Why do we have a Governor General?

Ontario Loyalist · September 9, 2008

Go fuk yourselves with your dementia. The Queen had authority in 1982 to create the constitution. In 2008 the Queen has authority to revoke the 1982 Constitution. Tit for tat.

This kind of nonsense just doesn't help...

Ontario Loyalist · September 9, 2008

"The Crown" is not some fictitious figure head. Lawyers judges and officers swear to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown. Every act of parliament must received "Royal Assent" before it is enacted in law. The government plays a little part in that they administer the people on behalf of the Crown. We are not independent or able to make decisions without the Queen's blessing.

Honestly, with screwballs like you supporting monarchism in this country, we have little hope...

Ontario Loyalist · September 9, 2008

I agree.
A "Constitutional Monarchy" is insulting the freedom of the citizens who don't want to be "subjects" to anyone.

What freedoms don't you have because of our constitutional monarchy??????

A "Constitutional Monarchy" where the "Monarch" is a token ruler of a different country is twice as insulting - it denigrates both the citizen and their country.

An absolutely absurd statement.

blueblood · September 9, 2008

What freedoms don't you have because of our constitutional monarchy??????
An absolutely absurd statement.

More freedoms than old country.

If subjects don't want to be subjects, emmigrate down south, they have the freedom to do that, whereas in the USSR you don't.

Why people even debate with Politicalcitizen is beyond me, it's been proven he's a hypocrite as his arguments hold as much water as a wicker basket.

PoliticalCitizen · September 9, 2008

What freedoms don't you have because of our constitutional monarchy??????

It's not what I don't have. It's just that I feel my right to have rights is insulted by the mere existence of even a token Monarch.

I'd much rather swear allegiance to the Country and People of Canada then to some old lady from a foreign country that happened to be born in a "royal" family.

I'm sorry if I offended some royalists here but the Queen of England and all references to the "crown" feel meaningless to most and insulting to some immigrants. We came here to join millions of immigrants that live in a free country, not to become UK's royal subjects.

An absolutely absurd statement.

I apologize if your ability to comprehend does not allow you to grasp the concept.

whowhere · September 9, 2008

It's not what I don't have. It's just that I feel my right to have rights is insulted by the mere existence of even a token Monarch.
I'd much rather swear allegiance to the Country and People of Canada then to some old lady from a foreign country that happened to be born in a "royal" family.

I'm sorry if I offended some royalists here but the Queen of England and all references to the "crown" feel meaningless to most and insulting to some immigrants. We came here to join millions of immigrants that live in a free country, not to become UK's royal subjects.

I apologize if your ability to comprehend does not allow you to grasp the concept.

OATH OF CITIZENSHIP

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful

and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty

Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,

Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully

observe the laws of Canada

and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen

Then why did you swear to this?

M.Dancer · September 9, 2008

It's not what I don't have. It's just that I feel my right to have rights is insulted by the mere existence of even a token Monarch.
I'd much rather swear allegiance to the Country and People of Canada then to some old lady from a foreign country that happened to be born in a "royal" family.

I'm sorry if I offended some royalists here but the Queen of England and all references to the "crown" feel meaningless to most and insulting to some immigrants. We came here to join millions of immigrants that live in a free country, not to become UK's royal subjects.

I apologize if your ability to comprehend does not allow you to grasp the concept.

They should really have exams that you must pass in order to become a citizen. Such ignorance in our country does not become someone who wants to belong to it.

PoliticalCitizen · September 9, 2008

OATH OF CITIZENSHIP
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful

and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty

Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,

Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully

observe the laws of Canada

and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen

Then why did you swear to this?

Oh, please... I said whatever I had to say, and so did hundreds of thousands of fellow immigrants.

That doesn't mean that I can't question the purpose or the value of the Constitutional Monarchy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one whom this oath struck as absurd and archaic...

blueblood · September 9, 2008

Oh, please... I said whatever I had to say, and so did hundreds of thousands of fellow immigrants.
That doesn't mean that I can't question the purpose or the value of the Constitutional Monarchy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one whom this oath struck as absurd and archaic...

Great now he's a definite hypocrite and his word means spit. Should have picked another country. Some poor bastard from Africa who got put on the waiting list for this must be PO'd.

PoliticalCitizen · September 9, 2008

They should really have exams that you must pass in order to become a citizen. Such ignorance in our country does not become someone who wants to belong to it.

Well the country is OURS now as well... once more immigrants get into politics I'm sure the Monarchy and the associated Governors will be questioned.

blueblood · September 9, 2008

Well the country is OURS now as well... once more immigrants get into politics I'm sure the Monarchy and the associated Governors will be questioned.

How many new immigrants voted for the tories? The country has always belonged to immigrants, just not commie immigrants. The 5:09 Hypocrisy train has left the station.

dpwozney · September 10, 2008

And why is the Monarch's image on our money?

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

“Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

M.Dancer · September 10, 2008

Is it the right time to mention in 1867 there was no Northern Ireland or was that post just irrelevant?

Edited September 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

whowhere · September 10, 2008

Oh, please... I said whatever I had to say, and so did hundreds of thousands of fellow immigrants.
That doesn't mean that I can't question the purpose or the value of the Constitutional Monarchy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one whom this oath struck as absurd and archaic...

You are right the oath is absurd but what is more abusrd is to believe Canada stems from democracy. The fact is Canada is a closet communist Country. Canada is one of the least democratic Countries out there. For the most part The Liberals and the Conservatives and their patronage appointees in the government bureacracies exploit Canada for their own agenda whatever that may be. As for the common folk, ur shite out of luck.

What I find laughable about those who insist the Queen is just a figurehead and holds no power over Canada have failed to realize a significant fact. In 1970 the Queen deferred all matters between the Monarch and her Colonies to the International Court of Justice. In 1980 The Queen, the Liberal Party, and the Supreme Court imposed the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights on the people of Canada without a democratic vote. The matter should have involved the International Court to affirm the constitutions validity and legitamacy given her matters were deferred to the ICJ. But Somehow in 1980 the Queen had authority enough to impose a constitution on the people of Canada but in 2008 she no longer has this power? Sounds absurd to me. Where is it stated she has relinquished her power to amend Canada's laws and rules unilaterally?

Canada's limited democracy is and has been abused by the Liberal and Conservative parties alike. They have insulted Canadians at every turn in their governance. The only way to stop these renegade parties is to protest the Queens office and the International court.

guyser · September 10, 2008

. The only way to stop these renegade parties is to protest the Queens office and the International court.

Have at it then.

I'll stay here and deal with reality.

jbg · October 5, 2008

Now I'm no history expert but I'm pretty sure USA (a former British colony) has none of that...

The US had a violent split from Britian, chased by a war or two along the way. Canada's was an evolutionary process.

In fact many Canadians are former Americans, the so-called "United Empire Loyalists". They wanted the protections of the British monarchy and for them, a total submission to a legislative or elected executive majority was not part of the bargain. Never was, never will be.

PoliticalCitizen · October 5, 2008

The US had a violent split from Britian, chased by a war or two along the way. Canada's was an evolutionary process.
In fact many Canadians are former Americans, the so-called "United Empire Loyalists". They wanted the protections of the British monarchy and for them, a total submission to a legislative or elected executive majority was not part of the bargain. Never was, never will be.

With a quarter of a million new immigrants each year, none of whom have any particularly good feelings for the English queen or Monarchy in general I think it is time for us as a nation to make the next evolutionary step and leave the colonial past behind.

cybercoma · October 5, 2008

With a quarter of a million new immigrants each year, none of whom have any particularly good feelings for the English queen or Monarchy in general I think it is time for us as a nation to make the next evolutionary step and leave the colonial past behind.

Because we have a bunch of immigrants that come from countries that have nothing to do with the Queen, you think Canada should dump its history? To what advantage? So, we can be usurped by the cultures and histories of the immigrant populations?

Edited October 5, 2008 by cybercoma

jbg · October 6, 2008

With a quarter of a million new immigrants each year, none of whom have any particularly good feelings for the English queen or Monarchy in general I think it is time for us as a nation to make the next evolutionary step and leave the colonial past behind.

Did Canada demand those immigrants come?

g_bambino · October 6, 2008

With a quarter of a million new immigrants each year, none of whom have any particularly good feelings for the English queen or Monarchy in general I think it is time for us as a nation to make the next evolutionary step and leave the colonial past behind.

Putting aside the questions your statements beg, how can the past be anywhere but behind? :blink:

capricorn · October 6, 2008

So, we can be usurped by the cultures and histories of the immigrant populations?

You mean like this?

Canadian opposition leader Jack Layton has promised support for a new visa office in Mumbai and official status for the Punjabi language in Canada if he becomes prime minister after the Oct 14 polls.
-----

Layton replied in the affirmative when asked whether he would support demands that Punjabi, which the latest census says is the fastest growing language in Canada, be given official status.

"We are aware of the growing number of Punjabi-speaking Canadians and appreciate their rich legacy to Canadian history. We are committed to having their valuable contribution recognized by Canada.

"This includes ensuring services in Punjabi, recognizing it as being the fourth most spoken language in Canada. Already, we have seen some cities and municipalities putting up street signs and store signs in Punjabi.

http://overseasindian.in/2008/september/ne...09-093641.shtml

Of course, Layton is back peddling on this but I haven't seen anything official yet from the NDP.

Edited October 6, 2008 by capricorn

whowhere · October 6, 2008

With a quarter of a million new immigrants each year, none of whom have any particularly good feelings for the English queen or Monarchy in general I think it is time for us as a nation to make the next evolutionary step and leave the colonial past behind.

A better idea is how about you and all like minded immigrants go back to whence you came from.

whowhere · October 6, 2008

Did Canada demand those immigrants come?

Yes actually, the corporations cried they can't find enough cheap workers, eh hem I mean skilled.

whowhere · October 6, 2008

Because we have a bunch of immigrants that come from countries that have nothing to do with the Queen, you think Canada should dump its history? To what advantage? So, we can be usurped by the cultures and histories of the immigrant populations?

Isn't this current plight of Canada?

independent · October 6, 2008

http://www.monarchist.ca/new/docs/costofcrown.html

These are old numbers but this might give people and idea of how much the monarchy costs us. These cost would still be there if we had had some other representative as our head of state. If we changed our system there would be a cost to implementing the changes. Our system works why change it?