Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 I realize that and want you to retain it, but what I don't want is for you to change mine and my traditions, like the removal of the queen. I want you to respect my traditions and culture as I respect, and want to learn about yours.By wanting to take away my traditional Canadian Monarch you are tring to take away my Canadian Identity. Yes, I do yearn to learn as much about other cultures as much as possible.. HOWEVER, there is a line when it comes to this whole "multicultural" thing. We have appeased the non assimilated immigrants too much! Of course we respect and honour different cultures and heritage.. but they can't come around, become a citizen and trample on the Canadian identity and heritage! That is the line that has been crossed, I am not specifically pointing out the Crown hating thing; for example, the Islamic extremists who set up a democracy hating club. It is our duty and obligation to uphold the Canadian identity and heritage - not to have to torn apart by non conforming immigrants. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 She is involved with our country so when some jackass comes around and tries to do something "unconstitutional" or something of major harm to the country - the queen can veto his/her decisions. Then what are Parliament and the Supreme Court for? For example, what if Bush was the prime minister, and he wanted to start a war with Iraq against the wishes of the UN. The queen can veto his decisions. However, he is the president, no one has higher authority - who is to stop him? No she can't...and won't. See Kosovo. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 How? What (other than right of birth) entitles her to do so? It is called the Coronation oath Quote
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 More than a regular citizen, I assume? Less. How? What (other than right of birth) entitles her to do so? Law. So all other countries give her free passage? I don't know. What if the border official is ignorant and doesn't regongize the old lady? He would most likely be demoted to a desk job in a very small office in a very remote airport. Quote
jbg Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Do you not realize that it was the British who were the first to free the slaves, condem it, and fight it? The country PC is from still has slavery, and wants to enslave other countries such as Georgia. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 It is called the Coronation oath Hey..this is getting good...you know....like the Holy Trinity! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Then what are Parliament and the Supreme Court for? Making law and intepreting law. Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 No, the treaties are with the Crown-in-Right-of-Canada now. And the succession laws in Britain are still the same as those we have here. They are not we could really have a different monarch then Britain. This page lists those monarchs who have reigned over Canada since Confederation in 1867, at which time the country was deemed to have become a kingdom in its own right.[1] However, though the country became self-governing Dominion within the British Empire in 1867, the concept of the state being in a full personal union with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms did not emerge until the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931.[2][3][4][5] Since that time, the Canadian Crown has been recognized as legally distinct from the crowns of the other Commonwealth realms, meaning that Canada has a distinct national monarch.[6] Still, though the term King of Canada was used as early as the beginning of the reign of George VI, it was not until 1953 that the style was made official; Elizabeth II was the first monarch to be separately proclaimed as Queen of Canada, by the Royal Style and Titles Act. For a longer list of monarchs of territories that today comprise Canada, see: History of monarchy in Canada: Monarchs of Canadian territories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_monarchs If Elizabeth the second is allowed by the British Parliment to by pass her son and go to Prince William, our sucession laws (state of westminister) to the Canadian Crown would me that we would have Prince Charles as our Monarch. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jbg Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Foreign Monarch is both a symbol of usurping the people and disowning the country. If she is such a "usurper" why did the US, not subject to the Queen, welcome her with open arms to our Bicentennial (of independence from Britain) and Jamestown's (first settlement that didn't perish) 400th Anniversary. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Making law and intepreting law. So Her Majesty only cares about "wars" and other big boo boos for her minions? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 If she is such a "usurper" why did the US, not subject to the Queen, welcome her with open arms to our Bicentennial (of independence from Britain) and Jamestown's (first settlement that didn't perish) 400th Anniversary. To sell more hot dogs. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 If she is such a "usurper" why did the US, not subject to the Queen, welcome her with open arms to our Bicentennial (of independence from Britain) and Jamestown's (first settlement that didn't perish) 400th Anniversary. If anything, she is a symbol of how a political system, such as the constitutional monarchy, has survived and evolved throughout all these years - protecting the rights and freedoms of many people. Quote
jbg Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 OK, I get it now...So what about Quebec? How could they be possibly happy with an English Queen? Ask General Montcalm that question. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 If anything, she is a symbol of how a political system, such as the constitutional monarchy, has survived and evolved throughout all these years - protecting the rights and freedoms of many people.Agreed but the US is not a constitutional monarchy. It is a republic that may, if the election goes the wrong way, become a People's Republic. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 If anything, she is a symbol of how a political system, such as the constitutional monarchy, has survived and evolved throughout all these years - protecting the rights and freedoms of many people. Except for slaves, Chinese, Japanese, Acadians, First Nations, Ukrainians, and Greyhound bus passengers. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Agreed but the US is not a constitutional monarchy. It is a republic that may, if the election goes the wrong way, become a People's Republic. Yes.. However, both political philosophies value the same things. A person's rights and freedoms. The fact that one election can turn the US into a "People's Republic" only shows the shaky ways of their government. Oh well, whatever works for their people - that is why we are in Canada and they are in the United States. Quote
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Except for slaves, Chinese, Japanese, Acadians, First Nations, Ukrainians, and Greyhound bus passengers. As I said, it has evolved through many years. It is only through years of experience, turmoil and even tyranny, that a political system is able to adapt and change - so that hopefully, it may learn from it's mistakes. Edited October 9, 2008 by Hcheh Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Yes.. However, both political philosophies value the same things. A person's rights and freedoms. The fact that one election can turn the US into a "People's Republic" only shows the shaky ways of their government. Oh well, whatever works for their people - that is why we are in Canada and they are in the United States. I think that the Common law set through precidents is a better protector of these Rights as they cannot be amended like the US constitution can be. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 As I said, it has evolved through many years. It is only through years of experience, turmoil and even tyranny, is a political system able to adapt and change - so that hopefully, it may learn from it's mistakes. To hell with that...you promised that Her Majesty would be on the job, protecting her subjects because of The Oath. These people deserve a Royal Refund. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 To hell with that...you promised that Her Majesty would be on the job, protecting her subjects because of The Oath. These people deserve a Royal Refund. Say what you will, it has not been much different in other countries.. You think that the American system is perfect? The difference is that the constitutional monarchy has decades of experience over the American government. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Say what you will, it has not been much different in other countries.. You think that the American system is perfect? The difference is that the constitutional monarchy has decades of experience over the American government. Yes...with identical results! Mine was only a sarcastic way to say that Her Majesty and The Oath mean very little indeed...and even less today. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Yes...with identical results! Mine was only a sarcastic way to say that Her Majesty and The Oath mean very little indeed...and even less today. I beg to differ. I like it much better up here.. In my opinion, the system is much more stable - with the parliament and the monarch. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 They are not we could really have a different monarch then Britain. I think you mean that the laws governing the line of succession are different - i.e. separate - between here and the UK. That is true, and the lines of succession thus could be different (if either country amended their law without a parallel change in the other countries), but presently they are identical. Quote
Hcheh Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 Yes...with identical results! Mine was only a sarcastic way to say that Her Majesty and The Oath mean very little indeed...and even less today. It is not always about what has happened. It is also about the possibility of what could happen. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2008 Report Posted October 9, 2008 So Her Majesty only cares about "wars" and other big boo boos for her minions? Just big boo-boos. We don't want any of those. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.