Adrian Barnes's blog

An alert reader sent in the following advice:

The battle to save K-12 education in Rossland, while far from over, may be moving forward--but only if parents and other community members step up to the plate and get involved. This week, on April 21, Visions for Small Schools will be holding its AGM in the RSS library at 7:00 PM. For those interested in saving K-12 in the Golden City, the meeting will be a watershed as the group elects a new board that will be tasked with accomplishing some essential things. 

Last time around, we agreed to assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the constitution of Canada B has now been drafted. This process complete, Canada B will now be said to exist as an alternate form of government for the land mass we all inhabit—you know, that big, cold chunk of ground north of the 49th parallel. Our gorgeous land mass can now be said to have two ardent suitors: 'Canada' and Canada B. Which will prevail?

Time for a recap. The governmental system that currently asserts sovereignty over the portion of the North America land mass commonly known as ‘Canada’ (via the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982) does so in several ways that are morally and ethically indefensibly. Specifically, 'Canada', as currently constituted, exists 

If one looks at the basis of any claim to sovereignty over a given piece of land, one almost invariably comes up against the word 'God'. Modern democracies evolved from monarchies, which assume 'the divine right of kings' or something very similar. We still live with a hangover from those days in the sense that modern states merely assume their own existence to be justifiable, that they exist in some sort of inevitable, de facto way. The founders of modern democracies saw themselves as taking divine right right away from monarchs and investing it in the 'people'. A step forward?

As noted last time, if we're to attempt to create a legitimately democratic state on this land mass we call 'Canada' we need to design a constitution to govern it—an improved constitution that makes a legitimate case for its own existence rather than depending on the 'dictatorship of sovereignty'. A constitution with teeth.

Scenario: A remote First Nations reserve in northern British Columbia. Most of the people there live in despair and poverty. The mountains have been mined and the rivers polluted. There is no work, the drinking water is unsafe, and efforts at treaty negotiation with the provincial government remained stalled decades after Canadian courts recognized the right of Aboriginal Title [an acknowledgement by the courts that aboriginal peoples never ceded their claim to the land but had it taken from them by trickery and force]. There is no justice to be had.

Last time around I talked about recent evidence that we don’t live in the sort of democratic society we like to think we do. This time I want to consider what to do when you wake up one crisp, bright morning and discover that you live in a society that is neither just nor a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word? First off, you need to calm down, have a coffee, and accept that this is nothing new. There is not now, nor has there ever (yet) been, a truly just or democratic society.

It's been a disturbing week for anyone who cares about the potential of democracy to have a positive impact on the world, who tries to believe that democratic ideals might one day dominate human interactions and rid the world of at least some of its shameful inequities and hideous stupidities. This week, three news items seem to triangulate, pointing toward an inescapable conclusion: that democracy doesn't, never has, and probably never will rule the world – or even any significant portion of it.

 Yesterday, a blog was posted making unsubstantiated allegations against a local business. It is our policy to remove such postings. If, as readers, you see any comment or post you feel to be inappropriate, please contact the Telegraph as soon as possible and we'll deal with it right away.

Such incidents are part of the price we pay in order to have open community discourse and, thankfully, such incidents are rare.

A note to anyone contemplating a libellous statement: your identity is trackable in a legal situation.--ed