The votes of ignorant people tend not to demand respect. How can they? "Huh? When you said 'exterminate the poor' we thought you were talking about bed-bugs n' stuff!"
Which is not to say that people need to pass a test or something before they vote. It's just that, if, combined with the votes of other people, ignorant people elect horrible, disgusting, despotic governments, then sane, law-abiding people aren't bound by the results of the actions of those ignorant people.
The "other people" I referred to earlier are, nowadays, the scum-bags who voted "Conservative" knowing full well that the Conservative Party of Canada despises democracy. These voters are obviously people who despise democracy themselves. Could you imagine the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if the Liberals had done what harper has done? (And, no harpercon stooges, "Adscam" while repulsive, was nothing like what harper has done. And, at the end of the day, the harpercon reaction to Liberal crimes and misdemeanours has been to shriek about "Liberal corruption," promise reforms, win power, and act even worse and then stammer like morons - "B-b-but the LIB-rullllsss!!!")
At the end of the day, you have voted for a guy who attacked the very premise of responsible government. A guy who prorogued Parliament to obstruct an investigation into torture. A guy who thinks it's okay to doctor official public documents in order to provide (fake) approval for his policies and then lie to Parliament about it. A guy who thinks Parliament should be nothing more but a rubber stamp for whatever he asks for, to the extent of denying it simple, basic cost-estimates.
That's the sort of "democracy" you vote for? To hell with you!
To hell with you!
To hell with your vote!
To hell with the outcome of decisions based on contempt or ignorance!
To hell with your party!
To hell with stephen harper!
To hell with this government!
Seriously. I don't recognize this government. Nobody should.
Something else on my mind, ... I'm still thinking about the Arab uprising and how some shit-heads supported the Mubarak (and other) dictatorships. They argued that things would be worse there, what with the Arabs all being barbaric religious fanatics or whatever.
But here's the thing: There's a difference between hoping for something better for people, hoping they gain the freedom to try, and then getting disappointed if things go bad, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, paying for their torture and oppression and approving of it.
The only remotely justifiable reason for oppressing another people would be if their freedom (or their descent into chaos and fanaticism) directly threatened you. But the Arab world cannot threaten the West, except through the oil weapon. And given that we need to reduce carbon emissions, not raise them, that would be all to the good anyway.