DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

The Prime Minister comments on regeme change.

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-04-17 13:02:33


Not exactly what I am thinking codc01. I know were you are coming from. That is Canadian law should not supersede any other foreign countries people's laws. I agree.

The direction I am heading is that democracies should be able to agree on a core set of laws. (Forgive me if these already exist at the U.N. level, if they do, then these laws are not enforced).

For example;

No penalty of death speaking out against a government.

No penalty of death for publishing a free press.

No penalty of death for illegally leaving a country.

Would this be too cumbersome? Is it practical? What do you think?

On the other hand non-democracies would probably just kill people out of public sight more often if such a system existed.

Which gets back to my original point, that a dictatorship by its nature can not have just laws of the people, or it wouldn't be a dictatorship. So why should we support/uphold the phony laws of a dictator?

Reply to this message

Show in topic