Hcheh
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hcheh
-
-
I suspect the Brits would have been happy to give the US the "Alberta treatment", i.e. a number of constituencies proportional to its population. The taxation would have been "with representation" but 20 constituencies in a 400 MP Parliament would not have had much impact.
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.
-
This a prime example of where Canadian republicans usually scurry: to areas of denial and lies, where, behind a shield of nationalistic slogans and catch words, their unique versions of reality are protected from the scourge of facts. The defense is so paper thin, though: the monarch must be made to appear foreign in order to imply colonialism and inferiority; historical facts must be ignored in order to imply oppression and stagnation. It's because of this I say that it is the republicans who live in the 18th century; they have to, in order to make their cause seem worth while. But, what they (including you, August) can and can't beleive is of absolutely no consequence; they'll just go on fighting phantoms while the rest of us go on about our lives in our constitutional monarchy that is more stable, secure, democratic, and prosperous than 98% of the worlds supposedly free and popular republics.
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!
-
All the Americans did was throw out one monarchy in order to establish another; I don't know where you're looking if you don't see that they have more of an emphasis on one person/office than any constitutional monarchy does. In our system the power is held by the monarch but normally only exercised on the advice of the Cabinet, which relies on the support of the elected House of Commons. In the US, the President is prime minister and monarch combined; an executive figure who wields power and is unaccountable to the parliament. As it is that office which divides the nation because of its partisan nature, I don't see how our apolitical monarch could be the cause of any chasms between Canadians. The Fathers of Confederation were already aware of this in 1867; Sir John A. said: "By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party — to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all." Nothing much has changed since then, either north or south of the border.
These are very good points. Especially with that Sir John A. Macdonald quote..
-
I don't believe anything is codified in law, no. But the monarch does swear in his or her coronation oath to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs. That is, in effect, a verbal contract, and the breaking of a contract usually has consequences.
The Queen can't stand trial in a court as the courts operate under her authority and in her name; she would essentially be judging herself, which clearly presents a conflict of interest. But, as already mentioned, she cannot act illegally without penalty.
The laws are partly written and partly conventional. There are many laws that limit the monarch's powers; the documents that make up the Canadian constitution are some of them.
There isn't really a specific point in time when the arrangement came into existence; it was more of an evolutionary process.
Swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen does a number of things: Firstly, as she is the personification of the state, and the figure from whom all laws originate, giving allegiance to her means you are giving allegiance to Canada and promising to abide by its laws. Secondly, it means your allegiance is directed at something that is easily defined; "Canada" has multiple meanings, even depending on whom you ask for a definition of the word. Thirdly, it means your allegiance is directed at a living person, as opposed to something inanimate and unresponsive, like a constitution or a flag; when you give allegiance to the Queen, you are completing the other half of that verbal contract I spoke about in my answer to your first question.
Those were partisan political affairs, not constitutional crises. Plus, what we think should be illegal now was not always considered that way.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
-
Yes, we do. And that's exactly why ultimate power should not be in their hands. That power has to be vested somewhere, every country has a chief executive. But why does inheriting it seem "not right"? Of course a monarch could be corrupt, but if any monarch acted unconstitutionally, the entire system would come down; to avoid that, an abhorrent sovereign would most likely be replaced by parliament. You see, the divine right of kings ended some time back around 1215, with the arrival of the Magna Carta, and now, as I mentioned, the sovereign must adhere to laws and customs. That includes the line of succession, which is governed by law, and, like any law, can be changed. Constitutional monarchies are essentially republics under a monarch (the term "crowned republic" is sometimes used) because the sovereign only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.
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.
-
Yes, we do. And that's exactly why ultimate power should not be in their hands. That power has to be vested somewhere, every country has a chief executive. But why does inheriting it seem "not right"? Of course a monarch could be corrupt, but if any monarch acted unconstitutionally, the entire system would come down; to avoid that, an abhorrent sovereign would most likely be replaced by parliament. You see, the divine right of kings ended some time back around 1215, with the arrival of the Magna Carta, and now, as I mentioned, the sovereign must adhere to laws and customs. That includes the line of succession, which is governed by law, and, like any law, can be changed. Constitutional monarchies are essentially republics under a monarch (the term "crowned republic" is sometimes used) because the sovereign only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.
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.
-
To answer your question, it would first have to be proved that the Queen is just a symbol. However, she is not. Laws, including constitutional ones, are enacted by her, but she is a constitutional monarch, meaning she abides by laws and customs. Royal Assent could be denied to a bill passed by parliament, but this has never happened in the federal parliament, and only infrequently in provincial legislatures. This reserve power, along with others, can only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
So, why do we keep a monarch at the head of our state? I think the best answer is that doing so ultimately keeps power out of the hands of self-interested and partisan politicians.
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.
-
First, find this out.
What is the difference between the Queen, the Crown and the Corporation of the City of London?
In the US, government legal procedure is preceded by "In the matter of the People vs. ________." In Canada the legal procedure is preceded by, "In the matter of the Crown vs. ________." The prosecuting Attorney in the US represents the interests of the people. In Canada does the prosecuting attorney represent the interests of the Crown?
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.
-
A question to a question is not an answer.
He wants to know why we keep the Queen as a figurehead? I don't know that he is suggesting we change it. If he knew why we keep her as a figurehead maybe he would not want to change it.
Do you mean "the system is working very well right now". If it is "working very badly right now I don't understand how you see that it is "successful"?
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.
-
Are you claiming that Canada is being operated in a state of lawlessness?
Laws of Canada state:
“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”;
“There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.”; and,
“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.
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)
-
Check out my thread where I asked the same questions:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=11840
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.
-
To answer the question posed by the thread, I'd say the percentage that really care about politics is 30%.
60% will vote, but that doesn't mean they care much.
About 10% at most are knowledgeable to some degree
About 1% care enough to actually do something, like canvas for a candidate.
A fraction of one percent care enough to run.
Consequently, we end up with half baked politicians who don't really understand the issues elected by a populace with almost no clue about the issues.
Then people wonder why the government does not do what they expect it to.
The truth is, they don't really understand anything about what they think they want. There isn't time.
Promise them a soccer pitch and they'll vote for you. Promise a sick person a new hospital, they'll vote for you.
Promise accountability that's really needed and they won't vote for you but will complain there is no accountability after the election.
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.
-
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UK to come and help us, unless it was a NATO thing. She is the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK but Canada and the UK have nothing else legally in common. As a figurehead, she couldn't force the UK to come and help, no more than she could force Canada to help the other way.
We share a figurehead. That's it.
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
-
For a balanced perspective, perhaps you'd like to look at broken promises and achievements. Here are two sources for the Conservatives.
Broken promises:
http://trustbreaker.blogspot.com/2008/09/1...for-harper.html
Accomplishments:
http://harpergovernmentaccomplishments.com/
Perhaps my Liberal friends can point you to equivalent sites.
So far, the NDP and Green slates are blank.
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.
-
Why? Because they don't inform anyone about anything. They always now seem to sink to the lowest common denominator, with some politician moronically attacking some other politician with "facts" that are usually lies.
Its a waste of money, its a waste of 30 seconds of my life, they do nothing to inform the public but rather skew their opinion with rubbish.
Just a thought. Opinions?
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
Dion's 2005 UN climate change speech
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.