How proud are you of our constitution?

[Machjo]

I've noticed that Americans truly are proud of their constitution. I wouldn't be surprised if many might disagree on various details of their constitution, but I doubt very much many would oppose its principles at least. Some are even so proud of their constitution that they give out copies during election campaigns. Ron Paul comes to mind there.

Here in Canada though, I'd have a hard time imagining that many Canadians would proudly brag about certain statements in our constitution. For instance, could you imagine a Canadian bragging about this:

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament."

From the Bill of Rights, 1689. So much for freedom of religion in our realm, at least not for the monarch, eh.

I would have added quotes from the Constitution Act 1982 concerning special educational rights granted to Protestants and Catholics only, but it would seem the federal government's website is temporarily down. But again, I couldn't imagine a Canadian singing his praises over those clauses from the rooftops.

Is it time for Canada to rewrite our constitution into something we can all support, at least in principle, without having to be ashamed of it? Quite frankly, there should not be a single phrase in our constitution that would cause embarrassment to shout out in public. For crying out loud, the quote above could almost e considered anti-Catholic hate speech. Each and every phrase, at worst, should be technical and boring, and at best, inspirational. Is it time to scrap our anti-papist bi-ethnic compromise of a constitution and rewrite something we can all be proud of?

 

[Kreskin]

Looks like it could use an update.

 

[Machjo]

Looks like it could use an update.

Could use an update?

A hell of an update, I'd say. Could you imagine a Canadian showing off the Canadian constitution to a foreign friend, quoting the anti-Catholic passages of the Bill of Rights, the favourable passages of the BNA Act with regards to Catholic and Protestant schools, and special privileges granted French and English Canadians and explicitly excluding the First Nations? His friend would be appalled and disgusted.

And yet this is the law governing our nation? It is a reflection on who we are as a people that we tolerate such laws still in the books and upheld by our courts to this day.

 

[china]

"...how soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. " (George Washington)
CONSTITUTION
Canada does not have a true Constitution, and this is dangerous to the freedom of the people. Our Constitution is an Act of Parliament, and as an Act of Parliament, it may be repealed. This also implies that since Parliament created the Act, then all the so called "rights" conferred in the Act are not unalienable rights and are merely rights can be revoked at any time, and this is in fact what the notwithstanding clause means in the Constitution. It means that notwithstanding whatever the document says, the whim of the Prime Minister goes and he may ignore any part of any Charter of Rights and freedoms as seemeth him good. Canadians deserve better. The Independent Party believes that the basics for human survival are life, liberty, and property. To lose any of these three is to lose them all. “Life, faculties, production— in other words individuality, liberty, property— that is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.... Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it is the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” -- Frederick Bastiat

I wonder if US or any other democratic countries' constitution have a notwithstanding clauses .
Only in Canada ......eh?....pity .

 

[Machjo]

China, a notwithstanding clause certainly makes our constitution even more laughable. However, even without a notwithstanding clause, the content of our constitutional documents themselves is appalling when we consider that some passages of the Bill of Rights 1687 borders on anti-Catholic hate speech, that the BNA Act (ironicaly enough considering the aforementioned anti-Catholicism) gives Catholics and Protestants special educational privileges not granted to other Canadians, and that the BNA Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants Canada's English and French speakers likewise special privileges, even without a notwithstanding clause, our constitution is appalling.

 

[gerryh]

China, a notwithstanding clause certainly makes our constitution even more laughable. However, even without a notwithstanding clause, the content of our constitutional documents themselves is appalling when we consider that some passages of the Bill of Rights 1687 borders on anti-Catholic hate speech, that the BNA Act (ironicaly enough considering the aforementioned anti-Catholicism) gives Catholics and Protestants special educational privileges not granted to other Canadians, and that the BNA Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants Canada's English and French speakers likewise special privileges, even without a notwithstanding clause, our constitution is appalling.

Then fcuk off and get the hell out of my Country!

 

[Machjo]

Then fcuk off and get the hell out of my Country!

I'm just trying to point out the flaws of my country so as to improve it. What country do you come from? Do you not care enough for your country to point out its flaws so as to improve it? Go do some yoga or tai chi or something to help with the hypertension.

 

[gerryh]

I'm just trying to point out the flaws of my country so as to improve it. What country do you come from? Do you not care enough for your country to point out its flaws so as to improve it? Go do some yoga or tai chi or something to help with the hypertension.

THIS is my Country. The fact that I have my kids Catholic education PROTECTED is GREAT! I don't have to worry about the useless atheists taking that right away from me and mine. Useless pricks like you who want to shove my faith into the garbage. Shovel it under a pile of shyte. I'm real happy that me and mine are protected from useless pricks like you and yours.

 

[china]

gerryh

Then fcuk off and get the hell out of my Country!

Besides being born in this beautiful land and collecting welfare, probably for most of your live what gives you right to call Canada ..."your country .
What have you done for Canada You a..ho.e.

 

[gerryh]

Besides being born in this beautiful land and collecting welfare, probably for most of your live what gives you right to call Canada ..."your country .
What have you done for Canada You a..ho.e.

roflmfao.... you wish idiot. This from the dickhead that uses his Canadian citizenship as one of convenience. The guy that talks about china as if it was God's gift to the world and does nothing but denigrate Canada.

 

[china]

Machjo

Do you not care enough for your country to point out its flaws so as to improve it

He's afraid if the government improves ,that punk will loose his welfare ,disability or what ever .

gerryh

what have you done for you country you f...k bum .

 

[Machjo]

THIS is my Country. The fact that I have my kids Catholic education PROTECTED is GREAT! I don't have to worry about the useless atheists taking that right away from me and mine. Useless pricks like you who want to shove my faith into the garbage. Shovel it under a pile of shyte. I'm real happy that me and mine are protected from useless pricks like you and yours.

Just a few points here.

1. I happen to believe the monarch ought to be free to adopt the Catholic Faith if he wishes without legal repercussion. Under our current Bill of Rights 1689 that is not possible. Do you wish to deny your monarch your Faith?

2. I also believe that you ought to have the freedom to send your child to Catholic school if you want to. However, I also believe this ought to apply equally regardless of your religion.

3. Not all non-Catholics are atheist.

Just so I understand, you support special privileges for Catholics in Ontario's education system protected under the BNA Act but not equally for other religions? What kind of country do you want to create here?

And how can you criticize human rights abuses abroad while supporting injustices at home. You worry more than Iran. Why? Because unlike Iran, you get to vote to make the laws that I must abide by.

gerryh
Besides being born in this beautiful land and collecting welfare, probably for most of your live what gives you right to call Canada ..."your country .
What have you done for Canada You a..ho.e.

How do you know he' on welfare? I personally believe his ideas are reprehensible, but i don't see how insulting him on irrelevancies is of any benefit here.

Sure I resent the idea that the state subsidize Catholic schools but not other religious schools. It ought to subsidize all of them equally or none of them at all. But that has no bearing on his socio-economic status. Whether he's rich or poor is none of my business. And quite frankly, that would not affect my opinion of him in the least. What does affect my opinion of him is the content of his character as it is being revealed here.

roflmfao.... you wish idiot. This from the dickhead that uses his Canadian citizenship as one of convenience. The guy that talks about china as if it was God's gift to the world and does nothing but denigrate Canada.

I love Canada. That is precisely why I'm so harsh on it. I love China too, and that's why I hold strong opinions on its human rights record too. But how can you criticize China and then support injustice at home? The only reason I criticize Canada more than China in this forum is because I'm in Canada. When I was in China, I was critical of injustices in China much more than I was those in Canada, precisely because I was in China and because I do love China too. Of course owing to censorship in China I had to be careful about what I said, but that didn't reduce my criticisms, even if more carefully worded or chosen for the appropriate occasion. And those Chinese who loved China were also critical of it. As a rule, we tend to be harshest on those we love the most.

 

[gerryh]

I love Canada. That is precisely why I'm so harsh on it. I love China too, and that's why I hold strong opinions on its human rights record too. But how can you criticize China and then support injustice at home? The only reason I criticize Canada more than China in this forum is because I'm in Canada. When I was in China, I was critical of injustices in China much more than I was those in Canada, precisely because I was in China and because I do love China too. Of course owing to censorship in China I had to be careful about what I said, but that didn't reduce my criticisms, even if more carefully worded or chosen for the appropriate occasion. And those Chinese who loved China were also critical of it. As a rule, we tend to be harshest on those we love the most.

OK, I'm done. You are just too stupid to carry on a conversation with. My china comment was directed at the one I quoted, you know, the stupid fat polack that sings the praises of the communists and at the same time uses my Countries visa to travel around the world. It wasn't directed at you, moron.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Nothing like a little libertarian paranoia. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 declared, among other things, that no act of the British Parliament would necessarily extend to the dominions, the 1689 Bill of Rights has no force in this country, as ought to be obvious from the fact that we've had Members of Parliament and the Senate and even Prime Ministers who were "papists" within the meaning of that act and nobody thought it mattered. "Canada does not have a true Constitution, and this is dangerous to the freedom of the people?" What nonsense. Canada's constitution cannot be repealed like any other statute, it has a prescribed amending formula quite different from ordinary statutes, and quite a different status.

 

[Machjo]

Nothing like a little libertarian paranoia. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 declared, among other things, that no act of the British Parliament would necessarily extend to the dominions, the 1689 Bill of Rights has no force in this country, as ought to be obvious from the fact that we've had Members of Parliament and the Senate and even Prime Ministers who were "papists" within the meaning of that act and nobody thought it mattered. "Canada does not have a true Constitution, and this is dangerous to the freedom of the people?" What nonsense. Canada's constitution cannot be repealed like any other statute, it has a prescribed amending formula quite different from ordinary statutes, and quite a different status.

Wrong. The Bill of Rights 1689 was patriated to all Commonwealth realms including Canada. It is a fundamental constitutional document in this country and we could argue among the highest seeing that it can be changed only via unanimous consent of all Commonwealth realms short of creating a rupture in the monarchy.

The monarch is the highest head of our Dominion, and the process for choosing of that person is fully defined by a number of documents including the Bill of Rights 1687. The monarch of Canada cannot be non-Anglican and cannot marry a Catholic and still remain monarch. This is a fundamental constitutional law applicable to Canada to this very day.

And no, it's not about libertarian paranoia.

Heck, quite honestly, as unfair as that Bill of Rights is, I'd say it's still at least somewhat palatable in that the monarch does always have the choice to abdicate should he wish to exercise his full freedom of religion. As for the separate school system, that goes way too far. At the very most, it might be reasonable to require us to learn the basics of the Christian Faith in school on the grounds that it's had such an impact on our culture. Fair enough. But a totally separate publicly funded religious school system that is granted to one faith group to the exclusion of all others? That goes way too far.

Though I must say that even the point about the monarch and one religion being given preferential treatment is still discriminatory. How one can defend that I have no idea. However, I will say that if compromise were required, at the very least we should narrow down the extent of these moral compromises.

Also, this has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has to do with equal rights for all, regardless of whether I'm libertarian, capitalist, socialist, corporatist, social-corporatist, or whatever else.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Wrong. The Bill of Rights 1689 was patriated to all Commonwealth realms including Canada.

Really? Well, that's certainly news to me, the basic textbook I have about the institutions of the Government of Canada (The Government of Canada by R. MacGregor Dawson, 5th edition (1970) revised by Norman Ward) has no reference to it in the index and there's no mention of it I can find in the text where it logically ought to appear, in the chapter about constitutional development. Granted the book is 40 years old, but that statute is 321 years old, if it had any significance it should have been discussed. The book goes into considerable detail about assorted statutes that are considered constitutional, but doesn't mention that one. Got a reference for that claim?

 

[Machjo]

Really? Well, that's certainly news to me, the basic textbook I have about the institutions of the Government of Canada (The Government of Canada by R. MacGregor Dawson, 5th edition (1970) revised by Norman Ward) has no reference to it in the index and there's no mention of it I can find in the text where it logically ought to appear, in the chapter about constitutional development. Granted the book is 40 years old, but that statute is 321 years old, if it had any significance it should have been discussed. The book goes into considerable detail about assorted statutes that are considered constitutional, but doesn't mention that one. Got a reference for that claim?

Then that book simply erroneously neglected to mention it. You can find general information on it here:

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Because it is originally a British law, you'll find a copy of the complete text on the UK government's website, which you'll find at the bottom of the Wikipedia page above.

I have not been able to find a copy on the Canadian government's website (perhaps owing to simple neglect), but have found a reference to its applicability to Canada:

Search | Canada Site

 

[Kreskin]

Canada has gone through a few constitutional facelifts.

Constitution of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I have not been able to find a copy on the Canadian government's website (perhaps owing to simple neglect), but have found a reference to its applicability to Canada

*A* reference? More than one there. Thanks for the links, looks like I've got some reading and thinking to do.

 

[Kreskin]

It appears the use of it as a reference is more so for historical context about how and why a parliament works as it does.