Prince Harry

[g_bambino]

Thanks for posting that because I don't think many people quite understand that eliminating the federal crown puts the provinces in an odd position, having their own equal crowns.

If by "federal crown" you mean the one over all eleven parts of Canada, including the federal jurisdiction. There are two guises of the Crown that could be called "the federal Crown": the aforementioned one Crown that is part equally of all eleven councils, parliaments, and courts (federal and provincial alike) and the Crown specifically in the federal council, parliament, and courts.

The terminoligy is insufficient to make explaining this easy!

Regardless, removing the monarchy would have an impact on the provinces that republicans tend to either not realise or dismiss as insignificant. (The leader of Canada's sole republican lobby group is on record as saying the lieutenant governors should simply be done away with. Whether he knows it or not, by saying so, he's calling for the abolition of the provinces or, at least, turning them into subdivisions governed by Ottawa.)

[g_bambino]

You don't understand her!

Oh, I do; I've been on this ride with her before. That time, she changed the definition of the word "discrimination" to suit her argument that there are no discriminations on the Office of the President of the United States, either legal or cultural, and then stomped off in a flurry of emoticons.

[eyeball]

You're expecting the Crown to do what it should not and then deeming it useless because it will not. Do you have any other tricks to absolve voters of their responsibilities?

Nope, I've got no tricks up my sleeves, they're rolled up way to tightly.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, I do; I've been on this ride with her before. That time, she changed the definition of the word "discrimination" to suit her argument that there are no discriminations on the Office of the President of the United States, either legal or cultural, and then stomped off in a flurry of emoticons.

And of course you can back that up, right? And of course there's been no "stomping or flurries of emotion" coming from Canadians, such as you are responding to.

Oh, it's a riot being an American on this forum sometimes. Lots of fun. I especially love the attempt to equate perceived "cultural biases" in the American system with "legal discrimination" in Canada's.

Edited September 7, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Possibly it is just frustration with a high falutin American egalitarianism the excludes its non born citizens from the top elected job in the country and doesn't seem to understand the concept that there might be "more than one way to skin a cat". Another American expression I believe.

[Guest American Woman]

Possibly it is just frustration with a high falutin American egalitarianism the excludes its non born citizens from the top elected job in the country and doesn't seem to understand the concept that there might be "more than one way to skin a cat". Another American expression I believe.

Oh, I have no doubt it's due to "frustration;" the frustration of an American pointing out the discrimination regarding the 'selection' of your head of state and the discrimination barring Catholics from the position along with anyone not born into the Windsor family - discrimination that you can't refute, but defend as best you can.

You don't seem to understand that "qualifications for a position" and "only those born into the position, as long as they aren't a Catholic" are two different things.

I've pointed this out before, and I'll do so again (knowing full well that 'it will fall on deaf ears,' so to speak) - if people aren't qualified for a position based on reasonable requirements, it isn't discrimination if said people can't hold the position.

Edited September 7, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Oh, I have no doubt it's due to "frustration;" the frustration of an American pointing out the discrimination regarding the 'selection' of your head of state and the discrimination barring Catholics from the position along with anyone not born into the Windsor family - discrimination that you can't refute, but defend as best you can.

You don't seem to understand that "qualifications for a position" and "only those born into the position, as long as they aren't a Catholic" are two different things.

I've pointed this out before, and I'll do so again (knowing full well that 'it will fall on deaf ears,' so to speak) - if people aren't qualified for a position based on reasonable requirements, it isn't discrimination if said people can't hold the position.

I was wrong. Arrogance would be a more appropriate word.

[Guest American Woman]

I was wrong. Arrogance would be a more appropriate word.

The problem lies with you and your inability to accept the reality of the discrimination within your system regarding your head of state. That it exists and that I point it out doesn't make me "arrogant," in spite of the fact that you don't like it.

[Wilber]

The problem lies with you and your inability to accept the reality of the discrimination within your system regarding your head of state. That it exists and that I point it out doesn't make me "arrogant," in spite of the fact that you don't like it.

It does make you arrogant. You are unable to comprehend any system but your own. We have pointed out the discrimination in yours but you chose to ignore it. Unlike you, none of us has said it is bad or you should change it, we have just pointed it out. That makes you arrogant.

[Guest American Woman]

It does make you arrogant. You are unable to comprehend any system but your own. We have pointed out the discrimination in yours but you chose to ignore it. Unlike you, none of us has said it is bad or you should change it, we have just pointed it out. That makes you arrogant.

I comprehend it just fine. You think because I'm critical of it, it means I don't comprehend it??

I already explained the difference between reasonable job requirements and discrimination, but just as I predicted, it 'fell on deaf ears.'

That I am critical of discrimination within your system does not make me arrogant; the fact that you can't take any criticism from an American is your problem, not mine; the fact that you perceive criticism to be arrogance speaks for you.

[Wilber]

I comprehend it just fine. You think because I'm critical of it, it means I don't comprehend it??

I already explained the difference between reasonable job requirements and discrimination, but just as I predicted, it 'fell on deaf ears.'

That I am critical of discrimination within your system does not make me arrogant; the fact that you can't take any criticism from an American is your problem, not mine; the fact that you perceive criticism to be arrogance speaks for you.

What you consider a reasonable job requirement for the top elected job in your country is not considered an issue in ours. We both discriminate but in different ways, you just can't admit it and leave it at that.

g_bambino has given excellent explanations of some of the intricacies of our system and the way things work the way they do. Why don't you learn something about us instead of harping on the same old issue.

[Guest American Woman]

What you consider a reasonable job requirement for the top elected job in your country is not considered an issue in ours. We both discriminate but in different ways, you just can't admit it and leave it at that.

Because it's not discrimination! Just because our job requirements are different from yours doesn't make ours unreasonable. Furthermore, whether it's a reasonable requirement or not is a different matter from discrimination.

g_bambino has given excellent explanations of some of the intricacies of our system and the way things work the way they do. Why don't you learn something about us instead of harping on the same old issue.

YOU are harping on the issue. OTHERS are harping on the issue. g_bambino and cybercoma made it about me, personally. YOU are making it about me personally. I'm responding. I'm stating my opinion. Simple as that.

And again. I understand your system; that doesn't mean I'm going to excuse the discrimination and not be critical of discrimination.

AGAIN. My criticism of your system has nothing to do with lack of knowledge.

[Wilber]

AGAIN. My criticism of your system has nothing to do with lack of knowledge.

It is demonstrating an incredible lack of knowledge of us as a people and country.

[Guest American Woman]

It is demonstrating an incredible lack of knowledge of us as a people and country.

No, it's not. It's not demonstrating a lack of knowledge at all. One can be knowledgeable AND critical.

[g_bambino]

Nope, I've got no tricks up my sleeves, they're rolled up way to tightly.

You do have the same one, used repeatedly now: Look to the Queen to sort out every misbehaviour of our politicians and call her useless when she doesn't. I don't know whether you realise it or not, but you're asking for a shift in the balance that takes from democracy and gives back to monarchy, back to the days before 1688, when the monarch still had authority over parliarment and even went to war with it. You're always about citizen power, so, despite what you say, I'm inclined to believe it's actually not what you want.

[g_bambino]

Arrogance would be a more appropriate word.

It's an attempted disguise for the deliberate obtuseness, I suspect. Put it aside and what's notable is the turn around that demands you explain the difference between "qualifications for a position" and "only those born into the position, as long as they aren't a Catholic" that's offered in place of a response that addresses your point about the rules for running for president that include a bar against those not born in the United States. One can only continue to wonder, since AW keeps dodging the issue, how the location of one's birth is a qualification for a political office.

[eyeball]

You do have the same one, used repeatedly now: Look to the Queen to sort out every misbehaviour of our politicians and call her useless when she doesn't. I don't know whether you realise it or not, but you're asking for a shift in the balance that takes from democracy and gives back to monarchy, back to the days before 1688, when the monarch still had authority over parliarment and even went to war with it.

Oh, really? Well, I certainly don't want that.

You're always about citizen power, so, despite what you say, I'm inclined to believe it's actually not what you want.

I just want some tangible integrity and honesty in my governance is all. Desperately enough that I was hoping maybe the monarch might have a trick up it's sleeve but rest assured you've finally convinced me I'm wasting my time. I'll probably never look to it for anything ever again. Thanks.

[guyser]

Mr Bambino, did the commonwealth not rescind the No-Catholics rule or was that all talk and no action?

[g_bambino]

Desperately enough that I was hoping maybe the monarch might have a trick up it's sleeve...

She does. It just seems its not a powerful enough trick to make you happy. It's you and the rest of us voters - either directly through the ballot box or via our elected representatives in parliament - who are the "first responders" against political misbehaviour, so to speak. The Queen is more akin to a fire extinguisher, used only in absolute emergencies.

[g_bambino]

Mr Bambino, did the commonwealth not rescind the No-Catholics rule or was that all talk and no action?

No, there's been no change to the succession rules at all yet. New Zealand is presently heading an international "working group" that is looking at all the necessary legal work required to make the amendments. However, the changes, so far, are only to be to the rule of male preference primogeniture, the requirement that heirs receive the sovereign's permission to marry, and the bar on a monarch being married to a Roman Catholic. As far as I know, the law against a Catholic monarch is to remain, because of the whole British monarch being the head of the Church of England thing and the person who is our monarch is the same one who's the British monarch.

[Guest American Woman]

It's an attempted disguise for the deliberate obtuseness, I suspect. ...

One can only continue to wonder, since AW keeps dodging the issue, how the location of one's birth is a qualification for a political office.

Who's dodging it?? I've said repeatedly that "qualifications" and "discrimination" are two different things.

You can argue that it's not a valid qualification that a head of state be born in said state, but that doesn't make it discrimination. We aren't singling out and excluding one country - it applies to all other countries. Speaking of "deliberate obtuseness," do you seriously not understand the difference??

[Guest American Woman]

Mr Bambino, did the commonwealth not rescind the No-Catholics rule or was that all talk and no action?

They only rescinded it regarding spouses.

[g_bambino]

You can argue that it's not a valid qualification that a head of state be born in said state...

Can you argue that it is a valid qualification?

[Smallc]

Who's dodging it?? I've said repeatedly that "qualifications" and "discrimination" are two different things.

What about discriminatory qualifications?

[Guest American Woman]

Can you argue that it is a valid qualification?

Good grief. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, because the issue is discrimination. Whether or not it's a valid qualification is a matter of opinion, as opposed to discrimination - which is unarguably not valid.