ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 9th December 2018, 11:28 PM   #321
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,259
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Another premise is that people who hold power use it. Regularly.
That's not as provable as the first premise, but it's common sense.
As I said before, you've stumbled upon the truth, but picked yourself up and pretended nothing happened.

The Queen does not regularly use the power you attribute to her. The logical conclusion of this observation, coupled with your premise, is that she doesn't actually have the power you attribute to her.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:46 PM   #322
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If bills to be passed into law originated from her directives she would have no reason to refuse RA unless the final wording was not to The Crown's liking. Bills that originate from other sources still have to get RA before becoming law. The Crown would be apprised of those bills beforehand and if there was no objection to the purpose of the bill, it would go through the Parliamentary process and pass or fail on its own merit.

Royal Assent is The Crown's failsafe. There is nothing that legally compels the monarch to grant RA. Conventions are not enforceable in the courts. The text of the Con is enforceable by the courts.
Before any bill can be presented to the Queen or GG for RA it has to get through the House of Commons which is an elected chamber. There is no way that the Queen could control those politicians. They would be too afraid of losing their seats at the next election to conspire with the Queen.

I was assuming that the Senate is stacked with royal supporters who do the Queen's bidding without question. However, this isn't really true either. A Senator can't be sacked just because of the way they voted in the chamber so there is nothing to stop them following their own conscience.

And once a bill is presented for RA, it is always given (unless you can present a counter example).
__________________
"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 10th December 2018, 01:01 AM   #323
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post


All that it would take is a Constitutional amendment - 2/3rds of the provinces comprising 1/2 of the population (s.38 of the Constitution Act 1982). Unanimity is not a requirement.

For someone whining about our constitutional arrangements, you sure don't know the source documents or the practicalities of constitutional practice and custom.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;


In this case, if the word 'each' doesn't mean 'every' province, what does it mean?

Also note it says, "An amendment [...] may be made by proclamation issued by the Gov Gen [...] only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House [...].

The way it reads, it just means the Gov Gen can't make the proclamation on her own. S/He needs the consent of the legislature. But think about it. It is the GG that makes the proclamation. Clearly the proclamation comes from the Queen, the GG's boss.

Is it written in the Con that the Queen can not refuse to issue a proclamation for an amendment?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 01:15 AM   #324
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
This one needs a bit more support that "it's common sense".
I agree. But I made clear there's no evidence to support it. So I wouldn't debate the issue.

My commons sense tells me anyone with power, particularly great power, is certainly going to use that power to further whatever agendas they may have.

What does your common sense tell you?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 01:23 AM   #325
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
I didn't see any link there that leads to a legal document.
Did I miss something?
__________________
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; 10th December 2018 at 01:38 AM. Reason: spelling
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 10th December 2018, 01:36 AM   #326
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Before any bill can be presented to the Queen or GG for RA it has to get through the House of Commons which is an elected chamber. There is no way that the Queen could control those politicians. They would be too afraid of losing their seats at the next election to conspire with the Queen.

I was assuming that the Senate is stacked with royal supporters who do the Queen's bidding without question. However, this isn't really true either. A Senator can't be sacked just because of the way they voted in the chamber so there is nothing to stop them following their own conscience.

And once a bill is presented for RA, it is always given (unless you can present a counter example).
The Queen doesn't control the politicians. They are self controlling. They do not conspire with the Queen. They just know the rules of the game. Don't forget they also deal with corporate interests, for example. Those don't necessarily come from the Queen, but she can still refuse RA should the need arise. The trick, and they do it well, is never let the need arise.

She 'always' gives RA because she's pre approved the legislation. The Con stipulates she MUST be apprised of any major financial bills before they go to the House. It's reasonable to assume all bill go through this process perhaps unofficially. It's not mandatory, but it would cut any problems in the bud.


The squabbling that goes on has no real effect on the outcome.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 01:47 AM   #327
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If bills to be passed into law originated from her directives she would have no reason to refuse RA unless the final wording was not to The Crown's liking. Bills that originate from other sources still have to get RA before becoming law. The Crown would be apprised of those bills beforehand and if there was no objection to the purpose of the bill, it would go through the Parliamentary process and pass or fail on its own merit.

Royal Assent is The Crown's failsafe. There is nothing that legally compels the monarch to grant RA. Conventions are not enforceable in the courts. The text of the Con is enforceable by the courts.
Hang on, do you think the Queen personally gives Royal Assent to bills passed in Canada (and Australia, for that matter)? Or if not, that she is consulted about said bills? Governors are generally dragged kicking and screaming into Governor in Council meetings, where they have the onerous task of signing documents they have no understanding of and even less interest. Before their far more important task of opening fetes and flower shows.

Can you give a modern example of a bill not receiving Royal Assent? Didn’t think so. Your continued bleats of “but it could happen” fall on deaf ears.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 02:04 AM   #328
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes Itchy Boy, the queen actually has all the power in Canada.

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

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

Because for all of your rejection of every evidence that her role IS just a figurehead, you never actually show any evidence for your version of reality. Do you have even a single letter containing orders? A single email of the queen dictating a law that the politicians later then fake vote for so she can sign it? A single indication she manipulated voters or ordered the army/police to intimidate someone?
The issue is whether or not the Queen has supreme power over Canada.
The issue is not about how or when she uses her power. There's no evidence to go by, so it's not discussable.

My common sense tells me people with tremendous power always use it.
Your common sense may tell you different. That's the beginning and end of it.

As for the real issue, I'm sure you've seen Articles #9 and #15 as written in the supreme law of the land. They make clear that the Queen's the boss. I've repeatedly asked for something legal that says anything to the contrary or that limits her power.

Nothing of the sort has been forthcoming.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 02:22 AM   #329
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The issue is whether or not the Queen has supreme power over Canada.
The issue is not about how or when she uses her power. There's no evidence to go by, so it's not discussable.

My common sense tells me people with tremendous power always use it.
Your common sense may tell you different. That's the beginning and end of it.

As for the real issue, I'm sure you've seen Articles #9 and #15 as written in the supreme law of the land. They make clear that the Queen's the boss. I've repeatedly asked for something legal that says anything to the contrary or that limits her power.

Nothing of the sort has been forthcoming.
Not an original, but when people use these words the belief is neither common nor sensible.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 02:32 AM   #330
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
If the Queen truly was just a figurehead, why should her power be enshrined in the Con? They could remove the power language and she could still be a figurehead. If the Queen agreed, don't you think a Constitutional amendment would be a cakewalk? And desirable? True independence in every way?

But the language remains.

Do you think words in the supreme law of the land are simply ignored by all the elected officials? Do you think hose words are just some quaint anachronism? Wouldn't that mean the Con as a whole could be ignored?

Do you think nothing ever happens behind the curtain?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 02:35 AM   #331
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Not an original, but when people use these words the belief is neither common nor sensible.
So, am I to take from that that your common sense tells you that extremely powerful people typically do not use their power? Or do you think the Queen is the exception to the rule?
__________________
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; 10th December 2018 at 02:37 AM. Reason: clarity
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 10th December 2018, 03:21 AM   #332
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, am I to take from that that your common sense tells you that extremely powerful people typically do not use their power? Or do you think the Queen is the exception to the rule?
The thing you are missing is that the Queen in not 'extremely powerful' and therefore can not use these imaginary powers.
This is why in reality she rubber stamps everything given to her.
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 10th December 2018, 03:21 AM   #333
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, am I to take from that that your common sense tells you that extremely powerful people typically do not use their power? Or do you think the Queen is the exception to the rule?

But you cannot give one example where the Queen has used any power. Do you actually have a point, or is this all just a game you are playing.


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 10th December 2018, 03:39 AM   #334
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If the Queen truly was just a figurehead, why should her power be enshrined in the Con? They could remove the power language and she could still be a figurehead. If the Queen agreed, don't you think a Constitutional amendment would be a cakewalk? And desirable? True independence in every way?
Bloody hell, how many times do you have to be told that constitutional amendments in the “colonies” require referenda? Incredible expensive ways of fixing something that isn’t broken.

Don’t get me wrong. I hope for another referendum in Australia to remove the Queen as head of state. Not because I think she would co-opt our army into a war against Canada or something, but it’s a sensible thing to do.

But do I lose sleep over this? No. Because I know the Queen will do nothing that our government and the people who elected it doesn’t want, like denying Royal Assent.

Come on, time for you to do a Fonzie. It’s not that hard to say you are wrong. I’ve said it here myself in regard to global warming.

Oh, wait, you aren’t a global warming denier as well? To add to your anti-vaxxing position?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 04:36 AM   #335
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,477
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I didn't see any link there that leads to a legal document.
Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed everything. And quite deliberately, it now seems.

I award you no points. Hope it is comfortable under your bridge.
__________________
...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 10th December 2018, 04:51 AM   #336
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen doesn't control the politicians. They are self controlling. They do not conspire with the Queen. They just know the rules of the game. Don't forget they also deal with corporate interests, for example. Those don't necessarily come from the Queen, but she can still refuse RA should the need arise. The trick, and they do it well, is never let the need arise.
Hang on! I thought you said that the Queen doesn't hide behind corporations nor offer inducements to politicians.

Do you seriously think that when politicians get elected they learn "the rules of the game" (do what the Queen tells you) and just keep it a secret?
__________________
"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 10th December 2018, 04:57 AM   #337
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Hang on! I thought you said that the Queen doesn't hide behind corporations nor offer inducements to politicians.

Do you seriously think that when politicians get elected they learn "the rules of the game" (do what the Queen tells you) and just keep it a secret?
This is why the thread belongs in 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 10th December 2018, 04:59 AM   #338
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
If I were Canadian, I'd be slightly annoyed. Perhaps even indignant!
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 10th December 2018, 05:18 AM   #339
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have you met humans? Because that's not how they work.

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

In the present case, for example, most Canadian MP's probably take the oath in the full expectation that the Queen would never try to command the Canadian military contrary to the wishes of the Canadian government. Were that to happen, they might feel that the Queen has violated an implicit oath, fully justifying their own disobedience of the Queen. You might feel like they've betrayed some trust, but that doesn't mean they will view it that way.
Hells, the Canadian MILITARY would feel betrayed if the Captain General were to command us to do something that was not in the interests of the people of Canada, and would be highly likely to refuse that as an unlawful command.

Part of the Canadian parliamentary tradition is the tradition of the Loyal Opposition - those people who do no hold the reigns of power, yet are still acting in what they perceive as the public interest to hold the Government to account. This is why Bills are debated in Parliament and even the opposition can suggest amendments to bills, instead of the governing party simply having the bill read in Parliament and then proceeding to the final vote, trusting to party discipline to ensure its passage.

The other part that IB is overlooking is the weight of tradition and precedent. In the matter at hand, it is tradition and precedent that the reigning monarch governs with the advice of the Privy Council and does not act contrary to it. And in a country with an essential common law tradition, precedent as a means of interpreting the law has the same weight as written law. Essentially, none of the previous monarchs have taken as active a role as IB believes they can in Canadian politics, even if the strict wording of the Constitution allows them to, so it is less and less likely that the Canadian people would accept such an activist monarch as being within the bounds of their authority.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 10th December 2018, 05:41 AM   #340
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The oath swears allegiance to the Queen, not obedience. They aren't synonymous.
"II ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

Oath taken on enrolment in the Canadian Forces. Those persons not wishing to take a religious oath omit the "So help me God." QR&O Art. 6.04

As RSM of a CAF Reserve unit I've been present for over 30 of these in the last year - same oath as I took when I enrolled nearly 33 years ago. Same one that I'm likely to continue to see taken for the foreseeable future.

The part that is getting IB and is ilk up is the true allegiance part. True allegiance, as we in the CAF understand it and how it is explained to us prior to taking the oath, is that you are not offering blind obedience, you are offering service which may include opposing what is directed if what is being directed is contrary to law, contrary to the interests of the people (to whom HMTQ gave HER oath), or would "shock the morals or ethics" of the person to whom the order is being given.

This ability to tell the person to whom you owe obedience "that's frakked up, and no I'm not doing that" is intended to prevent abuses of executive power, and also to give the person who is acting outside of the what is acceptable the chance to walk back the unlawful order or direction.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 10th December 2018, 06:08 AM   #341
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,121
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
"II ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

Oath taken on enrolment in the Canadian Forces. Those persons not wishing to take a religious oath omit the "So help me God." QR&O Art. 6.04

As RSM of a CAF Reserve unit I've been present for over 30 of these in the last year - same oath as I took when I enrolled nearly 33 years ago. Same one that I'm likely to continue to see taken for the foreseeable future.

The part that is getting IB and is ilk up is the true allegiance part. True allegiance, as we in the CAF understand it and how it is explained to us prior to taking the oath, is that you are not offering blind obedience, you are offering service which may include opposing what is directed if what is being directed is contrary to law, contrary to the interests of the people (to whom HMTQ gave HER oath), or would "shock the morals or ethics" of the person to whom the order is being given.

This ability to tell the person to whom you owe obedience "that's frakked up, and no I'm not doing that" is intended to prevent abuses of executive power, and also to give the person who is acting outside of the what is acceptable the chance to walk back the unlawful order or direction.


And ultimately, all the power any government has is derived from the personal loyalty of men such as Border Reiver, who have taken these oaths. Should the Queen decide to step outside her traditional role as these men understand it, she will have no more power at all. If these men conclude that she has broken faith with Canada, and that their greater loyalty lies with Canada and its Parliament, then it is that Parliament which has all the power*.

And that's the way it's always been, and always will be. Ultima Ratio Regnum only works if you have men to fire the cannons.




*Legal Precedent: The American Revolution, in which men like George Washington who were previously loyal officers of the King decided instead to support the Continental Congress against that same King.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 08:07 AM   #342
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,373
In a way you've got to admire the Itchy Boy version of the queen.

Imagine it, every day she's got to ensure that her loyal puppets in every level of Canada's government are towing the line and vetted, and that every politician of each party is following the covert plan, which is transmitted in such a way that no one outside of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants and army personnel, not even their spouses, is aware of it.
Not only that, she's also got to do that for the UK, Australia and New Zealand too, and she plays it in such a way that it seems that all four countries are working in their own interest, rather than as a coherent block in world politics.
And she does it in such a way that all four countries are reasonably well off.
All this so she can exercise her supreme power in such a way that it is invisible to all so that it looks like as if the governments are just following the lines of the elected politicians.

That is some next level political savvy there, and all this for a 92 year old woman, who looks like someone that needs subtle reminders of where her clothes are on a daily basis.

All this, while she could have the SAME privileges by just rubber stamping laws without putting in all that effort.
Sure, that is total common sense.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 10th December 2018, 08:31 AM   #343
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,096
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
In a way you've got to admire the Itchy Boy version of the queen.

Imagine it, every day she's got to ensure that her loyal puppets in every level of Canada's government are towing the line and vetted, and that every politician of each party is following the covert plan, which is transmitted in such a way that no one outside of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants and army personnel, not even their spouses, is aware of it.
Not only that, she's also got to do that for the UK, Australia and New Zealand too, and she plays it in such a way that it seems that all four countries are working in their own interest, rather than as a coherent block in world politics.
And she does it in such a way that all four countries are reasonably well off.
All this so she can exercise her supreme power in such a way that it is invisible to all so that it looks like as if the governments are just following the lines of the elected politicians.

That is some next level political savvy there, and all this for a 92 year old woman, who looks like someone that needs subtle reminders of where her clothes are on a daily basis.

All this, while she could have the SAME privileges by just rubber stamping laws without putting in all that effort.
Sure, that is total common sense.
Well she has to do something to pass the time of day. And after 66 years of doing the same thing every day she probably has the routine down pretty good.

But watch out when Chuckie takes the reins. That will be a bumpy ride!
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 09:33 AM   #344
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,121
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
In a way you've got to admire the Itchy Boy version of the queen.

Imagine it, every day she's got to ensure that her loyal puppets in every level of Canada's government are towing the line and vetted, and that every politician of each party is following the covert plan, which is transmitted in such a way that no one outside of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants and army personnel, not even their spouses, is aware of it.
Not only that, she's also got to do that for the UK, Australia and New Zealand too, and she plays it in such a way that it seems that all four countries are working in their own interest, rather than as a coherent block in world politics.
And she does it in such a way that all four countries are reasonably well off.
All this so she can exercise her supreme power in such a way that it is invisible to all so that it looks like as if the governments are just following the lines of the elected politicians.

That is some next level political savvy there, and all this for a 92 year old woman, who looks like someone that needs subtle reminders of where her clothes are on a daily basis.

All this, while she could have the SAME privileges by just rubber stamping laws without putting in all that effort.
Sure, that is total common sense.


Well, to be fair, if I was inclined to believe that there was one person in the world who could pull this off, it'd be Liz. She's done some **** in her time.


ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/quee...driving-2017-2

__________________
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

Last edited by Horatius; 10th December 2018 at 09:34 AM.
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 10th December 2018, 09:52 AM   #345
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Well, to be fair, if I was inclined to believe that there was one person in the world who could pull this off, it'd be Liz. She's done some **** in her time.


ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/quee...driving-2017-2

As an anecdote, likely my favourite one dealing with the Queen.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 10th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #346
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
She's Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. No need for British troops.
Power that will not or cannot be exercised is no power at all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 10:00 AM   #347
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
'Custom' is NEVER going to restrict real power.
And yet it has for a long time. And in addition to you being wrong here, the point is clear: if the queen were to try and exert that power over Canada, she'd lose it immediately, and there's nothing she can do about it. I call that powerless.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 10:14 AM   #348
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced.
It absolutely does. A law not enforced has no power, no force. There are plenty of old laws in Canada that are never enforced. They'd be thrown out of court if it ever became an issue.

The queen might be commander of the armies on paper, but as stated before, she doesn't use that power, and would lose it if she tried.

You don't seem to understand how these laws and rules work.

Quote:
I've shown (repeatedly now) the Queen has legal power and authority over the gov't and Canada.
Again: any use of that authority would see it ended.

Quote:
"Practical examples" are not law.
You're right. They're actually much more relevant.

Quote:
Why do you even bother posting here, Norman? Just to hear yourself speak?
That is remarkably self-describing.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 10:22 AM   #349
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you were rich and powerful enough to significantly influence and change entire societies, would you want to people to know you're responsible for raising taxes, or limiting freedoms and other unpopular initiatives?
Would you set yourself up as the target for the public's anger?

Or would you employ front men and make it look like they were responsible so that they may take the flack? Every few years, when the public disgust for your front men reaches a peak, give them an 'election' where they can choose one of the new front men you've approved for the job. It doesn't matter which one gets elected because they're all in your pocket.

But people here seem to think the British royals at some point said, "Hey, we don't need or want all this power anymore. Let's give it to the people by way of a parliamentary system of gov't. We'll just busy ourselves posing for the cameras while we're cutting ribbons and watching Eskimos dance." We can shape the world and have done so because we're a long bloodline, a family, who's been in power for centuries. But now we'll turn that job over to politicians who only hold office for a few years.

Really? Does anything like that seem remotely plausible to any thinking person?
Ah, now we're talking. You believe in a secret royal conspiracy whereby the UK monarch controls... what, the world?

Go to the conspiracy theories section, then.

Quote:
You can discuss that with other posters if you like. I'm not interested.

This thread is about the Queen's power as defined in Articles #9 and #15 in particular.
Speaking of rules and laws, you seem to have a set of rules for yourself and another for other posters, where you can post off-topic junk like the conspiracy nonsense above, and then refuse to discuss it further because it's off-topic. Quite convenient. Dishonest, but convenient.

Quote:
As George Carlin said, "It's a club, and we're not in it."
I knew it! I should've bet some money that you'd bring up Carlin at some point. Ok here's the thing: he was wrong. Carlin was wrong about some things. Shocking, I know.

Quote:
It's neither a conspiracy, nor a theory. The existence of the Bilderberg meetings were once considered conspiracy theory, but now it's out in the open and they've been meeting since the 1950's.

What do you think 'globalism' is all about? How did the EU come about?
Did the people of all those countries campaign to lose their sovereignty?
Or was it a top down operation sold to the people as being the best way forward?
Ah, there you're back discussing something you just said was off-topic. Which is it? Is it off-topic only when you don't have anything to add?

In any case, at least now we know where you come from, and we can treat your argument accordingly.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
She doesn't 'meddle' in Canadian affairs - she directs them.
I'd ask you for specific examples but I'm sure you'd retreat to your constitutional ivory tower immediately.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 10:33 AM   #350
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
As if you know what research I've done.
Based on your posts here, we have a pretty good idea.

Quote:
Let me try to make this very, very simple for you folk.
You're nowhere near as clever or knowledgeable as you think.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I showed legal evidence directly from the Constitution to back my claim.
Show me your evidence to back your claim.
Theoretical evidence is trumped by practical evidence. You lose.

Quote:
Norman, I'm getting close to cutting you off.
That's a pretty impotent threat. I don't think doing so would negatively impact his day as much as improve it.

Quote:
Politicians aren't the only ones to swear allegiance to the Queen.
The Armed Forces must do so.
The RCMP must do so.
New immigrants must do so.
Supreme and Federal court judges
all employees of CSIS
All out the window if she betrays their trust and meddles in the affairs of Canada, which I'm sure they feel a much higher loyalty to.

Quote:
If the Queen truly was just a figurehead, why should her power be enshrined in the Con? They could remove the power language and she could still be a figurehead. If the Queen agreed, don't you think a Constitutional amendment would be a cakewalk? And desirable? True independence in every way?

But the language remains.
As you said earlier, those are just words.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:41 AM   #351
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
I quoted the supreme law from the Constitution. Not one of you has posted anything that trumps that despite innumerable requests.

You have no evidence, so you have to cry 'conspiracy', and make personal aspersions. You claim there's proof but you fail to provide it.

Ask any Constitutional lawyer or 'expert' to produce any legally enforceable words that trump Articles #9 and #15. Ask them to produce any legally enforceable words that limit the Queen's power in any way. Or do it yourself.

Get back to me when you have something.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:44 AM   #352
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I quoted the supreme law from the Constitution.
And we've responded, NUMEROUS TIMES, that the law is irrelevant if it's both never used and would result in said powers be removed were it used at all.

For all your whining about people not addressing your points, which is a lie, you've avoided responding to that in a meaningful way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:46 AM   #353
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,312
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You have no evidence, so you have to cry 'conspiracy', and make personal aspersions.
You're the one who's posted a conspiracy theory. Don't be salty when people call a spade a spade.

Quote:
You claim there's proof but you fail to provide it.
Dishonest. Since you clearly prefer musings and theory to practical examples and precedent, there is no proof that would ever satisfy you. You've conveniently shut yourself off from reality by operating in a simulation of it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:51 AM   #354
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And ultimately, all the power any government has is derived from the personal loyalty of men such as Border Reiver, who have taken these oaths. Should the Queen decide to step outside her traditional role as these men understand it, she will have no more power at all. If these men conclude that she has broken faith with Canada, and that their greater loyalty lies with Canada and its Parliament, then it is that Parliament which has all the power*.

And that's the way it's always been, and always will be. Ultima Ratio Regnum only works if you have men to fire the cannons.

*Legal Precedent: The American Revolution, in which men like George Washington who were previously loyal officers of the King decided instead to support the Continental Congress against that same King.
We're not talking about hypothetical "if the Queen should decide..." or precedent. (Legal precedent? - George committed treason, did he not?)

We're talking about who has the legally enforceable power over Canada.

What don't you understand about this:

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

"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Is that legally enforceable or not? If not, why not?

Now show me anything legally enforceable that supersedes or pertains to those articles. Not more precedent, custom, Convention. Show me something with teeth.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:52 AM   #355
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You're the one who's posted a conspiracy theory. Don't be salty when people call a spade a spade.



Dishonest. Since you clearly prefer musings and theory to practical examples and precedent, there is no proof that would ever satisfy you. You've conveniently shut yourself off from reality by operating in a simulation of it.
See post 354.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:54 AM   #356
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And we've responded, NUMEROUS TIMES, that the law is irrelevant if it's both never used and would result in said powers be removed were it used at all.

For all your whining about people not addressing your points, which is a lie, you've avoided responding to that in a meaningful way.
You're talking about little laws that are never used. Like the law against spitting in the street.

You think the supreme law of the land is irrelevant?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:54 AM   #357
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,625
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I agree. But I made clear there's no evidence to support it. So I wouldn't debate the issue.

My commons sense tells me anyone with power, particularly great power, is certainly going to use that power to further whatever agendas they may have.

What does your common sense tell you?
That you need support for this assumption, and without it you have nothing.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:57 AM   #358
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,121
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Not more precedent,


You do realize that "mere precedent" is literally the underpinnings of all of common law, right?

No, of course you don't.



This is like the Anti-Freeman on the Land theory. Instead of the common law being all-powerful, it apparently has no power at all.



Now, aside from all this, what is the point of your obsession with this aspect of Canadian constitution law? What do you expect us to do, if you manage to convince us that Liz really is secretly running everything?
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:59 AM   #359
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
So the Queen would lose her power if she tried to use it.
That's what many of you have been saying.

According to that then, she does have the power you all keep insisting she doesn't have.
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 12:07 PM   #360
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
According to that then, she does have the power you all keep insisting she doesn't have.
On the contrary. We all agree that the constitution gives the Queen the powers that you say she has.

What we disagree with is the notion that she exercises her powers other than on the advice of the Canadian parliament or Privy Council.
__________________
"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
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 11:00 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.