Jump to content

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the Constitutional Monarchy does not benefit Canadians


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is very important to the collective Canadian psyche, making any changes that much more difficult.  Canada's identity is fundamentally defined as "not American".   Ironic that it is an American woman causing such a ruckus.

Cue The Guess Who's...American Woman... from 1970.

Canadian band  . . . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Is Jagmeet Singh for real?  Did he swear allegiance to the Queen when he became a member of Parliament?  If so, is he now breaking his oath when he said on main stream media today that the monarchy does not benefit Canadians?  When he said the Communist revolution in Cuba lifted the Cuban people up, did he know the Communist revolution in Cuba killed tens of thousands of people, imprisoned thousands of others, confiscated private property, and deprived the people of their freedom?  This guy is a follower of a false religion and apparently a Marxist sympathizer who was given a platform he can now use to attack our democratic Constitutional monarchy system that has given more freedom and human rights than most other countries in the world.  As a Canadian educated lawyer, was he not taught the purpose and function of our Constitutional Monarchy?  Apparently not.  Otherwise he would know that the system works to prevent a would-be dictator from seizing power and establishing a totalitarian state.  Having the Queen as Canada's Queen and a GG acting on her behalf means if a rogue PM tried to abolish the system, the Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Queen, could arrest the would-be dictator and prevent a takeover.  The continued allegiance of a large swath of the population, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces ensures a dictator can not easily seize power and abolish our democratic system.  Can this guy be trusted?

"Before a duly elected Member may take his or her seat and vote in the House of Commons, the Member must take an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the Sovereign and sign the Test Roll (a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath). When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, a Member is making a pledge to conduct him-or herself in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds a Member of the serious obligations and responsibilities he or she is assuming.

The obligation requiring all Members of Parliament to take the oath is found in the Constitution Act, 1867, with the text of the oath itself outlined in the Fifth Schedule. [207]  The Act states: “Every Member of the … House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him … the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act …” The wording of the oath is as follows: “I, (Member’s name), do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.” [208]  As an alternative to swearing the oath, Members may make a solemn affirmation, by simply stating: [209]  “I, (Member’s name), do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”  

The House of Commons and Its Members - The Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Allegiance (ourcommons.ca)

 

(1) The question is first about the literal FORMAL power that is at question. The very fact that you seem to expect Jagmeet (or anyone) to CONFORM to the DICTATES of a formal written document by people is itself NOT DEMOCRATIC.

(2) You argue here as elsewhere that you think PRIVATE ownership of this world is some 'right' while forgetting that the meaning of 'dictatorship' in the context of how most interpret it in modern times as "sole right of someone to 'dicatate' what should or shouldn't happen on what they claim as their OWN, including other humans who reside or tresspass upon it," you are hypocritically supporting the very kind of problem that leads to abuses. 

Do you think it is alright for someone to have ABSOLUTE power over what one 'owns'? 

Here I am asking if you think there is any LIMIT to what any system permits it 'owned'? For instance, do you think that people are 'owned'? And, if given your ideal of everything being privately owned, what do you think it means for someone who is born WITHOUT inheritance? That is, if one is born without inheritance AND all the land and propertied are 'owned', HOW is it not 'true' that such a person is owned' by the people they are FORCED by accident to live on (this Earth)? 

I also see that you are a religious moron, as many here are. This to me is a bullshit means to DICTATE against others that they alone are 'SUPERIOR', not that some 'god' is. If you believe that some superior being assigned humans to be SUBJECTS over others, YOU are hypocritically arguing that it is alright for YOU to LIMIT the FREEDOM OF CHOICE that your god supposedly grants all people. Why would God be SELECTIVE to favor those you or your selfishly loved ones SPECIFICALLY to 'own' power over others (which 'ownership' means) while this implies LIMITING those who do not 'own' to NOT HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE? 

I can't support formal "communists" systems as defined historically but what you also miss is that most religions originated COMMUNISTIC, especially Christianity. The modern 'protestant' versions of Capitalist variety are merely POST HOC declarations of belief of those who HAVE power in ownership, no different than the most EXTREMES of those dictators of ANY system that ever existed.

The social pschology is about how those who are empowered FOR NO EARNED reason look back and ask how they and not others succeed? Because those of you who are actually guilty of conscious, KNOWING that you didn't EARN your power, have no RATIONAL means to justify their fortune and so SEEK some 'hidden' means of PROOF of your justification: some 'religious' excuse. Using religious justification PREVENT others to prove nor disprove your claims. As such, you are a fraud. 

A "Constitutional Monarchy" is NOT a democracy proper; it is a FORMAL dictatorship that is merely 'friendly' in its present state. But because it is technically able to OVERTHROW the will of the people REGARDLESS of reason, it is UNABLE to assure protection against ANY abuses that might occur because THEY too are NOT 'superior' beings who are as flawed as any other human born regardless of inheritance. The sysetm evolved to 'manage' an illusion of democracy. The 'democracy' is limited to the 'commoner' class and is looked down upon by those in power. NOTE that left-wing parties are 'democratic' NOT right-winged ones. The right-wingers support SELECTIVE PEOPLE (the owners ONLY) to rule and why they don't approve of a system that is 'owned by the people' as 'communism' means.

 

Note that while I am not religious, I used to be more compassionate of those who are. But the nature of this to be constantly used to justify people's abusive means of control in politics is RUINING our world. Even those 'Communist' countries in history that you declare specifically so 'evil' are DUE specifically to RELIGIOUS delusions in the means of a future ideal that the present people in such systems are expected to 'sacrifice' when such future 'paradises' are not logically assured.. Ideologies that use religion as a mechanism through government, especially 'capitialistic' are dangerous and always lead to corrupt systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is very important to the collective Canadian psyche, making any changes that much more difficult.  Canada's identity is fundamentally defined as "not American". 

I’m getting déjà vu all over again. Groundhog Day. Across the world, nations adjacent to larger, similar ones struggle to avoid cultural inundation and assimilation. I’m sure such tendencies preceded the nation-state and go way back in our past, perhaps before hom sap. See the guys on the other side of the hill? We are so not those guys. That’s what makes us us. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a monarch you get your own. It’s not hard.

Quote

After the Union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved in 1905, a committee of the Norwegian government identified several princes of European royal houses as candidates for the Norwegian crown. Although Norway had legally had the status of an independent state since 1814, it had not had its own king since 1387.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No this is not about isms. Everything that is wrong with the royal attitudes in this country at least is right before our eyes if we can see, though. From the news today, "in Prince Rupert, BC population 10,000 the authority plans to complete vaccination in JUST several weeks" (several means up to ten otherwise an exact number would be given and why wouldn't it? - M.).

Now, anyone can do simple math: 5 min per shot, with a 10 min break per hour is 80 patients per nurse per regular shift. 10 nurses, 800 patients. Fifty nurses, 4 thousand. Yes but this is not our regular annual flu vaccination but one-in-a-lifetime pandemics so perhaps once only, and for only one day the regular shift can be extended by say, 50%? What do we get then: we get that the complete vaccination can be done in just 2 (two) days. And no, this not just some abstract faraway math. The neighbors to the south are doing 1.3 million shots daily, an equivalent of 130 thousand in Canada and at that rate we would be some 1/3 of the way by NOW.

That's not how our royal bureaucracy thinks and acts though. And there's no kidding or irony as quotes are long gone from "public" czars and mandarins running their clumsy and inept empires. And that of course explains minor hiccups like the Phoenix system and travel from Wuhan. And it sure shows in the quality of life, even under the togetherness muzak. So good luck with the best quality of life in this, 21st century. I'm not expecting any miracles here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

I think what it comes down to is, people see Meghan as an imposter. I just don't see Meghan as a trashy girl from the hood. Unlike some of the snobs in the Royal family, Meghan seems organic. They could of used her to help connect with the global community, and instead blew it, by allowing the press to throw her under bus. With Meghan's acting experience, they should of had her traveling the world. She could have made powerful speechs, and that would have improved public relations for the Monarchy.

Markle is a person who has no loyalties. She's distanced herself from her entire family except her mom and has few close friends. The only family member she had at the wedding was her mother. And then she invited Oprah, who she'd only met once. She thought she'd be a fairy tail princess, attending balls and parties and enjoying the high life in palaces. She didn't realize that being a princess (or even duchess) was hard work in real life. The royals do it, despite their own immense family wealth, out of a sense of duty and loyalty to their country. But Markle would not feel any such duty or loyalty. The idea of spending almost every day visiting hospitals, opening museums, going to craft fairs and town hall dedications and funerals would be anathema for a lot of people, let alone a self-indulgent Hollywood type who was already, in many ways, rich and famous. Why would she put up with that? So of course she split fairly quickly. And being a Hollywood type she blamed other people for her decision. Not her fault, you see. They were mean to her! And nice job insinuating the 'racism' theme, the ready-made fallback for anyone who can claim membership in an identity group in the race-obsessed United States.

Harry, of course, is an idiot. And the more she manages to distance him from his family the less choices he's going to have when he discovers that being Mr. Markle is not really all that fulfilling a role.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could never understand why a beautiful young woman with good skin colour <(Canadian spelling), a career, living in the sunshine, cruising in her Benz convertible - milkshake in hand . . . . . would give all that up to go live in a land of perpetual fog populated by snotty inbred gingers with bad teeth.  Fish 'n Chips three times a day, a language named after them reduced to unintelligible gibberish . . . .  I could go on, and on, and on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Could never understand why a beautiful young woman with good skin colour <(Canadian spelling), a career, living in the sunshine, cruising in her Benz convertible - milkshake in hand . . . . . would give all that up to go live in a land of perpetual fog populated by snotty inbred gingers with bad teeth.  Fish 'n Chips three times a day, a language named after them reduced to unintelligible gibberish . . . .  I could go on, and on, and on. 

And already have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

But Markle would not feel any such duty or loyalty.

Isn't that cute and amusing how next to everybody up top expects and mildly but persistently urges on the little guy down below that duty of loyalty? All of course for a huge sacrifice of selflessly opening hospitals and attending gatherings. And all for a minor trifle like worry-free life of permanent privilege lifetime and on the account of little people.

Wait a sec though, and what if the table were turned, and why not? What if we go attend gatherings and open hospitals, and YOU chip in for our accommodation in palaces complete with servants and HR departments? Seriously, what would be so wrong in this picture? Just a novel idea, curious.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you want a monarch you get your own. It’s not hard.

In this century, perhaps we could be more creative than assigning royal privilege based on genetic profile? What about rock-n-roll star king for example? For some of us it would much more amusing. Also part-time and on own dime would be great, I could even support such an idea of monarchy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, myata said:

In this century, perhaps we could be more creative than assigning royal privilege based on genetic profile? What about rock-n-roll star king for example? For some of us it would much more amusing. Also part-time and on own dime would be great, I could even support such an idea of monarchy.

Sadly, we already have that.  King Sparkle-Socks . . . . . and just how's that working out for the stupids ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Canada really want to get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy and replace it with ?  Would we really rather be a banana republic with a series of dictators seizing power and imposing their idea on Canadians?  We see how that works in places like Cuba, N. Korea, China, south America, Central America, and lately Myannmar, where the military is shooting protesters.  Our system might not be perfect but no country has a perfect system because this is an imperfect world.  But it is far better than the rest of the world.  We need to be content with such things as we have or we could easily lose it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Isn't that cute and amusing how next to everybody up top expects and mildly but persistently urges on the little guy down below that duty of loyalty? All of course for a huge sacrifice of selflessly opening hospitals and attending gatherings. And all for a minor trifle like worry-free life of permanent privilege lifetime and on the account of little people.

All of the royals already HAVE a worry free life of privilege and are immensely wealthy in their own right. They don't NEED any of the three times a day visits to boring places where they have to smile and acted interested. They don't need to have a coordinated message to ensure no one contradicts each other or the government. They can just relax and enjoy life if they want to.

Clearly she wants to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

In this century, perhaps we could be more creative than assigning royal privilege based on genetic profile?

Doing it this way at least ensures they get the requisite training before stepping into the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

(1) The question is first about the literal FORMAL power that is at question. The very fact that you seem to expect Jagmeet (or anyone) to CONFORM to the DICTATES of a formal written document by people is itself NOT DEMOCRATIC.

(2) You argue here as elsewhere that you think PRIVATE ownership of this world is some 'right' while forgetting that the meaning of 'dictatorship' in the context of how most interpret it in modern times as "sole right of someone to 'dicatate' what should or shouldn't happen on what they claim as their OWN, including other humans who reside or tresspass upon it," you are hypocritically supporting the very kind of problem that leads to abuses. 

Do you think it is alright for someone to have ABSOLUTE power over what one 'owns'? 

Here I am asking if you think there is any LIMIT to what any system permits it 'owned'? For instance, do you think that people are 'owned'? And, if given your ideal of everything being privately owned, what do you think it means for someone who is born WITHOUT inheritance? That is, if one is born without inheritance AND all the land and propertied are 'owned', HOW is it not 'true' that such a person is owned' by the people they are FORCED by accident to live on (this Earth)? 

I also see that you are a religious moron, as many here are. This to me is a bullshit means to DICTATE against others that they alone are 'SUPERIOR', not that some 'god' is. If you believe that some superior being assigned humans to be SUBJECTS over others, YOU are hypocritically arguing that it is alright for YOU to LIMIT the FREEDOM OF CHOICE that your god supposedly grants all people. Why would God be SELECTIVE to favor those you or your selfishly loved ones SPECIFICALLY to 'own' power over others (which 'ownership' means) while this implies LIMITING those who do not 'own' to NOT HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE? 

I can't support formal "communists" systems as defined historically but what you also miss is that most religions originated COMMUNISTIC, especially Christianity. The modern 'protestant' versions of Capitalist variety are merely POST HOC declarations of belief of those who HAVE power in ownership, no different than the most EXTREMES of those dictators of ANY system that ever existed.

The social pschology is about how those who are empowered FOR NO EARNED reason look back and ask how they and not others succeed? Because those of you who are actually guilty of conscious, KNOWING that you didn't EARN your power, have no RATIONAL means to justify their fortune and so SEEK some 'hidden' means of PROOF of your justification: some 'religious' excuse. Using religious justification PREVENT others to prove nor disprove your claims. As such, you are a fraud. 

A "Constitutional Monarchy" is NOT a democracy proper; it is a FORMAL dictatorship that is merely 'friendly' in its present state. But because it is technically able to OVERTHROW the will of the people REGARDLESS of reason, it is UNABLE to assure protection against ANY abuses that might occur because THEY too are NOT 'superior' beings who are as flawed as any other human born regardless of inheritance. The sysetm evolved to 'manage' an illusion of democracy. The 'democracy' is limited to the 'commoner' class and is looked down upon by those in power. NOTE that left-wing parties are 'democratic' NOT right-winged ones. The right-wingers support SELECTIVE PEOPLE (the owners ONLY) to rule and why they don't approve of a system that is 'owned by the people' as 'communism' means.

 

Note that while I am not religious, I used to be more compassionate of those who are. But the nature of this to be constantly used to justify people's abusive means of control in politics is RUINING our world. Even those 'Communist' countries in history that you declare specifically so 'evil' are DUE specifically to RELIGIOUS delusions in the means of a future ideal that the present people in such systems are expected to 'sacrifice' when such future 'paradises' are not logically assured.. Ideologies that use religion as a mechanism through government, especially 'capitialistic' are dangerous and always lead to corrupt systems. 

I would have to write a book to reply all the erroneous ideas you wrote, but I can't do that.  You don't believe in the God of the Bible, but likely have no explanation for how or where our complex universe came from.  The truth is according to the inspired Bible that it was designed and created by a Divine Creator. 

The first sentence in the Bible says "1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1 KJB

The second point is the Bible makes it clear that God created a large number of angels at some point in eternity past and a top-ranking angel called Lucifer, rebelled against God and fell from heaven taking a third of the angels with him.  

"Many are interested in the fall of Lucifer. The Bible says that the reason for Lucifer’s fall was his desire to exalt his throne above the stars of God, and be like God. Isaiah 14:1 3 -14 (KJV)

"13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17  That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? "  Isaiah 14:13-17 KJB

Thirdly, after God created Adam and Eve, he placed them in paradise in the garden of Eden and told them they could eat any fruit but not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  However, the serpent tempted Eve and she did eat of the forbidden fruit and gave to Adam and he ate.  This  became known as the fall of man because they rebelled against God in doing this.  Because they were the head of the human race, their fall was passed on all their descendants.  This means all are born with a fallen, sinful nature and the human heart is evil or corrupt.  This combined with the fall of Lucifer has created a fallen corrupt world.  This is why we have all the evil in the world.  This will mean all men will be condemned unless they are redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ.  God send his Son to die and atone for the sins of men but everyone must make the choice whether they will accept this redemption, forgiveness, and eternal salvation.  If they don't accept it, there is only one alternative, that is, a lost eternity in hell.  That is it in a nutshell, but if you study the Bible  you will find this out.  So all the debate about political systems is minor or insignificant compared to one's eternal destiny.   God gave the right to private property to men in the Bible and said "thou shalt not steal".  So political systems which confiscate private property without sufficient justification are going against God's commandment.  But as I said, Satan has been given a certain amount of time and space to influence and control in this world.  People choose whom they follow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you want a monarch you get your own. It’s not hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway

Excellent movie on Haakon VII. Foreign language but well worth watching. When it came to the crunch, the monarch did matter.

The King's Choice.

It's available on Prime.

 

 

Edited by Aristides
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Sadly, we already have that.  King Sparkle-Socks . . . . . and just how's that working out for the stupids ?

If nothing else, it would save us, taxpayers a few dimes on ice cream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

All of the royals already HAVE a worry free life of privilege and are immensely wealthy in their own right. They don't NEED any of the three times a day visits to boring places where they have to smile and acted interested. They don't need to have a coordinated message to ensure no one contradicts each other or the government. They can just relax and enjoy life if they want to.

Clearly she wants to.

 

I can't care less what British taxpayers throw their pounds and pence on, but if we could get the costs of royal entourage complete with GG, LG and etc pensions here in this country to the minimum (preferably, zero) it couldn't be bad imv. More $$$ for northern hospitals and clean water. And please don't tell me it's impossible and a huge can of worms in this country, I know that nothing is anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, myata said:

I can't care less what British taxpayers throw their pounds and pence on, but if we could get the costs of royal entourage complete with GG, LG and etc pensions here in this country to the minimum (preferably, zero) it couldn't be bad imv. More $$$ for northern hospitals and clean water. And please don't tell me it's impossible and a huge can of worms in this country, I know that nothing is anymore.

So what will you do for a head of state to replace a GG? Canada bears no expenses for the Royal family except when they visit here. The same as for any other visiting dignitary.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So what will you do for a head of state to replace a GG? Canada bears no expenses for the Royal family except when they visit here. The same as for any other visiting dignitary.

I'd suggest paying them a modest pension for the time actually served and not an outrageous and forever. We can afford outrageous lifetime expenses for a privileged entourage doing essentially, nothing but not clean water in many communities. And it speaks something about us in this century, doesn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So what will you do for a head of state to replace a GG? Canada bears no expenses for the Royal family except when they visit here. The same as for any other visiting dignitary.

Why do you need a replacement just dissolve the position and redistribute the GG task most of which are ceremonial anyways, the PM becomes commander and chief, the checks and balances required to go to war etc. would have to have a majority vote in the house 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Why do you need a replacement just dissolve the position and redistribute the GG task most of which are ceremonial anyways, the PM becomes commander and chief, the checks and balances required to go to war etc. would have to have a majority vote in the house 

So why would the PM hold any more elections then?  If there were no head-of-state above him, he would be supreme ruler; he could refuse to hold elections and could just dissolve Parliament and that would be the end of it.  Anybody who opposed him, he could just have them arrested and thrown in prison.

I could never figure out the logic of these people who would make a PM the head of state.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...