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 16th December 2018, 02:14 PM   #641
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Wiki says this about The Crown Legally ill-defined, the term has different meanings depending on context.

So you don't have the faintest idea who approves Bills for passing in Parliament in your dream cloud cuckoo land world? In the real world, we do know what happens. It is all documented and in the public domain, right down to Hansard record and the signature on the original approved Bill.

Some of this on this thread have even been part of the process. Some here have probably even prepared and written Legislation, and Subordinate Legislation, advised Ministers and not some frootloop invisible "The Crown" Cookie Monster that you adhere to.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 16th December 2018 at 02:16 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 16th December 2018, 02:20 PM   #642
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So you don't have the faintest idea who approves Bills for passing in Parliament in your dream cloud cuckoo land world? In the real world, we do know what happens. It is all documented and in the public domain, right down to Hansard record and the signature on the original approved Bill.

Some of this on this thread have even been part of the process. Some here have probably even prepared and written Legislation, and Subordinate Legislation, advised Ministers and not some frootloop invisible "The Crown" Cookie Monster that you adhere to.


Norm
Is Hansard going to know about a private communication between a bill's proposers and The Crown?

ETA: Hansard is the official record. What happens under the Conventions is, by definition, unofficial.
__________________
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; 16th December 2018 at 02:26 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 16th December 2018, 02:23 PM   #643
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Is Hansard going to know about a private communication between the proposers and The Crown?

From your own words you don't even know who The Crown is, and from the syntax in the wording of the above post, you don't even know what Hansard is.


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 16th December 2018, 02:46 PM   #644
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Is Hansard going to know about a private communication between a bill's proposers and The Crown?

ETA: Hansard is the official record. What happens under the Conventions is, by definition, unofficial.

Nice of you to Google Hansard so you could find out what it is, and edit your post after I posted. You're not very good at this, are you?


I am beginning to think that this thread is a Class assignment in Conspiracy Theory 101, and I see an "F" in your future.


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 16th December 2018, 04:58 PM   #645
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"There are two kinds of world history: one is the official, mendacious, intended for use in schools, the other is the secret history, which holds the true causes of events."

- Honoré de Balzac
Why should a scribbling from a French novelist have any bearing on historiography?

The human condition, maybe. But a subject that he never studied or made serious attempts to delve into, no, de Balzac's witticism carries no more weight then your own.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 05:34 PM   #646
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In the scenario I described, that 'real person' is not refusing Consent, they are simply 'warning' the bill's proposers that the bill, as currently written would not be granted RA and explain why. The 'real person' would likely have consulted with others on staff, as opposed to acting alone.
Bills submitted for First Reading usually arise from legislative committees of the various ministries and have an accompanying file. These bills are then read in the House, and debated (the reading nowadays is generally accomplished by distributing copies to all MPs) and the debates are recorded in Hansard and often televised on CSPAN. The bill then goes to Committee for public consultation and input from the Opposition. This is public and it's all recorded. Then it goes to the House where it was proposed for a vote - if it's passed it goes to the Senate for review, comments and revisions (if it was proposed in the Commons, reverse this if the bill originated in the Senate). Then it's voted on. Again this is all public and recorded. Once a Bill gets past the Senate it goes back to the Commons who vote on the Bill to verify that any revisions passed by the Senate still meet the legislative intent of the originator, and then the final form of the Bill is entered into Hansard and voted on. Again this is all public info. You can go and watch the entire process and you can even give input in the public hearing phase.

Private member bills are a little different, but follow the same process.

The public still gets input.

And since it stopped being a requirement to get Parliamentary approval for divorces, you can have input on any bill before Parliament. Any of them. Absolutely every bill that becomes law gets "read" into Hansard twice -once on initial reading and again just before being voted on.

Then it's on to the Governor General to receive Royal Assent.

Then it's printed in the Canada Gazette.

Quote:
And how would I know the name of the person who would receive my letter to the Crown? I don't know who received my letter to Santa Claus.
Your letter to Santa was handled by employee #347 at Canada Post. They read it, then drafted the response, got the automated signature machine to sign it, then mailed the response back to you.

Letters sent to a government department are sent to the Minister's Correspondence Unit of that department. They send it to the part of the department that can best answer the question you pose, that section gets the relevant information and either drafts a response for the Minister to sign, or provides information to the MCU to draft the response. The Minister signs it and again the response is sent to you.

Quote:
The fact remains that the scenario I described is a very simple way to ensure RA is 'rubber stamped' and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to prevent what I described from happening.
Given that the process is open and public every step of the way the scenario you describe is highly implausible.

It is only simple for the secret consultation with HMTQ to happen in your mind.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 05:53 PM   #647
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Nice of you to Google Hansard so you could find out what it is, and edit your post after I posted. You're not very good at this, are you?


I am beginning to think that this thread is a Class assignment in Conspiracy Theory 101, and I see an "F" in your future.


Norm
I've read many quotes from Hansard, so yes, I already knew it is basically the transcript of what is said in Parliament.

You haven't answered the question. Regardless of my bad grammar or syntax, how is a private conversation between a bill proposer and The Crown going to be in any official record?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 05:56 PM   #648
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Bills submitted for First Reading usually arise from legislative committees of the various ministries and have an accompanying file. These bills are then read in the House, and debated (the reading nowadays is generally accomplished by distributing copies to all MPs) and the debates are recorded in Hansard and often televised on CSPAN. The bill then goes to Committee for public consultation and input from the Opposition. This is public and it's all recorded. Then it goes to the House where it was proposed for a vote - if it's passed it goes to the Senate for review, comments and revisions (if it was proposed in the Commons, reverse this if the bill originated in the Senate). Then it's voted on. Again this is all public and recorded. Once a Bill gets past the Senate it goes back to the Commons who vote on the Bill to verify that any revisions passed by the Senate still meet the legislative intent of the originator, and then the final form of the Bill is entered into Hansard and voted on. Again this is all public info. You can go and watch the entire process and you can even give input in the public hearing phase.

Private member bills are a little different, but follow the same process.

The public still gets input.

And since it stopped being a requirement to get Parliamentary approval for divorces, you can have input on any bill before Parliament. Any of them. Absolutely every bill that becomes law gets "read" into Hansard twice -once on initial reading and again just before being voted on.

Then it's on to the Governor General to receive Royal Assent.

Then it's printed in the Canada Gazette.



Your letter to Santa was handled by employee #347 at Canada Post. They read it, then drafted the response, got the automated signature machine to sign it, then mailed the response back to you.

Letters sent to a government department are sent to the Minister's Correspondence Unit of that department. They send it to the part of the department that can best answer the question you pose, that section gets the relevant information and either drafts a response for the Minister to sign, or provides information to the MCU to draft the response. The Minister signs it and again the response is sent to you.



Given that the process is open and public every step of the way the scenario you describe is highly implausible.

It is only simple for the secret consultation with HMTQ to happen in your mind.
Your knowledge of civics is indeed impressive. But what I have described is not only plausible, it's probable. Why is it implausible for a bill to be quietly examined by The Crown before going to the House?
__________________
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; 16th December 2018 at 06:08 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 16th December 2018, 06:03 PM   #649
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Why should a scribbling from a French novelist have any bearing on historiography?

The human condition, maybe. But a subject that he never studied or made serious attempts to delve into, no, de Balzac's witticism carries no more weight then your own.
He was just one of three quotes regarding the fact that what we learn about history is not necessarily the truth.

So, do you think history is NOT written by the winners, or if it is, that they're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 06:09 PM   #650
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,949
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your knowledge of civics is indeed impressive. But what I have described is not only plausible, it's probable. Why is implausible for a bill to be quietly examined by The Crown before going to the House?

It's implausible because every "bill proposer" decade after decade, century after century, would have to be instructed in the procedure for doing so, but none of them has ever complained about it to the public or otherwise revealed the process to the public.

I'll see your Voltaire and raise you a Franklin: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 16th December 2018, 06:41 PM   #651
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It's implausible because every "bill proposer" decade after decade, century after century, would have to be instructed in the procedure for doing so, but none of them has ever complained about it to the public or otherwise revealed the process to the public.

I'll see your Voltaire and raise you a Franklin: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Why should anyone complain or 'reveal' the process? Everybody knows what the rules are going in. And they're all on the same team.

There's no big secret here. Would you suggest nothing in gov't ever happens discreetly?

That Franklin quote referes to secrets like "Joe is having an affair with Mary." Unless you believe there's no such thing as 'top secret' projects and clearances.

ETA: Gov'ts love people to think secrets can't be kept, so the public always (mistakenly) thinks it's well informed.

"People who don't read the papers are uninformed. People who do read the papers are misinformed."
__________________
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; 16th December 2018 at 06:45 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 16th December 2018, 07:10 PM   #652
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Why should anyone complain or 'reveal' the process? Everybody knows what the rules are going in. And they're all on the same team.
I am impressed by your mind reading abilities.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
ETA: Gov'ts love people to think secrets can't be kept, ...
They can't. But people do seem to prefer fantasies, as actual real secrets tend to be dull.
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 16th December 2018, 07:32 PM   #653
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You haven't answered the question. Regardless of my bad grammar or syntax, how is a private conversation between a bill proposer and The Crown going to be in any official record?

Because you can't, or won't even suggest who or what "The Crown" might be. That is a fall at the first hurdle. You can't have a conversation with an entity that does not exist, or only exists as a Legal concept.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 16th December 2018 at 07:34 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 16th December 2018, 08:40 PM   #654
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Because you can't, or won't even suggest who or what "The Crown" might be. That is a fall at the first hurdle. You can't have a conversation with an entity that does not exist, or only exists as a Legal concept.


Norm
The Crown, as you know, is ill-defined and can mean various things in different contexts. What I mean by the term is basically the Royal Family plus its advisors and staff. We agree the Queen doesn't personally supervise all this stuff. So I would suggest the proposers of a bill would communicate with someone on the RF's staff.

No one has explained why the scenario I described is impossible, or even improbable. It's a very simple and effective way to ensure Royal Assent is never refused.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 09:26 PM   #655
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Crown, as you know, is ill-defined and can mean various things in different contexts. What I mean by the term is basically the Royal Family plus its advisors and staff. We agree the Queen doesn't personally supervise all this stuff. So I would suggest the proposers of a bill would communicate with someone on the RF's staff.

Actually, the Crown is well defined. You just don't like or accept the definition, or alter it to suit your conjecture.


I will leave aside the obvious fact that Great Britain no longer has a Legal say in what Canada legislates, and that you are not now walking away from your nebulous "The Crown" and you are back to square one and the Queen, with other unnamed Royals now being thrown in for flavour. Hereinafter to be called "The Royals"



As already noted, the Queen and the advisors of "The Royals" probably do not even know what Legislation is being contemplated in Canada and probably don't care anyway. They more than likely have more important things to do than worry about what is happening in Canada (or Australia, or New Zealand, or anywhere else that is part of the Commonwealth)*



What makes you think that "The Royals" gives a damn about what is happening in Canada?



Quote:
No one has explained why the scenario I described is impossible, or even improbable. It's a very simple and effective way to ensure Royal Assent is never refused.
Because, and I repeat, "The Royals" probably don't give a damn about what happens in Canada. And actually, some have offered reasons. You just choose not to read or accept any point that does not support your unevidenced conjecture and does not lead towards a conspiracy to do ...something... to Canada.



Your scenario is only plausible if you think that there is a huge conspiracy by "The Royals" to secretly, and implausibly control the Laws of Canada.



Tell us all here, what makes Canada so important to "The Royals"?


Norm



*You know, a little scuffle called Brexit.
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 16th December 2018 at 09:29 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 16th December 2018, 10:17 PM   #656
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No one has explained why the scenario I described is impossible, or even improbable.
GOTO 626
__________________
"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 16th December 2018, 10:44 PM   #657
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Here's what you (fromdownunder) said:
"I am interested in who you think The Crown actually is in this case as the term as it is used legally is an abstract and changeable concept."

Here's what Wiki says:
Legally ill-defined, the term has different meanings depending on context.

Now you say:
"Actually, the Crown is well defined."

I merely outlined a very simple way to ensure RA is 'rubber stamped'.
Whatever the royals may think of Canada doesn't negate 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 16th December 2018, 10:46 PM   #658
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Can you be more explicit?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 11:21 PM   #659
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post


Can you be more explicit?
It is a link to post #626. It just saves me from retyping answers posts that you repeatedly make no matter how wrong they are proved to be.
__________________
"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 16th December 2018, 11:26 PM   #660
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is a link to post #626. It just saves me from retyping answers posts that you repeatedly make no matter how wrong they are proved to be.
Sorry. I should have been more explicit. I read 626.
Now I'm asking if you could be more explicit than what you said in that post.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 11:29 PM   #661
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Some of you have a very impressive knowledge of general history, far superior to mine.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your knowledge of civics is indeed impressive.
Someone's got to stand up to these experts, right?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 11:39 PM   #662
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,473
You know you still haven't told us what happens when the Queen is replaced by the next-in-line, more than likely a King. Because the exact text of the Canadian constitution puts all the authority you so pointlessly blither about in the control of "the Queen" very specifically. VERY specifically, in black and white. So should there be a King on the throne, clearly, according to your reading of the constitution, he will have precisely zero authority over Canada, and that complete loss of authority starts the moment immediately after the Queen drops dead.

And Canada's new head of state is...nobody, in that situation. The governor general reports to (you guessed it!) the Queen, not a King. Says so in the constitution. So he's representing nobody, and has no consequent power. And since there is no head of state, no laws can be signed. Canada's legal and parliamentary system will grind to a halt! What to do! What to do!

Don't you agree, IB? And how does Canada get itself out of this ditch of despond?

And please don't come up with some malarkey like "they really mean Monarch and not the Queen specifically". That's not in the text, so it isn't true. You need to think of another solution. And it had better be comprehensive, because "Dunno" and "That's not what I'm talking about" is unacceptable. This is precisely what you have raised. So support your argument.

Go.
__________________
...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 16th December 2018, 11:50 PM   #663
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Sorry. I should have been more explicit. I read 626.
Now I'm asking if you could be more explicit than what you said in that post.
The crown has no input whatsoever on the contents of a bill that goes through Canadian parliament. By choice, they simply rubber stamp any bill that passes through both houses.

Your conspiracy theory is nonsense. There are a lot of politicians who are braver than you and if you are willing to "expose the conspiracy" then why wouldn't a politician seek to make a name for himself by doing the same?
__________________
"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 16th December 2018, 11:57 PM   #664
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You know you still haven't told us what happens when the Queen is replaced by the next-in-line, more than likely a King. Because the exact text of the Canadian constitution puts all the authority you so pointlessly blither about in the control of "the Queen" very specifically. VERY specifically, in black and white. So should there be a King on the throne, clearly, according to your reading of the constitution, he will have precisely zero authority over Canada, and that complete loss of authority starts the moment immediately after the Queen drops dead.

And Canada's new head of state is...nobody, in that situation. The governor general reports to (you guessed it!) the Queen, not a King. Says so in the constitution. So he's representing nobody, and has no consequent power. And since there is no head of state, no laws can be signed. Canada's legal and parliamentary system will grind to a halt! What to do! What to do!

Don't you agree, IB? And how does Canada get itself out of this ditch of despond?

And please don't come up with some malarkey like "they really mean Monarch and not the Queen specifically". That's not in the text, so it isn't true. You need to think of another solution. And it had better be comprehensive, because "Dunno" and "That's not what I'm talking about" is unacceptable. This is precisely what you have raised. So support your argument.

Go.
How did they handle the wording when Victoria was replaced by Kings, and then again when Liz became 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 17th December 2018, 12:02 AM   #665
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The crown has no input whatsoever on the contents of a bill that goes through Canadian parliament. By choice, they simply rubber stamp any bill that passes through both houses.

Your conspiracy theory is nonsense. There are a lot of politicians who are braver than you and if you are willing to "expose the conspiracy" then why wouldn't a politician seek to make a name for himself by doing the same?
Your post still doesn't say why the scenario I outlined is impossible.
__________________
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 17th December 2018, 12:13 AM   #666
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Your post still doesn't say why the scenario I outlined is impossible.
If you must really be pedantic then I say that the odds that there is any truth to your theory are negligible.

It is more likely that major corporations offer inducements to politicians to produce favourable legislation but even then, whistle blowers appear from time to time to expose the corruption. The idea that nobody would dare to blow the whistle on the Queen is ridiculous.
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 12:28 AM   #667
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Let's see if we can all agree on one tiny piece of reality.

The written Constitution is judicable while the Conventions are not.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Anybody?
__________________
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 17th December 2018, 12:39 AM   #668
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The written Constitution is judicable while the Conventions are not.
And?
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 01:07 AM   #669
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you must really be pedantic then I say that the odds that there is any truth to your theory are negligible.
That still doesn't explain why the scenario is impossible.
__________________
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 17th December 2018, 01:09 AM   #670
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
And?
Can't you simply say 'agree' or 'disagree'?
__________________
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 17th December 2018, 01:16 AM   #671
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Can't you simply say 'agree' or 'disagree'?
It is trivially true. What are you trying to prove by this?
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 01:18 AM   #672
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That still doesn't explain why the scenario is impossible.
That's because I don't use the word "impossible". That is a weasel way for strawman argumenters to say that if the odds are a googolplex to one then your argument is false.
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 01:37 AM   #673
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you must really be pedantic then I say that the odds that there is any truth to your theory are negligible.

It is more likely that major corporations offer inducements to politicians to produce favourable legislation but even then, whistle blowers appear from time to time to expose the corruption. The idea that nobody would dare to blow the whistle on the Queen is ridiculous.
What you say about inducements does happen. But that does not preclude the scenario I described.

That the Queen, Crown, whatever, has the legal authority to refuse RA is not a secret. There's nothing to blow the whistle about.

So why wouldn't bill proposers ensure their bill would pass (ETA: if it passes the House) by getting informal pre-approval? Nobody wants to have a public dispute about RA. The proposers want to avoid that because they want their bill passed and they know it can be refused. The monarchy wants to avoid that because it wants to keep up their 'we rubber stamp everything' image.
__________________
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; 17th December 2018 at 01:43 AM.
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 17th December 2018, 01:48 AM   #674
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nobody wants to have a public dispute about RA.
Are you kidding? The party that stands up against a rogue monarch is guaranteed votes for years.
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 01:59 AM   #675
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Are you kidding? The party that stands up against a rogue monarch is guaranteed votes for years.
The monarch is not rogue. It's been this way for a long time.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 02:16 AM   #676
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The monarch is not rogue. It's been this way for a long time.
No it hasn't.

Even if the monarch was secretly using their powers to alter bills that get presented to parliament, exposing this conspiracy would be worth lots of votes.
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 02:39 AM   #677
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,473
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How did they handle the wording when Victoria was replaced by Kings, and then again when Liz became Queen?
Don't try to fob off the question. You are the one who is hung up on the exactitude of the text and its application. It says clearly "Queen", not "King". How about you tell us why things haven't fallen apart.
__________________
...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 17th December 2018, 02:49 AM   #678
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 652
To Itchy Boy. I am Scottish. I have therefore been a subject of Her Majesty Elizabeth I (not the II of Scotland or the UK!) all my life. In that time, apart from annoying my life when her sundry offspring spend millions on getting married, she has had the square root of zero effect on my life and of the rest of the people in the UK. Power in the UK resides in the Crown in Parliament, in other words the Queen's powers are exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet government with the assent of MPs in the Commons and the Lords in the Upper House. I imagine her influence, if any, in the Commonwealth realms is even less. You really are flogging a dead horse here mate.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman 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 17th December 2018, 02:49 AM   #679
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,443
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How did they handle the wording when Victoria was replaced by Kings, and then again when Liz became Queen?
If you are really interested in legal technicalities, Australia's constitution is actually an act of the British Parliament known as "The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" of which section 9 is the constitution proper.

Section 2 says, "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty
of the United Kingdom".

I will leave it up to you to research the Canadian equivalent.
__________________
"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 17th December 2018, 02:50 AM   #680
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,625
This thread is hilarious.

How long do we think it will go on for? I suppose it depends on how long Itchy Boy is prepared to keep going, so what's the over/under for a Continuation thread?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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