PM missing in action

[Argus]

No. The constitution puts health care squarely in the provincial jurisdiction.

Administering the regulations around it which are contained in the Canada Health Act, which is federal.

But let's face reality. If there was no public health care, and the federal government suddenly decided there should be one, and the feds would pay for most of it, do you really think they couldn't get that put in place with provincial agreement?

As compared to the US where there isn't even a chance to consult with the states because Obama can't push something like that through congress.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not at all the issue is you are assigning the PM powers they don't have.

References to the PM's responsibiltiy to make state visits etc.. The PM is not a head of state. They do not make state visits.

So you think it is not the responsibility of the PM to look out for Canada's best interests?

That is very unparliamentary of you. Parliament is a place for dialogue not dictatorship.

And how many time have you seen or heard an MP vote against the wishes of the majority of his constituents in order to vote based on party lines? There is how you and I wish it were and then there is the reality as in how it is.

Its not about the PM its about the government. You are buffing the PM cult which is Americanism, and it is not good for democracy, thus nondemocratic in mind.

I am not "buffing" anything, I am stating how I see things. As I mentioned there is the model, the way things should be and then there is reality. The way things ought to be is MPs voting based on the wishes of their constituents rather then their own system of beliefs or their party line, unfortunately time and again you see MPs vote against the wishes of their constituents based on personal beliefs and/or party politics.

Actually the opposite. Heads of state make the law, and execute it. Heads of state have immunity via international law.

Charles Taylor, Karl Doenitz and Slobodan Milosevic prove that heads of state can and are brought to court.

They are above domestic law.

So Mr. Harper could go rape or murder someone without any consequences? Could he deposit a billion dollars in to his account with no consequences for his actions?

They have a veto on law as executive heads of state. (individuals can succeed from a union however and hold equal power but recognition will likely render them to foreign power if they do not sustain as rule by force comes into play rather than rule of law)

??

You don't seem to understand the legislature just makes laws... the PM organizes government which administers the law..

His party would generally vote with him.

in part, that is why they are "head of government" not head of the legislature. The Queen heads parliament not the PM.

The GG and by extension the Queen is nothing but a ceremonial figure, the Queen and her successors may have certain powers within our government and through our constitution but that power for all intents and purposes is only ceremonial... when is the last time that the GG or the Queen has interfered with Canadian internal politics or foreign affairs?

You are wrong, that is the problem.

You are passing off corruption as legitimate, it isn't.

"You are wrong" without any supporting facts is not an argument, at least not one for anyone over the age of 5.

No I'm not shutting anyone up, I'm simply correcting the lies and republican bs.

You have not corrected a thing... Its true because I say so is not a legitimate argument.

You call it insane when it is simply the facts.

Nothing in that post was fact, it was ramblings and an insane tirade...

Someone is trying to paint someone that which they are not.

Stop with the idiotic accusation:

false, it takes 1 person to sack the pm it takes the whole senate to sack a president (normally)

Your view is corrupt and disloyal.

learn what peace and good order are and you might knkw whatt it means ti be canadian.

You are a traitor for beleiving the PM is a state power. They are not.

In the few lines above, you accuse a respected member of the community here of being a traitor, having a "corrupt and disloyal" point of view, not knowing what "peace and good order" are... Let me say that again, you ACCUSE someone of being a TRAITOR for BELIEVING...not doing but believing someway contrary to what YOU believe... Your quote above is nothing but insane ramblings by accusing based of point of view and beliefs rather then actions...

Quite contary it wasn't me that brought the criminal lable into it, it was another poster, sorry try again.

You called someone a traitor for their beliefs and you called their point of view corrupt and disloyal... Following your logic I can accuse you of any crime because somebody else started down that path?

My comments were an allusion.

Your comments were an outright assault on a member's character based on faulty and bs reasoning.

I do purport the conduct however is very traitorous. I didn't say they committed treason. Learn to read.

Who did he betray?Canada? That would be treason... You? He owes you nothing...

Definition:Traitor

A person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc

I doubt you are his friend, betraying Canada is treason, and his principles seem to be intact...

Clearly you don't have the intellgence to take my comments in context.

Whats next? Calling me a traitor too?

Purporting the PM is the head of state is traitorous conduct.

You really love that word don you? Whats up wanna be the thought police? Is that why you believe it is traitorous to BELIEVE a certain way?

So yes if you or he is trying to pass off the PM as a head of state yes you are traitors to the legitimate state of Canada.

Keep digging...

As you can see calling someone a traitor and accussing them of committing treason are two different literary ideas.

Calling a friend a traitor is one thing, calling a stranger a traitor for his beliefs and views about his country implies treason... you can try to justify your bs all day long.

Do you see the difference.

There is not difference, not in this case as you implied someone was a traitor TO CANADA for his beliefs and views... being traitor to your country == treason...

traitor..

a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

Are you trying to argue against yourself now?

You can see that falsely assigning powers of state to the PM does not meet with the criteria of the Oath of Allegiance

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second

It does not read...

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the PM.

You are basically condoning upsurping powers to the Office of PM that do not legitmately belong to them, that is not acceptable.

The oath of allegiance does trump the rights of people to express their point of view, and not supporting monarchy and the crown does not equal treason in any way shape or form... otherwise we would have a interesting problem as a substantial number of Canadians don't approve/support/want monarchy.... should we send them to the reeducation camps?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[login]

So you think it is not the responsibility of the PM to look out for Canada's best interests?

No. Its the job of the PM to facilitate good government for Canada. The Government of Canada's best interests don't necesarily equate the best potential outcome for Canadians. The PM's decisions should transcend government and state, and be based on solid standards enshrined in the constitution. Concepts such as an acceptance of the supremarcy of God, life, liberty and security for all. If one upholds the constitution then one should hope that it represents the will of the Queen for the government, and that a strong government does not equate the best exercise of power, lest it is an exercise that enhances the freedoms of Canadians and protects the principles of democracy and equality.

And how many time have you seen or heard an MP vote against the wishes of the majority of his constituents in order to vote based on party lines?

No idea an MP has never asked for my vote, only my comments.

There is how you and I wish it were and then there is the reality as in how it is.

I've lost your meaning. Can you expand on that.

I am not "buffing" anything, I am stating how I see things. As I mentioned there is the model, the way things should be and then there is reality. The way things ought to be is MPs voting based on the wishes of their constituents rather then their own system of beliefs or their party line, unfortunately time and again you see MPs vote against the wishes of their constituents based on personal beliefs and/or party politics.

How you see things? Its about how you make things, not how they appear. Peoples view is never full regardless, nor is it absolute.

Charles Taylor, Karl Doenitz and Slobodan Milosevic prove that heads of state can and are brought to court.

Kagaroo courts. They are political forums.

One is ruled by their own law not foreign process.

So Mr. Harper could go rape or murder someone without any consequences? Could he deposit a billion dollars in to his account with no consequences for his actions?

Justice is eternal. Lives are not.

His party would generally vote with him.

Or perhaps he would vote with his party? Perhaps they wouldn't I think these things depend on any given context and the fact votes in parliament are not votes on issues they are votes on direction of society both within the law and beyond it as consequence of process.

The GG and by extension the Queen is nothing but a ceremonial figure

I do not agree with that position.

, the Queen and her successors may have certain powers within our government and through our constitution but that power for all intents and purposes is only ceremonial...

I do not agree with that position. While being blessed not to need to rely on public exercise of power, I would expect the proper exercise of power including duties as peace officers as it applies, as well as my ancestorial rights to be protected.

I do not accept that ceeding of my powers which are invested through the Queen and respectively the governor general.

when is the last time that the GG or the Queen has interfered with Canadian internal politics or foreign affairs?

That is a matter of interpretation of interferance.

"You are wrong" without any supporting facts is not an argument, at least not one for anyone over the age of 5.

You have not corrected a thing... Its true because I say so is not a legitimate argument.

Nothing in that post was fact, it was ramblings and an insane tirade...

It is unfortunate that you can't understand the issue.

Stop with the idiotic accusation:

There is no idiotic accusation there are statements of fact.

In the few lines above, you accuse a respected member of the community here of being a traitor, having a "corrupt and disloyal" point of view, not knowing what "peace and good order" are... Let me say that again, you ACCUSE someone of being a TRAITOR for BELIEVING...not doing but believing someway contrary to what YOU believe... Your quote above is nothing but insane ramblings by accusing based of point of view and beliefs rather then actions...

I think you are going to need to go back and quote the post I call someone a traitor and examine the context in which any comments were said. I do not need to teach you how to read.

You called someone a traitor for their beliefs

Even if that were the case I bet yes, it would be because of their beleifs. What is your point?

and you called their point of view corrupt and disloyal...

\

Yes being a traitor usually does involve corruption and disloyalty when it regards something that could be viewed as legitimate authority.

Following your logic I can accuse you of any crime because somebody else started down that path?

What crime?

Your comments were an outright assault on a member's character based on faulty and bs reasoning.

Position, not them per se.

Who did he betray?Canada? That would be treason... You? He owes you nothing...

Yes Canada. Rule of Law, the truth. Defrauding the public by putting false information into the public domain on how Canada legally functions. Ascribing the PM to be a state actor instead of a government official that is not a state official.

I doubt you are his friend, betraying Canada is treason, and his principles seem to be intact...

I don't know him.

Whats next? Calling me a traitor too?

Should I? It seems likely.

You really love that word don you? Whats up wanna be the thought police? Is that why you believe it is traitorous to BELIEVE a certain way?

People are entitled to their view they are not entitled to misinform the public on the law.

That is a crime. It is also a betrayal of the public interest. Don't lie about the law. Don't lie about the legal structure of government. The point is don't say the PM is a head of state, they arn't. Don't ascribe powers of a head of state to the PM, the PM doesn't legally have them. That is support of upsurping legitimate state authority. And that is not acceptable. That is the line.

Calling a friend a traitor is one thing, calling a stranger a traitor for his beliefs and views about his country implies treason... you can try to justify your bs all day long.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the issue is pretty clear.

There is not difference, not in this case as you implied someone was a traitor TO CANADA for his beliefs and views... being traitor to your country == treason...

Come again?

Are you trying to argue against yourself now?

Not at all read the first definition. It is what my use of the word entailed. You referenced it as meaning #2. See the issue?

There has been no physical act of war that I am aware of so the second definition doesn't apply.

The oath of allegiance does trump the rights of people to express their point of view, and not supporting monarchy and the crown does not equal treason in any way shape or form... otherwise we would have a interesting problem as a substantial number of Canadians don't approve/support/want monarchy.... should we send them to the reeducation camps?

It does. The premise though is acting in the best interest, and protecting those interests because of the tie of allegience, it is not a one way event. Acting in someones best interest is that simply. I do not see any reason or intelligence in trying to overthrow the monarchy or not lending it support, but of course some people I stupid, I recognize that. Yes I will blame them for being stupid and expect more.

Edited November 28, 2012 by login

[Signals.Cpl]

[/background][/size][/color]

No. Its the job of the PM to facilitate good government for Canada. The Government of Canada's best interests don't necesarily equate the best potential outcome for Canadians. The PM's decisions should transcend government and state, and be based on solid standards enshrined in the constitution. Concepts such as an acceptance of the supremarcy of God, life, liberty and security for all. If one upholds the constitution then one should hope that it represents the will of the Queen for the government, and that a strong government does not equate the best exercise of power, lest it is an exercise that enhances the freedoms of Canadians and protects the principles of democracy and equality.

The Queen is not responsible for the economic wellbeing of Canada nor are her representatives, that responsibility falls on the PM of Canada. He went to India in an attempt to boost economic ties and improve trade relations.

One Question though, whose god is supreme?

No idea an MP has never asked for my vote, only my comments.

Maybe not directly, but when the constituents make their voice heard and the MP votes contrary to the wishes of the majority of his/her constituents and instead votes based on personal beliefs and/or party line. An MP is elected to make the voice of his constituents heard, there is a reason why many people are so disconnected and disillusioned with our political system, they see that they vote once and have no say until the next election, people feel that their voice is not heard in between elections.

I've lost your meaning. Can you expand on that.

There is the way that you and I might wish the situation were and then there is the reality of our political scene.

How you see things? Its about how you make things, not how they appear. Peoples view is never full regardless, nor is it absolute.

There is how YOU see things, and then there is reality... is that better?

Kagaroo courts. They are political forums.

One is ruled by their own law not foreign process.

You said that they were immune form and above the law, this proves that they are in fact NOT above the law.

Justice is eternal. Lives are not.

No please answer the question, if Mr. Harper were to rape or murder someone or if he were to take billions in public funds for him self would he be held accountable? If he above the law then?

Or perhaps he would vote with his party? Perhaps they wouldn't I think these things depend on any given context and the fact votes in parliament are not votes on issues they are votes on direction of society both within the law and beyond it as consequence of process.

Why do you think a majority is so important? It is important because the party that has a majority can pass its own agenda and policies...now who is the leader of the party? Would it be the PM?

I do not agree with that position.

Great, when is the last time that the GG interfered in Canadian politics? When is the last time that Canada went to war because the UK went to war? When is the last time the GG took direction from the Queen that was contrary to what the PM and the Canadian Government want?

I do not agree with that position.

They have powers that they have no exercised in 70 or more years, I'd say they are pretty ceremonial at this point in time and should the crown interfere in Canadian politics without a pretty darn good reason I can see us becoming a republic shortly.

While being blessed not to need to rely on public exercise of power, I would expect the proper exercise of power including duties as peace officers as it applies, as well as my ancestorial rights to be protected.

?

I do not accept that ceeding of my powers which are invested through the Queen and respectively the governor general.

The Queen and the GG have nothing but ceremonial and theoretical power, how would the commonwealth react if the Queen decided to exercise her powers in Canada through the GG without the consent or request of the Canadian Government?

That is a matter of interpretation of interferance.

No its not, when was the last time that the GG and by extension the Queen/King took action that was against the wishes of the democratically elected government of Canada?

It is unfortunate that you can't understand the issue.

If you presented an issue, any issue that might help since your rant held nothing but accusations and BS.

There is no idiotic accusation there are statements of fact.

There are statements of fact, unfortunately none of them happen to reside in your posts.

I think you are going to need to go back and quote the post I call someone a traitor and examine the context in which any comments were said. I do not need to teach you how to read.

I love it, you call someone traitor and now are trying to back peddle to avoid explaining the idiotic accusation.

Even if that were the case I bet yes, it would be because of their beleifs. What is your point?

So he is a traitor to this country because his believes are different from yours? You are a tolerant fellow aren't you?

Yes being a traitor usually does involve corruption and disloyalty when it regards something that could be viewed as legitimate authority.

And nothing in the post Argus made suggested disloyalty, corruption or treason... you went and accused him of those things and now you are back peddling...

What crime?

Any crime, since you argument is that someone else brought the criminal accusations out and you following suit... just because someone else did something does not mean its right or that you should follow in their footsteps.

Position, not them per se.

So his position has committed treason now?

Yes Canada. Rule of Law, the truth. Defrauding the public by putting false information into the public domain on how Canada legally functions. Ascribing the PM to be a state actor instead of a government official that is not a state official.

So we are back to committing treason...

I don't know him.

Therefore you calling him a traitor implies he was a traitor to Canada meaning he committed treason...

Should I? It seems likely.

I guess you don't like anyone with an opinion contrary to yours do you? Your circle of friends must be the most like minded group in the history of the world, anyone who disagrees with you suddenly becomes a traitor... you have some things in common with certain dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam to name a few as they did not really like opposition to their beliefs just like you...

People are entitled to their view they are not entitled to misinform the public on the law.

Freedom of speech thing you know... Argus is entitled to his opinions and views and is more then entitled to express them as he sees fit on any medium be it an online forum, a newspaper or any other means.

That is a crime.

Really? I can think of quite a few people who would go to jail for a looooong time if that were a crime and it were enforced...

It is also a betrayal of the public interest.

That is your opinion...

Don't lie about the law.

And he did not lie, he expressed his view on how he saw government... is it a lie only because he did not bow down to the great and infallible login and his opinion.

Don't lie about the legal structure of government.

Where did he lie?

The point is don't say the PM is a head of state, they arn't.

They are if the GG technically answers to the PM...

Don't ascribe powers of a head of state to the PM, the PM doesn't legally have them.

The job of the PM is to look out for Canada's best interests, if it means that he should go to India and negotiate a economic deal thats great... if it means that he should go to China to foster closer ties that is also great...

[Signals.Cpl]

That is support of upsurping legitimate state authority.

And that might have been a big deal in the 18th century, but at this point in time Canada is an independent Nation and might some day become a republic.

And that is not acceptable.

That is not acceptable to you, not necessarily anyone else though...

That is the line.

Really? And is that an imaginary line you put down?

I'm sorry if you can't understand the issue is pretty clear.

It is completely clear, you are full of BS and I am not entirely sure why I am wasting my time with you...

Come again?

You are trying to present that your initial claim of him being a traitor does not equal to him committing treason yet time and again you have proven that is exactly what you meant.

Not at all read the first definition. It is what my use of the word entailed. You referenced it as meaning #2. See the issue?

So he betrayed another? You?

A cause?

A trust? Whose trust did he betray? Yours?

There has been no physical act of war that I am aware of so the second definition doesn't apply.

So we finally get to the root of the issue, you used a word you did not fully understand... ok got it...

It does. The premise though is acting in the best interest, and protecting those interests because of the tie of allegience, it is not a one way event.

We should look out for Canada's best interests first of all, look out for the US as much as we can because our livelihood depends on them and a distant third is the monarchy as it is nothing but protecting our historical ties to the UK.

Acting in someones best interest is that simply.

So in your opinion we should act in the Queens best interest before our own?

I do not see any reason or intelligence in trying to overthrow the monarchy or not lending it support, but of course some people I stupid,

I don't see a major change one way or the other but not supporting the monarchy is not stupid its an opinion.

I recognize that. Yes I will blame them for being stupid and expect more.

So we are back at this again, you think someone is a traitor, corrupt, disloyal or stupid simply because they disagree with you... got it.

[jbg]

The GG and by extension the Queen is nothing but a ceremonial figure, the Queen and her successors may have certain powers within our government and through our constitution but that power for all intents and purposes is only ceremonial... when is the last time that the GG or the Queen has interfered with Canadian internal politics or foreign affairs?

Maybe not in Canada (other than the King-Byng affair in 1924). In Australia the GG turfed PM Gough Whitlam on or about November 10, 1975 and replaced him with the opposition leader pending elections that December. It was the Senate and not the HOC that was blocking money bills and Whitlam had requested dissolution only of the Senate. The GG instead decided to dissolve both houses, order elections and appoint a caretaker PM.

[g_bambino]

If there was no public health care, and the federal government suddenly decided there should be one, and the feds would pay for most of it, do you really think they couldn't get that put in place with provincial agreement?

Provincial agreement is absolutely necessary; the constitution places health care within the provincial jurisdiction. The federal government can't set up an alternate health system, nor can it force a province to spend any money - federal or provincial - on health care without that province's agreement.

[g_bambino]

The GG and by extension the Queen is nothing but a ceremonial figure, the Queen and her successors may have certain powers within our government and through our constitution but that power for all intents and purposes is only ceremonial... when is the last time that the GG or the Queen has interfered with Canadian internal politics or foreign affairs?

The monarch and governor general are mostly seen performing ceremonial duties. That's because the powers of governance are exercised by the politicians. However, the powers the politicians exercise are on loan to them; the powers - the royal prerogative - very much belong to the Crown.

One could say 2008 was the last time a governor general "interfered" (a poor choice of word, since it implies an unjust intrusion, rather than a proper one) in internal politics, when it came to Michaelle Jean to decide whether or not to prorogue parliament. But, the last time or how many times its happened is beside the point. More salient is that fact that the royal prerogative belongs to the monarch, represented by the governor general and lieutenant governors, and they can take it away from the politicians in certain situations, when those politicians fail to adhere to the law. As was said by Churchill, "The Crown is important not so much for the power it wields, but for the power it denies others."

[ed.: corr.]

Edited November 28, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

The problem is that it's talked bout colloquially as "Harper prorogued parliament." Harper doesn't have the power to prorogue parliament. So part of the problem with our understanding of the monarchy is that it's not reported properly.

[login]

The Queen is not responsible for the economic wellbeing of Canada nor are her representatives, that responsibility falls on the PM of Canada. He went to India in an attempt to boost economic ties and improve trade relations.

It is not the PM's responsibility. If it were the government it would be foreign affairs and trade.

The PM going to india for whatever reason on their time is fine. its not part of their job description.

Nor was it required, as stated the agrement was already agreed before the PM went to India.

The ORIGINAL issue was the cost, which was completely out of line.

One Question though, whose god is supreme?

God is god.

Maybe not directly, but when the constituents make their voice heard and the MP votes contrary to the wishes of the majority of his/her constituents and instead votes based on personal beliefs and/or party line. An MP is elected to make the voice of his constituents heard, there is a reason why many people are so disconnected and disillusioned with our political system, they see that they vote once and have no say until the next election, people feel that their voice is not heard in between elections.

This is getting way off topic. So I'm not going to reply to it here, but if you want to start a new thread on the role of MPs go right ahead, and give me a link.

There is the way that you and I might wish the situation were and then there is the reality of our political scene.

There is how YOU see things, and then there is reality... is that better?

Not really it just presents you as inane.

You said that they were immune form and above the law, this proves that they are in fact NOT above the law.

They are.

They are not above politics, there is a difference. Criminal acts stemming from political process are not the law. It is called injustice and overreaching.

No please answer the question, if Mr. Harper were to rape or murder someone or if he were to take billions in public funds for him self would he be held accountable? If he above the law then?

Mr. Harper ain't a head of state. No, he's not. He'd probably be in Kingston somewhere.

is important because the party that has a majority can pass its own agenda and policies...now who is the leader of the party? Would it be the PM?

No, the legistlative process is subject to the law which includes the bounds of the constitution, the bill of rights and other common law fundamentals. It is not a I can do whatever I want card.

Great, when is the last time that the GG interfered in Canadian politics? When is the last time that Canada went to war because the UK went to war? When is the last time the GG took direction from the Queen that was contrary to what the PM and the Canadian Government want?

It depends on the definition of interferance. This is a question of interpretation. I could provide a thesis for many situations.

Who cares is a better answer though.

They have powers that they have no exercised in 70 or more years, I'd say they are pretty ceremonial at this point in time and should the crown interfere in Canadian politics without a pretty darn good reason I can see us becoming a republic shortly.

Seeing something as ceremonial and it not serving any actual functions are two very different things.

?

The Queen and the GG have nothing but ceremonial and theoretical power, how would the commonwealth react if the Queen decided to exercise her powers in Canada through the GG without the consent or request of the Canadian Government?

False acceration.

No its not, when was the last time that the GG and by extension the Queen/King took action that was against the wishes of the democratically elected government of Canada?

This is a matter of interpretation.

If you presented an issue, any issue that might help since your rant held nothing but accusations and BS.

I digress.

There are statements of fact, unfortunately none of them happen to reside in your posts.

Your loss I suppose.

I love it, you call someone traitor and now are trying to back peddle to avoid explaining the idiotic accusation.

Nope.

So he is a traitor to this country because his believes are different from yours? You are a tolerant fellow aren't you?

Nope, I'm not going to repeat myself.

And nothing in the post Argus made suggested disloyalty, corruption or treason... you went and accused him of those things and now you are back peddling...

Sure it was, it indirectly gave state affiliation to someone who didn't have state affiliation.

Its like me taking Joe Blow and putting a uniform on him and letting him go out handcuff and throw people in a back of a car for jaywalking, not acceptable.

Any crime, since you argument is that someone else brought the criminal accusations out and you following suit... just because someone else did something does not mean its right or that you should follow in their footsteps.

This its because you want your way bs, is just that, its not what I think is "the best process" necesarily, but it is the legal process. Corrupting legal rule is a problem. Misinforming the public either directly or indirectly should not be acceptable and you arguing that he should be able to misinform the process on how government is suppose to function is abetting corruption, which is issued because you should be aware by now that is what it is.

So his position has committed treason now?

So we are back to committing treason...

Therefore you calling him a traitor implies he was a traitor to Canada meaning he committed treason...

I'm not even going to reply to your idiocy.

You are just being a troll.

I've made my point, if you have yet to understand it, you need remedial.

I guess you don't like anyone with an opinion contrary to yours do you? Your circle of friends must be the most like minded group in the history of the world, anyone who disagrees with you suddenly becomes a traitor... you have some things in common with certain dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam to name a few as they did not really like opposition to their beliefs just like you...

Not at all. Dissenting a position is not being a traitor, it is when you dissent a system that you are disloyal to that system. There is much room far away from corruption of a system to avoid being a traitor for reason of position on very many subjects. However systems at time have inbuilt points where attacking something in a specific way is being disloyal and jepordizing that system. When you reassign the functions of state knowingly you alter the powerbalance, and since republicanism is a known movement, it is clear that ascribing the PM state power is a form of republican positioning which acts in direct opposition to the legal Canadain executive and station functionary process, so it is disloyal to the legal Canadian system. That is yes, Republicanism is a movement for traitors to the legal Canadian System, it has been since Confederation. This has been a reality of whig politics since before Canada was alive. Now simply accepting you are a traitor to the legal rule, is completely acceptable but calling someone what they are should also be acceptable. There is a difference between legal dissent and treason. You either don't know it, or you do and are trolling.

Freedom of speech thing you know... Argus is entitled to his opinions and views and is more then entitled to express them as he sees fit on any medium be it an online forum, a newspaper or any other means.

Yes I didn't try to say he can't say things, but I did try to correct the damage of his words. Although we both have the right to express ourselves. I didn't report the post. I replied to it. What is your problem?

Really? I can think of quite a few people who would go to jail for a looooong time if that were a crime and it were enforced...

People who misinform the public do need to be reprimanded, it causes problems and results in victimization. So yes, it is a problem and it should be inforced. Mischeif results from misinformation, while as other aspects it can result in fraud through misrepresentation. These are actual laws, the fact it isn't enforced is a completely different issue. But yes, they should be corrected if there was a sincere attempt to misinform the public of the facts of law.

it is section 380 of the criminal code. Government is a service.

That is your opinion...

Yup.

And he did not lie, he expressed his view on how he saw government... is it a lie only because he did not bow down to the great and infallible login and his opinion.

I'm not sure you are entitled to represent Argus' views.

Either it is "Dishonesty" is determined on an objective standard determined by what a reasonable person would consider dishonest. ^[1] Dishonesty can also include non-disclosure where a reasonable person would consider it dishonest.^[

or it is

"Deceit" is "an untrue statement made by a person who knows that it is untrue, or has reason to believe that it is untrue, but makes it despite that risk, to induce another person to act on it, as if it were true, to that other person’s detriment."

You are more on the grounds of

"Falsehood" is a "deliberate lie".

Where did he lie?

In saying the PM was on a state visit to India.

He wasn't, that is a lie.

They are if the GG technically answers to the PM...

They arn't stop being stupid.

The job of the PM is to look out for Canada's best interests, if it means that he should go to India and negotiate a economic deal thats great... if it means that he should go to China to foster closer ties that is also great...

You are being stupid, the deal was already done.

Edited November 28, 2012 by login

[Argus]

Parliament doesn't appoint the governor general or Supreme Court justices.

Technically. In reality, whomever the PM wants appointed gets appointed.

The notwithstanding clause of the constitution does allow a law to contravene the Charter for a limited period of time.

Five years at a time, subject to renewal.

If you're suggesting a prime minister who's party has a majority in the House of Commons could recommend the appointment of a puppet governor general who would, in turn, appoint corrupt judges to the Supreme Court and all would allow blatantly unconstituional acts and laws to pass - like the termination of elections, the elimination of paliamentary approval for budgets, the forced appropriation of provincial funds by the federal government, the abolition of the Senate, the unilateral elimination of the Charter, or anything of the kind - then, yes, that would be the point where things have gone "enormously out of line" and the Queen would be obliged to act.

Let's not go crazy. Not suggesting that. However, suppose, as an example, that Harper wants to ban abortion and gay marriage. Well, all he has to do is appoint judges who are very conservative, and who don't believe that abortion and gay marriage are covered by the constitution. They don't have to be corrupt, just have that belief. This would be similar to Paul Martin when he appointed two very well known supporters of gay rights to the supreme court. So Harper appoints a number of such people, and then passes a law banning abortion and gay marriage. All perfectly acceptable. And with his new friendly Supreme Court backing it up. Alternatively, he could just put a law in place banning abortions and gay marriage and use the notwithstanding clause to exempt it from judicial oversight, subject to renewal in 5 years. All this he can do because he has a majority, and that lets him go around most restrictions.

[Argus]

Yes I didn't try to say he can't say things, but I did try to correct the damage of his words. Although we both have the right to express ourselves. I didn't report the post. I replied to it. What is your problem?]

You could not have reported my post. However, I could have reported yours for insults. I didn't see any reason to do that since your rambling, confused posts are clearly so lacking in a rational world view that your silly insults only amused me. I didn't think they were worthy of rebuttal, much less reporting.

Signals, I really don't get why you're wasting time with this guy. Nobody is buying what he's selling anyway.

[Signals.Cpl]

Login, I won't bother replying to you after this post. The thing is you can't stop progress, as much as you want to you cannot do it. If we left it up to "geniuses" like you we would still believe that a King or Queen were send as a gift from god and had some divine right to rule over us little plebeians and we had not right to limit their power. If it were up to your kind we would still be under ruled by absolute monarchs as people like you cried and cried when the power of the monarchs was restricted, and they cried again when Monarchy was abolished... If we listened to the likes of you we would be no better then some of the nations in this world ruled by someone apparently send by god...

[login]

notwithstanding may effect the charter it does not effect the rest of the constitution, nor does it effect the bill of rights, nor the human rights act nor the provincial rights acts,

Edited November 29, 2012 by login

[login]

Login, I won't bother replying to you after this post. The thing is you can't stop progress, as much as you want to you cannot do it. If we left it up to "geniuses" like you we would still believe that a King or Queen were send as a gift from god and had some divine right to rule over us little plebeians and we had not right to limit their power. If it were up to your kind we would still be under ruled by absolute monarchs as people like you cried and cried when the power of the monarchs was restricted, and they cried again when Monarchy was abolished... If we listened to the likes of you we would be no better then some of the nations in this world ruled by someone apparently send by god...

where did I insult you?

The problem in all this is that I was just telling it like it is. It wasn't an insult it was a statement of fact.

None the less people there are a bunch of painters and smearers on this forum that seek character assasination rather than dialogue.

I didn't say you didn't have reasons. I very well expect most republicans have their reasons, it doesn't make them any less traitors, nor does it make you any less disloyal.

It was traitors that attacked the monarchy then, and it is traitors who attack the monarchy today. It goes against the principles of the Constitution. Holding the monarch to protect our interest is much better than attempting to be a sole monarch without any duties to the public whatsoever other than ones own agenda. I'd take a peoples monarch over a crook any day of the week.

Attacking what the monarchy stands for in the legal Canadian system though in favour of Prime Ministerial republicanism is nothing to be proud of though, imo. It represents a betrayal of the public interest. If you want your own country go out and do it, but it should be founded on equality and respect, not undermining another states lawful processes.

Edited November 29, 2012 by login

[cybercoma]

Technically. In reality, whomever the PM wants appointed gets appointed.

Five years at a time, subject to renewal.

Let's not go crazy. Not suggesting that. However, suppose, as an example, that Harper wants to ban abortion and gay marriage. Well, all he has to do is appoint judges who are very conservative, and who don't believe that abortion and gay marriage are covered by the constitution. They don't have to be corrupt, just have that belief. This would be similar to Paul Martin when he appointed two very well known supporters of gay rights to the supreme court. So Harper appoints a number of such people, and then passes a law banning abortion and gay marriage. All perfectly acceptable. And with his new friendly Supreme Court backing it up. Alternatively, he could just put a law in place banning abortions and gay marriage and use the notwithstanding clause to exempt it from judicial oversight, subject to renewal in 5 years. All this he can do because he has a majority, and that lets him go around most restrictions.

He has to have a majority House of Commons, a majority in the Senate, and he has to stack the judiciary. Even then, there's always the chance that the MPs, Senators, or judges will go against him because they are not accountable to him. Supposing that all works out as he plans, he would still have to face the public in the following election.

[jbg]

He has to have a majority House of Commons, a majority in the Senate, and he has to stack the judiciary. Even then, there's always the chance that the MPs, Senators, or judges will go against him because they are not accountable to him. Supposing that all works out as he plans, he would still have to face the public in the following election.

Quite right.

Just ask Brian Mulroney how much fun governing during his second mandate was.

[g_bambino]

Technically. In reality, whomever the PM wants appointed gets appointed.

You said parliament appoints those figures. It does not.

Let's not go crazy... However, suppose, as an example, that Harper wants to ban abortion and gay marriage. Well, all he has to do is appoint judges who are very conservative, and who don't believe that abortion and gay marriage are covered by the constitution... This would be similar to Paul Martin when he appointed two very well known supporters of gay rights to the supreme court. So Harper appoints a number of such people, and then passes a law banning abortion and gay marriage. All perfectly acceptable. And with his new friendly Supreme Court backing it up. Alternatively, he could just put a law in place banning abortions and gay marriage and use the notwithstanding clause to exempt it from judicial oversight, subject to renewal in 5 years. All this he can do because he has a majority, and that lets him go around most restrictions.

Well, it was you who mentioned things going "enormously out of line". Regardless, neither same-sex marriage nor abortion is "covered by the constitution"; the constitution makes no mention of either. Laws pertaining to those subjects must not be in breach of any part of the constitution. Even a conservative judge would have to rule that a law banning abortion is contrary to everyone's right to the safety of their person (which existed before the Charter). The unconstitutionality of the Marriages Act when it defined marriage as being between two people of the opposite gender was determined by various provincial courts; the Supreme Court (despite some supposed direction by Paul Martin to appoint judges who supposedly supported "gay" rights (whatever those are)) never ruled on it; in fact, it pointedly declined to say anything about the constituionality of the restriction of marriage to being between a man and a woman.

So, your hypothetical has no connection to reality; it would require Harper to, before the next election, but also while restricted by the terms of serving judges, appoint to every superior and supreme court in the country judges that are not only guaranteed to be hyper-conservative but also willing to ignore certain parts of the constitution.