ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 9th December 2018, 08:13 PM   #281
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How is Canada self governing when it says this in the Constitution?

"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Is it because what's written in the Con is frivolous, has no legitimacy and cannot be enforced. That's what many here seem to think. Do you agree?
Canada is self governing because the people elect their own government.

In the early years of Australia's history, the King (or British Parliament) appointed governors to rule over the Australian colonies. As the colonies "matured", they were granted the right to hold elections and govern themselves but with the crown still having the final say. Since the early parts of last century, it has been extremely rare for the a Governor or Governor General to do anything other than the bidding of the parliamentary executive.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 9th December 2018, 08:15 PM   #282
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Norman, I'm getting close to cutting you off. I've asked to back your claim several time. Nothing. I've asked the peanut gallery several times to back their claims with something in law. Nothing.
And for the last time I will explain again: IT DOES NOT HAVE TO. The specificity you seek is not there because it does not have to be there. But if you were to cut me off then I would be heartbroken.

Or maybe not. Whatever.

Quote:
Then you (and others) employ the tactic known as 'discredit by associaton' where you try to link me with the lizard theory.
No, we don't try to. You are doing that yourself. The very same people who are clearly mad/grifters have tried deploying exactly the same arguments you using here. The association is your own doing, not ours. We simply point it out.

Quote:
Then some here think people with great power don't use it. They think the monarchy, which gave Canada a measure of independence is going to relinquish their control despite the Con stipulating that control shall continue.
The problem for you is YOUR reading and understanding of the Canadian constitution and the history and legal conventions that go with it but are not written in it. You have demonstrated you have none of the understanding required. Legally trained people here have explained patiently how your viewpoint on this subject is naive at best, uneducated more likely.

Quote:
The longer this thread goes on, the more transparent all your excuses become. I talking to all of you here.
It only shows how desperate you all are to cling to your beliefs.
(It was someone else that accused me of lying.)

And, I'm not an 'expert' in this subject.
See, there's your problem. Others here are experts, and they are experts in Canadian law including constitutional law. They know this stuff, it's their bailwick, their thing, it's what they do. So it would be a VERY wise move to take their kind and freely given advice on board rather than think you know more about this than they do.

Quote:
Anybody can figure this out quite easily. It's only their preconceived beliefs that prevent them from seeing the reality.
<yoda> So sure of yourself you are! </yoda>
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 08:27 PM   #283
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You read it backwards. The Queen not going rogue provides a lack of motive for a republic.
Yep, inertia.

Quote:
Back in the 1990's when Charles was proving remarkably incompetent, the motivation for a republic was much higher. The momentum has cooled considerably now that his two sons haven't done anything wrong. In fact, Harry (who's circumstances would have made him a prime candidate for a black sheep) has managed to attract quite a lot of favourable publicity and popularity.
Well, yes. Thing is, the British royal family rarely visit anyway except for things like the Commonwealth or Invictus Games (and kudos to Harry for the latter). Arguably the Danish royal family is now more Women's Weekly front-page worthy than whatever hat QE2 is wearing or which royal princess has run off with the dustman. At least we have an actual national "investment" in the Danish family, so they are arguably closer to Australia than the Brits.

While some people will never let the 11-Nov-75 sozzled-Kerr situation die, it is now nearly 50 years ago, a couple of generations. So the relevance of the royal family interfering in Australian governance is minimal to none.

The prime motivator to republicanism in Australia is the notion of having an Australian head of state rather than a foreign citizen. We would probably not allow the Tongan, Japanese or Thai monarchs to be our HoS, so why some Brit from a lot further away!
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 08:28 PM   #284
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
See, there's your problem. Others here are experts, and they are experts in Canadian law including constitutional law. They know this stuff, it's their bailwick, their thing, it's what they do. So it would be a VERY wise move to take their kind and freely given advice on board rather than think you know more about this than they do.

That's just what THEY want you to think. Obviously paid Bilderberg shills - the same paid group that sabotaged Australia's attempt to become a Republic by buying votes.



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 9th December 2018, 08:30 PM   #285
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
That's just what THEY want you to think. Obviously paid Bilderberg shills - the same paid group that sabotaged Australia's attempt to become a Republic by buying votes.



Norm
If I were Canadian, I'd be slightly annoyed. Perhaps even indignant!
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 08:31 PM   #286
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why on earth do you think that their sworn allegiance means anything?
An oath, regardless of the content, is a solemn promise, is it not?

Anyone who swears an oath with fingers crossed is being highly dishonest, are they not?

What percentage of MPs and MPPs would you guess swore the oath with (figuratively speaking) their fingers crossed?

Would you swear a solemn oath with fingers crossed?
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 08:44 PM   #287
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And with that, you've proven that nothing will convince you. Once you start dismissing clear-cut evidence with "it can always be made to look like" and "maintain the illusion", there's literally nothing we can say that can overcome that.

So, congratulations, you've played a stupid game, and won a stupid prize! Go, you!
I'm not dismissing evidence. Abdicating is not quite the same as being fired. from Merriam-Webster:

abdicate:
- to relinquish (something, such as sovereign power) formally

relinquish:
1 :to withdraw or retreat from: leave behind
2 :GIVE UP
// relinquish a title

Words have meaning. You can say he was 'forced' to abdicate, but the fact remains he abdicated - he voluntarily stepped down because it was his best choice under the circumstances.

If Parliament could just 'fire' him, why didn't they?
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 08:46 PM   #288
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
An oath, regardless of the content, is a solemn promise, is it not?

Anyone who swears an oath with fingers crossed is being highly dishonest, are they not?

What percentage of MPs and MPPs would you guess swore the oath with (figuratively speaking) their fingers crossed?

Would you swear a solemn oath with fingers crossed?
Have you met humans? Because that's not how they work.

MP's don't have to intend to violate their oath when they make it. They just need to have an incentive to do so at the point in time that they violate it. And it may well be that they never expected to have such an incentive.

In the present case, for example, most Canadian MP's probably take the oath in the full expectation that the Queen would never try to command the Canadian military contrary to the wishes of the Canadian government. Were that to happen, they might feel that the Queen has violated an implicit oath, fully justifying their own disobedience of the Queen. You might feel like they've betrayed some trust, but that doesn't mean they will view it that way.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 9th December 2018, 08:49 PM   #289
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That would surprise a lot of monarchs.
Aside from the fact we're talking about Canada in modern times and not any of those other countries, you sent me a list of royalty that was murdered. And you think that's somehow relevant to the discussion?
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 08:50 PM   #290
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Worth noting this oath as well:
Quote:
I will solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs.
Who said that?

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, at her coronation in 1952.
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 08:57 PM   #291
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Aside from the fact we're talking about Canada in modern times and not any of those other countries, you sent me a list of royalty that was murdered. And you think that's somehow relevant to the discussion?
It is absolutely relevant. Regicide is an extreme example, but people don't always need a legal framework in order to do things. The authority of a monarch is never absolute. There are always limits besides the letter of the law.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 9th December 2018, 09:00 PM   #292
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have you met humans? Because that's not how they work.

MP's don't have to intend to violate their oath when they make it. They just need to have an incentive to do so at the point in time that they violate it. And it may well be that they never expected to have such an incentive.

In the present case, for example, most Canadian MP's probably take the oath in the full expectation that the Queen would never try to command the Canadian military contrary to the wishes of the Canadian government. Were that to happen, they might feel that the Queen has violated an implicit oath, fully justifying their own disobedience of the Queen. You might feel like they've betrayed some trust, but that doesn't mean they will view it that way.
I'm not suggesting people don't break their oath.
I was asked why I think the oath means anything.

But according to folks here, a solemn oath is meaningless.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 09:02 PM   #293
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
An oath, regardless of the content, is a solemn promise, is it not?

Here is a pretty solemn promise made under oath in 1953 since you are so hot for oaths and the written word:


Quote:
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?


Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.


later...


The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.


Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.
So I suggest that if the Queen were even to attempt to subvert the laws made by Canada (or Australia, or New Zealand...), either herself or through third parties, then she would be an oath breaker, and a traitor to the Church of England of which she is the leader, and her Country.




Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 9th December 2018 at 09:03 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 9th December 2018, 09:03 PM   #294
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'm not suggesting people don't break their oath.
I was asked why I think the oath means anything.

But according to folks here, a solemn oath is meaningless.
From a politician? Yes, it is.

Where are you visiting Earth from?
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 9th December 2018, 09:04 PM   #295
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Worth noting this oath as well:Who said that?

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, at her coronation in 1952.
I will solemnly promise and swear to govern

And of course, like the oaths, her promise is meaningless even if she meant it at the time.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 09:36 PM   #296
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Norman:

In post #25 you said,"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."

You skirted every request to post a few words that 'clearly define' anything.

Now in post #282 you say, "The specificity you seek is not there because it does not have to be there."

Why didn't you say that the first time I asked? Were you stalling for time to dream up an answer that you thought would get you off the hook?

I'll ask you again, Norman. How on Earth do you expect me to take you seriously?
__________________
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; 9th December 2018 at 09:37 PM. Reason: added bold
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 9th December 2018, 09:45 PM   #297
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Here is a pretty solemn promise made under oath in 1953 since you are so hot for oaths and the written word:



So I suggest that if the Queen were even to attempt to subvert the laws made by Canada (or Australia, or New Zealand...), either herself or through third parties, then she would be an oath breaker, and a traitor to the Church of England of which she is the leader, and her Country.




Norm
You have some catching up to do. Why would the Queen subvert laws she has approved by Royal Assent?
If your answer involves RA being 'automatic' or 'a given', there's a discussion on that somewhere in this thread.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 09:46 PM   #298
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,958
I am thinking that BobtheCoward has a padawan.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 09:50 PM   #299
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It is absolutely relevant. Regicide is an extreme example, but people don't always need a legal framework in order to do things. The authority of a monarch is never absolute. There are always limits besides the letter of the law.
What you said is true, but not relevant. We're talking about the legal framework of Canada, not rogue factions that murder monarchs.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:00 PM   #300
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You have some catching up to do. Why would the Queen subvert laws she has approved by Royal Assent?

I have followed the thread. She could simply not sign them and they would not become laws. If she were more than just a rubber stamp, which is your argument, they would not have become law in the first place.



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 9th December 2018, 10:06 PM   #301
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Norman:

In post #25 you said,"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."

You skirted every request to post a few words that 'clearly define' anything.

Now in post #282 you say, "The specificity you seek is not there because it does not have to be there."

Why didn't you say that the first time I asked? Were you stalling for time to dream up an answer that you thought would get you off the hook?

I'll ask you again, Norman. How on Earth do you expect me to take you seriously?
Because the wording and intent of the Canadian constitution is a living, breathing example of what "titular" actually means in regard to the Queen's position. As I said, it doesn't have to say it because it does not have to. The word "titular" describes how the wording and intent of the law operates. She has a titular position - a title only, no real power.

Honestly, I do wonder if we are dealing with a grown-up here. Perhaps if you stopped being offended and started reading and thinking, you might understand a bit better. Then again, if you had done that from the start, you would not have been posting your conspiracy nonsense here in the first place, I imagine.
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 10:13 PM   #302
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
From a politician? Yes, it is.

Where are you visiting Earth from?
Politicians aren't the only ones to swear allegiance to the Queen.
The Armed Forces must do so.
The RCMP must do so.
New immigrants must do so.
Supreme and Federal court judges
all employees of CSIS

For a complete list, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...giance_(Canada)

From the same link:

The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada,

From Miriam-Webster:
supreme: highest in rank or authority
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:15 PM   #303
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Because the wording and intent of the Canadian constitution is a living, breathing example of what "titular" actually means in regard to the Queen's position. As I said, it doesn't have to say it because it does not have to. The word "titular" describes how the wording and intent of the law operates. She has a titular position - a title only, no real power.

Honestly, I do wonder if we are dealing with a grown-up here. Perhaps if you stopped being offended and started reading and thinking, you might understand a bit better. Then again, if you had done that from the start, you would not have been posting your conspiracy nonsense here in the first place, I imagine.
Norman, you refuse to admit your own folly even when its shoved in your face. Have you ever considered running for office?
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:18 PM   #304
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Politicians aren't the only ones to swear allegiance to the Queen.
The Armed Forces must do so.
The RCMP must do so.
New immigrants must do so.
Supreme and Federal court judges
all employees of CSIS

For a complete list, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...giance_(Canada)

From the same link:

The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada,

From Miriam-Webster:
supreme: highest in rank or authority
Works the same way as swearing an oath to God. Or saying "By Jove!" Or calling the names of weekdays days after Nordic and Roman gods. It's formula, pageantry, a historical leftover.

Surely those twisted knickers must be hurting by now...?
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 10:20 PM   #305
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Norman, you refuse to admit your own folly even when its shoved in your face. Have you ever considered running for office?
I run for office every day. But sometimes I miss the train because I'm too slow.

Is that what you meant?

My only folly is expecting you to behave sensibly. Do you know what a forum chew-toy is?
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 10:25 PM   #306
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I have followed the thread. She could simply not sign them and they would not become laws. If she were more than just a rubber stamp, which is your argument, they would not have become law in the first place.



Norm
If bills to be passed into law originated from her directives she would have no reason to refuse RA unless the final wording was not to The Crown's liking. Bills that originate from other sources still have to get RA before becoming law. The Crown would be apprised of those bills beforehand and if there was no objection to the purpose of the bill, it would go through the Parliamentary process and pass or fail on its own merit.

Royal Assent is The Crown's failsafe. There is nothing that legally compels the monarch to grant RA. Conventions are not enforceable in the courts. The text of the Con is enforceable by the courts.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:31 PM   #307
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada,

From Miriam-Webster:
supreme: highest in rank or authority
The oath swears allegiance to the Queen, not obedience. They aren't synonymous.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 9th December 2018, 10:31 PM   #308
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
I run for office every day. But sometimes I miss the train because I'm too slow.

Is that what you meant?

My only folly is expecting you to behave sensibly. Do you know what a forum chew-toy is?
See, Norman? You always end up having to make it personal.
Even you should know that's a sure sign you have nothing concrete to argue with.

"If the facts are on your side, hammer the facts. If the law is on your side, hammer the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, hammer the table."

You're hammering the table, Norman.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:34 PM   #309
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If bills to be passed into law originated from her directives she would have no reason to refuse RA unless the final wording was not to The Crown's liking. Bills that originate from other sources still have to get RA before becoming law. The Crown would be apprised of those bills beforehand and if there was no objection to the purpose of the bill, it would go through the Parliamentary process and pass or fail on its own merit.

Royal Assent is The Crown's failsafe. There is nothing that legally compels the monarch to grant RA. Conventions are not enforceable in the courts. The text of the Con is enforceable by the courts.

So what Bills have been drafted and subsequently passed into law through her directing that they become law?


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 9th December 2018, 10:41 PM   #310
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
See, Norman? You always end up having to make it personal.
Even you should know that's a sure sign you have nothing concrete to argue with.

"If the facts are on your side, hammer the facts. If the law is on your side, hammer the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, hammer the table."

You're hammering the table, Norman.
If you think so. I'm having lunch, actually. Nom!

Plenty of people besides me have put up perfectly laid out, fulsome, concrete arguments against your silly ideas backed with references and facts. It is you who keeps on ignoring, disregarding or simply dismissing them because they don't fit with your preset notions. And then you turn around and say we have no arguments... SRSLY?

Meanwhile, I'll just finish my lunch.
__________________
...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 9th December 2018, 10:43 PM   #311
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The oath swears allegiance to the Queen, not obedience. They aren't synonymous.
You're reaching again, Zig. That's a logical fallacy known as "distinction without a difference".

Obedience is not mentioned anywhere. Allegiance is.
From Miriam-Webster:

allegiance: the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government.

fidelity: the quality or state of being faithful

faithful: firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 10:48 PM   #312
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You're reaching again, Zig. That's a logical fallacy known as "distinction without a difference".
But it is a difference.

Quote:
Obedience is not mentioned anywhere.
Some people stumble upon the truth, but pick themselves up and act as if nothing happened.

Quote:
Allegiance is.
From Miriam-Webster:

allegiance: the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government.

fidelity: the quality or state of being faithful

faithful: firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty
And what, pray tell, is that duty? In terms of satisfying the oath, it's whatever the person saying the oath thinks it is.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 9th December 2018, 10:55 PM   #313
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
If you think so. I'm having lunch, actually. Nom!

Plenty of people besides me have put up perfectly laid out, fulsome, concrete arguments against your silly ideas backed with references and facts. It is you who keeps on ignoring, disregarding or simply dismissing them because they don't fit with your preset notions. And then you turn around and say we have no arguments... SRSLY?

Meanwhile, I'll just finish my lunch.
I'm the only one that's quoted anything relevant from a legal document.

Everyone else has just related stories about abdications, precedents, customs, 'what if' scenarios and the like.

None of that stacks up against the text of the Con.

I brought meat to the table, while everyone else brought party favours.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 11:00 PM   #314
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But it is a difference.



Some people stumble upon the truth, but pick themselves up and act as if nothing happened.



And what, pray tell, is that duty? In terms of satisfying the oath, it's whatever the person saying the oath thinks it is.
Zig, that's quite a reach you have. But you've been shooting blanks from the start. Link me to some legal text that backs anything you've said. Anything else is just more drivel.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 11:00 PM   #315
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'm the only one that's quoted anything relevant from a legal document.

And everything else you have said is pure speculation. So I ask again, what Bills have been drafted and subsequently passed into law through her directing that they become law?


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 9th December 2018, 11:06 PM   #316
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So what Bills have been drafted and subsequently passed into law through her directing that they become law?


Norm
IF you followed the thread like you said, I posted that there's no evidence to show exactly how things flow between The Crown and the gov't.

There's no way for us to know the answer to your question.

The main premise of this thread is that:
- the Queen (The Crown) holds the ultimate power in Canada
That's been proven simply and beyond question - it's written in the Con

Another premise is that people who hold power use it. Regularly.
That's not as provable as the first premise, but it's common sense.
__________________
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 9th December 2018, 11:09 PM   #317
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,335
Yes Itchy Boy, the queen actually has all the power in Canada.

Your cunning proof of this by showing how she never openly uses this power or has ever gone against parliament by ensuring all in parliament are undyingly loyal to her so to the rest of the world it looks like she just rubber stamps everything is totally convincing.

After all, what better proof of a conspiracy than the absence of any evidence.
The Force is strong in her I guess as she can mind-control not only all current politicians, but every single former politician, army officer, police office and civil servant ever in never revealing her cunning web of control.

Because for all of your rejection of every evidence that her role IS just a figurehead, you never actually show any evidence for your version of reality. Do you have even a single letter containing orders? A single email of the queen dictating a law that the politicians later then fake vote for so she can sign it? A single indication she manipulated voters or ordered the army/police to intimidate someone?
Lukraak_Sisser 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 9th December 2018, 11:14 PM   #318
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
IF you followed the thread like you said, I posted that there's no evidence to show exactly how things flow between The Crown and the gov't.

There's no way for us to know the answer to your question.

The main premise of this thread is that:
- the Queen (The Crown) holds the ultimate power in Canada
That's been proven simply and beyond question - it's written in the Con

Another premise is that people who hold power use it. Regularly.
That's not as provable as the first premise, but it's common sense.

So what you are doing here is an exercise in semantics.


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 9th December 2018, 11:19 PM   #319
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,584
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Another premise is that people who hold power use it. Regularly.
That's not as provable as the first premise, but it's common sense.
This one needs a bit more support that "it's common sense".
Matthew Best 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 9th December 2018, 11:22 PM   #320
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'm the only one that's quoted anything relevant from a legal document.

Everyone else has just related stories about abdications, precedents, customs, 'what if' scenarios and the like.

None of that stacks up against the text of the Con.

I brought meat to the table, while everyone else brought party favours.
Let me Google some junior high school information for you. You do know this is me doing your homework for you, yes? I've finished my lunch, so I've got five minutes to look this up.

Quote:
Formally, Queen Elizabeth II is described as being Canada’s head of state — a symbolic figure of political authority — but the prime minister is called the head of government — the actual ruler of the country. The Crown is often used as a synonym for the entire Canadian government itself, such as Crown-owned land or the Crown’s lawyers.
http://www.thecanadaguide.com/government/the-monarchy/

Quote:
While some powers are exercisable only by the sovereign (such as appointing governors general), most of the monarch's operational and ceremonial duties (such as summoning the House of Commons and accrediting ambassadors) are exercised by his or her representative, the Governor General of Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

Quote:
Canada’s Monarch (King or Queen) is also Monarch of 15 other independent nations. The Monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints a Canadian to represent him or her in Canada. This person is called the Governor General.
https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament...monarch-e.html

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....n-elizabeth-ii
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...ada/about.html

Quote:
Role of the Crown and the Governor General
Crown

The Crown plays a key role in Canada’s parliamentary system of government. All executive authority is understood to derive from the Sovereign, who is Canada’s formal head of state. The state is embodied in the Sovereign; therefore every one of Canada’s Members of Parliament is required to swear allegiance to the Queen. This is also why the state, in Canada, is often referred to simply as “the Crown”.

Canada is, however, a constitutional monarchy, founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. Therefore the Sovereign actually has very few powers and prerogatives. The authority of the Crown is delegated to the various branches of government according to the provisions of the Constitution.

Elections are called and laws are enacted in the name of the Crown. No bill may become law without Royal Assent. Formally, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are the Crown’s council of advisers. They govern in the name and with the consent of the Crown. The Sovereign is represented in Canada by the Governor General.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Comp...rgeneral-e.htm

Shall I go on?

Quote:
The constitutional reality today is that, with the transformation – really, transmogrification – of the old British Empire and British Commonwealth into a plain, un-prefixed, multi-cultural Commonwealth of Nations, – symbolized in the 1949 Declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and in Indian Prime Minister Nehru's later generous initiative to have the Queen accepted as ceremonial “Head of the Commonwealth”, the historical, governmental-institutional legal ties between Canada and Imperial Britain, codified in part in the original British North America Act of 1867, have progressively withered away. In particular, with the “Canadianisation” of the office of Governor General whose incumbent, for more than half a century, has been selected by the Canadian Prime Minister of the day without the necessity of any prior, by-your-leave or courtesy advance consultation with London, we have had, de facto, a wholly Canadian titular head-of-state in whom the once immense residual, Reserve, Prerogative powers of the Crown, detailed in our Constitution of 1867, are now vested. To be sure, these powers are now constrained by their own new, Conventional constitutional limitations as to their application in concrete cases; but these are new Canadian constitutional Conventions, developed experientially and drawing, in measure, on flexible and imaginative new glosses worked out, in cognate practice, in new states like the Republic of India that had opted deliberately, in their post-Decolonisation constitutions, for a British, “Westminster” style Parliamentary executive, with the dualism of separate head-of-state and head-of-government functions very similar to the system that we “received” from Great Britain in 1867. One leaves to one side, for the moment, the extra constitutional refinement that the titular head-of-state in India is chosen by a form of (indirect) election and is styled as President (of a Republic) and not as Governor General. The distinction is one of constitutional nomenclature and not of substance.
And plenty more good discussion there too. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue....1149&param=171

Quote:
While the Queen is believed to be allergic to the idea of outright abdication and dedicated to serving as titular head of 16 Commonwealth states — including Canada — until her death, her surprise decision not to travel to Sri Lanka to attend this year’s Commonwealth heads of government meeting and several other recent developments have prompted speculation that if illness or infirmity ever prevent Elizabeth from carrying out her duties, Prince Charles could effectively step into the role in what would be the British monarchy’s first regency in more than 200 years — going back to the so-called “madness” of King George III from 1811-20.
There's that word again! https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randy-boswell
__________________
...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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

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 05:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.