This Forum is Closed
March 28, 2024, 09:04:27 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

AJ Needs a Little Education in Canadiana

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: AJ Needs a Little Education in Canadiana  (Read 1415 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« on: April 04, 2011, 05:56:33 am »

On yesterday's program(me), Alex compared the recent dissolution of Canada's Parliament with the two prior instances involving the unlawful prorogation of Parliament under the government recently fallen.

When a government falls (as has now happened with the Government of the Fortieth Parliament (popularly known as the "Harper Government")), the Queen, according to the Constitution, must dissolve the Parliament whose Government has fallen and command the issuance of Writs of Election to be returned within 45 days of the dissolution.  (In other words, the election of the new Parliament (in the current case, the Forty-First Parliament) must occur within forty-five days of the dissolution (and, no kidding, they actually put up huge posters with the Royal Proclamation all over town).)  Parliament is then prorogued in order to preserve a functioning government during the parliamentary interim.

In other words, current events in Canada are an illustration of the PROPER use of the Royal powers of dissolution and prorogation, not to be confused with the two prior instances under the Harper government during which Parliament was prorogued for the purpose of circumventing the political process at the Federal level.

This oversight on Alex's part particularly irks me, as a party which I support played the decisive role in unseating Harper!

***

(And, yes, dear Canadian readers, I am, in fact an American, who has been positively drooling over the opportunity of being interviewed by "Talking With Americans"!

Cheers!

And I prefer my kippers hot with scrambled eggs, both smothered in mayonnaise!)
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Rebelitarian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2011, 04:11:38 pm »

Didn't Canada delcare its independence in 1982 ?

If so why do you guys have anything to do with British Royalty ?

Americans are just now waking up to the evil FED under their control.

We need to retake the banks as Americans.
Report Spam   Logged
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2011, 09:34:11 pm »

Rebelitarian:

One thing you must understand is tha, although the American Revolution may seem to most of the country as a war between the Americans and the British, in my part of the country (New England), it was, in fact, a civil war between the Conservative Party of America (the "Tories") and the Liberal Party of America (the "Whigs").  (Today's Canadian Libs don't use the term "Whig" anymore, because it was something of a political swearword in the wake of the Revolution, just as the word "Tory" is down here: Provincial Libs in Western Canada (Manitoba and points west) refer to themselves as "Grits".)  People still remember that time, as, in the agricultural region near where my father once lived, three out of ten farmhouses fly the Union Jack alongside, or instead of, the Stars and Stripes.  One loyalist includes my own city's most famous author, H. P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), who observed the Fourth of July by locking himself in his room with a bottle of whiskey.

For some, the question isn't whether Canada should be a monarchy (you may recall Britain's disastrous experiment with republicanism under Cromwell), but who should be the monarch.  The origin of the current Royal Family lies in the wake of Queen Anne's heroic struggle against the policies of the newly-formed Bank of England (including her monetary reforms, q.v.).  After her death, the House of Hanover came over from Germany to oversee their investment (i.e., the Bank of England).  There are some who would like to see if any Wessex, Plantagenet, Tudor, or Stuart descendants are around who might bring a more domestic touch (and lack of ties to the Bank) to the throne.  There are also those in Quebec who would like to secede from confederation and become a presidential republic (a la France, rather than the US).

In other worlds, the issue is more complicated than many would expect it to be.

I'll add some further sections to this thread to explain the Canadian electoral system.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2011, 10:33:57 pm »

Anyways, this is how an election cycle works:

When lack of support from Parliament causes a government to fall (i.e., become non-functional as Parliament will no longer support its policies legislatively), the Queen, who literally owns the State (which is why the navy's ships are called "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" (she owns the ships), while the British government controls the Colonial Office, which assigns Canada's postal codes, among other things), either directly or though her Governor General of Canada, dissolves parliament, in order that a new parliament can be elected, in turn to select, from among its members, a new government which enjoys its confidence.  The election must be held no later than forty-five days following dissolution of parliament.  Parliament is prorogued in order to allow the lame-duck government to function, on a caretaker basis, during the interregnum.  Prorogation is constitutionally limited to a period of forty-five days, the same as the time limit between parliaments, which underscores its constitutionally proper application.

The action then moves from Buckingham Palace and Rideau Hall (official residence of the Governor General) to the local Federal legislative districts, which are known as "ridings", a term which goes back to the days when the English county of Yorkshire was split up into three parliamentary districts, each being referred to as a "thriding", meaning "third part" (compare "farthing" meaning "fourth part"), with the initial "th" being lost over time.  The formal membership of a party in a riding assembles in a body known as the riding association to nominate the party's candidate for the seat representing that riding.  At this point, a peculiarly powerful Canadian institution known as the Riding Association President makes his appearance.  He can be something of a kingmaker or career breaker depending on who he wants or doesn't want in the House of Commons.  Anyways, let's say I'm nominated as the candidate of the Tax Increase Party contesting the seat for Moose's Misery, Saskatchewan.  I go to shopping malls and supermarket parking lots to kiss hands and shake babies (or something like that), and, come election day, I WIN!  The Writ of Election issued upon dissolution of the old parliament is now returned, certifying me as the Honourable Member for Moose's Misery, SK.  This becomes my credential when I show up in Ottawa.   The majority party, or the largest minority party, or group of minority parties who agree to form a coalition, then meet to select the new government from among their members.  When the new parliament opens, the Governor General (or, perhaps, even the Queen herself) delivers a speech written for her by the new government, outlining their legislative agenda for the coming term.  This speech is known as the "Throne Speech".

Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2011, 11:09:31 pm »

Just some housekeeping odds and ends:

The new government is  known as "Her Majesty's Canadian Government", while the largest party not included in the government is known as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".  Each out-of-power party forms a shadow cabinet, with one member being named "critic" for each major cabinet office, such that the Minister of National Defense will have, as his counterpart, a critic for national defense in each non-government party's shadow cabinet.  The government and shadow cabinets are known as the parties' front benchers, all other members being known as back benchers.

The same process occurs at the provincial level as well, except that the provincial lieutenant governor takes the role of the Governor General of Canada, and members of provincial parliaments are referred to as MPP's, as opposed to federal MP's.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 02:08:53 am »

Rebelitarian:

Sorry I failed to answer your first question.

What happened in 1982 was that Canada gained the right to amend her own constitution (the British North America Act), which, previously, could only be amended by Parliament in London.  The constitutionality of this event has been challenged, as the Province of Quebec was excluded from the process.  (Quebec has long been terrified at the prospect of being at the mercy of the Rest of Canada (ROC).)

Canada never declared independence from Britain
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 03:52:21 am »

Just a couple of final points, after which I promise to shut up (except to respond to replies):

Alex has, in the past, referred to the practice of Queen Elizabeth closing off access to certain of her properties (including highways) with the implication that this behavio(u)r on her part was some sort of arrogant power play.  In fact, this is standard practice among owners of property that might be construed as public thoroughfares if the general public were allowed to use them constantly without obstruction.  Allowing someone other than the owner or his invitees or licensees to allow free access to one's private property is known in law as "Sufferance of Open and Notorious Adverse Possession", which is a way of saying that one's allowing free use by others of his property constitutes a constructive quitclaim deed to the property, i.e., you lose the property on the basis of your having abandoned it.  While the statute of limitations for allowing squatters on one's property without losing it is usually around twenty years, it's simply sound practice to close it off one day per year (usually the slowest Sunday of the year).  I am aware of a private property parcel in downtown Hartford, Connecticut which had a little street running through it: one Sunday every summer (at the height of vacation season, when the street would be little used), it was roped off.  It wasn't that noone could use it, it's just that, if you had legitimate business on the property, you had to explain your purpose to the owner's agent (in this case the security guard), and he would let you enter; the essential point is that access to the property was thereby limited to the owner's invitees and licensees.

My second point is that Alex seems to have reacted to the Queen's dissolution of parliament in Ottawa as though it constituted her abolition of parliamentary democracy in Canada.  On the basis of what I've already said, it is clear that the dissolution of parliament and the calling of new elections is a vital part of parliamentary democracy, not its abolition.

My third point is that I recognize that the two prorogations of parliament in the absence of an impending election under the Harper government were clearly unconstitutional acts intended to circumvent the political process and establish a temporary (45-day) executive dictatorship, I'm not certain that I agree with Alex that the primary responsibility for this situation lies with Queen Elizabeth.  While I'm not familiar with the second instance of this type, I recall quite well the first time this happened, and it seemed to involve Prime Minister Harper visiting the Governor General to request the move, with the Governor General spending forty-five minutes on the phone with the Queen before assenting to Harper's request.  This doesn't sound to me like the Queen acting on her own initiative; it sounds to me like the Governor General of Canada, under pressure from her Prime Minister, begging and pleading with Buckingham Palace for permission to accede to her Prime Minister's demand.  Prime Minister Harper was clearly the instigator of this move, to which the Queen was clearly reluctant to assent.

Alex clearly knows more about the forces that seek to crush free humanity than anyone else, and is rightly frustrated by the incredulity of the general public in the face of his facts, but he also suffers from the handicap of coming from a unique culture (Texas) that most people in the world would regard as being very strange, indeed.  (I, myself, having lived under a monarchy, do not find the trappings of that form of government to be threatening in the least, despite my commitment to the United States Constitution.)  I feel Alex would benefit from separating his knowledge of the New World Order from his culturally inculcated prejudices.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Rebelitarian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2011, 07:21:54 pm »

Well don't be too hard on Alex.  The FED here in America is driving us into a major Depression and soon to be civil-unrest once the US dollar collapses.

I'll need to read and re-read your posts to gain a better understanding of how Canadian Parliament works.

Here in America the Federated-Republic has many checks and balances on the national and state levels to keep the peace so to speak.  This separation allowed the states to vote down and oppose the North American Union plan.  This is also why Obama is so ineffective cuz no state recognizes his citizenship hence any legislation is held up and stalled for years.  Yes he and the National-Congress passed Obamacare but the states are refusing to implement it.

Here in America, the republic system works but the banks are controlling most of the Senators and Reps on the national level.  The FED is owned by 13 European Banking Families and is un-Constitutional as an organization.  However many of the national politicians are on the FED payroll and won't vote to shut it down.

It's going to take the states to elect another national Congress in order to finally shut it down.

America is a republic run by banking dictators.
Report Spam   Logged
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2011, 04:33:14 am »

Rebelitarian:

I'm not trying to be hard on Alex: I'm trying to let him know that, in spite of his superior knowledge of the New World Order, certain of his statements concerning the Canadian political system may make his Canadian listeners wonder whether or not he knows what he's talking about: it's true that the earlier prorogation of parliament in the absence of a pending election was unconstitutional and dictatorial, but, when the Queen dissolved Parliament a few days ago, Alex seemed to be panicking out of ignorance of the fact that this is simply how the Canadian political system works: when relations between the Government and Parliament have reached such a point of tension that the Government has become ineffective, the proper solution is to "go to the country" (i.e., dissolve Parliament so that the people can elect a new Parliament which can select a new Government with which the new Parliament can work).  That's called normal life, not aristocratic arrogance.

I'm well aware of the checks and balances provided by the US Constitution, which is only one of the major reasons why I realize the total superiority of the US Constitution to every other form of government on this planet.  But, I must tell you, while I realize that the sovereign states have, to a certain extent, been resisting the North American Union, the chronic abuse of the administrative power of the executive branch to circumvent the political process guaranteed by Article One of the US Constitution (which Article creates the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government) has created our present situation to which the only solution is for the several States to convene a new, and law-abiding, Federal Government.

Clearly, THE BANK MUST DIE THAT THE PEOPLE MAY LIVE!  The several States have the power to accomplish this end, so let's run for state and local office to make sure it happens.

I wish you peace of mind and revolutionary zeal, brother!
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Rebelitarian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2011, 05:05:24 pm »

The states should 'STATIZE' their banks and work to establish a new national congress.
Report Spam   Logged
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2011, 04:56:29 am »

The states should 'STATIZE' their banks and work to establish a new national congress.


***

Absolutely!

I keep reading about how the state of North Dakota is the most prosperous state in the union, without any mention being made of North Dakota's state-based banking system.

And of course the states need to establish, not a new national Congress, but a REAL national Congress, as opposed to the bankster-run fake now in existence.

Nevertheless, I did make, not one, but two major oversights concerning the British Constitution: the first being that no Parliament may exist for a term greater than five years, such that, even were everyone in Canada deliriously delighted with the way things have been going over the previous five years, Queen Elizabeth is required by law to dissolve Parliament under the terms of the British Constitution.  The second major oversight I made was to ignore the fact that the governing party may call "snap elections" anytime they choose, such that when the government's popularity is high, they may extend their term in power by "going to the country" (i.e., asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and to call for the election of a new Parliament under conditions extremely favo(u)rable to the Government.)

Sorry for these oversights, mate!

Cheers!
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Rebelitarian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2011, 05:21:13 pm »

So the queen can just stomp all over your sovereignty like that.

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Spam   Logged
solar
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2011, 07:28:59 pm »


***

Absolutely!

I keep reading about how the state of North Dakota is the most prosperous state in the union, without any mention being made of North Dakota's state-based banking system.

And of course the states need to establish, not a new national Congress, but a REAL national Congress, as opposed to the bankster-run fake now in existence.

Nevertheless, I did make, not one, but two major oversights concerning the British Constitution: the first being that no Parliament may exist for a term greater than five years, such that, even were everyone in Canada deliriously delighted with the way things have been going over the previous five years, Queen Elizabeth is required by law to dissolve Parliament under the terms of the British Constitution.  The second major oversight I made was to ignore the fact that the governing party may call "snap elections" anytime they choose, such that when the government's popularity is high, they may extend their term in power by "going to the country" (i.e., asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and to call for the election of a new Parliament under conditions extremely favo(u)rable to the Government.)

Sorry for these oversights, mate!

Cheers!


hello, i am new here, hope to enjoy my time here & also get some really nice experience.....
Report Spam   Logged

solar
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2011, 07:29:44 pm »

and thanks for sharing these information...
Report Spam   Logged

Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2011, 03:29:23 am »

solar:

You're very welcome!

Here's another little piece of Canadiana, which leaves me a bit confused, as it seems to me that the lyrics are a bit too erotically charged to be appropriate for a national anthem (which will, after all, be sung by little kids in school!).

Whaddya tink?

Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.077 seconds with 23 queries.