Hcheh

The best thing to do would be to contact them yourself, it would be a shame that the TV media would miss something like this. Anyway, good find Capricorn.

First of all, the point isn't if it would make a difference or not, its the fact that they didn't have any representation at all. If it wouldn't have made a difference anyway, why did they refuse to give them this right? Secondly, it wasn't simply just about one issue. They were being treated like second class citizens, with ridiculous taxes and no rights. Are you trying to debate the validity of the American Revolution? I don't see how you could succeed with that argument... Don't get me wrong, I am all for this constitutional monarchy that we currently have. However, it was not always as good as it is now. It is only through long years of trials and errors that a system of government could be shaped and weathered into a system that is what we have now. The monarchy was not always this good.. I believe that arguing so would be quite a blind cause.

Except the republicans in the 18th century actually had a reason to break free from the monarchy. For example, the American people were being treated like second-class citizens with no rights. They initially never wanted to break free from the English monarchy. However, after failing to negotiate peace terms with the king, they had no choice but to become fully independent. Back then, there was an obvious aura of despotism going around, with the treatment of the Americans in that time. However, now is not the case, we have all our rights and work with democratic institutions - unlike the American people back then, we have nothing to complain about.

Hi, this may sound absurd - or not.. but I have come across many opinions indicating that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was actually bad for Canada. I am not really sure what this opinion was based upon so I would like to hear it for you people. If you think it was actually bad, please vote and explain why. If you think it was good, please vote and prove rebuttals to the negative statements or common arguments. Thank you all your participation!

These are very good points. Especially with that Sir John A. Macdonald quote..

Very well, g_bambino et al. I am convinced, you win . My whole view on the monarchy was distorted by how it used to be, when it was more aristocratic. Now, instead of having the "all for one" attitude, through many and many decades, the concept of monarchy has become constitutional, naturally logical and it is actually working for the people. If you look at how dysfunctional the United States has become, I'll bet that they had a monarch who could use it's reserve powers to veto away. Anyway, thank you all for clearing this up with me. Next stop, the issue concerning the division of the francophones and anglophones. Then we'll have a perfect country

However, I can't say that the crown interjected enough when the shit hit the fan.. For example, the internment of Japanese CANADIANS and the whole aboriginals v.s. Mulroney mess.

This posts has been the most convincing in this whole thread. Thank you for your input. I am starting to see the argument. I guess my view of a monarch was too out dated and traditional. I guess we have seen our share of partisan politics, but no where is it as bad as it is in the States. A monarch that only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.. I like that. Just some questions.. 1) Is there a law that states that, if a monarch is seen as unfit to reign, parliament can take action? Or is this just a de facto statement? 2) I am still wondering if the queen can come to Canada and ignore the constitution/rise above it..etc. Can the queen/crown be subject to a court trial? If someone accuses or requests a trial. 3) Could you please name me some laws/bills/documents stating the monarchs limited power? Or is this de facto as well? Finally, could you pin point an era of time when this model of constitutional monarchy came about? I am sure that some of the founding fathers of America would have liked this idea. For example, George Washington and John Adams were afraid of partisan politics destroying the nation.. John Adams also wanted to name the president with something more esteemed "his excellency"..etc. I still don't like the fact that I have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. To me, the idea of this monarch is for the betterment of our country. So where do we really lay our allegiances? For the betterment of Canada or the Queen?

So much stereotyping.. It surprises me, the level of ignorance that it requires. However, I am pleased that there seems to be a number of people on this thread standing up against this ignorance. Here's a thought for you - everybody is a human being. Human beings may exhibit many different characteristics; they can be hard working or they can be lazy. If you want to be lazy and be a "laid back" student then that is up to you. However, to condemn a whole race of people into one personality? They can be lazy and laid back as much as you can. What do you want them to do? Apologize to you for being so determined in their studies? If you try, you can be successful, if you don't you may not. There is no gene in Chinese people that makes them want to be successful - it's just that some humans want to be successful.

But we still have partisan politics, parties attacking each other.. etc. Anyway, are we to invest this responsibility into ONE PERSON? It just doesn't seem right to me that one person could actually inherit, by just being yourself, all this power and authority. Could the monarch not be corrupt just as easily as anyone running for office? We are all humans.. All humans are subject to corruption. QE2 may be nice, but what about all the other future monarchs down the line? QE2 isn't going to last forever.

Well I didn't know that there was a difference between the Queen and the Crown.. I thought that the Crown just stands for the royal family and it's power over a state. The Queen is just the incumbent monarch. However, the monarch is not elected and is a family role passed down for generations and generations. To my knowledge, the monarchs believed that they were touched/appointed by god, therefore, have a right to this position. I have looked at some of the titles the queen has and one of them was "graced by god". Does she still think that she and her family were appointed by divinity? That's absurd. The Corporation of the City of London has authority over the city of London. It's unusual form of governance specializes in keeping their businesses as well as their citizens in good shape. However, the members, I believe, are elected? So the differences are: 1) Corporation of the City of London - The Corporation of the City of London has an unusual form of governance, focusing on businesses as well as the citizens. - The members are elected - Only has authority over London 2) The Queen/Crown - Not elected, the role is passed on - Traditional form of governance - Has full authority over its realm (UK, Canada..etc) Sorry, I don't really know what you were getting at there.. could you clear this up? For the second section, I don't really have a good knowledge on this, but I believe that the crown appoints a person to do all its legal stuff? The crown attorney or something. The crown attorney is not elected.

Thank you sir, you are of great help to me. This forum needs more people like you. Anyway, yes. I do not have a full understand of the relationship between the crown and Canada, so therefore, I do not have a concrete opinion. Only questions. I just came back from obtaining some books from the library so I still have to read the post you authored addressing my latest question. Thank you again.

Well, as I understand it, the queen acts as a symbol.. and the parliament / government could work perfectly fine without this symbol. Why should we keep it? Please answer this question, it is not rhetorical, I really want to know. Does the queen have power over the constitution or any thing related? What would really happen if the queen overruled a parliament decision? and does she actually have this power ? (I believe that she does)

Hey. Yeah, I checked out the thread just now, I think I should wait for replies on this one - don't want to resurrect an old thread. Didn't find any logical or answers with any base in that thread anyway. Here are some answers that didn't make sense/unresolved: 1) A: Canada would fall into chaos if we had no Queen and became a republic If the Queen is only a figurehead, what is the harm in taking it away? If the queen really holds the power to make a significance in our political system, then she is not just "symbolic". I don't see why we couldn't just become a system without the queen and act exactly as we are now. Practically nothing we do in Parliament requires the queen. 2) Someone pointed out that we would have to make a new constitution.. Why?! This is absurd. We function under our constitution and pieces of legislature everyday. The Bill of Rights was established by a Canadian. The Charters of Rights and Freedoms was established by a Canadian. What's the queen got to do with it?? Sure, we may have to change the wording here and there, but we wouldn't need to make a new constitution.. at all. 3) On the oaths I still don't understand why we have to swear an oath of fealty and allegiance when you join the army and/or become a citizen. As I pointed above, the queen will do nothing for us, at least nothing another allied country wouldn't do. So we're on our own! What does the queen have to do with this country? So there's millions of people in Canada, who had to, or is currently swearing, this oath - for this queen that has nothing to do with us. We owe no taxes or extra loyalties, and she does not owe us any protection or services. What is the point? There is no connection anymore. Why can't we swear an oath to our constitution or the country? Something that isn't a PERSON. Swearing an oath to something that doesn't have a royal status. We should swear to the constitution, because the law should have the highest regard. Not a monarch. My allegiance lies with Canada. My allegiance lies with the people and this great country in which they inhabit. My allegiance lies with the law, not to a monarch who, by her technical power, could single-handedly control our laws. Let me ask you what is more important to you - upholding Canada? Or protecting the queen? 4) On honouring our heritage and history. This excuse here is, to me, the only one that really holds anything. I agree that we should honour our heritage and history. I also believe that we should honour the queen. To me, they are not dependant on one another. We should honour the queen because she agreed to make this nation as great as it is. However, I disagree with the method in which we honor her with. We should let the students and children learn about the queen in our schools. We could have honourary festivals, parades and events. But to give her an actual place of authority? The pinnacle of Canadian authority? This I disagree with. We are fully well and able to function and govern ourselves, without this monarch. Now, with the history and heritage of our country. Is the queen all we have of Canadian history and heritage? Is that what Canadian history means to you? No, that is not that what it means to me. What about John Diefenbaker? He established the Bill of Rights so that no one shall be discriminated according to race, religion nor creed. The rogue Tory who always tried to stick up for the "little man"? What about William Lyon Mackenzie King? The man who alone served as prime minister longer than any one in the history of the commonwealth countries. The man who led us through WW2? Or Lester B. Pearson, the man who established universal health care, Canadian student loans and pension plans? We Canadians have a great history of great people. For this great history, I am really proud.

What's with this country... I'm movin' to the States..

C'mon Harper supporters.. You know it sucks, stop trying to justify it. It may determine if Harper is a bad Prime Minister/Candidate or not, but a mistake is a mistake, nobody is perfect. If only politicians these days would write their own speeches, like they did back then, and if it was really completely his speech writer's fault, it would have been avoided.

So what is the point of this figurehead? Why do we have to swear to the queen if she will do nothing for us? In a Monarchy, a peasant/working class person believes that, by living under the land owned by the king or queen, he/she is safe. In return, the denizens would pledge their loyalties to the crown and pay taxes. We don't pay any taxes to the queen and she doesn't come to help us. So where is this connection? Also, the pledge makes you swear an oath of fealty to the queen and her successors.. What is the meaning of this? I know we don't have to rush to help the U.K. and her dominion.. Like in WW2, when Canada didn't go headstrong into the war. So this oath holds no meaning? Why can't we just swear an oath to the constitution or the country? If we are completely sovereign, what is the point of this figurehead? It seems kind of stubborn.. as it doesn't really hold any modern day relevance. By the way, do you know anything about the commonwealth citizenship? Does that mean we can live in the UK or is that just the EU citizenship?

Hi, I've always thought that how Canada works was like how the U.S.A worked. A constitutional republic, with the Queen on the top for symbolic purposes, or purposes I could never really understand. So then I got to thinking, what is the point of that? As a result to this thought, I looked some things up.. and it turns out that when you join the Canadian army, you don't pledge your allegiance to the constitution nor the Canadian Flag. You pledge allegiance to the Queen and her Crown. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the Queen has the last say on whatever is passed or decided in Canada. So therefore, technically, she remains control in Canada and could refuse whatever she doesn't like. Here I am thinking that we've gain our rights as a completely sovereign.. And I find these facts to the contrary notion. So okay, I guess we are a "constitutional monarchy".. Then answer me this, if Canada got attacked, would the Queen, the UK and all of Her dominions come to our rescue? What if we were falling into a collapse, would She come and help us? Also, I believe that Canadians are Commonwealth citizens, does this mean we have the right to live, work..etc in the UK and other Commonwealth nations? If all of the above is true, then a Constitutional monarchy ain't so bad. Thanks

Thanks for the links, yes, accomplishments would be appreciated just as much. For some reason I did not specify so in my original post. Anyhow, thanks again, I look forward to those Liberal links; and I imagine that this thread would be helpful to anyone else who is wondering about the credibility of a party.

Yes, I agree with you. Take a look at the attack ads McCain is releasing in the States.. I've asked around and some people actually believe that crap! I asked a McCain/Palin supporter why he opposed the Obama camp, he told me, "Obama is going to raise my taxes!". So then I asked him if he was making 250,000 + dollars a year, and he was completely confused.. I know this forum is about Canadian politics but this clearly an issue in the States as well as it is in Canada. They should only release campaign "ads" that have an informative and objective perspective on current campaign details. It would be more of a "campaign tracker" instead of a campaign ad. But yeah, all the lies and distortions on campaign ads are completely useless, and they aren't harmless. Some people vote based on the knowledge they obtain from these ads..

Hi, could someone link me a site with a list of broken campaign/election promises made by all the parties? Thanks.. I'm sure it's out there somewhere