So, why do you think that it is necessary to have a person, with or without (mostly without) personal merit and worth to be the Head of State?
Canadians ashamed of our constitution?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
So, why do you think that it is necessary to have a person, with or without (mostly without) personal merit and worth to be the Head of State?
I'd say the current Queen was a pretty good random genetic coincidence. She happened to be born to the right people and got a good job for her abilities. However its just as possible with this way of getting a monarch to wind up with some idiot or incompetent person. (Caligula, Nero, Richard III, George III....perhaps the future Charles III?)
Quick question, when you received your citizenship, you had to swear allegiance to our monarch, did you not?
And in being so faithful to the monarch, we'd like to extend our basic freedom of religion to the monarch too, right?
They already have that freedom, exercising that right/freedom just means they can not be King/Queen.
The hereditary succession of the Sovereign is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The power given to the courts to strike down legislation under the Charter does not extend to the Canadian constitution itself. There are merits to a discussion on modernising the rules to throne succession; however, the rules as they are in place at this time are perfectly workable. No one on the order of succession at the moment is a Catholic and, therefore, there is no practical purpose to opening a discussion that would require harmonised constitutional amendments by sixteen countries.
The power given to the courts to strike down legislation under the Charter does not extend to the Canadian constitution itself. There are merits to a discussion on modernising the rules to throne succession; however, the rules as they are in place at this time are perfectly workable. No one on the order of succession at the moment is a Catholic and, therefore, there is no practical purpose to opening a discussion that would require harmonised constitutional amendments by sixteen countries.
Yes, I did, gerryh, and do you think that forever disqualified me for forming an opinion?
I am surprised that you did not repeat your refrain of 'go back where the hell you came from you f**kin' traitor'.
That comes next. You swore your allegiance to the crown. What you are stating on this forum borders on treasonous considering that fact. If you feel you can no longer offer your allegiance to the crown, then renounce.
So there is a consequence. Taking the same logic to an extreme, Jews had a right to practice their religion freely in Nazi Germany too, just with a consequence attached. Jews in ontario can send their children to Jewish school too, but just don't expect the same access to public Jewish schools Catholics get to enjoy with their Catholic schools under the law. What's so hard to understand about equality for all regardless of Faith?
Have you set the date yet when you would take sadistic and reverse pleasure when I am hanged, drawn and quartered. You know, the royal pleasure trip to do away with those who dared to say that the king was not the most beautiful person.
Did it ever occur to you to look into how the Catholic system developed and why it is considered mainstream today? If you had even an inkling of such, you'd realize that your rants are more discriminatory than the Catholic system that you deride so much.
In all of your anti-Catholicism rants, you assume that no other theological option exists or has access to the same funding potential as the public or separate systems. This is not the case, but clearly it's asking too much for you to have any objectivity other than your pissing and moaning.
Re: Merits of Catholic School Funding
The very reason for the inclusion of Catholic school funding provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867 was to ensure that the Anglican majority that existed at the time could not use its legislative weight to discriminate against or otherwise crush or silence the Catholic minority. There were concerns that Anglican legislators would use their numbers to subvert the teaching and continuation of the Catholic faith in French Canada, and so this provision was included to safeguard against that. The rational is a very sound one, and it's not dissimilar to demands that Her Majesty's Government for Canada contribute funds to the Pride Parade, or women's organisations.
The very reason for the inclusion of Catholic school funding provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867 was to ensure that the Anglican majority that existed at the time could not use its legislative weight to discriminate against or otherwise crush or silence the Catholic minority. There were concerns that Anglican legislators would use their numbers to subvert the teaching and continuation of the Catholic faith in French Canada, and so this provision was included to safeguard against that. The rational is a very sound one, and it's not dissimilar to demands that Her Majesty's Government for Canada contribute funds to the Pride Parade, or women's organisations.
What anti-catholic rants. I'm actually proposing that the monarch ought to be allowed to marry a catholic without consequence and to be free to even adopt teh Catholic faith himself.
As for the Catholic school system, I have no issue with catholic schools getting funding per se, but rather the issue of equality. In other words, if a Catholic school can get public funding, then so should a Jewish school, Muslim school, etc.
And should the others not be able to get any public funding, then neither the Catholic schools. I'm not asking that we discriminate against catholic schools, but rather that we don't discriminate in favour of Catholic schools either. Either they all get funding or none gets it. Seems fair enough to me anyway.
And as for the historical argument, slavery used to be legal in Canada too, but no one would propose defending that either.
So what about discriminating against Jews? Would it not have been far more efficient and equal to just do something similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights saying no one is to be treated unfairly because of their religion? Why protect one religious group only and not another? I'm sure Jews needed perhaps even more protection than catholics, or indigenous religions, etc. No?
Re: Merits of Catholic School Funding
Add to that the current 'Public' system was itself denominational at the time. That said, the today's public system was spawned from a theological base at it's inception.
What people (read: Machjo) purposely omits from his diatribe is that all of the schools (way back in the day) were community-based, funded and housed, more often than not by the local churches... Just because we live in a society that is captained by political correctness doesn't mean that historical realities don't count any longer.
Add to this that no group; be they religious, cultural, etc - are not banned from opening and operating their own schools. Provided that they fall under the academic guidlines of the province, they can accommodate any demographic they desire and receive a per student allocation towards funding... Just like the separate system.
Add to that the current 'Public' system was itself denominational at the time. That said, the today's public system was spawned from a theological base at it's inception.
What people (read: Machjo) purposely omits from his diatribe is that all of the schools (way back in the day) were community-based, funded and housed, more often than not by the local churches... Just because we live in a society that is captained by political correctness doesn't mean that historical realities don't count any longer.
Add to this that no group; be they religious, cultural, etc - are not banned from opening and operating their own schools. Provided that they fall under the academic guidlines of the province, they can accommodate any demographic they desire and receive a per student allocation towards funding... Just like the separate system.
Do you know what accredited means? If they want to deviate from the Provincial curriculm they get **** all if they stick to it they get funded.
Look it up for **** sakes.
When the Constitution Act, 1867 was drafted and promulgated, Canada did not have a considerable Jewish community -- it was nearly entirely between Anglican English-speaking Canadians, and Catholic French-speaking Canadians. The way that the constitution was framed was not an attempt to discriminate against any particular group, because at the time, there were no other groups to discriminate against. Consider the constitution in the context of when it was created. And in any case, there are very few practical implications of ss. 92-93 that aren't mitigated and dealt with by the individual provinces.
Disguise it any way you see fit, but you are squarely against the separate system based on the notion that it is Catholic... I don't hear you bitching about the Jewish schools or the french immersion schools outside Quebec.
On that note, what in the hell does the Monarch's practices in the UK have to do with education in Canada?
I suppose that it never occurred to you that maybe there are some Catholics that attend those schools?
Give your head a shake. No one is stopping any religious or cultural organization from operating their own schools.. You're pissed because the separate system has been around so long (ever wonder why by the way?) and are representing their constituents and functioning quite well within the specified confines of gvt... How in the hell is that not equal?
What part of any organization can get public funding confuses you Machjo?
AB has tons of schools that receive public funding; charters and french immersion come to mind... Does those somehow NOT qualify as equal?
What a pathetic argument.
And as for homosexuality, i actually liked a suggestion made by ron Paul: The state woudl no longer recognize marriage, thus making it completely outside the realm of politics. Seeing that there are currently so many laws relating to marriage, it woudl mean an overhaul of the legal ssytem, but would be possible over a period of time, along with certain disadvantages too. For instance, since the law would no longer recognize marriage, it could no longer recognize adultery too, making it difficult in divorce cases, etc.
I'm not totally fond of Ron Paul's position, but it is worth considering at least, though I do see many problems with it too.
Even if a Jewish school followed the provincial curriculum, it still gets no funding, whereas a catholic school would.
I'm not totally fond of Ron Paul's position, but it is worth considering at least, though I do see many problems with it too.
Even if a Jewish school followed the provincial curriculum, it still gets no funding, whereas a catholic school would.
Has Ontario ever responded to the U.N. who gave them 90 days change these laws for Catholic Separate School system laws? I know there is nothing the U.N. can do to force a change, but a lot of Canadians always throw the U.N. at the U.S. when we do a perceived wrong.