IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 18th December 2018, 01:11 PM   #721
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
.... imaginary
....what might happen....
...scenario
.... the Conventions....
... They would rather it not be widely known .....
... the Conventions.
...'secret' ...
So you've still got nothing...
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:11 PM   #722
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Wiki:
On April 17, 1982, Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, as well as the Minister of Justice, Jean Chrétien, and André Ouellet, the Registrar General, signed the Proclamation which brought the Constitution Act, 1982 into force.[4][5][6][7] The proclamation confirmed that Canada had formally assumed authority over its constitution, the final step to full sovereignty.

Pre 1982, Canada did not have formal authority over its Constitution. Doesn't that necessarily mean that somebody else had formal authority over Canada's Constitution?
Where was the Constitution Act 1867 written?

In other words, who wrote it? Did anyone other than a Canadian, New Brunswicker, or Nova Scotian write it? Were any modifications to the Constitution Act 1867 done without the consent of the Parliament of Canada?

Where was the Constitution Act 1982 written? Did anyone other than a Canadian write it?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:24 PM   #723
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
You slept through the classes where the teacher discussed the conferences where they wrote the Constitution Acts, didn't you? Pro tip, none of them were in Britain, and none involved Representatives from Britain or the monarchy.

The Constitution was not given to us, we wrote it.

We put the monarchy in its position and if we choose, we'll remove it.
I could be wrong, but I believe the Constitution Act, 1867 was basically the BNA with a few changes. If that is so, wasn't the BNA written by the British?

If the Constitution's purpose was to grant Canada real independence or autonomy, and it was written by Canadians, why on earth would they write in that the monarchy shall retain all its powers - executive authority and Command-in-Chief, RA and more?

I just can't make any sense out of that.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:31 PM   #724
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Where was the Constitution Act 1867 written?

In other words, who wrote it? Did anyone other than a Canadian, New Brunswicker, or Nova Scotian write it? Were any modifications to the Constitution Act 1867 done without the consent of the Parliament of Canada?

Where was the Constitution Act 1982 written? Did anyone other than a Canadian write it?
I don't know those details. But regardless of the answers, isn't the more salient point who had authority over the Constitution? Isn't that what matters, even if the Constitution was written by Mickey Mouse at the Disney's Wonderland?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:38 PM   #725
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't know those details. But regardless of the answers, isn't the more salient point who had authority over the Constitution? Isn't that what matters, even if the Constitution was written by Mickey Mouse at the Disney's Wonderland?
The Constitution was written by Canadians (or people who were working towards becoming Canadians), and only ever modified by Canadians - that would imply that Canadians have/had authority over the Constitution.

Formal authority is one thing, but if it is never exercised except at the behest of another is it actual authority?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:46 PM   #726
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Actually, that wasn't the distinction that was relevant.

What was relevant was that Conrad Black was also a citizen of the United Kingdom and as such was nominated for the peerage. The Canadian PM stated that, in accordance with the Nickle Resolutions, that a peerage should not be confirmed on Canadian citizens. The British PM didn't back down claiming that it was his right to nominate British citizens for British honours. Conrad took the high road and went to court so that he could be called "My Lord" and not have to pay for the privilege. Ultimately, the Ontario courts ruled that the Canadian Courts could not bind the government of Great Britain. The ruling of the court did not confirm that HMTQ in Right of Canada could act against the wishes of the Canadian Privy Council with respect to honours and awards for Canadians, it ruled that the Canadian Privy Council had no authority to advise HMTQ in Right of the United Kingdom with respect to the honours and awards recommended the by the Privy Council of the United Kingdom for citizens of the United Kingdom.

In the end, Conrad renounced his Canadian citizenship to avoid any issues that might prevent him from receiving the peerage.

What you've ignored is that the Queen stayed out of the dispute. This would have been the perfect vehicle for Her to have exercised her right to grant honours and awards to a Canadian based on her own judgement, rather than on the advice of her Canadian Privy Council. Instead, she did nothing.

This is the person you are trying to maintain tells people preparing legislation, "This is not something I will assent to, send me something else." This is a person unable to decide which of her councillors to listen to.
When I said the distinction was relevant, I was referring to this from Wiki:

"The court concluded that the Prime Minister had a constitutional right to advise the Queen of Canada on exercising her Royal Perogative. However, in this case, the Prime Minister's advice was to a 'foreign head of state', and subsequently Elizabeth II did not receive the Prime Minister's advice in her capacity as Queen of Canada;[...]"
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:51 PM   #727
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I could be wrong, but I believe the Constitution Act, 1867 was basically the BNA with a few changes. If that is so, wasn't the BNA written by the British?

If the Constitution's purpose was to grant Canada real independence or autonomy, and it was written by Canadians, why on earth would they write in that the monarchy shall retain all its powers - executive authority and Command-in-Chief, RA and more?

I just can't make any sense out of that.
Lord, you really don't know ANYTHING about how the Canadian Constitution came about, what it is and how the Canadian government works do you?

The Constitution Act 1867 was the British North America Act with a name change and in 1982 ceased to be an act of the British Parliament, but rather a purely Canadian affair. Essentially, prior to 1982 our Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and changes to it needed to be confirmed by that body. That being said, the original act was written by Canadians, all the amendments were written by Canadians and approved by the British Parliament with no debate.

While the British Parliament had formal authority to amend the Constitution Act 1867 without reference to Canada, it never did. Practically, the British Parliament was a rubber stamp for the Canadian Parliament and the Monarch quietly gave assent in accordance with the advice of Her Canadian Privy Council. Affirming the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 02:07 PM   #728
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The Constitution was written by Canadians (or people who were working towards becoming Canadians), and only ever modified by Canadians - that would imply that Canadians have/had authority over the Constitution.

Formal authority is one thing, but if it is never exercised except at the behest of another is it actual authority?
Yes, it is. Authority is the one who has final say. And that is by law, the holder of formal Authority.

If 'formal' authority means nothing, why then give Canada formal authority over the Constitution in 1982? Why bother?

And is it real authority over the Constitution? Am I wrong that an amendment can only be undertaken by a 'proclamation to amend' issued by the Gov Gen who works for the Queen?

In other words, if the Queen/Gov Gen refuse to issue a proclamation, no amendment can take place.
Am I wrong?

Under procedures to amend the Con, it says, "38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and [...]"

"may be made by proclamation issued by the GG" implies that no amendment can be made without this proclamation.

You'll say the Queen or GG always issues a proclamation if requested by the gov't. But similar to RA, the Con gives the monarchy the legal power to refuse to issue a proclamation.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 02:08 PM   #729
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
When I said the distinction was relevant, I was referring to this from Wiki:

"The court concluded that the Prime Minister had a constitutional right to advise the Queen of Canada on exercising her Royal Perogative. However, in this case, the Prime Minister's advice was to a 'foreign head of state', and subsequently Elizabeth II did not receive the Prime Minister's advice in her capacity as Queen of Canada;[...]"
Follow the line of reasoning - the Queen was receiving contradictory advice from two of her advisors. One was giving advice about giving an honour to a British citizen, the other was giving advice about not giving an honour to a Canadian citizen. The Canadian PM cannot advise the Queen of the United Kingdom about an honour for a British citizen is what the judgement in Black says. The court was silent about the right of the PM of Canada to advise the Queen of Canada about an honour for a Canadian. The Queen never exercised independence from the advice of her Counsellors - in the end, events meant she didn't have to decide - Black renounced his Canadian citizenship, meaning that Jean Chretien's advice was not needed and HMTQ didn't need to make a decision as to which of her councillors would prevail (my $ would have been on Chretien - the man had a mean handshake.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 02:11 PM   #730
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You'll say the Queen or GG always issues a proclamation if requested by the gov't. But similar to RA, the Con gives the monarchy the legal power to refuse to issue a proclamation.
Because in all the years since 1688, no monarch has refused royal assent.

One who tried was deposed and executed.

Another who tried was deposed and forced into exile to die in poverty.

And another was forced to abdicate rather than try and go against Parliament.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 02:17 PM   #731
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
Meanwhile, the hypothetical Oz/Canuck War of 2018 continues.

An Australian invasion force consisting of three backpackers intent on a skiing holiday have descended on Banff, threatening the local bar managers with working for money to support their sporting sojourn on the slopes. The counter-strike by a Canadian platoon of scuba-divers has landed in Cairns in northern Queensland, and has insinuated itself into a group of happy tourists diving on some of the last remaining unaffected parts of the Great Barrier Reef. Both groups have caused quite a stir among the local females, being young and devilishly handsome.

The Queen has been keeping a watchful eye on all this from her secret lair beneath Buck House. But she is STILL not stating which of the two countries she is siding during these heightening tensions, because she secretly runs them both and they are both equally favoured in her sight and she has controlling shares in the ski resorts and dive boat companies.

Any moment now the dam will burst. Will the Queen finally pick one side to lead and abandon the other? Or will she play both of them off against each other for profit. Stay tuned!
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 02:21 PM   #732
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Lord, you really don't know ANYTHING about how the Canadian Constitution came about, what it is and how the Canadian government works do you?

The Constitution Act 1867 was the British North America Act with a name change and in 1982 ceased to be an act of the British Parliament, but rather a purely Canadian affair. Essentially, prior to 1982 our Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and changes to it needed to be confirmed by that body. That being said, the original act was written by Canadians, all the amendments were written by Canadians and approved by the British Parliament with no debate.

While the British Parliament had formal authority to amend the Constitution Act 1867 without reference to Canada, it never did. Practically, the British Parliament was a rubber stamp for the Canadian Parliament and the Monarch quietly gave assent in accordance with the advice of Her Canadian Privy Council. Affirming the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy.
If it ceased to be an Act of British Parliament in 1982, then previous to that it was under British authority, was it not?

I think we already covered that Parliamentary Supremacy didn't apply to Canada because for one thing, the Queen is head of all three branches of gov't. PS says the legislature has the supreme power over other government institutions. As head of the legislature, the Queen still has supreme power.

Our legislature is headed by the Queen. I'm guessing it has to be that way to be in compliance with Article 9.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 05:22 PM   #733
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Because in all the years since 1688, no monarch has refused royal assent.

One who tried was deposed and executed.

Another who tried was deposed and forced into exile to die in poverty.

And another was forced to abdicate rather than try and go against Parliament.
What do you suppose would happen today if RA was refused?

Would Justin send Liz to the guillotine?
Would she be deposed or forced to abdicate for breaking an unwritten, non judiciable 'rule'? How would that work when the judiciable law states she has every right to refuse RA?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 05:33 PM   #734
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What do you suppose would happen today if RA was refused?

Would Justin send Liz to the guillotine?
Would she be deposed or forced to abdicate for breaking an unwritten, non judiciable 'rule'? How would that work when the judiciable law states she has every right to refuse RA?


I thought you had already accepted that Canadian Legislation no longer goes anywhere near HRH for signing, and she does not sign or approve anything personally. So why ask such a stupid question?

And since your argument is that she has supreme power, to be consistent with that argument, only she could arrest and try herself.


This is getting very Monty Python.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 18th December 2018 at 05:35 PM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 05:46 PM   #735
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I thought you had already accepted that Canadian Legislation no longer goes anywhere near HRH for signing, and she does not sign or approve anything personally. So why ask such a stupid question?


And since your argument is that she has supreme power, to be consistent with that argument, only she could arrest and try herself.


Norm
The Queen cannot be arrested or compelled to testify in any court.
ETA: Other members of the family can be arrested, but as head of the family, the Queen personally has to be responsible, even if she personally was opposed to refusing RA. She carries out the decisions made by the family, The Crown, or whatever you want to call the organization behind her.
And...I was asking Border what he thought would happen, since he posted some historical examples.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 18th December 2018 at 05:56 PM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 05:53 PM   #736
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen cannot be arrested or compelled to testify in any court.
But could be stripped of her crown and then arrested. History has several examples of British Monarchs being removed from power.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 05:53 PM   #737
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I thought you had already accepted that Canadian Legislation no longer goes anywhere near HRH for signing, and she does not sign or approve anything personally. So why ask such a stupid question?

And since your argument is that she has supreme power, to be consistent with that argument, only she could arrest and try herself.


This is getting very Monty Python.


Norm
The discussion in this thread has determined beyond any serious doubt that the queen of Canada is just a figurehead. Entertainment is the only thing left.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:02 PM   #738
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen cannot be arrested or compelled to testify in any court.
ETA: Other members of the family can be arrested, but as head of the family, the Queen personally has to be responsible, even if she personally was opposed to refusing RA. She carries out the decisions made by the family, The Crown, or whatever you want to call the organization behind her.

Then why did you ask a stupid pointless question? You could actually address what other posters say instead of going off in pointless tangents all the time. But of course that would require knowledge other than continually and only citing two points of the Constitution as your entire argument.



Since you cannot offer anything other than "but...but...but... the constitution" it is difficult to find any point in your monotonous "Wash, rinse, repeat" posts. My washing machine does that better than you.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:06 PM   #739
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
I've been following the thread for some time now, and for the life of me I cannot see what point Itchy Boy is trying to make.

Itchy Boy: But the Constitution says the Queen has the power!
Everyone Else: Yes, it does.
IB: But what if she uses it?
EE: She won't. No monarch ever has. That's not the way it works.
IB: But she could!
EE: Technically, yes.
IB: But... what if she does?
EE: It would be unthinkable for her to do so. She never would and never will.
IB: But... what if she does?
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:16 PM   #740
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
But could be stripped of her crown and then arrested. History has several examples of British Monarchs being removed from power.
Do you have an example where a monarch was forcibly removed within the law? (Abdication doesn't count as we have shown that is the monarch's choice. The monarch cannot be fired, dethroned, let go, or terminated.)
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:19 PM   #741
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
The discussion in this thread has determined beyond any serious doubt that the queen of Canada is just a figurehead. Entertainment is the only thing left.

I was interested early in the piece whether this would grow into a standard CT. Its easy enough to do this sort if thing if you know how to do it properly. In fact it can be done if you have enough brains to jump out of the way of a moving train.

1. Establish a harmless fact. (The Constitution says )"A"
2. Establish a trivial fact (People with power use power)
3. Show that the more money a person has, the more power he/she is likely to wield (easy enough to do and again a trivial fact)
4. Find examples where people who have a lot of money, therefore a lot of power get together. (The Bilderbergs as an example. I use this one because the OP tried to go there)
5. Dig up a few factoids tying any, some, or all of the above to decisions made by people in power. (You can start making up stuff at this stage or link of any number of frootloop conspiracy sites)
6. Ignore responsive answers, and repeat, adding irrelevant anecdotes to move the discussion into a blind alley.



Unfortunately Itchy Boy has fallen at the first hurdle, is still there, and can't even go around it, much less jump it. He is also trying point six without much success.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:24 PM   #742
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Do you have an example where a monarch was forcibly removed within the law? (Abdication doesn't count as we have shown that is the monarch's choice. The monarch cannot be fired, dethroned, let go, or terminated.)

Edward VIII abdicated because he was told to abdicate. Period. This has also been established. It is part of the History that you will not study, because it will deflate your CT like a balloon if you actually learn anything.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:26 PM   #743
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I've been following the thread for some time now, and for the life of me I cannot see what point Itchy Boy is trying to make.

Itchy Boy: But the Constitution says the Queen has the power!
Everyone Else: Yes, it does.
IB: But what if she uses it?
EE: She won't. No monarch ever has. That's not the way it works.
IB: But she could!
EE: Technically, yes.
IB: But... what if she does?
EE: It would be unthinkable for her to do so. She never would and never will.
IB: But... what if she does?
EE: It would be unthinkable for her to do so. She never would and never will.

What can you support that assertion with, besides the fact you've never seen the power used?
Does the fact you've never seen it used prove it never has been used?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:39 PM   #744
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Edward VIII abdicated because he was told to abdicate. Period. This has also been established. It is part of the History that you will not study, because it will deflate your CT like a balloon if you actually learn anything.


Norm
We've been through this, but I guess you missed it so I'll repeat it for you.

Miram-Webster
abdicate:
- to renounce a throne, high office, dignity or function
- to relinquish (something, such as sovereign power) formally

renounce:
- to give up, refuse, or resign, usually by formal declaration

relinquish:
- to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind
- give up

Words have meaning. There's a reason they use the word 'abdicate'.
They may have convinced Ed it was his best choice, but it was still his choice. That's why they never use words like 'dethroned', 'deposed', 'fired' or anything that means he had no choice.

'Forced' to abdicate - the word 'forced' is there to give the impression he had no choice. He had a choice, and he decided his personal happiness was more important to him than being King.

Had he not decided to abdicate, he would have remained King, but his life would be hell.

ETA: The term 'forced to abdicate' was crafted to obscure the real power, just as the Conventions were crafted to obscure the real power.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 18th December 2018 at 06:42 PM.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:43 PM   #745
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If it ceased to be an Act of British Parliament in 1982, then previous to that it was under British authority, was it not?

I think we already covered that Parliamentary Supremacy didn't apply to Canada because for one thing, the Queen is head of all three branches of gov't. PS says the legislature has the supreme power over other government institutions. As head of the legislature, the Queen still has supreme power.

Our legislature is headed by the Queen. I'm guessing it has to be that way to be in compliance with Article 9.
Here's the rub - while the Queen is considered to be part of the Legislature she cannot exercise any more authority there than she could if she was in the British Parliament. The Queen by convention doesn't vote or propose legislation in the British Parliament - her role is to ceremonially open Parliament, read a speech and that's it.

As part of the executive branch the role of the monarch is to assent to legislation on the advice of their Privy Council, and be the source of authority to enforce the law/government policy. Note that tradition and convention are that the monarch does not exercise authority, merely that they provide the authority for others to act in their name.

And the Queen does not hear cases as part of the judicial branch - justice is done in her name, not by her. Again this is convention, but this convention again goes back to the Restoration and is about as likely to be broken you are to appreciate the role that custom and tradition play in how words on paper are interpreted and put into effect.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:46 PM   #746
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
ETA. Bollocks.

ETA again. Responding to second post above. Obviously.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

Last edited by fagin; 18th December 2018 at 06:47 PM.
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:46 PM   #747
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
The discussion in this thread has determined beyond any serious doubt that the queen of Canada is just a figurehead. Entertainment is the only thing left.
Absolutely
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:48 PM   #748
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We've been through this, but I guess you missed it so I'll repeat it for you.

ETA: The term 'forced to abdicate' was crafted to obscure the real power, just as the Conventions were crafted to obscure the real power.



I didn't miss it. But then you don't follow your own thread enough to know who says what. Your part in this part of the discussion was just further evidence that the only reason you search for the truth is to try and have it arrested and to replaced with your fiction.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:48 PM   #749
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Do you have an example where a monarch was forcibly removed within the law? (Abdication doesn't count as we have shown that is the monarch's choice. The monarch cannot be fired, dethroned, let go, or terminated.)
It's a bit hard for anyone to say that anything that happened to Charles I was done not at the direction of Parliament (which I should think rather proves the point). The really interesting thing in this period though is what happens when Charles II returns to England. He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him by Parliament. Thus starts a long tradition of British monarchs being limited by Parliament.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 06:58 PM   #750
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I was interested early in the piece whether this would grow into a standard CT. Its easy enough to do this sort if thing if you know how to do it properly. In fact it can be done if you have enough brains to jump out of the way of a moving train.

1. Establish a harmless fact. (The Constitution says )"A"
2. Establish a trivial fact (People with power use power)
3. Show that the more money a person has, the more power he/she is likely to wield (easy enough to do and again a trivial fact)
4. Find examples where people who have a lot of money, therefore a lot of power get together. (The Bilderbergs as an example. I use this one because the OP tried to go there)
5. Dig up a few factoids tying any, some, or all of the above to decisions made by people in power. (You can start making up stuff at this stage or link of any number of frootloop conspiracy sites)
6. Ignore responsive answers, and repeat, adding irrelevant anecdotes to move the discussion into a blind alley.



Unfortunately Itchy Boy has fallen at the first hurdle, is still there, and can't even go around it, much less jump it. He is also trying point six without much success.



Norm
Was there an argument against the claim somewhere in there?

If you can point to a specific 'responsive answer' that I ignored, I'll address it now.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:13 PM   #751
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
It's a bit hard for anyone to say that anything that happened to Charles I was done not at the direction of Parliament (which I should think rather proves the point). The really interesting thing in this period though is what happens when Charles II returns to England. He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him by Parliament. Thus starts a long tradition of British monarchs being limited by Parliament.
So your answer is 'no' ?

"He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him".
Isn't that an oxymoron? If you're forced to do something, by definition you are not agreeing. If he 'agreed' then it was his choice. If he did not agree, like Ed, his life could be made hell. But bottom line, it was his choice to give in to demands.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:13 PM   #752
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen cannot be arrested or compelled to testify in any court.
ETA: Other members of the family can be arrested, but as head of the family, the Queen personally has to be responsible, even if she personally was opposed to refusing RA. She carries out the decisions made by the family, The Crown, or whatever you want to call the organization behind her.
And...I was asking Border what he thought would happen, since he posted some historical examples.
Why do you think that HMTQ can't be arrested?

The Queen has already delegated the power to enforce the laws to the executive.

If the executive determines that she has commuted an offence then the executive already has the authority to effect the arrest.

The judicial branch already has the delegated authority to try persons brought before them.

The Crown exercises its authority in the best interests of Canadians. It is in the best interests of Canadians that the criminal law is followed by all persons in our territorial jurisdiction, including the head of state.

The historical precedent is Charles I. After his defeat by Parliament he was captured and placed under arrest. He was detained for years, then tried, convicted because he would not accept the authority of the court to try him and refused to present a defence. Then he was executed.

Depending on the offence, if HMTQ was Convicted she would be subject to the penalty set out in the Criminal Code of Canada - essentially, this would mean a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:13 PM   #753
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Was there an argument against the claim somewhere in there?

If you can point to a specific 'responsive answer' that I ignored, I'll address it now.

I don't intend to go through the entire thread, so I will just run with my actual question in Post #734, which you did not answer, and had to repeat in Post #738 because while you actually responded to the first, you totally ignored the point of the post and went off onto one of your usual tangents to avoid an actual answer.


I assume though, that you consider replying to a post the same as responding to a post, and you consider that sufficient. Point seven in CT Beginners Class 101.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:20 PM   #754
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Here's the rub - while the Queen is considered to be part of the Legislature she cannot exercise any more authority there than she could if she was in the British Parliament. The Queen by convention doesn't vote or propose legislation in the British Parliament - her role is to ceremonially open Parliament, read a speech and that's it.

As part of the executive branch the role of the monarch is to assent to legislation on the advice of their Privy Council, and be the source of authority to enforce the law/government policy. Note that tradition and convention are that the monarch does not exercise authority, merely that they provide the authority for others to act in their name.

And the Queen does not hear cases as part of the judicial branch - justice is done in her name, not by her. Again this is convention, but this convention again goes back to the Restoration and is about as likely to be broken you are to appreciate the role that custom and tradition play in how words on paper are interpreted and put into effect.
It is who HAS the authority that counts. Why is it so hard to understand that the Conventions are not enforceable? That they obscure the REAL SOURCE of Authority?
Yes, I know the Queen doesn't hear cases. That's not the point.
But she is the highest authority in the land. That's an indisputable fact.
Whether or not the power is used, is certainly disputable.

Would you be kind enough to answer my previous question about what you think would happen if today, the Queen refused RA on a bill?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:26 PM   #755
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Would you be kind enough to answer my previous question about what you think would happen if today, the Queen refused RA on a bill?



Already answered earlier in this thread, an answer you accepted, and repeated , earlier on this page. You must have missed these parts of the thread.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:26 PM   #756
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I don't intend to go through the entire thread, so I will just run with my actual question in Post #734, which you did not answer, and had to repeat in Post #738 because while you actually responded to the first, you totally ignored the point of the post and went off onto one of your usual tangents to avoid an actual answer.

I assume though, that you consider replying to a post the same as responding to a post, and you consider that sufficient. Point seven in CT Beginners Class 101.

Norm
Your post asked me 'why I would ask such a stupid question' (of Border).
How does one 'respond' to that? "Well, fdu, let me tell you why I'm asking a stupid question. It's because..."

I don't think the question was stupid. Would you consider that a response?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:27 PM   #757
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Do you have an example where a monarch was forcibly removed within the law? (Abdication doesn't count as we have shown that is the monarch's choice. The monarch cannot be fired, dethroned, let go, or terminated.)
George III had his powers removed from him by his Privy Council in 1810 and a Regent appointed.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:31 PM   #758
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Already answered earlier in this thread, an answer you accepted, and repeated , earlier on this page. You must have missed these parts of the thread.


Norm
I posed the question (specifically to Border) in #733. Scanning the page to review, I don't see an answer. Would you be kind enough to point out the post #?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:33 PM   #759
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
EE: It would be unthinkable for her to do so. She never would and never will.

What can you support that assertion with, besides the fact you've never seen the power used?
Does the fact you've never seen it used prove it never has been used?
I've never seen the Moon fall from the sky and crash to earth either. Does that mean that it has never happened?

The absence of observation of an event does not prove that it hasn't happened. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something has not happened. All you can do is demonstrate that it has. If it has happened, there would be some observable evidence that it has happened.

You can't demonstrate that. You haven't, and you can't. There is no evidence. All you have is "what if".

That leaves only two options: one where she has exercised that power, in secret, such that nobody knows about it except for those who actively covered it up, or one where she never has. Both options are indistinguishable from each other for all practical purposes, unless you can somehow get a cover-upper to fess. So the option that proposes the fewest unjustified assumptions is more likely to be true.

Furthermore, even if she has, so what? Can you demonstrate that any harm has been caused by such an action? Can you demonstrate that the state of reality is in any way different from the way it would be if she had not done so? You can't do that either.

You can ask "what if?" all you like, and it may be a good basis for a thriller novel if you've got the skills, but don't expect anyone else to take the question seriously.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:36 PM   #760
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
George III had his powers removed from him by his Privy Council in 1810 and a Regent appointed.
OK, but that was because he had a mental illness and was deemed unfit to rule. It wasn't because, with full mental capability, he displeased the gov't.

Liz is not mentally ill. So what do you think would ensue if she refused RA on a bill today?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.