Some pro-monarchists say the queen of England is also the queen of Canada. so we are obviously geographically distinct, but politically united. Politically united, but to what end? Does it mean anything being a constitutional monarchy? So is Saudi Arabia. They have a monarchy and a constitution, but they are not a democracy.
Canadian Journalist Jailed, Caged and Humiliated By UK Immigration Authorities
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Some pro-monarchists say the queen of England is also the queen of Canada. so we are obviously geographically distinct, but politically united. Politically united, but to what end? Does it mean anything being a constitutional monarchy? So is Saudi Arabia. They have a monarchy and a constitution, but they are not a democracy.
No......
This is not a news item, it is an opinion piece.....which begs for critical comment......
Which is what I provided....
We have the British Parliamentary system, in which there is a Head of State, (the Queen) represented by the G-G in Canada, and the Head of Government (the PM). The PM chooses the G-G, but that does not mean the G-G has no power, as aptly demonstrated when Harper had to go on bended knee to Ms. Jean to ask her to prorogue Parliament....she could have refused.
The problem is what do you replace the G-G with if you dump the Monarchy? this opens a large can of worms.....and our gov't ain't good at improving things....
If it works (and it does) DON'T FIX IT!
when discussing matters of immigration and border security, this is the key factor. We are geographically distinct. We are two separate sovereign countries. Don't confuse that fact simply because we share a figure head. To do so is naive, and oversimplifying the matter.
It is clear to me you don’t travel abroad much, dumpthemonarchy. You NEVER visit a country without a visa, not unless that country specifically says that Canadian citizens do not need a visa to go to that country.
If you require a visa and you try to visit the country without one, you will be turned away at the border, no exceptions. Thus, many countries in Europe (including Britain) do not require Canadian citizens to obtain a visa before visiting them as a tourist. But when we visited India two years ago, we had to get a visa before leaving for India.
I assume Leah McLaren had an expired journalist visa stamped in her passport. If that had not been the case, she could have simply said that she is visiting UK as a tourist and there would have been no problem. But once they see expired journalist visa, they assume that she is trying to enter the country as a journalist, that is reasonable.
Anyway, before visiting any country it is a must that you check the visa requirements. If Canadians require visa to go to a particular country, don’t even think of going there without a visa. Visa is serious business, and if you don’t have a visa, you will be turned away, period.
We are planning on visiting Egypt (pyramids) and Jordan (Petra and black sea) in January. I was told that Egyptian visa may be obtained after we land, but Jordan visa must be obtained beforehand.
Now, if I go to Amman airport without a visa, I will be turned away. I am an old, white man, no threat to anybody; obviously I will have sufficient funds, medical insurance etc. to visit Jordan. None of that will be relevant. If I don’t have a visa, I will be turned away, that is the law.
Guffaw. Canada works like a square wheel. Eventually you can get somewhere, but it's not easy.
I can only speak from my own experience, but I've never had any real trouble entering the UK and even felt that I got good treatment as a result of being Canadian.
There was one time a number of years ago when the queues at British customs had grown very long and it was announced that Commonwealth citizens could use the EU bypass line.
Then on a recent trip, while returning home and going through security at Heathrow there were two lines for passport check, one for British citizens and one for foreigners. The latter was paced while the British line was empty. I asked the lady tending to the British line if we could go through, she asked "Are you British?" I said, "We're Canadian, that's close enough isn't it?", and she said "Sure", and so we went through.
I don't doubt the story that started this thread, but it seems to me that being Canadian still generally results in good treatment in Britain.
There was one time a number of years ago when the queues at British customs had grown very long and it was announced that Commonwealth citizens could use the EU bypass line.
Then on a recent trip, while returning home and going through security at Heathrow there were two lines for passport check, one for British citizens and one for foreigners. The latter was paced while the British line was empty. I asked the lady tending to the British line if we could go through, she asked "Are you British?" I said, "We're Canadian, that's close enough isn't it?", and she said "Sure", and so we went through.
I don't doubt the story that started this thread, but it seems to me that being Canadian still generally results in good treatment in Britain.
Maybe the journalist's incident was an isolated one. Maybe the OK has changed a bit. I don't know. But I think if people don't like what goes on in a particular country, they can always find another to try.
I can only speak from my own experience, but I've never had any real trouble entering the UK and even felt that I got good treatment as a result of being Canadian.
Polygong, I have never had any trouble either. After we left Britain in 1987 I have been back there 4 or 5 times. Every time I was practically waved through (perhaps after a few routine questions like what was the purpose of my visit, how long I was going to stay etc.).
And that is how most of the Canadians would be treated. No doubt a few of them get a rough deal. Sometimes it is justified, other times it is not. But it is all part of traveling abroad.
Immigration officers in any country are given broad powers, they can ask any questions they want (subject to human rights considerations, of course), can refuse entry to a person for any reason whatever (or for no reason whatever) and in general can do pretty much anything they wish.
So if you are treated shabbily, all you can do is grin and bear it (and I personally know a few horror stories), it is all part of traveling abroad.
Polygong, I have never had any trouble either. After we left Britain in 1987 I have been back there 4 or 5 times. Every time I was practically waved through (perhaps after a few routine questions like what was the purpose of my visit, how long I was going to stay etc.).
And that is how most of the Canadians would be treated. No doubt a few of them get a rough deal. Sometimes it is justified, other times it is not. But it is all part of traveling abroad.
Immigration officers in any country are given broad powers, they can ask any questions they want (subject to human rights considerations, of course), can refuse entry to a person for any reason whatever (or for no reason whatever) and in general can do pretty much anything they wish.
So if you are treated shabbily, all you can do is grin and bear it (and I personally know a few horror stories), it is all part of traveling abroad.
The GG does have some power, allowing a PM to prorogue Parliament which I heard has never happened before because he makes a political miscalculatlion. The PM never paid a price that his elected peers wanted him to pay. What makes the GG a constitutional expert all of a sudden? Making a decision to end a Parliament without the consent of Parliament? This is a cancer in the system.
Dumping the monarchy requires unanimity among the provinces and the fed. gov't. So it's not going to happen anytime soon. I think we're in a lucky stage where we can make any political system work. How long we'll be lucky with a municipality as a province in PEI, or letting separatists in Parliament, a dated 1st past the post system, weak MPs, rural votes are worth more than urban votes, or a useless monarchy, possible time bombs in our political system that could unceremoniously go off one day.
The world is dynamic so our politics must change a little bit more with the times. First, we need a republican movement across the country to get things started. Politicians will do nothing until they are hear some noise that citizens want one.
I have traveled a fair bit, and had no trouble with visas, it's a simple issue. In some countries you get a visa when you land.
Leah M had vague benign feelings about the queen, and felt she should get some benefit in return from the UK. She got nothing when she seemed to need it, and to boot got abused. So in her mind the inexplicable abuse really didn't seem to be part of the deal.
Leah M writes in the lifestyle/fashion section, but was in Africa to help the poor. Not being that interested in history or politics she thinks the queen in neat/great/part of Canada, but would have trouble articulating why. Now Leah M can explain why not with some passion. Being a practical people, when something isn't useful any more, we tend to get rid of it.
I think that the gist of the problem can be summed up in a couple of lines: She was refused entry because the immigration officer didn't believe her story.
Isn't that the whole point of immigration officers? They ask you stuff, and decide if you're lying or not.
Isn't that the whole point of immigration officers? They ask you stuff, and decide if you're lying or not.
Sure, that's their job, but taking over a day to verify the facts? And putting an innocent person in a jail and a caged van? And then unceremoniously shipping her out of the country? Seems a wee bit harsh to me.
The UK is supposed to be a modern, efficient, civilized country. Quaintness should be manners and customs, not government practices. No crime was committed anywhere, but there is lot of wasted effort here.