Since the '60s, Liberals have been deconstructing the foundations of Canada. Maybe it started with the flag. The new flag represents nothing -- not our history, not our heritage, not our founding nations -- it's a Liberal fabrication.
They deconstructed marriage through no fault divorce and by giving parity to common law unions. Traditional single-income families are penalized through an unfair taxation system. Further assaults on the family are greeted with a shrug and a demands that politicians stick to the 'important' issues.
They tossed the BNA Act and created a constitution, which since its inception, has brought this country to the brink of destruction on more than one occasion. Our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are divisive and so open to judicial interpretation that the lawmakers of our country defer to the courts before legislating -- and our judges, appointed by the PMO -- wield more power than an elite, unaccountable segment of society should.
Of late, the position of Governor General has been granted to people of celebrity, rather than substance. The office, though it holds some real and significant powers, is considered by most to be a 'figure-head' position, where substance and qualifications are unnecessary. Maybe that's why the selection of Michaelle Jean, though causing some ripples, will fail to make real waves. She'll take the post, feign loyalty to crown and country, and her separatist past(?) will be forgotten as she continues to draw a government paycheque.
The Liberals make a mockery of our heritage. Once no one takes our institutions seriously anyway, deconstructing them altogether will be that much easier. For years there have been calls to do away with the Governor General -- when the job is already considered irrelevant by many, these calls might have more traction as the role is filled by a self-proclaimed separatist -- better the role eradicated than open to ridicule.
The less respect we have for our traditions, the less likely it is we will complain -- or even notice, when our traditions pass away. That's why the Liberals attack our heritage from within.
canadianna
92 comments:
Canadianna, Here is what are flag represents;
"The combination of red, white and red first appeared in the General Service Medal issued by Queen Victoria. Red and white were subsequently proclaimed Canada's national colors by King George V in 1921. Three years earlier, Major General Sir Eugene Fiset had recommended that Canada's emblem be the single red maple leaf on a white field - the device worn by all Canadian Olympic athletes since 1904."
This flag also wasn't the Lester B. Pearsons choice.
Sorry, your flat-out wrong on all counts.
YOU make a mockery of our heritage!! I think there is a lot about Canada's past you need to learn.
What exactly is it that you don't like about the Constitution?? The Rights and Freedom it gives us?? Rights for Aboriginals??
The Judges are elected by who ever occupies the PMO, Liberal, NDP or Conservatives. You're not going to sit here and tell me they're all Liberal are you?? They're not.
Are you trying to say Michaelle Jean doesn't have the credentials to be GG?? man, read her credentials!! How's that for substance.
She was appointed specifically for her separatist past, a signal to Quebec, A smart, bold political move the Conservatives would have never come up with in a million years.
I think you speak for many less people than you realize.
Canadianna,
Well said.
Sadly, the dismantling of our institutions will continue. As I talk to more people in Toronto, the more I sadly realize how...'brainwashed' this city has become. They take the word of our govenment at every turn, buy every excuse, accept every lie as truth.
When people get this brainwashed, no one conversation or act will convince them otherwise. Only a large 'shock to the system' will wake them up. Toronto is 'slowly' realizing it has a crime problem...what will it take for them to realize they also have a Liberal problem?
The appointment of the GG is yet another hypocritical step by a cynical, corrupt, bloated government.
I wish everyone saw things as clearly as yourself.
'Peg City Kid'
You do not even see how you are being played.
You say:
"She was appointed specifically for her separatist past, a signal to Quebec, A smart, bold political move the Conservatives would have never come up with in a million years."
Do you not feel the office of the GG should be more than just a bargaining chip for a corrupt, bloated party to gain power...especially when they attack the Conservatives if they even look in the direction of the Bloc.
Your lack of perspective, consistency or principle is staggering.
As for the number of people Canadianna speaks for...irrelevant. She speaks the truth.
And truth is truth whether it is believed by 10 people or 10 million.
Nicol,
Your use of the word "Truth" is obviously a relative term, used very loosely.
What lack of perspective, consistency or principle?? I'm not quite sure how you find me to be inconsistent, this is the first time I've talked about this issue. And principal?? Where do you get off saying that?? I wasn't aware anything I said demonstrated a lack of principal. Perhaps you can elaborate?
When you say things, you kind of have to back them up.
See, what you are presenting here are opinions, not truths. There is a difference. You have to understand that.
I see very clearly the purpose of the GG. The GG represents the Queen, who is head of state.
If Michaelle Jean had no experience or credentials to offer Canadians, I would have a problem with her appointment, but that's not the case, is it? She is very much so qualified for this position. I shouldn't have used the word "specifically" in my last comment.
How am I being played again?? If it's anybody, It's Quebec. But they seemed to have agreed with this decision. hmmmm.
Good post, Canadianna, as always. This whole debacle of late is just indicative of how far our country has slid.
I'm sorry that some feel it necessary to become defensive, rather than looking at the bigger picture.
The frog in boiling water analogy comes to mind. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it jumps out, but put a frog in water that is slowly heating up, and it cooks itself.
I've got some extra-terrestrial friends who know what to do
www.imnotparanoid.blogspot.com
A true seperatist would never just get up one morning and say "Hey - I think I wanna be a Canadian."
What would be the motivation?
'peg city kid:
Ok, so Mme Jean has some credentials. No doubt about it.
But would you please point out for us precisely which of them are directly germane to the specific core functions of the position?
I have credentials, too. Does that mean I should be GG? Not necessarily. Why? Because they're not directly germane to being GG.
NDP Nadine:
Do you understand that people are asking questions wrt Mme Jean's fitness for the GG post not because of her irrelevant characteristics, but for two reasons: one, she has no obvious directly relevant qualifications for the post and, two, she's obviously a separatist, her denial notwithstanding.
Or are you one of the lefties who thinks what she's told rather than thinking for yourself critically?
Peg - if the Libs chose her for her separatist leanings, why did they deny she had them?
The commenters who speak ill of the Red Ensign, or who suggest it doesn't reflect them, so it doesn't reflect our country, prove my point.
For those who suggest they 'don't identify' with the Red Ensign because it was okay for the 'elite Anglo-Saxon ruling class' your dismissal of our heritage because it doesn't 'reflect' you is simply absurd. That flag represents all Canadians -- those who struggled to build our railways and those whose blood was spilt on foreign soil. Many of them weren't British, and many who were British were not Anglo-Saxon. That was the flag they honoured because it was the flag of their homeland or their chosen nation.
Each nation has a history and most nations preserve their national symbols. Canada has chosen to expunge ours.
And clear man, you say Canada is a a living, growing, developing baby country . Roots are important to the development of any nation and a national identity. Unless we want to become a nation that only identifies itself by Tim Horton's and I AM CANADIAN commercials, we had better start cherishing our past and building a present of which we can be proud. The current selection of GG is not part of that building, as she gives credence to a vacillating and uncertain Canadian identity.
I'm not even going to get into the 'original Canadian' debate -- the aboriginal peoples of this country don't want to live in the past. They want to maintain their heritage while living within society.
Theirs is not the only heritage worth maintaining.
Nadine - We don't have a French flag because the British won on the Plains of Abraham--a sore point to be sure, but remember, rather than assimilating the French, the British took great pains to allow for their uniqueness -- guaranteeing the continuation of the French within Canada. Traditions such as alternating between French and English GGs were started by . . . yes, that's right -- those bloody Anglo-Saxon elitists.
In case you've never bothered to look at the Red Ensign, it incorporates red (our national colour), the maple leaf, the fleur de lis, the union jack -- all part of the Canadian Coat of Arms. The Canadian Coat of Arms is part of our history-- our heritage. Whether one is of British or French descent is irrelevant -- these things represent Canada's heritage. If you are Canadian, they represent you.
Keep plugging for Michaelle Jean if you like, but loyalty to Canada is the most important and substantive quality that a representative of the Queen and state should have. Even the appearance of disloyalty or allegiance with separatists does injury to the status of the Governor General's office.
And Peg -The Charter of Rights Freedoms didn't give us freedom -- our British heritage did. We were a free country long before the Charter and Constitution were twinkings in Pierre Trudeau's eye.
Prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, we were free to do anything not expressly forbidden by legislation. How are we any more free now?
Aboriginal rights? Let me get this straight -- you're saying their lot has improved since the '80s?
I think you speak for many less people than you realize.
Peg -- I only ever speak for me.
What qualifications does a GG need? None really. A grade 4 student could do it.
Les,
I'd love to live in your wonderful little world where everything is absolute.
Stephen,
Read them again and explain to me how she's not qualified for this position. I would have thought her being an award winning journalist, filmmaker, and broadcaster, having set up battered woman shelters across Canada, Worked with immigrants to help them enter the country, speaks six languages and holds several degrees enough. Maybe not. After all, I wasn't the one who appointed her.
Canadianna,
Roots are important, but trees branch out. Where as we have to respect our roots, they are only a starting point. Seriously.
Yeah, your right, it was a free country before the Constitution. Free for the White Man!!!
Are you calling residential schools and forced displacement free???? I don't know if I like your idea of freedom.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Canada shouldn't be so proud of it's past????? Come on. You want heritage, read up on the Cypress Hills massacre, Read up on Batoche. This is our heritage. Residential schools?? The herding of natives into reserves??? The imprisonment of Japanese immigrants during WWII??? and yes, the Chinese railway workers. This is our heritage, are these things you want our flag to glorify????
Yes, these are things we have to acknowledge, but I'm not going to go throw up a flag symbolizing the atrocities commited in the past. We might as well throw up a confederate flag!!
What difference does it make whether or not Michaelle Jean was a separatist?? So what!!!!!!! I would have thought her accepting the post of GG a crystal indications she no longer holds those views!!! Sit down and think about this one for a second!! Maybe you guys should turn off the t.v. or radio or something. Get someone to hold you calls. Man.
As for the last comment;
"Aboriginal rights? Let me get this straight -- you're saying their lot has improved since the '80s?"
I know I dwell on this, but I can answer you in two words. "Residential Schools" You wnat to know when the last one closed?? 1982!!!! Coincidence???
I got news for you, change is the one constant. Like evolution. Get used to it.
Peg, you should seriously switch to decaffienated.
The GG is required to make decisions on important things, like when to dissolve Parliament (usually right after the government has lost a vote of confidence, but our last GG, also a journalist, missed that important constitutional nuance).
Liberals like to accuse conservatives of hating Canada. Darlin' if ANYONE reading your comments on these past two posts thinks you LIKE this country? They are wearing glasses coloured similar to yours.
"They deconstructed marriage through no fault divorce and by giving parity to common law unions."
They did no such thing, nor could they. Canadianna if you are going to use the word "deconstruction", at least understand what it means.
Deconstruction does not mean destroy. It means to take apart a text or series of related texts to reveal something not previously understood.
All I got out of your semi coherent rant is that you do not like, common law unions, no fault divorce, a declining respect for the monarchy, the fact that the vast majority of Canadians prefer the Maple Leaf over the Red Ensign, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Oh yes, all of this is the Liberals fault. So much for historical context.
I do not know what glorious theocratic past you want to resurrect, but I can assure you it never existed.
Candace,
That was changed in 1926 after the King-Byng Affair. Now the GG is more or less just a figure head. It falls on the speaker to disolve house.
"Liberals like to accuse conservatives of hating Canada."
....Says the one with an upsidedown Canadian flag as her picture =)
I must now go off to work, but for the moment I'll make this observation of the left:
The left once again demonstrates in this thread its narrow-minded, brainwashed, unable-to-get-our-point attitude. Peg still refuses to specify which of Mme Jean's accomplishments are directly germane to the actual requirements of the position of GG. Or does the kid not understand what I requested? Or does he/she refuse to admit I have a valid point, that there's no evidence of relevant qualification here?
Koby said: "I do not know what glorious theocratic past you want to resurrect, but I can assure you it never existed."
Koby, I wonder if you realize that what you said above is ignorant, arrogant and disrespectful? It demonstrates your closed-mindedness and refusal to seek the truth. I believe that, like other lefties, you will only think and believe as you've been told by the state, the MSM and your leftist brethren. Independent thought and sovereignty of mind are foreign concepts for you. With all due respect.
Peg, it's impossible to see if the flag is upside down. The picture is extremely tiny and way too grainy to tell, so how the hell can you justify saying such a thing?
You have lost the argument. Why can't you just admit defeat?
Peg, your hatred for Canada and her history is sad indeed. 'Free for the white man!!!' -- We might as well throw up a confederate flag!!
If that's all you think or know of our history, you're shamefully ignorant.
The Red Ensign is NOT symbolic of atrocities and the suggestion that it is, is offensive.
And the timing of the closing of the Residential Schools -- The schools began to be phased out in 1972. Suggesting it one had anything remotely to do with the constitution is revisionist history.
And re: Canadace's upside down flag -- that's a protest against a government, not a country -- unless of course you are saying a government and its people are without distinction.
Koby -- I don't rant. I leave that to my commenters.
As for 'deconstruction' - the government has taken apart a series of institutions, bringing into question traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth. Is that not what deconstruction is? Sure, it refers to literature; I've taken it a step farther and lent it to legislation. I've taken license with the word, but I'm not an idiot.
And exactly where did I mention religion? You accuse me of a semi coherant rant, then you suggest that I am advocating for a theocracy? Pot/kettle -- I think you're both today Koby.
Deconstruction, social reengineering, whatever we call it, it's clear that the Liberals have been dismantling Canada's institutions and reassembling them to suit themselves and their supporters, comprised largely of radical special interest groups who, through the Liberal government, are successfully imposing their own idealogies, value judgments and systems upon the majority of Canadians who really do not want the kinds of social experimentation that's been forced on us via the Liberal fascist dictatorship.
The Liberals are without a doubt closely linked to special interests, the mainstream media, the courts, the law societies, unions and other professional associations in terms of public policy. Policies are therefore formulated and implemented according to what the Liberal Party's supporters and cronies want rather than what's in the best interests of the country and of Canadians at large. Therefore, ordinary Canadians are effectively disenfranchised by the Liberal state apparatus, with its imperatives being power and money and the acquisition of more of both at any cost to ordinary Canadians, the unity of the federation, the economy, national security and so on...
The Liberal Party just might destroy Canada. How and when that happens is unpredictable. Could Liberal fascism lead to civil war? It's conceivable, after all, due to the extreme and ever-worsening corruption and incompetence of the Liberal regime.
Canadi-anna:
I was born in the seventies and the Maple Leaf is what I grew up with. It is this fact more than any other that makes me prefer our current flag over another.
The fact that, until today, I have never even seen a Red Ensign is probably a bad thing. This speaks more to a poor education in Canadian history, and is something that I'd want to see addressed in the curriculum. I don't even remember if we covered the adoption of the Maple Leaf, or if we did not much attention was devoted to the dissenters.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it's my understanding that the Maple Leaf (symbol, not flag) has been part of the Canadian identity since the mid-ninteenth century (coins in particular). The song "Maple Leaf Forever" was composed in the 1860's. I fail to see how the Red Ensign reflects Canada better than our current flag.
I will also have to disagree with you about Michaelle Jean not being a person of "substance". The woman's got a brain on her like nobody's business. Your post makes her sound as witless as Britney Spears, which she clearly is not.
"As for 'deconstruction' - the government has taken apart a series of institutions, bringing into question traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth."
In the Middle East the 6 day war brought into question the traditional assumptions and certainity, identity and truth and many a neon Con hopes the Iraq war will do the same. However, Deconstruction is a certain kind of reading which tends to focus on binary oppositions and textual hiearchies. It is not a historical byproduct.
There is one thing that I wanted to point out it. It is called the British North America Act for a reason. It is British. Canada has only become a truely soverign country in fits and starts. The patriotation of the Constitution was more or less the last step. All we need to do now is to get rid of the queen. (At least now the GG does not have to come from Britain.)
Stephen Look there is thing called evidence. One cites evidence in support of one's arguments. Last election's McGill media study is evidence that the print media has no such Liberal bias. On contary, if there is evidence at of any bias at all it is that the National Post and Calgary Herald are nothing more than Conservative press releases.
Koby said: "Last election's McGill media study is evidence that the print media has no such Liberal bias. On contary, if there is evidence at of any bias at all it is that the National Post and Calgary Herald are nothing more than Conservative press releases."
Oh, you need someone to tell you what to think, in this case, some people from a university. Yeah, that's evidence. Sure. Wow. It's unbelievable that you cannot see that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the print media is biased and leftist in the extreme. I guess you haven't learned to think for yourself.
As for the National Post being Conservative: don't be ridiculous. It's owned by Liberals and delights in making Conservatives look bad relative to Liberals.
Peg,
Ah yes, ahem, her credentials.
Let's see--she has a BA and MA, nothing really special there despite the furor about "multiple degrees." Most uni grads nowadays need at least a Masters before they're even seriously considered for employment.
She taught Italian studies, which likely means that she worked as a TA in some other professor's--I doubt that she would be allowed to teach classes without an MA at the minimum.
She worked at shelters, which is admirable, but was she a volunteer? A case worker? What specifically about this qualifies her to be Canada's head of state?
She "helped set up a network of shelters"--again admirable, but rather vague. Did she take a lead role in funding, proposals, organizing, or was she in charge of getting coffee for others?
And "award-winning", well...
"Michaëlle Jean has won numerous honours for her professional achievements, including: the Human Rights League of Canada’s 1989 Media Award for her report titled La pasionaria, on the struggle of an immigrant woman in Québec; the Prix Mireille-Lanctôt for her report titled Partir à zéro, dealing with spousal violence; the Prix Anik for best information reporting in Canada for her investigation of the power of money in Haitian society; the inaugural Amnesty International Canada Journalism Award; the Galaxi Award for best information host; the 2001 Gemini Award for best interview in any category; and the Conseil de la Langue Française du Québec’s Prix Raymond-Charette. Michaëlle Jean has also been named to the Ordre des Chevaliers de La Pléiade by the Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue française, and has been made a citizen of honour by the City of Montreal and the Ministère de l’Immigration et des relations avec les citoyens of Quebec in recognition of her accomplishments in communications."
Out of all of these, the only one that is not a "publicity" award conferred by an organization hosting an "award" to gain publicity, is the Gemini in 2001--and Lloyd Robertson has her beat several times over in that category. All the other awards are pretty meaningless and likely unknown to any Canadian on the street.
Sorry, her credentials are pretty insubstantial.
valiantmauz -- I too was born after the Red Ensign was consigned to the history books -- and I actually like the Maple Leaf. You're right; the maple leaf has been a symbol of Canada for a long time and is celebrated in coin, song etc. My point about the flag is simply how easily we toss out parts of our identity.
Koby says now that we have the constitution, all we have to do is get rid of the Queen -- and the day is coming that will happen. Some might say that will enable us to be a 'truly sovereign country' - but we already are even with the Queen. Keeping the monarchy and staying within the Commonwealth has less to do with keeping ties to the 'mother country' than it does to preserving our own heritage.
Why is it that we tell immigrants to keep their cultural identities when they come, but we are so afraid as a country to maintain our own?
As for Ms Jean, I actually liked her as a choice for GG at first. I always liked her from The Passionate Eye. I'm not questioning her credentials as in her education -- the substance and qualifications to which I was referring were not academic -- rather personal qualities such as loyalty to one's country or put more simply, patriotism.
It isn't a word we use a lot as Canadians, and perhaps we no longer expect it from our polititians -- but this is not someone who has been elected to public life -- this is someone who was selected to represente an institution it would seem she is not indifferent toward, but more likely finds objectionable.
In her husband's documentary, she appears to be expressing a view of the Quebecois as 'oppressed' -- if they are oppressed, it must be asked -- by whom?
The answer leads me to wonder not just about her loyalty to the crown (to which many Canadians are also apathetic) but also her opinion of the ROC.
Yeah Canadianna - me too. About Jean, I mean.
When I first saw the press conference, I was impressed by her articulation and apparent accomplishments.
I thought she would be at least as good a GG as Adrienne Clarkson - budget aside, Adrienne brought a higher profile to what is primarily a ceremonial post. We saw her more than we'd seen many of the previous GG's.
I know many conservatives objected to that profile (and the budget), but to me it made sense that the GG did a little more than hand out awards.
I am taking a wait-and-see stance on how she actually performs in the post.
And I am sincerely pissed off at the PMO for not even GOOGLING hs choice. Read Ms. Wente in today's Globe - that pretty much sums up what I think of these shenannigans.
And, once again, I find myself agreeing with another conservative - the monarchy is integral to Canada, and I think those who are agitating to sever Candada from the Commonweath are talking out of their nether orifices.
Why do such a thing? Does the monarchy cost us money? Does the Queen do anything but add to our Canadian-ness? I don't think so.
I am a proud Canadian. And a proud Canadian has a King or Queen.
Stephen,
Get some glasses, big guy. Listen to Noel, I don't have the time nor the will to sit here and explain absolutely every little detail to you. Seriously, this is too much.
Man, I'm really not going to list all of here duties and explain to you how her qualifications fit. No man, You figure that out yourself. I really don't care whether or not you understand this, since I really doubt you'll change your mind, and It's not my place to make you.
So I'll get right to the point....
Since she is already accepted as GG Designate, I think the burden falls on you to explain why she is a bad choice. So, Come smart guy, bring it on. Yeah, that’s a challenge.
But you want to know what, anonymous is right, what credential does the GG need?? They need to be a respected public figured accepted by a majority, which she is, case closed.
"The Liberals are without a doubt closely linked to special interests, the mainstream media, the courts, the law societies, unions and other professional associations in terms of public policy. Policies are therefore formulated and implemented according to what the Liberal Party's supporters and cronies want rather than what's in the best interests of the country and of Canadians at large"
WE ELECTED THEM!!! It turn that leads to the conclusion that they do indeed represent Canada. Get over it!!!.
You know what Stephen, I have been wrong, and I have admitted defeat I am only human after all. Perhaps you should practice what you preach, Slick.
Nicol, I'll take you silence as an apology.
Cannadiana,
It's not hatred I have for Canada's past, It's regret, and maybe a little shame.
As for the flag, It's all in the interpretation, We'll have to agree to disagree. But the fact is the Red Ensign signifies British rule, and I associate British rule with the atrocities commit under it.
But for someone who has such dislike of the Monarchy and the GG, I find it strange you want a flag that symbolizes it.
You're not going to try to tell me the Natives were treated better before the constitution, are you??
Anonymous,
Sorry, how many awards have you won?? Oh, I wouldn't know, you post anonymously.
"The monarchy is integral to Canada"
Do not be silly. Whether Canada is a monarchy or not will not mean a great deal. That said, the monarchy has always been a bone of contention inside Quebec and more importantly it is loathsome institution that is anti-theatrical to what modern day Canada stands for. Finally, talk about someone being unqualified, what the hell is QE ever done. She not even Canadian.
Peg Kid said: "They need to be a respected public figured accepted by a majority, which she is, case closed."
Case not closed, kiddo. What irrefutable, indubitable proof could you have seen to lead you to this conclusion? Come on; think for yourself rather than smugly, dogmatically believe you're right because you're left.
You also said: "WE ELECTED THEM!!! It turn that leads to the conclusion that they do indeed represent Canada. Get over it!!!."
I'm afraid that's not logical, nor is it true that the Liberals represent Canada. They represent themselves. How cannot you see that? What are you, fifteen?
Plus: "Since she is already accepted as GG Designate, I think the burden falls on you to explain why she is a bad choice. So, Come smart guy, bring it on. Yeah, that’s a challenge."
Oh, no-no-no, li'l'un. You're not allowed to make me chase you; against the rules. You're the one who has made positive claims as to directly relevant qualification on the part of Mme Jean. The burden of proof is on you. I'm the one asking for the justification for your claim. You cannot justify your position by suggesting that if I haven't proven you wrong, you therefore must be right. Doesn't work that way.
I must admit, I admire your chutzpah. You remind me of myself before I learned the hard, painful way to think for myself as I had no choice; it was a matter of get the truth or be a victim. I chose the difficult path, not the comfortable, socially recommended, popular, cool route. I hope someday you're forced to see the error of thinking what you're goaded to think by popular culture and by the corrupt, fascist Libranos and save yourself from the gulag of knee-jerk obedient, non-questioning intellectual acquiescence and servitude.
For those leftists who think Canada should shake off its true heritage and history, what with the Red Ensign, valor and victory in international combat against tyranny, etc., I say:
If Canada should be required to throw away its true identity based upon its history, then perhaps you, the left, should also require the same of immigrants? Would you require them, as a condition of residence, to abandon who they are and become like you, a bunch of artificial-culture Liberal-Dipper synchophants?
Stephen,
You're really not getting what I'm trying to say here are you.
K,
" Oh, no-no-no, li'l'un. You're not allowed to make me chase you; against the rules. You're the one who has made positive claims as to directly relevant qualification on the part of Mme Jean. The burden of proof is on you. I'm the one asking for the justification for your claim. You cannot justify your position by suggesting that if I haven't proven you wrong, you therefore must be right. Doesn't work that way."
What is this? You see, I feel I've presented my position, It's now time you to either present yours, or prove mine wrong. I'm not going to type this over and over again. you refuse to listen. Gimme a break.
What rules???? Who's rules are these, big man. Maybe in your world these rules may stick, but out here I'll be damned if I'm going to follow them. Who do you think you are anyway??
When I said;
"Man, I'm really not going to list all of her duties and explain to you how her qualifications fit. No man, You figure that out yourself. I really don't care whether or not you understand this, since I really doubt you'll change your mind, and It's not my place to make you."
I meant just that. As far as I'm concerned the case IS closed.
But I'm a sport. Before we talk about this again though, I want you to go and look up the duties of the governor general. I know what they are, I sincerely believe you don't.
You see Stephen, you assume everybody who voted liberal did so because they couldn't think for themselves, and you call me smug. It's very logical, It's called DEMOCRACY!! You chalk it up to pop culture, sorry bro that's just not the case.
HOWEVER, it would have been had the Conservatives won. Why? Have you checked the polls?
No the Liberals aren’t perfect, but they’re a million times better than the Cons. It's pretty easy to blame others for your problems ain't it, big guy?
"I hope someday you're forced to see the error of thinking."
Yeah, That happened when Mulroney was in office. Come on man, gimme something to work with.
I wonder when your day is going to be??
And Stephen, you haven't even had a taste of my chutzpah.
As for you last point, come on man, open your eyes. Read the comments!! No one here is going to do it for you.
k, enough.
What is it about the word "deconstruction?" Why does everyone and their mother use it without having the slightest clue what it means or where it comes from?
The seperatist background of the GG is a relevent concern. The rest of this is just hysteria.
Peg,
Sorry, how many awards have you won?? Oh, I wouldn't know, you post anonymously.
Ah, but I'm not up for the GG role, now am I?
Ms. Jean is. If she wants to pad her resume by listing a bunch of irrelevant awards in addition to her Gemini, then she and her supporters ought not to be surprised when someone calls her on the resume padding.
@koby
The monarchy has been part of Canada since it's inception. It has been part and parcel of our history for all this time, is entrenched in our parliamentary system, on our coinage - and for a lot of us that make the monarchy "integral" to the Canadian identity.
I think antithetical is what you meant, not anti-theatrical.
And I disagree with you completely. Point me to one nation where the government at some point in its history has not committed an "atrocity" - I don't think you'll find many.
Past mistakes are not a reason to make Canada culturally poorer. Removing ourselves from the Commonwealth would make us even less relevant to the world at large.
As for Quebec - give one example of an issue that IS NOT a bone of contention?
Well said Canadianna.
Despite the rhetoric of the visionless and grey, it is Canadians like you that will eventually save Canada from this path to oblivion.
From NDP NADINE...
"...it [the flag] didn't represent Canada then and especially now."
One has to find the irony rich of an NDP supporter stating what they feel does and doesn't represent Canada.
This is a party whose policies were thoroughly rejected by 85% of Canadians in the last election and a party who holds only 6.2% of the seats in parliament (19 of 308) and yet sold out principle by aggreeing to be bought off by the Librano$ in the last session of parliament.
"Yeah, the Liberals are corrupt," says Jack, "but as long as they grease our palms with some cash, we'll prop 'em up!"
I'm always bemused by the NDP types and how they claim to speak on behalf of Canadians.
"Point me to one nation where the government at some point in its history has not committed an "atrocity" - I don't think you'll find many."
I fail to see what this has to do with anything.
"I think antithetical is what you meant, not anti-theatrical."
Yep. Thanks.
Seriously though, what does the monarchy represent? Ascension through Merrit? An inclusive organization open to all? No the Monarchy is an institution based on bloodlines. Not withstanding the efforts of every English Monarch since Queen Victoria to transform the Monarchy's public image into something banel and cermonal, it is the last surving element of a bygone society built around the notion that one's moral worth, and so one's legal rights, should be defined by what estate one was born into.
@koby -
Sorry, I was arguing with 'peg there about 'atrocities', not you. I goofed.
Yes, the monarchy is a holdover from a very different past where bloodline counted higher than merit. This is undeniable.
That said, it is still OUR past and I think tossing it out as a mere anachronism of history is a silly idea. What else should we toss by the wayside? What vision of Canada will replace our current system?
It is not a simple as bye-bye queen; it involves a fundmental restructuring of our government that I hardly see as necessary.
Furthermore, I don't see the monarchy as actively "harming" our country - to the best of my knowledge, the Queen receives nothing from Canada in the way of taxes, except security costs when a member of the Royal Family visits. One could argue that such a visit enhances the economy of the city or town, due to increased tourist dollars.
I'd be interested to see a study on the cost/benefit of retaining the monarchy vs abolishing it, because I could be absolutely wrong here.
Anna: Most if not all of the deconstruction you cite is a matter to a federal government acting outside either its mandate or its constitutional jurisdiction or by openly breaking constitutional/parliamentary or legal convention.
The problem is that no one challenged them effectively...not a government not a group of citizens or even a lobby made of concerned citizens. Everyone took the word of the des or their political appointees on the courts as the last say. Now we are a nation that is inherent of the civil liberties enumerated by Blackstone as the right of all citizens of British heritage.
One of those civil right is the right to ignore and oppose any government which acts unconstitutionally....and many charter/constitutional experts have admitted the courts and the government act unconstitutionally.
Its a crisis of citizenship more than anything....can you imagine what Brits or Austrailians ot Americans would do if a government acted unconstitutionally and thaen had their puppets on the courts rubber stamp the breech?
There would be civil disobedience or general strikes or tax revolts...these people would not stand for unconstitutional breeches in convention....not even if some flaky kangaroo court rubber stamps it.
Canadians have orchestrated the deconstruction of their conventions by failing to take seriously their duty to defend them from corrupt ultra vires governments and partisan courts if need be. The heritage of Canadian deferrence to government has been used against us. We were a people who trusted government and deferred to its authority,,,this trait has been exploited by some very disengenuous federal regimes in passing legislative agendas that are not constitutionally or civilly sound in a conventional sense.
The words in the anthem say we are to "stand on guard". These days Canada has more enemies focused on degenerating its freedom and democracy in government than it does outside its borders.
@npdnadine -
and?
I am a liberal (small l) and I recognize that our history is not spotless, but I refuse to be one of those leftwingers that dwell on the faults of our past to the point where I am ashamed to call myself Canadian.
I am not ashamed, nor do I subscribe to the idea that Canada is a shining beacon of tolerance and integrity and purity to the rest of the world.
Our association with and roots in Britain are not without their black marks, but they are STILL our roots.
We lefties advocate our immgrants' retention of their culture within the Canadian framework, but not our own?
Canadian identity owes as much to the WASP's in its citizenry as it does to the people of every other background who have chosen to make this country their home.
We can defend sharia law in Ontario, but not the crown?
Sorry, but that's nuts.
And sincerely, dispensing with the monarchy will do sweet-expletive-deleted all to expunge our past errors.
edited for spelling errors
Getting rid of the monarchy would require some complex gymnastics. However, it would not require a reordering of government. Just cut away the ceremonial fat. Get rid of the GG, the LGs and Bob’s your uncle.
Canada has always recognized the monarchy and so always should? This is bad argument. Some traditions are worth keeping. This one is not.
As for Sharia Law, look the problem is this. Catholics and Jews have been given certain rights under Ontario provincial law and some Muslims want to have these same rights. Put this way they have a case.
However, there is a simple solution. Do not give any religious grouping the ability to shape civil law.
@koby -
So far, I've seen no argument why giving up the monarchy would be a positive benefit to Canada.
Not one.
All I've heard is that the monarchy (more particularly the British government) has done bad things in the past, and that the succession is based on bloodline, not merit.
That's it and that's all.
Tell me how removing the monarchy ADDS something to Canada rather than taking something away. Tell me how removing the monarchy would add to our cultural fabric, make us a stronger and better nation.
I feel obliged to point out that common-law marriage, as the name implies, is the most ancient form of marriage recognized in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition which is the common cultural heritage of Canada and the U.S., and older than Christianity.
Hardly, then, a modern Liberal innovation.
I'm also not clear on what is "traditional" about a single wage-earner family.
Two hundred years ago, most Canadians had almost no cash income, and lived mainly by hunting, farming and bartering with the neighbors. Every adult in the household worked (and usually there were more than just two), and so did the kids.
In addition to these, there were a small number of wealthy families where both Pater and Mater had assets which they brought to the marriage (after shrewd negotiations by their respective parents). They also did not live in two-parent nuclear families, but instead shared a large house with elderly relatives, bachelor cousins, servants, retainers, &c.
There is nothing "traditional" about a one-income nuclear family. It existed for a minority of people for a brief period of time in a few of the wealthiest countries.
valiantmauz, W.L. Mackenzie Redux, Stephen -- as usual, I agree.
Nadine -- your simplistic view of history reads like you did a google search for 'all things bad and British'.
Britain and nations settled/colonized by Britain are unparalelled in their consistant recognition of their own historic wrongs, and attempts to address those wrongs.
Nations colonized by Britain are also the most pluralistic, democratic and inclusive nations in the world. Their human rights records compare favourably with all other nations. Their traditions of order and accountable governance are the longest lasting of the modern world.
Slam Britain all you like, slam Canada all you like -- but yours is the typical myopic view of the world that judges historic events with 20th/21st century sensibilities.
Peg - I don't know if you were talking to me when you said: But for someone who has such dislike of the Monarchy and the GG, I find it strange you want a flag that symbolizes it.
This is simply not accurate, nor is it based on anything I've written. Nothing I've said would translate into a dislike for the monarchy or the GG. I don't even dislike the GG designate -- I just don't think she fits the role.
Mike -- read the comments section; I've already covered this.
Not only do I have a clue, it was used properly.
Koby seemed to think I meant 'destroy' -- but I actually meant 'take apart' 'dismantle' -- thereby challenging the certainty, identity, and truth of a text --which is exactly what 'deconstruct' means.
Is there now a law that the English language is static, and because 'deconstruct' applies to literature, that it cannot also apply to legislation (also text) or to institutions because we can only use language in its exact dictionary context?
Canada is changing I've been told -- get used to it. Well, the English language is ever evolving -- using a word where its intent can be inferred by it's context, while not changing the substance of its original meaning is hardly radical, nor is it a sign of ignorance. It's called literary license, and it is how the language continues to be a living language.
That's how gay stopped meaning only 'happy'.
misterniceguy1960 -- while your points are technically accurate, they add nothing to the argument. Common law marriage of history and our current version are two different things. Comparing them in this context is absurd.
As for 'traditional one-income families' -- I meant for traditional to be a modifier for 'families', not 'one-income' -- I should have reversed the two, but again, put in context -- for a generation or more the norm was at least one stay at home parent -- even now in Canada, despite what government would have you believe, that is still more common than not (check out the left-leaning Vanier Institute for corroboration) - and given that is what most parents would prefer (at least during the tender years) it would make sense that we tried to legislate to accomodate that ideal, rather than penalize single-income families financially.
Peg said: "...Who's rules are these, big man."
It's basic common sense that when one makes a claim without explaining how some random, though loosely related, facts provided along with the claim logically prove one's point and then is asked to demonstrate that logic but refuses, instead demanding: "Prove me wrong; otherwise my claim plus these irrelevant facts I regurgitated will stand as absolute truth", one is not going to win any argument with this attitude. I hope this isn't too hard for you to understand.
You offered the following: "Read them again and explain to me how she's not qualified for this position. I would have thought her being an award winning journalist, filmmaker, and broadcaster, having set up battered woman shelters across Canada, Worked with immigrants to help them enter the country, speaks six languages and holds several degrees enough."
These are admittedly impressive qualifications. They certainly make the reader mentally paint a picture of someone who, according to the vague facts, may be a model citizen. But lots and lots of Canadians have similar resumes. She has two bachelor degrees, not several, btw, as someone else pointed out. Still, you do not logically connect these things to apparent fitness for the various challenges of representing the nation on the world stage and keeping the government on a leash, which includes, constitutionally, the ability to understand complex, critically important situations and making monumental decisions which affect the future of the country. You have failed to demonstrate how any of these things give her this ability.
Peg said also: ""Man, I'm really not going to list all of her duties and explain to you how her qualifications fit. No man, You figure that out yourself.""
Hey? Don't you recall my original question, which was: "But would you please point out for us precisely which of them are directly germane to the specific core functions of the position?"? You have refused. You, like your moonie brethren, arrogantly look down over your pretentious expensive glasses at all who question your dogmatic claims and suggest we are imbeciles. Typical leftist elitist attitude.
But, hey, there's no law against making unfounded claims and belittling all who question your logic. This is a key failing of most leftist moonbats, one of whom you are making yourself.
Good night. Make sure Mommy tucks you in tight with Teddy, for the boogeyman Paul Martin cackles gleefully as he plots to get you...
Look, I think we can agree that in terms of day to impact on Canadians a decision one way or the other would not have much of an impact. That said, dumping the monarchy would be symbolically important in two ways. One it would affirm our national independence. Two, it would affirm in principle what Canada already affirms in practice, viz., that Canada rejects propositions, mentioned before, that make the monarchy a possibility.
Now for the old flag, there is nothing inherently wrong with the old flag and pace NDP Nadine the flag would have come to represent the new Canada had we kept it. What bothers me about some Conservatives preferring the old flag to the new, other than the fact that the new one is just nicer looking, is that as an old flag it represents Canada, warts and all, as it was.
I reject out of hand the implicitly made notion that Canada was a better country then than it is now and quite frankly so do the vast majority of Canadians.
@koby -
I haven't ever said Canada was a better place at some indeterminate point in the past.
This is one fundamental diagreement I have with conservatism - conservative arguments always seem to harken back to some mythical point in the past where things were "better", and that we have "fallen" from this point.
I challenge any person to point to a time when society was empirically "better". That is measure employment, health, education, crime levels, life expectancy, peace, freedom, equality, infant mortality etc. Maybe I am an optimist, but it strikes me that all these measurements are incrementally "better" in 2005 than they were 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago, at least in Canada.
There are exceptions for particular groups, of course, but in general we are healthier, more educated, live longer and have a higher quality of life than we did at any time in the past.
Funny thing - these things are all "better" despite retaining our historical baggage/traditions.
A rejection of the monarchy is indeed a symbol - and not in a way I could support. Yes, it's a rejection of what is essentially privilege and neoptism, but it is ALSO a rejection of the contributions and values and history of a still-significant portion of our population.
As I said, please - if you want to convince me - give me a listing of the concrete benefits of eliminating the monarchy.
Peg claimed I said: ""I hope someday you're forced to see the error of thinking.""
Whoa, kid! You broke off the rest of that passage with a period so as to make it look as if I said thinking is an error. Read the rest of it: "...what you're goaded to think by popular culture and by the corrupt, fascist Libranos and save yourself from the gulag of knee-jerk obedient, non-questioning intellectual acquiescence and servitude."
You claim the Liberals are a "million times" better than the Conservatives? Hear that, folks? The kid must be a Liberal syncophant. Amazing today, after all the proof of criminality and the rise of separatism, not to mention the apparent lack of national security from terrorism and from attack by rogue, militarily superior nations such as China and North Korea. A million times better. Yeah, sure, kid.
Koby, if you think Canada is an independent nation, then why does it base its foreign policy upon what the terrorist-and-tyrant-dominated United Nations declares? Why does Canada worry so much about what Osama Bin Laden and left wing extremists say? Why does Canada fear angering China?
The answer is that the Liberals make it so that Canada is NOT an independent country. They want to appoint a French citizen and Quebec separatist as head of state and sever historic ties to England, which gave us so much of who we are, for example, our system of government, now being deconstructed by the Liberals, all to fool Canadians into believing they're making Canada more independent, which is a distraction from the actual deconstruction of independence. What next, will they deconstruct the Parliament buildings to prove independence?
You said also: "I reject out of hand the implicitly made notion that Canada was a better country then than it is now and quite frankly so do the vast majority of Canadians."
So you claim to speak for the majority? You're free to believe whatever you wish. But how do you explain why it's so damn hard for people with higher education, experience and a good, positive attitude to get ahead in this country, particularly in the Maritimes, which used to be way better off before the advent of Liberal National Socialism? It's not all about fish and lobster, believe me. There's no reason for the Maritimes to be so far behind the rest of the nation, except for Liberal economic policy, which has distorted the economy here so badly it's going to take a long time to recover. Trust me, I'm a Maritimer with a degree in business and extensive study in economics. The Maritimes, btw, are only the tip of the massive iceberg. You personally must be one of the fortunate few to have lucked out and are making a damn fine income and therefore believe the "land is strong". Think of other people if that's the reality, okay?
I challenge you to give me some concerte benifits of keeping the monarchy.
The flag bit was in response to Canadianna by the way. She brought up the flag in her post.
"Yes, it's a rejection of what is essentially privilege and neoptism, but it is ALSO a rejection of the contributions and values and history of a still-significant portion of our population."
Come again? We should leave well enough alone until the older generations that truely value it go into that good night? The same argument presumably applied to the flag back in the 1960s. Anyway, what you are suggesting is a poor tribute indeed. My grandfather was a staunch monarchist who just so happened to bare a uncanny resemblance to prince Philip. He would role over in his grave if he thought for one second that I was not standing up for what I believed in deferene to what he believed. I dare say, among his generation, he would not be alone in holding such an opinion.
"Liberal National Socialism"
ok then
Anna, what *is* the difference between historical and modern "common-law marriage" in Canada?
As for two-parent/one-wage-earner families being "traditional . . . for a generation or more", by that standard legal abortion and the Maple Leaf flag are "traditions" that "traditionalists" should defend.
I'm afraid I'm too conservative to be satisfied by your definition of tradition.
Oops, Koby, I meant to write, "Liberal national socialism". I was in error to capitalize the n and s, thus making you think I was kidding. I wasn't. Ok, then.
@koby -
"[rejecting the monarchy] is ALSO a rejection of the contributions and values and history of a still-significant portion of our population."
Reason one: rejecting the monarchy sends a big screw-you message to a large portion of the population for no better reason than that the monarchy is anachronistic. Go ahead, alienate yet ANOTHER group of Canadians. It's not like we have a handle on Quebec and Alberta or anything.
Reason two: like it or not, one thing that differentiates Canada from the US is the monarchy. Who would you like to see in place of the Queen as titular head of State? A president? The Prime Minister? The day that Canadians venerate the PM the way Americans venerate the office of President is the day I open a vein.
Reason three: rejecting the monarchy does not substantively change Canada for the better. You've said yourself that it would not substantively change day-to-day life for most Canadians.
Reason four: (and you repeatedly fail to get this point) look at Europe. What makes a German a German, a Frenchman a Frenchman, a Spaniard a Spaniard, and an Englishman an Englishman? I'll tell you: language AND history. Language alone does not make the nation. History counts. That history may not appeal to 21st sensibilities, but history has made us what we are. As hard as you try to revise history, Canada as it is now was founded on the backs of Britain and France.
And please, don't tell me that First Nations people were trampled in the process - I know.
Reason five: the cost. Sure, get rid of the GG and the LG's. While you're at it, redesign and redistribute all our coinage, and rewrite many of our laws. Go though yet another constitutional rewrite/repatriation/rewhatever. Appease Quebec in the process, because any person with sense KNOWS that Quebec would seize the opportunity to foment yet another constitutional crisis.
”Reason one: rejecting the monarchy sends a big screw-you message to a large portion of the population for no better reason than that the monarchy is anachronistic. Go ahead, alienate yet ANOTHER group of Canadians. It's not like we have a handle on Quebec and Alberta or anything.”
Honor your elders by pandering to their beliefs. I am glad to see you think that these generations are made of such firm stuff.
“Reason two: like it or not, one thing that differentiates Canada from the US is the monarchy. Who would you like to see in place of the Queen as titular head of State? A president? The Prime Minister?”
And from France …. The PM is already the de facto head of state. All that would be missing is the ceremonial disguise.
“The day that Canadians venerate the PM the way Americans venerate the office of President is the day I open a vein.”
I second you. However, to say that a sea change in attitude towards the position of PM will take place because of the Queen being dumped strikes me as a very strange argument.
“Reason four: (and you repeatedly fail to get this point) look at Europe. What makes a German a German, a Frenchman a Frenchman, a Spaniard a Spaniard, and an Englishman an Englishman? I'll tell you: language AND history. Language alone does not make the nation. History counts. That history may not appeal to 21st sensibilities, but history has made us what we are. As hard as you try to revise history, Canada as it is now was founded on the backs of Britain and France.”
What makes a Canadian a Canadian? Birth or naturalization. History does count, but history is not an argument for anything. Look, I am saying get rid of the Monarchy. I am not saying stop teaching Canadian history in school. So, come back in out of left field.
”Reason five: the cost. Sure, get rid of the GG and the LG's. While you're at it, redesign and redistribute all our coinage, and rewrite many of our laws. Go though yet another constitutional rewrite/repatriation/rewhatever."
Is this a burning priority that should be done tomorrow? No. Canada should look to make this change when QE kicks off. According to what I have heard this would be the most pain free time of doing it.
“Appease Quebec in the process, because any person with sense KNOWS that Quebec would seize the opportunity to foment yet another constitutional crisis.”
Come again? As for appeasement, it should be obvious from talking to me that a desire to appease Quebec is hardly what motivates my opposition to the monarchy. I only mentioned it because it is icing on the cake. In a way it is similar to what I have argued with regard to the Iraq war. I was never in favor of Canada joining the coalition of the willing. However, that fact that joining would have led to an upsurge in separatism in Quebec was yet another reason to stay out.
@koby
I swear your're going to turn me conservative.
You just don't listen, do you? Since when is respect and consideration for different values "pandering"?
"Honor your elders by pandering to their beliefs. I am glad to see you think that these generations are made of such firm stuff. "
It has nothing to do with "elders", and that is exactly the attitude that makes us lefties look like smug twits.
I am a half-Brit. I was born here in the seventies. I am no "elder", and nor is the majority of my family. And how is respecting second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth generation Anglos pandering?
You seem to be salivating over the day when the Anglo bit of our population and history is only a footnote.
misterniceguy1960 - common law marriages of old were real marriages -- their desolution required a divorce, so they could not be entered into lightly.
In Canada, living with a partner for a year makes them 'common law spouses'. The ease with which common law relationships are entered and exited is the most obvious difference.
And in your next statement:
As for two-parent/one-wage-earner families being "traditional . . . for a generation or more", by that standard legal abortion and the Maple Leaf flag are "traditions" that "traditionalists" should defend.
The omitted words are significant to the point and your omitting them changes the meaning of what I said entirely. Here's the quote: As for 'traditional one-income families' -- I meant for traditional to be a modifier for 'families', not 'one-income' -- I should have reversed the two, but again, put in context -- for a generation or more the norm was at least one stay at home parent --
If you read it with what you omitted, you would realise that if tradition was the modifier of families, that when I go on to talk of one-income families, and say: it would make sense that we tried to legislate to accomodate that ideal, rather than penalize single-income families financially I am not talking about 'tradition', but a couple of generations in our recent history who had the benefit of a stay at home parent -- and legislating toward that model. Tradition, if you'll recall, was not the modifier of the single income.
As for the tradition of the Maple Leaf -- I've dealt with that. It is my flag, and my post did not suggest discarding it, but suggested that the discarding of the Red Ensign was without purpose.
And why on earth would you bring abortion into this? That's a non sequitur, and has no place in a debate on traditions.
For the record, a flag flown upside down is a DISTRESS SIGNAL. Upon googling just now, I found that to the IRISH (who have significant issues with Britain and the Crown, as we all likely know) it is also considered a sign of disrespect.
The flag is flown upside down on my site & as my picture as a DISTRESS signal, not as a sign of disrespect.
see http://tinyurl.com/4p9me
As for "current" vs. "historical" common-law, note that the laws in Canada ALSO made common-law spouses eligible for benefits (as provided by employers) but did not recognize them as "next of kin" (which apparently is defined by provinces, I've discovered from a personal perspective, likely since provinces dictate what marriages they will perform and/or recognize).
As for the flag, while I was born under the Red Ensign (1960), the Maple Leaf became our flag when I was a child and, frankly, I had to google it. Personally, I'm okay with the maple leaf, it's not the end of the world to me.
WRT the Gov Gen, she DOES have powers, she (or he, as the case may be) just doesn't usually exercise them.
Who was it that said the SPEAKER dissolves Parliament? Only when it's on a break or being prorogued, NOT for an election (unless, perhaps, the writ was dropped by the gov't? anyone know?). In the case of NON-CONFIDENCE votes, it is the GG that makes the call. With the Liberals having posted the GG's accepting statement (see http://tinyurl.com/b7wf9) I think we can all take a good guess at what may happen in the short-term (now that Mr. Cadman's seat is empty, are we not back at LOVE-LOVE, to steal a tennis term?)
To the "Ditch the Monarchy" crowd - right, let's ditch the monarchy because the Quebecois, 200+ years later, are still pissed that they lost the war? They represent what, 15% or so of the Canadian population? Where is the logic in that?
Alberta separatism did not rise out of a single government policy, but from a groundswell of indignation, anger and bitterness over 100 years of crap dealt by central Canada. That being said, if a poll were to be taken in Alberta about whether or not the monarchy is important, my guess (totally unscientific) is that easily 75-80% would vote for retaining it. In fact, the separtist movement is struggling with that very idea, as ditching the monarchy as a plank in the platform would undermine support...
Do I hate Canada? No, I hate what the consistent Liberal (and trust me, Mulrooney was a Lib dressed up as a PC, and STILL Chretien and Martin can make him look good) governments over the past 30 or so years have DONE to the country. We no longer have anything we stand for (don't give me the "peacekeeper" line of crap - Smokey and his brethren were no peacekeepers - it was THEIR blood and THEIR courage that put us on the world stage in the first place).
hmm, it took so long to read all the new comments, I've forgotten what else I wanted to argue...
You just don't listen, do you? Since when is respect and consideration for different values "pandering"?
“but it is ALSO a rejection of the contributions and values and history of a still-significant portion of our population."
The rejection of the monarchy could only possibly be seen as a rejection of the contributions and values of an older generation. The monarchy means nothing at all to younger generations of Canadians and so can not possibly be a rejection of what these generations have accomplished. As you said yourself, the monarchy means less and less to Canadians, but STILL means a lot to many of them.
”It has nothing to do with "elders", and that is exactly the attitude that makes us lefties look like smug twits.”
In so much as your rejection of the monarchy = the rejection of values and contributions of a group of Canadians means anything at all it has everything to do with elders. What is smug, by the way, is your belief that a ceremonial institution is so important to a group of Canadians and their constitution so fragile that dumping of it would cause them to feel alienated from modern day Canada.
”I am no ‘elder’”
I guessed at that. That is why I talked about your elders.
“You seem to be salivating over the day when the Anglo bit of our population and history is only a footnote.”
The rejection of the monarchy == a rejection of Anglo Canadian history? I bold thesis, but a totally untenable one.
“I am a half-Brit.”
That is nice. I lived in Surrey England as kid. Nice place.
“We no longer have anything we stand for.”
Whatever is Canada does not stand for, more and more Canadians are identifying with it.
What by the way did “we” once stand for Candace?
"Mulroney was a Lib dressed up as a PC." Oh I see the ideological continuity between Mulroney and Trudeau now. Judging by your use of the word "Liberal", it means nothing more than something Canadace does not like it.
"That being said, if a poll were to be taken in Alberta about whether or not the monarchy is important, my guess (totally unscientific) is that easily 75-80% would vote for retaining it."
The scientific polls show something different. According to a 1996 poll about 45% of those living on the prairies supported the monarchy vs 40% who wanted to see Canada become a Republic. Nationally about 38% did vs 50%.
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/monarchy.html
Valiantmauz declared: "I swear your're going to turn me conservative."
If that eventually happens, Valiant, I assure you you'll be welcomed with open arms. I was once in your position and just this week received my first Conservative membership card, which I laminated just yesterday.
Keep arguing with lefties and you'll begin to see the error of their ways. We Conservatives will be waiting for your renaissance. Just keep an open mind and be honest with yourself and sovereignty of mind will carry you towards salvation.
I cannot for the life of me even beign to apprehend why in the world the lefties have such a philia for the abolition of the Monarchic ties which are a part of Canada's true identity.
It's wholly unnecessary to destroy Canada and reengineer it into a liberal-socialist fascist utopia requiring everyone to think and behave in specific manners or else get in big trouble. I thought the left was supposed to be opposed to ALL forms of fascism? Well, then, I guess they really never were. I guess they are the real fascists. The irrefutable evidence of recent history with liberalism is all we need to look at to realize that.
Anna, I'm picking at your use of "deconstruction" for a reason. Deconstruction has become this boogeyman word used by conservatives. Tt's like you whisper to your children at night, "be good or the leftists will deconstruct everything you hold dear!"
You used the word "deconstruction" not because it properly denotes the ideas you are driving at, but rather because it carries the connotation of a certain anarchic, political, leftist activity.
And let's be clear, your original post does not describe acts of deconstruction - at least not in any way recognizable to people who have actually read Writing and Difference. For crying out loud, the theory didn't even exist when the maple leaf flag was adopted.
As for "Canada's heritage," that phrase can only ever refer to the culture of a particular socio-economic group, located in a (very limited) particular place and time. Because, like every other human society in history, Canada is in a constant state of change.
Mike, this "constant state of change" is actually a leftist euphemism for what really amounts to deconstruction. Yes, yes, yes. You can disagree, that's ok, but I'm telling you that the Liberals are dismantling everything. Yes. The constitutional rights we've come to take for granted since 1867, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, association, the right to own private property, the right of democracy, due process of law, security of the person, and on and on... the Charter of Rights, while perhaps based on good intentions, actually opened the door to the deconstruction of the BNA act, upon which Canada was actually founded (NOT the Charter!).
You must like that, don't you? You and your leftist brethren do indeed sound as if you're defending what you cannot so far see as the end of Canada as we've known it until recently. Your extreme end of the theoretical spectrum aims, without a doubt, to replace Canada with something ultimately entirely different, some sort of extreme socialist fascist utopia where everyone can go about life without using their brains and without having to work, being able to fornicate in whatever bizarre manner wherever and whenever they want, all to distract them from the fact that they no longer have any real rights or freedoms and the fact that they live under a one-party state. Drugs will become legal and available free from the state to dull the IQ and prevent folks from ever questioning any of the dictates of Big Brother.
It's conceivable. Such similar regimes do actually exist today, although different... don't you see them? They're right before your eyes.
Hi anna- interesting stuff going here..oh..and BTW..you've been tagged...see my site for the gruesome details..again..Excellent subject you got going here
Steve, thanks for my daily dose of ridiculously paranoid ranting.
Well, Mike, if I cannot shake you loose from the clutches of the ridiculously paranoid left, at least I can entertain you to help take away the misery you experience by letting the left tell you what to think...
Just messing with you. Have a good one.
Stephen,
Your a real piece of work!! There really aren't many like you are there?? What a hypocrite!!
You just don't give up do you?? and this is the guy who told me I couldn't accept defeat!
K, I’m done playing, here it is friend, obviously your not willing or capable to put two and two together, so yes, I will do it for you.
The following is a list of the GG duties, for the GG site, so unless you want to pick a fight with them to, you just going to have to accept this.
- Representing the Crown in Canada
- Promoting Canadian Sovereignty
- Celebrating Excellence
- Encouraging National Identity, National Unity and Moral Leadership
That make sense to you sweetie?? I don't want to overwhelm you now.
- Representing the Crown in Canada
The most important responsibility is to ensure Canada always has a Prime Minister, which means dissolving house and calling an election when there isn’t a PM, (i.e. end of term) .
This is not a very difficult job and done mainly by the advice of her ministers. In my opinion and yes, only in my opinion, the several documentaries she did regarding politics gives her enough insight and political savvy to handle this position. Is this point within your grasp?? Ok, then I'll move on.
- Promoting Canadian Sovereignty
Ok, Stephen, this one's tricky. Your going to have to read carefully, slow down if you need to. You can read it more than once or get a parent to help you if you can't figure it out.
Despite what Martin says, I believe MJ was chosen for her Quebec and separatist ties. This makes her a perfect candidate to represent Quebec in Canada, Hence a perfect candidate to promote sovereignty, especially in Quebec.
- Celebrating Excellence
This basically means presenting awards. I think even you could do this, Stephen.
- Encouraging National Identity, National Unity and Moral Leadership
This is basically participating in community events, visits hospitals and schools, celebrating with Canadians at fairs and festivals.
All she has to do is show up, and In my opinion her credentials only add to her reputation.
You got all that big guy?? Can you work with it??
Now for the other stuff,
An argument needs two side genius, that is how an argument works. Got that? You refused to represent your stance in greater terms than "I don't like the GG". Perhaps anything else is beyond your capability. In which case, pull your head out of your ass or just stop talking. I eat punks like you for breakfast.
In addition to asking you to re-read her credentials, I also asked you to read her responsibilities, something you did not do, otherwise all this probably would have clicked. You just end up making yourself look stupid when you fire your mouth off without doing any reading, or even research into your subject. You should try it sometime, you might learn something.
One thing I'm not is arrogant. If anything I've given you more credit than you deserve.
You like to fight, don't you Stephen?? You don't have many friends do you??
Are you suggesting we build nukes?? BRILLIANT IDEA!! Let's start an arms race. Instead of making peace with countries, you would rather cart of are soldiers to die in the field!! I'll tell you something Stephen, what chance do you think a country of 30,000,000 people stand up to one with 1,306,000,000, hmmm.
See, as a liberal thinker who would rather not go to war, I think it would be in our best interest to keep tensions with such countries to a minimum, and perhaps even become allies through trade and diplomacy. But just for fun, lets see, China’s military is roughly 2,300,000 strong. North Korea’s is about 1,080,000 strong, not to mention the 4,700,000 soldiers in reserve. This compared to Canada’s 35,000, including reserve.
Stephen, I'm sorry but your an absolute fool to think Canada will ever be close to having a military superiority over China or N.K. Hence pumping dollars to the military for this purpose would be an absolute waste. Should China or N.K. decide to attack, we wouldn’t stand a chance.
Just out of curiosity, How much do you think it will cost for us to build our army to this size?
HA! HA! HA! HA! You call the left paranoid?!??! Man I am pissing my pants laughing!!! This from a guy who's afraid of the imminent Chinese attack =)!! You really crack me up!!
I'm not even sure If I should have been taking you seriously this whole time, you make it really, really hard.
Anyway, it's been fun!!
Anonymous,
I'm not quite sure if your trying to suggest if there is someone better or if you just don't like the GG designate, or either really. Who would you suggest as a better candidate?
The Plumber,
Maybe you’ve miss understood me, but I never suggested that we forget our past, I just don’t feel we should glorify it. However, since Canada has absolutely no plans of going back to the Union Jack, and I doubt they ever will, this is a moot point.
Candace,
It was me who said the GG doesn’t dissolve house. Your right, they do have the power to, they just don’t usually use it, my mistake.
Your also right about Quebec, they should just accept the fact that they lost the war and are now part of Canada. However, the importance in keeping Quebec lies in the fact that if they seperated, they would;
a) most likely start a conflict with the Aboriginals up north who do want to stay with Canada, and who happen to own all the land where Quebec’s dams are built.
b) Isolate the eastern provinces, some of which have made vocal the fact that should Quebec separate, they too would do so, as they would now have a country between them and the capitol.
But Candace, give me a break. Mulroney was full blow PC. He stood for everything the Cons stand for. He too brought Quebec to the brink of separation.
Also, Candace, I think it’s rather ridiculous to compare the modern day world politics to those of the WWII era. We’re not facing the threat of world domination, we don’t need to arm like we are.
Nadine, I think you just contradicted yourself.
To Steve:
"See, as a liberal thinker who would rather not go to war, I think it would be in our best interest to keep tensions with such countries to a minimum, and perhaps even become allies through trade and diplomacy. But just for fun, lets see, China’s military is roughly 2,300,000 strong. North Korea’s is about 1,080,000 strong, not to mention the 4,700,000 soldiers in reserve. This compared to Canada’s 35,000, including reserve.
Stephen, I'm sorry but your an absolute fool to think Canada will ever be close to having a military superiority over China or N.K. Hence pumping dollars to the military for this purpose would be an absolute waste. Should China or N.K. decide to attack, we wouldn’t stand a chance."
To me:
"Also, Candace, I think it’s rather ridiculous to compare the modern day world politics to those of the WWII era. We’re not facing the threat of world domination, we don’t need to arm like we are."
On a somewhat related topic, China already thinks it can tell us what to do. The Ambassador was on Question Period stating that they wanted all discussion in the house on a member's private bill regarding, I think (I can't recall off the top of my head) human rights or the Fulon Gong (sp?) being respected as a condition of continued trade. They wanted our Parliament to kill it dead.
Who the hell do they think they are? Sadly, PMPM seems willing to do their bidding.
They've invested in AB tarsands companies, but the US have invested more.
I doubt the next war (WW III) will be with weapons - it will be a trade war, and the first shots have been fired. We are obviously on different sides of the fence here, Nadine, but I'd rather side with the US than China, any day.
Tianamen Square wouldn't happen in the US. I'm not so sure anymore about Canada. Time will tell.
Candace,
Your right about the Fulan Gong, the treatment of them by the Chinese is deplorable.
But you have to ask yourself this, How much worse is that than the detention without charge of those at Guantanamo Bay, or the invasion of Iraq in defiance of the UN (an organization they help create) based on doctored evidence and lies?
The States saw something they wanted, and they took it. What do you think is going to happen when they see something of ours they want which we won’t give? They are devastating two of our major industries right now in defiance of NAFTA.
The Americans haven't been so nice to us in recent years and there is obviously a great deal we don’t agree on.
Also keep in mind the plethora of American allies accused of human right violations.
The Chinese are no saints, but neither are the Americans.
As far as the upside down flag, Canada is one of the top countries in regards to standard of living in the world, I have a hard time figuring out how we are in a state of distress.
Candace, you misunderstood me on the issue of military strength comparison between Canada and China/NK.
I agree with you that we wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against those tyrannies. They could take over our land even before the Americans could scramble enough force to defend us.
However, I do believe that we SHOULD definitely begin rebuilding our Armed Forces into a truly world-class, world-war-ready force. No need to think I'm a fool. I can be forgiving of people's honest mistakes, so I won't flame you.
My conservative creds are undeniable. Please, if you wish, read my writings here and on Small Dead Animals.
Wait a minute, Candace. It looks like you mistook someone else's writing for mine. I really had trouble understanding where you were coming from and going there. Ah, yes, the quotation you made came from the 25-year-old Peg "Kid".
I think perhaps there's some mistake made here?
No biggie. Yesterday I made a little faux pas on SDA re the phony CBC headline.
Oops, Candace, I seem to have made another faux pas. That's 'cause I'm getting ready for work.
I don't understand what you were trying to say there. Could you help me out? I seem to be having brain farts all over the place since yesterday.
And to the "Kid": I have humility and modesty where required. You could learn to be like that.
Oh, wait. I finally noticed the placement of the quotation marks around the stuff you cited and then responded to.
I don't know what's the matter with me today :-)
BTW, to the lefties: it would be a grave error to underestimate me just because I'm not perfect. You lefties certainly are not, after all. :-)
One more post for this thread for me, then I'll await the next issue.
This issue has been discussed to death already.
Time to put it to rest as there's no use beating this dead horse any longer; we're beginning to stray too far off topic.
To Peg kid: I accept that you have your beliefs wrt the issue at hand and will no longer ask you to make a logical justification. I'm not getting one anyway. You have your position and I have mine.
Stephen man, I went to all the trouble of spelling out my position word for word and you didn't even bother to read it. You have yet to presented an argument.
But your right, this is getting old and off topic and I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
FYI, here is some evidence of Mme Jean's unfitness for the GG post:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/pritchard082305.htm
The link will give the reader doubt about Mme Jean in that it is apparent she's biased against the military. This is unacceptable as she'll be the Forces' Commander-in-Chief.
With all these doubts, what with apparent lack of demonstrated direct qualification, separatist sentiment, and now an anti-military bias, how can a reasonable person possibly say she's nevertheless still the best person for the job? Come on! Canadians cannot have a Vice Regal they don't trust!
There should be a .htm after the number 82305 in the url I provided. Sorry about that. It's the blog application's fault. Oh, well...
for koby and anyone else wondering what "we used to stand for" I suggest you visit Gods of the Copybook Headings for Publius' anniversary post. He says it far, far better than I ever could.
This is by far one of the best posts I've seen here yet. Well said.
The entrenched charter was a sad document when compared to the Bill of Rights that came beforeheand (in terms of how it was drafted and the rights protected), but the very concept of an entrenched charter flew in the face of more than a centrury of Canadian common law tradition. It was the most un-Canadian change imaginable.
The flag was a rag, especially as compared to what came before. There was no need to change it. And I applaud Danny Williams for having the guts to at least temporarily take down the flag that represents 30+ years of an arrogant Liberal diversion and screwups of the federation.
The armed forces were run into the ground by the Liberal Party of Canada also.
All in all, It's amazing how the Liberal try to wrap themselves in the flag, yet the reality is they've done more to harm this country than any other single political force in the history of the country.
To NDP Nadine and Peg City Kid:
The current flag in no way represents provinces such as mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. If anything it represents an era of arrogant federal government intrusion and thievery into eastern (and western) resources and other snobbish and polarizing polices carried out by morons and thieves like Trudeau and Chretien.
Annnd the hidden and vehemantly conservative sense of victimization appears yet again.
Annnd the hidden and vehemantly conservative sense of victimization appears yet again.
That should read "vehemantly denied. Sorry.
People who write comments on public wesbites aren't hiding them. They're publishing them.
And what do you mean by "victimization"? and "vehemently conservative"?
Try being less cryptic and more specific. It's not hard, unless you're a liar.
"Conservative sense of victimization"?
Then, Mike, you would logically have to concede that the left has indeed caused harm to all those who do not agree with your fascist dogmas.
We, the majority, the mainstream of ordinary Canadians, don't deny being victimized by the Liberal state apparatus. Nor are we "vehement". That's a typical-of-the-powerful-leftist-minority attempt to paint us as raving lunatics, which obviously couldn't be further from the truth.
Who's vehement today? Let's see... Marc Emery, Chris Bennett, Cindy Sheehan, Svend Robinson, ad nauseum...
Mike said...
"Annnd the hidden and vehemantly conservative sense of victimization appears yet again."
Annnnd we see the cryptic malevolence of dogmatic Liberalism, which makes victims with criminally irresponsible policy and then denies its victims exist.
Well said Canadianna. And judging by some of the comments here, there are many Canadians so far out of touch with the roots of this country that they are clearly beyond any help your argument might do them; which actually just proves your point.
The statement, "Half of all Canadians weren't born here" by Clear Man shows such complete ignorance of demographics, it's impossible not to laugh at him. A fresh-faced youngster just out of highschool would come up with such nonsense. Actually, about 80 percent of us WERE born here. No amount of "diversity education" and "sensitiviy training" is going to change that fact. Clear man should learn to differentiate between the foolish mealy-mouthed platitudes of the education system and actual facts.
Anna, I'm wondering what you think of the recent proposal to create sharia (Muslim) law courts in Canada.
Some argue that it will increase the ghettoization of Canadian Muslims, but I think it could be a good thing, facilitating the development of a Western sharia (just as Islam has adapted to local cultures from Morocco to the Philippines).
Something tells me that this is one conservative faith-based initiative you will find yourself unable to love, but feel free to surprise me.
Popped in a link and tried to trackback, but I'm a trackback spazz.
Also somebody got a wedgie from what you said, so good one - is that a little barnacle-troll who's adopted you?
"Your a real piece of work!! There really aren't many like you are there??...That make sense to you sweetie?? I don't want to overwhelm you now...One thing I'm not is arrogant. If anything I've given you more credit than you deserve. You like to fight, don't you... You don't have many friends do you??...Mulroney was full blow PC...He too brought Quebec to the brink of separation.
Boy, it's great when people make an ass of themselves when they try to make their points!
And it's too bad Peg City Kid failed to back up his points. That's why he lost it as he did.
Reminds me of someone who calls himself "Don".
Lefites, eh?
I definitely don't have all the answers Canadi-anna, but I know that as long as people keep sharing ideas like this, the truth will eventually reveal itself and hopefully make the world a better place to live in. I've been looking for citizenship and immigration in canada info and news - yeah I know I should probably get a life, but there's just something about citizenship and immigration in canada that gets me thinking of better times.
Your post about Deconstructing institutions was a good read compared to a lot of the other stuff that's out there! Keep up the good work, I will definitely swing by again soon.
Now you've got me thinking Canadi-anna. I really enjoyed your post about "Deconstructing institutions , I found your blog while searching for new immigration rule for canada news. I'll definitely pop around more often, keep us posted if you happen to dig up any more new immigration rule for canada stuff.
Now you've got me thinking Canadi-anna. I really enjoyed your post about "Deconstructing institutions , I found your blog while searching for investor immigration to canada news. I'll definitely pop around more often, keep us posted if you happen to dig up any more investor immigration to canada stuff.
Post a Comment