g_bambino Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Well, isn't that just the height of arrogance!! You think we are at some pinnacle of democracy?? We have regular elections when the people in charge decide we do. They produce a result that isn't reflective of what the voters want. The leaders are bound by laws until they decide they're not. The freedoms are there until they are arbitrarily revoked when some law and order freak decides it's time to scare us with tales of terrorists. Spare us the faux indignation. If "the people in charge" call an election, it must be before the constitutionally prescribed period between elections has expired. The results are representative of what those who voted wanted. The leaders chosen are bound by laws, period. And if there's any "revocation" of one's rights, that is typically met with a punishment meted out by our courts of law. Democracy is not an end in itself; it is a ceaseless process towards an end that will never be reached, and, because it is created and run by humans, you won't find a faultless democracy anywhere in this world. The best we can do is keep the problems to a minimum and, comparatively speaking, the number of problems we have is pretty miniscule. So, stop crying. [sp] Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Well, it might sound that way to a fascist. But most people could read what I wrote and see that I was referring to direct democracy. No, any rationally minded person - fascist of not - would see you're calling for democracy subject to demagoguery, tyranny of the majority, and the rule of emotion over reason, which is actually mob rule, otherwise known as ochlocracy. That is not in itself anarchy, but would quickly lead to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 CTV Newsnet showed an interview with her where she ranted that "Canadians should go on civil disobedience" so she really is advocating more than a peaceful protest. Really, she doesn't care about democracy and actual election results at all, only what she believes in is right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Hey, by extension, the reigning monarch supports PM Harper as well, so would it have been OK for this Senate page to pie the Queen in the face with whipped cream? You know...as a way of protesting and expressing herself in a free and democratic Canada. Mmm it might be a stretch but I think that's covered under the following secion of the CCOC 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada, (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm moving back to Montreal to take care of my ailing mother in a month. Therefore I must quit my job here and find a new one there. This is not a simple task. However, I am now considering options where I could leave my job by causing a media frenzy, therefore a job will be waiting for me when I do move back to Montreal I'm sorry but the position of "bravest person in Canada" has already been filled, though we thank you for time and interest in the position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Mmm it might be a stretch but I think that's covered under the following secion of the CCOC.... OK...roger that....how about mooning the Queen with butt cheeks painted with the same "Stop Harper" message? Surely that would not be a physical assault of any kind save for the Queen's eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 And because Happy Jack was rejected by 70% of the electorate, what do you think we should do? Whiner. So a 10% difference in votes amounts to a greater than 50% difference in seats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 That's they way the half-assed system that we have works. 40% of the vote (the part that bothers to show up anymore) gets you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. That doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds more like plutocracy. That's the way a 3 (or more) party system works. That's the system the people of Canada have voted for again and again. It's absolutely democratic. It's Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) So a 10% difference in votes amounts to a greater than 50% difference in seats? That seems to be the case. Jack was only elected King of Quebec, not Canada Edited June 7, 2011 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 OK...roger that....how about mooning the Queen with butt cheeks painted with the same "Stop Harper" message? Surely that would not be a physical assault of any kind save for the Queen's eyes. Mmm that's certainly more subjective and would depend on the moon in question and the Queen's particular taste. Oddly enough I couldn't find anything on the matter on the Monarchy website, an oversight to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 She lost her job because she took an oath to be non-partisan, and clearly she broke that oath. I wonder how many people feel the queen or the GG should speak up regarding their political views - or if they should respect their position and remain non-partisan? Actually you are wrong! Queen Elizabeth 2nd has publicly criticized Margaret Thatcher(when she was PM of the UK) in the 80's or early 90's when Thatcher was trying to gain support for the South African apartheid government(of that time) within the commonwealth. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Queen Elizabeth 2nd has publicly criticized Margaret Thatcher... No she didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Mmm that's certainly more subjective and would depend on the moon in question and the Queen's particular taste. Oddly enough I couldn't find anything on the matter on the Monarchy website, an oversight to be sure. Perhaps precedent has already been set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Actually you are wrong! Queen Elizabeth 2nd has publicly criticized Margaret Thatcher(when she was PM of the UK) in the 80's or early 90's when Thatcher was trying to gain support for the South African apartheid government(of that time) within the commonwealth. Quote and link, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Perhaps precedent has already been set. Hah that's amazing, I'm saddened to see there was no quote from the Queen on her overall opinion of this "free spirit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Well, obviously, we peons should all just shut up and be happy with the system we have because it works for you. And Harper of course. No, of course not. We should rebel with great acts of civil disobedience to support the will of the people of a province in which arguably 40%+ of the population, largely concentrated in and around Quebec City, is separatist. To hell with the fact that conservatives won 48% of the vote outside of Quebec compared to 26.6% for the ndp and 20.7% for the liberals. True democracy can only be reflected by the will of the separatists!! Lets bring in PR so that we can revive the BQ and next election we can give a separatist party 10% of the seats in parliament to hold the governing party hostage to the threat of separation! How patriotic and democratic of you! Let's not forget the green party who won 7% of the vote in 2008. They were a fringe party in every riding, but of course, they should get 21 unelected members of parliament to reflect the will of the people! So democratic! You wingnut conservatives are all ignorant and stupid!!! The only true democracy is one in which the party with the majority of seats is held hostage by the whims of fringe ideologues!! It's time for this country to stand up for the rights of separatists and environment nazis!! Do we want our children to live in a barbaric meat-eating and tree cutting country? No!!! All Canadians that haven't been corrupted by the evil corporations want our children to have a fractured nation with a "green economy". We may not be able to afford nintendos or playstations for our children, but they will appreciate that they have more trees to hug and 0.1% less CO2 in the air!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 That seems to be the case. Jack was only elected King of Quebec, not Canada I understand how the system works. I'm saying that it's not a very fair representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Quote and link, please. I'm having a hard time finding anything to back up the Queens dissaproval of Margaret Thatchers refusal to impose sanctions on the arpatheid government of South Africa.But I do recall reading some articles about this at the time. Another point is the monarchy refusing the Syrian invitation at the latest royal wedding. However I did find this you may find interesting Political Ideas of Queen Elizabeth 2 eHow.com WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 There is s time and place for protest. During the Throne Speech is not either of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm having a hard time finding anything to back up the Queens dissaproval of Margaret Thatchers refusal to impose sanctions on the arpatheid government of South Africa.But I do recall reading some articles about this at the time... It was 1986..... http://stage.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112533288_s03.do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm having a hard time finding anything to back up the Queens dissaproval of Margaret Thatchers refusal to impose sanctions on the arpatheid government of South Africa.But I do recall reading some articles about this at the time. I'm not saying the queen never disapproved of Thatcher, but from what I've read, it was in private meetings with Thatcher - and this according to the media. I've never seen a quote, much less one made in public. I don't think anyone would have had a problem with Brigette disagreeing with Harper's policies in private, or even in a demonstration outside her official capacity. To expect people who have a non-partisan position not to have any political views is ludicrous - of course they do - but to use their position to make public statements goes against the requirements of the position. So if the media was saying that the queen was upset but the queen never said so in public or in interviews, it's not comparable to Brigette speaking out on the Parliament floor - ie: using her position and the privileges afforded her as such to speak her personal views. Another point is the monarchy refusing the Syrian invitation at the latest royal wedding. How is that being partisan? However I did find this you may find interesting Political Ideas of Queen Elizabeth 2 eHow.com I didn't find anything that struck me as partisan on that site. Care to point it out to me? At any rate, I'd like more definitive proof, such as actual quotes and sources and under what circumstances - not just a site saying 'the queen felt this way or that way.' What Brigette did was a very public, very partisan move, and she had the opportunity only because of the position she was privileged with - and she did so in spite of the oath she took not to act in a partisan manner. Is the queen required to take such an oath? From your site: Her politics are somewhat ambiguous, as royal monarchs generally remain nonpolitical or minimally political... Nothing there suggests that she would be breaching an oath even if she were to express partisan views in public - nor does it say she has. Again. Had Brigette talked about her views, expressed her concerns in private, no one would have cared. It's not that people didn't expect her to have partisan views - I'm guessing all of the pages do - it was just required that she remained non-partisan regarding her position. The privileges of being a page don't include using the Senate floor to air their personal political views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 There is s time and place for protest. During the Throne Speech is not either of those. How about Emily Wilding Davison's protest in an attempt to get the vote for women? I'm sure that wasn't the time and place for a protest either, but it was effective. That's the point. Do something suprising to jar people out of their status quo stupor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 How is that being partisan? I didn't find anything that struck me as partisan on that site. Care to point it out to me? At any rate, I'd like more definitive proof, such as actual quotes and sources and under what circumstances - not just a site saying 'the queen felt this way or that way.' What Brigette did was a very public, very partisan move, and she had the opportunity only because of the position she was privileged with - and she did so in spite of the oath she took not to act in a partisan manner. Is the queen required to take such an oath? From your site: Her politics are somewhat ambiguous, as royal monarchs generally remain nonpolitical or minimally political... Nothing there suggests that she would be breaching an oath even if she were to express partisan views in public - nor does it say she has. Partisan? Why are you bringing up this term? Did I ever mention protesting having any connection with being partisan?Or the Queen of England being partisan? Ok maybe I mis worded the statement about the Queen "publicly" criticizing Thatcher(still became public knowledge) But I am not going to try to prove something that I have never claimed(monarchy being partisan). Secondly do you really belive that the PM would give a lone page a private audience to discuss political direction? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) How about Emily Wilding Davison's protest in an attempt to get the vote for women?Davison was a terrorist. Her goals did not justify her actions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison In 1913, she planted a bomb at Lloyd George's newly built house in Surrey, damaging it severely Edited June 8, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 She also threw herself in front of the King's horse during the Epsom Derby. Probably not the time or place to protest by suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.