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 11th December 2018, 03:16 PM   #441
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Are any parts of the Constitution NOT meaningless? Which ones?
All the parts which are granted meaning by its citizens, and/or enforced by its government.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Words on paper carry no weight by themselves. If you're looking for real authority, you'll have to look in the domain of real uses of power.
theprestige 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 11th December 2018, 03:19 PM   #442
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...
I see how it all operates. A family that has had great wealth and power, who's ancestors raped and pillaged the world to create the British Empire, just give it all up because...well, whatever. Somebody asked them to, I suppose.
I think having your head cut off makes more of an impression then being asked nicely.
Have you never bothered to learn any history?
The Moog 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 11th December 2018, 03:41 PM   #443
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The idea they would cloak their power by exercising it behind the scenes is just too preposterous to consider.

True. Congratulations. You got there in the end, even though you made something up out of whole cloth, have admitted as much, and have not got the slightest idea how to even speculate that you might be right except "It's something I thought of".

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 11th December 2018 at 03:44 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 11th December 2018, 06:09 PM   #444
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
[quote=psion10 I might add that as I understand it, Victoria was the last active monarch in the British Empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, monarchs have been content to have a largely ceremonial role and leave the business of government to parliament.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we all know that human nature is such that, immensely powerful people suddenly decide to just chill and let their power wane.
You just don't understand "old money".

The fact remains that if the Queen was directing government policy then her policies magically change every time there is a change of government.

Although this clip is about British civil servants, the same conclusion would apply to the Queen if she agreed totally with every bill she signed.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"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

Last edited by psionl0; 11th December 2018 at 06:13 PM.
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 11th December 2018, 08:11 PM   #445
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How many times do I have to repeat I never made a claim about her use of power. Only speculation. How can I give an real world example of something that's speculative?

I see how it all operates. A family that has had great wealth and power, who's ancestors raped and pillaged the world to create the British Empire, just give it all up because...well, whatever. Somebody asked them to, I suppose.

The idea they would cloak their power by exercising it behind the scenes is just too preposterous to consider.
If you knew history you'd know that the vast majority of the Empire was conquered AFTER Parliamentary Supremacy was enshrined in the practice of government for Great Britain.

The power exercised by the Georges, William, Victoria, etc has all been exercised at the pleasure of Parliament.

The Empire, and later the Commonwealth existed because of Parliament, not because of the monarch.
__________________
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 11th December 2018, 08:22 PM   #446
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
If you knew history you'd know that the vast majority of the Empire was conquered AFTER Parliamentary Supremacy was enshrined in the practice of government for Great Britain.

The power exercised by the Georges, William, Victoria, etc has all been exercised at the pleasure of Parliament.

The Empire, and later the Commonwealth existed because of Parliament, not because of the monarch.
The highlife is the real issue here. If our pruritic lad would take the time to learn how the British monarchy has actually operated for the past 150+ years, and take the time to learn the political history of his own country (a mere 151 years in total), he would not need to indulge in ignorant speculation.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 11th December 2018, 08:32 PM   #447
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I see how it all operates. A family that has had great wealth and power, who's ancestors raped and pillaged the world to create the British Empire, just give it all up because...well, whatever. Somebody asked them to, I suppose.

Well, there's your problem.


They didn't "just give it all up". It was taken from them at sword point.


No, seriously. Actually read some of the things others have posted about the evolution of the Monarchy. Go read some extra stuff on your own. Start with the Magna Carta, maybe. You'll see that, over the course of centuries, the powers of the crown have been gradually curtailed, and the powers of Parliament gradually expanded.

Sometimes those changes required actual wars and executions.

And the members of the royal family remember that.

They know what happens to them if they try too hard to push back on what us ******* peasants want to do. So when push comes to shove, they yield.

Because losing that next little bit of power is better than losing their heads.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 11th December 2018, 08:40 PM   #448
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
We should probably also mention that we're kind of seeing an evolution of this sort in the USA today.

No one would seriously dispute that, under the US Constitution, the US congress has the power to impeach and remove the President. But what we're seeing is a Congress that is allowing that power to go unused, and allowing a President to do whatever the hell he wants, up to and including conspiring with traditional foreign enemies. The longer it goes before Congress tries to act, the harder it will be for them to act.

Let this go on long enough, and it may become a de facto law that impeachment is no longer within the Congress's power, even if the letter of the law still stands. That's how such offices evolve.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 12th December 2018, 12:47 AM   #449
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
All the parts which are granted meaning by its citizens, and/or enforced by its government.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Words on paper carry no weight by themselves. If you're looking for real authority, you'll have to look in the domain of real uses of power.
Laws are ultimately backed up by guns. That's the Real Authority, isn't it? And who, by law, is the top gun?

Article #15
"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 01:03 AM   #450
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post

Sometimes those changes required actual wars and executions.

And the members of the royal family remember that.

They know what happens to them if they try too hard to push back on what us ******* peasants want to do. So when push comes to shove, they yield.

Because losing that next little bit of power is better than losing their heads.
I agree completely, except instead of truly yielding, they stepped behind the curtain of the Constitutional Conventions while making sure the written, defining and enforceable part unambiguously maintains their supremacy over the the gov't in every legal 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 12th December 2018, 01:41 AM   #451
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
A 'figurehead' is defined as:
"a nominal leader without real power."

Whether she uses it or not, if the Queen has real power, she doesn't meet the definition of 'figurehead'. The Constitution says she has real power.

Just sayin'.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 01:52 AM   #452
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Laws are ultimately backed up by guns. That's the Real Authority, isn't it? And who, by law, is the top gun?

...
Or more accurately at the edge of an Axe. Which in this case was Parliament cutting off Charles I's head in 1649.
Which is the more direct way of permanently limiting the powers of the monarch.
The Moog 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 12th December 2018, 01:55 AM   #453
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Whether she uses it or not, if the Queen has real power, she doesn't meet the definition of 'figurehead'. The Constitution says she has real power.
So what?
__________________
"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 12th December 2018, 03:39 AM   #454
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A 'figurehead' is defined as:
"a nominal leader without real power."

Whether she uses it or not, if the Queen has real power, she doesn't meet the definition of 'figurehead'. The Constitution says she has real power.
What part of "she doesn't use it because she doesn't actually have it" do you have a hard time understanding?

Quote:
Just sayin'.
No, just repeating, despite been proven wrong. That is the only thing you are saying, in fact, over and over and over. You simply are unable to understand that your one argument is, in fact, irrelevant.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th December 2018, 05:42 AM   #455
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A 'figurehead' is defined as:
"a nominal leader without real power."

Whether she uses it or not, if the Queen has real power, she doesn't meet the definition of 'figurehead'. The Constitution says she has real power.

Just sayin'.
Power unused is not power.

The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy requires the sovereign to exercise what power the sovereign has in accordance with the advice of Parliament. The sovereign has the power to do exactly what Parliament says to do.

The last sovereign to defy Parliament was forced to abdicate. The one before that was deposed, replaced by his daughter and husband, and exiled to live overseas dependant on the charity of others. The first one to defy Parliament first lost a war, then his life.

And if you want go back a bit further, King John was compelled to sign the Magna Carta by his barons at sword-point into giving up a portion of absolute royal power. (Not calling the cabal of barons "Parliament", but the analogy is close).

The nation states that use Elizabeth Windsor as their head of state do so for a number of reasons, one of which is to have a Head of State that holds power at the sufferance of the people, who exercises said authority in the best interests of the people and who is not beholden to petty political concerns such as "How do I get elected again?" Given the examples of what happens to royals who lose the confidence of their people to lead (her husband's grandfather was violently deposed, one of her grandfather's cousins was forced to abdicate and live in exile and the other was executed along with his entire family), plus those of her uncle and the Stuarts, I think we can be reasonably certain that the incumbent isn't going to test the limits of her "power".
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 05:47 AM   #456
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Given the examples of what happens to royals who lose the confidence of their people to lead (her husband's grandfather was violently deposed, one of her grandfather's cousins was forced to abdicate and live in exile and the other was executed along with his entire family), plus those of her uncle and the Stuarts, I think we can be reasonably certain that the incumbent isn't going to test the limits of her "power".
Which is why Itchy Boy has to dream up a conspiracy where she secretly uses that power, because he knows that the above is true and that there's no evidence to support his claim. The problem, of course, is that an argument from ignorance is no argument at all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th December 2018, 06:16 AM   #457
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,369
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Laws are ultimately backed up by guns. That's the Real Authority, isn't it? And who, by law, is the top gun?

Article #15
"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Yet you've never shown any moment of the army of Canada in any way actually ever obeying the queen rather than the Canadian government.
Nor have you shown any evidence that there is any chance of that actually happening.

In fact, all you have as 'evidence' is your 'common sense', which as it turns out is not all that sensible. After all, in your vision of the world an 90+ year old woman is doing insane amounts of work to get something she would also get by doing nothing at all. And to you that is the more sensible answer.
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 12th December 2018, 06:32 AM   #458
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I agree completely, except instead of truly yielding, they stepped behind the curtain of the Constitutional Conventions while making sure the written, defining and enforceable part unambiguously maintains their supremacy over the the gov't in every legal sense.


Okay, so what's the point of your point?

Let's just admit we're not going to convince each other. So, just for fun, what exactly did you expect us to do if you had convinced us?

Are you really a Monarchist, who wants to go back to the days of the Queen openly saying, "Off with their heads!"?

Are you a republican, who wants us all to rise up and throw off the Secret Shackles of our oppression?

Are you looking to game the system, by trying to blackmail the Queen, forcing her to put you into office, under threat of exposure if she doesn't?

What's your end-game, here? Why did you bother signing up to start this topic?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 12th December 2018, 07:06 AM   #459
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I agree completely, except instead of truly yielding, they stepped behind the curtain of the Constitutional Conventions while making sure the written, defining and enforceable part unambiguously maintains their supremacy over the the gov't in every legal sense.
To what end, since she can't use said power?

You crafted your own no-win scenario, and you don't even have an apple.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th December 2018, 11:38 AM   #460
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So what?
It's trivial, I know. That's essentially what "Just Sayin'"means.
I thought it was an interesting factoid, that's all.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 11:58 AM   #461
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
So, just for fun, what exactly did you expect us to do if you had convinced us?
Nothing. But hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, wouldn't you want to know, regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?
__________________
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; 12th December 2018 at 11:59 AM. Reason: punctuation
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 12th December 2018, 11:59 AM   #462
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's trivial, I know. That's essentially what "Just Sayin'"means.
I thought it was an interesting factoid, that's all.
At this point it is just semantics. Whether the Queen's powers are real (which they are) or just ceremonial, she doesn't exercise them independently so whether that makes her a figurehead or not depends on which dictionary you look up.
__________________
"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 12th December 2018, 12:00 PM   #463
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nothing. But hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, wouldn't you want to know, regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?
Let's stick with reality, shall we?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th December 2018, 12:18 PM   #464
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,475
Seems to me, Itch old boy

After Charlie #1 abruptly lost stature and Charlie #2 made himself scarce, the only king in England was Noll "I say you are no parliament!" Crummel -- in fact, the last honest-to-jesus king England has ever had. Charlie #2 only came back after Parliament reestablished the monarchy and invited him in.

And then there was that odd business in 1688, when Parliament unmade one king and made another.

And Eddie #8 in 1936? He didn't act very kingly and monarchy and powerful.

To these old American eyes, it looks a helluva lot like Monarch 0, Parliament 21 and game.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 12th December 2018, 12:36 PM   #465
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nothing. But hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, wouldn't you want to know, regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?

It is not the sort of thing that keeps me awake at nights.

Hypothetically we also might be living in the Matrix and be just brains in jars or noughts and ones inside a computer program. Don't you want to know this regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?

Spending time researching a subject such as you have that you think might be possible, with the need for huge stretches of the imagination and a complete lack of evidence, just strikes me as a complete waste of resources, as there is no end/if at the finish of the game. In fact there is no finish to the game



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 12th December 2018, 12:58 PM   #466
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Hypothetically we also might be living in the Matrix and be just brains in jars or noughts and ones inside a computer program. Don't you want to know this regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?
Norm
Yes, absolutely I would want to know 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 12th December 2018, 01:02 PM   #467
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nothing. But hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, wouldn't you want to know, regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?


Hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, I would want to know, because there's lots of things we could do about it.

In case you hadn't noticed, at least a few of us in this thread are some of the people who have sworn oaths to the Queen. At a minimum, we could repudiate those oaths which were entered into under fraudulent circumstances. Let the Queen come dispute it if she doesn't like me being more loyal to the Canadian public than to her.

More involved, we could actually advertise that the entire basis of our government is a sham, and start working towards developing the votes needed to repeal the current constitution and replace it with a new version more to our liking.

At a maximum, I could hoist the Jolly Roger and start slitting throats.



This is the thing that bothers me most about Conspiracy Theorists: how ******* passive they are in the face of (what they believe to be) the Evil Powers that rule the world. If you really believe this crap, have the courage of your convictions, and stand up for yourself! If I believed even half of what the typical CTist here spews, I'd make bin Laden look like a piker.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 12th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #468
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes, absolutely I would want to know that.
Here endeth the thread.
__________________
...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 12th December 2018, 01:31 PM   #469
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, I would want to know, because there's lots of things we could do about it.

At a minimum, we could repudiate those oaths which were entered into under fraudulent circumstances.
How were the circumstances fraudulent? The Queen's power is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

The oath must be taken by MPs, MPPs, regardless of party, judges, intelligence service employees, border officials and many others.

Regardless of whether the oath takers are sincere or not, what the oath really signifies is that everybody is on the same team.

Sure, there's some infighting. That makes the whole thing look more real and gives people something to wag their tongues about.
Although watching 'debates' in the House is, to me, about as surreal as it gets.

But my point is, the relationship between the Queen and the gov't is not as adversarial as some perceive it to be.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 01:31 PM   #470
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nothing. But hypothetically, if The Crown really was a power over and above elected officials, wouldn't you want to know, regardless of whether or not anything could be done about it?
Yes, because if she acted contrary to the interests of Canadians then action must be taken. We take the oath to the Queen as a focus to reinforce the idea of service to the nation above self and to work for the benefit of all Canadians. If the person who is head of state isn't working for the best interests of Canadians then those of us who care about such things need to step up and either remind her that she serves us and to hold to her oath - or remind her what happens when a monarch ignores the rule of Parliamentary Supremacy.

That is not disloyalty, that is true loyalty in holding them accountable to the oath that was made, just as the rest of us are held accountable for our own oaths.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 01:37 PM   #471
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
But my point is, the relationship between the Queen and the gov't is not as adversarial as some perceive it to be.
Of course it isn't. The Queen (or her rep the GG) doesn't get difficult when given a bill to sign into law and she doesn't try to boss people in parliament around.

That is why nobody sees the sections you mention in the constitution as a threat.
__________________
"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 12th December 2018, 02:19 PM   #472
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
But my point is, the relationship between the Queen and the gov't is not as adversarial as some perceive it to be.

Who has said it is adversarial, apart from you? Since the Queen does not do anything, there is nothing to be adversarial about. It would become so, as it has in the past, if she actually tried to do something other than automatically accept the advice she is given.



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 12th December 2018, 02:37 PM   #473
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How were the circumstances fraudulent? The Queen's power is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Because the Constitution doesn't exist in a historical vacuum. We were taught the history as has been described upthread, and our understanding of the Constitution is tempered by that learning. Finding out now that everything I was ever taught in school about the nature of our government was a deliberately crafted lie would be a serious betrayal, and thus any oaths taken under the deliberately created misapprehensions I was subject to would be invalid. The entire process would be a fraud perpetrated upon me by the people I trusted to teach me the truth.


Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Yes, because if she acted contrary to the interests of Canadians then action must be taken. We take the oath to the Queen as a focus to reinforce the idea of service to the nation above self and to work for the benefit of all Canadians.

This. It also emphasizes that we are not working for the purely political interests of the current Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and we owe them non-partisan service to allow the current government to implement plans in accordance with the wishes of the electorate who voted for them. But we owe a greater allegiance to the State, in the form of the Queen, to not do things that are purely for the benefit of whoever happens to win the most recent election. This is a big part of why Canada isn't a kleptocracy like Russia. Any government that tried to pass a law saying that all tax revenue becomes the private property of the PM would quite quickly find itself subject to criminal and civil prosecution by several different public service bodies.



Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Who has said it is adversarial, apart from you? Since the Queen does not do anything, there is nothing to be adversarial about. It would become so, as it has in the past, if she actually tried to do something other than automatically accept the advice she is given.


Yes. You could almost say she's learned her place, were one not speaking of the Queen, of course
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 12th December 2018, 02:42 PM   #474
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
For us to determine what power the Queen possesses, we have to go by the evidence available to us. That's all we've got.

The written Constitution is visible, confirmable evidence and has the distinction of being the supreme law. The Conventions, under which the Queen is said to rubber stamp everything, is invisible, not confirmable, and not enforceable.

Running a country by unwritten rules and ignoring the written ones is diametrically opposed to the definition of a civil society, and extremely haphazard. Yet that is what you all want me to believe is the reality. There are good reasons why laws are written down.

What, exactly are those unwritten rules? How many are there? What, exactly do they say? If officials disagree on an unwritten rule how is it determined who's right? How are unwritten rules enforced, if that's even possible? How can it be determined if a rule was broken or just bent a little? How do you change an unwritten rule, or drop it from the list? How is everyone informed of any changes to these unwritten rules?

I also find it odd that, since the Conventions are the 'Wild West' of the Constitution, we never hear of any debate or conflict or changes regarding the Conventions.
Since the rules are unwritten, there's a lot of room for interpretation and therefore argument. But this doesn't generally happen - because everybody's on the same team.

The Conventions provide the perfect cover for The Crown to exercise power discreetly. Technically, there's no fraud being committed because the information about the real power is codified and publicly available.
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 02:56 PM   #475
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,205
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
For us to determine what power the Queen possesses, we have to go by the evidence available to us. That's all we've got.
OK, so let's look at the evidence. What powers over Canada does the Queen actually exercise? Pretty close to none.

So the Queen isn't acting like she has the powers you claim. Which suggests rather strongly that she doesn't believe she has the powers you think she has.

Who has a better handle on the Queen's actual powers, you or the Queen herself?
__________________
"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 12th December 2018, 03:19 PM   #476
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
For us to determine what power the Queen possesses, we have to go by the evidence available to us. That's all we've got.


And part of that evidence is the lived experiences of the people who, according to you, should have seen some of these back room shenanigans. And we haven't seen any. I've worked for the Canadian government for over two decades. My dad worked for them for 3 decades prior to that. Growing up in Ottawa, most of my friends had parents who worked for the government in one way or another. Lots of people I know outside of my own work also work for the government in other departments.

I've never had anyone tell me, "Oh, sorry, the Queen wants it done this way". None of the people I know have ever told me they've been told that. Proposed laws don't get mysteriously re-written from the shadows. Proposed changes to the regulations are publicly available, and publicly debated.

What you imagine just never seems to happen.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 12th December 2018, 03:55 PM   #477
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Of course she is also so busy using her Super Sekret Power Rangers to stop Canada increase taxes on keeping unspayed cats that her resources are now insufficient to stop the very Country that she primarily "rules" from going to hell in a handbasket.


Or does she think that controlling Canada is far more important than controlling Great Britain?



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 12th December 2018 at 03:56 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 12th December 2018, 05:49 PM   #478
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And part of that evidence is the lived experiences of the people who, according to you, should have seen some of these back room shenanigans. And we haven't seen any. I've worked for the Canadian government for over two decades. My dad worked for them for 3 decades prior to that. Growing up in Ottawa, most of my friends had parents who worked for the government in one way or another. Lots of people I know outside of my own work also work for the government in other departments.

I've never had anyone tell me, "Oh, sorry, the Queen wants it done this way". None of the people I know have ever told me they've been told that. Proposed laws don't get mysteriously re-written from the shadows. Proposed changes to the regulations are publicly available, and publicly debated.

What you imagine just never seems to happen.
"Oh, sorry, the Queen wants it done this way." is not how I imagine it would work. I don't think the Queen gets mired in details. My guess is The Crown would propose broad objectives from time to time that the gov't or successive gov'ts would implement as they see fit. They're all on the same team. And yes, it's a guess because as we've covered, there's no evidence to prove The Crowns' use of it's power.

That's the whole point of the Conventions. It allows The Crown to wield the power written in the Con, invisibly. The Con does not grant them power. It enumerates the powers that The Crown has always had and is retaining for itself.


So, we can boil the thread down to this:

1. My read of human nature is that immensely powerful people, families organizations like The Crown would never relinquish their power either formally on paper, or informally by verbal or tacit agreement or disuse.

Everyone here disagrees.

2. I believe Canada is administered and society is organized based on written law, not the unwritten Law of the Jungle that is the Conventions.

Everyone here disagrees.

Does that sum it up?
__________________
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 12th December 2018, 05:55 PM   #479
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Proposed laws don't get mysteriously re-written from the shadows. Proposed changes to the regulations are publicly available, and publicly debated.

What you imagine just never seems to happen.
The Conventions are not law. Since they're not written in the first place, they are not re-written. They are a smokescreen.

ETA: What you're talking about is normal, written, enforceable laws that form the legal structure of society, not the fairy dust of the Conventions.
__________________
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; 12th December 2018 at 05:59 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 12th December 2018, 06:18 PM   #480
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
The written Constitution does two things and only two things.

1. It specifies the retention of supreme authority by The Crown.

2. It lays out the laws that the Government must obey.

OK, three things if you include the Charter, but the charter does not affect #1 and #2, so for our purposes, can be ignored.

ETA: But no, people here think 1 and 2 are out the window and unwritten, unenforceable rules are what we are governed by.
__________________
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; 12th December 2018 at 06:28 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
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 07:50 AM.
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.