Yup yup yup..... but did ya notice? 5 didn't show up till we started talking about dicks.......hmmmmmmm.;-)
Canadians ashamed of our constitution?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Yup yup yup..... but did ya notice? 5 didn't show up till we started talking about dicks.......hmmmmmmm.;-)
Canada didn't exist when slavery was around in what is now Canada. It was a series of colonies. Slavery was also removed peacefully well over a generation before it was in the US.
Women also got the right to vote before they did in the US.
In the end the constitution in all its forms was re-ratified by peoples representatives (all had the ability to vote by 1982), except Quebec. But that doesn't change the fact that the constitution exists and is in practice.
So I take it you agree then that according to the BNA Act, certain religious communities are granted special educational privileges not granted other religious communities? I take it you agree that according to the Bill of Rights 1869, one must be a member of the Church of England and must not marry a Catholic in order to ascend the Throne, even though there is no restriction on marrying anyone from any other religion? And I take it you agree that the religious discrimination in the BNA Act and the Bill of Rights 1867 trumps the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights?
Now now Machjo, you know what happens when you assume.
To answer your questions in order:
Special education rights
Catholic schools are funded, pursuant to s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. At the time of Confederation, the predominant religious communities in Canada were only the Protestant and Catholic communities, and it was becoming clear that the Catholic community would be very much in the minority in a confederated Canada. This provision was to ensure that English-speaking Protestant Canada wouldn't have an unreasonable advantage over their Catholic counterparts. At the time, the provision didn't need to be drafted to provide for other faiths, since that simply wasn't a demographic reality at the time. Do I agree that this should be the case? No, I don't -- but I do agree that this is the legal and constitutional reality that we have at the moment.
Religious requirements of the Crown
You are absolutely correct in that only a member of the Church of England (and in particular, not a Catholic) can ascend to the throne. Once again, I don't agree that this should be the case, but this is our legal and constitutional reality as set out in our foundational constitutional texts.
Primary question
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only gives to our judicial institutions the power to strike down statutes or Government decisions. The Charter cannot be used to strike down any document listed in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as these documents form the constitutional foundation of the country.
All of what you say is true, and one of many reasons the constitution must be opened and amended. Bad politics, but good policy. It would improve the country to fix these problems and others.
Now now Machjo, you know what happens when you assume.
To answer your questions in order:
Special education rights
Catholic schools are funded, pursuant to s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. At the time of Confederation, the predominant religious communities in Canada were only the Protestant and Catholic communities, and it was becoming clear that the Catholic community would be very much in the minority in a confederated Canada. This provision was to ensure that English-speaking Protestant Canada wouldn't have an unreasonable advantage over their Catholic counterparts. At the time, the provision didn't need to be drafted to provide for other faiths, since that simply wasn't a demographic reality at the time. Do I agree that this should be the case? No, I don't -- but I do agree that this is the legal and constitutional reality that we have at the moment.
Religious requirements of the Crown
You are absolutely correct in that only a member of the Church of England (and in particular, not a Catholic) can ascend to the throne. Once again, I don't agree that this should be the case, but this is our legal and constitutional reality as set out in our foundational constitutional texts.
Primary question
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only gives to our judicial institutions the power to strike down statutes or Government decisions. The Charter cannot be used to strike down any document listed in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as these documents form the constitutional foundation of the country.
So we're agreed then. Whether we agree to it or not, the reigning monarch must be a member of the Anglican Chursh and is explicitely prohibited from marrying a Catholic. Interestingly enough though, there is no restriction on marrying a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu or even an atheist.
But honestly though, the pride Americans and frenchmen have in their respective constitutions has also helped to foster a strong sense of patriotism, promoting this image of their country as a bastion of human rights for all.
While a Canadian can also love his country and be a patriot, it would seem he must find a different source of inspiration than a constitution that discriminates at every turn. Certainly if we want to streanghen national unity, developing a constitution we could all be proud of would be a start, no?
To put it bluntly.....fu ck you're an idiot.
now go run to a mod and let em know I swore at ya.
Why would they need to be in Parliament They ran everything else anyway.
It`s like keeping Corporate shills out of Congress.
I guess 5P is an idiot too then. The facts are in the Bill of Rights 1689 for all to see. Whether we agree to it or not, the reigning monarch is prohibited from marrying specifically a Catholic. Now you may agree to this because of some "agreement", but I don't because it's not fair. Freedom of religion should apply to all, including our monarch and his spouce. Ironically enough, the monarch of Canada has less freedom of Religion than the average Canadian, or dare I say the average Chinese. He's told what religion to believe in, and what religion his spouce may not be, and that in the constitution. Even the average Chinese is allowed to adopt the religion of his choice and so is his spouse.
You might also want to read up on this:
Act of Settlement 1701 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All you're proving is that you're an even bigger idiot, and I'm not about to hold your hand and pat you on the head and explain life to you.
As for 5P, he made it quite clear what is what, therefore he is far from an idiot.
And he confirmed that in fact the reigning monarch must be Anglican and cannot marry a Catholic specifically. It's right in the Bill of Rights 1689 and even more excplicit in the Act of Settlement. Not to mention that the eldest sun takes precedence over his older sister.
Look it up. He agreed with the point about the monarch having to be Anglican and not marry a Catholic. So how can one be right while the one he agrees with is wrong on the same question?
I know all of that dummy. I doubt there is a hell of alot YOU could actually teach me. Try reading again exactly what 5P wrote. If you're having comprehension problems, sorry, I'm not willing to help you.
Now now Machjo, you know what happens when you assume.
To answer your questions in order:
Special education rights
Catholic schools are funded, pursuant to s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. At the time of Confederation, the predominant religious communities in Canada were only the Protestant and Catholic communities, and it was becoming clear that the Catholic community would be very much in the minority in a confederated Canada. This provision was to ensure that English-speaking Protestant Canada wouldn't have an unreasonable advantage over their Catholic counterparts. At the time, the provision didn't need to be drafted to provide for other faiths, since that simply wasn't a demographic reality at the time. Do I agree that this should be the case? No, I don't -- but I do agree that this is the legal and constitutional reality that we have at the moment.
Religious requirements of the Crown
You are absolutely correct in that only a member of the Church of England (and in particular, not a Catholic) can ascend to the throne. Once again, I don't agree that this should be the case, but this is our legal and constitutional reality as set out in our foundational constitutional texts.
Primary question
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only gives to our judicial institutions the power to strike down statutes or Government decisions. The Charter cannot be used to strike down any document listed in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as these documents form the constitutional foundation of the country.
Some of the bolded parts are mine. Here you have it. The monarch may not be a Catholic. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's the case. And you're proud of such a constitution?
Considering the constitutional framework as a whole, I absolutely am proud of our constitution.
Our constitution is very innovative, in that it blends a codified constitution with unwritten conventions, and even demands the style of interpretation -- that is, in a manner consistent with the principles of the constitution of the United Kingdom. It is a very comprehensive set of documents, but still flexible enough to allow for the day-to-day decisions of government to be made and executed without undue rigidity and redundancy.
On this particular issue, since succession to the throne is governed by male-preference primogeniture, we haven't run into the issue of the religious rules playing much of a significant role. All reasonably realistic persons on the order of succession are members of the Church of England, and are not Catholic; so, these specific provisions haven't been an issue. If and when they do become a problem, then I would imagine that a conversation would then take place between the Commonwealth Realms on how to proceed.
Our constitution is very innovative, in that it blends a codified constitution with unwritten conventions, and even demands the style of interpretation -- that is, in a manner consistent with the principles of the constitution of the United Kingdom. It is a very comprehensive set of documents, but still flexible enough to allow for the day-to-day decisions of government to be made and executed without undue rigidity and redundancy.
On this particular issue, since succession to the throne is governed by male-preference primogeniture, we haven't run into the issue of the religious rules playing much of a significant role. All reasonably realistic persons on the order of succession are members of the Church of England, and are not Catholic; so, these specific provisions haven't been an issue. If and when they do become a problem, then I would imagine that a conversation would then take place between the Commonwealth Realms on how to proceed.
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 wouldn't say its proving idiocy for him to be against this practice. The Queen is our monarch independently of her role as head of the Church of England. If she were to stop being the head of that church she would still be the Queen. Even if the UK abolished the monarchy they would still be in place for Canada and other commonwealth nations.
The entire monarchical system is discriminatory both of sex and religion. So it isn't really a system to be proud of.
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.
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.