g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
Al-Qaeda has threatened the Queen by naming her as " one of the severest enemies of Islam" in a video message to justify the July bombings in London.
In the video, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command to Osma Bin Laden targets the Queen as ultimately responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" and denounces her as an enemy of the Muslims.
This is really twisted stuff-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869849,00.html
This is eerily similar to Hitler's dubbing of the Queen Mother as "the most dangerous woman in Europe."
Just as the previous Queen Elizabeth was seen as a figure of defiance against a tyrant and murderer, so too has her daughter become a symbolic bulwark against extremism and terrorists.
As she said in her Christmas message last year: "There is certainly much more to be done and many challenges to be overcome. Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat. We need also to realise that peaceful and steady progress in our society of differing cultures and heritage can be threatened at any moment by the actions of extremists at home or by events abroad. We can certainly never be complacent."
Long live the Queen of Canada.
-
Many of these appointments could be qualified individuals provincially nominated for the positon and voted on by MP's from all political parties combined.
By having the Members of Parliament vote for the occupant of the aforementioned offices means the post would cease to be an appointed one and would become an elected one.
Many of the positions are also supposed to be apolitical (Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, Commissioners of the territories, Supreme Court Judges, Ambassadors and High Commissioners, Chiefs of the armed forces, chiefs of the RCMP and security Agencies (CSIS), etc.), hence they are supposed to be appointed by, and owe their allegiance to, the Crown, not the political and ever-changing government. By making them elected they automatically become far more politically partisan than they have already been made today, and would be more beholden to Parliament than to the Crown.
There are many other ways to accomplish this and no process is perfect but almost anything would beat the unilateral biased way this is accomplished now.Certainly, but becoming a republic where every office of government on the federal, provincial and municipal level, as well as within the military and judiciary, is elected would be more like the US than anything else, and most likely wouldn't function in our Westminster Parliamentary system.
-
I to would like to see IMMEDIATE electoral reform or the transformaton to a repulic as this would reduce the dictatorial aspects Canadains have to endure in a co-called democratic country.
I fail to see how a republic would immediately bring an end to all of Canada's governmental problems. Republics do not automatically equal democracy.
Canada functioned for over a century as a constitutional monarchy and never suffered from the "democratic deficit" before. As well, other countries like Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, and many others are constitutional monarchies like Canada and don't have a "dictatorial" prime minister.
All the mess we face now started with Trudeau's reforms of the 1960s and 70s, where he tried to graft republican aspects onto a monarchical system, sucking more and more power into the PMO, making the position more and more the de-facto president of Canada. Trudeau wanted a socialist republic, and in many ways the Liberals today continue to work towards that, though surreptitiously so as to avoid the near impossible task of constitutional change as well as maintaining power uncontested by any monarch, governor general, or real president.
Electoral reform, changes to the appointment process, maybe even an elected Senate (like Australia) could be beneficial, but becoming a republic is not the answer.
-
The only actual obligation we have in regards to "non mutual" agreements is the sitting monarch, who could call tomorrow and say "I want to come to Canada next week" and we as taxpayers would be obliged to foot the bill of accomodation and security without question.
So Charles, not being a sitting monarch, needs to have his visits cleared before hand.
This is incorrect.
The reigning monarch cannot simply call and say "I'm coming over, get the canapés ready!" Rather, as the Queen always follows the advice of her ministers, a Royal Visit by HM will be instigated by a request from the federal government, and is organised between Ottawa and Buckingham Palace (note: not the British government, though any engagements in HM's schedule involving her role in the Westminster Parliament -- Throne Speech -- would have to be taken into account).
This is the same for any other member of the Royal Family coming on an Official Visit (as opposed to a working visit), including the heir to our throne, except that for him the itinerary is worked out between Ottawa and Clarence House.
And yah, while it sucks from a monarchists point of view to not have the visit, I am sure the average tax payer cold care less.Condoleeza Rice just visited Canada, with expense to the Canadian taxpayer -- do you think many of them could "care less"? Or, because she is from the US administration, she is more important?
The future King of Canada would have stopped in Ottawa before heading to the US. I believe his request to visit here first was to show his commitment to Canada above the US, as well as to simply meet with Canadians, as our Liberal government hasn't invited him for so long (of course, to make us dumb voters believe he doesn't have anything to do with this country). Had he come, he would have arrived in the US directly from Canada, and our government could have asked him, in advance, to diplomatically raise the softwood lumber issue, or some other pressing matter like passports at the border, at one of his two meals with George W. It, by no means, would bring about an immediate resolution, but the heir to the Canadian throne would be an important voice for our side.
Would that not be worth some Canadian tax dollars? He is, after all, one of our top public servants.
The rejection of HRH's request would all have been decided months ago, when maybe the Liberals thought there would be an election around now. But, I doubt it, as the date of the release of Gomery's report was fixed, and even if there had been an election, Prince Charles currently has no constitutional role, and his presence here would mean nothing to political matters. After all, the Royal Family isn't forced out of the UK during an election there.
Rather, I think the politicians merely don't want Charles taking away any of their media coverage. And heaven forbid he should speak with Bush on behalf of Canada -- that might make people think Charles will actually be our king one day. President Martin does not like that...
-
This type of behavior is nothing new with the Liberals.
Mr. Trudeau, Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin all have behaved as KINGS in dictating social policies and Liberal political agenda taking advantage of British system of government (that's why they don't really want Canada as a republic even though the Liberals have been trying to dissasociate the monarchy they are further ahead with parliamentry democracy and they are well aware of that fact).
It can't be denied that the PMO has gained far too much uncontested power over the past 30 or so years. You're also right that the Liberals don't want to make Canada a republic, but its obvious they don't want Canadians knowing that we're a kingdom either. I suspect that's because A) if they leave us all in this limbo of ignorance the majority of Canadians will go on believing the PM to be the undoubted grand president of Canada, as they do now, and
they won't have to open the Constitution to undertake such a Herculean task as removing the Crown from the head of our governmental system. No, they want the ministerial privilege that comes from Canada being a Westminster parliamentary democracy, but without any monarch, GG, or president for that matter, to actually hold them accountable.This country functioned for a century as a constitutional monarchy, until Trudeau's "reforms" in the 60s and 70s. As well, countries like New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Holland, Spain, Belgium, and many others are constitutional monarchies, but don't seem to have the "democratic deficit" that we suffer from. Maybe we should be looking to them to help us see where we went wrong over the past 3 decades.
-
Imagine, for a moment, the Head of State of any other country in the world answering such a question in such a manner. The Head of State cannot have secrets on such a question that touches the very heart of a country.
If she voted Yes, she should say so and then say that she has since changed her mind.
She's meant to be apolitical. She now can't voice personal opinions, whether current or previous, on political matters like Quebec sovereignty.
What she thought in the past is now irrelevant anyway, and I'd suspect that her accepting the job of representative of the Queen at the federal level would be enough to convince people that her feelings on Canadian unity are quite obviously pro, not against.
-
Among other things, this bureaucracy is responsible for visits of the British Monarch to Canada and our GG.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the Canadian Monarch's travels on behalf of Canada. I've never heard of Can Her paying for Elizabeth II to travel on behalf of Britain.
Ordinary Canadians pay high taxes so that people like Michaelle Jean can have many people to prepare speeches for them.Canadians pay taxes so our Governor General can have speech writers, yes. But that's certainly not the reason our taxes are high. Besides, if we had a president of the Federal Republic of Canada (which you so avidly promoted before), who do you think would pay for his speech writers? Or is it only a waste of tax money because the GG is not part of the republican system you espouse so rabidly?
-
Given that republican goverments have a really bad track record in turning tyrannical, and the British constitutional monarchy has a remarkable record in creating democracy, I really have to wonder at the agenda of those who favour removal of our perfectly functional constitutional monarchy.
One need not hardly mention the fact that to be rid of the monarchy in Canada requires an ammendment to the Constitution - and to open that can of worms right now with Alberta and Quebec would be madness and possibly destroy the country (as appears to be the goal of many).
Absolutely. It's no surprise that many of the most stable and oldest democracies are constitutional monarchies, including Canada (1867), Australia (1901) and the UK (1600s??); three of the 16 countries which currently share the Crown. It was the UK that originally devised the system, and it worked so successfully that, upon forming, most republics attempted to emulate it, only replacing the monarch with a president. But this anomaly on the Westminster system has been a major factor in the poor track record of most republics. Presidents are political by their very nature, and having a politicized head of state can lead to many, many problems.
If there are Quebecois who see the monarchy as a symbol of colonialism then they are still living 200 years in the past, completely ignoring the constitutional reforms that have taken place since then. Though, I suspect this is willful ignorance as it really works well for their 'poor victim' act. Rather, the Crown has been a good foundation for not only Canada's government, but Quebec's as well; the Crown in Right of Quebec providing the province with a stable sovereign government. Being apolitical, the Queen even allows people to dissent against her, and oppose federalism, without backlash or even comment. Would a federally elected president do the same? How would the now elected Quebec governor play into affairs?
No, not only would the act of changing Canada from a monarchical system to a republican one be utterly divisive, but none of those divisive issues which already exist would be solved, and in fact more would be created by a politicized president. Remaining as a kingdom is what is best for Canada.
-
Before Vincent Massey, GGs (and their spouses) were foreign-born. It seems we've returned to that tradition, probably for the same reason. Canadians of whatever language are ultimately impressed by the elocution of a foreign accent.
Though I think it's a little too soon to deem it a "tradition," I can't see an issue with having Governors General who aren't born in Canada. One does not necessarily have to be born in this country to be Canadian, and it can't help but be acknowledged that Canada has always been a country of immigrants, and has always possessed a mindset more accepting of internationalism.
However, that said, I do not feel someone should be given a post simply because they are an immigrant, and I wonder just how much the Liberals are politicising this appointment by trying to appeal to their favourite source of votes -- immigrants. It's a possibility, but then Mme. Jean may just be an accomplished individual who will do well as the Queen's representative.
-
Yeah, i heard many rumor about his husband being a die hard sovreignist... Anyway according to a recent poll more than 3 out of 4 quebeckers think its a waist of money. if they really wanted to unite the country they should have tought about getting rid of monarchy instead....
That the abolition of the monarchy from Canada would be irrelevant to the Quebec sovereignty issue has already been discussed.
-
is it still legally binding even though we have achieved independence from the crown?
Canada has not "achieved independence" from the Crown, but rather has achieved independence from Britain. We now, along with 15 other countries, share the Crown; and within Canada it operates as a distinct legal entity from the Crown in Australia or the Crown in the UK.
-
With a history of Quebec French hating the English in Quebec, wouldn't doing away with the Queen and things like her face on coins plus all the other "English Monarchy" traditions bring back a lot of the separatist Quebecers into Canada. I believe many of French Quebecers and Immigrants too, resent having ties to the English monarchy for so long and believe Canada should after 137 years give it up.Has anyone thought about what getting rid of the GG and the Monarchy connection in Canada would mean to the popularity of the Separatists in Quebec?
I doubt it would have any effect at all. Seperatists are in it for themselves, regardless of whether Canada is united under the "English Monarchy" (which doesn't exist anyway) or not.
As well, a president would do nothing but cause more division between Quebec and the rest of the country. I'm sure that, under the threat of seperatism, Quebec would demand that it be guaranteed that the presidential nominees be only from the limited Quebec population one half of the time, and from all the other provinces the other half; or that the votes of all Quebecois would count for more than those of the population of the other 9 provinces. Could anyone imagine 'anglophone' Canada standing for that?
-
Personally, it's too bad that, if they are filling a shallow position with someone of shallow qualifications, they couldn't find a lesbian. The sound of heads popping from coast to coast would have been worth it.
The post has become more and more shallow because more and more the position has been pulled away from what it is -- a representative of the Sovereign -- and tarted up to seem like what it is not -- a stand-alone head of state. The substance, stature, and even the constitutional power (which, contrary to your comments, does most certainly exist), is all derived from the Monarch. However, over the past few decades, with the speed escalating during Clarkson's tenure, the Monarch has been pushed into the shadows and the GG elevated. Clarkson, in particular, was led by her big 'A' (the PM and other ministers) and small 'a' (staff at Rideau Hall) advisors to believe that she alone was the one and only Canadian head of state.
Sure, Clarkson did well with the show of it all, and played the role well. But by hiding the true root of the power and status of the position, it was a sham, and I believe people could perceive that. Trying to stand alone at the pinnacle, literally putting herself ahead of the person she is meant to represent (Canadian D-Day ceremonies in France), actually made the position seem vague and somewhat pointless. She was not the representative of the Sovereign, but just a vapid appointee of the PM.
This is the result of the 'republicanization' of our constitutional monarchy, driven by the Liberal political elite -- trying to transform the GG into a president by relegating the actual source of the position's power and stature to the background, while simultaneously sucking the power out of it for themselves. This even extends to the repression of the Monarchy from Canadian education over the past twenty years (thus, as you stated, everyone thinks the "Queen of England", whoever that is, has nothing to do with Canada). It's not working, though. Each successive GG moves further away from being a representative of the apolitical and unifying Crown, the foundation of our constitution and government, and appears more and more like some flaky pageant winner who smiles and waves a lot; while the PM more and more appears as the actual 'president' who holds uncontested power. No wonder people are now so confused and disenfranchised with the whole thing.
To me, Mme. Jean would do well to make sure everyone knows the Constitution of Canada vests all executive power in the Crown, and that it is in the name of the Queen of Canada (not the Queen of the UK) that all laws are passed and exercised. It's about time the PM was pulled off his pedestal and Canadians were told that he is not an invincible dictator, nor is he our head of state, but must ultimately answer to the Sovereign who acts, by constitutional law, on behalf of the People. And she should make clear that her purpose is to represent that Sovereign. It would make clear who she is, what she does, and why she has the ability to do it. It would return the much needed constitutional substance to the office. From listening to her speech from the Parliament this afternoon, I could hear hints of this – she acknowledged Canada is a constitutional monarchy, she is the representative of the Crown in this country on behalf of the Queen, and that she would pay strong attention to her constitutional duties. To me, that’s a good start, but much of the machinations of previous years still needs to be undone.
As an end note, I also feel that we would do well to return to the practice, stopped (surprise, surprise) in the late 1960s, of submitting five or so names to the Queen and having her choose her representative from that list. It would seriously undermine the notions of political patronage that we have now.
My apologies for the long post...
-
Perhaps my knowledge of civics is lacking, though to be honest I've already had this argument in this forum. The practical effect of the status quo is a concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office. How is that beneficial to the Canadian democratic process? The Governor General who serves us so well has no practical function at all. The fact that the GG position is non-partisan is irrelevant.
I fail to see how an elected president would have less international status than a Governor General that no one outside of the Commonwealth recognizes as the representative of our head of state (prefering in stead to think of the PM as head of state, which is, let's face it, more realistic).
Are we to wait until England abolishes the Monarchy and the Commonwealth for us? Don't be too sure it won't happen - Tony Blair has made efforts to eliminate the House of Lords, and with the royal family being in such a shambles there's always talk of eliminating the Monarchy after the current Queen dies.
A seperately elected President, with seperate powers and a seperate agenda acts as a counter-balance to the currently unlimited power of the PMO. (And don't point to the Senate and suggest that they act as the counter-balance. For all of their arms-length unaccountability, when was the last time that the Senate refused to pass a piece of legislation that the PMO was pushing through Parliament?)
There are indeed problems with too much power lying with the Prime Minister; that pull, I believe, began with Trudeau. But the answers to our current problems do not lie in Canada becoming a republic. This country functioned for well over 100 years as a constitutional monarchy; only in the past 15 or 20 years have changes been taking place in Ottawa which are causing issue today. I'm not a political expert, so I can't deeply analyze the history of it, but I can say that to me it is the politicians who have caused these problems rather than the Monarch -- mostly by slowly pulling power away from the Sovereign/Governor General, and handing it to the PM, as well as trying to graft elements of a republican government onto a constitutional monarchy. Removing the Sovereign and putting another high powered politician in Ottawa will certainly not make the situation better.
Aside from that, it is not the Governor General who is necessarily internationally known (they're actually meant to be more of a domestic body), but rather it is our head of state -- the Queen -- who is. A president of Canada will be a nobody compared to Elizabeth II, or indeed, to the US president next door.
Anyway, this thread I think is to discuss the new appointment of the GG, and as I stated already, I am so far pleased with the decision.
-
I agree with crazymf. The whole monarchy thing should be scrapped, but especially the GG position. I was reading in the paper this morning that one of the GG's (can't remember his name, don't really care) was ill for a while during his tenure and so his wife took over his duties (though I doubt she signed any laws). I think that says a lot about the importance of the position right there.
That doesn't say much about your knowledge of civics. Remove the Monarchy, you remove the GG, and replace it with what? Why, an elected president, ie. just another politician in Ottawa with a biased mandate. When one ignores the useless money-driven slander of the tabloids, it becomes obvious that the Monarchy, including, in Canada, the office of the Governor General, serves us just fine. I would much rather have the Sovereign as not only a link to our history, but also as the contemporary non-partisan, apolitical foundation of our government, and a bond to the 15 other countries of the world that share the Crown. Better that than some internationally diminished presidential office which will cause division through its politics, and become lost in the shadow of the presidency to our south.
That said, I'm personally very pleased, so far, with the announcement of the appointment.
-
Sorry it took me so long to throw my bit into this one—it’s been ages since I checked in here last.
The posts by waynej625 and Conservative1 are no surprise to me-- most Canadians these days know nothing about the system of constitutional monarchy we have. Most aren't even aware Canada is a kingdom, let alone how the whole thing works, who does what, and why.
Personally, I think this is because 40 years of mostly Liberal governments (ie. those since Trudeau) have purposely left Canadians, especially new arrivals, ignorant and uneducated about not only their Constitution and government, but also Canadian history and culture. Trudeau, for all his brilliance, was also an uber-socialist, and detested the monarchy. He wanted rid of it when the Constitution was patriated in '82, but fortunately a good number of the provincial premiers wouldn't allow it. Though, I've read that Trudeau eventually came around to recognise the Crown's importance to the country, every Liberal government that has followed him has continued the slow erosion of the Crown in Canada. So, children are no longer taught proper civics in school, immigrants are not told why they are swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada, the symbols of the Canadian Crown are removed whenever they can be, the Queen's portraits in airports are replaced with those of the PM. Political correctness is prime, and more and more the PM is made to look like the president of Canada-- the Queen and GG left to look like useless anachronisms.
And why not? Why wouldn't a PMO, and a Cabinet want Canadians to be unaware that the Queen and her representative are constitutionally more important and more powerful than the PM? Why wouldn't a government want to push those more important bodies aside and hijack every bit of power for themselves? An ignorant populace is so much easier to manipulate.
Frankly, I think Martin has been doing an excellent job at this. Witness his constant references to himself as the representative of Canadians (sorry, you don't even represent a simple majority of them), the inferences that he is the protector of all things “Canadian” (after, of course, telling us all what it really means to be Canadian), his covering himself in the Canadian flag as though it is part and parcel with him, his stripping of the Queen's name from the Letters of Credence and Recall presented by Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the GG, his position on and equal level with the GG or Queen at ceremonies, reference to G-8 heads of state as his equals, etc., etc.
So, while waynej625 and Conservative1 are very obviously ignorant of Canada's constitutional monarchy, they certainly are not alone, and I can't exactly blame them fully for their own lack of knowledge. In fact, their posts share a common trend I've seen many places elsewhere-- namely, Canadians have lost faith in their government, and, totally ignorant of the purpose of the Queen and GG, immediately call for their abolition as some sort of way to make government more accountable to them. Of course, we all know decisions based on ignorance are dangerous indeed.
The Queen is a central figure in our democracy-- though it may not look that way (because of the twisting and machinations of politicians), because she is in the position that she is, she keeps politicians out of it. That is, she keeps ultimate power out of the hands of the PM and his government. It's better that this sits with an apolitical figure like Her Majesty, as opposed to an elected political president. Though some countries do vest executive power in their president, I think there are enough examples around the world, and throughout history, which show that system to be far more unreliable than what is usually more stable constitutional monarchy. The euphemisms I always like to use are: the Queen is like a fire-extinguisher; something you hope you’ll never have to use, but always want there anyway. And: to have a politician as head of state would be like having a hockey game refereed by one of the players.
Getting rid of the Crown would in no way improve the workings of parliament, or address the "democratic deficit." In fact, I would argue that such a move would only make things worse.
By the way, thanks eureka for your kind words about my previous posts.
-
23. The Governor General should be elected at federal elections.
You can't elect the Governor General-- that person is the representative of the Canadian Sovereign, and so must remain as apolitical and non partisan as the Monarch themselves. To elect them would turn the GG into just another biased Ottawa politician, something I'm sure Canadians don't want, and the provinces would detest.
Personally, I'd like to see three, or five, or however many nominated candidates presented to the Queen, and she makes the ultimate choice of her Canadian representative. Means the GG can definitely no longer be seen as a lap dog to the PM who nominated them, and ensures the GG is above politics, as they should be.
-
Point of information: Trudeau did not wear a Nazi costume. He actually dressed up as a 19th century Prussian officer.
You're quite right. Though, I never insinuated he wore a Nazi costume, but I was led to believe he wore a Nazi helmet.
But my argument about his behavior still stands.
From the Calgary Sun:
But Trudeau decided the war was not for him. He opted out, even tore around Montreal on a motorcycle in a German helmet, razzing those who did not opt out. If enough young men of his age had adopted his attitude, the Holocaust would have become a world-wide event, and every Jew you and I know would not be alive today. That's if we were alive ourselves to know it.Still, this stupid kid went on to become what many would call Canada's greatest Prime Minsiter (though, I know many would call him other things...)
Thus, can we really so harshly judge Prince Harry over his childish mistakes?
-
A snob like Trudeau showing up at a country home in a Nazi helmut is one thing but this is another
Is it?
Trudeau did more than just show up at a country home in a nazi helmet, he wore it often while riding around Montreal on his motorcycle!
And this man still became the leader of the Liberal party, and became Prime Minister -- one of Canada's greatest, some might argue.
Trudeau and Prince Harry are similar in that both performed idiotic acts when young men. Harry's mistake is more serious in that he is already a figure in the public eye, whereas Pierre was still a nobody when he was young. But, today no one judges Trudeau for wearing a Nazi helmet around Montreal in his younger years -- he grew up and stopped such nonsense. I think Harry should be treated in the same manner in the future.
I'm not defending Harry's actions -- it was a serious error, committed without thought, and I can't fathom how he got out of the house dressed like that! But in no way do I believe it makes him a Nazi, or incapable of being a mature and decent man -- when he finally grows up.
I can't see how this is a reason to rid Canada of the Crown. The likely-hood of Harry being our king, and on our money, is very slim. Even if he did, you're already judging the man by the boy he currently is -- how stupid!
Also, it seems that, as usual, August, you've failed to see that the continuation of the Canadian Crown is actually more important than who is sovereign of it, and thus sovereigns, or those in line to be, are not immune from judgement or removal should they prove themselves to be incapable of the job. Look to history to see a number of examples.
So, should Prince Harry grow up and actually shave his head and become a neo-Nazi, you can rest assured the governments of the Commonwealth Realms would remove him from the line of succession. This in no way would affect the Canadian Crown.
-
The GG must almost always follow the advice of the Prime Minister, and so if Martin told Clarkson to remain in Europe (perhaps he was worried about backlash over the costs incurred by flying the Governor General back and forth across the Atlantic three or more times?), then she should pretty much remain in Europe.
Also, one more thing to add to the itinerary you listed there Kimmy is that the Governor General had an arranged personal meeting with the Queen at Sandringham on Jan 19 - the day after Lt. Governor Hole's memorial. I think our head of state trumps a lieutenant governor.
So, from all that, Clarkson's behavior isn't too weird. But what is strange is that Rideau Hall wasn't honest and forthright about the GG's schedule, and the PMO will neither "confirm or deny" whether Martin told Clarkson to stay in Europe.
It's all the cover-up I find really strange.
-
Do not take literally? You've just rendered your whole comparison between Canada and the U.S. as pointless.
Oh well, I'll know from now on not to take any of your comments literally, or seriously. It's all rather pointless anyway.
-
What's your argument?
By saying that, in Canada, you'd "be beat down or going to jail" for calling the Queen a whore, while, in the U.S. you may openly insult and criticize the President without fear of incarceration and/or beatings, you're implying that the U.S. gives its citizens the right of free speech, whereas Canada tells its citizens to keep their mouths shut. In the simplest terms, the U.S. offers more freedom, at least in terms of speech, than Canada.
The truth of the matter, however, is that in both Canada and the U.S. free speech rights are almost identical. In Canada we may freely criticize our leaders, both royal and political, just as in the U.S. you may freely criticize your leaders. In Canada, if your public criticism is not founded on truth, and is merely an attempt to ruin a person's reputation, you will be charged with slander, just as in the U.S.
Thus, contrary to your statement, by law Canadians have the rights to freely express their opinions about the country's leaders, HM The Queen included.
-
I bet if I called the Queen a whore (In Canada or England) I'd be beat down or going to jail! But anywhere here in the U.S. I am free to call Bush or any other President or any part the government whatever I want, freely and criticize accordingly!
There's a whole load of fallicious, meaningless, and unfounded crap coming out of this guy... but this has got to be up there with the worst of it.
BigDookie6-- like many of your other assumptions, this one displays an alarming amount of ignorance. Canada is a democratic country, and we have such a thing as free speech; its guaranteed in our constitution. You may openly criticize the Queen, or our constitutional monarchy, if you wish (and believe me, many do)-- the Crown itself allows us this right! But, like in many other countries, you must be careful how you criticize. The only thing you might end up with if you publicly called the Queen a whore, without proof to back it up, is a lawsuit for slander slapped firmly on your ass (and maybe a good slap on the ass from Her Majesty is just what you need!
). -
It is Bush and his cohorts who have been acting arrogantly and unfairly to Canada. Ignoring NAFTA rulings in lumber issues and their own and international exports on beef. Look at which country is now the most despised nation on earth. Hopefully that can slowly change after Bush is replaced. Bush is the zealot.
Why should we deny our beliefs and rights to act in good faith in international affairs. Why should we send off our military people to die for something that we do not believe in. Why would we want to be America's puppy dog.
Caesar, on this I will agree with you. The relationship between Canada and the U.S. goes two ways-- there should be a dialogue, not a U.S. monologue full of U.S. demands.
Certainly, some Canadian politicians have been a little less than diplomatic in the way they voice their anti-Bush opinions, and Canada did not (rightly) join in the U.S. led Iraq war. But the 'retaliation' for this has been a little heavy-handed, and certainly childish in nature. To punish Canada with economic sanctions (which is what all these rulings against Canadian products are starting to look like) just because we did not agree with their stance on Iraq, and some Canadian politicians mouthed-off against Bush, is rather like the spoiled and vindictive child who will end a friendship with someone just because they did not bow to his wishes. Basicly, the kid who says "I'm not talking to you any more" when he doesn't get what he wants, the way he wants it.
This is no way to maintain international relations.
If [the British] charge us for towing; dump the Queen and the commonwealth.This I cannot agree with you on. In fact, I can't even understand what gains you think this would achieve in this situation.
Canada is not a kingdom just because the British say we should be, or to appease the British, or to make the British happy. We have a monarch because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, by Canadian law!
So, waving the threat of Canadian republicanism in the face of Britain would make them do nothing. It makes no difference to them if Canada removes the Queen, as much as it makes no difference to Canada if Britain removes the Queen.
And constitutional change over a couple of defunct submarines is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
God save the Queen
in The Rest of the World
Posted
The day to day governing is left to our elected politicians, that is the nature of constitutional monarchy.
But, you need to ask yourself, how would the Queen be significant in a non-day to day event like a constitutional crisis? The fact that the Queen, through her representative, almost never exercises her powers shows just how well the system is working. She's like a fire-extinguisher, there for emergencies, not daily use.
Though, that said, the Queen daily keeps ultimate power out of the hands of politicians.
A republic would need a president elected in some manner. That person would simply be a replacement for the Queen; they would (or should) be as uninvolved in daily governing as the Queen is, but would be a polititian as the Queen is not. It is because republican heads of state are politicians that Westminster style republics (of which most republics are) have such a terrible track record for stability and unity.
Quite the opposite, the Constitution Act 1982 implemented the amending formula, which in essence cemented the Monarchy into Canada's governmental workings.
As well, when the Queen signed the Act, patriating our Constitution, she completed the process of the creation of the Canadian Monarchy, begun in 1867; though embodied in the same person, still distinct from the Monarchy of the UK.
Important stuff.