The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Remiel]

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.

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, sir, are a moron. That is the only reasonable explanation for posting something that is a blatant contradiction.

A sovereign state (commonly simply referred to as a state) is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. For a list of all 203 states, see the List of sovereign states page.

If you do not have land, you are not a state. So feel free to stop your idiotic rant about how Canada is a nation state with no land. That is an oxymoron.

Oh, and by the way:

List of sovereign states

. . .

Canada

English and French: Canada

Widely recognized member of the UN. Canada is a Commonwealth realm and a federation divided into provinces and territories.

Here is another reality check for you, you twit:

In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members, and all current members are fully sovereign states . . .

Current members [of the United Nations]

. . .

Canada 9 November 1945

[Remiel]

The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs.

You could not be more wrong.

[charter.rights]

You, sir, are a moron. That is the only reasonable explanation for posting something that is a blatant contradiction.

If you do not have land, you are not a state. So feel free to stop your idiotic rant about how Canada is a nation state with no land. That is an oxymoron.

Oh, and by the way:

. . .

Here is another reality check for you, you twit:

. . .

Wrong again.

Check out this "...is a political association...." "...over a geographic area..."

The definition you cited does not require a land occupation, only a association among people over a geographic area.

You sir are the moron. You can't read, or comprehend, or understand that Canada has no land. So you either submit to the definition as I explained to you, or you accept that Canada is not sovereign. You can't have it both ways.

Edited July 13, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

You could not be more wrong.

You are still wrong.

You might want to watch what happens over the Khadr case then, because the government has already been cited to have violated the rights of Omar Khadr, and are well on their way to be charged for contempt of court for not following the courts orders.

[M.Dancer]

You are still wrong.

You might want to watch what happens over the Khadr case then, because the government has already been cited to have violated the rights of Omar Khadr, and are well on their way to be charged for contempt of court for not following the courts orders.

Don't hold your breath....on the otherhand...take a deep breath..mainly cause you are wrong...the governemnt has not been cited for violating the rights of Lil Omar and the government, who when asked to safeguard Lil Omar rights, sent a note to Washington. The SCC said this was not enough...The governemnmt is appealing saying the SCC does not have jurisdiction in foreign policy. By the time this is dealt with, Lil Omar will be spending 30 years in jail.

[Smallc]

You could not be more wrong.

No kidding. Parliament can ammend anything (including the COnstitution - sometimes with other parties, such as the prvinces, involved) that the courts interpret.

[charter.rights]

Don't hold your breath....on the otherhand...take a deep breath..mainly cause you are wrong...the governemnt has not been cited for violating the rights of Lil Omar and the government, who when asked to safeguard Lil Omar rights, sent a note to Washington. The SCC said this was not enough...The governemnmt is appealing saying the SCC does not have jurisdiction in foreign policy. By the time this is dealt with, Lil Omar will be spending 30 years in jail.

Maybe you should catch up.

The Government cannot appeal the SCoC. They are the highest court in the land and their decisions are final. The SCoC "...that stated clearly the actions of Canadian officials contributed to the continued detention of a young person who had no access to legal counsel, was subjected to “improper treatment” through sleep deprivation, likely aided his upcoming criminal prosecution, and violated principles of fundamental justice."

The Federal Court ruled last Monday that "that the government has seven days to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr’s constitutional rights.". The government announced yesterday that they will appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal on the deadline suggesting that the Federal Court overstepped its authority in interfering with foreign affairs.

So YOU are wrong once again. If you are going to counter a discussion, at least look up the facts first.

Edited July 13, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

Now I agree with you. That is the Crown.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out

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.

A myth? Hmm...

As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx

If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

No kidding. Parliament can ammend anything (including the COnstitution - sometimes with other parties, such as the prvinces, involved) that the courts interpret.

Wrong. Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution. You are wrong again. That is left to a Constitutional Conference that requires the consent of a minimum of 2/3 of the provinces holding at least 50% of the population of all the provinces in addition to the House and the Senate.

[charter.rights]

Well I'm glad we sorted that out

A myth? Hmm...

As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx

If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.

It is a myth. Dumb is the one that believe it.

Edited July 13, 2010 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you should catch up.

The Government cannot appeal the SCoC.

The Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity. If a federal or provincial law has been held contrary to the division of power provisions of one of the various Constitution Acts, the legislature or Parliament must either live with the result, amend the law so that it complies, or obtain an amendment to the constitution. If a law is declared contrary to certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Parliament or the provincial legislatures may make that particular law temporarily valid again against by using the "override power" of the notwithstanding clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#The_role_of_the_Supreme_Court

So YOU are wrong once again. If you are going to counter a discussion, at least look up the facts first.

Good advice...you should consider it.

[Moonbox]

It is a myth. Dumb is the one that believe it.

The Monarchy believes it. It's on their own official website. If you're correct, then absolute power is vested in a dumb monarch who doesn't even know she actually has that power and thus it doesn't even matter.

Regardless, you have no facts to back up that it's a 'myth', and I have direct quotation from the Queen of Canada's own website stating it is NOT a myth.

Keep it up. Show everyone here how many more dumb things you can say.

[Remiel]

You sir are the moron. You can't read, or comprehend, or understand that Canada has no land. So you either submit to the definition as I explained to you, or you accept that Canada is not sovereign. You can't have it both ways.

That is real funny coming from you. Go back and look again, genius. I also highlighted the part that says that a state is within a geographic area NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER POLITICAL AUTHORITY. Which means, in English (which you plainly do not understand), that if Canada were subject to authority of aboriginals, it would NOT QUALIFY for a STATE since it would not be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY within that AREA.

If you want to keep spouting your bullshit, go start your own forum. You can wallow in your incompetence there.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you should catch up.

So YOU are wrong once again. If you are going to counter a discussion, at least look up the facts first.

I realize that this may be difficult for you, after being pantsed by moonbox and remiel...but nothing you have posted rebuts that the feds can, when faced with a SCC decision, change the law...

[Bonam]

So far in this thread we can thank charter.rights for the following four amazing revelations:

Canada is a nation of people, without land

The real Crown has no responsibility to the people

"The People" of Canada hold absolutely no power

The Courts hold a higher authority than the government or MPs.

So, from this we can conclude that the people of Canada are landless and powerless, are ruled over by the unelected officials of the highest court, and their government bares them no responsibility or accountability.

Need I put a word to the kind of state this describes?

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Please avoid the insults and personal attacks.

Ch. A.

[Moonbox]

This thread is just getting so comical. If I didn't know better, I would think we were all getting trolled.

[Shwa]

This thread is just getting so comical. If I didn't know better, I would think we were all getting trolled.

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?

[charter.rights]

Well I'm glad we sorted that out

A myth? Hmm...

As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx

If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.

You are still on the wrong path. We were talking about "The Crown" and its power in Canada, aside from "The People" and over "The Government". Your confusion about the Queen is nothing more than a red herring, and you have been caught with your pants down on this one.

Now be a sport and answer Shwa's question. Your whole opposition is sunk with the answer.

MDancer. You are out of your league. Go have another drink and think about it.

Edited July 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

You are still on the wrong path. We were talking about "The Crown" and its power in Canada, aside from "The People" and over "The Government". Your confusion about the Queen is nothing more than a red herring, and you have been caught with your pants down on this one.

Direct quotation:

The Crown is only represented by the Queen and the Governor General. The

Aside from this, you and I were talking about the Queen, and by extension the Crown, and I provided official citations indicating that their power and legitimacy were derived ENTIRELY from the people. You've told me it's a myth, and I'd like you to provide a direct reference contradicting the ones I've shown you.

Your arguments, thus far, have not followed any sense of logic, they've been blatently false and now you're lashing out at everyone here and spouting nonsense because we don't see things the way you want us to.

Most people learn this in kindergarten, but I think you need a refresher: Things don't become true just because you want them to.

Now be a sport and answer Shwa's question. Your whole opposition is sunk with the answer.

It's a red herring. The question is not whether the Crown can seize land. It obviously can. The question is under what circumstances can it and will it do so. This is what you and I have argued about for the last several pages so the fact that Shwa's completely irrelevant question somehow supports your argument only serves to underline how bad you are at following an argument from start to conclusion. Your logic sucks.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonbox

[g_bambino]

Aside from this, you and I were talking about the Queen, and by extension the Crown, and I provided official citations indicating that their power and legitimacy were derived ENTIRELY from the people. You've told me it's a myth, and I'd like you to provide a direct reference contradicting the ones I've shown you.

Here's some more he can try to counter:

Every act of government is done in the name ofthe Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people.

Forsey, Eugene; How Canadians Govern Themselves; p.1

[P]ower lies within an institution that functions to safeguard it on behalf of all its citizens. That institution is the Crown... The Crown and its representatives remain vigilant in reinforcing the fact that our governments are the servants of the people and not the reverse...

In the day-to-day operation of government, the use of terms such as "The Queen's Privy Council for Canada," "Her Majesty's Government" and "the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" serves to reinforce the point that basic authority and legitimacy of government flow from the Crown on behalf of the people.

The Governor General and Lieutenant Governors... represent the Queen and exercise her responsibilities on behalf of the people.

MacLeod, Kevin; A Crown of Maples; pp.16, 18, 24

Every act of government is carried out in the name of the Crown, but the authority for those acts flows from the Canadian people.

Marleau, Robert; Montpetit, Camille; House of Commons Procedure and Practice > 1. Parliamentary Institutions

The Crown is the institution which represents the power of the people above government and politics.

Cabinet Secretary and Clerk of the Executive Council; Executive Government Processes and Procedures in Saskatchewan: A Procedures Manual; p.10

[W]hen the prime minister bows before the Queen, he bows before us.

Defending the Royals; Coyne, Andrew; p.1

[charter.rights]

Direct quotation:

Aside from this, you and I were talking about the Queen, and by extension the Crown, and I provided official citations indicating that their power and legitimacy were derived ENTIRELY from the people. You've told me it's a myth, and I'd like you to provide a direct reference contradicting the ones I've shown you.

Your arguments, thus far, have not followed any sense of logic, they've been blatently false and now you're lashing out at everyone here and spouting nonsense because we don't see things the way you want us to.

Most people learn this in kindergarten, but I think you need a refresher: Things don't become true just because you want them to.

It's a red herring. The question is not whether the Crown can seize land. It obviously can. The question is under what circumstances can it and will it do so. This is what you and I have argued about for the last several pages so the fact that Shwa's completely irrelevant question somehow supports your argument only serves to underline how bad you are at following an argument from start to conclusion. Your logic sucks.

Your poor comprehension is confusing you.

We are discussing the Crown. The representatives in Canada are the Queen, in her absence the Governor General, the Courts, Lawyers, Institutions, The Armed Forces etc. This not not a discussion about the Queen or for that matter the Armed Forces. It is about the power of the Crown, and rulings by the Supreme Court have maintained that the honour of :The Crown" is at risk if native claims are not settled in accordance with the original intent of the agreements like the Silver Covenant Chain and the Royal Proclamation 1763.

Maybe take a breather. You are apparently out of air.

[Smallc]

it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about...and so you're making it up as you go along.

[Moonbox]

it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about...and so you're making it up as you go along.

Biingo. charter.rights replaces facts and logics with his/her own desires, and thus creates an alternate universe where fancy and desire become reality.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about...and so you're making it up as you go along.

Oh you silly little c. Have you not been following my links?

Since Moonbox is reluctant to convict himself of wrong thinking, perhaps you will answer Shwa's question:

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

When you can do that with honesty and integrity, then you can criticize and challenge my assertions. But stop avoiding the real question and get on with it. "Else you be accused as troll".

Edited July 14, 2010 by charter.rights