Harper doesn't believe in womens rights.

[William Ashley]

Harper given chance to bring succession rules in line with the Charter of Rights and freedoms but shuts down commonwealth consensus on alteration of succession laws to make it non sexist.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976833--is-canada-stalling-royal-succession-reforms

Personally I think that Canada should be moving to bring all laws in line with the charter.

I don't understand how he can call himself Canadian when he spits on every aspect of the constitution.

Where is the fundamental justice in Male primogeniture?

Edited April 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[kimmy]

Where is the fundamental justice in Male primogeniture?

I agree. I remember how heartbroken I was when I discovered that I'd never be allowed to be King of England. I think we should do all we can to spare millions of Canadian girls that heartache and build a future where every Canadian girl can become King of England when she grows up.

-k

[Sailor]

Any guy on this forum who had his wife cheat on him and then take his kids and his property for no reason can tell you this is one of Harper's better points.

Feminists don't want equality - they already have that in Canada. They want special treatment, wage raises based on their dangly bits , and other sexist measures.

If Iggy and Layton were on the same page I would vote for all three at once!

[scribblet]

Harper believes in women's right as much as anyone, again, the title of this thread is misleading.

I'm not clear on how Harper is stopping this legislation, do we get to vote on a British law? I believe he's right about not wanting to get into a discussion right now, it's not the time during an election. I do agree that the law needs to be changed, but I bet opening up that debate would also open up the other can of worms about the Monarch in general.

Edited April 19, 2011 by scribblet

[PIK]

All commonwealth votes on that law, that is my understanding, so all harper is saying is we are not getting into that during a election, and I doubt that he will say no when it happens. But william has again showed us how deperate the libs have become and stupid the star has become. William, people do not fall for this stuff, so you are going to have to go for a coalition or give bob the keys and force another election.

Edited April 19, 2011 by PIK

[ToadBrother]

Harper given chance to bring succession rules in line with the Charter of Rights and freedoms but shuts down commonwealth consensus on alteration of succession laws to make it non sexist.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976833--is-canada-stalling-royal-succession-reforms

Personally I think that Canada should be moving to bring all laws in line with the charter.

I don't understand how he can call himself Canadian when he spits on every aspect of the constitution.

Where is the fundamental justice in Male primogeniture?

Harper has an awfully big point. The next two individuals in line to the throne or men, so we're probably looking at many decades before this becomes an issue again.

Or is this just sort of one of those "I want the right to have babies... but you're a man... I know but I want the right to have babies" kind of complaints.

[ToadBrother]

Harper believes in women's right as much as anyone, again, the title of this thread is misleading.

I'm not clear on how Harper is stopping this legislation, do we get to vote on a British law? I believe he's right about not wanting to get into a discussion right now, it's not the time during an election. I do agree that the law needs to be changed, but I bet opening up that debate would also open up the other can of worms about the Monarch in general.

The Statute of Westminster has clauses requiring all the Realms to agree to a change in the succession. It's only been invoked once before, when Edward VIII abdicated and the succession was altered to George VI and to the Princess Elizabeth (Elizabeth II now).

I'm actually completely on side with Harper on this one. This isn't a campaign issue, or even remotely a political one. The reason, I suspect, that it's even an issue in the UK is because the LibDems are exerting some pressure on Cameron.

Altering the succession is something to be done soberly, and not as part of the heat of campaigning. Since we're likely decades away from even the possibility of a female succeeding to the throne, I fail to see why anyone here, in the UK or in any of the realms would feel any particular urgency.

Edited April 19, 2011 by ToadBrother

[icman]

If the British are considering this change now, and are looking for opinions now, then the sitting government should step up. Not to do so is the same as abandonning our Constitutional responsibilities. I understand that Harper doesn't want this to be an election issue. But I want a million tax-free dollars to drop out of the sky into my back yard. We don't always get what we want.

Now, if there is time to delay a response until after the election, then it can be addressed then. But as the Queen is our head of state, and Canada is one of the more influential countries in the Commonwealth, our government needs to weigh in on this issue.

Unless, of course, we are planning a Constitutional change in the next 30 days which will remove the Queen as our titular head of state. I haven't received the memo on that, though.

[Sir Bandelot]

It isn't an issue of any great importance in Canada, now or even in the remote future. However, Mr. Harper has once again dropped the ball because he had an opportunity to say some supportive pro-equality garbage, that he would never have to hold up to as any kind of promise. Instead what he said is weak and can be used against him, and is in fact now being done so. Meanwhile Mr. Layton is looking better thanks to this one, again.

[icman]

ToadBrother - I replied before I read your post.

I agree that this is not something we should consider urgent. However, we don't control the urgency of it. The British Parliament controls the agenda on this issue. If the British Parliament wants to see input from Commonwealth countries in 15 days, then we'll have to respond, as we are Canada - one of the most influential countries in the Commonwealth.

If the British can wait 30 days for the Canadian Government's response, then Harper can simply say so, and that will move it off the election agenda.

Though I only skimmed it, I didn't see in the Star article where the British were demanding Commonwealth position papers by April 30. Harper should be able to easily sidestep this, and if any of the other parties try to leverage this issue they will only end up screwing themselves. Which would be VERY bad, because I very badly want Harper to lose.

[M.Dancer]

Now, if there is time to delay a response until after the election, then it can be addressed then.

I think the window of opportunity will be open for 30 years or more...

The line of succession at the moment I believe is..

The Prince of Wales

Prince William

Prince Harry

The Duke of York

Princess Beatrice

Princess Eugenia

The Earl of Wessex

[icman]

I think the window of opportunity will be open for 30 years or more...

The line of succession at the moment I believe is..

The Prince of Wales

Prince William

Prince Harry

The Duke of York

Princess Beatrice

Princess Eugenia

The Earl of Wessex

Agreed. However, Harper should avoid controversial quotes like “The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man,” Such an easily misconstrued statement is quite amateurish for the master slitherer.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. However, Harper should avoid controversial quotes like “The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man,” Such an easily misconstrued statement is quite amateurish for the master slitherer.

It's a statement of fact. I'm not sure what the "appropriate" way of stating it is. He stated it simply, factually and rationally. It might become somewhat more important if William and Kate's first child is a female, though there's still no particular rush.

[ToadBrother]

I agree that this is not something we should consider urgent. However, we don't control the urgency of it. The British Parliament controls the agenda on this issue. If the British Parliament wants to see input from Commonwealth countries in 15 days, then we'll have to respond, as we are Canada - one of the most influential countries in the Commonwealth.

The British Parliament can no more force the issue than we can. Changes to the succession require ALL the Parliaments of the Realms to agree. The UK is no more important in this regard than Canada or Belize.

The British government will have to accept, regardless of all those frothing LibDems in Cabinet, that Canada is having an election right now and it is hardly an appropriate time to talk about changes to the Act of Settlement. I realize there's some strange movement afoot to give William and Kate some sort of wedding present out of this, but this is not an abdication or some other critical moment that requires the Government's immediate input.

Besides, the British government should be more worried about the AV referendum coming up.

Edited April 19, 2011 by ToadBrother

[mikedavid00]

Getting robbed blind at the gas pumps and our candidates aren't saying a word. What gives? Make gas prices a 2011 election issue - it's hurting all of us!

Do you really believe that what these politicians say and promise during the election will make a difference on gas prices?? Come on man..

You are asking to be lied to like the other thread suggests.

[scouterjim]

Harper given chance to bring succession rules in line with the Charter of Rights and freedoms but shuts down commonwealth consensus on alteration of succession laws to make it non sexist.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976833--is-canada-stalling-royal-succession-reforms

Personally I think that Canada should be moving to bring all laws in line with the charter.

I don't understand how he can call himself Canadian when he spits on every aspect of the constitution.

Where is the fundamental justice in Male primogeniture?

Here's an idea. Let's get rid of the monarchy altogether. Canada doesn't need a foreign monarch as head of state.

[ToadBrother]

Here's an idea. Let's get rid of the monarchy altogether. Canada doesn't need a foreign monarch as head of state.

If we can't even do some moderate changes to the constitution without the country threatening to fall apart at the seams, just how easy do you think it would be to eliminate the monarchy, which is pretty much at the bedrock of our constitution?

As I've said many times, I'm not a strong monarchist, and have no particular sympathies in that direction, but I do not want to see this country fall apart because some well-meaning but ultimately foolish people thought it would be a really keen idea to turf the Crown.

[g_bambino]

Here's an idea. Let's get rid of the monarchy altogether. Canada doesn't need a foreign monarch as head of state.

Those two statements are incongruous. Why should we rid ourselves of something to ensure we don't have something else we already don't have?

[+]

Edited April 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[scouterjim]

Those two statements are incongruous. Why should we rid ourselves of something to ensure we don't have something else we already don't have?

[+]

Are you saying the queen ISN'T a foreigner? Last I saw, she does NOT have Canadian citizenship.

[ToadBrother]

Are you saying the queen ISN'T a foreigner? Last I saw, she does NOT have Canadian citizenship.

I'm not sure what that means. She's the Queen of Canada. New citizens swear an oath to her, for goodness sake. By definition, as the Queen of Canada is a Canadian citizen.

I think maybe you should come up with some slightly more cogent points.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not sure what that means. She's the Queen of Canada. New citizens swear an oath to her, for goodness sake. By definition, as the Queen of Canada is a Canadian citizen.

I think maybe you should come up with some slightly more cogent points.

I would love to see her passport..I bet it is royally special!

[ToadBrother]

I would love to see her passport..I bet it is royally special!

Do any heads of state require passports?

[M.Dancer]

Do any heads of state require passports?

I imagine those classless republics have theirs do...but..

When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport. The cover of a British passport features the Royal Arms, and the first page contains another representation of the Arms, together with the following wording:

'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.'

As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports.

In realms (Commonwealth countries where The Queen is Sovereign), a similar formula is used, except that the request to all whom it may concern is made in the name of the realm's Governor-General, as The Queen's representative in that realm. In Canada, the request is made in the name of Her Majesty by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx

[g_bambino]

I'm not clear on how Harper is stopping this legislation, do we get to vote on a British law? I believe he's right about not wanting to get into a discussion right now, it's not the time during an election. I do agree that the law needs to be changed, but I bet opening up that debate would also open up the other can of worms about the Monarch in general.

Since the Constitution Act 1982 ended the ability of the British parliament to legislate for any country other than the UK (further entrenching a similar rule already in place in the Statute of Westminster 1931), any amendment made to the Act of Settlement 1701 in the UK will have no effect on the Act of Settlement in Canada; in essence there are now 16 parallel Acts of Settlement, one in the constitution of each of the Commonwealth Realms.

The same Statute of Westminster, however, sets out in its preamble what's become a strong convention: no one Realm will alter its line of succession without the consent of and a similar change made by all the other Realms; an Ontario Superior Court judge likened this to a treaty amongst nations. And that's why Harper's being asked about this matter. It's not a case of the Canadian parliament voting on a British law; rather, it's that British law requires the UK to have both the agreement of Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Australia, Tuvalu, New Zealand, etc., etc., and a movement by all of them to amend their laws in the same way before it can alter its own line of succession. It would be the same if any other Realm government desired to make the changes.

The Act of Settlement is more than 300 years old now; not that its age is anything bad in itself, but I suspect that the need to keep Catholics off the throne has pretty much disappeared. (Though it does raise the question of whether or not it's a good idea to have a head of state who owes allegiance to the head of another state: the Pope.) There also doesn't seem to be any real reason why an older daughter cannot be placed in line ahead of her younger brother (and, in some ways, it can be said that our best monarchs have been queens). It would also go a long way towards deflating the anti-monarchy argument in this country; even though the Act of Settlement wasn't written by William III himself, nor has it been actively defended by any modern monarch, republicans still love to trot out the Act of Settlement's anti-Catholic and misogynist clauses as a reason to eliminate the Canadian monarchy. So, I've little objection to the idea of amending it, myself.

Whether or not the British can work things out at their end - what with the intertwining of their sovereign with the Churches of England and Scotland, and all that - is another matter altogether.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying the queen ISN'T a foreigner? Last I saw, she does NOT have Canadian citizenship.

Yup, I am. So does she. Not only is one's nationality more than an Act of Parliament, but, when that very citizenship law stems from the sovereign's authority, it's pretty redundant to require the sovereign to hold citizenship before being considered a fellow countryman (well, countrywoman!).