Chretien honoured by Queen

jdobbin · July 13, 2009

As I argued above, if the (Protestant, Church of England) Queen of England gave an award to a former PM of Canada without prior (what's the term?) "consultation" with the existing federal PM, then I think that there's a greater political scandal involved.

No, there wouldn't.

It isn't a peerage. It is a honour and those don't require any approval from anyone.

Anything else is a lie.

As I noted above, Harper must have approved this and I think that Harper did so to abuse Chretien's vanity (as great as any secondary character of a Balzac novel, typically a German banker) and to put the federal Liberal party in an awkward position.

And I call you a liar.

jdobbin · July 13, 2009

Most Canadians are Catholic and yet our nominal head of state must not only be protestant, but Church of England.

Most Canadians are not Catholic.

msj · July 13, 2009

The Queen does not need permission from the sitting PM to bestow this honour.

Yes, it would be polite of her to let the sitting PM know that she is bestowing this honour upon a former PM but that is not the same thing as seeking ministerial advice (i.e. she may have politely informed the sitting PM of her decision versus asking for permission to bestow the award).

As for any scandal - even if she didn't let the sitting PM know about this, well, that is, at worst, rude.

What would be the BFD?

Edited July 13, 2009 by msj

August1991 · July 13, 2009

It isn't a peerage. It is a honour and those don't require any approval from anyone.
---

And I call you a liar.

Fine, Ok. I'm a liar (and I don't know that the woman on our 20s is our head of state and I don't understand the CPP/RRQ system).

Let's see how this one plays out.

The Queen of Canada, over the head of Stephen Harper, confers a special award on Jean Chretien.

The Queen of Canada, with the implicit approval of Stephen Harper, confers a special award on Jean Chretien.

In either case, it's bad for the federal Liberals and Ignatieff. Harper wins.

----

My point above is that Harper could have stopped this but he didn't because he knew that it would play to Chretien's vanity, and Chretien no longer cares about Liberals.

Your argument about the Queen's prerogative entirely misses the point. (If Chretien really cared about federal Liberals, he would have refused the award.) It is my admiration/disgust for Harper's cynicism that you seem to miss. Imagine his face when this request crossed his desk. I'm sure he signed the Queen's request with a grin.

Heck, I bet Harper proposed the award to the Queen to see whether Chretien would take the bait.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

August1991 · July 13, 2009

The Queen does not need permission from the sitting PM to bestow this honour.

msj, true. She usually (always) bestows honours based on the PM's advice.

IOW, Harper proposed Chretien's name to the Queen. Imagine that.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

msj · July 13, 2009

I really don't think Canadians will remember Chretien getting an award from the Queen when they go to the polls.

msj · July 13, 2009

msj, true. She usually provides honours based on the PM's advice.
IOW, Harper proposed Chretien's name to the Queen. Imagine that.

Proof?

Did you even read the link Smallc presented back on the first page?

The Queen has probably known Chretien since the 1960's and likely didn't need any prompting from anyone to bestow it.

I have a hard time believing that the existing PMO would waste their time on such trivial matters as getting Chretien an award which is awarded without ministerial advice in the first place.

Ah ha! But that's the pure genius of this!

So, Harper gets Chretien an award for some vanity purpose but ensures that the award is given without ministerial advice so it can't be traced back to him!

Oh, that is so very clever. And to what end! To ... what... end!!!!

:rolleyes:

August1991 · July 13, 2009

I really don't think Canadians will remember Chretien getting an award from the Queen when they go to the polls.

No, but they will remember that federal Liberals use taxpayer money to pay advertising firms who then give kickbacks to the federal Liberal Party.

Canadian voters will be reminded, once again, that federal Liberals have no beliefs other than power. Liberals want limousines, first-class travel, and international airports through the VIP lounge with cursory security checks - at taxpayer expense.

And Canadian voters will remember that federal Liberals are vain. Trudeau, Chretien, Martin - all terribly and sadly vain. The Queen of England awards Jean Chretien: The Bonfire of the Vanities.

I have a hard time believing that the existing PMO would waste their time on such trivial matters as getting Chretien an award which is awarded without ministerial advice in the first place.

Waste their time? You don't know politics. Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

Maybe, and maybe not. I love that ambiguous phrase too.

I tend to be ambiguous when I don't know something. Do you have some access to the Privy Council that the rest of us do not? Otherwise, you know as much as I do about this, and should therefore be equally as ambiguous.

magine for an instant that the Queen of England...

Queen Anne? What about her?

This is all about Harper playing on Chretien's vanity, and against the interests of the federal Liberal party.

August, I think you've been lurking around political message boards and watching CPAC far, far too much; you see conniving and politicking everywhere you look. Even Freud was able to say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

_{[ed. to correct]}

Edited July 13, 2009 by g_bambino

msj · July 13, 2009

Oh, I agree Canadians will continue to remember something of substance - kickbacks et al.

Although that is getting old and stale - harder to club the LPC over the head with this when Ignatieff is leader, I suppose.

But any linkage to this award is a stretch.

There is no scandal here.

Only simple procedure and an extraordinary Canadian receiving an award for which most people will have forgotten about by dinner time.

Once again, BFD.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

August, I think you've been lurking around political message boards and watching C-SPAN far, far too much; you see conniving and politicking everywhere you look. Even Freud was able to say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

True, I have been on holiday, watching CNN, TV-5 and BBC. I just watched La Reine Margot on DVD and The Madness of King George on satellite TV. (True. They're both good!)

Bambino, in all honesty, monarchy debates aside, I cannot believe that your dear British Elizabeth would give an award to Jean Chretien without first checking with Stephen Harper.

If anything, my point in this thread favours monarchy. Would a president chosen by some parliamentary assembly have the courage or good sense to pick up the phone and question a vain, egotistical, parliamentary headstrong head of government?

Where vanity is concerned, Harper may be right. He had to check.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

I cannot believe that your dear British Elizabeth would give an award to Jean Chretien without first checking with Stephen Harper.

As I've seen you go from adamant sureness that the Queen simply could not confer the honour without direction from Harper to a belief that she wouldn't do so without first checking with her Prime Minister, I know your opinions. I don't, however, know the Queen's, nor what she did or did not do in this case. Elizabeth could well have notified the PMO of her intentions beforehand; it would have been merely a courtesy, though, as objections from Harper would mean little.

I'm not sure why you think vanity plays such a huge part in this. Do you think Mother Teresa was a vain woman?

_[sp.]

Edited July 13, 2009 by g_bambino

capricorn · July 13, 2009

I cannot believe that your dear British Elizabeth would give an award to Jean Chretien without first checking with Stephen Harper.

If there was a reason for the Queen to tip off Harper about the Chretien Order of Merit, it would be to avert a diplomatic row similar to that which occurred in 2001, when Chretien chastised Blair for the knighthoods bestowed on Canadians back then. I know a knighthood is not in the same category as an Order of Merit. Yet I could see the Queen wanting to take the safest route to keep this award from ruffling feathers. And so I think it is very plausible that she tipped off Harper beforehand, but not in the sense of asking for his advice. It is important for the Queen and her office to be seen as adept in matters involving diplomacy and appearances.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

But any linkage to this award is a stretch.
There is no scandal here.

No scandal?

Chretien denied Conrad Black a British title. The Liberals enjoy privilege. Ignatieff is the grandson of a Russian minister to the Czar, and Ignatieff speaks French like the grandson/claimant to a European royal throne. Trudeau practiced a pirouette before dancing one behind the Queen. Liberals enjoy Catholic support - Irish and French.

Yet, Chretien is an Uncle Tom - a French-Canadian pea soup - who speaks da henglsih for da big boss.

No scandal?

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

msj · July 13, 2009

No scandal?
Chretien denied Conrad Black a British title. The Liberals enjoy privilege. Ignatieff is the grandson of a Russian minister to the Czar, and Ignatieff speaks French like the grandson/claimant to a European royal throne. Trudeau practiced a pirouette before dancing one behind the Queen. Liberals enjoy Catholic support - Irish and French.

Yet, Chretien is an Uncle Tom - a French-Canadian pea soup - who speaks da henglsih for da big boss.

No scandal?

I suppose the scandal, then, should be: why isn't Chretien offered a knighthood? :rolleyes:

Do you honestly not know the difference between an award (Order of Merit) and a Knighthood?

Hint: this was already explained on the first page of this thread.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

I suppose the scandal, then, should be: why isn't Chretien offered a knighthood?
Do you honestly not know the difference between an award (Order of Merit) and a Knighthood?

No, I don't know the difference. It doesn't matter.

Jean Chretien is a vain man, and so are the federal Liberals. Harper put out a trap and Chretien, gave into his vanity. He succombed. (Understandable in a way. Chretien was born in 1934, he's now over 69, and it's very hard to quit the scene.)

Harper has hit the key weakness of Liberals: their vanity.

lily · July 13, 2009

Do you make this up as you go?

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

Chretien denied Conrad Black a British title. The Liberals enjoy privilege. Ignatieff is the grandson of a Russian minister to the Czar, and Ignatieff speaks French like the grandson/claimant to a European royal throne. Trudeau practiced a pirouette before dancing one behind the Queen. Liberals enjoy Catholic support - Irish and French. Yet, Chretien is an Uncle Tom - a French-Canadian pea soup - who speaks da henglsih for da big boss.

:blink: August, though I often (though not always) disagree with your opinions, you at least usually make sense. This latest of yours, however, has lost me completely. What is it you're trying to say? That the Liberals enjoy heirarchy and privilege, or that they mock it? I can't quite tell.

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

Harper put out a trap and Chretien, gave into his vanity. He succombed.

You're really wandering into the tin-foil hat club here. Despite all sorts of evidence that appointments to the Order of Merit are personal gifts of the sovereign, made without ministerial advice, you've returned to your earlier immovable stance that Harper ordered the Queen to offer one of the precious vacancies in the order to Chretien... as a trap. Yea... okay... sure.

_[copyed.]

Edited July 13, 2009 by g_bambino

msj · July 13, 2009

You're really wandering into the tin-foil hat club here.

Wandering?

He's fully ensconced in it.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

August, though I often (though not always) disagree with your opinions, you at least usually make sense. This latest of yours, however, has lost me completely. What is it you're trying to say? That the Liberals enjoy heirarchy and privilege, or that they mock it? I can't quite tell.

I disagree with you too Bambino, profoundly.

My post above was not a question of the State, or why we don't have a federal republic.

My simple point is that Canada's federal Liberals should not play both sides of the street. Trudeau danced a pirouette behind the Queen, and Chretien shouldn't accept an award from the same woman.

Then again, Chretien, unlike Trudeau, is not really a federalist. Chretien is a vain Uncle Tom - like many federal Liberals.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

msj · July 13, 2009

I disagree with you too Bambino, profoundly.
My post above was not a question of the State, or why we don't have a federal republic.

My simple point is that Canada's federal Liberals should not play both sides of the street. Trudeau danced a pirouette behind the Queen, and Chretien shouldn't accept an award from the same woman.

So now Chretien shouldn't accept an award because his buddy had a little bit of a laugh and danced a pirouette behind her back?

This is just nuts.

Do you think that the LPC and all its members are some kind of Borg?

Jean Chretien can't be his own person with his own reasons for accepting the award?

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

My simple point is that Canada's federal Liberals should not play both sides of the street. Trudeau danced a pirouette behind the Queen, and Chretien shouldn't accept an award from the same woman.

Why ever not? It's only you who is drawing a contrast between the two men here: you've taken it upon yourself to ascribe to Trudeau a particular attitude and then claimed Chretien betrayed it for the sake of his own vanity. This is all in the same vein as your assertion, without any factual backing, that Harper is the mastermind behind all this. I think you're only frantically grasping at the ends of strings and trying to tie them together, only slowly realizing that they aren't long enough to do so. You look more and more ridiculous the longer you keep it up.

_[copyed.]

Edited July 13, 2009 by g_bambino

August1991 · July 13, 2009

So now Chretien shouldn't accept an award because his buddy had a little bit of a laugh and danced a pirouette behind her back?

msj, if I had been Chretien, and a good federal Liberal, I would have refused the award.

I think that such a refusal would have helped Ignatieff and the federal Liberal Party.

If Chretien accepted the award, it's because he has a big ego. Chretien (and Liberals) love the limelight.

----

Liberals are like Sacha Baron Cohen - attentionistas, look-at-me, drama queens.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

msj · July 13, 2009

msj, if I had been Chretien, and a good federal Liberal, I would have refused teh award.
I think that such a refusal would have helped Ignatieff and the federal Liberl Party.

If Chretien accepted the award, it's because he has a big ego. Chretien likes the limelight.

Huh?

Chretien gets a few more minutes of fame which will be quickly forgotten by the electorate but fondly remembered by him and his family.

He is put into an order with Mandela, Thatcher, and others.

He gets to put "OM" behind his name.

Why not accept all that.

It is quite an achievement for a remarkable person.

He deserves the award and it would be more scandalous for him to not accept it.

And, one could argue that Chretien would have a bigger ego for not accepting it and not come across nearly as loony as the argument that you're presenting.

Edited July 13, 2009 by msj