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 13th December 2018, 11:03 AM   #521
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Camillus View Post
Royal prerogative is code for "The government does it in the name of the monarch but the monarch has no say in the matter". It's the result of having a governmental system in which the titular head of state has no power but has a constitutional role. It has been like that in the UK since the early Nineteenth Century.
It's code for, "We'll pretend the monarch is obeying the gov't, over which she is supreme, but we'll make the people think that it's the other way around." Royal Prerogative doesn't trump the written Con.

So, for example the Con says she must give Royal Assent before any bill is passed into law. The Conventions say she always does this. But the law says she's not obligated.

The reason she does so is because everything has been agreed to in advance. She never has to refuse RA except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 11:08 AM   #522
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What happened to taking them to court?
Wasn't I clear? If the countries went to war without a declaration from the Queen, they have done so illegally. They've already disobeyed their Command-in-Chief. She can't take every soldier to court, but perhaps she could take some individuals to court, if and when order was restored and the Constitution was still in effect.

If they go to war without her declaration, I think that amounts to mutiny or treason.

And with that, I've had enough 'fun' with Norman's pointless scenario.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 11:12 AM   #523
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's code for, "We'll pretend the monarch is obeying the gov't, over which she is supreme, but we'll make the people think that it's the other way around." Royal Prerogative doesn't trump the written Con.
Yeah, it really does.

This is the fundamental thing that you're missing: it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, if it's actually, practically applied differently. It's the real stuff that matters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 13th December 2018, 11:14 AM   #524
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of a "polite fiction"?

Hell, even the Simpsons did it...

You should also investigate the notion of a "legal fiction".
In this case, the polite fiction is the idea that the Sovereign, who has legal stature higher than anyone else in the realm, is going to obey a minister when the law does not compel her to do so.

The Simpson's is fiction, and so is legal fiction.

Instead of fiction, how about looking at reality?
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 11:22 AM   #525
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Instead of fiction, how about looking at reality?
Oh, I wish you did.

The fiction is what's written on paper. Whether it's brought to reality by the actions of actual people is the crucial quesiton here. And the answer is no.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 13th December 2018, 11:22 AM   #526
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's code for, "We'll pretend the monarch is obeying the gov't, over which she is supreme, but we'll make the people think that it's the other way around." Royal Prerogative doesn't trump the written Con.

So, for example the Con says she must give Royal Assent before any bill is passed into law. The Conventions say she always does this. But the law says she's not obligated.

The reason she does so is because everything has been agreed to in advance. She never has to refuse RA except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances.
Like when the monarch wants to marry someone Parliament says "You may not marry that woman and remain Monarch, Your Majesty" to?

Or when the monarch tries to ease the restrictions on those nasty Catholics contrary to the wishes of Parliament?

Or tries to levy taxes without the consent of Parliament?

Do any of those things ring any bells?

At this stage you need to realize that the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy precludes what you're suggesting. Given that your theory also requires that several million legislators, including those who started off as legislators under a British system but later led successful rebellions against the Crown, have kept the secret that the Monarch is the real power, not the legislatures, despite not having any way in which the power of the Monarch could strike at them for their perfidy?

Unless of course you believe that the monarch has a cadre of trained killers a la 007 who secretly dispatch those about to spill the beans about the secret while simultaneously every single legislator ever since 1688 has been in on the secret of the army of assassins and kept this knowledge from the wider world?
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 11:27 AM   #527
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Itchy Boy could run for office to find out!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 13th December 2018, 11:28 AM   #528
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's code for, "We'll pretend the monarch is obeying the gov't, over which she is supreme, but we'll make the people think that it's the other way around." Royal Prerogative doesn't trump the written Con.

So, for example the Con says she must give Royal Assent before any bill is passed into law. The Conventions say she always does this. But the law says she's not obligated.

The reason she does so is because everything has been agreed to in advance. She never has to refuse RA except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances.
This was addressed in post #444 but you either didn't read it or pretended it doesn't exist so you can repeat this fallacy.

I understand that the British PM and the Queen do consult with each other and a woman of her years would probably be able to offer some sage counseling. Ultimately however, whatever recommendation the PM makes to the Queen is rubber stamped regardless of her views on the matter.

I'm sure that there is no such consultation between the Queen and the Canadian PM nor between the Canadian PM and Canadian GG. The choice that the PM recommends to the Queen for GG is invariably someone who has no intention of getting involved with politics.
__________________
"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 13th December 2018, 12:24 PM   #529
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I'm sure that there is no such consultation between the Queen and the Canadian PM nor between the Canadian PM and Canadian GG. The choice that the PM recommends to the Queen for GG is invariably someone who has no intention of getting involved with politics.
For consultation, probably the most consulted GG was David Johnston, former professor of law at several universities and who was brought on board as GG for his ability to advise the government on the constitutionally correct thing to do.

On a side note, he played hockey in the Sault with my father (and the Esposito brothers) and actually dated my mother once when they attended Queen's University.

The closest any GG of Canada has come to meddling in Canadian politics is General Sir Julian Byng, who initially refused Mackenzie King's call for a new election. After intense public pressure Byng did exactly what the PM told him to do, and the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy was confirmed.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 12:44 PM   #530
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The closest any GG of Canada has come to meddling in Canadian politics is General Sir Julian Byng, who initially refused Mackenzie King's call for a new election. After intense public pressure Byng did exactly what the PM told him to do, and the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy was confirmed.
Yeah but he had authority on paper and that's what matters!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 13th December 2018, 12:45 PM   #531
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,714
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Wasn't I clear? If the countries went to war without a declaration from the Queen, they have done so illegally. They've already disobeyed their Command-in-Chief. She can't take every soldier to court, but perhaps she could take some individuals to court, if and when order was restored and the Constitution was still in effect.

If they go to war without her declaration, I think that amounts to mutiny or treason.

And with that, I've had enough 'fun' with Norman's pointless scenario.
Are you aware that the UK hasn’t declared war since WWII? Doesn’t seem to have stopped numerous engagements in wars since then.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 13th December 2018, 12:51 PM   #532
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,123
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The reason she does so is because everything has been agreed to in advance. She never has to refuse RA except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances.


So, how do you explain different governments enacting different laws?

Abortion was illegal, then it wasn't. Gay marriage was illegal, then it wasn't. Pot was illegal, then it wasn't (and Scheer mumbled something about how it might become illegal again). They cut spending, they increased spending, they shifted spending around. They bought helicopters, then they cancelled the contract, then they bought jet fighters, but now we might not buy jet fighters. Taxes went up, then they came down, then they started taxing carbon, but then Ontario and Alberta threw a snit, so now they might not tax carbon. The list goes on. QEII has been Queen for decades, with all sorts of changes in the law, which track perfectly with changes in the governments, from Liberal to Conservative and back. Is she just fooling around? Or is it that everything hasn't "been agreed to in advance"?

Every outward sign we can see indicates that the Queen does not, in fact, routinely exercise overall control of the government. All you have is speculation about behind-the-scenes shenanigans, which just conveniently look exactly like what we expect to see. And yet, somehow, you expect us to conclude that you're completely right, and we're completely wrong.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 01:05 PM   #533
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Like when the monarch wants to marry someone Parliament says "You may not marry that woman and remain Monarch, Your Majesty" to?

Or when the monarch tries to ease the restrictions on those nasty Catholics contrary to the wishes of Parliament?

Or tries to levy taxes without the consent of Parliament?

Do any of those things ring any bells?

At this stage you need to realize that the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy precludes what you're suggesting. Given that your theory also requires that several million legislators, including those who started off as legislators under a British system but later led successful rebellions against the Crown, have kept the secret that the Monarch is the real power, not the legislatures, despite not having any way in which the power of the Monarch could strike at them for their perfidy?

Unless of course you believe that the monarch has a cadre of trained killers a la 007 who secretly dispatch those about to spill the beans about the secret while simultaneously every single legislator ever since 1688 has been in on the secret of the army of assassins and kept this knowledge from the wider world?
Most of that is ancient history when cutting off heads was acceptable.
Edward abdicated - we've been through that. He 'resigned' because he wanted to be with his sweetheart rather than be King.
Abdicating, being 'forced' to resign is not the same as being dethroned, fired, or 'let go'. He abdicated because it was his best option. But abdication means he made the decision. He could not be tossed out against his will.

Definition: doctrine
- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
- a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.

A set of beliefs is not law. A stated principle is not law.
According to Wiki, Canada is not on the list of states with sovereign legislatures. In the section for Canada it says, "Legislatures of Canadian provinces are sovereign within matters enumerated to them.
[...] Similarly, the federal Parliament is sovereign in all matters delegated to it, [...]"

Wiki says, "Parliamentary supremacy is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies."

Who delegates which matters the federal Parliament is Sovereign in? Somebody from above.

As it is not law, the doctrine basically falls under the Conventions, which we know are not judiciable. So the doctrine cannot supersede the written Constitution.

From Irwin Law:
"This doctrine lies at the heart of the United Kingdom constitutional tradition, but, in Canada parliamentary supremacy has always been limited by the terms of the Constitution Act, 1867.

From Wiki "Monarchy of Canada"
"The monarchy of Canada is at the core of both Canada's federal structure and Westminster-style of parliamentary and constitutional democracy. the monarchy is the foundation of the executive (Queen-in-Council), legislative (Queen-in-Parliament), and judicial (Queen-on-the-Bench) branches within both federal and provincial jurisdictions. The sovereign is the personification of the Canadian state and is Queen of Canada as a matter of Constitutional Law."

The Queen is part of all three branches including legislative. and that's the reason they can call it 'Parliamentary Supremacy'. Because she, the supreme authority of Canada, is head of all three branches.

Again, we have the illusion that elected officials are above the Queen when the judiciable facts say otherwise.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 01:20 PM   #534
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Most of that is ancient history when cutting off heads was acceptable.
That ancient history is when the question of who had the power was settled.
And it was settled permanently in favour of parliament.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again, we have the illusion that elected officials are above the Queen when the judiciable facts say otherwise.
And yet 'actual reality' for the last 100+ years shows exactly the opposite of what you want to believe.
So why should we take your conspiracy theory seriously?
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 13th December 2018, 01:35 PM   #535
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
So, how do you explain different governments enacting different laws?

Abortion was illegal, then it wasn't. Gay marriage was illegal, then it wasn't. Pot was illegal, then it wasn't (and Scheer mumbled something about how it might become illegal again). They cut spending, they increased spending, they shifted spending around. They bought helicopters, then they cancelled the contract, then they bought jet fighters, but now we might not buy jet fighters. Taxes went up, then they came down, then they started taxing carbon, but then Ontario and Alberta threw a snit, so now they might not tax carbon. The list goes on. QEII has been Queen for decades, with all sorts of changes in the law, which track perfectly with changes in the governments, from Liberal to Conservative and back. Is she just fooling around? Or is it that everything hasn't "been agreed to in advance"?

Every outward sign we can see indicates that the Queen does not, in fact, routinely exercise overall control of the government. All you have is speculation about behind-the-scenes shenanigans, which just conveniently look exactly like what we expect to see. And yet, somehow, you expect us to conclude that you're completely right, and we're completely wrong.
I've said before, I don't think The Crown runs Canada as if it was the local grocery store. Maybe The Crown doesn't care about abortion, gay marriage, or pot. Let issues like that sort themselves out. The Queen can still refuse Royal Assent if necessary.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 01:36 PM   #536
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen can still refuse Royal Assent if necessary.
No, not in reality. Which is why this has never happened.
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 13th December 2018, 02:12 PM   #537
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Every outward sign we can see indicates that the Queen does not, in fact, routinely exercise overall control of the government. All you have is speculation about behind-the-scenes shenanigans, which just conveniently look exactly like what we expect to see. And yet, somehow, you expect us to conclude that you're completely right, and we're completely wrong.
Actually, what I expect is that people will stubbornly cling to their beliefs despite any facts that contradict those beliefs. The common belief seems to be that unjusticiable 'rules' of the Con Conventions take precedent over the justiciable laws of the written Con. Despite the fact that in their heart of hearts, they must know that can't be true. Because they know our society is built on a foundation of written laws and for it to be otherwise would be complete chaos.

Of course there's no outward sign of The Crown's use of power. That's the whole point of the Conventions. If you're going to hide your true power from the public, you have to be a little sophisticated about it.

But there seems to be an unspoken 'code of honour' involved where they have to tell you the truth. The way they do that is by way of the written Constitution. It tells you very clearly who holds supreme power.

When you carefully parse the words used to describe what happens under the Conventions, or general descriptions of the Queen's power, you'll find the weasel words that make their statements technically true, but misleading at the same time.

It's not hard to figure out that The Crown holds the real power, which was the original claim. As I see it the claim has been proven by the highest source there is. If anyone who has followed this thread still thinks The Crown is powerless so be it. Some people are immune to indisputable facts.

Is the power being used? We can't say one way or the other for certain.

That part boils down to what you believe about the behaviour and psychology of tremendously powerful people. My take is that they will always use their power, and in many if not most cases, try to increase their power. I also believe power corrupts.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 02:14 PM   #538
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Actually, what I expect is that people will stubbornly cling to their beliefs despite any facts that contradict those beliefs.
LOL, some solid projection here.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Of course there's no outward sign of The Crown's use of power. That's the whole point of the Conventions. If you're going to hide your true power from the public, you have to be a little sophisticated about it.
You should ask to move the thread to the conspiracy theory section.
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 13th December 2018, 02:17 PM   #539
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
No, not in reality. Which is why this has never happened.
The justiciable law does not prohibit her from refusing Royal Assent.
The unjusticiable Conventions say she (must?) always gives it.

Which one is 'reality' ?
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 02:20 PM   #540
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The justiciable law does not prohibit her from refusing Royal Assent.
The unjusticiable Conventions say she (must?) always gives it.

Which one is 'reality' ?
Reality is this universe we live in where the Queen has never refused Royal Assent.
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 13th December 2018, 08:56 PM   #541
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,123
I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...8Fgf3KX_nUUe0E
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 09:23 PM   #542
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,103
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...8Fgf3KX_nUUe0E
Oh my, Liz is going to be pissed. Soon politicians all over the country will be following suit. I bet the British army invasion force is already on notice.
__________________
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 13th December 2018, 10:02 PM   #543
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
She will definitely take Canada off her Christmas Card list.


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 13th December 2018, 10:04 PM   #544
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...8Fgf3KX_nUUe0E
OK, but it's not much in the face of everything else.
I didn't even know municipal politicians had to take the pledge.
At any rate, it's a provincial matter, so it may vary by province.

This case is pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.
They give him a sop because he's First Nation.

It doesn't change the fact that all the higher level politicians must take the pledge (or affirmation) or their votes in the House don't count. Even then, if they were to make an exception, like for this Native, it's one guy or even a few. It doesn't change anything or have any effect on what we've been discussing.

To what we're discussing here, the Oath of Allegiance is just icing. The cake is the Constitution. The oath whether taken sincerely or not, signifies they're all on the same team.

A North American Indian not wanting to be on the team? - I can understand where he's coming from.

Could you explain the point you're making by the article?
__________________
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; 13th December 2018 at 11:08 PM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 11:28 PM   #545
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,485
So how is my Oz/Canuck war going? Do we get to fight? Which one of us is the Queen's favourite and gets her war declaration first? This is like the Queen playing both sides of the chessboard.
__________________
...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 14th December 2018, 12:29 AM   #546
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,284
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
So how is my Oz/Canuck war going? Do we get to fight? Which one of us is the Queen's favourite and gets her war declaration first? This is like the Queen playing both sides of the chessboard.
There's a bit of a problem in the warfighting department, I'm afraid.
Both the nations warships have been sunk and both have dropped their one bomb on eachother.

There is a tank though. But unfortunately it is on a timeshare basis. It will be allocated on alternate days to each country.

But never fear. This war will continue until her Majesty will make up her mind.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 14th December 2018, 01:24 AM   #547
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...ada/about.html

Emphasis added

Canada’s Head of State
In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.

In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.

The Governor General and Lieutenant Governors
The Governor General and the ten Lieutenant Governors represent the Crown in Canada and act on The Queen's behalf.

The Governor General’s role and responsibilities consist mainly in carrying out many of the duties on behalf of The Queen. For example, he or she presides over the swearing-in of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. However, there are powers that can only be exercised by the Queen. The Lieutenant Governors of the provinces perform similar duties at the provincial level.

The Parliament of Canada
The Parliament of Canada consists of The Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. In the provinces, legislatures consist of the Lieutenant Governor and the elected assembly.

Her Majesty's representatives act on the advice of the Prime Minister or ministers responsible to the House of Commons or the provincial legislative assemblies.
----------------------------

Does "the power to govern is vested in the Crown" make the Queen sound like a powerless figurehead?
Does anything in the above make the Queen sound like a powerless figurehead?

Then there's this:
"All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’."

And that makes sense because the Crown owned all the land before the Constitution and there's nothing in the Constitution about land ownership, because it's mainly the rules the gov't must follow.

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/canada
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 14th December 2018 at 01:26 AM. Reason: 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 14th December 2018, 01:38 AM   #548
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Does "the power to govern is vested in the Crown" make the Queen sound like a powerless figurehead?
Does anything in the above make the Queen sound like a powerless figurehead?
Give it up already!
  • There is no question that the Queen is the ultimate power in Canada.
  • There is also no question that she only exercises her powers in accordance to advice she receives via Canada's elected representatives.
  • There is also no question that she does nothing to coerce or change the recommendations made to her by said representatives.
Everything you have said otherwise (excepting her powers) has been thoroughly rebutted.

You haven't had anything original to say for more than 10 pages now and it is getting boring. All you have proved is that this thread should be in the Conspiracy Theory section.
__________________
"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 14th December 2018, 02:00 AM   #549
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...ada/about.html


[snip continuously repeated stuff.]


As psion10 has said, nobody disagrees with what the constitution says. But you keep repeating it as if it is going to turn some sort of a talisman. We know what it says because you say nothing else and have said it with a lot of repetitive words.


What else do you have?


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 14th December 2018, 02:26 AM   #550
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
As psion10 has said, nobody disagrees with what the constitution says. But you keep repeating it as if it is going to turn some sort of a talisman. We know what it says because you say nothing else and have said it with a lot of repetitive words.

What else do you have?

Norm
Here's a sample of early responses. They believed the Queen possessed no power. If they've followed the thread, I wonder if they still believe that.

dualb #6
The Queen has as much actual political power in Canada as she does in the UK..next to nothing.

lobosul5 #7
I do believe that either parliament (UK or Canadian) can tell her to go pound sand anytime they want.

Norman Alexander #8
So seriously, this sort of "Queen has hidden superpower" stuff is silly talk.

Border Reiver #12
Absolutely - the Queen is for all practical purposes a figurehead.

Delvo #29
I don't pretend that those lines in the Constitution really give her any actual power, because I'm familiar with real-world governments with so-called "constitutions" not actually following them so they really don't describe how the government is actually constituted... but the fact that they're there at all really is bizarre.

Lukraak Sisser #32
The answer to that seems to be a very clear no.
In which case the monarchy is a figurehead monarchy.
__________________
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 14th December 2018, 02:46 AM   #551
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's a sample of early responses. They believed the Queen possessed no power. If they've followed the thread, I wonder if they still believe that.

I'm sure they do. So do I. And you can say "but...but...but... the Constitution" all you want. In fact it is all you do say. It doesn't change reality.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 14th December 2018 at 02:49 AM.
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 14th December 2018, 03:08 AM   #552
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's a sample of early responses. They believed the Queen possessed no power. If they've followed the thread, I wonder if they still believe that.
Yep, they are accurate. The reason the Queen is still the figurehead is because she does absolutely nothing to rock the boat.
And even a short look at history shows exactly why.

Your conspiracy theory of her having secret control is laughable.
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 14th December 2018, 03:18 AM   #553
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again, we have the illusion that elected officials are above the Queen when the judiciable facts say otherwise.
No, the facts don't say otherwise. In fact, the facts say exactly what we've been telling you: that the power of the queen is ceremonial, nothing more. She rubber stamps everything, that's all there is to it.

The only way you can get out of this bind is not to repeat what's on a piece of paper, but show examples of the queen using that power. You can't, so you don't have an argument.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 14th December 2018, 03:19 AM   #554
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The justiciable law does not prohibit her from refusing Royal Assent.
The unjusticiable Conventions say she (must?) always gives it.

Which one is 'reality' ?
The one that actually happens.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 14th December 2018, 04:37 AM   #555
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,123
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, but it's not much in the face of everything else.
I didn't even know municipal politicians had to take the pledge.
.....
Could you explain the point you're making by the article?

The point is, you're once again fundamentally ignorant about the topic you're so passionately convinced you're correct about, and everyone else is wrong about, and, once again, you hand-wave away a real-world case which proves you wrong, preferring instead your speculative fantasy.

Your beliefs are literally immune to facts, and thus are impossible to change. There's no reason to continue discussing this with you.
__________________
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 14th December 2018, 06:30 AM   #556
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's a sample of early responses. They believed the Queen possessed no power. If they've followed the thread, I wonder if they still believe that.
. . . . . .
The reason that these posters take issue with you on this score is not that they believe that the Queen possesses no power but that they draw a distinction between real power and nominal power.

It is true that the constitution gives the Queen all the powers you say it does. In theory she could exercise those powers any way she wanted to. In practice it would be a bad idea to exercise them in any way except on recommendation of the elected representatives. According to their dictionary, this equates to not a real power.

Me? I'm quite happy to say that it is a real power whether she exercises it or not. It makes no difference. Ultimately, you have failed to show that there are evil consequences from assigning these powers to the Queen.
__________________
"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 14th December 2018, 11:29 AM   #557
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The reason that these posters take issue with you on this score is not that they believe that the Queen possesses no power but that they draw a distinction between real power and nominal power.

It is true that the constitution gives the Queen all the powers you say it does. In theory she could exercise those powers any way she wanted to. In practice it would be a bad idea to exercise them in any way except on recommendation of the elected representatives. According to their dictionary, this equates to not a real power.

Me? I'm quite happy to say that it is a real power whether she exercises it or not. It makes no difference. Ultimately, you have failed to show that there are evil consequences from assigning these powers to the Queen.
This.

I'm sure we could have a reasonable and interesting discussion about whether a right to something exists if a person does not exercise it for fear that it may be lost afterwards.

For example, under common law there is a right of action called per quod servitum amisit - which is a fancy Latin phrase that allows a master to claim damages for the loss of services occasioned by an injury to their servant. It is an archaic form of action nowadays because the master/servant relationship is rare, having been overtaken by contractual relations. Essentially, now the only party that can assert this cause of action is the Crown and then only for losses occasioned by injuries to members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP (because they are the only ones who by law are in a Master/servant relationship). It's only available in common law provinces (so not in Quebec) who have not legislated this cause of action out of existence (Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia). What it allows the Crown to do is seek damages equivalent to medical fees (because CAF members are prohibited from using the provincial health care systems) and for the time that they are completely off work (because neither the RCMP or the CAF can use the provincial workman's compensation schemes and continue to draw full salary when off recovering from an injury).

It's not well regarded judicially, but it still exists as a right of action in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Now in Alberta it's a little tenuous. There was a court case involving an RCMP constable where the defendant appealed their loss to the Crown to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal sent the matter back to the Court of Queen's Bench for a retrial citing the archaic nature of the cause of action as a reason for the lower court to revisit the whole trial. The action was later settled out of court in favour of the Crown. Now what we have is a decision of a court of appeal calling into question the legitimacy of a cause of action and sending it back for retrial and then no retrial.

So now what we have in Alberta is a situation where the Department of Justice is reluctant to bring forward such actions because they assess that there is a chance that the courts will rule that this cause of action is no longer of force and effect (and no Crown lawyer wants to have the distinction of being the person who lost this right for the Crown on their annual performance review).

Long story to say, if one has the right to do something, but declines to do so out of fear that they will not be permitted to do something again if they lose, do they really have that ability, or has the fear of a potentially negative
result stripped them of that right?

This is a parallel to the subject of this thread.

The Queen has great formal power, but out of a combination of tradition, custom and possible concern that the monarch will lose their actual authority if they overstep the unwritten limit of their power does not even attempt to be anything more than a figurehead.

I'm going to ignore the "but what if she, her heirs and successors, totally does so, but does it in such a way that nobody knows she's doing so" line of argument because any argument that requires the unwritten, unspoken agreement by millions of people over centuries to be correct is so far into the realm of implausible that I would be more inclined to believe in a divinity, or that Donald Trump was an ethical human being than that conspiracy.
__________________
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 14th December 2018, 12:03 PM   #558
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,315
Very interesting facts, Reiver.

Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Long story to say, if one has the right to do something, but declines to do so out of fear that they will not be permitted to do something again if they lose, do they really have that ability, or has the fear of a potentially negative result stripped them of that right?
So like any anti-Godzilla weapon, such powers can only be used once before you have to try something different.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 14th December 2018, 12:58 PM   #559
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,992
I second the motion that Bob the Coward has found a Padawan Learner.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 14th December 2018, 06:01 PM   #560
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Long story to say, if one has the right to do something, but declines to do so out of fear that they will not be permitted to do something again if they lose, do they really have that ability, or has the fear of a potentially negative
result stripped them of that right?

This is a parallel to the subject of this thread.

The Queen has great formal power, but out of a combination of tradition, custom and possible concern that the monarch will lose their actual authority if they overstep the unwritten limit of their power does not even attempt to be anything more than a figurehead.

I'm going to ignore the "but what if she, her heirs and successors, totally does so, but does it in such a way that nobody knows she's doing so" line of argument because any argument that requires the unwritten, unspoken agreement by millions of people over centuries to be correct is so far into the realm of implausible that I would be more inclined to believe in a divinity, or that Donald Trump was an ethical human being than that conspiracy.
What is the 'unwritten limit' of power? Who decides if it's been breached and by what criteria? It's nonsense. There's no legal basis for what you describe.

Furthermore, how could The Crown legally lose it's power? By Con Amendment? Who must issue a proclamation before any amendment can be undertaken? The Queen. There are no loopholes in the Con by which the gov't or anyone can legally strip her of any power.

The only way would be by violent insurrection, which I think we can safely rule out. So there's absolutely no fear of The Crown losing its power.

The argument does NOT 'require unwritten, unspoken agreement by millions of people over centuries'. All those millions of people for centuries believed what they were told. They were fooled, just as they are today. They simply believe that, "...under the Conventions, the Queen always..[fill in the blank]".

In this thread I've shown multiple proofs that the Queen is at the pinnacle of power in Canada. Yet, the majority here STILL believe that is not true. A classic example of clinging to a belief in the face of contradicting facts. The truth will never budge them.

A few know she possesses the power, but don't believe she uses it.
It's not reported on so it never happens. Fair enough.

These people believe the gov't and Queen obey vague unwritten rules that they all 'just know', rather than the legal written laws.

There's no evidence to prove otherwise, but does that mean it's true?
All we have to go by is a balance of probability.

So this family, bloodline that goes back a long way:
- dictates the rules (Constitution) their satellite gov't (Canada) must obey
- keeps legal executive power of and over Canada under their control
- keeps legal control of the Canadian Armed Forces
- must approve, by proclamation, any proposed Amendment
- makes everyone who works for them swear an Oath of Allegiance
- owns all the land in Canada
...you know, THAT family. What is the likelihood of such a family being the government's lapdog?

You all say it's 100%.

I say it's zero.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

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

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

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 04:18 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.