Canadians ashamed of our constitution?

[wulfie68]

With all the amendments of the American constitution with the Patriot Act makes the document worth the same as the paper roll in the outhouse, the paper roll is of extreme value when needed and the American Constitution is an income opportunity for the legal system.

Why is it, when the subject is the Canadian Constitution, you say nothing about it, but instead take the opportunity to crap on the US? Is this the only way you define Canadian insitutions, as not American? I may not completely agree with FiveParadox's take, posted before you, but I can respect it, because it is reasoned and topical. I could accept a comparison of the two countries documents, but there is nothing in this vitriolic burp that is anything but anti-American pap that Canadian quasi-nationalists have been spewing for years. Do you realize you insult your country when you can't discuss the pros or cons of one of its most important legal documents and instead only come out with canned rhetoric on someone else's?

 

[Machjo]

That's right, the Monarch can't be Catholic. Our Monarch is also the head of the Church of England for God's sake. How the hell can they become Catholic? If they want to convert, they step step down from the throne. Simple. You have got to be completely brain dead to think, or even propose, that the head of the Church of England could or should be Catholic.

As I said, you're just proving your idiocy beyond a doubt.

I realise it takes much brain power to understand that the head of state should be separate from the Church of England. Not the case, I know, but it ought to be.

 

[WLDB]

In this case, our constitutional monarchy has evolved beyond this and has become a modern component of our government as a safeguard against the unreasonable excesses of the government of the day.

When was the last time the monarchy has filled this role against a government?

They are figure heads which serve no purpose anymore. It makes absolutely no sense to have a hereditary monarchy tied to a specific small branch of christianity.

 

[Machjo]

The roles are one in the same for The Queen, as the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Her Majesty cannot stop being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England without significant constitutional changes that would likely also involve the consent of the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms. It would be a massive undertaking, for very little practical purpose. As everyone on the order of succession who could conceivably reach the throne is already a member of the Church of England, I can see little reason to embark on changes to this practice unless there becomes an issue later on.

Consider, as an example, the recent debate in Japan over the rules of male-only primogeniture; there were discussions of proposing constitutional changes, should the Empress have been unable to bear a son. When Her Imperial Majesty gave birth to a male, though, the discussions collapsed as the motivation to change the practice had disappeared. I'm sure that in the same way, once the issue reaches a point where it actually becomes relevant to the actual operations of our constitutional monarchy, the issue will be broached.


I very much disagree.

Constitutional monarchy is one of the longest-running (if not the longest-running) systems of government in our planet's history. It is a system that is rich with history. While it has indeed had some darker periods in its history -- and this is not something that can be avoided or refuted -- so have many other systems. In this case, our constitutional monarchy has evolved beyond this and has become a modern component of our government as a safeguard against the unreasonable excesses of the government of the day.

I'm not so optimistic:

Waldman v. Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The separate schol system has been challenged already, and to no avail. Those who benefit from discriminatory laws won't give it up without a fight. Honestly now, do you honestly believe that if the monarch decided to marry a Catholic that vested interests (most likely anti-Catholics) would go along with that? Or what if the monarch converted to Islam? We've seen that even in the US there was wide protest over a mosque in NYC. Few Canadians would go along with a Muslim monarch. I could, likewise a Jewish monarch. But Islamophobia and anti-semitisim would certainly rear their ugly heads with a vengeance in such a debate.

I personally would have no issue with a Catholic monarch either, though I could see a few Orangement rising up.

When was the last time the monarchy has filled this role against a government?

They are figure heads which serve no purpose anymore. It makes absolutely no sense to have a hereditary monarchy tied to a specific small branch of christianity.

I should point out though that the monarch is not just a figure head. Though in reality he doesn't exercise his power, it is still there to be used should any government really cross the line in a major way.

The monarchy still has a usefulness in principle. It's just a little offensive to many Catholics I'm sure that he can't marry a Catholic and must be an Anglican.

 

[WLDB]

I should point out though that the monarch is not just a figure head. Though in reality he doesn't exercise his power, it is still there to be used should any government really cross the line in a major way.

The monarchy still has a usefulness in principle. It's just a little offensive to many Catholics I'm sure that he can't marry a Catholic and must be an Anglican.

I find it offensive as an atheist that our head of state is also the head of a religion. Also that the position of monarchy is routed in religion. Religion should be a private matter and have absolutely no influence on the state, even in name.

 

[CDNBear]

I find it offensive as an atheist that our head of state is also the head of a religion. Also that the position of monarchy is routed in religion. Religion should be a private matter and have absolutely no influence on the state, even in name.

Although I agree, religion has no place in matters of public policy. The Queen hardly has any say in Canadian, or British policy for that matter.

And to find the position as Head of State, and Church offensive?

Really?

You should get out more.

 

[WLDB]

Although I agree, religion has no place in matters of public policy. The Queen hardly has any say in Canadian, or British policy for that matter.

And to find the position as Head of State, and Church offensive?

Really?

You should get out more.

As a matter of principle I find it offensive. She and her successors do not have much say, but she is there as are all of her titles. What has she or her successors/predecessors done to merit having their position? They just happened to be born into it. That system in itself is pointless.

 

[CDNBear]

As a matter of principle I find it offensive. She and her successors do not have much say, but she is there as are all of her titles. What has she or her successors/predecessors done to merit having their position? They just happened to be born into it. That system in itself is pointless.

Pointless? Yes. As a matter of principle, or any other matter, offensive?

That's just silly.

 

[WLDB]

Pointless? Yes. As a matter of principle, or any other matter, offensive?

That's just silly.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

That's a matter of opinion.

Fair enough.

 

[ironsides]

What would it take for a Catholic (for that matter anybody not part of the Church of England) to become King other than a revolution?

 

[wulfie68]

What would it take for a Catholic (for that matter anybody not part of the Church of England) to become King other than a revolution?

Constitutional change or a reconciliation between the Catholic and Anglican churches are about the only two ways I can see that coming about.

 

[WLDB]

Constitutional change or a reconciliation between the Catholic and Anglican churches are about the only two ways I can see that coming about.

Kind of odd that our head of state is determined by things the ever so wonderful Henry VIII did just because he couldnt keep it in his pants.

 

[Liberalman]

Why is it, when the subject is the Canadian Constitution, you say nothing about it, but instead take the opportunity to crap on the US? Is this the only way you define Canadian insitutions, as not American? I may not completely agree with FiveParadox's take, posted before you, but I can respect it, because it is reasoned and topical. I could accept a comparison of the two countries documents, but there is nothing in this vitriolic burp that is anything but anti-American pap that Canadian quasi-nationalists have been spewing for years. Do you realize you insult your country when you can't discuss the pros or cons of one of its most important legal documents and instead only come out with canned rhetoric on someone else's?

All I am saying that over time the American constitution has eroded because of the amendments where we have a relatively new document that will erode because of the new amendments that will be added.

As new people come into Canada to make it their home and help grow our country they do not care about Canadian values or history of their new country and no one flies the Canadian flag on Canada Day.

There was a new Canadian that took offence at a person who flew the Canadian flag on Remembrance Day in an ethnic part of Toronto and that person had to take it down.

Multiculturalism is nice and brings a good mix to the community but when the ethnic community become citizens here they must put Canada first and their home country second if they don’t our constitution means very little and in time if something is not done to teach people the true value of Canada our constitution will be null and void

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/const/index.html

 

[Machjo]

I find it offensive as an atheist that our head of state is also the head of a religion. Also that the position of monarchy is routed in religion. Religion should be a private matter and have absolutely no influence on the state, even in name.

I actually don't find it offensive that the head of state happens to be head of a religious organization too, though I do find it odd. I do find it offensive that the head of state MUST be head of a religious organization. If the same person can fulfil both roles, that's fine, as long as the two roles are distinct from one another.

 

[CDNBear]

All I am saying that over time the American constitution has eroded because of the amendments where we have a relatively new document that will erode because of the new amendments that will be added.

As new people come into Canada to make it their home and help grow our country they do not care about Canadian values or history of their new country and no one flies the Canadian flag on Canada Day.

There was a new Canadian that took offence at a person who flew the Canadian flag on Remembrance Day in an ethnic part of Toronto and that person had to take it down.

Multiculturalism is nice and brings a good mix to the community but when the ethnic community become citizens here they must put Canada first and their home country second if they don’t our constitution means very little and in time if something is not done to teach people the true value of Canada our constitution will be null and void

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/const/index.html

Geeze Liberaldude...

You sound disenfranchised by PET's legacy, and very unliberal.

 

[YukonJack]

The constitutional FACT that the Head of State of Britain and its satellites till this very day must be Anglican is akin to the FACT that the Head of State of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be Muslim.

 

[FiveParadox]

Hardly, YukonJack.

The head of State in the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for real day-to-day decision-making and operational functions. Her Majesty The Queen, on the other hand, plays a primarily ceremonial role in the governance of the Commonwealth realms.

 

[YukonJack]

Hardly, YukonJack.

The head of State in the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for real day-to-day decision-making and operational functions. Her Majesty The Queen, on the other hand, plays a primarily ceremonial role in the governance of the Commonwealth realms.

So what?

Disqualifying a capable person based on religion is every bit as insane and discriminatory as having a Head of State by the accident of birth.

If you want to worship a dolt because he/she came to this world through a ROYAL birth canal, be my guest. Would the object of your adulation refuse blood donated to his/her survival, in case of an accident, by a commoner? If he/she had any pride and self-respect, he/she would NOT.

Regarding the 'ceremonial role', isn't that the tacit admission of being totally useless?

 

[FiveParadox]

Certainly not. That role would have to be performed regardless.