what canada is not- a democracy

[daniel]

To answer the original question, I would say Proportional Representation.

[capricorn]

Having the Queen as head of Canada doesn't really bother most Canadians. That is why she will remain head of Canada. Because the few like you, who really care, are vastly outnumbered by the monarchists who really care. In the middle are that mass of indifferent Canadians who have better things to worry about. No Canadian government is going to piss off that great mass of monarchists and traditionalists to please a few radicals like you. Well, except maybe the NDP but they're never going to get the chance.

IMO this sums up the overall attitude with regard to the monarchy.

If politicians made a concerted effort to remove the monarchy those Canadians presently indifferent would not remain so. I would venture to bet the majority would mobilize to reject any such move.

Let's face it. There are more pressing problems in this country than whether the monarchy should be dropped.

[capricorn]

Can you prove Quebec politicians really want to ditch the Queen and our constitutional monarchy?

Canada has been a constitutional monarchy, since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada.

Obviously Quebec wants a constitutional monarchy.

There's nothing to prove. Just imagine Quebec separating. Can you envisage an autonomous Quebec retaining the monarchy? I don't think so. It stands to reason that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois want to break from the monarchy.

As for Quebec(ers) wanting to break all ties to the monarchy:

Angus Reid Poll: Monarchy - over half think Canada should break ties with the Queen

53% think Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy

10.01.07 Monday

....

Quebec is by far the most in favour of cutting ties. Three-in-four Quebec respondents (74%) do not want Canada to be linked to the British monarchy, 71 per cent say the same even if Prince Charles becomes king, and over half (51%) say they want no monarch after the Queen. Manitoba and Saskatchewan also strongly favour ending the relationship with the monarchy—61 per cent want Canada to cut ties, and 36 per cent want no successor to the queen.

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.c...=123&page=4

[M.Dancer]

Why are currency bills issued in the name of the bank of Canada ; but government checks are not; not on any bank account? by the charter and it's equality provision then anyone should be able to issue checks on their name alone, without any bank account- but that has been done, but not well understood.

<sniff> <sniff>

I smell a Freeman...........

[Leafless]

There's nothing to prove. Just imagine Quebec separating. Can you envisage an autonomous Quebec retaining the monarchy? I don't think so. It stands to reason that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois want to break from the monarchy.

Quebec will never separate, forget it.

Quebec is by far the most in favour of cutting ties. Three-in-four Quebec respondents (74%) do not want Canada to be linked to the British monarchy

That is residents of Quebec hate the English monarchy.

Quebec politicians know the constitutional monarchy has served Quebec well.

The most important characteristic of Canada's constitutional monarchy has been its ability to adapt to changing conditions over the course of our evolution from colony to nation. In the Senate Foyer and the Salon de la Francophonie hang the portraits of the kings and queens in whose names our laws have been, and continue to be, enacted.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/pe...narchy_00-e.htm

[bk59]

What portion of your taxes do you think the Queen gets?

My guess would be none. But I'd be happy to consider any facts that you may have that show that Canadian tax money is somehow being paid directly to the Queen.

I agree with you that income should not be taxed and governments need to find methods of taxation that do not deprive one of the fruits of his labour and thus be a slave. That is what needs to be changed.

I think some people need to get their heads checked when tossing around the term slavery. Paying income tax does not make you a slave, not in any recognizable sense of the term. Perhaps if you experienced real slavery you might begin to notice some of the differences between being a slave and living in Canada.

How does one tax someone without requiring them to give up some of the fruits of their labour? All taxation requires a payment. This comes out of the tax payer's earnings, one way or another.

[Rue]

some of us are mature enough to tell the queen to get lost; we no longer want to be her slave.

Excuse me but if someone wants to engage in sado-masochism with their partner, its none of your business.

[old_bold&cold]

The position of Govenor General, is only a figure head position. There are no real benefits that go back the the Queen of England. So other then tradition there is no real issues on this. We also have the Keeper of the Blackrod, in parliament, which is only a really cool door knocker. Should we get rid of him as well. If there is no one interested in traditions we could let a whole lot of people go on and around the hill.

[Pliny]

My guess would be none. But I'd be happy to consider any facts that you may have that show that Canadian tax money is somehow being paid directly to the Queen.

I think some people need to get their heads checked when tossing around the term slavery. Paying income tax does not make you a slave, not in any recognizable sense of the term. Perhaps if you experienced real slavery you might begin to notice some of the differences between being a slave and living in Canada.

How does one tax someone without requiring them to give up some of the fruits of their labour? All taxation requires a payment. This comes out of the tax payer's earnings, one way or another.

It is better if it is by choice and goes to only those things of which all can approve. There are very few things which we will "all" agree upon and approve. Most of us leave those guiding decisions to people who know about such things - whoever that may be. I don't think it is the people we elect.

For example, having a debt "encumbers" future generations who had no decision in spending their money, like on our social security, a benefit eaten up by inflation anyway, but well-intended.

When someone has first dibs on your labour and takes over fifty percent of it to spend as they deem it should be spent, then what would you call that? It seems to fit the definition.

Slavery, doesn't just include chains, whips and forced labour and such visions.

I will grant you that most people in Canada agree to the rules of the game and thus stay within the boundaries of what is required of it's citizenry. This is of their own volition. They do not see any bit of slavery. They are free to make choices in their lives and see no problem. This is a necessity to social stability. However, if you should happen to feel something is unfair or shouldn't be, as to the governing of the land, you are virtually tied into it whether you like it or not. As time progresses and government becomes more invasive in the everyday lives of its citizens and starts engineering society, and doing things we all can't more or less agree upon, or playing favorites on an ever-increasing basis you feel more and more powerless in running the daily affairs of your life and you feel more and more like a slave with a numerical identity doing someone else's bidding entirely. It can be oppressive. The Queen has been vigilant in ensuring her governments have not become oppressive beyond what the populace will tolerate but governments are becoming larger and more wieldy. Someone posted what John Manley said - I had a good laugh.

There is no direct payment to the Queen. You would have to show that payment in the annual report and there isn't one. ....hmmm, can you think of a way to get her some cash? The Head of State should get something, don't you think? It's a big responsibility.

I can still tolerate some of the idiocies of government in this country but it is becoming increasingly worse only because, in my view, they have overstepped the boundaries of what, in my opinion, should be their mandate. If the Conservatives can stem the growth of government I will be happy but they are not doing that so far.

[capricorn]

Quebec will never separate, forget it.

That is residents of Quebec hate the English monarchy.

Quebec politicians know the constitutional monarchy has served Quebec well.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/pe...narchy_00-e.htm

I did not opine that Quebec would separate. In fact, I don't think this will ever happen. I simply asked you to place yourself in a hypothetical situation to underscore the point I was making that the Bloc and the PQ reject the monarchy. They do not have to include it their political platforms as it is implicit.

I certainly agree with you that Quebec politicians of all stripes recognize the positive impact the constitutional monarchy has played in maintaining Quebec's position within the federation although most would not voice it publicly. To put it bluntly, Quebec without Canada would be a much poorer place. I believe this fact is increasingly understood by average Quebecers and to some degree explains the rising popularity of federalist parties in that province.

[bk59]

When someone has first dibs on your labour and takes over fifty percent of it to spend as they deem it should be spent, then what would you call that? It seems to fit the definition.

Slavery, doesn't just include chains, whips and forced labour and such visions.

Slavery is not limited to chains & whips. But that does not mean that because you pay taxes you are a slave. You have the right to live where you want, work where you want, choose what career you will pursue. You have the right to go to school, to leave Canada entirely if you so choose. You have the right to marry, or not marry, to raise children, to practice whatever religion you want. You will not be shipped off to a labour camp, or subjected to secret police interrogations and disappearances in the night. You have the right to vote in an election or even run for office yourself. Do you see why I dispute claims that Canadians are slaves simply because they pay taxes? Especially given that in all likelihood most people would choose to pay some form of tax in order to receive certain government services.

However, if you should happen to feel something is unfair or shouldn't be, as to the governing of the land, you are virtually tied into it whether you like it or not. As time progresses and government becomes more invasive in the everyday lives of its citizens and starts engineering society, and doing things we all can't more or less agree upon, or playing favorites on an ever-increasing basis you feel more and more powerless in running the daily affairs of your life and you feel more and more like a slave with a numerical identity doing someone else's bidding entirely. It can be oppressive.

...

I can still tolerate some of the idiocies of government in this country but it is becoming increasingly worse only because, in my view, they have overstepped the boundaries of what, in my opinion, should be their mandate. If the Conservatives can stem the growth of government I will be happy but they are not doing that so far.

When it comes to being tied into the laws of the land... no offense, but that's life. In every form of government ever attempted on this planet there have always been people in the minority who must abide by the will of the majority and / or powerful. We at least live in a country where minority rights are protected. Where if you feel strongly about government's role in our life you can join a political party and do something about it.

I guess my point boils down to this: if this is how you feel, then do you have a better suggestion about how to run this country? I do not claim that Canada is perfect (no country is). But I can think of places a lot worse than here. And I have no problem arguing with those who would characterize our society as a society of slaves.

[Pliny]

Slavery is not limited to chains & whips. But that does not mean that because you pay taxes you are a slave. You have the right to live where you want, work where you want, choose what career you will pursue. You have the right to go to school, to leave Canada entirely if you so choose. You have the right to marry, or not marry, to raise children, to practice whatever religion you want. You will not be shipped off to a labour camp, or subjected to secret police interrogations and disappearances in the night. You have the right to vote in an election or even run for office yourself. Do you see why I dispute claims that Canadians are slaves simply because they pay taxes? Especially given that in all likelihood most people would choose to pay some form of tax in order to receive certain government services.

When it comes to being tied into the laws of the land... no offense, but that's life. In every form of government ever attempted on this planet there have always been people in the minority who must abide by the will of the majority and / or powerful. We at least live in a country where minority rights are protected. Where if you feel strongly about government's role in our life you can join a political party and do something about it.

I agree society needs rules. And being tied to the laws of the land is life. As you agree with most of Canadian laws you do not find yourself a slave. If you feel you can join a political party and do something about whatever your grievance against government might be then you have never had a grievance worth mentioning. Besides, your sentence before that indicates you must abide by the will of the majority and/or powerful so how does joining a political party seem to you to be an effective measure for change? In my view, it isn't; especially today.

I guess my point boils down to this: if this is how you feel, then do you have a better suggestion about how to run this country? I do not claim that Canada is perfect (no country is). But I can think of places a lot worse than here. And I have no problem arguing with those who would characterize our society as a society of slaves.

Well, we are slaves of a sort, mostly to economics and what society expects of us. We are supposed to go to school, get a degree, find our niche in the job market, buy a house and car, get married, have 1.5 children, pay our bills and our taxes and all will be fine.

This is good enough for most Canadians. As long as they have a good work ethic they can successfully complete this cycle of life.

Nothing remains static. So government will grow or it will shrink? Have you seen it shrinking?

It won't because as long as government is offering privilege people will line up to take advantage of it and it is human nature to take the easiest road in achieving one's needs.

So my advice as to how to run the country better would be to run it less by limiting the powers and mandate of government and let society run itself for the most part.

Governments, in my view, and it matters not if they are democracies, dictatorships or communist states, are all established to monopolize crime, they make it illegal to murder and then engage themselves in war, they make laws to take any persons property they wish, they excuse themselves from accountability to any of their boondoggles, they grant themselves privilege and determine where they would like to spend the peoples' money. Any interest in the general welfare of the public takes a back seat and is only addressed if great pressure is applied.

That may sound extreme but debate in the legislative house is, if they aren't railing against one another, how they will tax and how they will spend, i.e. who deserves penance and who deserves privilege.

[jbg]

A sovereign land area and sovereign independent people who are not slaves. When did Canadians meet these requirements?.

Having a symbolic leader that unifies the English speaking people of the world is slavery? Not.

In the US we revere her though she is not our Monarch. Both of our freedoms have a lot to do with our British heritage. Even our Constitution is largely a rewrite of the unwritten British constitution, down to the size of House seats (the same as a UK constituency/riding at the time). I suggest you learn a little history and maybe grow up a bit. You also need to learn gratitude.

Edited October 17, 2007 by jbg

[jennie]

Having a symbolic leader that unifies the English speaking people of the world is slavery? Not.

In the US we revere her though she is not our Monarch. Both of our freedoms have a lot to do with our British heritage. Even our Constitution is largely a rewrite of the unwritten British constitution, down to the size of House seats (the same as a UK constituency/riding at the time). I suggest you learn a little history and maybe grow up a bit. You also need to learn gratitude.

Nah ... It is a colonist's right to question the queen's value to us!

I would be willing to give up the queen, but not the Governor General and her powers: She can remove and replace an ill-intentioned government. If Harper ever gets a majority, I have a feeling we may need that!

[Topaz]

Perhaps will should ask John Manely exactly what he did for Canada by helping bring in the NAU?? If you want Canada as a republic, then you'll surely get one if/when it comes reality. Our money will be called the "AMERO" part US and Mexician! Go over to "YOUTUBE" click politics and watch the videos of both US and Canadian journlist try to tell us what is happening on the NAU! Our military will become part the US, out natural resources will be taken over by the US. Why do you think Bush is letting in the Mexicians in to the US? This plan to united Canada and mexico and the US has been in the works for 60 years and they are slowing bring it in. 9/11 was the start to limit the liberties of the nations. Harper with Manely at the head of the Afghanistan mission, will come back and say Canada needs to stay and this will help out the US which is going to be sending troops from Iraq to Afganhstan. That is why no Fed. gov't should have a majority govt in these times, except the NDP because they were against war from the start.

[old_bold&cold]

You forget that Canada and the voters saw real value in going into Afghanistan. It was not a thing where we were going they to deprive people but to free people from oppression. It was a good fight and it was wrapped into aour support for NATO. All that has not changed. If we were lead by the NDP, we would be thrown out of NATO and shamed by the rest of the world. That is the world Jack lives in. It is a very good thing that the NDP will never be a power in out country and will remain a fringe party at best.

The average Canadian if they have been informed of all the facts about what we are doing in Afghanistan, would support our mission and I think you will find that is exactly what Harper is doing with this committee, and I believe that he is on the right track, with this. If you look at the support for leader, Harper is doing very well and this will eventually also bleed over for much of the things the government is doing. The very fact that the government is looked at by the voters as not wanting an election, says the voters are not all that aginst the things and the day to day running of this government. We are happy with pretty much all that is going on. The day will come when an election is called, and it will probably be that the CPC will get more seats and possible majority. I do not fore see and scenario where they will lose seats or the government, and I do not think the polls have ever hinted in that direction either.

[g_bambino]

What date did the people of CANADA GET THE RIGHT TO WRITE their own constitution? The BNA act is only a British bill borrowed by P.E.T. and imposed on us as our constitution. The two

fraudulent attempts to fool the people into ratifying it as our constitution failed. Read the supreme court case which defined the powers of the bna act- referd to as the Lord nelson Hotel case.

My, my...

The BNA was written by Canadian politicians in 1867 - you know, Sir John A., et. all? - and worked out with the Foreign and Colonial office in London before receiving Royal Assent from Queen Victoria. It is not "our constitution," though it has certainly been a part of our constitution since the country was formed. Thus, PET foisted nothing on us that wasn't already there, save for the Charter (whatever you think of that).

As our constitution is made up of an amalgam of convention and legislation created by our parliamentary representatives, it has been, in essence, written by "us" - by whom I mean our predecessors. How else should it be? You surely don't propose the constitution be "rewritten" for every new generation, do you?

[g_bambino]

Are you mature enough to realize the Queen has very little to do with Canada and if we are anyone's slave, it would be the prime minister of Canada who has more powers then President George W. Bush or the powers of a king.

I'm not sure about that. The prime minister is held more accountable than a US president is; he/she can be defeated and removed much easier. Paul Martin: 2 years & 2 months. Any US president: 4 years, minimum.

[jbg]

I'm not sure about that. The prime minister is held more accountable than a US president is; he/she can be defeated and removed much easier. Paul Martin: 2 years & 2 months. Any US president: 4 years, minimum.

Nixon became non-functional around February 1973 and was effectively removed (yes, he resigned but that was a formality) in August 1974. You're almost, but not quite, right.

Thus, PET foisted nothing on us that wasn't already there, save for the Charter (whatever you think of that).

At best, a questionable document since all "rights" are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This "subject to" eviscerates all rights.

[Rue]

My, my...

The BNA was written by Canadian politicians in 1867 - you know, Sir John A., et. all? - and worked out with the Foreign and Colonial office in London before receiving Royal Assent from Queen Victoria. It is not "our constitution," though it has certainly been a part of our constitution since the country was formed. Thus, PET foisted nothing on us that wasn't already there, save for the Charter (whatever you think of that).

As our constitution is made up of an amalgam of convention and legislation created by our parliamentary representatives, it has been, in essence, written by "us" - by whom I mean our predecessors. How else should it be? You surely don't propose the constitution be "rewritten" for every new generation, do you?

Well in theory it could that is why we have an amending formula but in practicality to pass amendments its quite tricky and political to get the right people on side to agree.

The Canadian constitution of course took on a minimalist approach. It said as little as possible for two reasons; i-its creators were trying to take the exact opposite approach of the Americans when writing the constitution to avoid conflict by keeping things as simple as possible; ii-there was a genuine belief that what-ever was not known at the time the original constitution was written, would be sorted out in England.

Look the constitution has always been a mix of written documents, case law and many many unwritten conventions. Hell the Prime Minister's powers are not in the constitution at all.

The Governor General is simply a figure head. Any real power is vested in the PM and the Cabinet and our concept of responsible government requires real power be accountable to the public through elected representatives.

The Queen is simply a titular figure and in her absence the GG does the same. Its simply titular. The Queen gets no money from Canada. That is ridiculous. No tax from Canada goes to the Queen although our government does pay for her when she is in Canada since the Queen does need toilet tissue, diapers, or what-ever else one would imagine she would need.

Getting one's colon twisted over the kinds of symbols we use to represent our state to me is

not something I worry about. I actually do not mind the Queen although I find Camilla Parker Bowels ugly as sin and Charles a loser. I think his son seems to be on the verge of marrying a cute young woman so hopefully some of that inbreeding can be stopped.

I also think the GG is a fine looking woman. Her husband mind you is a tad too old and wrinkled for her.

[no queenslave]

read something other than government propaganda that is for the purpose of indoctrinating you to believe you are not a slave.

search --INFO2 CANADA --

. After a 100 years of lying to you ,you believe propaganda, and cant understand why some people do not agree with you. Canada was a colony untill 1931; and then became a dictatorship, because the slaves allowed it.To all the people working for someone else and having taxes deducted at source is nothing more than a modern way of controlling the slave trade. Even your education was for the purpose of your indoctrination.Political science classes are not to inform you of the facts but to indoctrinate you to believe a lie. and if you are gullible enough they will then help get you elected; and tell you what to do. Dummys and crooks are all what polititions are about.

Edited October 18, 2007 by no queenslave

[bk59]

Political science classes are not to inform you of the facts but to indoctrinate you to believe a lie. and if you are gullible enough they will then help get you elected; and tell you what to do. Dummys and crooks are all what polititions are about.

Who is this mysterious "they" you speak of?

[no queenslave]

Who is this mysterious "they" you speak of?

the queen

[no queenslave]

The position of Govenor General, is only a figure head position. There are no real benefits that go back the the Queen of England. So other then tradition there is no real issues on this. We also have the Keeper of the Blackrod, in parliament, which is only a really cool door knocker. Should we get rid of him as well. If there is no one interested in traditions we could let a whole lot of people go on and around the hill.

figure head and fictitious queen with her black rod is all you need then enjoy.

I have a tradition of not filing income tax forms; if you think traditions are all the in thing; no complaining now slave.

[no queenslave]

If you were the one who had the most slaves what would you want in return for their freedom.

If you own a business would you give it up without any compensation.?

Slavery was not abolished , just the way of control., now called personal income tax.

you are just a slave in denial if you think otherwise.