God save the Queen

[Leafless]

Al-Qaeda has threatened the Queen by naming her as " one of the severest enemies of Islam" in a video message to justify the July bombings in London.

In the video, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command to Osma Bin Laden targets the Queen as ultimately responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" and denounces her as an enemy of the Muslims.

This is really twisted stuff-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869849,00.html

[Montgomery Burns]

Can some people now admit that these Jihadists have to be captured and/or killed?

[tml12]

Can some people now admit that these Jihadists have to be captured and/or killed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Captured, killed, public torture and execution...it's up to you Montgomery...

[Montgomery Burns]

Can some people now admit that these Jihadists have to be captured and/or killed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Captured, killed, public torture and execution...it's up to you Montgomery...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Preferably #2.

I don't think these terrorists can become productive members of society.

[g_bambino]

Al-Qaeda has threatened the Queen by naming her as " one of the severest enemies of Islam" in a video message to justify the July bombings in London.

In the video, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command to Osma Bin Laden targets the Queen as ultimately responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" and denounces her as an enemy of the Muslims.

This is really twisted stuff-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869849,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is eerily similar to Hitler's dubbing of the Queen Mother as "the most dangerous woman in Europe."

Just as the previous Queen Elizabeth was seen as a figure of defiance against a tyrant and murderer, so too has her daughter become a symbolic bulwark against extremism and terrorists.

As she said in her Christmas message last year: "There is certainly much more to be done and many challenges to be overcome. Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat. We need also to realise that peaceful and steady progress in our society of differing cultures and heritage can be threatened at any moment by the actions of extremists at home or by events abroad. We can certainly never be complacent."

Long live the Queen of Canada.

[Black Dog]

So, one irrelevant figurehead denounces another irrelevant figurehead and this is news?

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " So, one irrelevent fiqurehead denounces another irrevelent fiqurehead and this is news."

No you are half right.

Al-Qaeda is not only irrelevent in Canada but throughout the world as a band of roving murderers.

If the Queen of Canada is not relevent, then either is Canada as a country.

It is the British who won this country giving us their British form of government making Canada a constitutional monarchy ruled by a parliamentry democracy which forms our government and is a major part of our heritage.

[Black Dog]

If the Queen of Canada is not relevent, then either is Canada as a country.

It is the British who won this country giving us their British form of government making Canada a constitutional monarchy ruled by a parliamentry democracy which forms our government and is a major part of our heritage.

But what does she do?

Besides, weren't you the guy who was comparing our form of parlimentary democracy to totalitarianism?

[Lost in Manitoba]

'It is the British who won this country giving us their British form of government making Canada a constitutional monarchy ruled by a parliamentry democracy which forms our government and is a major part of our heritage.'

We must never forget our heritage but we must evolve beyond that. Living in the past gives us no future. A monarch, even if ceremonial, is anathema to our democracy. As long as some people think there is a value in kings, queens, nobillity, and knighthoods, than what does that say about democratic values.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " But what does she do?"

She has already did it! The rest is history and the monarchy is a relished part of our Canadian tradition but still very important --ask Paul Martin he likes it.

Read our Constitution sometime especially the part with the BNA Act and even our 'Rights and Freedoms' addition in 1982 that was approved by the Queen.

You also wrote- " Besides weren't you the guy that was comparing our form of parliamentry democracy to totalitarianism?"

That was I.

But our parliamentry democracy depends on the PM who is dispersing the democracy and in recent Liberal times it looks like they like to emulate Castro's technique's.

[Leafless]

Lost in Manitoba

You wrote- " We must never forget our heritage but we must evolve beyond that."

We have evolved beyond that.

Ask Quebec and the new immigrants.

[Guest eureka]

What monarchy says about our democracy is that it is alive and well. There is not a country in the world with so viable a democracy as those with Constitutional Monarchies. No nation has yet discovered how to reconcile elected replacements with the easy maintenance of democracy.

[Black Dog]

Leafless, the Queen is ceremonial, a relic of our past as a colony. I happen to believe such relics are incompatable with true democracy, thus I don't give two hoots about the Queen, nor do I consider her anything more than a waste of money.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " The queen is ceremonial, a relic of our past as a colony."

Well, if thats the case why are we not A 'REPUBLIC' like Nigeria, Cyprus or India which acknowledges the Queen ONLY as 'Head of the Commonwealth'.

Whenever you get a chance please check out:

1)- The Crown in Canada.

2)- The Monarch as 'Head of State'.

3)- The Queen and the government.

4)-The Queen and the Governor General.

5)- The Queen and the Lieutenant Governor.

6)-The Queen and Parliament or Legislature.

7)-The Powers of the Canadian Crown.

You also wrote- " I happen to believe such relics are in compatiable with true democracy."

There is NO true democracy in this world -anywhere.

Maybe you can try heaven but then up there you will find you could have GOD pulling the strings.

[Black Dog]

Well, if thats the case why are we not A 'REPUBLIC' like Nigeria, Cyprus or India which acknowledges the Queen ONLY as 'Head of the Commonwealth'.

Don't confuse what is with what should be.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " Don't confuse what is with what should be."

This type of diatribe does not enhance your argument.

I am simply offering a suggestion to what many people believe to be the situation as described by yourself including many Liberals but do not have the political guts to prescribe the necessary politcal action to do anything about it.

[Black Dog]

I am simply offering a suggestion to what many people believe to be the situation as described by yourself including many Liberals but do not have the political guts to prescribe the necessary politcal action to do anything about it.

If someone were to mount a legitmate bid to dump the Queen as head of state, I would endorse that. Other than that, I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote- " The Queen is ceremonial a relic of our past as a colony."

I gave you reasons why the Queen is significant and meaningful besides giving Canada a identity.

You replied- " Don't confuse what is to what should be." Whatever that is suppose to mean as in that post their were direct reasons why the Queen is very significant in Canada and made reference Canada DOES have a choice to become a republic.

Then in the following post the one you don't know "what the hell Iam talking about" as I suggested that there are Canadians in Canada who think like you 'that the Queen is meaningless' including many Liberals who don't have the political guts or will to do anything about that situation and that is to transform Canada into a republic.

Now that I have given you proof that the Queen is significant and you still think she is useless even though Canada is NOT a republic.

If you think dumping the Queen is the answer to many of Canada's problems then I'd say you would be REALLY opening a can of worms.

[Black Dog]

I gave you reasons why the Queen is significant and meaningful besides giving Canada a identity.

The Queen is not significant to the day to day operation of this country. She's a figurehead, that's all.

You replied- " Don't confuse what is to what should be." Whatever that is suppose to mean as in that post their were direct reasons why the Queen is very significant in Canada and made reference Canada DOES have a choice to become a republic.

That means I think Canada should ditch the Queen.

Then in the following post the one you don't know "what the hell Iam talking about" as I suggested that there are Canadians in Canada who think like you 'that the Queen is meaningless' including many Liberals who don't have the political guts or will to do anything about that situation and that is to transform Canada into a republic.

I don't think getting rid of Lizzy is a big priority for most Canadians. Guts have nothing to do with it.

Now that I have given you proof that the Queen is significant and you still think she is useless even though Canada is NOT a republic.

You haven't proven anything beyond pointing out the (largely ceremonial) role she plays (a role which I am well aware of). What's more, the simple fact of Canda's status as a contitutional monarchy (as opposed to a republic) is nor proof of the monarch's usefulness.

If you think dumping the Queen is the answer to many of Canada's problems then I'd say you would be REALLY opening a can of worms.

I don't think it would solve many of Canda's problems. Base don the widespread indifference and apathy towards the monarch, I'd say most Candains agree. Like I said, there's more important thing sto worry about. However, should the question come up, I'd be in favour of forminga republic.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You have come up with nothing more than personal opinion as to why you don't support the Queen of Canada and supplied no factual information as to why you wish to support a republic.

It is a funny thing considering what you said about wide spread apathy concerning the monarchy when polls indicate Canadians are pretty well split 47%-47% with most opposition coming from Quebec against the Queen but a high approval of acceptance for our new Governor General from Quebec.

It's evident you have nothing to say in support of your republic so there is no sense carry on a debate consisting of nothing more than unfounded crtiticizm of the Monarchy and to rebute everthing I say.

If there was a vote to-moorrow I would vote to retain the Monarchy.

[BHS]

Just jumping into this thread at the end, to take a rare opportunity to agree with Black Dog on something he/she posted. The Constitution Act of 1982 pretty much spelled the end of the role of the British Monarchy in Canadian public policy. The next logical step is to ditch all of the worthless trappings of monarchy and replace them with a fully functional republican (not Republican) government. What we have now is insufficient.

[Guest eureka]

What would be a "fully functional republican government?"

[g_bambino]

The Queen is not significant to the day to day operation of this country

The day to day governing is left to our elected politicians, that is the nature of constitutional monarchy.

But, you need to ask yourself, how would the Queen be significant in a non-day to day event like a constitutional crisis? The fact that the Queen, through her representative, almost never exercises her powers shows just how well the system is working. She's like a fire-extinguisher, there for emergencies, not daily use.

Though, that said, the Queen daily keeps ultimate power out of the hands of politicians.

A republic would need a president elected in some manner. That person would simply be a replacement for the Queen; they would (or should) be as uninvolved in daily governing as the Queen is, but would be a polititian as the Queen is not. It is because republican heads of state are politicians that Westminster style republics (of which most republics are) have such a terrible track record for stability and unity.

The Constitution Act of 1982 pretty much spelled the end of the role of the British Monarchy in Canadian public policy

Quite the opposite, the Constitution Act 1982 implemented the amending formula, which in essence cemented the Monarchy into Canada's governmental workings.

As well, when the Queen signed the Act, patriating our Constitution, she completed the process of the creation of the Canadian Monarchy, begun in 1867; though embodied in the same person, still distinct from the Monarchy of the UK.

Important stuff.

[Black Dog]

You have come up with nothing more than personal opinion as to why you don't support the Queen of Canada and supplied no factual information as to why you wish to support a republic.

Fact: the Queen is the unelected head of state of a foreign country. That alone is reason enough for me to want her gone.

The day to day governing is left to our elected politicians, that is the nature of constitutional monarchy.

But, you need to ask yourself, how would the Queen be significant in a non-day to day event like a constitutional crisis? The fact that the Queen, through her representative, almost never exercises her powers shows just how well the system is working. She's like a fire-extinguisher, there for emergencies, not daily use.

Which is precisely why I think the monarchy is a dumb idea. In the event of a crisis, I want important decisions to be made by someone with political savvy and an in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics. Not some old biddy with a hat fetish.

A republic would need a president elected in some manner. That person would simply be a replacement for the Queen; they would (or should) be as uninvolved in daily governing as the Queen is, but would be a polititian as the Queen is not. It is because republican heads of state are politicians that Westminster style republics (of which most republics are) have such a terrible track record for stability and unity.

Note the word: "elected".

[g_bambino]

In the event of a crisis, I want important decisions to be made by someone with political savvy and an in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics. Not some old biddy with a hat fetish.

So, you want someone who is politically partisan calling the shots in a constitutional crisis? Interesting... Exactly why republics are so vulnerable to instability and disunity.

The fact that you believe the Queen's capabilities to be limited only to choosing nice hats shows you know nothing of the topic you're speaking about.

And, though the Queen is kept well up to date on Canadian affairs, she designates a Governor General for a purpose -- that person watches over Canadian politics and exercises the Queen's powers on her behalf.

Note the word: "elected".

Noted (not too hard, since I wrote it). Now, what about it?