In the sense of the word’s denotation and connotation, Cary is able to stake the claim of danger, peril, repression, and subjugation when in the mercy of the demagogue. Also, Cary's delineation of Canada leads readers to conclude a true sense of democracy. In this argument, she states that newspapers in Canada "[represent] . . .
Conversely, Philip L. Bryden argues against Martin, concluding that the charter is indeed democratic and Canadian. This essay agrees with Bryden’s argument that the Charter is not un-Canadian or antidemocratic, citing problems with Martin’s argument and making reasons as to why the Charter is such a fundamental part of Canadian Constitution. Robert Martin bases one part of his argument on the idea that the Charter is antidemocratic. He clarifies himself in his introduction, not faulting the Charter in and of its own for being antidemocratic, but instead claiming that the application of the Charter by humans is what is antidemocratic. Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises.
The Compact Theory of Confederation The provincial rights movement led to the “compact theory of Confederation.” Promoted by many provincial premiers, it contended that Confederation was a contract or a compact or a treaty among the original signatory provinces, and could not be revised without their consent. Although not historically or legally correct, this theory had much support in provincial governments and Quebec. It also had implications for developing a made-in-Canada constitutional amending formula: which parts of the constitution could be amended with how much provincial consent? An alternate version of the theory was that Confederation was a compact between English and French, and could not be revised without the consent of both groups. The implication of that was often taken to be that Quebec represented the French, and whether or not the other provinces had a veto over constitutional amendments, Quebec did!
Compare and Contrast Xinjiang, Chechnya, and Quebec In all three of these areas they are trying to achieve some sort of independence. These conflicts are alike in that they involve the struggle of one group to become separate and independent from their home country. In Quebec the movement is peaceful and political. Quebec is trying to be free from Canada because of its dominant French culture in the province. Some people are now satisfied with protected language rights within the Canadian confederation while some still want independence for Quebec.
In this list, Riel truly fought for all First Nations and Metis to be considered equals within society. Even though this List of Rights was exploited by the Canadian government, Riel persisted on. In 1885, he wrote the Bill of Rights. This document also gave equal rights to all First Nations and Metis. It also fought for First Nations and Metis to have the same standard of living as Canadian Europeans.
The eloquent lineage of the ever present Anglo might behind you. This however, also comes with a lot of unexpected baggage, and unwanted hostilities. Thomas pain challenged anyone to come up with a single instance in which being a subordinate to Great Britain might benefit the colonies. So while you may have the added benefit of Great Britain’s allies, you also have her enemies to contend with. Common Sense reads “Great Britain set us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship” (154).
In fact, it is a good thing because it is a solid introduction to the other official language that is used in Canada. Even though I say these things, I can see why the Parti Quebecois would do what they have done. Quebec is a very proud province, and this group just wants to preserve the province’s “mother language”. The government party would rather have children focus on becoming fluent in French before trying to master English, and this would be difficult for a young person if both languages were being tackled at the same
The ALRC noted many arguments in favour for recognition of Aboriginal customary law: • Recognition would advance the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and non—Aboriginal people. • Non-recognition can lead to injustice in specific situations where traditional law governs a person’s
There are many things, words, or people that may try and define Canada and its political culture between the 1990's and present, but to be truly honest one must come to the conclusion that unless you intend to write more than a few measly sentences, you may not even come close. Now when many people try to describe the political culture of Canada they think of three things that have shaped the politics of our nation recently, the separatist movement in Quebec, the emergence of conservatism in the west, and the blow the Liberals have taken due to the emergence of the Sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry. These three things, all encompassed into a single nation of politics is what shapes our nation today, and maybe even defines the term of Canadian political culture. Since the days when the first English - French confrontation happened in the recently discovered Canada, political culture in Quebec has always been different from the rest of the country. The French-Canadians have always been looking for and perhaps maybe pushing towards a separate and sovereign country of their own.
Within one ethnic group ethnic nationalism can occur. Ethnic nationalism is a strong feeling of ethnic identity and the promotion of interests of this particular ethnic group, including sovereignty. Many ethnic groups in multi-ethnic states want, and sometimes demand, a bigger autonomy, which means at least some kind of self-management separated from the central authority (Nester 1995: 77–8). My question was in what way ethnicity is connected with democratisation. I believe that ethnic identity in multi-ethnic states can be operated with by political leaders in such a way, as to create ground (or become one of the main motives) for ethnic conflict.