What are we such a sad nation?

[Cameron]

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

So John Stewart of the Daily Show decides to do a nine minute piece on Canada's Constitutional Wranglings.

Why is it making news? Why is it every time someone in the US pays attention to Canada we get giddy and clap our hands?

Do we have some sort of problem with our image? Are we self conscious?

[Mr.Canada]

I wouldn't say we're a sad nation, we just happen to be making news at the moment. In my opinion anyhow.

Canadians always seem to be looking for outside approval instead of knowing that we are a great nation we just think we are and are always looking for confirmation. I chalk this down to Canadians not wanting to show outward pride in ourselves as Americans do for example. Patriotism outside of hockey seems to get branded as some sort of right wing idea. Again just my own observation and it's in no way conclusive.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[capricorn]

Sometimes I think we take ourselves too seriously. So what if a comic in the US finds elements of our politics comical. Have others on this board not laughed at the US political system? Of course they have. Think Sarah Palin. Humour is a great thing. We could use more of it.

[Moonbox]

John Stewart's skit didn't even make fun of Canada. If anything, he praised the fact that our Prime Minister can be removed easily from office.

He made fun of Harper's hair, made fun of Dion and called him a woman and then joked about how we're a constitutional monarchy.

With the amount of attention Stewart gives American Presidents, i don't find it particularly shocking that he devotes a nine minute skit to a country that probably accounts for 5-10% of his viewership which he says basically nothing bad about.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe we (and Stewart) should look at Belgium and go "Wow, we're not so bad after all."

[Smallc]

Stewart is brilliant. The piece was brilliant. The only part I didn't like is the false info about us being British subjects.

[blueblood]

Stewart is brilliant. The piece was brilliant. The only part I didn't like is the false info about us being British subjects.

For all intents and purposes, we sort of still are.

[Oleg Bach]

Stewart is brilliant. The piece was brilliant. The only part I didn't like is the false info about us being British subjects.

We are subjects - look at American money and look at who is on ours. Americans have always resented the fact that we have a Queen and they do not. Bush and the rest of that elite - their goal in social climbing was to have tea with our Queen - that is ultimate American success. To rub sholders with her Majesty - How many times to I have to explain to you that the Royals are the head of big buisness in most of the world and in ALL of Canada - they hold the wealth - and we share in the COMMON wealth...It's not a bad deal.

[Smallc]

For all intents and purposes, we sort of still are.

For all intents and purposes...no we're not. All Commonwealth Realms are equal in stature.

[guyser]

John Stewart's skit didn't even make fun of Canada. If anything, he praised the fact that our Prime Minister can be removed easily from office.

Yup.

Dont forget some of his producers (who would suggest story ideas) are Canadian themselves and would write the lines used .

The more we all laugh, the better we are.

[blueblood]

For all intents and purposes...no we're not. All Commonwealth Realms are equal in stature.

Why is it on passports, that we receive equal benefits at UK embassies as Canadian ones?

We still have the Queen. May as well be subjects, not that that's a bad thing.

[Smallc]

Why is it on passports, that we receive equal benefits at UK embassies as Canadian ones?

We still have the Queen. May as well be subjects, not that that's a bad thing.

Because its an agreement with Britain. We can also go to Australian Embassies and High Commissions. We do have the Queen, but the role of the Queen as the Head of State of Canada is separate from her role as Head of State of Britain.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Because its an agreement with Britain. We can also go to Australian Embassies and High Commissions. We do have the Queen, but the role of the Queen as the Head of State of Canada is separate from her role as Head of State of Britain.

Hence my wording of for all intents and purposes

[Mr.Canada]

The Quuen is the most powerful person on the planet even more so than the US President. She doesn't exercise it but she could simply raise her finger and say that the commonwealth will go to war and we would all be bound to enter the conflict.

[Oleg Bach]

The Quuen is the most powerful person on the planet even more so than the US President. She doesn't exercise it but she could simply raise her finger and say that the commonwealth will go to war and we would all be bound to enter the conflict.

Even Bush attempted to kiss her but - look at BP oil and the pipe line - that supplied the western part of America..she shut that down when it got a few rust holes and the Americans did not want to pitch in and assist in the cost of fixing it - so off the cheap Americans went to Iraq - not to get cheaper oil but free oil - don't mess with this steely eyed old woman - or her family that can bring about famine in the blink of an eye - they control all newly engineered seeds for food..that's not a figure head. We should be proud that she is our mother.

[Mr.Canada]

God Save the Queen.

[Oleg Bach]

One of the ways that the Queen hid her power was to present as having no power. This attitbute goes back to the basis of the monarchy - back to the King of Judea - the Christ - he was so powerful that he could make him self powerless - It's a strange bit of cosmic physics. A concept that most can not understand. Most assume that power comes from disempowering others - brutes! Real power is the generation of power to others. This is real class and grace...when we have a politcal in Canada ready to lose it all by giving it all then I will be impressed - so far all we have in office are power suckers...we need some less gluttonous power givers - and yes God Save The Queen and all of her loyal ministers. Damn the barbarians.

[Peter F]

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

John Stewart Makes Fun of Canada

So John Stewart of the Daily Show decides to do a nine minute piece on Canada's Constitutional Wranglings.

Only in Canada would this make the Canadian news. Its self-perpetuating!

[M.Dancer]

The Quuen is the most powerful person on the planet even more so than the US President. She doesn't exercise it but she could simply raise her finger and say that the commonwealth will go to war and we would all be bound to enter the conflict.

CLANG!!!

[ToadBrother]

The Quuen is the most powerful person on the planet even more so than the US President. She doesn't exercise it but she could simply raise her finger and say that the commonwealth will go to war and we would all be bound to enter the conflict.

The problem being that, since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament is supreme, and the reigning monarch is bound by constitution and tradition to do as His or Her Government asks. I did a quick read through the constitution, and it doesn't even appear the Queen or Governor General has the power to declare war (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and that is strictly the power of Parliament.

[Mr.Canada]

The problem being that, since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament is supreme, and the reigning monarch is bound by constitution and tradition to do as His or Her Government asks. I did a quick read through the constitution, and it doesn't even appear the Queen or Governor General has the power to declare war (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and that is strictly the power of Parliament.

Meh, I heard an Englishman say it in a pub once, sounded good and thought I'd give it a try.

[ToadBrother]

One of the ways that the Queen hid her power was to present as having no power. This attitbute goes back to the basis of the monarchy - back to the King of Judea - the Christ - he was so powerful that he could make him self powerless - It's a strange bit of cosmic physics.

??? Though we can debate when exactly it happened, essentially, after the Norman Conquest and up until the Glorious Revolution, the King was technically an absolute monarch. While Parliament certainly gained considerable ground, it really wasn't until James II was turfed that the notion that the Crown was not supreme was really recognized.

And WTF does the Kingdom of Judea have to do with any of this. Sure various monarchs in Europe loved to trace themselves through dubious means back to that time, but the notions of the powers of the Crown were more inspired by Charlemagne, who himself was invoking the Roman Empire, and the Emperors were absolute monarchs.

A concept that most can not understand. Most assume that power comes from disempowering others - brutes! Real power is the generation of power to others. This is real class and grace...when we have a politcal in Canada ready to lose it all by giving it all then I will be impressed - so far all we have in office are power suckers...we need some less gluttonous power givers - and yes God Save The Queen and all of her loyal ministers. Damn the barbarians.

The wielding of power always comes at the expense of someone. When Parliament passes a law, one way or the other, an essential or "natural" liberty is curbed. This is really more political philosophy than a real discussion of the nature of power.

The reality of English history is that for most of it, the monarchs wielded enormous powers, but through some odd twists of fate and tradition (and one notably weak king), the power of taxation, and thus the real power of the realm, fell to Parliament. The Glorious Revolution formalized the supremacy of Parliament, but even under the Tudors, who most certainly viewed themselves as absolute monarchs, they did their tip of the hat to the rabble in Parliament.

The Queen holds enormous powers both in the United Kingdom and in many of the other countries, but the notion of a constitutional monarch, even if not precisely formalized in many of Her realms means that Parliament is supreme, and only the most extreme of circumstances would see Her or Her vice-regal representatives interfere with that power.

Edited December 11, 2008 by ToadBrother

[reasonoverpassion]

The Queen holds enormous powers both in the United Kingdom and in many of the other countries, but the notion of a constitutional monarch, even if not precisely formalized in many of Her realms means that Parliament is supreme, and only the most extreme of circumstances would see Her or Her vice-regal representatives interfere with that power.

The supremacy of parliament is a well established fact in the UK and elsewhere. The current monarch in no way shape or form has absolute power. Any claim to an absolute monarchy ended with the 1689 Bill of Rights. Limits on monarchy were being restricted long before this however, and Charles I essentially lost his head over the issue. It was James II however, who was the last English monarch to subscribe to the idea of an absolute monarchy. He lost that battle when parliament forced his abdication.

Those Europe monarchies that claimed absolute power have long been assigned to history

[Smallc]

and the reigning monarch is bound by constitution and tradition to do as His or Her Government asks.

Unless of course their government is out to lunch or is completely destroying the country.

[ToadBrother]

The supremacy of parliament is a well established fact in the UK and elsewhere. The current monarch in no way shape or form has absolute power. Any claim to an absolute monarchy ended with the 1689 Bill of Rights. Limits on monarchy were being restricted long before this however, and Charles I essentially lost his head over the issue. It was James II however, who was the last English monarch to subscribe to the idea of an absolute monarchy. He lost that battle when parliament forced his abdication.

Those Europe monarchies that claimed absolute power have long been assigned to history

Indeed. The last country in Europe that has an absolute monarchy is the Vatican.