1.2: The Article of Democratic Protection
Day 259, 09:44
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by Augustus Baldwin
Securing Canada's Borders and its Government
A lot has been said in the last few days about Ireland and its implications for Canada. Admittedly I have been the one doing a lot of the talking. Several times now I have called for an article of protection in Canada's constitution to make hostile political takeovers illegal. Today I can say with satisfaction that I can do more than talk. I have introduced for Congressional discussion an amendment to the constitution; an article of democratic protection. But it is unfair if we merely hear the opinion of the Congress on the matter, because Congress is not Canada, the people are Canada. Below is the proposed article, but what does Canada think of it?
Articles of Democratic Protection
The people of Canada have a shared interest in seeing the institution of representative democracy preserved from abuse and usurpation. It is therefore necessary to place limits on the actions of organized political groups, while keeping the rights of the individual free. In order to preserve the democratic rights guaranteed in this document any hostile political takeover shall be declared invalid upon its discovery, with a new election being called excluding those who have been previously invalidated.
A hostile political takeover shall be defined by the following criteria.
1) An organized group of individuals gains control of the government. An organized group is defined as one linked by relations other than a spontaneous and shared political ideology.
2) The organized group consists of more than 80% of individuals who have immigrated to or spawned in Canada within the last 30 days.
3) The organized group has the intention of securing political control of Canada through coordinated, internal action rather than through the legitimate process of representative democracy and the inclusion of the majority of established Canadians. An established Canadian is defined as someone who has been a citizen for longer than 30 days.
This article may be interpreted in a way that allows it to react to any unforeseen circumstances leading to a hostile political takeover. However, it may not be used to restrict the constitutional rights of individual Canadians in any other way than stated. It shall be specifically forbidden to use this article to restrict the activities of spontaneous, popular political parties whose membership consists of unrelated individuals sharing a common political ideology, or in order to restrict the rights of new citizens acting singularly in the exercise of their rights guaranteed herein.
A lot has been said in the last few days about Ireland and its implications for Canada. Admittedly I have been the one doing a lot of the talking. Several times now I have called for an article of protection in Canada's constitution to make hostile political takeovers illegal. Today I can say with satisfaction that I can do more than talk. I have introduced for Congressional discussion an amendment to the constitution; an article of democratic protection. But it is unfair if we merely hear the opinion of the Congress on the matter, because Congress is not Canada, the people are Canada. Below is the proposed article, but what does Canada think of it?
Articles of Democratic Protection
The people of Canada have a shared interest in seeing the institution of representative democracy preserved from abuse and usurpation. It is therefore necessary to place limits on the actions of organized political groups, while keeping the rights of the individual free. In order to preserve the democratic rights guaranteed in this document any hostile political takeover shall be declared invalid upon its discovery, with a new election being called excluding those who have been previously invalidated.
A hostile political takeover shall be defined by the following criteria.
1) An organized group of individuals gains control of the government. An organized group is defined as one linked by relations other than a spontaneous and shared political ideology.
2) The organized group consists of more than 80% of individuals who have immigrated to or spawned in Canada within the last 30 days.
3) The organized group has the intention of securing political control of Canada through coordinated, internal action rather than through the legitimate process of representative democracy and the inclusion of the majority of established Canadians. An established Canadian is defined as someone who has been a citizen for longer than 30 days.
This article may be interpreted in a way that allows it to react to any unforeseen circumstances leading to a hostile political takeover. However, it may not be used to restrict the constitutional rights of individual Canadians in any other way than stated. It shall be specifically forbidden to use this article to restrict the activities of spontaneous, popular political parties whose membership consists of unrelated individuals sharing a common political ideology, or in order to restrict the rights of new citizens acting singularly in the exercise of their rights guaranteed herein.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
This is a great proposal. I hope that congress approves it.
i endorse this completely.
This sounds like an excellent idea.
Despite my latest media and commentary, I support this proposed article. As much as I compliment the efficiency required to enact a \"hostile political takeover\", I\'ve no wish to see one occur within our own borders. I think this is a well written and solid attempt to prevent any such thing from happening in Canada.
This is a good first step...nice work Augustus. However, if I was planning on a coup, it would be pretty easy to get around this. Just get 100 people to move to Canada on August 30 with the goal of hijacking the elections on Oct 1.
I would suggest that you increase the time to become an \"established\" Canadian to 90 days. I don\'t see anyone having the patience to wait 90 days for their coup to happen.
@Horrible: I would have liked to make it longer, but then it would have been opposed. In fact even at this length your party is completely against the amendment and the constitution as a whole. So your suggestion kind of surprises me.
Another suggestion for an added clause could include the validity of the candidacy of persons who enter the race at the last minute. If, for example, one had to declare candidacy days before the election, then this could be prevented as there would be a clear warning to everyone paying attention, we could see the new immigrants gathering days before they actually vote, giving any who so choses a chance to gather enough people to stop them.
Granted, some voters may only join last minute, but certainly knowing beforehand is better than a complete surprise.
If, through this proposal, I have introduced something already in place or completely illegal, I plead ignorance, as I am fairly new and just trying to see how things work.
It is worth discussing in the Congress, see how the politicians feel about it.