Petition to reinstate the RCAF and RCN
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:14 pm
WBenson WBenson:
Are you saying that Karla Homolka and Conrad Black are better Canadians than the Queen? Surely, by being nothing other than a dutiful head of state for longer than most Canadians have been alive, she has contributed more than they ever have. Perhaps I was lax with my words in the post that has caused such controversy. I should have expanded it to say, "The Queen has contributed more positive to Canadian society than many other Canadians."
I'm not saying anything on other peoples "Canadianness". Remember? I'm not you. You seem to think the Queen is some all perfect being, which quite frankly, is pathetic to say the least. The Queen hasn't done anything wrong in her entire life? You know that for a fact? Actually, why don't you state what the Queen has contributed to this country, other than the Constitution Act of 1982 at the behest of Trudeau and good little Canadians dutifully putting her mug on coins and money. This will be good.
$1:
Perhaps I was lax with my words in the post that has caused such controversy. I should have expanded it to say, "The Queen has contributed more positive to Canadian society than many other Canadians."
Personal opinion, nothing more.
$1:
Oh, I'm neither a Marxist nor a National Socialist, by the way. I would appreciate if you stopped defaming me as such.
Lol, defame you? You've already done that with your own words.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:14 pm
and so another arguement brings in a comparison to the nazis.
Tman1 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:20 pm
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
WBenson @ Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:26 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
EyeBrock @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:41 am
WBenson WBenson:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
They are not 'amendments' as such but additions to the original BNA. Each 'amendment', including the 1982 one is called 'the Constitution Act (insert year). This is no recent change. There were additions from 1867 on, the latest I believe was 1999 when Nunavut was created.
This thread basically looks at the pointless removal of the Crown links to our military, overseen by the avidly anti-British Paul Hellyer.
The Crown has been part of Canada since the 17th century and the British provided the force and drive behind the creation of the North American colonies and of Canada itself.
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
Our links to the British and the Crown are long and deep and to deny that the country is a British creation is like the British denying their Roman, Viking, Saxon and Norman French roots. Something that the Brits celebrate, took on and made their own.
Nobody is asking for us to remain a colony. That was dispensed with in 1867. But we should at least celebrate our British heritage and acknowledge our hundreds of years of links with the Crown.
I do believe this is what this thread was all about.
Per Ardua ad Astra.
sandorski @ Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:03 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
WBenson WBenson:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
They are not 'amendments' as such but additions to the original BNA. Each 'amendment', including the 1982 one is called 'the Constitution Act (insert year). This is no recent change. There were additions from 1867 on, the latest I believe was 1999 when Nunavut was created.
This thread basically looks at the pointless removal of the Crown links to our military, overseen by the avidly anti-British Paul Hellyer.
The Crown has been part of Canada since the 17th century and the British provided the force and drive behind the creation of the North American colonies and of Canada itself.
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
Our links to the British and the Crown are long and deep and to deny that the country is a British creation is like the British denying their Roman, Viking, Saxon and Norman French roots. Something that the Brits celebrate, took on and made their own.
Nobody is asking for us to remain a colony. That was dispensed with in 1867. But we should at least celebrate our British heritage and acknowledge our hundreds of years of links with the Crown.
I do believe this is what this thread was all about.
Per Ardua ad Astra.
I'm not "Anti-British", just not British and/or Pro-British. Our ties to Britain are practically nil these days and we are our own People. It's time for us to move on and be True to Ourselves.
EyeBrock @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:31 am
sandorski sandorski:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
WBenson WBenson:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
They are not 'amendments' as such but additions to the original BNA. Each 'amendment', including the 1982 one is called 'the Constitution Act (insert year). This is no recent change. There were additions from 1867 on, the latest I believe was 1999 when Nunavut was created.
This thread basically looks at the pointless removal of the Crown links to our military, overseen by the avidly anti-British Paul Hellyer.
The Crown has been part of Canada since the 17th century and the British provided the force and drive behind the creation of the North American colonies and of Canada itself.
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
Our links to the British and the Crown are long and deep and to deny that the country is a British creation is like the British denying their Roman, Viking, Saxon and Norman French roots. Something that the Brits celebrate, took on and made their own.
Nobody is asking for us to remain a colony. That was dispensed with in 1867. But we should at least celebrate our British heritage and acknowledge our hundreds of years of links with the Crown.
I do believe this is what this thread was all about.
Per Ardua ad Astra.
I'm not "Anti-British", just not British and/or Pro-British. Our ties to Britain are practically nil these days and we are our own People. It's time for us to move on and be True to Ourselves.
So we should just forget our heritage and history? It is our history, we just happen to share some of it with the Brits.
It is Canada, it was built by the Brits and it is our shared culture and heritage. Why are you against celebrating our culture?
Tman1 @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:41 pm
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
Then you might want to look at the part that gave Canada more autonomy than the constitution of 1867 but oh well.
Tman1 @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:05 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
They are not 'amendments' as such but additions to the original BNA. Each 'amendment', including the 1982 one is called 'the Constitution Act (insert year). This is no recent change. There were additions from 1867 on, the latest I believe was 1999 when Nunavut was created.
Wrong. I consider the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a BIG addition and is a recent change from 1867. The Con of 1982 gave Canada full autonomous rights without British consent towards changing their government but yeah, no recent or significant changes right?
$1:
The Crown has been part of Canada since the 17th century and the British provided the force and drive behind the creation of the North American colonies and of Canada itself.
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
In all truth, Britian didn't really care about the colonies in Canada but were more interested in their interests in the Indies and Carribean but true, they were the driving force...point?
People wanting to make change in their country or being proud of their country, not ancient history is their perogative and not necessarily anti-British. Not everybody is a historian nor appreaciate their own history but rather focus on the present and future.
As for immigrants and new arrivals, you'll have to interview them yourself or create a new thread on the evils of immigration.
sandorski @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:18 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
sandorski sandorski:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
WBenson WBenson:
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
The Constitution Act of 1982 in no way abrogates the authority of the Constitution Act of 1867. If it did there would be no monarchy or Parliament.
They're called "amendments". They change the Constitution. Oh, and the Queen signed it herself.
The Constitution Act of 1867 is still in effect, except for the few places where, as you say, it was amended. The vast majority of it is still in effect though, including the parts that create the monarchy and other Canadian bodies of government.
They are not 'amendments' as such but additions to the original BNA. Each 'amendment', including the 1982 one is called 'the Constitution Act (insert year). This is no recent change. There were additions from 1867 on, the latest I believe was 1999 when Nunavut was created.
This thread basically looks at the pointless removal of the Crown links to our military, overseen by the avidly anti-British Paul Hellyer.
The Crown has been part of Canada since the 17th century and the British provided the force and drive behind the creation of the North American colonies and of Canada itself.
Why is there such a rabid anti-British streak within a chunk of Canadians?
Did new arrivals not realise that Canada was and still is a consitutional monarchy? If so why come here and try to deny and change our very roots and heritage?
Our links to the British and the Crown are long and deep and to deny that the country is a British creation is like the British denying their Roman, Viking, Saxon and Norman French roots. Something that the Brits celebrate, took on and made their own.
Nobody is asking for us to remain a colony. That was dispensed with in 1867. But we should at least celebrate our British heritage and acknowledge our hundreds of years of links with the Crown.
I do believe this is what this thread was all about.
Per Ardua ad Astra.
I'm not "Anti-British", just not British and/or Pro-British. Our ties to Britain are practically nil these days and we are our own People. It's time for us to move on and be True to Ourselves.
So we should just forget our heritage and history? It is our history, we just happen to share some of it with the Brits.
It is Canada, it was built by the Brits and it is our shared culture and heritage. Why are you against celebrating our culture?
Go ahead and celebrate it, I won't stop you. I just don't think bringing back "RCAF" etc has any benefit to any Canadian.
Tman1 @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:21 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
So we should just forget our heritage and history? It is our history, we just happen to share some of it with the Brits.
It is Canada, it was built by the Brits and it is our shared culture and heritage. Why are you against celebrating our culture?
It is Canada, it was built by the Brits and it is our shared culture and heritage. Why are you against celebrating our culture?
Actually, Canada wasn't "built" by the Brits but I like how they take all the credit eh? In my opinion, a shared culture and heritage is pretty vague and not necessarily true. People moved from the homeland for change, to get away from their heritage and create a new one. That is indeed what colonials did did they not? *cough* American Revolution *cough*. Colonials and British, believe it or not were different. The only *shared* thing they had were the troops defending them, who happend to be British troops. Do you think the peoples in South America, including Mexico, are celebrating their culture and heritage from the Spanish? Nope, they are celebrating their culture and heritage from when they *separated* from the Spanish. Brazil being portugeuse not included. True, the Spanish did supress their peoples more than the British but I still think the semantics apply to Canada a bit.
GreatBriton @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:58 am
sandorski sandorski:
The Queen is British
No, she's German.
-Mario- @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:05 am
GreatBriton GreatBriton:
sandorski sandorski:
The Queen is British
No, she's German.
EyeBrock @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:48 pm
She is 'of german heritage'.
Prince Albert ( Victoria's hubby) was a boxhead.
The surname of the royal family was 'Saxe-coburg' until the rabid anti-German sentiment of the Great War forced a change to the very Brit surname of 'Windsor'.
Same thing happened to Kitchener in Ont , formerly Berlin, Ont, and things like German Shepherds in the UK are still called 'Alsatians' after the oft changed hands border region of Alsace-Lorraine.
Up until then Germans were very much part of British culture, especially in the Army.
Some regiments in the British Army still have Prussian symbols front and centre.
Some of the first counties in Upper Canada were named after German Prince's and Princesses’.
Heavy_Metal @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:09 pm
without reading the whole 6 pages of debate.....and with the hope i am not repeating someone's argument....but RCMP.......bring back the Royal....it's all good......