The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Smallc]

The Queen of Canada IS the head of the Church of England.

Same person, different hat. I said that I think the rules should be changed, because I don't care for religion in general.

[g_bambino]

That's all we're really concerned about here though.

True. There is no state church for the Queen to head.

[g_bambino]

t's not Canada who chooses who that one person is. It's the reigning monarchy of Britain...

Still just not getting it, are ya.

[g_bambino]

We can touch them if we so choose because we aren't in a class beneath them.

You can touch the president whenever you choose? I think the wall of Secret Service around him would say otherwise.

Regardless...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lkc7A0ukPI&feature=related

Members of the Royal Family have mingled easily amongst average Canadians at least since the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) lived here through the 1790s. Walkabouts, where the sovereign or some other royal casually meets fellow countrymen, have been a part of royal life since 1939, when Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) broke from the set schedule and walked away from her escorts and the politicians to talk to gathered crowds in Ottawa. The idea of a monarch ensconced in a serene glass bubble above the writhing and festering masses is only part of the fairytale of American equality for all that you've clearly heard one time too many.

[bloodyminded]

That's all we're really concerned about here though. Canada is not an Anglican nation, no matter what the Queens Standing in the UK.

Of course not. The fact that Anglicanism is beginning to flounder (in Canada, not in Africa) is testament to that.

[Guest American Woman]

You can touch the president whenever you choose? I think the wall of Secret Service around him would say otherwise.

Note I didn't say whenever I choose. My point, which I think was clear if you had included my entire quote, was that he is not 'untouchable.'

Regardless...

Members of the Royal Family have mingled easily amongst average Canadians at least since the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) lived here through the 1790s. Walkabouts, where the sovereign or some other royal casually meets fellow countrymen, have been a part of royal life since 1939, when Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) broke from the set schedule and walked away from her escorts and the politicians to talk to gathered crowds in Ottawa. The idea of a monarch ensconced in a serene glass bubble above the writhing and festering masses is only part of the fairytale of American equality for all that you've clearly heard one time too many.

Who said anything about mingling and/or talking?

"No one — including the ladies-in-waiting standing nearby — could believe their eyes. In 57 years, the Queen has never been seen to make that kind of gesture and it is certainly against all protocol to touch her."

link

The British tabloids went nuts when the First Lady briefly put her hand on the back of Queen Elizabeth II during the Obamas' official visit to England. It wasn't the first time royal etiquette had gotten a politician into trouble. In 2000, Australian Prime Minister John Howard got plenty of criticism for apparently putting his arm around the Queen to direct her through a crowd.

[Guest American Woman]

As AW keeps saying, there are conditions of employment. You make your conditions. We make ours.

I'm still waiting to hear why excluding Catholics is a justifiable condition of employment. When there is no reason for the exclusion, it's discrimination. So perhaps you could explain to me why the Queen of Canada cannot be a Catholic or marry a Catholic.

[bloodyminded]

The British tabloids went nuts when the First Lady briefly put her hand on the back of Queen Elizabeth II during the Obamas' official visit to England. It wasn't the first time royal etiquette had gotten a politician into trouble.

OK, this must be the "disrespect" of which I was informed in another thread.

The essential triviality aside, I consider "disrespect" to connote intention. If you unintentionally disrespect someone, then there is, effectively, no disrespect.

If anything, such a gesture for most people--briefly placing one's hand on another's back during a friendly moment--suggests respect, not its opposite.

I understand it goes against protocol in this precise situation, but I don't think it is an issue for too many people. And I highly doubt that Ms. Obama meant is disrespectfully.

[Wilber]

I'm still waiting to hear why excluding Catholics is a justifiable condition of employment. When there is no reason for the exclusion, it's discrimination. So perhaps you could explain to me why the Queen of Canada cannot be a Catholic or marry a Catholic.

If you want to know how it happened, read up on your British history. It is really part of your history as well. The Monarch not being Catholic is a big part of how your country came to be what it is, as well as ours. Does it have any relevance today? Probably not much and it has zero effect on the lives of people who live with the Monarch as their head of state.

Frankly, I doubt whether you could find many Canadians who give a crap whether the Monarch can't be or marry a Catholic. Including most Catholics. What makes me wonder is why it is such a big deal to you.

Bottom line, when it comes to choosing our head of state, we don't have to justify anything to you.

[Guest American Woman]

If you want to know how it happened, read up on your British history.

I know how it happened. I'm speaking of now.

It is really part of your history as well. The Monarch not being Catholic is a big part of how your country came to be what it is, as well as ours. Does it have any relevance today? Probably not much and it has zero effect on the lives of people who live with the Monarch as their head of state.

So if something has "zero effect," it's ok? Furthermore, how do you know that it does have zero effect on all of the people who live with the monarch as their head of state? I'd be willing to wager big bucks that that's not true.

Frankly, I doubt whether you could find many Canadians who give a crap whether the Monarch can't be or marry a Catholic. Including most Catholics. What makes me wonder is why it is such a big deal to you.

Because it's discrimination. Seems to me you are saying discrimination is ok as long as the majority of people are ok with it. What an odd way of justifying it.

Bottom line, when it comes to choosing our head of state, we don't have to justify anything to you.

You keep repeating that. To the point of coming across as defensive.

[g_bambino]

Note I didn't say whenever I choose.

"f we so choose", "whenever we choose", it's hardly different. Allow me rephrase the statement, anyway: You can touch the president if you so choose? I think the wall of Secret Service around him would say otherwise.

The point is, though, that empirical evidence proves wrong your claim that the sovereign is "untouchable". She quite obviously shakes hands with literally tens of thousands of people a year, from heads of state to local store owners. That some people get their knickers in a knot over someone else instigating a more casual and intimate touch on the sovereign - like a hand on the back or arm around the shoulder - doesn't say all that much; where exactly is it from which this outrage is eminating? It doesn't seem to be Elizabeth who's swooning with distress. And, further, putting aside the matter of respect for a symbol of the state, isn't it really just polite and mannerly not to assume you can hug or drape your arm around or put your hand on the small of the back of any random stranger or even acquaintance?

Perhaps you feel manners and respect exist only to protect the upper class from the dirty masses? Or, maybe you're turning such commonplace things as manners and respect into more than they are in order to justify your self-righteous indignation with the monarchy.

[g_bambino]

Because it's discrimination.

So is being denied the possibility of being president based on your place of birth.

[fix]

Edited May 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

You keep repeating that. To the point of coming across as defensive.

I keep repeating it because it is so. I could really care less about your opinion of how we pick our head of state. Several Canadians have spent pages on this topic trying to explain it to you but you obviously have no intention of listening. You have your view of how we should act and nothing will shake it. Too bad for you.

[bloodyminded]

del

Edited May 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I keep repeating it because it is so. I could really care less about your opinion of how we pick our head of state.

So why do you keep responding to my posts?

Several Canadians have spent pages on this topic trying to explain it to you but you obviously have no intention of listening.

Explaining what I've asked? - explaining why it's justifiable for Canada's head of state to exclude Catholics and Catholic spouses? I've failed to see any explanation other than the origin of the exclusion and I've explained why that would be discrimination in a secular state.

You have your view of how we should act and nothing will shake it. Too bad for you.

You're getting defensive again.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

So is being denied the possibility of being president based on your place of birth.

[fix]

No it isn't and I've explained why - I've explained why it's reasonable considering out head of state is also the Commander in Chief in times of war. It's every bit as justifiable as denying the possibility of being an MP to your permanent residents who are not citizens, and I'm guessing you don't see that as discrimination. Or do you?

Now explain why excluding Catholics from being head of state of Canada is justifiable; why the head of state can't even be married to a Catholic. Explain how that isn't discrimination.

I'm guessing you can't.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

explaining why it's justifiable for Canada's head of state to exclude Catholics and Catholic spouses? I've failed to see any explanation other than the origin of the exclusion...

Your obsession with justification is just a ruse to distract from the fact that the existence of discrimination doesn't rely on whether there's justification for it or not and, therefore, the requirements for the Office of President of the United States fit the definition of discriminatory. Even still, there's no rational justification for allowing the president to be a dual citizen but not someone born outside the country's borders. So, even by your own warped definition of "discrimination", the US discriminates in the choice of its head of state.

[g_bambino]

I've explained why it's reasonable considering out head of state is also the Commander in Chief in times of war.

No, you haven't, since your argument is torn asunder by the fact that anyone born in the US but who holds dual citizenship can become the president.

[Wilber]

So why do you keep responding to my posts?

Most sensible question you have asked so far. Easily fixed.

[Guest American Woman]

Most sensible question you have asked so far. Easily fixed.

As you respond yet again.

Have a great day - and while you're at it, try not to be so defensive when everyone doesn't agree with you/when you can't answer the questions that have been raised.

[Wilber]

Last response. I'll leave it to g_bambino and others to beat their head against a wall.

[Dave_ON]

I know how it happened. I'm speaking of now.

Then you have your answer why repeat the question? Expecting a different response?

Because it's discrimination. Seems to me you are saying discrimination is ok as long as the majority of people are ok with it. What an odd way of justifying it.

No it's a job requirement, as you have spent so long explaining to us about the POTUS. Not being Catholic is a justifiable job requirement for the Monarch as the Act of Settlement currently stands. It could be changed I suppose were it actually an issue people cared about. I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to trying to convince folks the Monarchy should go. Other than August and you, I don't think I've heard religion come up as the reason to be rid of the Monarchy. Most don't understand it's current role and think it's as easy as printing new coins and 20 dollar bills.

But what would it matter EVEN if the Monarch could be Catholic would you honestly have no issue with it? You're sticking point is not truly the Catholic thing though you do harp upon it ceaselessly. You're problem is you don't like an unelected head of state. End of story, that is the definition of Monarchy. I've said it before, the "job requirements" for Monarch are a lot stricter than what you're comfortable with, but they are as much a job requirement as any placed on the POTUS.

You keep repeating that. To the point of coming across as defensive.

Much like your convenient definition of discrimination, you keep repeating it, and we're still not convinced by it.

[Dave_ON]

For the record and just to clarify discrimination for you. Dictionary.com says.

1.an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group (ie. group of people NOT born in the US), class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3.the power of making fine distinctions;

*Brackets are mine.

Given the above do you still maintain that disallowing someone to be POTUS does not fit in the dictionary definition of discrimination?

As I've said the Monarchy is indeed discriminatory, but then again so is the POTUS.

Please note it would appear from your posts you are distinctly lacking in the application of number 3.

[Guest American Woman]

For the record and just to clarify discrimination for you. Dictionary.com says.

an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group (ie. group of people NOT born in the US), class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3.the power of making fine distinctions;

*Brackets are mine.

Given the above do you still maintain that disallowing someone to be POTUS does not fit in the dictionary definition of discrimination?

If you take that definition completely literally, every job that has requirements that must be met would be discrimination. Requiring a doctor to have a medical degree would be discrimination. Requiring a bus driver to have a driver's license would be discrimination. But not taking "the group" so literally, since "the group" in the case of POTUS involves everyone born anywhere in the world other than the US, it's not limited to "one definable group" as is obviously meant in the definition you posted. That would be, say, allowing anyone except those born in the Middle East. That would fit the meaning of a "group" in the definition you cited. Note that it clearly lists "racial" and "religious," however.

As I've said the Monarchy is indeed discriminatory, but then again so is the POTUS.

The monarchy is, the POTUS is no more discriminatory than any other job that requires valid qualifications for the position. The religion of the head of state has nothing to do with the job in a secular nation while loyalty to the country of the POTUS as Commander in Chief does.

Please note it would appear from your posts you are distinctly lacking in the application of number 3.

Methinks you are the one lacking in that area, as you are incapable of making any distinctions regarding what "a group" refers to. As I said, every job in the world that has any requirements at all, no matter how reasonable for the position, would be discrimination by your take on the definition, as they all exclude a "group of people" who don't meet the valid qualifications.

[g_bambino]

"[T]he group" in the case of POTUS involves everyone born anywhere in the world other than the US, it's not limited to "one definable group" as is obviously meant in the definition you posted.

Of course it is; everyone not born in the US is an easily definable group.

The religion of the head of state has nothing to do with the job in a secular nation while loyalty to the country of the POTUS as Commander in Chief does.

Once more: this argument is torn asunder by the fact that anyone born in the US but who holds dual citizenship can become the president.