Problems for the Canadian Crown

[eyeball]

I would pack them with shareholders, who of course are not only citizens but actually are the people who should have a say.

I don't doubt for a moment that many corporations would try to thwart democracy by packing the assemblies, that's why they would be picked randomly like a jury, for the very same reason.

I am amazed you don't see the people's committees forcing the owners of private property to take their selections as board memebers as being anything but an infringement on freedom.

Nobody would be forced into doing anything at all. If shareholders choose not to abide by a duly constituted charter requirement that boards of directors include elected public representatives they could simply take their investments elsewhere. The problem you have is that you refuse to see a corporation's degradation of an ecosystem for example as an infringement on the common property rights and the freedoms of the people who live in it. They can't just pack it up like an investment and take it away with them.

What do you think would happen at the AGM if the board recommended to the shareholders that they reject the political commisars nomintated by the Soviet committee citizen's assembly?

That's a ridiculous way to characterise what I'm talking about. You really do employ a dishonest way of debating. You acknowledge that I'm not a thug but you resort to continually making references to words like Soviet and commissars, to conjure up images of thugs, dictators and totalitarianism. Like I said, its ridiculous and dishonest. It's really not hard at all to imagine that your attitudes are an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the C-suite you provide services to. Look at your own admission that you'd pack a citizen's assembly. Would you pack a jury too? I think its safe to assume you would.

And people are supposed to take your assessment or definition of what totalitarianism is as accurate? That's a phenomenon all in itself.

[GostHacked]

We have outlived the purpose of needing a Queen or a King as a representative head of state. Since the position holds now power, we can essentially remove them as figure heads and be done with it.

[Oleg Bach]

The Queen is our head of state. Until that is changed we OWE her our allegiance and loyalty. We will pay for her visits and wine and dine the Royal Family with as much grace and respect as possible.

If the bonny Prince Charely wants to speak and have me listen - he is welcome to drop by my house and bring some gin..as far as going out of my way to visit him - I think not! He never visits me..so why should I make the effort? In all civility and in good tone - I owe the Royal Family for letting my parents enter their kingdom so I could be born there..You would think they would have treated me better seeing I was ward of the Queen on a few occassions...or is that ward of the state? Or was that was that some sort of the crown insists that you appear..don't remember..oh well - so Charely - coming over or not? Bring the Beef eater and leave what's her name at the hotel.

[ToadBrother]

We have outlived the purpose of needing a Queen or a King as a representative head of state. Since the position holds now power, we can essentially remove them as figure heads and be done with it.

Well, we could do anything we like providing:

1. Whoever does it has the political capital to expend on such a project

2. The very act of trying to change from the Crown to another form of governance doesn't tear us to pieces

3. A better system can actually be selected that everyone can agree on

On point 1, I don't see anyone with that much political capital. We don't even have a party that can form a majority government, let alone start a massive project requiring, if not the wholesale rewriting of the Constitution, then at least massive revisions (and keep in mind, that the 1980s was dominated by constitutional issues, whether initial negotiations or later failed attempts to amend)

On point 2, and returning to what happened the last time we tried some substantial amendments, it's a can of worms, or worse, a jack-in-the-box with a big boxing glove, libel to bonk those brave or foolish enough for the undertaking. Once you decide to open up the Constitution, we're all at great risk. Will Quebec nationalists use this as the much-needed trigger to secession? How will the Aboriginal peoples react, when they have historically had much closer ties and reliance on the Crown than anyone else? How will critical issues like the very nature of the Crown itself be answered?

On point 3, considering the first two points and the effort and risks involved, will we in fact get a better government. Our system has worked pretty damned well since Confederation, and if you more accurately push it back to the Glorious Revolution, when the modern Constitutional Monarchy was founded, it has proven to be one of the most successful governing models in history. It is extraordinarily adaptable.

I personally am not terribly overawed by nationalistic arguments about how awful it is to have a foreign head of state, about how we live in a modern age, blah blah blah. That feels more like some college student's idea of revolutionary change than any particularly well-thought out set of reforms. It's not that I'm all that married to the House of Windsor, or to the Monarchy, it's just that, being a student of history in my own small way, I have to say that our system, while not the best, has weathered lots of storms and incremental improvements are what it need, not some sort of republican zeal that wouldn't really deliver us a better government, but might deal us a few godawful body blows.

[M.Dancer]

that's why they would be picked randomly like a jury, for the very same reason.

Oh so this group of hoi polloi wouldn't be questioning or making proposals, they would be listening to the learned presentations of adversarial representatives?...just like juries?

Sounds Great, Who gets to pick the Judges?

Nobody would be forced into doing anything at all. If shareholders choose not to abide by a duly constituted charter requirement that boards of directors include elected public representatives they could simply take their investments elsewhere.

So do business our way, as decided by the Kangaroo commitees or leave...no no one being forced.

I'll tell you what would happen though...any public corporation that would be forced to work in an environement such as that which clearly is unconstitutional would simply move their corporate offices out of that jurisdiction, set up an wholey owned subsidiary to take over the operations in that jurisdiction and voila, busness as usual. After all, you cannot have political commisars sit on the boards of companies if the company had no board.

The problem you have is that you refuse to see a corporation's degradation of an ecosystem for example as an infringement on the common property rights and the freedoms of the people who live in it. They can't just pack it up like an investment and take it away with them.

No that's not my problem....that's why we already have laws to deal with that so we don't need communists to interfere with corporate governance.

That's a ridiculous way to characterise what I'm talking about. You really do employ a dishonest way of debating. You acknowledge that I'm not a thug but you resort to continually making references to words like Soviet and commissars, to conjure up images of thugs, dictators and totalitarianism. Like I said, its ridiculous and dishonest. It's really not hard at all to imagine that your attitudes are an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the C-suite you provide services to.

I said I didn't think you were a thug, I didn't say I thought you were smart. Your half baked proposals are counter to many of our freedoms, I can't think of another way of describing the infringemnt of association, the infringment of provate property than the way I do now, if you have a better way of describing theft, go at it.

Look at your own admission that you'd pack a citizen's assembly.

Would you pack a jury too? I think its safe to assume you would.

I think it's safe to say you are making it up as you go along.

And people are supposed to take your assessment or definition of what totalitarianism is as accurate? That's a phenomenon all in itself.

It really pains you don't it?

[g_bambino]

We have outlived the purpose of needing a Queen or a King as a representative head of state. Since the position holds now power, we can essentially remove them as figure heads and be done with it.

What ignorance and foolishness.

[GostHacked]

What ignorance and foolishness.

You tell me what the Queen of Canada has done for us? What purpose does she hold other than as a figurative head of state without power? What power does she weild? Who does she report to?

[g_bambino]

You tell me what the Queen of Canada has done for us? What purpose does she hold other than as a figurative head of state without power? What power does she weild? Who does she report to?

Shouldn't you have found all that out before making your demands? By showing you don't have all the information, you've simply affirmed my assertion that your opinion was ignorant and foolish.

But I think you could answer your own questions if you took a moment to think about your proposed alternative. Remove the kingpin of the constitution, and what happens?

[c/e]

Edited November 19, 2009 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Shouldn't you have found all that out before making your demands? By showing you don't have all the information, you've simply affirmed my assertion that your opinion was ignorant and foolish.

But I think you could answer your own questions if you took a moment to think about your proposed alternative. Remove the kingpin of the constitution, and what happens?

[c/e]

It's been the problem that republicans in Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all got very vague over.

[eyeball]

Oh so this group of hoi polloi wouldn't be questioning or making proposals, they would be listening to the learned presentations of adversarial representatives?...just like juries?

To be even more precise they would be exactly like the citizen's assembly that deliberated on the question of proportional representation in BC.

Sounds Great, Who gets to pick the Judges?

We would be the judges. You, me and all the rest of our fellow citizens.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is one subject where the citizens are screwed. Te fact is that the Queen is our Head of State and the only thing that can change that at all is an amendment to the constitution. No amount of citizens assemblies or referendums can change that little fact.

[ToadBrother]

This is one subject where the citizens are screwed. Te fact is that the Queen is our Head of State and the only thing that can change that at all is an amendment to the constitution. No amount of citizens assemblies or referendums can change that little fact.

It would be one helluva of an amendment. The Crown flows through the Constitution (written and unwritten) from top to bottom. I simply don't think you could amend the Constitution to get rid of the Monarchy. You would have to write a new one.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It would be one helluva of an amendment. The Crown flows through the Constitution (written and unwritten) from top to bottom. I simply don't think you could amend the Constitution to get rid of the Monarchy. You would have to write a new one.

Bingo! Which is why I said that.. "This is one subject where the citizens are screwed." This is no easy fix. On the other hand if you did open up the constitution you could sure do a lot of good, or cause a lot of bad.

[Gabriel]

Yes, yes... we must avail ourselves of the burden of the monarchy. As if we're suffering so horribly in Canada under the rule of a foreign entity. :rolls eyes:

Stupid leftists and treasonous separatists, more concerned with image than reality. I think we're doing just fine under the dictatorship of the monarchy, and see no need to change it.

[M.Dancer]

We would be the judges. You, me and all the rest of our fellow citizens.

Shareholders too? Good golly you're focked!

[g_bambino]

"This is one subject where the citizens are screwed." This is no easy fix.

Er, this presumes that the monarchy is something to fix. Nothing, so far, has shown that it is.