Pages: [1] 2   Bas de page
«Imprimer»
Auteur Fil de discussion: great so far  (Lu 465 fois)
zenwick
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 8
Karma: 0


« le: 22 juin 2010, 02:32:23 »
-1

What you have so far is wonderful as a platform.  But if elected we need to broaden so that all things are properly covered.

Security and crime:

    * No death penalty and mandatory minimums for any type of crime
    * No victim-less crimes - forbid the state from pursuing charges without the alleged victim's consent (unless it is proven that the alleged victim is unable to press charges themselves) and require any law to be supported by objective (not moralistic) proof of harm
    * No sex offender registries or other public notification schemes - They not only have the opposite effect of what they are supposed to do, they violate a person's human rights. 
    * Forbid any use of lethal force by a police force
    * Prosecutors should have only one shot at proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - "Better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned"
    * Convicted felons should never lose the right to vote, etc.


Economy:

    * Private markets except where it is established that a public institution provides the service better, or if the service should be regarded as a human right
    * Democratic public schools available to all people
    * No discrimination in jobs except for the ability to do it
    * No discrimination in the sale of goods or services
    * Health care freely available to all - the fact is that it is cheaper and of better general quality for it to be publicly provided, and it should be regarded as a human right (right to life)
    * Everyone guaranteed something to eat (this could be implemented tomorrow if people were a little less greedy..), and plentiful homeless shelters
    * Strict anti-trust laws
    * Strict limits on military spending, with the long-term goal of eliminating the military altogether
    * Net neutrality and strict anti-censorship laws
    * Restore copyright terms to their original length (seven years) and severely limit liability in civil courts ($750,000 for one song is insane no matter how you spin it)


Government:

    * Forbid government from restricting civil rights under any circumstances
    * No government policies or laws which discriminate based on any trait, including age, race, gender, etc. (unless there there is an objective, biological fact which supports such a law/policy)
    * No direct political influence over the operation of public institutions
    * Corruption in public institutions desperately needs to be addressed
    * No political influence whatsoever on scientific thought
    * Strict limits on how much government can spend (and therefore tax), with direct public votes allowing for temporary increases if deemed necessary by the public
    * No income taxes, no death taxes, no "sin taxes," and the tax code should be simple enough for the average person to read and understand but without loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying them


Environment:

    * End dependence on fossil fuels - switch to nuclear, solar, wind, ethanol etc. Forbid hyper
    * Encourage people to change their behaviors to be more Earth-friendly

P.S. A friend of mine wrote this and i love it so I am passing it along.  Its not without some tweaking modifications that need to be done but it starts somewhere.



ScottZanarky
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Calgary, Alberta
Messages: 19
Karma: 1


WWW
« Répondre #1 le: 22 juin 2010, 09:37:16 »
0

The problem with those points is consensus. For example, I don't agree that the sex offender registry should be removed at all, and I guarantee you that no parent would agree with that either. Any parent is going to put the safety of their children first, and if that means having a sex offender registry, then I'm sure they are more than happy with it.

I also don't agree that police services should be forbidden to use lethal force when necessary. We can't begin to understand what our various police services go through unless we're actually involved in them. They are constantly presented with danger, either to themselves or other people, and sometimes the only way to deal with it would be lethal force. It's sad that it's needed, but remove that ability from police officers, and no police officer is going to want to be a police officer.

Yes, we're a political party, but we're the Pirate Party of Canada. I find most of the points you outlined have nothing to do with the party's goals. You are right that any political party has to be broad enough to get the general public interested, but I think that once we stray from our main platform, there will only be discontent within the party.
Nuitari
Director-at-Large
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 250
Karma: 15


« Répondre #2 le: 23 juin 2010, 12:14:16 »
0

We're not going to have a platform on these points, except if something particular is related to our platform.
We can barely agree on our basics, let's not start going into that mess.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #3 le: 23 juin 2010, 12:49:29 »
0

No victim-less crimes - forbid the state from pursuing charges without the alleged victim's consent (unless it is proven that the alleged victim is unable to press charges themselves) and require any law to be supported by objective (not moralistic) proof of harm

I think your version and ours of 'victimless' crime is different. An example of a victimless crime under this would be a man who physically abuses his girlfriend/wife. If the woman is unwilling to press charges then the police would not be able to do anything to improve the situtation.

Citation de: zenwick
  * No sex offender registries or other public notification schemes - They not only have the opposite effect of what they are supposed to do, they violate a person's human rights.

I'm sorta mixed on this one. You have to acknowledge that sex offenders have some of the highest re-offence rates of any criminal. While on one hand you have the right to privacy on the criminal. You also have the right of the community to know who is coming into their community on the other. If I know Johnny McPedophile is moving in down the street I'm not gonna let my kids wander around unattended.

Citation de: zenwick
* Forbid any use of lethal force by a police force

The problem with this is sometimes lethal force is the only safe way to deal with a given situation. You remove the lethal force option from police you give hardened criminals a significant advantage because if it comes down to a gunfight they will be shooting to kill. Also you have situtations like that gunman at Union Station where the only way to ensure the safety of the officers as well as the public is to take the shot. Thankfully such incidents are incredibly rare.

Citation de: zenwick
* Prosecutors should have only one shot at proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - "Better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned"

I think that is a great idea. Ironically in Canada we do not have any form of 'Double Jeopardy' in our laws or consitution. It is something that we should pursue.

Citation de: zenwick
* Convicted felons should never lose the right to vote, etc.

I dont believe they do. Unlike in the US, say in Kingston where there is a federal prison I believe the inmates get the option to vote.

I like your economy stuff except for

Citation de: zenwick
* Strict limits on military spending, with the long-term goal of eliminating the military altogether

While I agree we should have some limitations on military spending. The goal of eliminating the military all together is both unrealistic and unreasonable. We need to maintain a large enough force to protect our nations waters as well as our borders. Such things do not provide themselves.

I like most of your government section and feel the need to add a few things.

Citation de: zenwick
* No government policies or laws which discriminate based on any trait, including age, race, gender, etc. (unless there there is an objective, biological fact which supports such a law/policy)

I feel that we should restrict jobs in the government to citizens of Canada only. As well we should restrict jobs in the immigration section to people who were born here. Mostly because I feel that immigrants in general have rose colored glasses and have the potential conflict of interests by looking at immigration applications with rose colored glasses and letting some immigrants in who would be undesirable in our country.

Citation de: zenwick
* Strict limits on how much government can spend (and therefore tax), with direct public votes allowing for temporary increases if deemed necessary by the public

I think that we should make it part of our platform that we would institute a constitutional amendment that would require the government to perform a referrendum anytime they wish to institute a new tax or to raise taxes. A constitutional amendment means we are serious about restricting the government's ability to do something, because if it is just a law then all it takes is the next majority government to toss it out.

Enironmental stuff is fairly good. I think we should focus on education and technology. If a place sells batteries/CFLs/Florescent Tubes they should have to take the used up ones there in say a bin or something. Like Home Depot does for CFLs. So they can recycle things like lead-acid batteries and mercury. Sometime's it is just a case of making something more convenient to change behavior.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Sean Hunt
Meeting Chairman
PPCA Representative
*

En ligne En ligne

Localisation: Waterloo
Messages: 215
Karma: 6


« Répondre #4 le: 23 juin 2010, 01:32:02 »
0

I think that is a great idea. Ironically in Canada we do not have any form of 'Double Jeopardy' in our laws or consitution. It is something that we should pursue.
We do, it is section 11(h) of the Charter:
Citation
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
The difference is that, unlike in the USA, it says "finally", so all appeals have to be resolved. In the USA in particular, the double jeopardy unreasonably favors criminals. For instance, if a criminal were to bribe the jury into giving him an acquittal, there's absolutely nothing the state can do about it as far as that case. The interpretation of double jeopardy forbids the state from even appealing, much less getting a retrial. They could press charges for bribery, but that could carry a significantly lighter sentence, not get the offender executed or entered into a sex offender registry, etc.
Thomas
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 17
Karma: 0


« Répondre #5 le: 23 juin 2010, 02:21:33 »
0

Citation
But if elected

Spoiler: We are not going to get elected.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #6 le: 23 juin 2010, 02:57:18 »
0

We do, it is section 11(h) of the Charter:The difference is that, unlike in the USA, it says "finally", so all appeals have to be resolved. In the USA in particular, the double jeopardy unreasonably favors criminals. For instance, if a criminal were to bribe the jury into giving him an acquittal, there's absolutely nothing the state can do about it as far as that case. The interpretation of double jeopardy forbids the state from even appealing, much less getting a retrial. They could press charges for bribery, but that could carry a significantly lighter sentence, not get the offender executed or entered into a sex offender registry, etc.

Are you sure. I was under the impression that jury tampering throws out the old trial and you start a new one. Then again that might only be if it does not get to the point where the verdict is given. In any case yeah there are charges for jury tampering, bribery, etc...

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Sean Hunt
Meeting Chairman
PPCA Representative
*

En ligne En ligne

Localisation: Waterloo
Messages: 215
Karma: 6


« Répondre #7 le: 23 juin 2010, 03:09:35 »
0

Are you sure. I was under the impression that jury tampering throws out the old trial and you start a new one. Then again that might only be if it does not get to the point where the verdict is given. In any case yeah there are charges for jury tampering, bribery, etc...
Ah, yes, you're right, tampering with the case is one of two exceptions, under the logic that if you're not actually in danger, it's okay to try you again since it's really the first trial.

But seriously, when you have to resort to this sort of logic, something is broken in your legal system.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #8 le: 23 juin 2010, 09:10:52 »
0

Ah, yes, you're right, tampering with the case is one of two exceptions, under the logic that if you're not actually in danger, it's okay to try you again since it's really the first trial.

But seriously, when you have to resort to this sort of logic, something is broken in your legal system.

All systems can and will be broken at some point or another. The goal of a system should be to fail gracefully rather than catastrophically. A graceful failure is retrial in such a case or the sentence for jury tampering is equal to or greater than the crime they were trying when tampered with. A catastrophic failure is the guy gets off scot-free or with a minor sentence.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #9 le: 23 juin 2010, 01:29:51 »
0

I dont believe they do. Unlike in the US, say in Kingston where there is a federal prison I believe the inmates get the option to vote.

Correct.


In all honesty, if a political party came to me with this platform, I would not vote for them. Let's keep it simple.
zenwick
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 8
Karma: 0


« Répondre #10 le: 23 juin 2010, 02:56:47 »
0

The problem is that if voted in you have your tech covered nicely, now what about the other 99%. You can't ignore them, your in office

Citation
I think your version and ours of 'victimless' crime is different. An example of a victimless crime under this would be a man who physically abuses his girlfriend/wife. If the woman is unwilling to press charges then the police would not be able to do anything to improve the situtation.

The above example is good, but I was meaning that people that should not be on the list that are.  So maybe a tougher criteria etc so that people that are not supposed to be there do not end up there.  Eg. two teens sexting each other etc.



Citation
I'm sorta mixed on this one. You have to acknowledge that sex offenders have some of the highest re-offence rates of any criminal.

Thats actually not true.  What does happen is that it has a 100% guarantee of ruining the life of someone, especially someone who is very young that ends up on it.  So its prudent that we just don't slap people on there because the crown is just trying to get a conviction to keep his job.

Citation
While on one hand you have the right to privacy on the criminal. You also have the right of the community to know who is coming into their community on the other. If I know Johnny McPedophile is moving in down the street I'm not gonna let my kids wander around unattended.

If an offender has served time, is in a program and has paid back the community then that person should be respected enough that they are at least starting over and not committing further offenses.  Indeed I agree that some people do need to know so that they do not waver from this path.  That being correctional services and social workers etc so support is always on hand.  Letting the public know has only caused mass illogical hysteria and fear of someone who has already paid for their crime sally soccer mom only wants people to keep paying for the crime.  If thats the case then why not just leave them in jail and then let sally over there foot the tax bill?


Citation
The problem with this is sometimes lethal force is the only safe way to deal with a given situation. You remove the lethal force option from police you give hardened criminals a significant advantage because if it comes down to a gunfight they will be shooting to kill. Also you have situations like that gunman at Union Station where the only way to ensure the safety of the officers as well as the public is to take the shot. Thankfully such incidents are incredibly rare.

Its is incredibly rare.  Use of "deadly" force may be used may be needed but such things as tasers are simply not necessary.  The majority of the time the "police" is pestered for things like "youth" control, sits and drinks coffee or does "ride/safety and or highway enforcement" which does nothing for actual safety and instead just gouges the public.  There is no need at all to provide the current budget level that they are continuing to use as well as their appetite to keep asking for more.  Both prisons and law enforcement spending and corruption is out of control and raining in these two with proper legislation and policy change to focus more towards community policing will not only save the tax payer money but will in fact reduce over all crime.

[quoteWhile I agree we should have some limitations on military spending. The goal of eliminating the military all together is both unrealistic and unreasonable. We need to maintain a large enough force to protect our nations waters as well as our borders. Such things do not provide themselves.[/quote]

I agree if the are used for such things.  That does mean protecting Canada from south of the boarder as well. We need to focus military more on Supporting and helping Canadians so that they are there when we need them and not in an illegal war.


Citation
I feel that we should restrict jobs in the government to citizens of Canada only. As well we should restrict jobs in the immigration section to people who were born here. Mostly because I feel that immigrants in general have rose colored glasses and have the potential conflict of interests by looking at immigration applications with rose colored glasses and letting some immigrants in who would be undesirable in our country.

I have to disagree on this one as the natural born Canadians are more lazy than immigrants.  Immigrants, work hard, more paitriotic, have to take tests and exams and thus know more than Natural Born Canadians, are willing to work in jobs that Natural Born Canadians just do not want (think house keeping), work for no benefits and little to no pay, are willing to work loooooong hours, know that Canada is not found on one or two principles and is in fact multicultural.  This and more shows they are quite fitting to hold the position on immigration and there is no proof that they would let undesirables in while Mr Kennedy, A natural born Canadian is letting in  unskilled people that do have a certain "criteria" while those who are trying to escape squaller are left behind.

Quote from: zenwick
* Strict limits on how much government can spend (and therefore tax), with direct public votes allowing for temporary increases if deemed necessary by the public


Citation
Enironmental stuff is fairly good. I think we should focus on education and technology. If a place sells batteries/CFLs/Florescent Tubes they should have to take the used up ones there in say a bin or something. Like Home Depot does for CFLs. So they can recycle things like lead-acid batteries and mercury. Sometime's it is just a case of making something more convenient to change behavior.

Its also the benefits that need to be passed down.  If we are recycling and then building, innovating then the product should be cheaper and better quality than something that has come far away.

Also with wind power/solar being free generated energy the local community should not have to pay for market costs.  It should be free.  The only thing that should be charged is just expansion, maintenance and man power costs.  No time of use or such silly-ness.

If we use ethanol in the majority of our gas stations beyond the 10% we can bring down the price of transportation, local farmers and industry would benefit, creating local jobs which in turn the costs of other products being shipped will also fall to reasonable levels.  This is a huge advantage.

Non of the current parties are even electable.

A good example of an unelectable party is the greens.  They have good ideas etc.  But then they want to INCREASE taxes on transportation fuels.  That would translate massive hardship for the voting public.  Why would anyone want that kind of strife in their life when there is alternatives that can reduce costs, be environmentally friendly and can actually be good for your car that you need to do tasks such as going to work etc.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #11 le: 23 juin 2010, 04:14:05 »
0

Thats actually not true.  What does happen is that it has a 100% guarantee of ruining the life of someone, especially someone who is very young that ends up on it.  So its prudent that we just don't slap people on there because the crown is just trying to get a conviction to keep his job.

Unlike in the US where DA's are elected and thus need to appeal to mass public. The crown attorney's are appointed I believe. They do not need to get high conviction rates to keep their job which is both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.

While Canada is supposedly a 'multicultural' society. Yet a great deal of our 'multiculturalism' is in the form of ethnic groups coming in to big cities an setting up insular communities and avoiding contact and interaction with canadians at large. This type of 'multiculturalism' resulted in the death of Aqsa Parvez at the hands of her father and brother. The US model of assimilation does not work nor does the Canadian model of multiculturalism. The ideal falls somewhere between the two extremes, where immigrants are willing to throw away the baggage of their homelands and embrace most of our society's norms.

The problem with Ethanol is that it is typically made from CORN, a food crop which is making food in the rest of the world scarce because the price is being driven up. What we should endeavor to do as a society is to switch all non-commercial, non-industrial transportation to electric vehicles. Electric vehicles do not care if the power was generated by nuclear, solar, wind, muscle power or even coal. Regardless an electric car powered by some of the dirtiest coal fired power plants is still less polluting than your typical Internal Combustion Engine. With an average coal plant it's much better because of all the stuff in place to capture emissions and filter out nasty chemicals and what not.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #12 le: 23 juin 2010, 06:01:27 »
-1

Biofuel is a joke. It takes more fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers and pesticides to generate than would be consumed by just burning gasoline, and costs us valuable land that could be used to produce food crops.
zenwick
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 8
Karma: 0


« Répondre #13 le: 23 juin 2010, 10:35:21 »
0

Unlike in the US where DA's are elected and thus need to appeal to mass public. The crown attorney's are appointed I believe. They do not need to get high conviction rates to keep their job which is both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.

I am afraid you are incorrect here.  While I do not know what the United States system follows in their law system.  Our crown  must meet a proper satisfaction rate in convictions.  Failure to do so means loss of work.

Citation
While Canada is supposedly a 'multicultural' society. Yet a great deal of our 'multiculturalism' is in the form of ethnic groups coming in to big cities an setting up insular communities and avoiding contact and interaction with canadians at large.

That is incorrect as you will quickly find that they do not just set up insular communities and then avoid Canadians.  They are Canadians and a part of what Canada is as a nation. Barrie, Collingwood, Orillia are just to name a few.  People move when jobs are available and opportunities for better lives are presented.  This is the same the world over.  Canada as a nation is made of multiple groups and not just one group.

Citation
This type of 'multiculturalism' resulted in the death of Aqsa Parvez at the hands of her father and brother.

This has nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with the individual parties involved.  If we are to discuss this please keep on topic.

Citation
The US model of assimilation does not work nor does the Canadian model of multiculturalism. The ideal falls somewhere between the two extremes, where immigrants are willing to throw away the baggage of their homelands and embrace most of our society's norms.

As far as I can see native born Canadians have yet to throw away their baggage of their homeland (thinking its only christian etc) and embrace our societies norms which is to accept all groups.

Citation
The problem with Ethanol is that it is typically made from CORN], a food crop which is making food in the rest of the world scarce because the price is being driven up.

This is a very old myth.  Ethanol is made from corn.  It is made from animal corn.  The corn is used and then fed back to the animal which becomes easier to digest and is better for them.  Ethanol has no bearing what so ever on food supply.  Taxes and oil/gasoline/desel do as the fuel to process and transport the food is very expensive and has impacted food prices.


Citation
What we should endeavor to do as a society is to switch all non-commercial, non-industrial transportation to electric vehicles.

While this is seems like a good idea, the example by toyota shows why this is not possible.  From the amount of electricity needed, the demand load on the grid, the expense in the batteries to make it fees able and far worse failure of electrical components which will cause death on our highways.

[quo6e]Electric vehicles do not care if the power was generated by nuclear, solar, wind, muscle power or even coal.[/quote]

It does when we need a certain level of generated wattage just to charge it, the length of the charge and the remaining cycles.  Then as you have written, using coal which is far dirtier than gas.
 
Citation
Regardless an electric car powered by some of the dirtiest coal fired power plants is still less polluting than your typical Internal Combustion Engine.

Using ethanol and emission controls in todays current vehicles this is not true.  In fact using electric cars and coal plants make more environmental damage since there is far less pollution control.  On top of this is not compatible with our infrastructure as one can keep and ICE engine going where as electric cars have a life span of maybe six months or less before it is obsolete.  Using examples of your typical PC which doesn't even have to endure the harsh Canadian elements of winter shows how dangerous electric cars can be and how realistically they are not for the majority out there.

Citation
With an average coal plant it's much better because of all the stuff in place to capture emissions and filter out nasty chemicals and what not.


Your basically talking about coal scrubbing.  A method so far that has failed to capture emissions from the coal plants and the reason why todays current government is pushing hard to shut down.

With usage time billing on the horizon it has shown us that we are completely unprepared today to take them off line.  The key to energy security is to shift gradually. That does not mean "conservation" where a government organization tells the public to throw out a perfectly good fridge to buy a new fridge which will be obsolete faster than you completion of payments on it.

coal plants cannot be shut down that easily and leaving them up is what we need to do.  However bringing along side green energy that powers only a region (say only the city of Barrie and thus a plant in Barries limits which generates free electricity for its residents) is what needs to be done.

Going back to ethanol. Its important to use this as well as make shift electric scooters as your looking at less costs to replace a scooter battery and no electronics and or computers should be involved in shift in automation which is a major public hazard.
zenwick
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 8
Karma: 0


« Répondre #14 le: 23 juin 2010, 10:41:39 »
0

Biofuel is a joke. It takes more fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers and pesticides to generate than would be consumed by just burning gasoline, and costs us valuable land that could be used to produce food crops.

That used to be true when biofules started in the mud 80's.  Today they have surpassed the energy that it takes fossil fuel to become gasoline.  With ethanol having no effect on food supply, cleaner energy and is far cheaper to produce as they use animal corn stock its ftw and should be implemented.

But there are green shoots out there though such as electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells.  These claim to be friendly when in fact the can be down right dangerous.

the point is ladies and gents is that with the proper implementation of biofuels including fuel stations we can bring transportaion costs way down.  This in turn brings the cost of goods down and thus more spending power, a greater gdp, more jopbs, better and yet secure lives.  I could go as far as Utopia because when things get that good then what good is alcohol and drugs.  People will no longer look for the "escape" thus addiction and mental heath, society could actually get better and this can be looked back as one of the "dark" ages when kings and queens just ruled the planet.

Pages: [1] 2   Haut de page
«Imprimer»
 
Aller à: