"Prince Charles and Camilla are visiting, and most Canadians don't really care."
Even the bourgeois press thinks so.
"It is time to say goodbye to our indisputably British monarch."
Sun, 2009-11-01 10:45
#1
N.Beltov
"It is time to say goodbye to our indisputably British monarch."
Sun, 2009-11-01 11:29
#2
Boom Boom
First I've heard that Prince Charles (why the long face?) and Camilla were visiting.
Sun, 2009-11-01 21:41
#3
The British Crown is an unelected, unrepresentative, hereditary institution that harks back to the feudal era. It is a remaining vestige of Canada's colonial vassalage to the British Empire. As such, I personally chafe under the yoke of colonialist/imperialist rule and domination. That the Canadian government still kow tows to the British Crown and most Canadians are either ignorant or indifferent to this fact, is humiliating, a national disgrace and an embarrassment.
Sun, 2009-11-01 21:44
#4
N.Beltov
Yes but it will be even more embarrassing when the Brits themselves cut that chain and whiny Canadian monarchists and conservatives pout for the connection to continue.
And they will.
Sun, 2009-11-01 21:48
#5
I think the MI6ers tried to bump off Kanga. Treacherous bastards that they are. The "Windsors" are an international disgrace.
Sun, 2009-11-01 21:53
#6
Yes but it will be even more embarrassing when the Brits themselves cut that chain and whiny Canadian monarchists and conservatives pout for the connection to continue.
And they will.
I dunno. At least they (the British economy) gets some tourist dollar out of it - some pretty good coin too, I hear. Although most Canadians are apathetic about Charles and Camilla, their popularity has gone up over recent years in Britain.
Sun, 2009-11-01 22:05
#7
Liz is worth something like $13 billion. Brits should cut them off the dole for all time.
Sun, 2009-11-01 22:20
#8
I believe it is time to free ourselves of all for forms of government.
And live in a society where every person is a leader? Alright buddy!
Sun, 2009-11-01 22:50
#9
Rabblers and babblers could run things better. A helluva lot better,
Sun, 2009-11-01 23:20
#10
N.Beltov
Have you been drinking Webgear? I mean, C'mon. For starters, think of all the unemployment you'd create just laying all those people off. The current crisis would just worsen all the more.
We're stuck with "government". That it should be genuinely democratic, and not merely have the appearance of democracy, as in the fake democracy of XXXXXXX, seems a given. Just because it's a difficult problem to solve is no reason to abandon the field.
Of course some problems, like occupying a foreign country for example, can be solved relatively easily. Just get out of Dodge. Not mentioning any names, of course.
Sun, 2009-11-01 23:27
#11
remind
Seems to me white men do live as they want, pretty much, while holding the power, saying they have none.
So I understand where webgear is coming from, I, for one, am sick of men trying to have society function in their best interests and trying to have power over women, at all costs.
As to the monarchy it needs to be gone gone gone.....we pay for them and have absolutely no benefits from it.
Elizabeth and family need to return their money made from Canada, to all the First Nations people that they stole it from.
Sun, 2009-11-01 23:29
#12
We are power hungry
So which two political parties have monopolized federal power in Ottawa for the last 14 decades in a row?
I never voted for them, because they don't empower me. Our two old line parties haven't empowered homeless Canadians on the rise in number since ditching our national housing strategy in the 90's. And they haven't empowered Canada's impoverished families or millions of adults not earning $10 bucks an hour. Impoverished and defenceless women and vulnerable children across Canada are not empowered by Canada's long-running stoogeocracy in Ottawa.
Sun, 2009-11-01 23:48
#13
And live in a society where every person is a leader? Alright buddy!
This is the problem with humanity; everyone wants to be in control and hold their will over all aspects of life.
We are power hungry.
Even now you mock me. You are afraid to let me live as I want. You want to hold power over me.
I mock you not at all. I'm not into the mocking game.
I was the one who coined the phrase "A society where every person is a leader.", remember?
I was in the Army Reserve for a total of 14 years. I have never spent 1 hour in the Regular Forces.
Why? Because I could never allow myself to grant authority to people to make decisions about my life, death and health for me. I could never allow other people (most likely people less intelligent than myself) to do my thinking for me.
I used to think that sometimes it was necessary to sacrifice some of my liberty in order to protect and build upon the liberty of others. I don't think that way anymore.
The Army is an hierarchical organization that is built upon, revolves around and cannot work unless there are power trips.
To quote the movie Apocalypse Now! When I left the Army, "I split from the whole fucking program."
I am a firm believer in civil liberties to the point of being an anarchist and libertine about it.
I am a firm believer in grass roots democracy and egalitarianism to the point of being a color blind Marxist about it.
I have as much of a desire for a power trip over you as I have for someone else to have a power trip over me. Which is to say none at all.
"Alright buddy!", was an expression of joy and support for your original post.
When a person discovers their voice for the first time, they have a lot to say. It is something that should be supported and praised.
Mon, 2009-11-02 00:06
#14
FidelYou are missing the point. Political parties want to force their will and control over people.
Just because your political organization has not been power for the last 100 does not mean the NDP does not want to force their policies on the people.
The NDP knows that it should be the large majority whose will is enforced in the halls of power, and not just the will of those who can afford to buy governments.
The NDP at the provincial level has done a fine performance at bring in portional representation over the last few years.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/260627]As for the major parties[/url], they are largely staying out of the debate. Premier Dalton McGuinty has adopted a stance of strict neutrality; Conservative Leader John Tory has criticized MMP, but only when asked; and while NDP Leader Howard Hampton endorses MMP, he has not made it a focal point of his campaign.
And I believe the Liberals insisted that all parties refrain from campaigning for or against MMP. Ontario's referendum on MMP was hamstrung on purpose by a poorly run and under-funded public info campaign. In any event, there is no political will among either of the two old line parties to support electoral reform, which is what will be needed to make advanced democracy happen in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada.
One person should equal one vote. Anything less is election fraud.
Mon, 2009-11-02 09:02
#15
So what is the game plan to change the Constitution and what will the new form of govenrment look like?
Mon, 2009-11-02 10:05
#16
So what is the game plan to change the Constitution and what will the new form of govenrment look like?
1. Sever Canada's ties from the British Crown.
2. Change the position of Governor General to President.
3. Amend the Constitution to make the President
a. an elected office.
b. independent; ie., the President is not the leader or member of a political party.
c. the protector of the Constitution concerning the procedural process of government and Parliament.
d. to posses whatever residual powers that are not the prerogative of Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament and/or the (federal) Courts
4. No further changes to the Constitution or government are required in this regard.
Mon, 2009-11-02 10:09
#17
Okay, that's the easy part. What's the game plan to get the Feds and provinces to agree to the above?
Mon, 2009-11-02 11:32
#18
There is a good side to disposing of the monarchy..the disposing of the rcmp also. Remember they are allegant to the queen , not you or me or even the government. Perhaps the Queen should disban them in light of all the bad publicity (killing , murder etc) they have done.
Come out with a statement how it was necessary in the dark past to have such a presence in our colony, but times have changed and there attitudes haven't over time, so as a gift to my loyal subjects they are now toast. She waves her gloved hand and with that simple wave the monarchy is popular again. So there is a good side I guess.
Mon, 2009-11-02 20:26
#19
Boom Boom
The NDP's Chris Charlton was on CTV's Power Play tonight saying it's rude to have this debate while the Royals are in the country. Interesting perspective.
Mon, 2009-11-02 20:33
#20
Tigana
The NDP's Chris Charlton was on CTV's Power Play tonight saying it's rude to have this debate while the Royals are in the country. Interesting perspective.
Why not go and be "rude" in person?
Mon, 2009-11-02 23:06
#21
It seems our Canadian colonial slaves are becoming restless. Uh, oh!
Tue, 2009-11-03 10:15
#22
I saw a bit of Chaz and Cammie arriving in St. John's and it was striking how much Harper loves the pomp of it all. Then Charles gets up and true to form mentions that the biggest thing he wants to meet with Canadians about is Global Warming. Harper's plastic grin just tightened to a rictus. The monarchy is an expensive antique and if Canada severed ties with it the only real disruption would be trying to remember not to refer to things as Royal. That said, every day we witness Democracy's obselesence and decay. Lot's of people who don't live in the US have the warm and fuzzies about Obama, but after that you get Burlescconi, Medeyev/PUTIN, Brown, Merkel, Karzai, Netanyahu, etc. Steven Harper's Government has predictably decided to ignore Canada's responsibilities in this global crisis despite public opinion. A majority of Canadians would like to sever ties with him. I found Frmrsldr's suggestion that the Governor General become the elected head of state especially funny, given that there is such a glaring example of that constitutional model just south of Canada. Anyone for Harper without the posibility of a no confidence vote?
Tue, 2009-11-03 10:44
#23
Boom Boom
I was watching CBC news this morning, and the Prince looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He didn't look comfortable in his own skin, but maybe that was just jet lag.
Tue, 2009-11-03 10:49
#24
If even half the predications are true regarding global warming and the future of Great Britain, its no wonder it's a big issue for the Royals. What are they to do? When their country is wiped out or under water. Where are they going to go?
Enter there fav colony that they seem to be thinking of a lot lately...CANADA!
It must make the Tory's cringe that they will be handing all that Alberta land (and other provinces) to the British by the million section lot.
Canadians pretty well have their little media controlled heads stuck in the sand over global warming , but in places where it's as real as asthma and H1N1 it's bigtime serious. Go ask an Albertan in panic mode....
The Royals are on an inspection tour. Just making sure their colony is still here. I wonder how many Canadians would be opposed to handing over their country to the mother colony.....no wonder royal popularity is an issue.
Tue, 2009-11-03 17:24
#25
Okay, that's the easy part. What's the game plan to get the Feds and provinces to agree to the above?
And as little as possible else. Keep in mind, once you open up the constitution for something, you open it up for everything and you can refer to the Meech Lake/Charlottetown process for how well that works out.
Tue, 2009-11-03 19:18
#26
Okay, that's the easy part. What's the game plan to get the Feds and provinces to agree to the above?And as little as possible else. Keep in mind, once you open up the constitution for something, you open it up for everything and you can refer to the Meech Lake/Charlottetown process for how well that works out.
They can flout the constitution when it suits their purpose, like creating two secular school systems in Quebec based on language. Protestant Yorkies are still somewhat reluctant in Ontario as Catholics tend to vote the right way and could add to the unpredictability of our vote distorting electoral system. I think Liz and Phil realize Canadians are off of them by now.
Tue, 2009-11-03 22:52
#27
I found Frmrsldr's suggestion that the Governor General become the elected head of state especially funny, given that there is such a glaring example of that constitutional model just south of Canada. Anyone for Harper without the posibility of a no confidence vote?
Remember, I said that there would be two changes to the Constitution:
1. Ties with the British Crown would be severed.
2. The Govenor General would become an elected position that would protect the political proceedural nature of the Constitution and any additional powers that were not assigned to the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament or the Supreme Court, would reside with the President. The President would also not be the leader or a member of a political party.
Canada would still have a Prime Minister in addition to the President (formerly the Governor General). All other aspects of Canadian government would remain the same in this regard.
There would still be a no confidence vote. Under this system, Parliament would go to the President to assist with the formation of a new government. This is much quicker and easier than without a President where the matter would go to the Supreme Court, which would be much costlier and take much longer.
This kind of government arrangement is more like Germany and other countries that have a Prime Minister and President, where the President is the weaker of the two positions, rather than like the U.S.A.
In Canada, there is the vote of no confidence. In the U.S.A. there is impeachment.
Wed, 2009-11-04 01:34
#28
If the President is not the leader or a member of a political party, how is she/he elected?
How does he/she run for the position?
The President hopefuls run on a separate ticket.
Wed, 2009-11-04 03:32
#29
Ok so the President under your plan is not head of state, nor commander of military forces then.
What percentage of politically active Canadians are not members of any political?
And how do you exclude members of Political parties without deterring freedom of expression and association?
Wed, 2009-11-04 09:32
#30
Boom Boom
I seriously doubt we'll drift into a republic in my lifetime.
Wed, 2009-11-04 09:54
#31
I have asked this before in other threads however I have never been answered, what do we do with Canadians that do not want to be apart of your new republic?
Are they able to start their on countries?
My answer is, "You bet."
Wed, 2009-11-04 10:09
#32
Ok so the President under your plan is not head of state, nor commander of military forces then.
What percentage of politically active Canadians are not members of any political?
And how do you exclude members of Political parties without deterring freedom of expression and association?
Just as appointed Governor Generals were politically neutral, elected Presidents are to be politically neutral. Not being a member of a political party will be a requirement to putting one's name forward on the ballot. Sometimes the President has to act as an adjudicator and therefore needs to be impartial.
Beyond that, people attracted to the position of President would likely be independently wealthy retired persons who have an interest in social and political issues. They can have interests in environmental issues, human rights issues, work for Habitat for Humanity or the International Committee of the Red Cross, Medecins Sans Frontieres etc., so long as this does not cause them to favor a particular political party, cause a loss of political neutrality or a conflict of interest.
Wed, 2009-11-04 10:14
#33
N.Beltov
I see Canada being broken up into dozens of small countries.
Maybe like ancient Greece, small city states of like minded people.
It would be interesting in see what happens in the large cities such as Toronto, Vancouver.
Our large neighbour to the south would probably like that as they could then pick and choose which Provinces to make into States, which ones to turn into little Puerto Rico-s, and which ones to simply occupy.
"The nation that buys commands, the nation that sells serves; it is necessary to balance trade in order to ensure freedom; the country that wants to die sells only to one country, and the country that wants to survive sells to more than one." Jose Marti (1853-1895)
Wed, 2009-11-04 13:32
#34
"Beyond that, people attracted to the position of President would likely be independently wealthy retired persons who have an interest in social and political issues." So there will more elitism and classism in our new republic, what a great change of system. Why do we not pick the poorest Canadian and let them be in charge for four years.
Because if the person who is President is the only one in government who is dependent on the position's income, then that person's loyalty can be bought.
In order to have the system you suggest, all members of all levels of Canadian government should be elected from the poor. Have them take over the means of production and the apparatus of the state, compensate the newly "retired" former owners of industry. Thus a truly democratic society is achieved.
Wed, 2009-11-04 14:50
#35
Was just reviewing an old townhall meeting involving a gas company and the locals...On of the locals complaining how the wasting of 1.5 million gallons of OUR fresh water was despicable.....anyways they took the company to court after arsenic and uanium levels went thru the roof and some babies were turning blue due to nitrite poisong. What did the courts say? " It's the CROWNS water and they can do whatever they want".
I rest my point which is that industry and government hide and use the crown to commit environmental as well as physical attrocities on the common people..including geopordizing their safety, health, life and well being. Nowadays they call that terrorism.. this what the monarchy is about in Canada.
Wed, 2009-11-04 17:00
#36
[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Drug_War/DOPE_INC_part2.html]excerpted from the book DOPE, INC.[/url]
The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy
When we speak of the drug-related illegal economy-for drugs are the pivot on which most other illegal activity turns - we are talking of a $500 billion per year business. That is net, not gross, annual sales of drugs, plus related illicit payments. How can such activity avoid sticking out wildly, especially in areas of concentration such as the Far East? Because the British monarchy organized most of the Far East to conform to the drug traffic! How can $500 billion in illegal payments get through the international banking system past the eyes of law enforcement authorities? The answer is: the British "offshore" banking system. This and related precious metals and gems trade were designed around illegal money in the first place!
The "Windsors" are dope dealers? Saxy Gotha Coburg, "Romanovs", the "Zogs", Habsburgs, Savoys, Windsors - they all need to be sent packing.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:09
#37
The NDP's Chris Charlton was on CTV's Power Play tonight saying it's rude to have this debate while the Royals are in the country. Interesting perspective.
I agree with her. It's rude to have the discussion about whether to abolish the Royals while they are in the middle of a visit to our country. It's bad manners and inappropriate diplomatically.
We can have the discussion the rest of the year though.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:14
#38
You mean loyalty can not be bought now?
Sure. It's done by big industry and business. The sold out parties are the Liberals and Conservatives.
Add to that top officers in the military (who are supposed to be politically "neutral") and that's why we're in Afghanistan.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:15
#39
An herditary head of state makes as much sense as an heriditary mathematician, as my namesake once said.
You mean loyalty can not be bought now?
Hang on a bit, let me check my sources...... Yeah, Duffy, Wallin and Buzz say yes it can be.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:17
#40
You mean loyalty can not be bought now?
No he's saying that loyalty is more easily bought now. I agree. They only have to buy two parties' loyalties under the current FPTP setup and retain support of about 25% of registered voters, or roughly the percentages known to have supported dictatorial imperial or colonial rule throughout world history. The original US colonials tried to create the first constitutional democracy not influenced by a European financier class. And part of that idea was separation of powers into three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. The USA's constitutional democracy is actually revered by left and right around the world. However, they have failed in their original goals to create government of the people, run by the people and for the people. I think, or rather what people such as Karl Polanyi said could be ideal is reproducing that same three layers of US democracy for economic decision making, because now more than ever people see the economy as an important aspect of democratic society's goals. Deregulated capitalism doesn't work. We need something better, and to get rid of an antiquated electoral system on both sides of the border.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:30
#41
Oh, Webgear, that's for certain. But what astonishes me is how cheap people go.
I have my price, but looking at the going rates, my loyalties will certainly never be bought.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:36
#42
Boom Boom
Webgear: speaking for yourself?
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:37
#43
Fidel, Frmsldr
Many special interests groups are driving all political parties, look at today's gun registry vote.
There are many left wing groups trying to drive more into Africa especially Sudan and Congo.
It is specialty groups that drive politics in Canada.
They are not all big business and industry.
The engine that drives the move to have soldiers in the Sudan and DR Congo (just like Kosovo and Afghanistan), is the Responsibility to Protect - the militarization of human rights. It is a talking point wedge issue that unifies the right and is used to divide the left and anitwar coalitions.
The arms industry and the War Party use R2P (militarization of human rights) to get the left and antiwar coalition to agree to the continuation of the Afghan war. The firearm industry is behind defeating the long gun registry. Hey, war and the sale of firearms are how they make their money.
Wed, 2009-11-04 21:44
#44
Tommy
That is my point, all politics are corrupt.
IF that is the case, THEN the best we can do is elect those who are the least evil.
Wed, 2009-11-04 22:32
#45
BoomBoom
I can not be bought. I have forsaken by the clan. I have gone rogue.
However I can be hired for those special occasions.
Thu, 2009-11-05 00:47
#46
Frmsldr
I disagree, I have seen some hard core left wings groups and their politician slave demand we go into Sudan.
The R2P may be a factor however it is not always the decisive.
R2P is the "bait" the right uses that gets the left "hooked" on this novel concept that war is good because it can be used to protect human rights. How else do you get the left to support the flagging effort in the 'Ghan?
"If we leave now, the situation for Afghan women will become worse."
The situation for Afghan women was made worse by 30 years of war courtesy of the Pentagon and Carter, Reagan, Bush and current Obama administrations.
Sharia Family Law for Afghan Shias, anyone? Our puppet Karzai rubber stamped that law. Our anti Taliban proxi warriors, the Northern Alliance warlords treat women like shit and rape children and we look the other way and sweep it under the rug because these are the thugs who we will rely on to continue the war against the Taliban when we finally pull out of Afghanistan.
The Afghan war, like the Kosovo war has nothing to do with human rights. That's just the bullshit the government, the military and the right use to sell the war. The idiot mainstream media carries the story if it "sells" as well.
That's what it's all about. Power for government and profit for business.
Thu, 2009-11-05 01:01
#47
Did anyone listen to Sue Ormiston on national news last night? We've been talking with the Taliban for months and I think prolly for several years running. Former Taliban leader Abdul Rocketi is on "our side" now. Taliban and US stooges running the country? I think it was the backup plan all along.
Thu, 2009-11-05 04:23
#48
Did anyone listen to Sue Ormiston on national news last night? We've been talking with the Taliban for months and I think prolly for several years running. Former Taliban leader Abdul Rocketi is on "our side" now. Taliban and US stooges running the country? I think it was the backup plan all along.
My buddy Mr. Rocketi ("Rocket", referring to his days as a mujahideen insurgent during the Soviet Afghan War) ran for President in August.
What happened to Harpo the hypocrite's "We do not negotiate with terrorists" stance?
Thu, 2009-11-05 04:42
#49
Fdrsldr
You can not be serious saying the left is not pushing some of these issues?
A number of NDP MPs are in bed with these organizations trying to get us into Africa.
It depends. What are the organizations?
Are they big arms, big mining, and big oil industries offering tempting donations to the NDP?
Is the left, both the NDP and non political players, pushing the doctrine of militarized human rights? Or is it the right who are pushing it and (some of) the left has been seduced by it?
The antidote is that human rights do not come out of the barrel of a gun. War is not the only option nor is it the means of first resort. We need to make it the means of last resort. The way to stop the right in its tracks and make sure the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens don't side with Harpo and allow him to escalate Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan beyond 2011, is to unite the left with the message:
Not one more death!
Out Now!
Bring the troops home now!
Nothing else is acceptable.
Thu, 2009-11-05 04:54
#50
Yes, FrmrSldr, all the world's a stage as far these bad actors are concerned. There was a blonde woman speaking. She's a former advisor to dubya's administration. And she repeated a hawkish lie that the Taliban refused to give up Osama bin Laden and cut ties with al-Qa'eda. By what I've been reading, not only did the Taliban offer to give up OBL but they eventually offered to give up OBL to a third party country without proof of his involvement in 9/11. This was a counter-offer from the Taliban to stop the bombing. The US and NATO countries were, apparently, not interested in capturing their former cold war ally.
Thu, 2009-11-05 12:05
#51
[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Drug_War/DOPE_INC_part2.html]excerpted from the book DOPE, INC.[/url]
The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy
When we speak of the drug-related illegal economy-for drugs are the pivot on which most other illegal activity turns - we are talking of a $500 billion per year business. That is net, not gross, annual sales of drugs, plus related illicit payments. How can such activity avoid sticking out wildly, especially in areas of concentration such as the Far East? Because the British monarchy organized most of the Far East to conform to the drug traffic! How can $500 billion in illegal payments get through the international banking system past the eyes of law enforcement authorities? The answer is: the British "offshore" banking system. This and related precious metals and gems trade were designed around illegal money in the first place!The "Windsors" are dope dealers? Saxy Gotha Coburg, "Romanovs", the "Zogs", Habsburgs, Savoys, Windsors - they all need to be sent packing.
"Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?"
Yep the royals and there association with drugs as a conquering and controlling tool is well documented, but not publicized too well. They especially seem to have an affinity for opium, which the Blair family made it's fortune from.