The Zionists are whining thread

Hmph. I thought Canada had already been independent. I stand corrected.

Which only raises another question. Why did it take you an extra 100 years to throw off the yoke of your European fur trapping masters, Canooks? I thought Canada formed much faster than that.

iAnus_sl said:

Hmph. I thought Canada had already been independent. I stand corrected.

Which only raises another question. Why did it take you an extra 100 years to throw off the yoke of your European fur trapping masters, Canooks? I thought Canada formed much faster than that.

Click to expand...

Didn't they consider themselves British for quite a bit of the boat journey over and then maybe a few years after?

iAnus_sl said:

Hmph. I thought Canada had already been independent. I stand corrected.

Which only raises another question. Why did it take you an extra 100 years to throw off the yoke of your European fur trapping masters, Canooks? I thought Canada formed much faster than that.

Click to expand...

Historically we are a very complacent people. Probably has something to do with the embarrassment of riches inhabitants have enjoyed since colonization.

Even then, a cohesive Canadian identity took decades to crystallize. I'd even argue that 'Canadians', as we know them, didn't truly begin to be recognizable before the drafting of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in '82.

We're a crown colony. The queen runs everything. Her face is on all our money and the few ships we have are all labeled as HMS, her majesty's ship. The French love the queen btw...

Chanur_sl said:

Doesn't sound to independent!

Click to expand...

Tanoomba is stupid. The Queen had zero influence on that decision. The Governor General, who represents the Queen, made that call after seeking advice from Canadian scholars and experts, and never consulted with the actual Queen. The whole "the British Crown is the head of Canada's government" thing is a technicality at this point, and it's not even technically true. The Governor General is the head of state, not the Queen, depending on which constitutional scholar you talk to. In any case, if a huge constitutional crisis came about the Crown might get involved, but in all likelihood it would be all like "Why the fuck are you asking me? Figure it out for yourselves. You're big boys now!"

iAnus_sl said:

Hmph. I thought Canada had already been independent. I stand corrected.

Which only raises another question. Why did it take you an extra 100 years to throw off the yoke of your European fur trapping masters, Canooks? I thought Canada formed much faster than that.

Click to expand...

I don't know the specific, detailed reasons, but basically it boiled down to Canada being much, much smaller population wise and the British treating us a lot better after they lost the American colonies. Like has been said already, Canada slowly became more and more independent over the decades and centuries, and it was more or less sealed by our involvement in the two World Wars. Repatriating the constitution in 1982 just kind of sealed the deal, although those fuckers in Quebec still haven't signed it and every time the subject comes up the country nearly falls apart.

So everyone's just kind of cool sticking with the status quo. And it really does reflect, I think, the differences in psyche between the US and Canada. We just kind of want to get along with everyone, and don't want to rock the boat too much.

Eomer_sl said:

We just kind of want to get along with everyone, and don't want to rock the boat too much.

Click to expand...

With as much land (resources) as you guys have, and as small a population to defend it, it's the way to go. California alone has over 3m more people than the entirety of Canada. That's crazy to me.

OneofOne_sl said:

With as much land (resources) as you guys have, and as small a population to defend it, it's the way to go. California alone has over 3m more people than the entirety of Canada. That's crazy to me.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. I think a better comparison is the province of Alberta, with about 4 million people, is two and a half times bigger than Germany, which has about 82 million. However that being said, a significant portion of our land area is way the fuck up North. The three large territories make up 40% of the country, and only have barely over 100k people living in them, combined. And that's not going to change significantly, because outside of remote mine sites that will fly people in and out, there's little or no reason to ever live up there.

Eomer_sl said:

Absolutely true. I think a better comparison is the province of Alberta, with about 4 million people, is two and a half times bigger than Germany, which has about 82 million. However that being said, a significant portion of our land area is way the fuck up North. The three large territories make up 40% of the country, and only have barely over 100k people living in them, combined. And that's not going to change significantly, because outside of remote mine sites that will fly people in and out, there's little or no reason to ever live up there.

Click to expand...

You can do the same fun thing Australia does, how many Britians (double your population) can you fit into your country? We have a popular Australian Soap Opera here which used to have more British viewers than the entire poplation of Australia :O

You can just say "Neighbours", it's not like popular Australian Soap Opera could possibly mean anything else.

The Ancient_sl said:

You can just say "Neighbours", it's not like popular Australian Soap Opera could possibly mean anything else.

Click to expand...

Home and Away?

I have no idea where else it is shown and was assuming that most people here wouldn't have heard of it.

Tanoomba_sl said:

This is asinine. Why do we need a representative of the Queen? Why do we have to refer to her as the "Canadian monarch"? Why does she have "constitutional and ceremonial duties" in our country? If the answer to all of those questions is "because it's a symbolic vestigial link to a part of Canada's history, then why does she have the power tosave the prime minister's job when the will of the majority was to kick him out of office?It doesn't matter that Elizabeth II herself didn't have a say in that, her supposedly symbolic representative does have that power, which was conferred upon him/her by the Queen.

If we are truly an independent country, we should abolish the role of Governor General, get the Queen off our money and let the elected representatives of the majority decide what's best for us without being undermined by "her Majesty's pleasure".

Click to expand...

Because we can't even get Quebec to sign the Constitution as it stands without it turning in to an absolute shit fest, is why. And that's not solely because of Quebec. I was too young for Meech Lake and Charlottetown and don't know the details, but a lot of the other provinces were really fucking things up there too. Basically it is more or less impossible to make any changes to our Constitution for political reasons. On top of that, the ramifications for getting the Crown entirely out of our system of government and legal system are absolutely ENORMOUS. There's a reason damn near everything in our legal system is "Queen's Bench" this, and "Royal" that. Do you realize the enormity of reforming all that? We'd basically have to completely rebuild the vast majority of our governmental and legal institutions, from the ground up.

Shit seems to be working fine, so why bother?

As far as Harper's proroguing of Parliament went, there was plenty of Constitutional precedent for it. Numerous previous PM's had done it, although perhaps not in the same circumstances. There's plenty of reasons to hate Harper (or our system of government), that's not really one of them. And there was no "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" with a majority of Canadians supporting a coalition government forming out of the rubble of Steve-O's. Polling at the time indicated that most Canadians had a fair amount of distaste for the idea of changing the government without an election. There is no precedent, ZERO, NONE, NADA for a coalition government in Canada's entire history. Period. There was plenty of precedent for proroguing Parliament briefly to give the kids time to settle their differences. Lo and behold, when they came back a couple months later the Conservatives satisfied the Liberals with changes to the fiscal update and they were able to get their support. Seems like things worked out fairly cleanly in the end, vs. a coalition government without any precedent in the history of the country, supported by a separatist party no less, and led by a Liberal leaderwho had already announced he would be resigning the position pending a leadership convention 7-8 months in the future because he'd gotten his ass kicked in the election six weeks earlier.

Some democracy that would have been, our PM would have been a lame duck who had been rejected by his own fucking party (because the Canadian people had rejected him) not long before.

Do you really want to keep going with this stupid shit?

Tanoomba_sl said:

Hurr durr no fucking kidding. I didn't mean to imply that Micha?lle Jean called up the Queen and was like "Hey Lizzy, Micky J here. Stevie kind of screwed the pooch and needs you to call a time out so he can get his shit together. Is that OK?"
But, as you pointed out, the Governor Generalrepresentsthe Queen. For all intents and purposes, the Governor General is the voice of the Queen in Canada.

Click to expand...

No, for all intents and purposes, the Queen has no voice in the government of Canada. You claimed that Harper asked for permission to prorogue "through" the GG. That's false. Categorically false. The GG made the decision herself after consulting with experts:

2008??"09 Canadian parliamentary dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up. Nowhere does the Queen factor in to any of that.