Canadian Flag Pledge

[Guest American Woman]

scouterjim, on 26 May 2011 - 12:01 PM, said:

Elizabeth is British, not Canadian, therefore, she is a foreign monarch

.

It's not even that I don't get your point. I do. But we are not beholden to the Queen of England. That's a different role.

Of course you are beholden to the Queen of England, a foreign monarch. Look at the official website. It doesn't say "Canadian monarchy"; it's British. Where is her residence in Canada? How often does she set foot on your soil? And do the "rules" regarding the monarchy serve Canada - or Britain? This is why I keep bringing up the exclusion of Catholics, marriage to a Catholic; how does that serve Canada - a secular nation? Do the qualifications for a head of state that fit Canada apply - or are you left with whatever serves Britain? - Do you have any say in it what-so-ever except to declare that the British monarch serves Canada separately? You get what serves Britain, and then, secondly, it serves Canada. She is British first and foremost. You are part of the commonwealth that is British.

Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada. They are one and the same, and she resides in Britain - and always will. You have a head of state that does not live in Canada and never will.

[RNG]

Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada. They are one and the same, and she resides in Britain - and always will. You have a head of state that does not live in Canada and never will.

And that does not bother many of us.

[Guest American Woman]

And that does not bother many of us.

Whether it bothers many of you or not doesn't change the reality.

[RNG]

Whether it bothers many of you or not doesn't change the reality.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the "facts" you are presenting. It's just that monarchist don't think they are of any significance. What are you so worked up about, or do you just debate because it's fun?

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the "facts" you are presenting. It's just that monarchist don't think they are of any significance. What are you so worked up about, or do you just debate because it's fun?

What are you so ignorant about? Seriously. I'm no more "worked up about it" than you and the posters of your mindset are.

But in case it truly escaped you, I was responding to someone who apparently does disagree with the facts I am presenting. So I'll continue to discuss this with said poster if he so desires.

In the meantime .... Have a nice day.

Edited May 26, 2011 by American Woman

[scouterjim]

And that does not bother many of us.

And it DOES bother many more of us.

[Guest American Woman]

And it DOES bother many more of us.

And understandably so.

[g_bambino]

Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada.

The position of sovereign of Canada is created by and filled according to Canadian law. If the UK (or "England" as you Yanks still call it, 300 years after the Act of Union) were to abolish its monarchy, Canada's would continue on unchanged. This has been said to you maybe half a dozen times already over the past week. I'll assume you just somehow managed to miss all of them.

[g_bambino]

Is Queen Elizabeth a Canadian citizen? I would think she is but am not sure.

No, she's not. She's not a citizen of any state she heads, since citizenship laws in those countries stem from her, anyway.

[RNG]

And it DOES bother many more of us.

Serious question. Have you ever seen a poll on this subject?

Edit. Never mind. Wiki has a list of polls. The change from 2002 to 2010 is pretty surprising.

I guess I am in the minority here.

Edited May 26, 2011 by RNG

[g_bambino]

Is she a Canadian?

Yes. It is a logical fallacy to assert that a country's head of state is foreign to it.

The Canadian Forces recognise the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family as obviously not foreign:

Royal Family – means those persons, being subjects of the Canadian Sovereign, who bear the title "Royal Highness".

The Honours, Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces; p.4-1-7

Royal or State Salutes consisting of 21 guns to the reigning Sovereign, members of the Royal Family, foreign sovereigns and members of reigning foreign families, heads of state of foreign countries and the Governor-General of Canada...

The Honours, Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces; p.13-2-1

As does the Federal Court of Canada:

It is a form of compliment that is owed by members to the Sovereign, the Governor General, members of the Royal Family, recognized foreign royalty, foreign heads of state or government, the Prime Minister, the Minister and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lieutenant Governors and commissioned officers.

Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh v. the Attorney-General of Canada; S.23

As does the Dean of Law at the University of Western Ontario:

But to suggest that under current law the Queen is a foreign monarch is quite ridiculous. Even the most superficial reading of Canada's constitution makes this obvious. Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 declares that executive authority over Canada is vested in the Queen. Section 17 provides that, along with the Senate and House of Commons, she constitutes one of the three branches of parliament. And, most pertinently of all, section 15 declares that the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

Constitutional Silliness and the Canadian Forces; p.9

And the government says about the Queen:

Canada is personified by the Sovereign just as the Sovereign is personified by Canada.

A Crown of Maples; p.30

The Crown is truly Canadian through the Queen and her eleven Canadian representatives.

A Crown of Maples; p.39

The Queen herself has also spoken of Canadians as "fellow countrymen" and of herself as included with Canadians, and has called Canada a home.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, she's not. She's not a citizen of any state she heads, since citizenship laws in those countries stem from her, anyway.

So she's not a British citizen?

[Wilber]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the "facts" you are presenting. It's just that monarchist don't think they are of any significance. What are you so worked up about, or do you just debate because it's fun?

I'm thinkin that if a lot more Americans expressed their disapproval of who we have as our head of state, it might actually go a long way toward us keeping the Monarch.

[g_bambino]

So she's not a British citizen?

She is not.

There is a convention that an Act of Parliament doesn't bind the sovereign unless it says so, and no citizenship law does.

[+]

Edited May 27, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

She is not.

This is both impressive and ironic at the same time. While forbidden to be Catholic or marry same, the reigning monarch seemingly has the same multiple sovereign personages and associated powers as Christianity's Trinity (i.e. the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in One Divine Being).

[Wilber]

This is both impressive and ironic at the same time. While forbidden to be Catholic or marry same, the reigning monarch seemingly has the same multiple sovereign personages and associated powers as Christianity's Trinity (i.e. the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in One Divine Being).

Top that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Top that.

OK....how about Sybil

[Topaz]

This one is for our American friends.......

[Topaz]

And for us Canadians...... http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/canadian_oath_of_allegiance.htm

[Sandy MacNab]

I'm confused how is the Queen of Canada a foreign Monarch?

x2 Maybe we have to draw him pictures.

[Sandy MacNab]

And that does not bother many of us.

It sure seems to bother AW even though it's none of her GD business. I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag they have down there rather than wasting her time trying to tell us what's wrong up here.

[Smallc]

I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag

Oh, that's intelligent. I'm not sure what's wrong with their flag though.

[Sandy MacNab]

And it DOES bother many more of us.

It may bother a lot in your village, never did in mine.

[Moonlight Graham]

It sure seems to bother AW even though it's none of her GD business. I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag they have down there rather than wasting her time trying to tell us what's wrong up here.

we rag on them, they can rag on us. who cares.

[bloodyminded]

Of course you are beholden to the Queen of England, a foreign monarch. Look at the official website. It doesn't say "Canadian monarchy"; it's British. Where is her residence in Canada? How often does she set foot on your soil? And do the "rules" regarding the monarchy serve Canada - or Britain?

Perhaps you think we're subject to British law.

I assure you, we're not. They're separate systems.

This is why I keep bringing up the exclusion of Catholics, marriage to a Catholic; how does that serve Canada - a secular nation?

I don't see how it does. I mentioned to you that there were sound historical reasons for it; but that doesn't mean I think it remains useful. There have been legal challenges, I believe.

Do the qualifications for a head of state that fit Canada apply - or are you left with whatever serves Britain? - Do you have any say in it what-so-ever except to declare that the British monarch serves Canada separately? You get what serves Britain, and then, secondly, it serves Canada. She is British first and foremost. You are part of the commonwealth that is British.

We aren't beholden to the UK.

Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada. They are one and the same, and she resides in Britain - and always will. You have a head of state that does not live in Canada and never will.

If the UK abolished their monarchy, Canada could theoretically still have a monarch. With exactly the same role as currently.

Further, Canada could theoretically have a different monarch than the British monarch.

I understand a principled view that Canada could be, at least potentially, beholden to a foreign dictatorship. But the laws and provisions would keep that from happening.

And in fact, the non-partisan nature of the Canadian monarch is precisely a safeguard against abuse of powers.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded