|
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. |
5th December 2018, 11:00 AM | #41 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
I always figure Australia and Canada have a bargain.
Apparently, for reasons I've never really been able to comprehend, a head of state is absolutely required. Provided that Madge just signs what the respective PMs put in front of her and comes to do waving when required, then you have a rock bottom, bargain priced, head of state that you don't have to pay for (aside from, perhaps providing the Gov. General with a house, maybe?) We're the ones that have to pay for her and her family, have to put up with the constant bollocks about them on the TV, have the country plunged into weird and slightly concerning mourning when one of them dies from drunk chauffer syndrome, have all the fun TV shows and music cancelled when she finally dies and put up with whatever ******** about Harry or the queen's grandson happens to be flavour of the month. I'd happily trade. You can have the present and incredibly anachronistic royal family come live with you guys and we'll stay here and complain about an absentee head of state. Actually, thinking about it, maybe Australia can have the royal family and associated expense and ******** for a decade, then Canada, then we'll have them back again? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
5th December 2018, 11:17 AM | #42 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I have quoted ONLY from the Constitution. But the Constitution is 'pseudo legal nonsense', is it?
So far, not one single contributor to this thread has produced a shred of evidence that has the force of law and in any way diminishes the powers described in the Constitution. This thread is a perfect example of how people will cling to long held beliefs, and ignore any and all facts that contradict those beliefs. |
5th December 2018, 11:17 AM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th December 2018, 11:20 AM | #44 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Can you show any examples of the will of the people being subverted by the head of state?
I mean, it happens in the UK, but does it happen in Canada? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
5th December 2018, 11:30 AM | #45 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Brexit is irrelevant to this discussion.
The British gov't did not manipulate any Canadian election to prevent anyone not loyal to the Queen from being elected. Nobody gets into a position to be elected to any high office unless they've demonstrated their loyalty for years before as they move up through the ranks. They don't move up the ranks unless they are loyal to the Queen, whom they have sworn allegiance to. |
5th December 2018, 11:47 AM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
How, pray tell, is this loyalty tested and demonstrated? Do they have to carry out assassinations on her behalf? Give up their first born? Shoot the dog?
And if your answer is a sworn oath, go sit in the corner and think about why that's stupid, because it doesn't actually demonstrate anything. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th December 2018, 12:05 PM | #47 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
How is this handled in Canadian civics? If I read that document to find out about the Canadian system, how do I find out about the part of the document are not true?
|
5th December 2018, 12:13 PM | #48 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Gov't is a hierarchy. If someone comes into the system from the bottom, say a city councillor or something like that, they have to work their way up the ladder. They are observed by those above them and if they show themselves to be team players, they are allowed to advance.
Others, like Justin, come from bloodlines that have been loyal to the monarchy for generations. He still had to work his way up, but the moment he entered politics it was a given he would follow in Dad's footsteps and become PM. He'd really have to screw up in a big way for him not to become PM. Just my opinion, but Justin is as far from a real leader as it gets. It's obvious to me he's only there because of his heritage, not because of his own merit. In modern times, royal dynasties are now joined by political dynasties like the Trudeaus and the Bushes and the Clintons. Just more evidence that politics is theatre. |
5th December 2018, 12:15 PM | #49 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
5th December 2018, 12:22 PM | #50 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
5th December 2018, 12:33 PM | #51 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
5th December 2018, 12:52 PM | #52 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
|
5th December 2018, 01:17 PM | #53 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Yes I do know what Common Law is. But what relevance does that have in this discussion? What relevance does it have to the Queen's power?
Still nobody has provided any evidence to show the Queen's power is not what the Constitution says. Everybody's just dancing around the issue. |
5th December 2018, 01:20 PM | #54 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
It happened in Australia. Ancient history 1975, and can’t happen again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975...utional_crisis
Quote:
But, as I said, ancient history. We don’t have drunken, megalomaniacal GGs anymore, and a repeat is impossible to imagine. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th December 2018, 01:22 PM | #55 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
How does a city councillor show that they're on the Queen's team? What the hell would that even mean? You aren't actually making a coherent case here.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th December 2018, 02:16 PM | #56 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
5th December 2018, 02:44 PM | #57 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th December 2018, 02:50 PM | #58 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Sorry for the bad formatting in my previous post. I'll repeat...
A councillor doesn't have to show loyalty to the Queen or swear an oath of allegiance. But if he wants to someday become PM or a member of Parliament, then he has to show himself to be a team player, or he won't rise through the ranks. And once he becomes an MP or MPP, he must swear allegiance to the Queen. |
5th December 2018, 02:54 PM | #59 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th December 2018, 02:54 PM | #60 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
There's no guarantee Justin will be loyal. But he was raised from birth to become PM.
If he had shown any signs of not being a team player, he wouldn't be PM. And if he were to go rogue after becoming PM, he'd be discredited and ousted. The system is set up so that something like that has an almost zero chance of happening. And if it does happen, it's dealt with. Nothing is going to change the status quo. |
5th December 2018, 02:57 PM | #61 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
|
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX |
|
5th December 2018, 03:00 PM | #62 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Show me something official that confirms your allegation.
An MP can hold office without swearing allegiance, but in that case his vote is not counted in Parliament. So, no, it's not JUST ceremonial. That's the point of this thread. People think everything to do with the Queen is just ceremonial and has no real meaning or status. Nothing could be farther from the truth as has been repeatedly pointed out here. Yes, it IS ceremonial, but there's important meaning behind it, otherwise why would they do it? I would say it's not so much ceremonial as it is ritualistic. |
5th December 2018, 03:05 PM | #63 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
That's the point. Leaders are being put in place because of who they are, not on merit. They are just personalities sold to the public.
Politics and elections are theatre for the masses. This thread is one evidence for that - in that the Queen has power over elected officials. But to really show how fake politics is, needs its own thread. |
5th December 2018, 03:14 PM | #64 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,843
|
Damn right, Itch. If Queenie is such a figgerhead, howcum those guards at t' palace parade wiv REAL GUNS? Dammit, I bin there & I seen 'em!
Who knows what they hide under those bare skinned hats? Virus vaccines that fuggup yer mind, eh. You & me (see my location? right across the river from the British Empire! 'Nuff to make yer plotz!), we know how the cookie trembles! Mights well crack 'nother blue one & turn on the ockey. Eh. |
__________________
When I spoke out against the bullies, they called me woke. When I lashed them with a length of chain, they called me sir. |
|
5th December 2018, 03:35 PM | #65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
What has being a "team player" got to do with it? If the whole team, or even just a majority, doesn't do what the Queen wants, then anyone not doing what the Queen wants is still being a team player. And swearing allegiance doesn't mean jack ****. It's not an unbreakable vow.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th December 2018, 03:41 PM | #66 |
Not a doctor.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,863
|
|
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. |
|
5th December 2018, 03:54 PM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
|
|
__________________
...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 |
|
5th December 2018, 10:45 PM | #68 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I explained that a few posts ago. Canada was ruled by the Brits. The guys in charge were born in England. Gradually more Canadian born people came into various offices. Bred and raised to be loyal to the Queen. Eventually Canada was given a certain amount of autonomy because the system and people were in place who's genesis was British. So it never gets to a point where a majority doesn't do what the Queen wants because the majority are loyal to the Queen and always have been. It's a club. Their oath is not unbreakable, but breakers are ousted.
If it ever did get to a stalemate between the gov't and the Queen, it would have to be settled in court. But since the Queen owns the court (the Crown) and she alone is at the very top of the pyramid, the Sovereign, the one above the law, who do you think would win? But as I've explained, it would never come to that. Who do you think decides 'what the government wants'? The gov't? The PM? The people? The Canadian Council of Chief Executives? Power flows from the top down. Orders and directives flow from the top down. The Queen is at the top. It's that simple. |
5th December 2018, 10:53 PM | #69 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
Every single revolution and forced abdication ever?
Heck even the Windsors got their power because people broke their oaths to the previous incumbents. Should a serious republican party ever come to power in Canada it will become a republic. The thing is, I guess Canadians look south and think 'at least we don't have that!' |
5th December 2018, 10:54 PM | #70 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
My argument, that the Queen has power over our elected officials has nothing to do with the change in gender. At least not until the Queen is gone. Why wouldn't the gov't quickly pass a constitutional ammendment to change the gender? I doubt anyone would object.
What do you think will happen? On another note, remember saying this...? "I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law." So I'll ask again, can you produce any wording from the Constitution that describes the Queen's titular role? |
5th December 2018, 11:04 PM | #71 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th December 2018, 11:26 PM | #72 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
5th December 2018, 11:35 PM | #73 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
6th December 2018, 12:00 AM | #74 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I've made a claim about the Queen's power and provided clear proof of the claim from the Constitution.
Article #9: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." What does that sentence mean to you? That the Queen is subservient to the gov't? No commenter on this thread has shown a single thing that modifies, diminishes, softens, weakens or affects that clause in any way. As for the 'conspiracy theory game'... How is it played? What does one have to do to win? Are there prizes? |
6th December 2018, 01:09 AM | #75 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
|
6th December 2018, 01:31 AM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
It is said that England (the relevant Kingdom here) does not have a written constitution, but that is not true; it is just that it is written in many places over a long period. The powers of the sovereign are constitutionally curtailed. You have to go back to Magna Carta which amongst other things limits the rights of the sovereign to arbitrary arrests and imprisonment*. The legal principle long established is that the sovereign's powers are those of a reasonable sovereign; arbitrary actions are not those of the sovereign but of the individual who happens to wear the crown. Most powers are those of the Queen in counsel, the true powers rest with the Privy Council. If a demented Lizzy said "Off with her head" that would not be a royal command. Yes the Queen is the commander in chief, but only lawful orders should be obeyed. The limits of power remain for the Queen of Canada, NZ, Australia etc.
It was only in 1982 that the power to amend Canada's constitution shifted from Westminster to Ottawa. *As ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading." This includes the whole history of constitutional limits on the powers of the crown going back to 1215 (and of course in Canada also French legal principles). What you are doing is explicitly what is wrong, reading the constitution in part and not in the historical jurisprudential framework. |
6th December 2018, 01:57 AM | #77 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Thanks. You haven't however provided any wording that has the force of law and affects Article #9.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution as a whole has two parts. The written part and an unwritten part called the Constitutional Conventions. But when push comes to shove, the Courts can only rule on cases involving the written part. They can not rule on the uncodified, unwritten part. This was tested in a case where Conrad Black was offered a Lordship. To accept, he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship which the PM, Cretien, didn't want. When the Queen refused to rescind the offer of Lordship, Cretien tried to take the case to court. But the court wouldn't rule on the case because it fell under the unwritten Conventions. In short, the written part has the full force of law while the unwritten part does not. That's a big difference. The Conventions, along with the historical principles you mentioned are all part of the smoke and mirrors to hide (in plain sight) the true power of the monarchy. It's true she can't be arrested. It's been said she could be under 'certain circumstances', but I've been unable to find any information on what those 'circumstances' might specifically be. So bottom line, she can't be arrested. Who else in the western world can make that claim? Certainly not the PM of Canada. Unless there is something written with legal standing that directly countermands Articles #9 and #15, they are enforceable. The written Constitution is the highest law of the land. Those Articles are in there for a reason. I've seen nothing in the written part of our Constitution that curtails the Queen's power. Have you? |
6th December 2018, 02:18 AM | #78 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
|
6th December 2018, 08:21 AM | #79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
And the US was ruled by the Brits too. But we not only didn't do what the king wanted, we killed a bunch of them to make sure they knew we were serious.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
6th December 2018, 09:33 AM | #80 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Well, she has the classical method of enforcement: Send British troops to tell the uppity Canadians what's what.
But peace makes plenty. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|