Canada Day

[Said1]

Re: RE: Canada Day

For the third time aeon, please present me with an example of a state that is 'better' (keeping in mind that better is a subjective term) than Canada.

He can't. Quebec is merely a province.

Ouch! What a b... eautiful comeback. :lol:

Happy Canada Day Said1!

Merci Buckets!

Quebec posses some good points, though. Like today, I'll be heading over to Hull later, in order to purchase liquor at the Depaneur - hoiste, ta-boouuurrrrrrrrr-nack.

 

[Venezolano]

aeon:
Like a young child absorbing a role model, Aeon has learned well the bombastic vernacular from his moon-beam conspiracy sub-culture: .

That's it. He is a separatist quebecker. By the way, I love the province of Quebec but separatists are going to destroy that province.

 

[Claudius]

Well as the leader of our country still is the Queen.

No sir. Where do you get this?

She's no more the leader of the country than a mascot is the quarterback.

.

 

[I think not]

Well as the leader of our country still is the Queen.

No sir. Where do you get this?

She's no more the leader of the country than a mascot is the quarterback.

.

I think he meant Head of State.

 

[Claudius]

I think he meant Head of State.

Technically Canada didn't finally ratify a constitution until 1982 but in every fundamental way we broke after WWI. There was a huge backlash against ourselves in a sense as to what going to war for Britain as 'dirty' colonials turned out to be like. We broke from them as soon as we made our own army. We paid for nationhood like many nations do. With blood. Everything else was just show, just symbolic cultural heritage. We acted as we pleased from there on in. In this sense our story is not much different than Australia’s. If we’re ‘subjects of the queen’, then so are they. It just isn’t so in any meaningful way.


.

 

[I think not]

You stopped being British Subjects with Westminster, that's not what he means, I don't think. The Queen is your Head of State, her position is mostly ceremonial and a traditional, but she does have the legal right to excercise authority in Canada, she chooses not to use it.

 

[Claudius]

The Queen is your Head of State, her position is mostly ceremonial and a traditional, but she does have the legal right to excercise authority in Canada, she chooses not to use it.

Ok. If by that you mean to suggest that one morning she could wake up and decide to tax Canada and then one day I would look at my pay cheque and there would be a queen tax, well no. She can't exercise authority over us at all, in any realistic manner of any kind what so ever. No deciding of laws. No vetoing the government. No granting Saaskatchewan it's independence. Nothing. Even the governmental body that is encapsulated by the term, “the crown” as in “crown prosecutor” or “crown land” means the government of Canada in every homogeneous and legally binding way, not the Queen or anyone else. She’s no more our leader than all Americans are Quakers.

Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to make sure we're clear. We have an elected leader and even with all the connection of ceremony to the British monarchy there is no real meaning behind it. We're bound to drop it all when we don't find it quaint any longer. There is nothing about the Queen in the constitution either.


.

 

[I think not]

I don't mean to be a jerk either, but the British Monarchy is all over your Constitution Act of 1867. You Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not supersede the BNA, it's more of an Amendment in it's strictest definition more than anything else.

Don't forget, yo umay never see the Queen because the GG acts on her authority in Canada, and the GG plays a significant role with government. New immigrants swear allegiance to the Queen, don't forget that tidbit. And she is your Head of State, and Commander and Chief of your armed forces, there is no denying this.

For all practical purposes she is nobody, legally however that's a different story.

 

[Claudius]

I don't mean to be a jerk either, but the British Monarchy is all over your Constitution Act of 1867. You Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not supersede the BNA, it's more of an Amendment in it's strictest definition more than anything else.

100% agree but then I wasn't referring to 1867 which was really just a big business deal. My point was at the point of WW1 and beyond. I don't speak for 1867 to WW1.

New immigrants swear allegiance to the Queen, don't forget that tidbit.

This is true and it should probably be changed but it hasn’t changed in 50 years. I think most Canadians would agree that swearing a serious oath to the Queen is something most of them are not prepared to do, nor are any of them required to, so I don't see the relevance of keeping the passage. Especially since it's realistically false.

Don't forget, yo umay never see the Queen because the GG acts on her authority in Canada, and the GG plays a significant role with government.

Agree, except maybe to the degree of significance. It's all rubber-stamped ceremony. They do it because we still like to pretend...this is coming out of fashion imo.

For all practical purposes she is nobody, legally however that's a different story.

Ok, I'll quit pestering you then.

It should be noted that this slow evolution as it were has more to do with perpetual slow population growth. Grand changes to social structure are done on a need-to-do-it basis, the slower models have a lot to do with slow expansion. This has a lot to do actually with the difference, ever so subtle, between Americans and Canadians. For example there is the perception that Canadians have stricter gun laws, or that Americans have a gun fetish. The reality is that the Canadian West was opened up at hibernation speed compared to the American West. 1867 was not just the ratification of this colonial business deal, but also coincided with the final completion of a cross-Canada rail road, which was a contentious point between he provinces. If we had no reasonable way to share our goods or to sell internationally from either sea, why make a country at all? There would’ve been probably four countries here if they never finished that damn rail way.

Even after the railroad was built it was like pulling teeth to get people out West. They bribed and paid people to do it. You could have a track of land if you could only fence it down a plant a house on it. By the time there was any reasonable population out the RCMP was already here in decent numbers for the time and had already made a diplomatic basis between the natives. West there was less reliance on your own gun because there was law. There was less reason to war with the natives because expansion was at a drip rate instead of a bucket rate like down south.

1867? There wasn’t anything but a fort where I am now and even less everywhere else. How many cities had sprouted out already in the US West by 1867? I think San Francisco was already serving mail to Hawaii by then, no?

Canadians even today can own a freakin rocket launcher if they want to but they were never fending off anyone to begin with so it never became part of our heritage. A simple thing really but look how much smugness about who's way is right on either side of the border simply because of chance and hapenstance?


.

 

[Lotuslander]

Claudius,

You're an idiot.

The Crown refers to the Queen, the person, who embodies the government.

The BNA act was not a business deal it was a constitution.

Recent polls have determined that a majority of canadians support the current constitutioanl arrangement.

The Queen can't impose mandatory taxes because constitutioanl only parliamernt can do so whihcb is made up of three bodies of which the Queen is one component.

The CPR or cross Canada railroad isn't completed until the 1880's. Not even talked about til after confederation. It was not a contentious point amongst the provinces, every province was in favour of the rail road just not in favour of paying for it.

canadians stopped being British subjects in the 1960, perhaps later. Up until 2003 British subjects could vote in Nova Scotia provincial elections.

Whoever told you that we didn't ratify our constitutional until 1982 has been spinning lies. The Constitution Act 1982 was an amendment to the original BNA act of 1867. Did we ratify this document yes. It was passed by all colonial legislatures as well as Westminster. Subsequent provinces ratified union agreements.

Here's an idea Claudius. Read once in a while.

 

[Claudius]

No you're the idiot. I never said the crown doesn't refer to the monorchy. I explicitly pointed out that it does, but it doesn't embody Britain of their rule in any way at all. Crown land is government land. Do you deny that?

The BNA act was not a business deal it was a constitution.

I'm not the first nor will I be the last to characterize it as a business deal. That, imo, was quite obviously not meant to be literal, but whatever.

Recent polls have determined that a majority of canadians support the current constitutioanl arrangement.

So? Are you saying your average Canadian would swear an oath to the Queen? You only accentuate what I said about evolutuion on a need-to-do-it basis. Canadians agree with it because no one's come to their door asking them to asking them to pledge allegence to the Queen. IOW, they sense no need to change it so why do it?

The CPR or cross Canada railroad isn't completed until the 1880's. Not even talked about til after confederation. It was not a contentious point amongst the provinces, every province was in favour of the rail road just not in favour of paying for it.

I was off by the years but my contention that the railway had a lot to do with confederation is valid:

In 1866, the colonies of British Columbia (formerly New Caledonia) and Vancouver's Island were united. British Columbia had been important for British control of the Pacific Ocean, and was a centre of the fur trade between Britain, the United States, Russia, Spain, and China. It did not participate in the original Confederation conferences, but agreed to join Canada in 1871 when Macdonald promised to built a transcontinental railroad railroad across the continent through the Northwest Territories (formerly Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory), which at this time still extended to the U.S. border. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Dominion Land Survey were begun soon after.

Clearly it was a contentious point. Here's an idea: Try reading once in a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Confederation_Canada_(1867-1914)

canadians stopped being British subjects in the 1960, perhaps later. Up until 2003 British subjects could vote in Nova Scotia provincial elections.

So says you. Evidently its up to anyone's opinion. What you say about British subject voting in Newfoundland is inaccurate. Those are duel citizenships and a long held argeement through common family bonds. So what? What you say is dishonest because you imply Britain votes for Nova Scotia's primier.

Here's an idea Claudius. Read once in a while.

lol. Yeah and if I wanted smart come back from you I'd wipe it off your chin. Try communicating instead of fighting.

I'd also point out that everything I said about the US and Canada's western expansion was accurate and an obvious indication that not only do I read books once in a while, I can comprehend their meaning as well. I notice you didn't address that in your inexplicable attack against me.


.

 

[Simpleton]

I think out of the standard right now, Canada is a very good, if not one of the best countries over the years for health-care, accepting minorites without unrest (for example with 200+ groups and not the riots or violence seen in other places, for example, France), health care, U.N peacekeeping, Human rights, but we need to improve, especially with regards to the military and aboriginal rights.

So if not the best one of the best nations in the past say 40 years. And that is something to be proud of, because we could have easily slipped or something could have occured in that time period.

I would buy we did good in the past 40 years,however with everything we did to the natives indians even to these days, is something we should be shameful for quite some times.

Our history in dealing with natives, is still much, much better than that of our southern neighbour. Though still quite lacking, obviously.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Canada Day

The Queen is your Head of State, her position is mostly ceremonial and a traditional, but she does have the legal right to excercise authority in Canada, she chooses not to use it.

Ok. If by that you mean to suggest that one morning she could wake up and decide to tax Canada and then one day I would look at my pay cheque and there would be a queen tax, well no. She can't exercise authority over us at all, in any realistic manner of any kind what so ever. No deciding of laws. No vetoing the government. No granting Saaskatchewan it's independence. Nothing. Even the governmental body that is encapsulated by the term, “the crown” as in “crown prosecutor” or “crown land” means the government of Canada in every homogeneous and legally binding way, not the Queen or anyone else. She’s no more our leader than all Americans are Quakers.

Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to make sure we're clear. We have an elected leader and even with all the connection of ceremony to the British monarchy there is no real meaning behind it. We're bound to drop it all when we don't find it quaint any longer. There is nothing about the Queen in the constitution either.


.

Well, federal legislation does require royal assent before it can be enacted as law. However this is just a rubber-stamp useless Governor General, pretending to be the Queen's representative, sort of bullshit waste of tax dollars kind of thing.

I mean, royal assent? The Governor General is chosen by the Prime Minister for Pete's sake. Hmmm, if royal assent is provided by the Governor General, and the Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister, would that make the Prime Minister, effectively, king?

Yeah, Canada definitely needs some parliamentary reform. And that useless waste of taxpayers money, the Governor General, has to be eliminated.

 

[lena]

Its all about Canada..............thats all!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mogz]

So what do Canadians celebrate on Canada Day? I know the official version, the union of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and I forget the other province under the British North American Act of 1867, essentially maitaining loyalty to the British Crown.

So the celebration is for what? Loyalty to the Crown? The union of the Provinces? Or does it differ with each Canadian?

The fouth Province was Nova Scotia, the four of them formed the Dominion of Canada.

That said, I myself see Canada Day as simply Canada's Birthday. This year the Nation is 139 years old, and in my opinion the best Nation on Earth, even with it's short-comings considered. Anyone that has read my posts on this forum will know that I am extremely proud to be a Canadian, July 1st is just one more reason for me to celebrate it.

The best Nation on earth, on what basis do you say that?? we are still under british rule in a way, at least the american get rid of them,our leader have no real opinion on what is going on earth, except following our strong allies ideologie, so i would like to know the reason why canada is the best nation on earth?

Eat shit aeon. If you don't like this Nation then get the f.uck out. That said, any particular reason why you haven't answered LRG's question, which he has posed three times now? I'll answer for you; because you cannot name a better one, and merely made your initial post to ruffle my feathers (which you failed to do). That about sum it up f.uckstain?

 

[Lotuslander]

Ok. If by that you mean to suggest that one morning she could wake up and decide to tax Canada and then one day I would look at my pay cheque and there would be a queen tax, well no. She can't exercise authority over us at all, in any realistic manner of any kind what so ever. No deciding of laws. No vetoing the government. No granting Saaskatchewan it's independence. Nothing. Even the governmental body that is encapsulated by the term, “the crown” as in “crown prosecutor” or “crown land” means the government of Canada in every homogeneous and legally binding way, not the Queen or anyone else. She’s no more our leader than all Americans are Quakers.

--Claudius

I never said the crown doesn't refer to the monorchy. I explicitly pointed out that it does, but it doesn't embody Britain of their rule in any way at all. Crown land is government land. Do you deny that?

-claudius

Claudius I hope you're pretty cause you sure are dumb, so dumb in fact you can't even recall what you wrote mere minutes ago. Crown land belongs to the Queen in right of Canada, not just to the government but, the actual individual in her right as queen of canada. it doesn't refer to britian becuase the corwns of Britain and canada are seperate. If you do some readingor perhaps if you were older than 12 you'd know that.

So? Are you saying your average Canadian would swear an oath to the Queen? You only accentuate what I said about evolutuion on a need-to-do-it basis. Canadians agree with it because no one's come to their door asking them to asking them to pledge allegence to the Queen. IOW, they sense no need to change it so why do it?

There is no reason for me to contradict you when you do it so well yourself. In any case, the point of the matter is that in all the recent opinion polls a majority favour retention of the monarchy. Will that change in the future? I don't know. I should point out that currently a number of people already swear alliegence to the Queen including politicians, police officers, military officials civil servants and more.

I was off by the years but my contention that the railway had a lot to do with confederation is valid:

-Claudius

No it is not valid which was my point. BC did not enter into confederation negotiations, nor did the Hudson's bay Company who owned the land in what today is Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As far as I know th othe colony Red River (Manitoba) also was not part of those talks which were limited to Canada PEI, NFLD, NS, NB and Britain. it is hard to believe that the CPR could be in any menaingful way part of the confederation debates, except in a hypothetical sense, when the company had not yet been formed. Here is what you wrote:

1867 was not just the ratification of this colonial business deal, but also coincided with the final completion of a cross-Canada rail road, which was a contentious point between he provinces. If we had no reasonable way to share our goods or to sell internationally from either sea, why make a country at all? There would’ve been probably four countries here if they never finished that damn rail way.

You don't actually link it with the constituational discussions like I thought you did but, you definetly infer the connection.

So says you. Evidently its up to anyone's opinion. What you say about British subject voting in Newfoundland is inaccurate. Those are duel citizenships and a long held argeement through common family bonds. So what? What you say is dishonest because you imply Britain votes for Nova Scotia's primier.

yes so says me but feel free to look it up. the change would have come about in about 2001 as an amendment to the elctions act in Nova Scotia. it will be in the books. I didn't mention anything abnout Newfoundland, so evidently you are confused, which is hardly surprising given the drivel which you type in this forum, most of which is incorrect. As for voting in NS. I am not saying Britian votes for member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly prior to 2003, I am saying that British citizens, jamaicans, New Zealanders, Aussies and any other country which retains the Queen as head of state and who's citizens lived in NS 6 months prior to election day was eligible to vote. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I'd also point out that everything I said about the US and Canada's western expansion was accurate and an obvious indication that not only do I read books once in a while, I can comprehend their meaning as well. I notice you didn't address that in your inexplicable attack against me.

The reason I didn't say anything is because most of what you wrote was hypothetical. How is anyone suppose to know how many countries would exist without the railroad? Somehow you picked four and believe it should be submitted as academic writing in
"Historica" or "The Beaver" good luck.

As for inexplicable attack, well, the amount of information you posted which was inaccurate speaks for itself. Someone had to defend history and what actually happened. perhaps I shouldn't have called you an idiot but, the truth hurts sometimes I guess.


[/quote]

 

[Claudius]

There is no reason for me to contradict you when you do it so well yourself. In any case, the point of the matter is that in all the recent opinion polls a majority favour retention of the monarchy. Will that change in the future? I don't know. I should point out that currently a number of people already swear alliegence to the Queen including politicians, police officers, military officials civil servants and more.

lol. Boo-hoo. I hurt now.

Funny. First you say this,

Up until 2003 British subjects could vote in Nova Scotia provincial elections.

Then you say this

I am not saying Britian votes for member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly prior to 2003, I am saying that British citizens, jamaicans, New Zealanders, Aussies and any other country which retains the Queen as head of state and who's citizens lived in NS 6 months prior to election day was eligible to vote. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Why didn't you say that the first time? The first seems to imply something quite different. I do admit "ignorance" to this situation, but so what? I wasn't speaking about it either, idiot.

As for inexplicable attack, well, the amount of information you posted which was inaccurate speaks for itself. Someone had to defend history and what actually happened. perhaps I shouldn't have called you an idiot but, the truth hurts sometimes I guess.

No I think it has more to do with this,

which is hardly surprising given the drivel which you type in this forum, most of which is incorrect.

Which makes me believe I either said something you didn't like to one of your little boyfriends somewhere else here on the forum or that you're p.o'ed at something I said elsewhere that you don't want to touch. Who cares either way. If you had simply brought that to my attention instead of trying to act smarter than you actually are I would've been grateful...or do you think I would've argued it?

The reason I didn't say anything is because most of what you wrote was hypothetical. How is anyone suppose to know how many countries would exist without the railroad? Somehow you picked four and believe it should be submitted as academic writing in
"Historica" or "The Beaver" good luck.

It wasn't hypothetical. Western expansion was much slower than in the US. There was more RCMP and fewer people. There was less need to be armed because there was, by that time, more law. Furthermore there was nothing to indicate I thought it should be "submitted as academic writing" --- childish arrogant hyperbole is another sign of an idiot.


.

 

[Kreskin]

So what do Canadians celebrate on Canada Day? I know the official version, the union of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and I forget the other province under the British North American Act of 1867, essentially maitaining loyalty to the British Crown.

So the celebration is for what? Loyalty to the Crown? The union of the Provinces? Or does it differ with each Canadian?

We celebrated by attending an awesome fireworks display. It was also witnessed by three cruise ships passing through the entrance to Discovery Passage. What an incredible day and night.

I'll tell you what I celebrated. I celebrated that about 10,000 of us could get together, bring our kids out, not even have a smidgen of threat that someone would be knifed, robbed, beaten, shot, rolled, or punched out. That we couldn't careless if we rubbed elbows with heterosexuals, bi-sexuals, or gays. That every nationality could congragate and no one could care less if the person next to them was green, white, red, black or purple. That we lived in a resource-rich country, a land of real opportunity that is full of hope and promise for the future.

I celebrated that we actually do respect and look after each other, no matter the sexual orientation, colour, race, or wealth. We don't need to debate it, lined with ifs and buts and constitutional wrangling. I celebrated that we don't need to manufacture patriotism to prop up an identity. When you have what we have you don't need to be fed the patriotic sugar pill. The maturity of this democracy is far greater than its 139 years.

I wouldn't trade this country for any other. We (our nation and peoples) are getting it right. We don't need to pledge allegiance to false prophets (and profits) or continuously remind ourselves of how great we were centuries ago. We live in the present. We don't need to dwell on the BNA Act, who got shot at riding a horse to victory etc to remind us how great we are. My proof is in everything we do and stand for today.

 

[I think not]

Our history in dealing with natives, is still much, much better than that of our southern neighbour. Though still quite lacking, obviously.

Sad.

 

[athabaska]

So what do Canadians celebrate on Canada Day? I know the official version, the union of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and I forget the other province under the British North American Act of 1867, essentially maitaining loyalty to the British Crown.

So the celebration is for what? Loyalty to the Crown? The union of the Provinces? Or does it differ with each Canadian?

The celebration of Canada Day as a historical event is a bit ironic. confederation was approved in the back rooms of London's gentlemen clubs by an elite. It zapped any chance of real democracy for the next 50 years. A few crumbs were tossed out to make an even lesser elite in Canada feel good. Canada didn't 'become a nation' but simply renovated the colonial structure.

It is similar to the myths of the War of 1812. Somehow 'we' drove back the Americans. What actually happened was that real democracy in the nothern half of the continent was delayed for another century until the 1920's or so and a furter 5 generations of the population got to live under their colonial masters in London.

We can all take pride in much that Canada represents. Unfortunately our revisionist view of history is so filtered by our British colonial perspective that we've created myths.

I always enjoyed reading the quasi-historical books by Pierre Burton. he could twist history with the best of them. A couple years before his death he said his greatest regret was his enthusiasm in writing 'the National Dream'. He said he got caught up in the ideology of the expansion of the British empire via the railroad across the continent while ignoring the way it ravaged the environment, destroyed native cultures and entrenched British prudishness and regressive culture to an area that was wild and free.