1  2  Next

Hmmm, applying set theory here, the only eligible member for this organization/movement is...uh, you.

Good luck with that!

   

   

Isn't that pretty much what we have now? The GG is chosen by the people. Or are you just ignoring that part? And since when does anyone 'rule' Canadians, apart from their own apathy? Citizens already rule Canada, they've just sat back and decided to care if those people think they can dance.



Ohh my! Mommy mommy! The man called me a name he doesn't even understand! He doesn't even understand the difference between the Crown of Canada and the Queen of England.

Sorry son, calling me 'pommy' is doubly funny. 'Traitor', well. . . if you said it to my face, you'd be spitting teeth. But on the Internet, you're nothing more than amusing pixels on my screen. I'm always intrigued why people think I'm not entitled to an opinion, because I volunteer my time to do a service they enjoy. Luckily, I'm entitled to express any opinion I want to. Says so in my contract. And I'm entitled to laugh at anything I find funny too.

Is that your version of Canada? Agree with me, or else?

   

Paper or plastic?

Does bread always fall butter side down? Even if it's peanut butter?

I too can ask irrelevant questions. Classic logical fallacy - 'Strawman'. Asking questions to which you know the answer, like 'never'. And if I can't answer these irrelevant questions, I am wrong. Too bad, I don't roll like that.

Here's a better one, Who was the last GG appointed by the British Monarch? Or, if we are 'ruled', what was the last order given to the citizens or government of Canada by the Queen of Canada?



Yet, I am not the one hurling insults. Since when does 'manners' require a knowledge of Canadian history? I guess anyone can start their own party, without knowledge of the Constitution. Have you even read and understood that document?



My point exactly. You have no idea of the difference between them. Nor between the Queen of England, and the British Crown, apparently.



Ahhh, I see your difficulty. It's either in your eyesight, or your level of comprehension. Tell me, in English, what denotes that a word has been abbreviated? Or was that another attempt at insult?

   

Yea, like you answered mine when you first started wasting my time here.

My reply is in bold, in the event you didn't read it the first time. Where are your answers to my questions?

   

It is an answer, just not the answer to the leading question you want. But, you already realize the answers to my questions negate answers to your questions. Which is the reason I asked them.

If you don't think I know what you are talking about, please, enlighten us. Your private message inbox must be stuffed with all the requests for more information.

   

Right. And I answered. It's still a silly question. When you answer my question on who was the last GG appointed by a British Monarch, the answer shows you why.



The GG does not represent the British Crown.

http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/01/index_e.asp

The GG represents the Queen of Canada. Look up the oath of citizenship in Canada.

"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_and_ ... an_monarch



What on earth makes you think she doesn't? Queen Elizabeth has a long tradition in both french culture in Canada, and among Native leaders.

   

How about changing the name to the Canadian Nationalists League. Patriots is a term used by Americans for their own causes. Goes back to their revolution.

   

Oh, the irony of your first sentence. The Queen of Canada and her representative the GG are the head of State in Canada. Our entire legal system is based on that.

You are assuming that the British Monarch and the Queen of Canada are the same person. Legally, they are different people. As is the Head of the Commonwealth, the Empress of India . . . . the titles just happen to refer to the same physical being. That is why the Queen uses the royal 'We' when referring to herself, as she wears many hats.

When/if Charles takes over, Camila will become 'Princess Consort' - NOT 'Queen Consort'. Canada has it's own rules on styles of the Monarch. And that bitch will never be Queen of anything.

And you still haven't answered my question from months ago. If you plan to rid Canada of the Monarchy - what do you plan to replace it with?

   

That is just the way our Parliamentary system evolved. What about the system is not working, that it needs changing?



So, your answer is to appoint GG's, and the Queen of Canada should do this on the PMs advice?



Why not? A GG as the head of State works fine. Appointment means they don't have to get into the Politics aspect of being elected. They aren't beholden to any campaign contributors; they have no agenda.



What about Queen Elizabeth's relationship with the french or natives is "smeared in gore, slavery, poverty and disease" ? Now you are just making stuff up for emotional effect.



Now, on that we agree.



And there is no reason to get rid of a system that works. The Queen of Canada is not the Queen of Great Britain.



There you go again, ignoring facts for purely emotional response. You didn't answer my earlier question; what was the last command received by our British Monarch?

The concept of a Monarch defines them as acting legally as more than one person. They are a neutral 'referee' of sorts. The last line of sanity between an out of control Dictator and the people.



Which Statute of Westminster? 1275, 1285, 1290 or 1931? They all have varying text progressively removing power from the Monarchy and transferring it to a government of the people, of which the 1931 Statute is what gave independence to Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and Ireland. It also ratified the "Balfour Declaration of 1926" which removed all power of the British Parliament over the Dominion of Canada.

Until that time we were a British Colony; there were no 'Canadian' people, so how could we have voted on it? And why would we reject that now? Give the duty of making law in Canada back to the British Parliament? I thought you didn't want to be under the Yoke of a foreign government?

If our Parliament doesn't represent the people, it's our own damn fault for letting them get away with all this crap over the years. Don't blame the Queen for our own apathy.

   

Ahh, I see. So, from that article, "From 1867 to 1952 every Governor General was born beyond Canada's borders, and was a member of the Peerage. "

Every GG after 1967 has been Canadian, and appointed by the PM. How are we then 'ruled by the British Monarchy'?



1215, or 1297? All Western civilizations are based on those documents. I know them well. And yes, I quoted your words exactly.



Why indeed. Why do we have 3 branches of Government? The State, Legislative and the Judiciary. Hmmmm. Which one would we turn to if the State violated the law. Hmmmm. Too bad we didn't have our own list of Rights and Freedoms, written down some place.

In fact, a man is suing the British Monarchy currently in Britain, for losing his right of habeas corpus under the Magna Carta. It will be quite interesting to watch.



No, you are using confusing words. And you are doing so, because you are in way over your pay grade.



The Monarchy is again the State. We are the citizens. Parliament is supposed to represent US the citizens, not the State. The Queen has no say whatsoever in Government. If Parliament is useless, then it is a true reflection of us.

Take some responsibility, man.



The Prime Minister is not a person? Is he not chosen by the people in an open election? Canadian Citizenship is a pre-req to be PM. And the GG is head of State. Representing the people is the job of Parliament. Representing the State is the job of the GG.



Ahhh, residential schools, established 1928. Seven years war. 1756 IIRC?

What does that have to do with Queen Elizabeth again? And what did she do to francophones? More emotional responses. Not a valid debating strategy.

Glanced one off your boot there.



What contradiction? I guess you ignored the part about the British Crown not being the Crown of Canada again. Here's a little tip for you; 'legal' words although spelt and pronounced the same as English ones, have different meanings. Read 'Blacks Law Dictionary, and you will see the difference.



She is not a registered Canadian voter. (Ziinnng past the boot again). You yourself brought up the Statute of Westminster, how about the 1984 Canadian Constitution. What authority does it give Her in Parliament?

None.

The State gives Royal ascent to legislation. The Queen isn't even involved in that anymore, other than the Queen of Canada has reserved the right to nullify legislation if deemed harmful to Canada.

I suggest, in addition to Black's Law dictionary, you read what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says about the Distribution of Powers between the Legislative, Judicial and State branches. Once you do that, you will understand you have the wrong target.

Queen Elizabeth has little to do with Canadian Government, other than being the Queen of Canada as one of her many aspects. Royal ascension is given solely by the GG. The Queen of Canada has basically two duties - to veto any legislation deemed harmful to Canada, and to appoint to the position of GG the one name given her by the PM.

In your world, a PM with delusions of Bush can pass draconian legislation, and a willing, elected GG can pass it with no fight whatsoever. The Queen cannot intervene, because she has been downsized.

The problem being in the real world. The GG is just a rubber stamp (as the current election has shown us), most power of the State has been usurped into the Prime Ministers' Office. The Queen is the last sane look at what would be good for all of us, should the need arise. Remember, the greatest dictators of the 20th Century, became such through totally legal means and using the law against the good of the State. We must have that little bit of protection from Parliament. It hardly costs any tithe anymore.

I know what you are trying to do, and why. Focusing on what's broke in the system, rather than a relatively powerless Head of State, would be in the best interest of a Canadian Patriot.

   

I accept your surrender. I impose no terms.

   

It is surrender, when the best debate tactic you can come up with are insults.



My story has not changed and:

Last edited by mikailus on 2008 Sep 20 Sat 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by mikailus on 2008 Sep 23 Tue 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by mikailus on 2008 Sep 23 Tue 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is changing your words again?



We chose the PM, the PM chooses the GG. My point was, the Queen has nothing to do with it.



They are different.
Here is the Queen of Canada, wearing the Crown of Canada.

Crown of Canada.jpg [ 46.62 KiB | Viewed 358 times ]

Here is the Queen of Britian, wearing Imperial Crown of Britain.

Imperial Crown of Britian.jpg [ 58.77 KiB | Viewed 320 times ]

Sure looks different.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4920.asp



Pardon? I don't know if you are intending this as another insult, or simply trying to illicit an emotional response from the reader.

Please, feel free to quote my marginalization of ether natives or francophones.

   

Then why are you saying I am changing your words, when they are the words you wrote? Accusations that I am lying are also bad form in a debate.

People are quite able to see that your comments were edited by you, and mine were not edited at all, so how can you claim that I change mine, and I change yours?



The Crown. That thing on her head, you know?

And, going back to that other part you didn't read, the LEGAL definition of a monarch is that they represent different aspects in the same person. The Queen of Canada is a different person than the Queen of England is a different person than the Queen of New Zealand. And she must act accordingly when acting on behalf of a different Realm.

How hard is that to understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralis_majestatis



On the contrary. While the PM may be a rotting corpse of immorality, the Queen embodies everything a person should be. She is one of the few people in any sort of authority that I respect.



Exactly. Now, where did I marginalize ether group? I ignored your comment about the 7 years war and residential schools because, as you so rightly pointed out, I am moderator and if I can't stay on topic, how can I ask anyone else to? Your use of "gore" "poverty" and "disease" were meant as emotional effect for the readers. Both of them.

And you didn't answer the question, once again. What about Queen Elizabeth's relationship with the French or natives is "smeared in gore, slavery, poverty and disease" ? And now that I think about it, most slaves in Canada were natives, and most were owned by the French. So since all that happened before Queen Elizabeth was born, and long before she ascended to the throne, I'd like an answer.

This obviously is a hangup for you, so let's deal with it an be done.



No, we are stuck in this mess because people refuse to let go of the past. Usually the past that no one alive today had anything to do with. Odds are, that some time in the past that one of my ancestors did something bad to one of yours, or vice versa. Do you want to rehash centuries old feuds, or move on and fix the problems we have now?

   

It is bad form when you ignore other obvious points as well.



The law is rarely based on ethier common sense, or reason. But the fact remains, a Monarch is a host of aspects.




Incorrect logic. Self induced logical fallicy. Because (a) is true, does not mean (b) is also true. We are all conditioned to be something from birth.



Lack of comprehension again? I said nothing at all about residential schools, nor the 7 years war. I said you characterization, your words "smeared in gore, slavery, poverty and disease" are made up. Now you refuse to back up your claims.

"we are stuck in this mess because people refuse to let go of the past."



No, the Monarchy is the present. It is above tyranny, because it is powerless. THe Monarchy is older than democracy, hence the Magna Carta.

It's your dwelling on the wrongs of past Monarch that keeps us from progressing. You can't come up with a single bad thing Queen Elizabeth has done, so why the animosity? Were you bit by a Monarch as a child?

   

1  2  Next