Problems for the Canadian Crown

[eyeball]

Spoken like a true cryoto totalitarian, trying to stifle debate simply because you don't have the smarts to engage in iot without the clear and present danger of looking stupid.

Not sure what credentials a crypto totalitarian has to discuss freedom, other than the desire to place limits on those he doesn't like....

The thing that really needs limits placed on it though is the state, as I have repeatedly said over and over and over and over again. Seems rather strange that a totalitarian crypto or otherwise, would be suggesting we do that don't you think? Shouldn't a real totalitarian be investigating the crap out of people like me?

[g_bambino]

The thing that really needs limits placed on it though is the state, as I have repeatedly said over and over and over and over again.

Over and over and over, indeed. Why, then, don't you just address his point?

[dpwozney]

No it doesn't.

It doesn't what? The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God.

The absence of "The Queen" or "The Crown" in the context of the Constitution is irrelevant.

How is "The Queen" absent in the context of the Constitution? How is "The Crown" absent in the context of the Constitution?

[g_bambino]

...the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God.

What exactly is your point?

[eyeball]

THE CONSTITUTION consists of multiple documents and unwritten conventions. So, where is its top, then?

At the top of the part that's supposed to guarantee individual rights and freedoms.

God's supremacy clearly supercedes our rights, always has and always will so long as we have a monarchy.

I probably wouldn't object to this if the Church was actually capable of doing the job that was expected of it when it melded itself to the state - to check, balance and protect ordinary people from the abuse of power. The last time I recall the power of excommunication being used to bring a leader to heel was when Chretien's eternal soul was threatened over his position on abortion.

Like I said if atheists had written the magna carta we'd probably live in a very different world.

Perhaps there actually was a time when the richest most powerful people in our society believed they were subject to God's surveillance but I've never bought into the idea myself. That said we could still wire them to the Internet and keep an eye on them ourselves. God helps those who help themselves as they say, something I'm sure the rich and powerful noticed a long long time ago.

[dpwozney]

What exactly is your point?

According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign.

The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown.

[charter.rights]

It doesn't what? The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God.

How is "The Queen" absent in the context of the Constitution? How is "The Crown" absent in the context of the Constitution?

You are confused.

The Constitution does not state that it was founded under the Supremacy of God (any more than it would be founded under the Supremacy of the Queen). The emphasis is on "principles" not "supremacy". Therein lies your confusion. The Queen gave us the Constitution and retains authority, even if we wanted to amend it.

[g_bambino]

At the top of the part that's supposed to guarantee individual rights and freedoms.

So, instead of saying "the constitution" you should have said "the Charter of Rights and Freedoms"; the Charter is not the constitution.

God's supremacy clearly supercedes our rights, always has and always will so long as we have a monarchy.

And that is absolute bunk. If Canada were to become a republic, the (secularly) holy Charter would remain unaltered. Even the supposed mightiest of republics - the United States - recognises the supremacy of god. So, not only have you been unable to provide evidence that the Crown represents god, you've also failed to make a coherent thesis on the same subject.

[sp]

Edited November 16, 2009 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign.

The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't correct your error.

[eyeball]

Over and over and over, indeed. Why, then, don't you just address his point?

Who's point, Morris'? I did, when I said it was rather strange that a totalitarian crypto or otherwise, would be suggesting people put limits on the state's power.

His point always seems to be that the state should have more, a lot more.

Its been very difficult discussing the topic of people's rights and freedoms with Morris since he began catering to the needs of the C-suite.

[g_bambino]

I did, when I said it was rather strange that a totalitarian crypto or otherwise, would be suggesting people put limits on the state's power.

That had nothing to do with his statement:

I'm not sure how your non sequitor supports your erroneous assertion that the crown supercedes the constitution or why the enshrining of habeas corpus in the constitution is germane to that point.

In response, you made an ad homonym about MDancer. Why don't you just address the lack of clarity he points to?

[dpwozney]

The Constitution does not state that it was founded under the Supremacy of God (any more than it would be founded under the Supremacy of the Queen). The emphasis is on "principles" not "supremacy".

To whom does this “emphasis” belong other than just you? The Constitution Act, 1982 states “... Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God ...”.

[charter.rights]

To whom does this “emphasis” belong other than just you? The Constitution Act, 1982 states “... Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God ...”.

principles.

[eyeball]

So, instead of saying "the constitution" you should have said "the Charter of Rights and Freedoms"; the Charter is not the constitution.

Fair enough but the intent is still clear.

And that is absolute bunk. If Canada were to become a republic, the (secularly) holy Charter would remain unaltered. Even the supposed mightyest of republics - the United States - recognises the supremacy of god. So, not only have you been unable to provide evidence that the Crown represents god, you've also failed to make a coherent thesis on the same subject.

There is no evidence for God either, not that this means much.

The fact the nation most accredited for separating the church and state still upholds the symbolic authority of God only reinforces my thesis. The importance of this symbol can have only one purpose, to make sheeple out of people.

[g_bambino]

The fact the nation most accredited for separating the church and state still upholds the symbolic authority of God only reinforces my thesis.

No, it doesn't. Contrary to most here, who accept that the monarchy is generally recognised as below god, your thesis was that the Crown is representative of god, as though the divine right of kings was still believed to be true. I'm still waiting for the proof that supports this claim.

[eyeball]

That had nothing to do with his statement:

I'm not sure how your non sequitor supports your erroneous assertion that the crown supercedes the constitution or why the enshrining of habeas corpus in the constitution is germane to that point.

Morris' lack of clarity stems from his lack of a moral and ethical background, especially as it relates to our rights and freedoms, habeas corpus and the magna carta he mentioned I consult. The proof of where Morris' head is at regarding individual rights and freedoms can be found throughout this thread which is why I suggested he go bone up on the Magna Carta himself.

Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Source

Habeas corpus is just about the only thing left of the original Magna Carta that is in our Constitution/Charter and its clear the state, and Morris, would be just as happy if it wasn't.

[g_bambino]

Morris' lack of clarity stems from his lack of a moral and ethical background.

That isn't relevant to what's going on here; I didn't see clarity in your argument, either, and I had nothing to do with what went on between you and he elsewhere.

Habeas corpus is just about the only thing left of the original Magna Carta that is in our Constitution/Charter and its clear the state, and Morris, would be just as happy if it wasn't.

That still doesn't explain how the Crown supersedes the constitution.

[eyeball]

No, it doesn't. Contrary to most here, who accept that the monarchy is generally recognised as below god, your thesis was that the Crown is representative of god, as though the divine right of kings was still believed to be true. I'm still waiting for the proof that supports this claim.

My thesis is that the power-flows-down (as opposed to power-flowing-up) paradigm is symbolized by an ancient hierarchy of legal authority that flows down from God through the Crown, into the state and over the people. It just ain't flowing the other way despite all appearances and claims to the contrary.

I think its quite evident that many people in power (the phrase 'natural governing power' comes to mind), not to mention their toadies, still strongly believe in the spirit of the right of kings if not the practice.

As for the proof that religion still actively attempts to influence official policy by controlling the right of kings there is the episode of Chretien's threatened excommunication over his position on abortion.

[g_bambino]

My thesis is that the power-flows-down (as opposed to power-flowing-up) paradigm is symbolized by an ancient hierarchy of legal authority that flows down from God through the Crown, into the state and over the people. It just ain't flowing the other way despite all appearances and claims to the contrary.

So the only way the Magna Carta plays into this theory is that you either believe it never existed or are quite in error about its consequences. In essence, you hold that the divine right of kings is still commonly believed to be true.

[c/e]

Edited November 16, 2009 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

The thing that really needs limits placed on it though is the state, as I have repeatedly said over and over and over and over again. Seems rather strange that a totalitarian crypto or otherwise, would be suggesting we do that don't you think? Shouldn't a real totalitarian be investigating the crap out of people like me?

Yes you repeat it over and over again from your left side of your mouth anc contradict it over and over again from your right side ofyour mouth.

Need I remind you of your stated desire that the State interfere with corporate boards by installing members of their chosing?

You don't want less state power, you just want greater state power applied to your liking.

[Smallc]

Well, technically the constitution says "the Queen". But, according to the Interpretation Act, "the Queen" is synonymous with "the King", "the Crown", "His Majesty", and "Her Majesty". The monarch is inseparable from the Crown.

That's what I was trying to get at. It's all about the Crown, no matter the gender of the monarch.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Even the supposed mightiest of republics - the United States - recognises the supremacy of god....

Well hell, it must be true then.....right?

[eyeball]

So the only way the Magna Carta plays into this theory is that you either believe it never existed or are quite in error about its consequences. In essence, you hold that the divine right of kings is still commonly believed to be true.

[c/e]

No, but the paradigm by which kings ruled is still with us.

[g_bambino]

the paradigm by which kings ruled is still with us.

Only now long bound by a human made, populous constitution.

[eyeball]

Yes you repeat it over and over again from your left side of your mouth anc contradict it over and over again from your right side ofyour mouth.

No, you just take other's words and twist and spit them out sideways. This wasn't always your style but sadly, something in you snapped. Maybe the C-suite put worms in your brain...who knows.

Need I remind you of your stated desire that the State interfere with corporate boards by installing members of their chosing?

See there you go again, even though I've reminded you before that its my desire that corporate charters be constitutionally required to have some representatives of the people's choosing on their boards, not the State's as you say. This is mostly with regards to corporations whose activities impact the ecosystems that people live in and rely on.

You don't want less state power, you just want greater state power applied to your liking.

Wrong again, I simply want more power in the hands of the people which is something that is apparently anathema to the State, and of course corporations now that you've mentioned them, and as the Crown symbolizes and our Charter informs us, probably even God.

The reaction of folks like you who subscribe to greater social obsequiousness reminds me of the response to Oliver asking, "please sir may I have some more"?