the courts? Their self-evident moral superiority? (Well, we are getting close with this last one.)

My point is this: a democratically elected Parliament consisting of 308 Canadians from across the country can do a better job at safeguarding rights (and is inarguably less a threat to the arbitrary violation of rights) than nine unelected, PM-appointed Supremos.