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 5th December 2018, 11:00 AM   #41
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
I always figure Australia and Canada have a bargain.

Apparently, for reasons I've never really been able to comprehend, a head of state is absolutely required. Provided that Madge just signs what the respective PMs put in front of her and comes to do waving when required, then you have a rock bottom, bargain priced, head of state that you don't have to pay for (aside from, perhaps providing the Gov. General with a house, maybe?)

We're the ones that have to pay for her and her family, have to put up with the constant bollocks about them on the TV, have the country plunged into weird and slightly concerning mourning when one of them dies from drunk chauffer syndrome, have all the fun TV shows and music cancelled when she finally dies and put up with whatever ******** about Harry or the queen's grandson happens to be flavour of the month.

I'd happily trade. You can have the present and incredibly anachronistic royal family come live with you guys and we'll stay here and complain about an absentee head of state.

Actually, thinking about it, maybe Australia can have the royal family and associated expense and ******** for a decade, then Canada, then we'll have them back again?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 5th December 2018, 11:17 AM   #42
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I am disappointed by this thread. I was hoping for Sovereign Citizen with a monarchist twist pseudo legal nonsense. Instead I get NWO pseudo legal nonsense. 2/10, I want a refund.
I have quoted ONLY from the Constitution. But the Constitution is 'pseudo legal nonsense', is it?

So far, not one single contributor to this thread has produced a shred of evidence that has the force of law and in any way diminishes the powers described in the Constitution.

This thread is a perfect example of how people will cling to long held beliefs, and ignore any and all facts that contradict those beliefs.
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 5th December 2018, 11:17 AM   #43
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Sorry, you break it, you buy it.

Wait, no, that's not right. It was already broke when you bought it, so you can't complain now.

There, that's the right one
Caveat empress?
__________________
"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 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 5th December 2018, 11:20 AM   #44
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have quoted ONLY from the Constitution. But the Constitution is 'pseudo legal nonsense', is it?

So far, not one single contributor to this thread has produced a shred of evidence that has the force of law and in any way diminishes the powers described in the Constitution.
Can you show any examples of the will of the people being subverted by the head of state?


I mean, it happens in the UK, but does it happen in Canada?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 5th December 2018, 11:30 AM   #45
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
This would be the same British government that is unable to get it's act together with regards to Brexit? That's the government that has manipulated Canada's election to prevent anyone not of undying loyalty to the royal house to be even elected?
In that case I would not worry too much. I suspect they lost the paperwork and got the wrong people elected by now.
Brexit is irrelevant to this discussion.

The British gov't did not manipulate any Canadian election to prevent anyone not loyal to the Queen from being elected. Nobody gets into a position to be elected to any high office unless they've demonstrated their loyalty for years before as they move up through the ranks. They don't move up the ranks unless they are loyal to the Queen, whom they have sworn allegiance to.
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 5th December 2018, 11:47 AM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nobody gets into a position to be elected to any high office unless they've demonstrated their loyalty for years before as they move up through the ranks. They don't move up the ranks unless they are loyal to the Queen, whom they have sworn allegiance to.
How, pray tell, is this loyalty tested and demonstrated? Do they have to carry out assassinations on her behalf? Give up their first born? Shoot the dog?

And if your answer is a sworn oath, go sit in the corner and think about why that's stupid, because it doesn't actually demonstrate anything.
__________________
"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 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 5th December 2018, 12:05 PM   #47
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,864
How is this handled in Canadian civics? If I read that document to find out about the Canadian system, how do I find out about the part of the document are not true?
BobTheCoward 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 5th December 2018, 12:13 PM   #48
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How, pray tell, is this loyalty tested and demonstrated? Do they have to carry out assassinations on her behalf? Give up their first born? ?

And if your answer is a sworn oath, go sit in the corner and think about why that's stupid, because it doesn't actually demonstrate anything.
Gov't is a hierarchy. If someone comes into the system from the bottom, say a city councillor or something like that, they have to work their way up the ladder. They are observed by those above them and if they show themselves to be team players, they are allowed to advance.

Others, like Justin, come from bloodlines that have been loyal to the monarchy for generations. He still had to work his way up, but the moment he entered politics it was a given he would follow in Dad's footsteps and become PM. He'd really have to screw up in a big way for him not to become PM. Just my opinion, but Justin is as far from a real leader as it gets. It's obvious to me he's only there because of his heritage, not because of his own merit.

In modern times, royal dynasties are now joined by political dynasties like the Trudeaus and the Bushes and the Clintons. Just more evidence that politics is theatre.
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 5th December 2018, 12:15 PM   #49
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How is this handled in Canadian civics? If I read that document to find out about the Canadian system, how do I find out about the part of the document are not true?
Sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. If, by 'document' you mean the Constitution, there are no parts of it that are 'not true'.
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 5th December 2018, 12:22 PM   #50
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,864
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. If, by 'document' you mean the Constitution, there are no parts of it that are 'not true'.
That seems to be disputed in this thread.
BobTheCoward 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 5th December 2018, 12:33 PM   #51
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That seems to be disputed in this thread.
Nobody has claimed anything in the Constitution is not true. They are just ignoring what it says.
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 5th December 2018, 12:52 PM   #52
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,835
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have quoted ONLY from the Constitution. But the Constitution is 'pseudo legal nonsense', is it?

So far, not one single contributor to this thread has produced a shred of evidence that has the force of law and in any way diminishes the powers described in the Constitution.

This thread is a perfect example of how people will cling to long held beliefs, and ignore any and all facts that contradict those beliefs.
Out of curiosity, do you understand what a 'common law' legal system is?

And why it might be important that Canada has what is considered a common law system?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Caveat empress?
Hah!
Hellbound 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 5th December 2018, 01:17 PM   #53
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Out of curiosity, do you understand what a 'common law' legal system is?

And why it might be important that Canada has what is considered a common law system?



Hah!
Yes I do know what Common Law is. But what relevance does that have in this discussion? What relevance does it have to the Queen's power?

Still nobody has provided any evidence to show the Queen's power is not what the Constitution says. Everybody's just dancing around the issue.
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 5th December 2018, 01:20 PM   #54
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,596
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Can you show any examples of the will of the people being subverted by the head of state?


I mean, it happens in the UK, but does it happen in Canada?
It happened in Australia. Ancient history 1975, and canít happen again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975...utional_crisis

Quote:
The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history. It culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister.
Kerr was Bettyís representative, and there is evidence that he wrote to her (and strangely, Prince Charles) on a daily basis at the time, but the content of those letters remain secret. So a Vice Royal rather than a Royal coup, but close enough for me and a heap of other Australians.

But, as I said, ancient history. We donít have drunken, megalomaniacal GGs anymore, and a repeat is impossible to imagine.
__________________
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 5th December 2018, 01:22 PM   #55
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Gov't is a hierarchy. If someone comes into the system from the bottom, say a city councillor or something like that, they have to work their way up the ladder. They are observed by those above them and if they show themselves to be team players, they are allowed to advance.
How does a city councillor show that they're on the Queen's team? What the hell would that even mean? You aren't actually making a coherent case here.

Quote:
Others, like Justin, come from bloodlines that have been loyal to the monarchy for generations.
And how does that guarantee that Justin will be loyal to the Queen? Hint:
It doesn't.

Quote:
Just my opinion, but Justin is as far from a real leader as it gets. It's obvious to me he's only there because of his heritage, not because of his own merit.
I agree, but I don't see that this has anything to do with the Queen.

Quote:
In modern times, royal dynasties are now joined by political dynasties like the Trudeaus and the Bushes and the Clintons. Just more evidence that politics is theatre.
Sure, but that doesn't mean these dynasties are necessarily cooperative. They have their own agendas which can conflict. I see no reason why the Trudeaus would sacrifice their own interests (ie, popularity with Canadian citizenry) for the sake of the Windsors. Nor have you provided any reason they would.
__________________
"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 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 5th December 2018, 02:16 PM   #56
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How does a city councillor show that they're on the Queen's team? What the hell would that even mean? You aren't actually making a coherent case here.

You don't know how to tell if someone's a team player or not? Most people can tell soon after meeting and interacting with someone. A city councillor doesn't have to be "on the Queen's team". But he has to prove that he is on the team before he can rise through the ranks. Don't forget, every MP and MPP must swear allegiance to the Queen.

And how does that guarantee that Justin will be loyal to the Queen? Hint:
It doesn't.


There is no guarantee. But Justin was raised from birth for his role. If he wasn't loyal to the Queen, if he wasn't a team player he would never be PM. If he were to go rogue after becoming PM, he would be discredited and ousted.

I agree, but I don't see that this has anything to do with the Queen.


Sure, but that doesn't mean these dynasties are necessarily cooperative. They have their own agendas which can conflict. I see no reason why the Trudeaus would sacrifice their own interests (ie, popularity with Canadian citizenry) for the sake of the Windsors. Nor have you provided any reason they would.
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader. Does anyone think Justin or George Bush would have become leader if not for their name/bloodline? I sure don't.
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 5th December 2018, 02:44 PM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader.
Well, duh. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But it's got nothing to do with this alleged loyalty to the Queen.
__________________
"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 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 5th December 2018, 02:50 PM   #58
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Well, duh. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But it's got nothing to do with this alleged loyalty to the Queen.
Sorry for the bad formatting in my previous post. I'll repeat...

A councillor doesn't have to show loyalty to the Queen or swear an oath of allegiance. But if he wants to someday become PM or a member of Parliament, then he has to show himself to be a team player, or he won't rise through the ranks. And once he becomes an MP or MPP, he must swear allegiance to the Queen.
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 5th December 2018, 02:54 PM   #59
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,596
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
And once he becomes an MP or MPP, he must swear allegiance to the Queen.
But with fingers crossed, so it wonít count.

Seriously, itís just a ceremonial game office holders play. Means nothing.
__________________
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 5th December 2018, 02:54 PM   #60
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
There's no guarantee Justin will be loyal. But he was raised from birth to become PM.
If he had shown any signs of not being a team player, he wouldn't be PM.
And if he were to go rogue after becoming PM, he'd be discredited and ousted.

The system is set up so that something like that has an almost zero chance of happening. And if it does happen, it's dealt with. Nothing is going to change the status quo.
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 5th December 2018, 02:57 PM   #61
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Well, duh. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But it's got nothing to do with this alleged loyalty to the Queen.
Especially when you consider countries that have no affiliation to the Crown have had their own political 'dynasties'.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 5th December 2018, 03:00 PM   #62
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
But with fingers crossed, so it won’t count.

Seriously, it’s just a ceremonial game office holders play. Means nothing.
Show me something official that confirms your allegation.
An MP can hold office without swearing allegiance, but in that case his vote is not counted in Parliament. So, no, it's not JUST ceremonial.

That's the point of this thread. People think everything to do with the Queen is just ceremonial and has no real meaning or status. Nothing could be farther from the truth as has been repeatedly pointed out here. Yes, it IS ceremonial, but there's important meaning behind it, otherwise why would they do it? I would say it's not so much ceremonial as it is ritualistic.

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 5th December 2018 at 03:01 PM. Reason: emphasis the word 'JUST'
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 5th December 2018, 03:05 PM   #63
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Especially when you consider countries that have no affiliation to the Crown have had their own political 'dynasties'.
That's the point. Leaders are being put in place because of who they are, not on merit. They are just personalities sold to the public.

Politics and elections are theatre for the masses. This thread is one evidence for that - in that the Queen has power over elected officials.

But to really show how fake politics is, needs its own thread.
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 5th December 2018, 03:14 PM   #64
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,313
Damn right, Itch. If Queenie is such a figgerhead, howcum those guards at t' palace parade wiv REAL GUNS? Dammit, I bin there & I seen 'em!

Who knows what they hide under those bare skinned hats? Virus vaccines that fuggup yer mind, eh.

You & me (see my location? right across the river from the British Empire! 'Nuff to make yer plotz!), we know how the cookie trembles!

Mights well crack 'nother blue one & turn on the ockey. Eh.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 03:35 PM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Sorry for the bad formatting in my previous post. I'll repeat...

A councillor doesn't have to show loyalty to the Queen or swear an oath of allegiance. But if he wants to someday become PM or a member of Parliament, then he has to show himself to be a team player, or he won't rise through the ranks. And once he becomes an MP or MPP, he must swear allegiance to the Queen.
What has being a "team player" got to do with it? If the whole team, or even just a majority, doesn't do what the Queen wants, then anyone not doing what the Queen wants is still being a team player. And swearing allegiance doesn't mean jack ****. It's not an unbreakable vow.
__________________
"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 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 5th December 2018, 03:41 PM   #66
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,479
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
There's no guarantee Justin will be loyal. But he was raised from birth to become PM.
If he had shown any signs of not being a team player, he wouldn't be PM.
And if he were to go rogue after becoming PM, he'd be discredited and ousted.

The system is set up so that something like that has an almost zero chance of happening. And if it does happen, it's dealt with. Nothing is going to change the status quo.
We used to think that down here. Seems that it is not actually true. Go figure.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 5th December 2018, 03:54 PM   #67
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,440
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes, I've thought about the gender change issue and I don't know how that will be handled. Perhaps a constitutional amendment. But my take is that the word "Queen" essentially means the monarch. One way or another, whoever takes over, the Articles will apply to them. Or what? Will the Constitution be thrown out and rewritten?
No they won't, not as the text is written. ...at least, that's your argument about the Queen's current constitutional powers in the very same document.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander 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 5th December 2018, 10:45 PM   #68
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What has being a "team player" got to do with it? If the whole team, or even just a majority, doesn't do what the Queen wants, then anyone not doing what the Queen wants is still being a team player. And swearing allegiance doesn't mean jack ****. It's not an unbreakable vow.
I explained that a few posts ago. Canada was ruled by the Brits. The guys in charge were born in England. Gradually more Canadian born people came into various offices. Bred and raised to be loyal to the Queen. Eventually Canada was given a certain amount of autonomy because the system and people were in place who's genesis was British. So it never gets to a point where a majority doesn't do what the Queen wants because the majority are loyal to the Queen and always have been. It's a club. Their oath is not unbreakable, but breakers are ousted.

If it ever did get to a stalemate between the gov't and the Queen, it would have to be settled in court. But since the Queen owns the court (the Crown) and she alone is at the very top of the pyramid, the Sovereign, the one above the law, who do you think would win?

But as I've explained, it would never come to that.

Who do you think decides 'what the government wants'? The gov't? The PM? The people? The Canadian Council of Chief Executives?

Power flows from the top down. Orders and directives flow from the top down. The Queen is at the top. It's that simple.
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 5th December 2018, 10:53 PM   #69
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,225
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me something official that confirms your allegation.
An MP can hold office without swearing allegiance, but in that case his vote is not counted in Parliament. So, no, it's not JUST ceremonial.

That's the point of this thread. People think everything to do with the Queen is just ceremonial and has no real meaning or status. Nothing could be farther from the truth as has been repeatedly pointed out here. Yes, it IS ceremonial, but there's important meaning behind it, otherwise why would they do it? I would say it's not so much ceremonial as it is ritualistic.
Every single revolution and forced abdication ever?
Heck even the Windsors got their power because people broke their oaths to the previous incumbents.
Should a serious republican party ever come to power in Canada it will become a republic. The thing is, I guess Canadians look south and think 'at least we don't have that!'
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 10:54 PM   #70
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
No they won't, not as the text is written. ...at least, that's your argument about the Queen's current constitutional powers in the very same document.
My argument, that the Queen has power over our elected officials has nothing to do with the change in gender. At least not until the Queen is gone. Why wouldn't the gov't quickly pass a constitutional ammendment to change the gender? I doubt anyone would object.

What do you think will happen?

On another note, remember saying this...?
"I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law."

So I'll ask again, can you produce any wording from the Constitution that describes the Queen's titular role?
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 5th December 2018, 11:04 PM   #71
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,596
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
My argument, that the Queen has power over our elected officials has nothing to do with the change in gender. At least not until the Queen is gone. Why wouldn't the gov't quickly pass a constitutional ammendment to change the gender? I doubt anyone would object.

What do you think will happen?

On another note, remember saying this...?
"I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law."

So I'll ask again, can you produce any wording from the Constitution that describes the Queen's titular role?
The game you are playing is ridiculous. US Presidents swear an oath on a bible. Does God rule the US?
__________________
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 5th December 2018, 11:26 PM   #72
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The game you are playing is ridiculous. US Presidents swear an oath on a bible. Does God rule the US?
What is the game you think I'm playing?
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 5th December 2018, 11:35 PM   #73
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,596
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What is the game you think I'm playing?
A conspiracy theory game. And you are playing it poorly and in the wrong forum.
__________________
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 6th December 2018, 12:00 AM   #74
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
A conspiracy theory game. And you are playing it poorly and in the wrong forum.
I've made a claim about the Queen's power and provided clear proof of the claim from the Constitution.

Article #9:
"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

What does that sentence mean to you? That the Queen is subservient to the gov't?

No commenter on this thread has shown a single thing that modifies, diminishes, softens, weakens or affects that clause in any way.

As for the 'conspiracy theory game'... How is it played? What does one have to do to win? Are there prizes?
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 6th December 2018, 01:09 AM   #75
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Can you show any examples of the will of the people being subverted by the head of state?


I mean, it happens in the UK, but does it happen in Canada?
But not the head of state (yet!).
Planigale 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 6th December 2018, 01:31 AM   #76
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I explained that a few posts ago. Canada was ruled by the Brits. The guys in charge were born in England. Gradually more Canadian born people came into various offices. Bred and raised to be loyal to the Queen. Eventually Canada was given a certain amount of autonomy because the system and people were in place who's genesis was British. So it never gets to a point where a majority doesn't do what the Queen wants because the majority are loyal to the Queen and always have been. It's a club. Their oath is not unbreakable, but breakers are ousted.

If it ever did get to a stalemate between the gov't and the Queen, it would have to be settled in court. But since the Queen owns the court (the Crown) and she alone is at the very top of the pyramid, the Sovereign, the one above the law, who do you think would win?

But as I've explained, it would never come to that.

Who do you think decides 'what the government wants'? The gov't? The PM? The people? The Canadian Council of Chief Executives?

Power flows from the top down. Orders and directives flow from the top down. The Queen is at the top. It's that simple.
It is said that England (the relevant Kingdom here) does not have a written constitution, but that is not true; it is just that it is written in many places over a long period. The powers of the sovereign are constitutionally curtailed. You have to go back to Magna Carta which amongst other things limits the rights of the sovereign to arbitrary arrests and imprisonment*. The legal principle long established is that the sovereign's powers are those of a reasonable sovereign; arbitrary actions are not those of the sovereign but of the individual who happens to wear the crown. Most powers are those of the Queen in counsel, the true powers rest with the Privy Council. If a demented Lizzy said "Off with her head" that would not be a royal command. Yes the Queen is the commander in chief, but only lawful orders should be obeyed. The limits of power remain for the Queen of Canada, NZ, Australia etc.

It was only in 1982 that the power to amend Canada's constitution shifted from Westminster to Ottawa.

*As ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

This includes the whole history of constitutional limits on the powers of the crown going back to 1215 (and of course in Canada also French legal principles). What you are doing is explicitly what is wrong, reading the constitution in part and not in the historical jurisprudential framework.
Planigale 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 6th December 2018, 01:57 AM   #77
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
It is said that England (the relevant Kingdom here) does not have a written constitution, but that is not true; it is just that it is written in many places over a long period. The powers of the sovereign are constitutionally curtailed. You have to go back to Magna Carta which amongst other things limits the rights of the sovereign to arbitrary arrests and imprisonment*. The legal principle long established is that the sovereign's powers are those of a reasonable sovereign; arbitrary actions are not those of the sovereign but of the individual who happens to wear the crown. Most powers are those of the Queen in counsel, the true powers rest with the Privy Council. If a demented Lizzy said "Off with her head" that would not be a royal command. Yes the Queen is the commander in chief, but only lawful orders should be obeyed. The limits of power remain for the Queen of Canada, NZ, Australia etc.

It was only in 1982 that the power to amend Canada's constitution shifted from Westminster to Ottawa.

*As ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

This includes the whole history of constitutional limits on the powers of the crown going back to 1215 (and of course in Canada also French legal principles). What you are doing is explicitly what is wrong, reading the constitution in part and not in the historical jurisprudential framework.
Thanks. You haven't however provided any wording that has the force of law and affects Article #9.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution as a whole has two parts. The written part and an unwritten part called the Constitutional Conventions. But when push comes to shove, the Courts can only rule on cases involving the written part. They can not rule on the uncodified, unwritten part.

This was tested in a case where Conrad Black was offered a Lordship. To accept, he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship which the PM, Cretien, didn't want. When the Queen refused to rescind the offer of Lordship, Cretien tried to take the case to court. But the court wouldn't rule on the case because it fell under the unwritten Conventions.

In short, the written part has the full force of law while the unwritten part does not. That's a big difference. The Conventions, along with the historical principles you mentioned are all part of the smoke and mirrors to hide (in plain sight) the true power of the monarchy.

It's true she can't be arrested. It's been said she could be under 'certain circumstances', but I've been unable to find any information on what those 'circumstances' might specifically be. So bottom line, she can't be arrested. Who else in the western world can make that claim? Certainly not the PM of Canada.

Unless there is something written with legal standing that directly countermands Articles #9 and #15, they are enforceable. The written Constitution is the highest law of the land. Those Articles are in there for a reason. I've seen nothing in the written part of our Constitution that curtails the Queen's power. Have you?

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 6th December 2018 at 02:00 AM. Reason: add last 2 sentences
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 6th December 2018, 02:18 AM   #78
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Is the Queen of Canada really just a figurehead?
I don't know... let's strap her to the prow of a sailing vessel and find out.
Porpoise of Life 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 6th December 2018, 08:21 AM   #79
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,334
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I explained that a few posts ago. Canada was ruled by the Brits.
And the US was ruled by the Brits too. But we not only didn't do what the king wanted, we killed a bunch of them to make sure they knew we were serious.

Quote:
So it never gets to a point where a majority doesn't do what the Queen wants because the majority are loyal to the Queen and always have been. It's a club. Their oath is not unbreakable, but breakers are ousted.
That doesn't actually make any sense. Here's the problem: at the lower levels of government, there isn't even any way for anyone to break the oath. And at the highest levels, the oath is never tested. So sure, nobody in office has broken the oath. But that tells you absolutely nothing about whether they would break the oath if it were tested. So no, the people who would break the oath are not ousted, because there's no way to distinguish them from those who wouldn't.

Quote:
If it ever did get to a stalemate between the gov't and the Queen, it would have to be settled in court. But since the Queen owns the court (the Crown) and she alone is at the very top of the pyramid, the Sovereign, the one above the law, who do you think would win?
She "owns" the court in the same way that she commands the politicians. Which is to say, the court has just as much ability, and just as much reason, to say "sod off" if the Queen tries to do something that the Canadian public is strongly opposed to.

Quote:
But as I've explained, it would never come to that.
Sure, because the Queen is never going to try to command Canada. I'm sure she's well aware that the fiction of her reign over Canada only works so long as she doesn't actually test it.

Quote:
Who do you think decides 'what the government wants'? The gov't? The PM? The people? The Canadian Council of Chief Executives?

Power flows from the top down. Orders and directives flow from the top down. The Queen is at the top. It's that simple.
No. The Queen is at the top in name only. She has no actual method of enforcement.
__________________
"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 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 6th December 2018, 09:33 AM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Well, she has the classical method of enforcement: Send British troops to tell the uppity Canadians what's what.

But peace makes plenty.
theprestige 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 03:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.