Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 We must continue Trudeau's work.We should own our land. Trudeau was against private ownership, he thought the state should own your land, that is why there are not any property rights in the constitution. We are luck that there is still some British common law in the system and he couldn't just take our land away from us. Thank the British foundation for that. It all started with the magna carta. 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
Hcheh Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Trudeau was against private ownership, he thought the state should own your land, that is why there are not any property rights in the constitution. We are luck that there is still some British common law in the system and he couldn't just take our land away from us. Thank the British foundation for that. It all started with the magna carta. I'm getting a feeling that Trudeau shouldn't have wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. The nation deserves something better - wait till someone can come around and do it right! Now are we stuck with this? Or is anyone going to do anything about it Quote
Hcheh Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Willy lost me there, sorry... who can swear what to whom again? You don't take an oath to a flag or something abstract because those can change. What he means by the "reciprocal oath" is that the people swear an oath to the crown and the crown swears the oath back for the people. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 But at the same time we're on our way of aquiring a new CANADIAN IDENTITY. One that is free of the colonial past, foreign monarchs and slavery. I assumethen the US ain;t your model....free of foreign monarchs, they still had slavery....while here, Canada and its "foreign" monarch ended slavery decades before the americans needed tto kill each other in order to. History bites but it is still worth having rather than throwing away. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Sorry...maybe this story will make you feel better: Born in Trinidad, educated in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Charles Roach, a prominent Toronto civil rights lawyer, refuses to become a Canadian citizen, even though he has lived in this country for nearly five decades. The reason, he says, is that he would have to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A960958260 Charles Roach LLB, is a professional black man and an amatuer idiot. While he may not want to become a Canadian citizen for which ever reason gives hime the sound bite de jour, as a Trinidadian, he is still one of Her Majesty's irratating subjects. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Charles Roach LLB, is a professional black man and an amatuer idiot. While he may not want to become a Canadian citizen for which ever reason gives hime the sound bite de jour, as a Trinidadian, he is still one of Her Majesty's irratating subjects. Roach's "race" and "nationality" are implicit in the story, and form the foundation to his objection to the oath. I am certain that all "subjects" do not take the oath at birth. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Roach's "race" and "nationality" are implicit in the story, and form the foundation to his objection to the oath. I am certain that all "subjects" do not take the oath at birth. I didn't read the story, I'm already familiar with Roach. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 Who says the Queen is foreign? Foreign as in not born or living in Canada? Having her main office across the ocean? Belonging to a different nation? NOT CANADIAN? Quote You are what you do.
Oleg Bach Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 OUR dear Queen has a lot of power and is not a simple figure head. He cameo and frountal image is on OUR money because she is the boss...If she were not the boss she would not control currencey here domestically - so face it - the old school high archy still has control..as far as the Govenor General....cos' she is cute and had a revolutionary as a boy friend..she's just an interesting choice and the Queen is amused...also - LONG LIVE the QUEEN and may the Bushites be banished for screwing up royally and insulting her majesty with their greed and stupidity.. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 There is no such thing as a new Canadian Identity, our historty is part of who we are with out that all we have is I"M NOT AMERICAN I HATE AMERICANS. To me thats not much of an identity. I like knowing that our countries historical roots lay in a virtually ignored French Colony, that really had no value until the English took interest. From there the country built itself on the principals of English common law, and did amazing things, like the building of the longest railroad to cement its territory, defending itself from the American threat to the South to the emergence on the global seen with the taking of Vimy Ridge. At one point we had the third largest Navy in the world. No matter what these are a part of our identity and with out recognising these we deny ourselves, our country, and our traditions. No matter where you go in the world you will find that they can never escape their history, their identity. These things cannot just be manufactured. Alta, I am not sure where you live and what people you interact with. I live and work in TO and every day interact with people who immigrated or are the first generation of Canadians born to immigrants from different countries. There have been instances when the floor (of a Canadian bank building) was almost completely Chinese or Indo-Chinese. There are so many immigrants from all parts of the world that I'm noticing that whites are the minority, let alone Canadians with Canadian ancestry. What you said may be true for some part of the population but in metropolitan cities you feel like being Canadian is being part of a nation formed of all of the world's nations. This is why the English queen is a symbol that does not represent what Canada is becoming as a nation. Multi-race, multi-etnicity, multi-culturalism, multi-lingualism are the new traits defining our country. Quote You are what you do.
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Willy lost me there, sorry... who can swear what to whom again? You got lost on that? More simply: We swear an oath to the Queen, the Queen swore an oath to us. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 Trudeau was against private ownership, he thought the state should own your land, that is why there are not any property rights in the constitution. We are luck that there is still some British common law in the system and he couldn't just take our land away from us. Thank the British foundation for that. It all started with the magna carta. I'm OK with state owning the land as long as it's OUR state and not UK or their monarch. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 You don't take an oath to a flag or something abstract because those can change. What he means by the "reciprocal oath" is that the people swear an oath to the crown and the crown swears the oath back for the people. How about people swear allegiance to the people? Let's leave foreign royalties out of it. Quote You are what you do.
Oleg Bach Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 How about people swear allegiance to the people?Let's leave foreign royalties out of it. Why would you swear allegiance to the people? Most people these days are crazed and greedy and base. They have no sense of the term "principle of service". To swear allegiance to the mob is chaos...at least the Queen and the "GOD" factor bring the weasily human into a forced state of higher mindedness. Besides do you really want to swear allegiance to say some ecomomic refugee that has no real cultural or spiritual ties to what is still an ancient nation (family) based in Christian doctrine THAT MADE US GREAT AND CIVIL.....WHY? Would you be loyal to a new comer that is not loyal to you..that would be foolish - stick to the devil that you know. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Charles Roach LLB, is a professional black man and an amatuer idiot. "Professional black man". I love it. I'd say he's a rather qualified idiot, though. Some of his more notorious clients were Black Panthers members seeking refugee status in Canada, and Hutu participants in the Rwandan genocide. I've heard the man speak publicly; it was just a verbal run-on about victim-hood and how the monarchy crushes human rights. He also rapped for us. Later he compared the Queen to Hitler. It was okay for him to swear allegiance to her when he was called to the Bar, though. While he may not want to become a Canadian citizen for which ever reason gives hime the sound bite de jour, as a Trinidadian, he is still one of Her Majesty's irratating subjects. Minor correction: as a Trinidadian, he was one of HM's more irritating subjects. Trinidad and Tobago became a republic in 1976. Oddly, you don't see him heading back there, though, what with the Queen's oppression of human rights here and all. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 (edited) How about people swear allegiance to the people? Which people? Let's leave foreign royalties out of it. Foreign royalty is left out of it. I'm OK with state owning the land as long as it's OUR state and not UK or their monarch. The Queen is the personification of the state; through OUR constitution we ask her to reign over OUR land. The UK and their monarch have had nothing to do with it for decades. Edited October 8, 2008 by g_bambino Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 Why would you swear allegiance to the people? Most people these days are crazed and greedy and base. They have no sense of the term "principle of service". To swear allegiance to the mob is chaos...at least the Queen and the "GOD" factor bring the weasily human into a forced state of higher mindedness. Besides do you really want to swear allegiance to say some ecomomic refugee that has no real cultural or spiritual ties to what is still an ancient nation (family) based in Christian doctrine THAT MADE US GREAT AND CIVIL.....WHY? Would you be loyal to a new comer that is not loyal to you..that would be foolish - stick to the devil that you know. Loyal to the people, loyal to the country, loyal to the ideals of equality and freedom that has brought us together from all over the Earth. Not loyal to symbols of subjugation, "God-given" masters, colonialism and slavery. Quote You are what you do.
Hcheh Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Sorry...maybe this story will make you feel better: Born in Trinidad, educated in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Charles Roach, a prominent Toronto civil rights lawyer, refuses to become a Canadian citizen, even though he has lived in this country for nearly five decades. The reason, he says, is that he would have to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A960958260 So why does he stay here? To take advantages of our institutions, universal health care..etc? Quote
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 loyal to the country, You want to be loyal to dirt and rocks? Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 Which people?Foreign royalty is left out of it. The Queen is the personification of the state; through OUR constitution we ask her to reign over OUR land. The UK and their monarch have had nothing to do with it for decades. The constitution should be written by the people for the people. If it is not - it should be re-written. The queen is the personification of how stateless we are - a foreign ruler owns our land... Quote You are what you do.
Hcheh Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 Loyal to the people, loyal to the country, loyal to the ideals of equality and freedom that has brought us together from all over the Earth.Not loyal to symbols of subjugation, "God-given" masters, colonialism and slavery. The queen is not our "master". She is just the head of our state, the head of the state has the responsibility of keeping our system of government in check. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 You want to be loyal to dirt and rocks? Just like the people of Afghanistan. Quote You are what you do.
g_bambino Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 The constitution should be written by the people for the people. If it is not - it should be re-written.The queen is the personification of how stateless we are - a foreign ruler owns our land... Are you qualified to write a constitution? The Queen is the personification of the Canadian state. The state cannot be stateless. The personification of a state cannot be foreign to it. Quote
Hcheh Posted October 8, 2008 Report Posted October 8, 2008 The constitution should be written by the people for the people. If it is not - it should be re-written.The queen is the personification of how stateless we are - a foreign ruler owns our land... The constitution is for the people.. who do you think benefits from all those rights and freedoms we get? Us or the queen? Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Posted October 8, 2008 The queen is not our "master". She is just the head of our state, the head of the state has the responsibility of keeping our system of government in check. She is a degraded version of a master. Our PM should be the head of state, not some outside figure. A person born into a "royal" family should be checking stuff like their wardrobe, not the affairs of another country. The English royalties should consider themselves very lucky - their ancestor heads weren't chopped off as their French cousins Quote You are what you do.
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.