whowhere Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Ok, here is the difference. The Queen has a direct link to Canada as it's head of state. The Government of the United Kingdom is completely separate from Canada. This award is not from the government of the United Kingdom and has nothing to do with the government United Kingdom unlike knighthood (a british title) and lordship (a british government office). This is an award that is a personal gift from the Queen of Canada and all Commonwealth Realms. This is also an award that has been given to Prime Ministers if Canada in the past. The fact that most of the current recipients of the award are British and the fact that many places are mistakenly calling the award British does not change the fact that it is a personal gift from the Queen of Canada who also happens to be the Queen of the United Kingdom. Buddy who are preaching to? The queen is the Queen of Canada, Britain, and other countries. Either she or her governor generals have to ratify every act of legislation coming from the parliaments. What if she and her governor generals refuses to do this? Power stems from the Barrel of a Gun. If the Queen and her Governor Generals should decide to go to war with Canada's parliament and bureacrats she would require the resources to quash the resistance. Easily done if France, Spain, perhaps the US as they appear to recognize the queen as Canada's head of state. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/CA.html steps in to defend in her "realms' If the queen should decide to seize the power of Canada what recourse would Canada's parliament and bureacracy have? Zero! Quote Job 40 (King James Version) 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
jdobbin Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 If the queen should decide to seize the power of Canada what recourse would Canada's parliament and bureacracy have? Zero! We could throw the tea in the harbour and cancel her visit. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Describes a peerage doesn't it. Describes a helluva lot of things. Doesn't mean the peerage is the same as an order; just like an order is not the same as a decoration, nor as a medal, nor as membership at Costco. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) No, you are not understanding what I am saying. Who but you can understand what you're saying? It's all gibberish! You can't differentiate between the Queen in one council vs. the Queen in another council vs. the Queen in no council. You can't understand the difference between appointment to an order and elevation to the peerage. You can't understand the process of appointment into the Order of Merit. You apparently can't tell Australians or South Africans apart from Brits. So, I think smallc can be forgiven for being a little befuddled by your meandering nonsense. [ed. for grammar] Edited July 18, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Buddy who are preaching to? Sometimes, I'm really not sure. Quote
ironstone Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 And it seems that her majesty disagrees with you. Her Royal Highness has over the years literally handed out tons of award to many people,many of the awards given to people that are quite popular with the public,but otherwise undeserving.For example,dope-head bed-hopping rock stars,big deal. The Queen has lot's of time for stuff like this,she's never done a days work in her life. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
whowhere Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 Describes a helluva lot of things. Doesn't mean the peerage is the same as an order; just like an order is not the same as a decoration, nor as a medal, nor as membership at Costco. It's kind of an irony Chretien would accept any honour from the Queen given the fact he protested and prevented Conrad Black from becoming a Lord. Conrad Black had to renounced his Canadian citizenship and relocate to Britain. Quote Job 40 (King James Version) 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 It's kind of an irony Chretien would accept any honour from the Queen given the fact he protested and prevented Conrad Black from becoming a Lord. Why didn't people say these kinds of stupid things when Chretien was inducted into the Order of Canada? It's an honour from the Queen, too. (Of course, that's pretty much a rhetorical question; I'm confident I know the answer already.) Quote
Wilber Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 If the Queen did this, Harper has approved it.And I suspect that Harper is appealing to Chretien's vanity - against Chretien's interests in the the federal Liberal Party, assuming he has any. Good move on Harper's part. What better way to make Chretien look like a hypocrite. Interesting that an American citizen can accept a Knighthood but according to Chretien, a Canadian may not. A certain lack of self esteem on Canada's part perhaps? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 18, 2009 Report Posted July 18, 2009 The House of Lords is PART of the British Government...well, for now anyway. Why would Canada care if a foreign country decided it didn't mind foreign citizens in its government? The Lord Black affair was nothing more than a pissing match between two monstrous egos combined with a Canadian identity crisis. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) I believe it has to do with an agreement that exists between Commonwealth Realms and has nothing to do with a Canadian identity crisis. The only place that a Canadian identity crisis exists is in the minds of those people who imagine it. Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Describes a helluva lot of things. Doesn't mean the peerage is the same as an order; just like an order is not the same as a decoration, nor as a medal, nor as membership at Costco. Having a peerage is being part of an order. Did you read the definitions? As usual a ignorant liberal who can't take being called a hypocrite. 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
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I believe it has to do with an agreement that exists between Commonwealth Realms and has nothing to do with a Canadian identity crisis. The only place that a Canadian identity crisis exists is in the minds of those people who imagine it. Really, then why are we offended when governments of countries we respect see fit to honour our citizens for what they consider to be meritorious service? You would think we would be flattered. We believe it is our right to give people like Nelson Mandela the Order of Canada. I have no problem with that but it's a bit pompous considering our position on Canadians receiving foreign awards of a similar nature don't you think? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
msj Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Having a peerage is being part of an order. Did you read the definitions? As usual a ignorant liberal who can't take being called a hypocrite. So I guess being in an order makes them the same? An Order of Merit confers no title although one can add OM after their name. Being raised to the peerage, however, does confer a title and allows one to sit in the House of Lords. These are substantial differences. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I have no problem with that but it's a bit pompous considering our position on Canadians receiving foreign awards of a similar nature don't you think? The Order of Canada doesn't mean Mandela can sit in the Canadian Senate. Quote
msj Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Really, then why are we offended when governments of countries we respect see fit to honour our citizens for what they consider to be meritorious service? You would think we would be flattered. We believe it is our right to give people like Nelson Mandela the Order of Canada. I have no problem with that but it's a bit pompous considering our position on Canadians receiving foreign awards of a similar nature don't you think? I have no problem with Mandela getting the Order of Canada just like I have no problem with Jean Chretien getting the Order of Merit. It is flattering but I think it is really a personal thing than anything else. I also don't have a problem with Canadians being elevated to the peerage but I do understand why some don't like it. The point being - most people can appreciate that there are substantial differences between a peerage and the OM. Those who can't seem to be arguing in this very forum. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
msj Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 The Order of Canada doesn't mean Mandela can sit in the Canadian Senate. Beaten by seconds. Well stated though. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Quebec premiers are often members of the Legion of Honour. This simply has to do with an agreement between Commonwealth countries. Quote
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 The Order of Canada doesn't mean Mandela can sit in the Canadian Senate. Nor should he but why should you or I care if Black or any other Canadian citizen sits in the House of Lords? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Nor should he but why should you or I care if Black or any other Canadian citizen sits in the House of Lords? That has been the debate in Canada for a long time. I believe the government of Canada has tried to set up its own awards of merit and filled its own appointments. The awarding of knighthoods and using the title and inherited positions seemed to run contrary to what Canadian values were in regards to independence. Quote
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 These are substantial differences. Only in what is expected and given to the inductees, but both are orders. Why is it that nelson mandella is only an honourary member while Chriten is one if the exclusive 24? Why was he not given the Honourary title? 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
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Because honorary titles are granted to foreigners (those not of Commonwealth Realms and not subjects of the Queen). Chretien is not a foreigner. Quote
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Because honorary titles are granted to foreigners (those not of Commonwealth Realms and not subjects of the Queen). Chretien is not a foreigner. South Africa is not an ex british colony? 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
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 It isn't a Commonwealth Realm, meaning that it is no longer under the Crown. 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.