The Governor-General must go!

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
The Governor-General must go!

Rather than continue diverting the Outremont thread, I might as well get this off my chest.

Michaëlle Jean is one of the most disgraceful excuses for a governor-general that I've ever seen.

Rather than having the decency to confine herself, like royalty, to some ceremonial and humanitarian activities, she goes beyong the call of duty in a variety of ways.

She blesses the troops in Afghanistan and urges them on to greater sacrifices. Her latest act was to lead them in singing Give Peace a Chance - followed cynically by refusing to support the idea of a 17-day truce during the Vancouver Olympics, because, as she said, the troops must continue to "build peace" tirelessly.

Last year, of course, she thwarted the elected representatives in the House of Commons by allowing Harper to pull the plug early - four days before seeing his government defeated.

In her latest travesty, she has [url=just">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/good-chemi... met with the Dalai Lama[/url] - at a time when federal officials were careful not to meet him for fear of offending China yet again. It is perfectly obvious that she did this on Harper's command, as if to say, "You understand that we still love you, but we have to pretend for a while."

Such shameless actions, IMO, render her unfit for the job of head of state. I demand that she be turfed.

Thanks for listening.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:
She blesses the troops in Afghanistan and urges them on to greater sacrifices. Her latest act was to lead them in singing Give Peace a Chance - followed cynically by refusing to support the idea of a 17-day truce during the Vancouver Olympics, because, as she said, the troops must continue to "build peace" tirelessly.

I sense a bit of your particular brand of rhetoric here, Unionist, but also your particular brand of...let's call it conviction. Is this true? I mean, can you point me to the original source? This sounds positively barbaric.

Unionist

How could I make something like this up?

Quote:

In her earlier remarks to the truce forum, the Governor-General recalled joining Canadian soldiers in an emotional chorus of John Lennon's anti-war anthem, Give Peace a Chance.

"[There were] hundreds of voices echoing through the dark Kandahar night ... and it was powerful, because I knew the soldiers were risking their lives every day ... to support the aspirations of the population to live in a secure place, to live in peace," Ms. Jean said.

And:

Quote:
"I think we must build peace in Afghanistan, and that's what our soldiers are trying so hard to achieve..."

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.ctvolympics.ca/news-centre/newsid=16466.html][=red]Sourc...

remind remind's picture

Wow, thanks unionist.

Another example, of the upside down world of right wing co-option of social justice.

Stockholm

I don't see why your criticizing Michaelle Jean personally, when what you are really criticziing if the office of Governor General. The GG is virtually constitutionally obliged to read from whatever script the government hands her. her personal views are irrelevant. Jean was appointed by Paul Martin so I'm sure when she took the job she wasn't expecting to have to read from Harper's script. I suppose should could "abdicate" in which case Harper would probably appoint Pierre Poilievre to replace her!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:
 I suppose should could "abdicate" in which case Harper would probably appoint Pierre Poilievre to replace her!

I wonder if that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back - and finally turn the tide against the Cons. Undecided

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I don't see why your criticizing Michaelle Jean personally, when what you are really criticziing if the office of Governor General.

Two reasons:

1. General one: "I was just following orders" is no longer viewed as a defence against violations of international law and plain human decency - especially not where there are no fatal or penal consequences for insubordination.

2. Specifically: As I have shown, she shows much too much enthusiasm for her role as commander-in-chief during an immoral war. Also, are you seriously going to tell me that she was "reading from Harper's script" when she granted him prorogation last year? That happens to be my contention, but some other babblers have vehemently contested me on that.

So, you can't have it both ways. Either Harper told her "do what I say, that's an order" - in which case our democratic political system requires that that should be publicly and transparently proclaimed. OR, she does such things on her own - in which case, like all grownups, she should be held responsible for her sins and crimes.

 

Ghislaine

I agree with you unionist on everything except meeting the Dalai Lama. who freaking cares if China doesn't want us to meet wth him? Maybe they should start treating Tibetans like human beings with inherent rights.

I am someone who would like the entire office of the GG and ties to royalty abolished though.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

What Stockholm said.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I would be more upset if the person acting as the Queens authority in Canada started using that power to pursue their own agenda.

George Victor

I don't recall the queen being as directly supportive of UK troops, even verbally.  It does seem to be Jean (the individual) at fault.  And I had already given up on her when Steve entreated her to shut down Parliament and she "graciously" complied.

Stockholm

The Queen is always "supportive" of British troops, all her sons and grandsons have been in the military and she she never misses and military parade or a wreath laying.

bobojoobi

The GG is doing just fine thank you very much. More crazy separatist rantings designed to create a "federal crisis" with the federal government tis all. This is the latest separatist talking points memo designed to stir up trouble in the nation. There are too many separatists on welfare with access to computers. :)

It's all part of the separatists never failing attempt to generate a political crisis with the federal government to increase their fortunes in Quebec at the expense of the country. Canada haters! http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1683379

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Perhaps if we had a skill testing question....

Caissa

Our a few Bill Goats gruff...

remind remind's picture

reported

oldgoat

Pogo wrote:

Perhaps if we had a skill testing question....

 

Love it!  Suggestions please. 

 

Anyway, he's gone.

Caissa

Who is your favourite Marx Brother?Wink

billgoatsgruff

Groucho!

Caissa

Wrong!! You'll be gone soon.

George Victor

How long have you depended on the National Post for "news"?

kropotkin1951

Since we are at war in Afghanistan I think that like the Moscow Olympics everyone should boycott the Vancouver Corporate Games including the TV coverage

kropotkin1951

Gee I guess I'll be banned too because I would hve said Groucho as well.  Some of us just never did understand how the other Marx's withering away of the state was supposed to work. 

billgoatsgruff

So much Canada hating on this site. Enough already. Would it hurt you to love your country a little? This question is obviously not directed towards the separatist Canada haters here. We know they hate Canada already.

Maysie Maysie's picture

FFS

kropotkin1951

Is that a form of Canada love it or leave it?  My ancestors were ethnically cleansed for refusing to kowtow to the British Empire what do you have in mind for me for refusing to pledge allegiance to the current empire and its colonial lackeys.  Enough of giving our country over to the American Empire already okay.

George Victor

Stock:

"The Queen is always "supportive" of British troops, all her sons and grandsons have been in the military and she she never misses and military parade or a wreath laying."

 

You will never hear her adjuring the troops to fight for queen, country, or democracy in Afghanistan or anywhere else. The monarchy has known enough, for some time now, not to challenge political views in Parliament. And the moment the kids are not in the military, and laying wreaths - the monarchy will only be a memory.  Probably not a bad time for that to happen and end the confusion over social class privileges.

(And an aside to Billy. Don't ever presume that love of country is necessarily tied to a throne or the kids with the blue blood. After watching it in action in the trenches of the First World War, my father couln't wait to escape that kind of love.) 

KeyStone

Sounds good to me. Let's get rid of her.

Send me an e-mail to remind me when the vote comes up.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

It the Office of Governor General I'd like to see done away with. Queens and Kings off our currency and the whole shebang.

Slumberjack

I doubt that anyone else in her place would be less of an enthusiastic supporter of the military, the job comes with the appointment as commander in chief.  With the 'give peace a chance' occupation sing-a-long, while armed to the teeth in someone else's country, the term disingenuous comes to mind as the mildest description that one could offer towards the depravity.  The office needs to be done away with entirely.

Stockholm

Would you prefer having a President Harper?

Unionist

Maybe if they traded jobs...

 

KenS

I also can't see whats so egrigious about this GG in particular.

The monarchy and the figurehead and pomp bullshit should be chucked, period.

[Mind you, we'll still need an adjuticator of last resort that is outside the legislative and executive functions. The one thing we need the GG for. Leaving aside that coming up with someone/something else will be difficult... hypothetically assuming they/it existed... their judgements will make as many people every bit as unhappy as did the GGs only real decisions.]

Slumberjack

Stockholm wrote:
Would you prefer having a President Harper?

We already have one of those.

al-Qa'bong

&

al-Qa'bong

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Gee I guess I'll be banned too because I would hve said Groucho as well.  Some of us just never did understand how the other Marx's withering away of the state was supposed to work. 

 I believe you have Karl confused with Kropotkin.  Marx wasn't big on anarchism.

Anyway, what about Harpo?  I especially like his monologues; and Chico's contributions to the act have never been appreciated enough.

 

All that aside, shouldn't Mickey-Jean be called the Governess-General?

 

mahmud

The GG must go? One of our major fig leaves? And what are we going to say to women and visible minorities when they say the state does practice racism and sexism?

Bon débarras, quant à moi!

Pogo Pogo's picture

So we are agreed.  Replace the GG with Zeppo Marx.

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Rather than continue diverting the Outremont thread, I might as well get this off my chest.

Michaëlle Jean is one of the most disgraceful excuses for a governor-general that I've ever seen.

Rather than having the decency to confine herself, like royalty, to some ceremonial and humanitarian activities, she goes beyong the call of duty in a variety of ways.

She blesses the troops in Afghanistan and urges them on to greater sacrifices. Her latest act was to lead them in singing Give Peace a Chance - followed cynically by refusing to support the idea of a 17-day truce during the Vancouver Olympics, because, as she said, the troops must continue to "build peace" tirelessly.

Last year, of course, she thwarted the elected representatives in the House of Commons by allowing Harper to pull the plug early - four days before seeing his government defeated.

In her latest travesty, she has [url=just">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/good-chemi... met with the Dalai Lama[/url] - at a time when federal officials were careful not to meet him for fear of offending China yet again. It is perfectly obvious that she did this on Harper's command, as if to say, "You understand that we still love you, but we have to pretend for a while."

Such shameless actions, IMO, render her unfit for the job of head of state. I demand that she be turfed.

Thanks for listening.

She also supports the foreign orchestrated genocide in Haiti and describes it as a "peace building" and humanitarian effort.

Are you advocating dismissing Michael Jean as Governor or abolishing the position of Governor General itself?

If you are advocating abolishing the position of Governor, then we ought to go all the way and sever ties with the Crown of England and become a republic.

Frmrsldr

Ghislaine wrote:

I agree with you unionist on everything except meeting the Dalai Lama. who freaking cares if China doesn't want us to meet wth him? Maybe they should start treating Tibetans like human beings with inherent rights.

I am someone who would like the entire office of the GG and ties to royalty abolished though.

As you see, I agree with you on this one Ghislaine.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Still, the GG's meet with the Dalai Lama is a convenient smokescreen for the HarperCons. Instead of staking out a position, Canada plays two sides of the fence on the issue. Sad and sadder.

Frmrsldr

Stockholm wrote:

Would you prefer having a President Harper?

Yes. Not only would he be the de facto, he would be the de jure Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. I could lay the blame for the war and the deaths of the soldiers since February 2006 at his doorstep - not that I'm not doing that already - it just makes things a little morally and legally cleaner.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I also can't see whats so egrigious about this GG in particular.

 

I thought I gave some examples of her egregious and gratuitous behaviour. I don't recall Romeo or Ed or Adrienne doing pandering and disgraceful things like that. They were (pace D. Adams) mostly harmless. I'm not concerned about someone reading a throne speech written by someone else.

Either she believes in what she is doing, in which case the Canadian people should fire her - or she doesn't, in which case she should resign.

And yes, we don't need monarchy or queens or kings, but that's not the point of this thread. If some Senator goes to Afghanistan and urges the troops to still greater spilling of blood, it is appropriate to condemn her/him. It is less appropriate to call for the abolition of the Senate in that particular context. Likewise, when a Senator takes a stand in favour of the Palestinian people, or against Harper-Toews crime philosophies, it is proper to praise them. The fate of the Senate is a separate issue.

 

Ghislaine

How do you propose that the Canadian people fire her? She has a five-year appointment as the "commander-in-chief". We have absolutely no way to fire her.  Only Harper does, and that would be unprecedented and cause a lot of outcry I imagine. Even Layton become PM in an election this fall, I guarantee he would not end her appointment early.

Webgear

Adrienne went to Afghanistan several times. Spoke the same speaking points as the current GG.

 

Would we need to join this new republic? Or could we start our own country?

 

 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

How do you propose that the Canadian people fire her?

Parliament can dump her - Parliament is supreme. That's how I propose that it be done. But it should start with people speaking out against this travesty who purports to speak in our names.

On International Women's Day, 2007, this person chose to be [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189686]with her loyal troops in Afghanistan[/url]. She said:

Quote:
“The women of Afghanistan may face the most unbearable conditions, but they never stop fighting for survival. Of course, we, the rest of the women around the world, took too long to hear the cries of our Afghani sisters, but I am here to tell them that they are no longer alone. And neither are the people of Afghanistan,” said Jean.

I was outraged by that cynical warmongering statement, using the Afghan women as her fig leaf, so I wrote her this letter on March 13, 2007, trying to be respectful:

Quote:
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaлlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

Excellency:

I was disappointed to read of the views you expressed in praise of the Canadian soldiers and their "mission" in Afghanistan.

I hope you will read this statement by RAWA on the occasion of International Women's Day and let me know what you think of it:

http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm

Unfortunately, she never condescended to reply. If she read the RAWA statement, it clearly didn't touch her heart.

 

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

How do you propose that the Canadian people fire her?

Parliament can dump her - Parliament is supreme. That's how I propose that it be done. But it should start with people speaking out against this travesty who purports to speak in our names.

On International Women's Day, 2007, this person chose to be [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189686]with her loyal troops in Afghanistan[/url]. She said:

Quote:
“The women of Afghanistan may face the most unbearable conditions, but they never stop fighting for survival. Of course, we, the rest of the women around the world, took too long to hear the cries of our Afghani sisters, but I am here to tell them that they are no longer alone. And neither are the people of Afghanistan,” said Jean.

I was outraged by that cynical warmongering statement, using the Afghan women as her fig leaf, so I wrote her this letter on March 13, 2007, trying to be respectful:

Quote:
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaлlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

Excellency:

I was disappointed to read of the views you expressed in praise of the Canadian soldiers and their "mission" in Afghanistan.

I hope you will read this statement by RAWA on the occasion of International Women's Day and let me know what you think of it:

http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm

Unfortunately, she never condescended to reply. If she read the RAWA statement, it clearly didn't touch her heart.

No doubt about it, Unionist, she is a clown and a hypocrite.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Would we need to join this new republic? Or could we start our own country?

Yeah! Let's start declaring our own city-state republics all over Canada. Huh, Webgear? Ones where there are no armies and war.Laughing

Sorry, I just had to post this featherweight inside joke.

Webgear

I am not joking, why should anyone be forced to join a country?

Why can't a group of like minded people form their own city-state or communes?

What about people that are still loyal to the Queen? What happens to them?

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

I am not joking, why should anyone be forced to join a country?

Why can't a group of like minded people form their own city-state or communes?

What about people that are still loyal to the Queen? What happens to them?

In my ideal world, every competent adult would be "government" unto themselves.

As for people that are still loyal to the Queen, I would throw Canadian pennys at them* and say, "Remove thee from mye site, thou loyalist scum! Onley roundheads and sans coulottes are welcome here!"Laughing

*The Canadian penny bears an image of the Queen of England on it.

 

Webgear

No political party wants you to be free. They want to control you, they want power over you.

Governments want to force thier will on you. Would a Republic of Canada be any different than the current Canada?

 

 

Pages

Topic locked