No More Common Wealth - An Independant Canada

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
Ahha, hello Cortez, or Cortezz, or Cortex,

And who would you suggest has a less evil history then?, the US?, a country founded by the brotherhood of freemasons, a country that systematically drove it's indigenous population onto filthy, dirty wastelands, while still declaring that every man is equal under god?.

Or perhaps Russia, a country that also, systematically murdered 20 million of it's own population.

Britain and the British Empire has nothing to hide, we know our murky history and unlike the rest, we don't celebrate it, so get off our bleedin backs. Britain was the first country in the world to outlaw slavery, the first colonial power to dismantle it's vast empire, and not cling onto it like the French or the Portugeuse.

Get off that moral high ground...because where Iam, it's looking pretty shaky Cortez, Cortezz or Cortex.
 

UnknownUSER

New Member
Oct 30, 2006
7
0
1
It seems that everyone in this forum can at least agree on one thing - their feelings towards the french!:cool:
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
It seems that everyone in this forum can at least agree on one thing - their feelings towards the french!:cool:

I don't understand American's feelings against the French, they should love them, they should kiss their garlic-smelling feet for winning their freedom for them. I expect that's part of the reason they allowed themselves to be dragged into Vietnam.

But what do they do?, "Freedom fries" "Freedom Toast" lol

I'm English, it's expected of me to hate the French, and them of me...everyone else, I'm not sure.
 

cortex

Electoral Member
Aug 3, 2006
418
2
18
hopelessly entagled
Over the course of their centuries long savage empire the british have killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people .

There is no moral high ground only the smell of the corpses mixed with opium and buggery

When the spanish and portugueese began the european rape of the world circa 1492 --who would have though that it would awaken SATAN himself in the form of anglosaxon england--- awaken this beast so viscious and envious and set him on a centuries long jealous rampage from which he still is not satisfied

to lead us HERE

GW BUSH---read anglosaxon empire part 2---sitting on an arsenal of WMD enough to nuke humanity a thousand times over--with an IQ of 52.

And when these pricks---set up the condition for war as they did in ww2 and then lead us into it--again

when the world blows up the self righteous dorks will blame--the french--or islam--or communism

The satanic axis that will lead to the destruction of our civilization will without question be

the washington- london axis

connect the dots

they spell death----curiously enough---in english
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
I understand your points, suprisingly, I realise countless millions have been murdered in the name of buggary, opium, slavery and general world supremacy. I also understand your connection between G W Bush and the British Empire, after all, he can trace his roots back to a few miles from my family.

BUT, just what would the world have been like if it were ruled by Spanish-speaking nations?, any better?...I think not.

While you can argue that Britain is evil (and with this I presume you are taking the Islamic extremist line about how "the general public are all to blame, even if they wernt born then, and even then may not have agreed with what they did"). I just feel your being very bigoted to suggest such a thing.

If you feel this way, chuck away the llanguage you now speak and perhaps learn French.
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
this would cost much more to change all present formalities, and still have the same thing. What would you expect for "intependent" canada be? "Free"??
it sounds funny even to talk about independcy and freedom in western countries in 21 century.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
The Commonwealth of Nations is an economic block, what does that have to do with being independent?

P.S. I would rather be a peasant than answer to a monarch that happens to reign because of a lucky phuck. :D
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
Why? What is so terrible about the monarchy or are ties within the Commonwealth? I think it is enriching for our country to be included in this august membership. God save the Queen.

I'm not saving some old queen. She and her inbred family can go save themselves.

Canada is evolving and one day Canada will not be apart of the Commonwealth and one day there will be no commonwealth at all or the U.K at that matter especially if Scotland and Wales become independent.

Right now, there is no point in bringing up such an issue but I can see it being debated and maybe a referendum in lets say 20-30 years.
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
61
London, Ont. Canada
Our connection to the British crown gives us some continuity in our history. The problem with most republics (we don't need to mention any names) is that beyond the 4-8 year term of a president the country has no long term plans nor does it pay attention to history. Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it's failures. Politicians are quick to blame the other guy. "We were not in power than, it's their fault". Canadian politicians are reknown for that. The crown gives us stability and lets us look back on a form of goverment that has naturally matured and developed over time, not a system born in revolution and borrowed from ancient Rome. Don't think of the Queen as English, that is just an accident of birth. She is our sovereign and head of state. It also gives us membership in the oldest trade alliance in the world. Not to mention participaction in the Commonwealth Games where we don't have to compete with the Yanks, Russians or Chinese with their huge population bases.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I would like to note for members here that while it may happen that Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada is our head of State, it needn't necessarily be so. (Please keep in mind that the following paragraph does not indicate opposition to Her Majesty's reign—rather, I hope that Canada continues to recognize Her Majesty and her heirs and successors as the heads of State of our nation.)

The right to change the order of succession, or even to appoint an entirely Canadian Sovereign and start the Royal Family of Canada anew, is entirely the prerogative of the Parliament of Canada, and the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Canada's Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 are constructed in such a way where we could change the order of succession for Canada, and depose a monarch in lieu of our own, but we choose to continue to follow the present order. If one opposes the present monarch herself, as a person (i.e., corte[insert other characters here]), then it should still be admitted that the system works.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Canada's association with the british monarchy is a filthy one. The British empire was amoung the most brutal, savage and rapacious in human history--if not the worst. To add to insult to injury--we are subject to the denial of the cowardly monarchists here. May the Queen and her type rot in hell where she will find Henry the 8th and a few severed heads. I say break with these heathens.

May she rot in hell.

Oh what garbage!

Geez, Cortez, I know trolling is your hobby, if not your obsession, but try to maintain a grip on reality, please.

The British Empire the worst in history! What a laugh.

Let's see.....

The Japanese murdered 350,000 civilians in Nanking in a MONTH at the height of their Empire-building.........the population of Japanese occupied China dropped from 44 million to 25 million in 10 years.........

The Soviet empire under Stalin is responsible for at least 20 million deaths.

Nero, Emperor of Rome, illuminated the streets during chariot races by hanging prisoners dipped in pitch from poles and lighting them. After the slave revolt, 100,000 were crucified along Roman roads.

The British Empire was, like it or not, one of the most benevolent Imperial powers on earth. Not only that, they allowed much of their empire to simply fade away without a fight. AND the end of empire left the world with a number of functioning democracies, some of the best places in the world to live, including Canada.

Find me another Empire that can claim that!
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
Yes, it trully is an antiquated system in needs of serious reform.

How is it?

Not all the countries in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State - South Africa and Pakistan are both Republics.

And whilst some Canadians are debating on whether or not Canada should leave, there are other countries - some of which were never a part of the British Empire - are debating whether or not to JOIN the Commonwealth.

France has its own equivalent of the Commonwealth. It's called the Francophonie. But I know that there are a few countries in Africa which, despite once being ruled by France, are trying to join the British Commonwealth rather than the Francophonie because they feel they would be better off in the British Commonwealth rather than the Francophonie.
 
Last edited:

cortex

Electoral Member
Aug 3, 2006
418
2
18
hopelessly entagled
Oh what garbage!

Geez, Cortez, I know trolling is your hobby, if not your obsession, but try to maintain a grip on reality, please.

The British Empire the worst in history! What a laugh.

Let's see.....

The Japanese murdered 350,000 civilians in Nanking in a MONTH at the height of their Empire-building.........the population of Japanese occupied China dropped from 44 million to 25 million in 10 years.........

The Soviet empire under Stalin is responsible for at least 20 million deaths.

Nero, Emperor of Rome, illuminated the streets during chariot races by hanging prisoners dipped in pitch from poles and lighting them. After the slave revolt, 100,000 were crucified along Roman roads.

The British Empire was, like it or not, one of the most benevolent Imperial powers on earth. Not only that, they allowed much of their empire to simply fade away without a fight. AND the end of empire left the world with a number of functioning democracies, some of the best places in the world to live, including Canada.

Find me another Empire that can claim that!

You are a denyER

I dont blame you

what you would find would make you want to kill your own kind to save the rest of us

do some research for yourself

you deniers

how many chineese people did the british kill during the opium wars---during the conflict and them afterwards --as a consequence of addiction and the vast social anarchy that followed.

give me some numbers--

hypocrasy---no worse than that --its english

we know you all too well

and the opium war thing is a tiny fraction of it

gave up their empire without a fight

you make me laugh

do you own research on kenya---for example

you people are hopeless
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
The sun never sets on the British Empire........or so the old adage goes. Rarely does one ever hear the rebuttal..........God didn't trust the British in the dark.

The British Empire didn't willingly dismantle and set free its vast possessions, they simply couldn't afford it anymore. The Depression in the late 19th century coupled with World War I left an enormous debt from which the British Empire couldn't recover and subsequently couldn't control it's possessions anymore.

Colpy while I agree Cortex went over the top claiming it was the worst Empire the world had ever seen, I think you also went too far in claiming it's benevolence. What exactly is benevolent about land acquisition by means of war and forced relocations of its indigenous peoples? Even when the British Empire "dismantled" it's possessions it still retained legislative control over it's possessions for a long time to come, and in some cases, it still does.

The history of the British Empire is somewhat murky, very few historians have attempted to reveal the extent of what went on. Cortex mentioned Kenya, he's right. This may be one incident but given the fact it happened in the 20th century, you can speculate what was going on earlier.

There were many attempted rebellions within the possessions of the British Empire but many of them were squashed (even in Canada), people do not rise against a "benevolent" Empire, unless there is something not very benevolent about it.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Canada has created a situation from which they will never be able to extricate themselves

By belonging as a Commonwealth nation - it has the distinction of being "not American" which appears to define the whole concept of what Canadians are.

In becoming an independent nation free of the tethers of the 'royal' mockery and tradition - Canadians will have to finally come up with an identity and pride and yes arrogance of their own - something for which they demean all the people to the south of them....

Patriotic they sneer - what a mockery Americans are!!! Well I have had both - and I love the independence and freedom of belonging thank you - it doesn't make Canada any less loved by me - but living under the
responsibility given to me and to every person living in the U.S. I could never go back to honoring a tradition which is outdated and so wasteful of the peoples' money.

Canadians are way too proud to give up what they believe is their "identity" and that is their historical tie to the throne. It will never happen.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
In becoming an independent nation free of the tethers of the 'royal' mockery and tradition - Canadians will have to finally come up with an identity and pride and yes arrogance of their own - something for which they demean all the people to the south of them....

As I've already said, the Commonwealth has NOTHING to do with the Monarchy. South Africa is a member of the Commonwealth but it is a Republic.

THIRTY-ONE members of the Commonwealth - the majority of them, in fact - are republics and so don't have Queen Elizabeth II as a Head of State. Six members of the Commonwealth - Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Samoa, Swaziland, and Tonga - are monarchies with their OWN monarchs rather than Queen Elizabeth II.

Of the 53 Commonwealth members - one-third of all the countries in the world - , Queen Elizabeth II is only the Head of State of just 16 of them.

And there is nothing "outdated" about the Commonwealth. It is a relatively modern creation.

Here's what Wikipedia says -


The flag of the Commonwealth

Info

Head of the Commonwealth - Queen Elizabeth II

Secretary General - Don McKinnon (since 1999)

Deputy Secretary General - Rainsford Smith

Date of Establishment - 1926 (as the British Commonwealth); 1949 (as just the Commonwealth)

Number of Member States - 53 (31 republics, 22 constitutional monarchies)

"The Commonwealth of Nations (CN), usually known as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, the majority of which are former colonies of the United Kingdom.

The largest members (by population) - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria

The largest members (by area) - Canada, Australia, India

Commonwealth's largest military spenders - Britain - US$48 billion, India at US$21 billion,Australia at US$10.5 billion, and Canada at US$10.5 billion.

Headquarters - London



It was once known as the British Commonwealth of Nations or British Commonwealth, and some still call it by that name, either for historical reasons or to distinguish it from the other commonwealths around the world.[1] The full name, Commonwealth of Nations, is sufficient to distinguish the Commonwealth from other commonwealths such as the Commonwealth of Independent States or the Commonwealth of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, and as such is the symbol of the free association of its members. This title, however, does NOT imply any political power over Commonwealth member states (many of which are Republics), and does NOT automatically belong to the British monarch. In practice Queen Elizabeth heads the Commonwealth in only a symbolic capacity, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is the chief executive of the organisation.

Although Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State of sixteen members of the Commonwealth, called Commonwealth Realms, the majority of the members of the Commonwealth have their own, separate Heads of State: thirty-one members are Commonwealth republics and six members have their own monarchs (Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Samoa, Swaziland, and Tonga). These members still recognise the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.


The Commonwealth is primarily an organisation in which countries with diverse economic backgrounds have an opportunity for close and equal interaction. The primary activities of the Commonwealth are designed to create an atmosphere of economic co-operation between member nations, as well as the promotion of democracy, human rights, and good governance in those nations.

The Commonwealth is not a political union, and does not allow the United Kingdom (UK) to exercise any power over the affairs of the organisation's other members.

Every four years the Commonwealth's members celebrate the Commonwealth Games, the world's second-largest multi-sport event after the Olympic Games.

[edit] Membership


World map of the Commonwealth of Nations as of 2006. Current member states are coloured blue (wouldn't it be good if they were pink?).




The Commonwealth comprises 53 countries, almost a third of the world's countries, and has a combined population of 1.7 billion people, about a quarter of the world population.[4] The total GDP is about US$7.8 trillion (about 16% of the total world economy). The land area of the Commonwealth nations is about 12.1 million square miles (about 21% of the total world land area).

The four largest Commonwealth nations by population are India at 1.1 billion, Pakistan at 159 million, Bangladesh at 141 million, and Nigeria at 137 million.

The three largest Commonwealth nations by area are Canada at 3.8 million square miles, Australia at 3.0 million square miles, and India at 1.2 million square miles.

The four largest economies are India at US$4,300 billion, the United Kingdom at US$2,000 billion, Canada at US$1,220 billion, and Australia at US$700 billion based on purchasing power parity analysis; see List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (PPP)

The largest military spenders are the United Kingdom at US$48 billion, India at US$21 billion,Australia at US$10.5 billion, and Canada at US$10.5 billion. The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance. see : List of countries by military expenditures

Tuvalu is the smallest member, with only 11,000 people.

Flags of the members of the Commonwealth near The Mall, next to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.



Membership is open to countries that accept the association's basic aims and have a present or past constitutional link to a Commonwealth member. Not all members have had direct constitutional ties to the UK: some South Pacific countries were formerly under Australian or New Zealand administration, while Namibia was governed by South Africa from 1920 until independence in 1990. Cameroon joined in 1995 although only a fraction of its territory had formerly been under British administration through the League of Nations mandate of 1920–46 and United Nations Trusteeship arrangement of 1946–61. There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member: Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994. The move was supported by Mozambique's neighbours, all of whom were members of the Commonwealth and who wished to offer assistance in overcoming the losses incurred from the country's opposition to white minority regimes in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa. In 1997, amid some discontent, Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed that Mozambique's admission should be seen as a special case and not set a precedent."
************************************************************************

Some conspiracy theorists believe that the British Empire didn't disappear but is still around and the Commonwealth is a way of masking it. That's a nice thought to believe.
 
Last edited:

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
Blackleaf is right. The commonwealth of nations is not a psuedo modern-day British Empire by any means. While OK, the nations in it have someway been touched by the British, it is wholly their choice if they want to stay in it.

Also, I know without question, ITN will disagree with the old Empire, and yes, he's right, Britain didnt dismantle it's empire out of simple civiliaty, it was because they were poor.....But were they poorer than the Franch?, poorer than the Portuguese?, who tried to retain their empires until the mid-70's?. No, oh yes, Britain's empire was much bigger than the other two, and it was harder to control.

But times change, circumstances alter, britain was probably aware that it's great navy was doomed the day the Wright brothers took their first flight. But what of it?, they gave it up and America, like a hawk on an india beach, was waiting for that pigeon to mess up so that it could humiliate it, and declare freedom throughout the world, free of colonialism.

Some Alley eh?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Also, I know without question, ITN will disagree with the old Empire, and yes, he's right, Britain didnt dismantle it's empire out of simple civiliaty, it was because they were poor.....But were they poorer than the Franch?, poorer than the Portuguese?, who tried to retain their empires until the mid-70's?. No, oh yes, Britain's empire was much bigger than the other two, and it was harder to control.

Precisely why the British Empire had to dissolve. Let's face it, the British Empire would NOT have dissolved if it didn't have to. For all intensive purposes the former British colonies are independent by a stroke of luck.

But times change, circumstances alter, britain was probably aware that it's great navy was doomed the day the Wright brothers took their first flight. But what of it?, they gave it up and America, like a hawk on an india beach, was waiting for that pigeon to mess up so that it could humiliate it, and declare freedom throughout the world, free of colonialism.

Some Alley eh?

The US and the British Empire were certainly not buddies Daz in the early 20th century, they simply tolerated each other. That's the way the cookie crumbles, as they say. The US will be replaced by someone else some day. That's the way it goes.