The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Moonbox]

You keep saying that, but the reality of the situation is that the agreements you speak of (and regularly misquote and misrepresent) were made hundreds of years ago by what is now essentially a foreign monarch with little to no influence on Canadian politics today.

What you're essentially saying is that the Canadian court system (composed of Canadians) will award settlements to a tiny minority that will bankrupt the country and everyone in it. What's more is that this is all based on agreements made with a foreign government. There isn't a court in the world that would do what you're saying they will. International history would support my claim.

Perhaps you simply don't understand how common law works, or you've never taken an interest or been challanged with real critical thinking, but your entire premise is preposterous.

The only questions I need to ask you are:

Why?

Why would the Canadian Court System bankrupt itself and the rest of Canada to support 200 year old claims made by tiny minorities (and based on 200+ year old treaties made before Canada was even a country)?

Who is going to enforce such settlements? We have a long history of the international community not getting involved in such affairs. So who will enforce it? Canadians are going to enforce bankrupting themselves upon themselves?

The more you think about it the more hysterical your claims get.

The only other thing I'll add, and I'll italicize it and put it in bold for you is this:

I am not saying that Six Nations etc aren't owed SOMETHING. They probably are and they're certain to be awarded further settlements. Settlements in the trillion dollar area, or even tens of billions, however, will only happen in your dreams. They won't happen because it doesn't make sense to bankrupt tens of millions for the benefit of a tiny minority, and because nobody will enforce such settlements anyways.

A court of law, if nothing else, does what makes sense. It exercises a much more sane and cogent sort of thinking than what you're clearly used to and it will not give you what you want simply because YOU think it should.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

You keep saying that, but the reality of the situation is that the agreements you speak of (and regularly misquote and misrepresent) were made hundreds of years ago by what is now essentially a foreign monarch with little to no influence on Canadian politics today.

You haven't read the treaties and agreements nor have you delved into the jurisprudence of First Nations constitutional law. That much is obvious. You see the agreements were not made with some ancient foreign government. They were made with the Crown, which is the same Crown responsible for our parliamentary system, the Courts, Armed Forces and other Crown corporations.

You are a victim of your own myths. The presentation of the gifts from Queen (The Crown) demonstrate that those agreements and treaties are still valid, and the Queen recognizes it is in HRM best interests (and honour)to respect them today. In fact not only does the Queen still hold influence over the actions of government, but HRM was responsible for the inclusion of Section 25 in the Charter, ensuring their commitments and agreements made over the years with first nations would essentially remain intact.

What you're essentially saying is that the Canadian court system (composed of Canadians) will award settlements to a tiny minority that will bankrupt the country and everyone in it. What's more is that this is all based on agreements made with a foreign government. There isn't a court in the world that would do what you're saying they will. International history would support my claim.

Actually what I am saying is that the Canadian court system is already awarding substantial awards in court cases. More importantly however, is that the government itself is negotiating even larger settlements, and is bound to negotiate most claims by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way out of. The Law requires consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation of uses of land, and settlements for land and resources is continuing to be negotiated, anyway.

Your claim about international history is incredulous. In fact Canada and the US are the lonely hold-outs on signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which by the way further strengthens the conclusions being reached by the Supreme Court of Canada. And Obama has indicated that the US may sign the declaration soon. So really, the international community is in support of aboriginal rights and settlements every bit as much as the Supreme Court has indicated in law.That makes you wrong again.

Perhaps you simply don't understand how common law works, or you've never taken an interest or been challanged with real critical thinking, but your entire premise is preposterous.

Common law is trumped by constitutional law. And between Section 25 and 35 of the Charter, aboriginal people are exempt from any infringements imposed by domestic laws. Maybe you should re-read the charter. It is there in black and white.

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada...."

Look up those big words I underscored for you.

The only questions I need to ask you are:

Why?

Why would the Canadian Court System bankrupt itself and the rest of Canada to support 200 year old claims made by tiny minorities (and based on 200+ year old treaties made before Canada was even a country)?

Canada's obligations to First Nations would indeed bankrupt the treasury. But that is why the government is obligated to negotiate in a different manner than they have been. The control over land and resources could be returned in part while perpetual care agreements incorporated into final agreements. The reality is the longer the delay the more it will cost but the Crown has indicated they must be settled.

Who is going to enforce such settlements? We have a long history of the international community not getting involved in such affairs. So who will enforce it? Canadians are going to enforce bankrupting themselves upon themselves?

Another of your many non sequitir fallacy arguments. Dismissed.

The more you think about it the more hysterical your claims get.

The only other thing I'll add, and I'll italicize it and put it in bold for you is this:

I am not saying that Six Nations etc aren't owed SOMETHING. They probably are and they're certain to be awarded further settlements. Settlements in the trillion dollar area, or even tens of billions, however, will only happen in your dreams. They won't happen because it doesn't make sense to bankrupt tens of millions for the benefit of a tiny minority, and because nobody will enforce such settlements anyways.

A court of law, if nothing else, does what makes sense. It exercises a much more sane and cogent sort of thinking than what you're clearly used to and it will not give you what you want simply because YOU think it should.

IF you believe in the rule of law then you better start digging through the thousands of settled court cases that define aboriginal law in Canada. So far native people are winning a good number of their provincial and federal Supreme Court appeals

and new law is being written as we speak. But then again you aren't here to learn anything. You prefer your own delusions to facts. The rule of law is indeed intact in Canada and it favours settling claims with all aboriginal people...just as the Crown demands it.

Edited July 12, 2010 by charter.rights

[Remiel]

You haven't read the treaties and agreements nor have you delved into the jurisprudence of First Nations constitutional law. That much is obvious. You see the agreements were not made with some ancient foreign government. They were made with the Crown, which is the same Crown responsible for our parliamentary system, the Courts, Armed Forces and other Crown corporations.

The Crown would be abandoned by the people of Canada long before anything approaching your lunacy came to fruition. This continent has had revolutions before, and it could again if the situation called for it.

[Remiel]

Also, you should read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples more carefully:

Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law,

In other words, you cannot reduce Canadians to a landless people in pursuit of aboriginal rights, as that would effectively remove what is meant by " self determination " . Just as Israeli and Palestinian " self determination " is fundamentally tied to lands within Eretz Israel.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Emphasis mine. You cannot have a right to participate in a state which does not exist, which is what you claim of Canada.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Remiel

[Moonbox]

You haven't read the treaties and agreements nor have you delved into the jurisprudence of First Nations constitutional law. That much is obvious.

Reading about treaties and understanding jurisprudence are two VERY different things. You may have read the treaties, but you have no idea how to interpret them in the context of law. You've used the word, 'jurisprudence' in a number of threads on this forum but you've made it VERY clear you don't know what the word means. I don't expect you to understand what legal realism is (you don't seem to understand anything else about the law) but the basic premise is that 'law' is determined by what judges etc do with it. Natural law, another pillar of jurisprudence, suggests that there are practical limits to any legislation. This is the key to our entire legal system. The law is interpreted in so far as it is reasonable.

A really good example of Natural Law is Section 1 of the Charter:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

You and I have already been over this. It's the first Section of the Charter for a reason. "Rights" will only be guaranteed and unpheld in so much as they are reasonable.

If we're to study jurisprudence,(or Natural Law) and Section 1 of the Charter, your beloved Section 25 actually has some limitations. Imagine that! I know from previous discussions that you've decided Section 25 is the most important and most unmalleable Section of the entire Charter (that's why it's #25 right?) but that's based more on your dreams and desires than any basis of 'jurisprudence' .

You see the agreements were not made with some ancient foreign government. They were made with the Crown, which is the same Crown responsible for our parliamentary system, the Courts, Armed Forces and other Crown corporations.

The agreement you speak of in this thread was made 300 years ago by the English Crown. This was generations and generations before Canada even became a country. The power of the English crown these days is ENTIRELY symbolic in Canada and it has absolutely no influence on Canada's repatriated constitution.

You are a victim of your own myths. The presentation of the gifts from Queen (The Crown) demonstrate that those agreements and treaties are still valid, and the Queen recognizes it is in HRM best interests (and honour)to respect them today. In fact not only does the Queen still hold influence over the actions of government, but HRM was responsible for the inclusion of Section 25 in the Charter, ensuring their commitments and agreements made over the years with first nations would essentially remain intact.

It's a myth that what the Queen says has any impact on Canadian law these days. She's a figurehead and she knows it.

Actually what I am saying is that the Canadian court system is already awarding substantial awards in court cases. More importantly however, is that the government itself is negotiating even larger settlements,

Nobody is arguing that. Can you even read? We're arguing that the settlements YOU say are inevitable are pipedreams. Billions in settlements will be made (over decades) in order to appease First Nations, but they'll never get the fairytale settlements you dream about.

The fact that hundreds of millions worth of settlements get awarded yearly DOES NOT provide any reasonable support for your claims of $100's of billions of dollars. If anything, it suggests that those are the type of settlements we can continue to expect.

There is no way out of. The Law requires consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation of uses of land, and settlements for land and resources is continuing to be negotiated, anyway.

only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Your claim about international history is incredulous. In fact Canada and the US are the lonely hold-outs on signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which by the way further strengthens the conclusions being reached by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Are you aware that the declaration was not legally binding, which means it's purely symbolic and has no teeth whatsoever? Was there any backlash (other than from Hugo) internationally against Canada and the US for not signing? No? Okay well that kind of goes to show you how much interest the international community takes in such affairs. Keep proving my points please.

Canada's obligations to First Nations would indeed bankrupt the treasury. But that is why the government is obligated to negotiate in a different manner than they have been.

That's what YOU would like to think. There is no evidence that these are happening nor any precedence for such negotiations. Such demands are so unreasonable that they would fall under Section 1 of the Charter and so be dismissed. Instead, aboriginals in Canada will receive such settlements as are deemed FAIR to both parties (First Nations and Canadians as well) which will NOT result in making every individual First Nations inhabitant instantly wealthy and impoverishing tens of millions of Canadians at the same time.

The control over land and resources could be returned in part while perpetual care agreements incorporated into final agreements. The reality is the longer the delay the more it will cost but the Crown has indicated they must be settled.

Sure. They have to be settled. Eventually...as reasonable...

and new law is being written as we speak. But then again you aren't here to learn anything. You prefer your own delusions to facts. The rule of law is indeed intact in Canada and it favours settling claims with all aboriginal people...just as the Crown demands it.

I don't even think you know what a settlement is. Do you understand the difference between judgement and settlement? Maybe look that up.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Moonbox

[Remiel]

Article 46

1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

[Smallc]

You keep saying that, but the reality of the situation is that the agreements you speak of (and regularly misquote and misrepresent) were made hundreds of years ago by what is now essentially a foreign monarch with little to no influence on Canadian politics today.

And again, on this point, you are, essentially...completely wrong.

[Moonbox]

And again, on this point, you are, essentially...completely wrong.

No smallc, I'm not. The Queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enact, retract or enforce legislation in Canada. If she tried, the whole country would laugh. Other than ceremonial duties and VERY unusual circumstances where Reserve Powers may be warranted, she has absolutely no power at all, and certainly none in the context of this argument.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

No smallc, I'm not. The Queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enact, retract or enforce legislation in Canada. If she tried, the whole country would laugh. Other than ceremonial duties and VERY unusual circumstances where Reserve Powers may be warranted, she has absolutely no power at all, and certainly none in the context of this argument.

Yes. You are wrong.

In Canada the Queens authority is vested in "The Crown" - in parliament, MPs, its officers, the courts, lawyers, the armed forces and its captains etc. While HRM Queen Elizabeth does try to avoid the politics of Canada, and her Governor General is charged with overseeing Canadian Crown operations every Crown officer and institution is bound to adhere to her agreements and laws - including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So jurisprudence baffle you....another big word beyond your comprehension. Just for reference here is what Merrium Websters definition says:

Main Entry: ju·ris·pru·dence

Pronunciation: \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈprü-dən(t)s\

Function: noun

Date: 1654

1 : the science or philosophy of law

2 a : a system or body of law b : the course of court decisions

3 : a department of law <medical jurisprudence>

— ju·ris·pru·den·tial \-prü-ˈden(t)-shəl\ adjective

— ju·ris·pru·den·tial·ly \-ˈden(t)-sh(ə-)lē\ adverb

Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the concept that aboriginal rights trump other rights and restrictions, including domestic and common law.

So you are wrong, once again.

[charter.rights]

Also, you should read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples more carefully:

I have read it fully a number of times and fully understand its intent.

In other words, you cannot reduce Canadians to a landless people in pursuit of aboriginal rights, as that would effectively remove what is meant by " self determination " . Just as Israeli and Palestinian " self determination " is fundamentally tied to lands within Eretz Israel.

Another non sequitir argument, No one was has claimed nor have I heard any First nation leader claim, that Canadians should become deposed of the use of land. However, Canada is not a nation of land but a nation of people that has no land base apart from the Crown agreements made with native peoples. We cannot separate our use of land under treaty or agreement and the perpetual care guaranteed by the Crown in return for that use.

Emphasis mine. You cannot have a right to participate in a state which does not exist, which is what you claim of Canada.

Your non sequitir again. I have never claimed that Canada is not a nation state. Just that Canada is a nation of people, without land. You should be married to Moonbox since you both appear to engage in tantric delusions, fallacies and myths.

Edited July 13, 2010 by charter.rights

[Bonam]

Your non sequitir again. I have never claimed that Canada is not a nation state. Just that Canada is a nation of people, without land.

Wow, learn something new every day. Apparently Canada has no land! And here I thought it was the world's second largest country. Guess they'd better get to updating all those globes...

[charter.rights]

Wow, learn something new every day. Apparently Canada has no land! And here I thought it was the world's second largest country. Guess they'd better get to updating all those globes...

That's why this thread on the Silver Covenant Chain, Treaty of Peace, Goodwill and Friendship 1710-2010 is an important educational lesson. Read the Royal Proclamation 1763, and then understand that the numbered treaties did not do what the early Victorians thought they would do - steal the land from native people. Rather the numbered treaties merely surrender some native rights to land, but not the land itself. As well, much of Canada has still not been surrendered and it cannot be claimed by Canada without a surrender complying with the RP1763 (so says the Supreme Court of Canada)

Myths abound in Canada. Canada was formed as a protection against financial ruin by the US and against the threat of attack from the south. That was the original purpose of the BNA Act, and Canada was mere an "association / federation" of people with the same intent.

[Smallc]

Yes. You are wrong.

In Canada the Queens authority is vested in "The Crown" - in parliament, MPs, its officers, the courts, lawyers, the armed forces and its captains etc. While HRM Queen Elizabeth does try to avoid the politics of Canada, and her Governor General is charged with overseeing Canadian Crown operations every Crown officer and institution is bound to adhere to her agreements and laws - including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wow...I hate to say it, but you couldn't be more right.

[Smallc]

No smallc, I'm not. The Queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enact, retract or enforce legislation in Canada. If she tried, the whole country would laugh. Other than ceremonial duties and VERY unusual circumstances where Reserve Powers may be warranted, she has absolutely no power at all, and certainly none in the context of this argument.

I'm not sure you understand what the Crown is. As I already said, it is only personified in an 84 year old lady. It isn't her. The Crown is Canada, in every sense of the meaning....and I can tell you this. If a situation came up where the Queen was forced to intervene in Canadian politics, no one would be laughing...not even you.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the concept that aboriginal rights trump other rights and restrictions, including domestic and common law.

So you are wrong, once again.

Ok see, now here's where you fall apart.

[Moonbox]

So jurisprudence baffle you....another big word beyond your comprehension. Just for reference here is what Merrium Websters definition says:

Main Entry: ju·ris·pru·dence

Pronunciation: \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈprü-dən(t)s\

Function: noun

Date: 1654

1 : the science or philosophy of law

2 a : a system or body of law b : the course of court decisions

3 : a department of law <medical jurisprudence>

— ju·ris·pru·den·tial \-prü-ˈden(t)-shəl\ adjective

— ju·ris·pru·den·tial·ly \-ˈden(t)-sh(ə-)lē\ adverb

Oh good for you! You can look up a definition in the dictionary!

Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you understand it. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Having the definition of the world in your hand provides you with no better of an understanding than would having the definition of "particle physics". You don't seem to have even a BASIC understanding of how a legal system works and your critical thinking skills suffer even worse.

I provided you with examples of how jurisprudence defeated your arguments and how you don't even know what it means. Your response was a dictionary definition. Oh my.....

I'm not sure you understand what the Crown is. As I already said, it is only personified in an 84 year old lady. It isn't her. The Crown is Canada, in every sense of the meaning....and I can tell you this. If a situation came up where the Queen was forced to intervene in Canadian politics, no one would be laughing...not even you.

Your naivety on this issue is getting pretty tiresome. You and I have had this argument on a number of occasions. I understand what the Crown is. It's not a difficult concept, and I don't need you to explain it again. The Queen's power, just like the GG's, is almost entirely symbolic. The only time she has ANY authority whatsoever is in cases where you might have a hung parliament or something rare and obscure like that. As I mentioned before, NONE of her ACTUAL powers are relevant to our argument here.

She has NO power to enact legislation nor can she in any way affect the Canadian Court system. If she tried to, she would indeed be laughed off the continent. We'd write her out of the Constitution so fast you'd barely know what happened.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

Oh good for you! You can look up a definition in the dictionary!

Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you understand it. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Having the definition of the world in your hand provides you with no better of an understanding than would having the definition of "particle physics". You don't seem to have even a BASIC understanding of how a legal system works and your critical thinking skills suffer even worse.

I provided you with examples of how jurisprudence defeated your arguments and how you don't even know what it means. Your response was a dictionary definition. Oh my.....

Your naivety on this issue is getting pretty tiresome. You and I have had this argument on a number of occasions. I understand what the Crown is. It's not a difficult concept, and I don't need you to explain it again. The Queen's power, just like the GG's, is almost entirely symbolic. The only time she has ANY authority whatsoever is in cases where you might have a hung parliament or something rare and obscure like that. As I mentioned before, NONE of her ACTUAL powers are relevant to our argument here.

She has NO power to enact legislation nor can she in any way affect the Canadian Court system. If she tried to, she would indeed be laughed off the continent. We'd write her out of the Constitution so fast you'd barely know what happened.

You are out to lunch...still.

Jurisprudence is the "theory(ies) of law" and can be picked out of the Supreme Court rulings by the series of decisions that have been made over the years. You don't understand that, I get it, but you are still wrong.

The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs. You understanding of the Crown is equally out to lunch. Go get an education.

[Shwa]

Simple question for you Moonbox:

Can the Crown sieze your real property, without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

[Wild Bill]

Simple question for you Moonbox:

Can the Crown sieze your real property, without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

Is that not what has happened with the Douglas Creek Estates property in Caledonia? Perhaps not, if you consider the Crown to be the federal government. DCE was given by McGuinty of the province.

More confusion!

[Smallc]

Is that not what has happened with the Douglas Creek Estates property in Caledonia? Perhaps not, if you consider the Crown to be the federal government. DCE was given by McGuinty of the province.

It's not confusing at all. The Crown exists at both levels of government.

[Moonbox]

You are out to lunch...still.

I am? Really? Let's examine your next sentence....

Jurisprudence is the "theory(ies) of law" and can be picked out of the Supreme Court rulings by the series of decisions that have been made over the years.

Oops. You f'd up again. You're talking about precedence.

Precedence, I'll grant, is at least part of legal theory, but it's still pretty clear you don't understand jurisprudence. If you look at the size and nature of the settlements made thus far, take that as your precendence (not jurisprudence ) for what future settlements will look like.

The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs. You understanding of the Crown is equally out to lunch. Go get an education.

My god you're all over the place. What's your point? I understand what the Crown is. Where we differ is on how the government and court systems work. We seem to have different opinions on our understanding of who ACTUALLY holds power in Canada. It's not the Queen, or the Governor General. It's the PEOPLE of Canada who determine its fate. While the Queen does hold symbolic reserve powers, if the people, parliament and Senate of Canada passed a bill and the GG or Queen didn't consent, we'd write her out of the constitution. She knows this, and thus has no reason or ability to interfere.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

Oops. You f'd up again. You're talking about precedence.

Nope. Wrong again. I'm talking about "the Honour of the Crown" as one part of the legal theory that has lead the SCoC into enforcing long-standing agreements against the interests of Canada. There are many more examples.

My god you're all over the place. What's your point? I understand what the Crown is. Where we differ is on how the government and court systems work. We seem to have different opinions on our understanding of who ACTUALLY holds power in Canada. It's not the Queen, or the Governor General. It's the PEOPLE of Canada who determine its fate. While the Queen does hold symbolic reserve powers, if the people, parliament and Senate of Canada passed a bill and the GG or Queen didn't consent, we'd write her out of the constitution. She knows this, and thus has no reason or ability to interfere.

"The People" of Canada hold absolutely no power, save and except voting if they feel like it. The Power, is the Crown and the Governor general is both the Head of State and the Commander of the Armed Forces. As long as the government is doing the right thing, there is no need to intervention...ie the Courts as "The Crown".

A particular example is the on-going Omar Khadr saga. As recently as last week the Crown (aka the Federal Court) ordered the government to go get Khadr. Before that the Crown (aka the Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that the government had violated Khadr's rights by not reaching out to defend him. Now the government is attempting to make an appeal and it is likely going to have to face contempt of court charges if they do not do as they are ordered.

The Crown holds all the power.

So go back and answer Shwa's question.

"Can the Crown sieze your real property, without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?"

Your error in thinking will be corrected.

[Moonbox]

"The People" of Canada hold absolutely no power, save and except voting if they feel like it. The Power, is the Crown and the Governor general is both the Head of State and the Commander of the Armed Forces. As long as the government is doing the right thing, there is no need to intervention...ie the Courts as "The Crown".

Your idiocy is highlighted in bold. It warrants absolutely no comment and the rest of the forum can judge it for what it is.

Before that the Crown (aka the Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that the government had violated Khadr's rights by not reaching out to defend him. Now the government is attempting to make an appeal and it is likely going to have to face contempt of court charges if they do not do as they are ordered.

No. The Supreme Court didn't order the government to do anything. It was a wrist-slap.

The Crown holds all the power.

The Crown as an institution holds all the power. It gains its power and authority from the support of the people. Without the support of the Canadian people, the Crown has no legitimacy whatsoever.

"The Crown is the institution that represents the power of the people above government and political parties."

http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=635,617,534,206,Documents&MediaID=752&Filename=2004Manual.pdf

Your error in thinking will be corrected.

Your ability to think critically, I think, will never be corrected.

[Smallc]

The Crown as an institution holds all the power. It gains its power and authority from the support of the people. Without the support of the Canadian people, the Crown has no legitimacy whatsoever.

"The Crown is the institution that represents the power of the people above government and political parties."

Now I agree with you. That is the Crown.

[charter.rights]

Now I agree with you. That is the Crown.

Nope. That is "The Myth". The real Crown has no responsibility to the people.

Try to answer Shwa'a question above and you'll find where the myth lies.