PDA

View Full Version : Uh Oh



Aristotle
11-27-2014, 10:18 AM
While Toronto is a long way from Ferguson, Missouri, community activists say Canadians are kidding themselves if they think work doesn’t need to be done on race relations here at home.

“When you talk to young people in the neighbourhood and they’re experiencing it on a day to day basis… it’s daily life,” said Domise. “And when you’re a certain colour in Toronto, you can’t escape that daily life.”

Domise says that the feeling of superiority Canadians like to feel over the United States when it comes to race relationship is an illusion.

“I think for the most part we’re kidding ourselves,” he said. “We have told people that their bodies exist outside the protection of the law. We don’t do it with the same circumstances that exist in the United States but we still do it regardless and it’s still wrong.”

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/11/25/ferguson-decision-shines-light-on-race-relation-issues-in-canada-community-activists-say/

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2416/2121068736_13c07e7f3a.jpg

Aristotle
11-27-2014, 10:21 AM
"police state", Sock?

Anapeg
11-27-2014, 11:21 AM
Are you saying the events transpiring in your country are race related and we experience a similar problem here? For if this is your aim, and this be your attack, you have failed miserably before you even start. I see the dealings in the U.S. as strictly a reaction to a cop doing his job. That "race" only entred into the equation after the shootings. The cop did not shoot a "black kid", rather he reacted to an individual with a weapon. As for any analogy of comparing "you" against "us", you leave yourself open to many railing at your assumptions. Even yourself has to realize our past transgressions to people of colour pale to those of the U.S. and surly you would not wish to open that Pandora's box.

Bluesky
11-27-2014, 06:43 PM
Racism is certainly not dead in Toronto. However, over 50% of Toronto's population is multi-ethnic; i.e. English is not their mother tongue. We are far ahead of the US in this regard. We're learning as we go.

Anapeg
11-27-2014, 09:07 PM
Racism is certainly not dead in Toronto. However, over 50% of Toronto's population is multi-ethnic; i.e. English is not their mother tongue. We are far ahead of the US in this regard. We're learning as we go.

White is now the minority in Tarana I am told?

dancingqueen
11-27-2014, 09:13 PM
Privilege rears it's ugly head in Canada again...
If you are white, there is no racism
If you are straight, there is no homophobia
If you are Christian, there is no religious intolerance
etc...
Maybe I just notice it more in Canada because I live here and see it every day.

Aristotle
11-28-2014, 09:26 AM
Privilege rears it's ugly head in Canada again...
If you are white, there is no racism
If you are straight, there is no homophobia
If you are Christian, there is no religious intolerance
etc...
Maybe I just notice it more in Canada because I live here and see it every day.

Didn't you read Blue's comment? As a White Christian of European descent he claims TO is basically racism-free!

You mean, it's not like that??

Anna Noyance
11-28-2014, 09:35 AM
Didn't you read Blue's comment? As a White Christian of European descent he claims TO is basically racism-free!

You mean, it's not like that??

Where did Blue claim that TO is basically racism-free? He said that racism is certainly not dead in Toronto.

Barry Morris
11-28-2014, 11:06 AM
Where did Blue claim that TO is basically racism-free? He said that racism is certainly not dead in Toronto.

Don't confuse Ari with facts.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 11:55 AM
Didn't you read Blue's comment? As a White Christian of European descent he claims TO is basically racism-free!

You mean, it's not like that??

Where do you see your rendition in Blue's post?

Bluesky
11-28-2014, 12:25 PM
Didn't you read Blue's comment? As a White Christian of European descent he claims TO is basically racism-free!

You mean, it's not like that??

Methinks someone ate too much turkey and is overloaded with seratonin. Or something.

Bluesky
11-28-2014, 12:29 PM
Actually, you've got to talk to black people who are from the US who now live in Toronto to compare the difference. A friend of mine grew up in Philadelphia. Whenever he returns to his home in Toronto from a visit with his mom in Philly, he just about kisses the ground.. yes, he still experiences racial profiling from the cops. Yes, there is racism here in Toronto. But it isn't nearly as bad.

Plus the fact that most folks in Toronto aren't packing heat makes a big difference as well.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 01:27 PM
This woman was kicked out of the Ontario PC Party for comments she made about First Nations, only got around 1000 votes in the provincial election under the Libertarian Party. In the municipal Election here in Thunder Bay she managed to secure around 10,000 votes with the same type of anti-native rhetoric she used when she ran provincially.

How 10,000 people could throw away their votes based on her rhetoric in a MUNICIPAL election is beyond me. Did they actually think voting her in as an alderman at large would actually accomplish anything in regards to her rhetoric?

There's no question racism is alive and well in Canada, or how deep it goes. Unless you choose to ignore it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nFBqg7bnOok/U5ubEpQlHRI/AAAAAAAABWw/7jfNk0XIJF8/s1600/Bp4G_00CIAAOpys.jpg

Barry Morris
11-28-2014, 02:01 PM
This woman was kicked out of the Ontario PC Party for comments she made about First Nations, only got around 1000 votes in the provincial election under the Libertarian Party. In the municipal Election here in Thunder Bay she managed to secure around 10,000 votes with the same type of anti-native rhetoric she used when she ran provincially.

How 10,000 people could throw away their votes based on her rhetoric in a MUNICIPAL election is beyond me. Did they actually think voting her in as an alderman at large would actually accomplish anything in regards to her rhetoric?

There's no question racism is alive and well in Canada, or how deep it goes. Unless you choose to ignore it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nFBqg7bnOok/U5ubEpQlHRI/AAAAAAAABWw/7jfNk0XIJF8/s1600/Bp4G_00CIAAOpys.jpg

NH, you now need to tell us why you disagree with each statement, one by one.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 02:09 PM
Is it wrong that as a Native, I can see validity and reason behind her comments? I can agree, I want to be treated as an equal, not different because of things said and done hundred of years ago. Treat those treaties in the faith in which they were written, in the vein in which they were meant. Common sense tells any thinking person Natives cannot lay claim to downtown Edmonton because 400 years ago, when it was bush land 15 miles from town it was deed to my people. Cooler, saner heads need prevail here.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 02:10 PM
It's not each individual statement on it's own and out of context that is the problem.

dancingqueen
11-28-2014, 03:02 PM
Why if it is racism, do I, a Native not see it as such. You are telling me I ought be incensed yet I see common sense. We need work together, celebrate our similarities and ignore the differences. Stating my people deserve something because an ancestor was promised something is wrong. With thinking such as this would I then not be liable for their debts as well? She makes no effort to belittle anyone, only to show the thought processes are flawed. There is no degradation in that.

Racism is not always done to belittle, prejudices can be manifested in other ways.
You as a native may not see it as such, but you are not the voice of all natives, just as I am not the voice of all gays, though I do not find personal offense to words like "******" does not mean they are not homophobic terms.

Her position is of political nature as an attempt to control or silence those that do what they are allowed to do in order to voice their concerns. I would be curious as to what "debts" you are talking about, The native pop'n was promised things, and have yet to recieve what was promised, instead they where met with decimation.

dancingqueen
11-28-2014, 03:51 PM
It's no more mean than suggesting I'm going to spend eternity in hell
Regardless of the outcome, it will be very telling.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 04:42 PM
Racism is not always done to belittle, prejudices can be manifested in other ways.
You as a native may not see it as such, but you are not the voice of all natives, just as I am not the voice of all gays, though I do not find personal offense to words like "******" does not mean they are not homophobic terms.

Her position is of political nature as an attempt to control or silence those that do what they are allowed to do in order to voice their concerns. I would be curious as to what "debts" you are talking about, The native pop'n was promised things, and have yet to recieve what was promised, instead they where met with decimation.

If I am to benefit from a debt owed my father then it follows I suffer under a debt he died prior to satisfying. This is the logic you support. If I gain through liniage, I must also lose by liniage. The debts my parents left when they died ought fall directly to me. You cannot have one without the other.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 05:06 PM
NH, you now need to tell us why you disagree with each statement, one by one.

oh, OK why not...

"No people are above the laws of Ontario."

Well in a way we all could be above the "laws of Ontario" if those laws were deemed unconstitutional.

"No group of people can illegally block our roads and rail lines."

Any group of people can do both of these illegally.

"No group of people are "entitled" to handouts."

What group is getting handouts? If they are, how do we know if they are or are not entitled.

"No group of People are owed a "debt" by today's tax payers."

Well if the province of Ontario is running a deficit and has a debt, I hate to tell you that our taxes are used to pay off that debt. I'm sure there are all kinds of goups that are owed money, hence the debt.

"No goup of people "own" Crown lands. Crown lands are public lands. Not native lands. We all own these lands."

Umm, isn't 'we all' a goup of people? "Not native lands", not native to whom? Canadians? Europeans? African's?

"No group of people are "special" and deserve first class "Super-citizen" status."

Failing to define special and super-citizen status, and the benefits or drawback I would agree.

"Help me stop this doctrine of entitlement."

What doctrine of entitlement?

"Help me stop the inequality."

What inequality is she talking about?

"Help me stop the injustice."

What injustice?

"Above all else, help me stop the 'gravy train'."

What gravy train?

"Seniors and retirees, your children and grandchildren deserve the right to live in a fair, equal and just Ontario."

I'm not a senior or a retiree, but if I was I would agree.

You see Barry by taking each point out of context, makes each point basically pointless. We all know what she is talking about, we know who this group of people she is opposed to. To take one point out of context is ignoring what she is really saying, I don't need to spell it out.

The fact that her rhetoric can garner 10k votes in a community of just over 100k reveals the pathos of a large segment of the population of Thunder Bay. I have no idea how she got into politics, because if you take the time to listen to her in interviews it becomes very apparent she's clueless about civics let alone provincial or federal politics.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 05:12 PM
If I am to benefit from a debt owed my father then it follows I suffer under a debt he died prior to satisfying. This is the logic you support. If I gain through liniage, I must also lose by liniage. The debts my parents left when they died ought fall directly to me. You cannot have one without the other.

wow that reads like something Barry would type. Trying to equate inheritance with treaty. Nice...

Barry Morris
11-28-2014, 05:39 PM
It's no more mean than suggesting I'm going to spend eternity in hell
Regardless of the outcome, it will be very telling.

Problem is, nobody ever told you that.

Is this irony or what. "Privilege" is your battle cry, but it's not an issue here!!!

Barry Morris
11-28-2014, 05:42 PM
NH, an interesting bunch of non-answers.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 06:20 PM
wow that reads like something Barry would type. Trying to equate inheritance with treaty. Nice...

Really? Another word for a treaty, promise. You are promised such and such, sign here. At this point you have to acknowledge that my people had no concept of nor words for ownership. If I set my knife down and you picked it up it was yours until I picked it up again. So they had no clue what the white devils were talking about. Sign here and you get that land over there. That's nice and off we went. If my blood ancestors made a promise at a trading post and it was not settled, if I get what is good then I am in line for what is bad. So, I am tracked down some 400 years after great great great whatever got two blankets on credit, it would follow I owe the original amount and accrued interest. He "promised" to pay and did not. One is equal with the other. Now multiply the possibility in the owed part by all present day ancestors and one cancels the other. If you are going to negate one, you must negate both. Native negotiators know full well we will never lay claim to Edmonton Square Mall, but, with enough d ickering we will get a whack of money and some useless land near James Bay. No, wait, we already have that parcel of land, but you get my drift. You are telling me because My Dad was in the military I ought to get his pension although he is dead. Why not throw in my getting a nice sharp salute from anyone in uniform while you are at it?

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 07:11 PM
Really? Another word for a treaty, promise. You are promised such and such, sign here. At this point you have to acknowledge that my people had no concept of nor words for ownership. If I set my knife down and you picked it up it was yours until I picked it up again. So they had no clue what the white devils were talking about. Sign here and you get that land over there. That's nice and off we went. If my blood ancestors made a promise at a trading post and it was not settled, if I get what is good then I am in line for what is bad. So, I am tracked down some 400 years after great great great whatever got two blankets on credit, it would follow I owe the original amount and accrued interest. He "promised" to pay and did not. One is equal with the other. Now multiply the possibility in the owed part by all present day ancestors and one cancels the other. If you are going to negate one, you must negate both. Native negotiators know full well we will never lay claim to Edmonton Square Mall, but, with enough d ickering we will get a whack of money and some useless land near James Bay. No, wait, we already have that parcel of land, but you get my drift. You are telling me because My Dad was in the military I ought to get his pension although he is dead. Why not throw in my getting a nice sharp salute from anyone in uniform while you are at it?

You can define a treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty) anyway you like for your own arguments sake. It just makes you look ignorant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance) as far as I'm concerned.

Hans
11-28-2014, 07:13 PM
One has to remember the whole single reason behind the treaties. It did not work out as anticipated, but the principle behind is what really matters.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 07:30 PM
One has to remember the whole single reason behind the treaties. It did not work out as anticipated, but the principle behind is what really matters.

To get access the land held by natives so we could build a railroad and keep the west in the Dominion and prevent the USA from expanding.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 07:33 PM
You can define a treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty) anyway you like for your own arguments sake. It just makes you look ignorant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance) as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting choice of descriptive. Precludes further discussion when one of the parties sinks to name calling. TTFN.

Hans
11-28-2014, 07:38 PM
To get access the land held by natives so we could build a railroad and keep the west in the Dominion and prevent the USA from expanding.

No. The Queen of England wanted to do something different in Canada and treat the native population better compared to the treatment they received in other countries.
Hence the treaties as we know them came to life.
I don't think the wording is what really matters, I think it is the principle that should matter.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 07:40 PM
Interesting choice of descriptive. Precludes further discussion when one of the parties sinks to name calling. TTFN.

I didn't call you a name.

Anapeg
11-28-2014, 08:05 PM
I didn't call you a name.

Ah, yet you did, ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
antonyms: educated
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More
informal
discourteous or rude.
You choose, which one was the one you meant? Pray, choose the least offensive so as to not look too obvious.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 08:21 PM
Ah, yet you did, ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
antonyms: educated
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More
informal
discourteous or rude.
You choose, which one was the one you meant? Pray, choose the least offensive so as to not look too obvious.

LOL

It's an adjective not a name.

adjective
[aj-ik-tiv]

noun
1.
Grammar. any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying, as wise in a wise grandmother, or perfect in a perfect score, or handsome in He is extremely handsome. Other terms, as numbers ( one cup; twelve months), certain demonstrative pronouns ( this magazine; those questions), and terms that impose limits ( each person; no mercy) can also function adjectivally, as can some nouns that are found chiefly in fixed phrases where they immediately precede the noun they modify, as bottle in bottle cap and bus in bus station.
Synonyms: modifier, qualifier, identifier, describer, describing word.

The Voice
11-28-2014, 08:28 PM
No. The Queen of England wanted to do something different in Canada and treat the native population better compared to the treatment they received in other countries.
Hence the treaties as we know them came to life.
I don't think the wording is what really matters, I think it is the principle that should matter.

Parliament was in charge not the Queen. And if the Canadians had not signed the western treaties in order to build the railway we would all be talking with a Youpper Accent.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 08:41 PM
No. The Queen of England wanted to do something different in Canada and treat the native population better compared to the treatment they received in other countries.
Hence the treaties as we know them came to life.
I don't think the wording is what really matters, I think it is the principle that should matter.

The reason the crown negotiated treaties was because of King George III and the Royal Proclamation. They wanted control of the negotiations for their own interests. I highly doubt that Britain at that time was very altruistic toward people they thought were savages. They were probably more interested in preserving as much of their Empire as they could.

It wasn't for about another one hundred years after the Royal proclamation, after Confederation that Canada entered treaty negotiations for what is the rest of Canada. At Confederation the extant of Canada extended from Nova Scotia to Lake Superior. That didn't include the northern parts of what is now Quebec and Ontario. That was all Ruperts Land.

It was the negotiations of the numbered treaties during the 1870's at which point most of what is now Canada was negotiated. The reason being so they could build a rail road and settle in the West preventing USA from expanding their borders into what is now Canada.

Hans
11-28-2014, 08:43 PM
And you are incorrect on that: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292

The Voice
11-28-2014, 08:48 PM
And you are incorrect on that: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292


You do realize that by the Crown they actually mean the Canadian Gov't right?

The doesn't even mention the queen in your link?

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 08:56 PM
And you are incorrect on that: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292

One thing you also need to realize is that in 1700's the east coast of USA was a part of the British Colonies. France and Spain had settlements too and were in contact with indians.

The Voice
11-28-2014, 08:56 PM
I went back and reread it and it clearly states that the Pre-Existing treaties were with the British Government.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-28-2014, 08:58 PM
Heck even Russia had there foot in North America. When did the US get Alaska?

Hans
11-28-2014, 09:02 PM
Queen : The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties
Formation of Canada : 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the British Empire, which became official with the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and completed in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

So no, when they say Crown they mean the British Crown.
Which is further underlined by this: http://canadiancrown.gc.ca/eng/1396015117980/

"In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada."

Hans
11-28-2014, 09:04 PM
One thing you also need to realize is that in 1700's the east coast of USA was a part of the British Colonies. France and Spain had settlements too and were in contact with indians.

That is partially correct. At the time of the The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties France had already abandoned their colonies in that area. So they had no real control anymore after 1763. The control was in the hands of the British crown.

The Voice
11-28-2014, 09:13 PM
But in reality Parliament has been in charge since the Glorious Revolution.

Barry Morris
11-28-2014, 10:34 PM
But in reality Parliament has been in charge since the Glorious Revolution.

I don't recall a revolution in Canada.

The Voice
11-29-2014, 04:43 AM
I don't recall a revolution in Canada.

Hans suggested the Queen had negotiated Treaties with the First Nations.

Parliament has held the reins of power in Britain since the Glorious Revolution.

If you have some evidence to refute that statement please feel free to supply it.

Barry Morris
11-29-2014, 09:42 AM
Hans suggested the Queen had negotiated Treaties with the First Nations.

Parliament has held the reins of power in Britain since the Glorious Revolution.

If you have some evidence to refute that statement please feel free to supply it.

Not a problem, but first I'd have to know what on earth you're talking about.

The Voice
11-29-2014, 11:01 AM
Not a problem, but first I'd have to know what on earth you're talking about.

Fair Enough. I Digress.

Anapeg
11-29-2014, 11:06 AM
The "Glorious Revolution" is the oblique reference that stymies. None recall a revolution, glorious or otherwise.

The Voice
11-29-2014, 11:07 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

Anapeg
11-29-2014, 12:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I apologize and assure you , I am not being deliberately thick. I have gone back in preceding posts, read the blurb of the 1688 revolution and still fail to see how it connects with our discourse here?

BFLPE
11-29-2014, 01:18 PM
Privilege rears it's ugly head in Canada again...
If you are white, there is no racism
If you are straight, there is no homophobia
If you are Christian, there is no religious intolerance
etc...
Maybe I just notice it more in Canada because I live here and see it every day.Good ol' privilege. If you're not a Canadian born heterosexual white male you can play the victim card. It's not fair the rest of us can't us don't have that privilege.

We're all equal under the law. In reality we all enjoy certain advantages and we're all victim to some type of discrimination. If one chooses to be a victim and to use whatever disadvantages they have as excuses they gain nothing.

Some may have more advantages, or privilege than others but those who don't keep score will succeed whereas those who find excuses will fall behind.

The Left Sock
11-29-2014, 01:24 PM
If I was a girl who could speak French, I could have really made it big.

But alas, a working stiff will have to do.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-29-2014, 01:33 PM
I wonder who's trying to play the victim card here.

Barry Morris
11-29-2014, 02:09 PM
I apologize and assure you , I am not being deliberately thick. I have gone back in preceding posts, read the blurb of the 1688 revolution and still fail to see how it connects with our discourse here?

I too had never heard the term "Glorious Revolution". Furthermore, a reading of the Wiki site show that this was nothing more than a desire to oust a Catholic king, and has little to do with our topic.

The Voice
11-29-2014, 02:24 PM
Barry and Anapeg please see post#44

The Voice
11-29-2014, 02:32 PM
No. The Queen of England wanted to do something different in Canada and treat the native population better compared to the treatment they received in other countries.

I wish I could do that see here thing.

Which Queen are we talking about here? Please provide a link to support this post.

Anapeg
11-29-2014, 04:23 PM
Barry and Anapeg please see post#44

In this case would the reference to "The Queen" not mean the British and not the Monarch specifically? Similar to but not specifically as the us of the Royal "We"? That was how I accepted it as anyone receiving an education in Canada would be aware of, this as fact.

The Voice
11-30-2014, 01:06 AM
In this case would the reference to "The Queen" not mean the British and not the Monarch specifically? Similar to but not specifically as the us of the Royal "We"? That was how I accepted it as anyone receiving an education in Canada would be aware of, this as fact.

Yes except for 2 things:

#1 Hans Specifically referenced the Queen not The Crown.

#2 I certainly don't have the impression Hans was educated in Canada.

I also was a little surprised that someone educated in Canada didn't know what the Glorious Revolution was.

Barry Morris
11-30-2014, 03:39 AM
I also was a little surprised that someone educated in Canada didn't know what the Glorious Revolution was.

We're a little older than you. Political correctness has changed over the years.

The Voice
11-30-2014, 08:03 AM
We're a little older than you. Political correctness has changed over the years.

Fair enough.

Anapeg
11-30-2014, 02:46 PM
Yes except for 2 things:

#1 Hans Specifically referenced the Queen not The Crown.

#2 I certainly don't have the impression Hans was educated in Canada.

I also was a little surprised that someone educated in Canada didn't know what the Glorious Revolution was.

Being from Belgium and having taken the test for citizenship I wager Hans knows more on Canadian history than some who were educated here.

As Barry pointed out, the "Glorious Revolution" carried less weight and was barley mentioned in the early to mid 1960's high school. My recollection is of some attachment to the revolution mentioned while covering something else. I do not recall anything on a test either.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 05:56 PM
The Fact remains that Crown is actually a reference to the Gov't not the Queen herself. I am not sure what Queen Hans is referencing but rest assured no Queen has negotiated a treaty since Elizabeth I.

Anapeg
12-01-2014, 06:07 PM
I would agree, reference to the Queen or government is synonymous. As to any Queen physically entering into negotiations in any way, shape, or form would be below her and as such repugnant. She would give out a directive to a go between and deal with it arms length at best.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 06:12 PM
The Queen is not the Gov't. Parliament is the Gov't. The Queen is merely a figurehead. She has nothing whatsoever to do with setting Policy.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 06:16 PM
This Link will help you understand the Queens Role.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx

Anapeg
12-01-2014, 07:14 PM
This Link will help you understand the Queens Role.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx

I thought we were back a couple hundred years?

The Voice
12-01-2014, 07:25 PM
This has been the situation since the Glorious Revolution. That is The Point.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 07:28 PM
Did you notice the part were they indicated that the Monarch has not refused to sign a Parliamentary Act since 1707?

Anapeg
12-01-2014, 07:35 PM
Did you notice the part were they indicated that the Monarch has not refused to sign a Parliamentary Act since 1707?

Are you saying they can't refuse under penalty of something or other? If this be the case I will back on outa here and leave ya'll to it.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 07:45 PM
The Parliament controls who gets to be Queen or King. If the Monarch doesn't tow the line they are outta there Via Parliamentary Act. That my friend is the the reality of the situation. See King Edward VIII.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 08:01 PM
Through Various Acts such as Magna Carta and the Rights of Man Parliament had tried to Establish their supremacy over the Monarch. The Glorious Revolution was the tipping point. Edward and Mary knew all to well that Parliament had deposed James II and Executed his Father Charles I and made them Monarchs. You can rest assured, that they saw the supremacy of Parliament.

This is excepted fact among British Historians. If you could supply a link that disputes this info I would be happy to read it.

Anapeg
12-01-2014, 08:13 PM
The Parliament controls who gets to be Queen or King. If the Monarch doesn't tow the line they are outta there Via Parliamentary Act. That my friend is the the reality of the situation. See King Edward VIII.

How do you even follow your train of thought? King Eddy left due to marrying a commoner, which was on the books for a very long time as I recall. You like pulling stuff up and making believe it is not only true but pertinent.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 08:19 PM
Eddie didn't leave Voluntarily.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 08:19 PM
Eddie was pro Nazi as well did you know that?

hobo
12-01-2014, 08:35 PM
Through Various Acts such as Magna Carta and the Rights of Man Parliament had tried to Establish their supremacy over the Monarch. The Glorious Revolution was the tipping point. Edward and Mary knew all to well that Parliament had deposed James II and Executed his Father Charles I and made them Monarchs. You can rest assured, that they saw the supremacy of Parliament.

This is excepted fact among British Historians. If you could supply a link that disputes this info I would be happy to read it.

Rights of man Act?

The Voice
12-01-2014, 08:47 PM
Bill of Rights. Sorry the Rights of Man is French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Barry Morris
12-01-2014, 09:45 PM
Eddie didn't leave Voluntarily.

Hardly. But he DID want to marry a divorcee. He chose her over the crown.

Barry Morris
12-01-2014, 09:46 PM
The Parliament controls who gets to be Queen or King... .

news to me. I thought it was hereditary.

The Voice
12-01-2014, 10:00 PM
news to me. I thought it was hereditary.

As Long as you play along it is.

Barry Morris
12-02-2014, 12:43 AM
As Long as you play along it is.

Would appear from history that was always the case. No king ever ruled long without the support of his people.

The Voice
12-02-2014, 08:41 AM
Would appear from history that was always the case. No king ever ruled long without the support of his people.


No is a pretty powerful word with definite boundaries. You might want to rethink that response.

SEE: William The Conqueror. Ivan the Terrible Etc. Etc. Etc.

There have been plenty of examples of Despotic Rulers.

Barry Morris
12-02-2014, 10:20 AM
No is a pretty powerful word with definite boundaries. You might want to rethink that response.

SEE: William The Conqueror. Ivan the Terrible Etc. Etc. Etc.

There have been plenty of examples of Despotic Rulers.

I didn't say that. I said "No king ever ruled long without the support of his people." This applies to despots too. He either has the support of the majority of the people of his country (Castro), OR he is the leader of a technologically advanced army that terrorizes the people into submission (which never lasts long) (Saddam).

One man can do little. He MUST have support.

Anapeg
12-02-2014, 10:45 AM
Eddie was pro Nazi as well did you know that?

So was our Prime Minister, what is your point?

Anapeg
12-02-2014, 10:50 AM
Eddie didn't leave Voluntarily.

He most certainly did leave of his own volition. He had the option to stay and maintain an illicit while albeit a more hidden, quiet relationship with Miss Wallace but he chose instead to abdicate and marry, there by becoming ineligible to rule. Had there been a reason felt by the majority the King remain, there would have been a moment to alter the "rule". He instead had political leanings, proclivities if you will that made him superfluous.

The Voice
12-02-2014, 11:27 AM
He most certainly did leave of his own volition. He had the option to stay and maintain an illicit while albeit a more hidden, quiet relationship with Miss Wallace but he chose instead to abdicate and marry, there by becoming ineligible to rule. Had there been a reason felt by the majority the King remain, there would have been a moment to alter the "rule". He instead had political leanings, proclivities if you will that made him superfluous.

He would have stayed if they had let him marry Wallace. You can try to spin it any way you want but he was forced out.

Anapeg
12-02-2014, 11:53 AM
He would have stayed if they had let him marry Wallace. You can try to spin it any way you want but he was forced out.

Read it once again, paying special attention to the last two lines, I believe I addressed this adequately. If further clarification is required, I will address that as well. One change, and one change only, the word "moment" ought have read, "movement".