# The Next Governor General



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Say what you will about the need to have a Governor General to begin with, but I think that the reported impending appointment of Michaëlle Jean is fantastic. Excellent choice; inspired and _inspiring_. :clap:


----------



## adam1185 (Feb 16, 2005)

Heh, what's with CBC reporters all becoming Governor General these days...


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Any replacement for The Clarkson is fine by me. Hopefully someone who won't use government money to fly themselves to their little private cottage island in Muskoka would be great....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adam1185 said:


> Heh, what's with CBC reporters all becoming Governor General these days...


Could be worse, Global news reporters.... ;>

I think it's a great and good choice.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I'm just happy that Martin didn't decide to do something dumb like pick a musician or actor or hockey player. After all, this is the guy who "hangs" with Bono.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> After all, this is the guy who "hangs" with Bono.


Thats what he'd like us to think...too bad Bono totally <I>backstabbed</I> him (he badmouths Martin quite a bit for political reasons as I'm sure many of you have noticed...there was a thread on this awhile ago).


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Two visible minorities in a row? 
Two CBC journalists in a row? 
Two females in a row? 
And from Quebec too?
Certainly does not appear to reflect mainstream Canada to many westerners.

Nuff said.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah nuff said...... take it and stuff it where the sun don't shine. 

This is MY kind of Canada. Not some WASP  - time is over.....and it couldn't happen soon enough.










Proud day for Canada and an EXCELLENT CHOICE. How many languages do YOU speak Sinc. She's got at least five she's comfortable in.



> “Canadians are going to fall in love with this woman,” said a source. “There is no other word to describe her than inspirational. She is extraordinary.”


 :clap:



> Sources described her life as a “success story” in spite of some difficult odds. Born in Port-au-Prince, Ms. Jean came to Canada in 1968 as an 11-year-old child of parents fleeing the persecution of dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier.
> 
> In a profile for The Globe and Mail five years ago, Ms. Jean recalled the occasional racist taunts she was forced to absorb as a child in Quebec.
> 
> Ms. Jean is married to documentary film-maker Jean-Daniel Lafond and has a six-year-old adopted daughter, Marie-eden, meaning that a family with children will reside at Rideau Hall for the first time since Edward Schreyer took up residence there in 1979.


THIS represents the kind of leadership by example the world needs. I could not imagine a better representative of Canada to the world......and to ALL of us minorities who call Canada home.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

SINC said:


> Two visible minorities in a row?
> Two CBC journalists in a row?
> Two females in a row?
> And from Quebec too?
> ...


I would venture she is representative of approx. 51% of Westerners...

Besides, this makes the score Guys 24, Girls 3 so far....

http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/history/histgg_e.asp

Not to mention representative of over 30% visible minorities in Vancouver...

How about "Under 50 years old" -- that represents a group not often seen in Vice-Regal or Senatorial roles...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Two visible minorities in a row?
> Two CBC journalists in a row?
> Two females in a row?
> And from Quebec too?
> Certainly does not appear to reflect mainstream Canada to many westerners.


How can you claim to speak for all westerners? With certainy, even! You give westerners a bad name.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Alberta and Albertans don't reflect mainstream Canada.
Just better build that firewall.

She speaks 5 languages, is an immigrant, visible minority, female and from la belle provence.

If she isn't good enough, whom do you suggest?
Mainstream Canada?
Care to define what that means?


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Opinions being entirely personal & individualistic and all…

I can only speak for myself.
I am very happy with her selection.


That's my 3¢ **

** Hey, stamps went up, so did my opinion


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah nuff said...... take it and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
> This is MY kind of Canada.
> How many languages do YOU speak Sinc.


I guess YOUR kind of Canada allows rude remarks to someone of differing opinion. Mine is more civil. 

And I speak only English. What of it?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> And I speak only English. What of it


Bienvenue au Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Merci beaucoup!


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

I read her life history somewhere on google news this morning and she is definitely inspiring. She ran a women's shelter, worked on a documentary about the black identity in Quebec (while the province has it's own identity issues). A refugee from Haiti. She never saw herself as a visible minority. Was always a victim of racial slurs.

Sounds like she's an excellent choice for Canada.

Truly she can inspire unity in this thread?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I feel that the office of the GG shold be eliminated, along with Canada's ties with the Queen, I think that Ms.Jean will make an excellent GG. Hopefully, she does not have a husband/partner that will nearly double the cost of the GG's expenditures as happened with Ms.Clarkson and her husband. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ms Jean is married to a documentary film maker and methinks he might be just a tad more fiscally responsible than a self annointed "philosopher king" as is the case with Ms Clarkson's spouse

nevermind that Ms Clarkson comes off very much like an elitst


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Great choice - "I would venture she is representative of approx. 51% of Westerners...

Besides, this makes the score Guys 24, Girls 3 so far....


Not to mention representative of over 30% visible minorities in Vancouver...

How about "Under 50 years old" -- that represents a group not often seen in Vice-Regal or Senatorial roles..."

no kidding!


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I don't know why you're all so happy about the appointment of another parasite. I'd be happy if they'd scrap the whole idea.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Wolfshead said:


> I don't know why you're all so happy about the appointment of another parasite. I'd be happy if they'd scrap the whole idea.



I'm with you on that one, but as long as we have one, let's have a good one.

The blue haired set and their cronies that still long for the days of "empire" are on the wrong side of the demographics equation.

One day this royal kidney stone will pass and with it another reminder of imperialism.
Now if we can only get the Union jack off the Ontario flag.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> While I feel that the office of the GG shold be eliminated, along with Canada's ties with the Queen, I think that Ms.Jean will make an excellent GG. Hopefully, she does not have a husband/partner that will nearly double the cost of the GG's expenditures as happened with Ms.Clarkson and her husband. We shall see.


If Canada were to dump the monarchy, we should still retain the Governor General. That office remains important as the head of state is involved in purely ceremonial duties that the Prime Minister is too busy for.

I am definitely against Canada moving to a presidential system. We should maintain a simple system, not the bloated deadlock of president/upper house/lower house.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Alberta and Albertans don't reflect mainstream Canada.


Talk like that is no improvement. There is little difference between saying this woman doesn't represent mainstream Canada and saying Albertans don't represent mainstream Canada.

You and SINC are saying the same intolerant thing, with merely a different object of dislike.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I'm with you on that one, but as long as we have one, let's have a good one.
> 
> The blue haired set and their cronies that still long for the days of "empire" are on the wrong side of the demographics equation.
> 
> ...


I'm not actually against having a Political (PM) head of state and a Non-Political (GG) representative of the government. The GG Should have a significant role in the representation of the country both abroad and at home.
I'm about as waspy as they come, however, the queens rep crap needs to go.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've always believed a non political representative to the world is important and the "fall back" of breaking a parliamentary deadlock is just good management - just like a Speaker or Chairperson can break a deadlock if needed.

I suspect she will have a very, very positive effect on Canada's image abroad. :clap:


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i can't believe she's 48! man, she looks good!  

oh, and uh, a very inspired choice for gg, imho.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> Two visible minorities in a row?
> Two CBC journalists in a row?
> Two females in a row?
> And from Quebec too?
> ...


C'mon SINC, have a look at this bunch of ol' white guys and perhaps you'll see why many are cheering this choice. It's about time there was some representation by those other than the usual old, white, rich suspects. 

Besides, it's not as if "westerners" haven't been well represented in recent GGs. Four of the last six were westerners. Hnatyshyn came from Saskatoon, Sauvé was also from Saskatchewan, Edward Schreyer was from Manitoba and Roland Michener was from Alberta. So, please cool the "western alienation" stuff for a while; it got old a long time ago.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: good post - Hey VGG haven't seen you around much. All well??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I say get rid of the Senate and the GG, then turn Canada into a Republic without a Queen. Thus, we would no longer be a constitutional monarchy. I am amazed that they allowed me to become a citizen because I stopped saying the oath when we came to the part of swearing allegience to the Queen and all her subsequent heirs. I could not run for provincial office for the same reason, nor be hired for certain federal positions because of this oath.

For the record, my wife totally disagrees with my views.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Hiya MacDoc. 

All's well. I'm just starting to get back into ehMac after a brief absence. Am also coming off a hectic period at my new job at Agriculture Canada and am looking forward to vacation later this month. Me and the hubby are off to the Balkans to see family and friends...and I can't wait to be on the beach in Croatia! Yippee!!! 

Apologies to the rest of you for this brief, off-topic moment.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

by Dr. G.;


> I say get rid of the Senate and the GG, then turn Canada into a Republic without a Queen. Thus, we would no longer be a constitutional monarchy.


exactement mon ami, exactement
Vive le Canada libre !

Citizens for a Canadian Republic


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, I don't expect this to actually happen, but this is what I would want to see happen. C'est la vie.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it WILL happen in my lifetime Dr. G.
the demographics are against the "loyalists"
tick tock tick tock
that's the sound of the Union Jack about to go "poof"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, it shall only happen if there is a majority government in power that wants it to happen. The various requirements that are needed to change the structure of our political system and constitution are difficult to overcome. Still, you are younger than I am, so who knows.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i may be a cynic, but in this i have faith, except for pockets near Kingston, ON and Victoria, BC
"We shall overcome"
- MLK


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pah - the further away from the US model the better.
Nothing wrong with the existing structure except lose the Queen.
A parliametary appointed unelected Governor General of Canada and an elected PM can exist with different roles just as several countries have presidents and prime ministers or premiers in disparate roles.

As to the Senate - I think it should be a regional representative body and not elected. I've got a technocratic bent and I LIKE to see some elite input other than civil service.

Or model on Australia with proportional upper house. I personally think a second body of limited or differentiated power is a useful "pillar" and check on PMO arrogance.

Is it right as it sits now???
I'd much prefer Truman's "dollar a year" type who provides service to the country having made their wealth already. The Gov providing each with a small office staff and research funding.

A Senator should be a post of honour, accolade AND responsibility but limited in power in my mind and very much should represent the "regions" of Canada not the "provinces".

Republics......bah humbug. Mob rule.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Deep in my heart, I do believe, that we shall overcome someday". We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There's a difference of a large degree between a "loyalist" and a "royalist".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> There's a difference of a large degree between a "loyalist" and a "royalist".



that was me trying to be "nice"
as you can see it is not easy for me


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Maybe we could repatriate all the expelled Acadians and send all of the loyal royalists to live in Victoria and Salt Spring Island???


----------



## Snaggy (Mar 17, 2002)

Michaelle Jean is an amazing choice... magnificent valour Mr. PM!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> “I have come a long way,” she said. “My ancestors were slaves, they fought for freedom. I was born in Haiti, the poorest country in our hemisphere. I am a daughter of exiles driven from their home by a dictatorial regime.”
> 
> Jean was born in Haiti and grew up in Port-au-Prince until 1968 when her family was forced to flee the brutal regime of François (Papa Doc) Duvalier regime for Montreal.
> She studied at the Université de Montréal and went on to study at universities in Florence, Milan and Perugia, Italy. She is fluent in five languages: French, English, Spanish, Italian and Haitian Créole.


World citizen.......:clap: Excellent choice Mr. PM.

•••

Now Macspectrum here's your foe



> The reason why there is legitimate concern over the choice of Mrs. Jean to the post is the failure to place as paramount the attributes required in the Governor-General as the key criteria for the role.
> First and foremost, the Governor-General is not the head-of-state of Canada, nor the "queen" of Canada, but only the representative of our one-and-only monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The out-going Governor-General often usurped her role, and also the one she was supposed to represent. Adrienne Clarkson went on tours masquerading as the head-of-state. She was seen in public, captured on camera, upstaging the Queen, and failing to meet protocol. Last year the Liberal government of Canada put through a bill, through both houses, changing the laws governing civil servants so that they need not swear allegiance to the Queen. To even discuss this bill required Royal Consent. No such consent was received. The Governor-General should have refused to sign the bill, denying Royal Assent, but she did not do that.
> When the official papers were prepared for former N.B. premier, Frank McKenna, to report as Canada's Ambassador to the United States, the Queen's name was removed and the papers were sent on behalf of the Governor-General. The government has no such power. The Opposition parties should have screamed loudly. The Governor-General should have sent these papers back to be re-written before she signed them.
> The first concern over any Governor-General (never the GG!) is whether or not the person is sufficiently loyal to be worthy of representing the Queen, and secondly if that will person will do so. If not, the person is worthy of the death penalty! Concerns over country of birth are valid, because multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism have been tools since Trudeau to divide the allegiances of the members of the nation. We have seen so many who have shunned the freedoms granted to them in British North America, by the country that made these freedoms possible. Canada is British North America, not was, but is! Is Mchaelle Jean loyal to the Crown? Will she restore those powers that were stolen away, declaring the truth that any measure to remove obligation of loyalty to the Queen is void, and an act of treason?
> Thomas Baxter


........sigh 

and then there's this rebuttal to the waspy buttheads



> Speaking for myself and at least another few dozen "white males from the west", the choice of Michaëlle Jean could hardly be improved upon. I invite that dull male with a colour fetish on his chest to move south by several hundred miles and help Canada get on with being what most Canadians want it to be: a colorblind model for the world. I'm glad I live in the far west, but hooray for women, hooray for French, and hooray for Quebec.
> Ric Hunter


 :clap:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> The blue haired set and their cronies that still long for the days of "empire" are on the wrong side of the demographics equation.


I wasn't aware that the aged had such a monolithic view of politics. 

There is no demographic trend that leads to the end of the Canadian Monarchy.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> One day this royal kidney stone will pass and with it another reminder of imperialism. Now if we can only get the Union jack off the Ontario flag.


While the monarchy is indeed a symbolic link to imperialism, it is only that. On the other hand, the very existence of Canada and its institutions are an actual result of imperialism. Are you planning to argue for the dissolution of Canada, too? Arguing over symbolism is "poseur patriotism." 

While everyone argues over the symbolism of monarchy, would anyone else prefer it if your politicians in Ottawa spent more time on actual problems and less on symbolic ones? Or would you prefer them to struggle over yet another pointless constitution battle which will piss off everyone and please no one?

Our current GG's "prince consort" is not my favourite intellectual. However, he once observed that our constitution is among the world's oldest, has served to maintain stability in a peaceful nation, and has guaranteed civil rights for people coming from nations with constitutions so noble sounding you could never believe they were living in a hell on earth. As a result, Canadians constantly bicker that the constitution must be changed. 

In other words, we take things for granted.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

You've clearly now got a queen of your own, guys. You lucky b*****s.

There was I, hoping against hope, that you'd take the one we're saddled with (and her entire dysfunctional tribe) for a knockdown price, free if you want. We could ship 'em out for overnight delivery! They're good for a laugh now and then.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> You've clearly now got a queen of your own, guys. You lucky b*****s.
> 
> There was I, hoping against hope, that you'd take the one we're saddled with (and her entire dysfunctional tribe) for a knockdown price, free if you want. We could ship 'em out for overnight delivery! They're good for a laugh now and then.


Exactly. We should abolish the GG as an expensive and ineffective charade, no matter who it is. Be gone with the monarchy once and for all.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Sinc, I must quickly point out that I know nothing about Governors-General of Canada, their office or function. I have no point of view about the upcoming GG or her predecessors.

BUT … she's easy on the eyes. That's what the "lucky b's" was about.

P.S. The offer still stands: second hand Queen on offer. Not interested?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gee SQ, I can accept that you have no opinion on GGs in Canada, but you are dead right on the royals.

She is no doubt a bright and capable woman. We just don't need her and we certainly don't need another Liberal tainted CBC broadcaster. One was enough, thanks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with Sinc and his comment that "Exactly. We should abolish the GG as an expensive and ineffective charade, no matter who it is. Be gone with the monarchy once and for all."

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc would trash anything including the arts and the CBC as useless. Close em all 'cept the war museums 

Canada needs a media savvy non-political face to the world who can undertake some of the more ceremonial duties of the nation state.

Many large organizations have non executive leader figures and I think it's a very worthwhile expenditure. No better for Canada to the world.
There are far too many white male lawyers in politics - having a clear offset I think is very desirable.

I can't thnk of any other one action the PM has done that really represents "inclusive" for ALL Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc would trash anything including the arts and the CBC as useless. Close em all 'cept the war museums
> 
> Canada needs a media savvy non-political face to the world who can undertake some of the moere ceremonial duties of the nation state.
> 
> ...


Ah, a reply without ridicule or nasty comments. That indeed is an improvement.
What needs improvement is the present system. Canada needs a media savvy expensive regal rep like we need another senate.

We have a guy called the PM whose job it is to do exactly what you propose. That is who should speak for the people of Canada, not some appointed intellectual or whatever.

As for non executive leader figures, I guess the former fat guy spokesman for Subway might qualify.

The monarchy is tired, old and dysfunctional. It should be put to rest, not gussied up with yet another CBC "personality".


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I like her. If we have to have a GG, I believe she is an excellent choice.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mrs.F., I agree with your views about her, but I would still like to see her our last GG.

Long live the republic!!!!


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I was reading somewhere that her husband did a film on Separatism in 1994. The film including reuniting two former separatist leaders for the first time since the referendum (or along those lines). Now the impression I got from the article was that this man viewed the separatist movement in a good light - and there is nothing I hate more than someone that wants to rip Canada apart, let alone an _immigrant_ that wants to rip it apart. (I know this might sound kinda harsh but this topic tends to get my blood boiling) Am I horribly misguided in this, or is our next Governor General's husband a Separatist?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What relevance does your personal beliefs have to do with someone else's documentary and how they present it? Are you grouping a person with, what you perceive as an unjust group, merely because he created a film that did not demonize the separatists? Holy Sh!t! He must be *evil*!

I forget... how exactly will this affect the GG and how she conducts herself?



> and there is nothing I hate more than someone that wants to rip Canada apart, let alone an *immigrant* that wants to rip it apart.


Now we're getting to the root of it...



> Am I horribly misguided in this, or is our next Governor General's husband a Separatist?


I fail to see the point... how you could deduce a person's focus for their film (based in their home province) on a particular subject that affected our nation (with an objective eye) and draw the conclusion that they would be, gasp, a separatist.

I hear they eat their own children...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I agree with Sinc and his comment that "Exactly. We should abolish the GG as an expensive and ineffective charade, no matter who it is. Be gone with the monarchy once and for all."


If you want an expensive charade, how about a constitutional commission to study alternative forms of government? If we are going to abandon constitutional monarchy, we need to put something there. A few tens of millions of dollars later, they wil conclude that keeping things the way they are is cheap enough.

The office of the GG doesn't cost much. By way of comparison, consider a few other recent state expenditures: SkyDome and the Montreal Olympic arena leap to mind. How about a crown commission to study a plane bombing that killed over 300 people, but ends with a "uh, we don't know who did it." Oh yeah, how much did that firearms registration thing cost again? And how much did a bunch of flags bought for Quebec cost?



Dr.G. said:


> "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
> 
> Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


Constitutional monarchy does not limit freedom. Which freedoms are going to improve as a republic? As I said, "poseur patriotism." But I'm not sure quoting Americans to criticize the Canadian Monarchy counts as patriotism. 

And none of you "republicans" has answered the basic question: who will fill the ceremonial roles of the GG? Will the PM cut ribbons and hand out the Order of Canada, or would you rather he spend his time running the country?

And do we really need that American absurdity of pledging allegiance "to the flag?" Unlike the US, everyone in Canada, from the PM to soldiers to police to new immigrants, pledges allegiance to the Queen of Canada. That common oath binds us in equality. In the US, the president has a different oath than the oath of the military, with the oath of alliegiance for everyone else.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

trump said:


> I was reading somewhere that her husband did a film on Separatism in 1994. The film including reuniting two former separatist leaders for the first time since the referendum (or along those lines). Now the impression I got from the article was that this man viewed the separatist movement in a good light - and there is nothing I hate more than someone that wants to rip Canada apart, let alone an _immigrant_ that wants to rip it apart. (I know this might sound kinda harsh but this topic tends to get my blood boiling) Am I horribly misguided in this, or is our next Governor General's husband a Separatist?


I haven't seen the film, so I can't tell you if it's sympathetic to separatism. I can guarantee you that any truly devoted separatist would have left his wife on the spot rather than go to Ottawa for that press conference. So if he once was one, he surely is no longer. He's not an immigrant, BTW.

The film is called La Liberté en colère. I'm sure you won't find it down at your local Blockbuster. Unless the CBC decides that it's newsworthy enough to bring to TV, most of us can only have a second-hand impression of the slant it takes. (And if it does show up dubbed or subtitled, then it will be difficult for those unable to speak French to pick up the subtleties.) So until then, this is a question most of us can only discuss from an uninformed position.

Anyway, instead of sharing "impressions" and vague references to an article "somewhere," how about a link?

Edit: Turns out the film was produced by the NFB. So you should be able to find a copy at your local NFB repository...or at least get on the waiting list.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, if you and I were to run for office in the provincial or federal ridings we now live in, and were elected, we would have to swear allegience to the Queen and all of her heirs. This is why I feel that a constitutional monarchy does put limits on certain freedoms. As well, there are certain federal jobs that require everyone to take this pledge. 

Did you have to take this pledge to join the Canadian forces?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Canada is a federation and also a mosaic of "peoples" and "regions".
There will always be tensions within a federation and when it is a major component such as Quebec/French culture/law etc with some historicially valid "gripes", then there will be those that wish to leave the confederation.
Wishing the discontent away does not deal with it. Addressing the discontent within the context of federation leads to dialogue and hopefully addressing the roots of the discontent and making the federation acceptable if not perfect for all its consitituents.
Bottom line - the good of confederation outweighing the bad for each component.
This cannot be imposed. It must be realized in ongoing dialogue, methods to resolve disputes ( ie land claims ) and embodied in protective laws some of which like the 101 law may be controversial.
There is no cookie cutter method which fits all scenarios. The best we can do is make dialogue and compromise and fair play the METHOD so inequities may be aired and challenged and disputes resolved sufficient to keep the federation intact.

Canada is NOT a fait accompli - it will be a continuing work in progress. That a person works hard to establish "fair play" for their people or region should not bar them from public office, even one of the highest.

Shunning and isolating and demonizing is the sure way to fire up a discontented populace that person represents or inspires.

We have a founding document in the Charter which protects minorities which we ALL are and should, if handled wisely, move us to a more equitable federation from the individual citizen to peoples and regions.
There is no need for a monarchy in this equation.
There is no no need for fundamental change in the structure of the government unless it designed to further these ends more effectively.

The nation need not be embodied in a person by heredity. 
*Canada* is a legal entity in itself and can be represented by both an elected leader and an unelected representative to the world chosen by the elected leader.

Mingling monarchy and the institution of the GG office is not mandatory in any way.
The GG can be an appointed official of Canada with certain duties and responsibilities to the nation. Period, no royalty needed.

Why confuse the question of monarchy which I find an archaic nuisance for Canada and perhaps useful for other nations ( Denmark comes to mind ) with the question of a need for an office such as the GG.

They are separate issues and should be treated so.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Now we're getting to the root of it...


If you're saying that I hate immigrants, you're sorely mistaken - after all, both my Grandfathers immigrated. The problem I have is in the logic of someone coming to a country as an immigrant and attempting to break it apart. What would people think if I emigrated to Spain, with no spanish roots, only to join the ETA? (Extreme example, but you see my point.)

After further reading, there's a good chance that I was rather wrong in calling him a Separatist. I admit it, I was wrong. Now, on a different subject, I hope all the CBC types don't take a fancy to our tax money...

EDIT: Interesting Globe article, especially her comments about 9/11. I wonder if she'll stick to them as a diplomat
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ry/LAC/20050804/GGPROFILE04/TPNational/Canada


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "Why such outpouring and compassion for New York and so little for the hundreds and thousands of victims in Rwanda a few years ago?" she asked. She also drew a link between the attacks and U.S. foreign policy. "The attacks on New York and Washington were, in a way, foreseeable."


Stick to the message......I would certainly hope so as a representative of Canada.
Remember she has NO political price to pay for being outspoken.

That the US responded in such a way as to make matters worse is a view held by many around the world including myself.
Makes her look prescient if anything and Rwanda WAS a world disgrace.

I DO hope she maintains her observations.
The Al Qaeda second in command could hardly have made it clearer to Tony Blair.

Playing nice nice diplomat is not what I would expect or want in a representative of Canada tho I would expect comments in keeping with Canadian foreign policy .....which is NOT the same as the US or England and from her comments she clearly is on side with that and was Martin's pick.

SHE may be able to sya what Martin as a politician may not. Good thing in my mind.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

trump said:


> If you're saying that I hate immigrants, you're sorely mistaken - after all, both my Grandfathers immigrated. The problem I have is in the logic of someone coming to a country as an immigrant and attempting to break it apart. What would people think if I emigrated to Spain, with no spanish roots, only to join the ETA? (Extreme example, but you see my point.)


Every Canadian, immigrant or not, has every right to follow their beliefs.



> After further reading, there's a good chance that I was rather wrong in calling him a Separatist. I admit it, I was wrong. Now, on a different subject, I hope all the CBC types don't take a fancy to our tax money...
> 
> EDIT: Interesting Globe article, especially her comments about 9/11. I wonder if she'll stick to them as a diplomat
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ry/LAC/20050804/GGPROFILE04/TPNational/Canada


You mean this:
_Outspoken, she is also what is called a journaliste engagée -- a politicized journalist. After the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, *she expressed sympathy for the victims* but also raised questions about the world's response.

"*Why such outpouring and compassion for New York and so little for the hundreds and thousands of victims in Rwanda a few years ago?*" she asked. She also drew a link between the attacks and U.S. foreign policy. "The attacks on New York and Washington were, in a way, foreseeable."​_Emphasis mine... What's wrong with what she has said? Sounds like she's got her hand on the pulse of the world to me... or perhaps you think Romeo Dallaire was overreacting over the situation in Rwanda, or merely incompetant?

Perhaps you could explain the difference between 3000 dead North Americans and 800,000 Rwandans...


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I think what is missing here is the the Job description of a GG. She will not be on the phone every day with Liz planning the future of Canada.

She will,
-Be at anywhere near 300 the 400 embassy parties for foreign dignitaries.
-She will at Rideau Hall, host and house many of those dignitaries.
-She will at Rideau Hall, host countless events and garden parties for school children from across Canada and around the world. (I was there as a kid)
-She will Travel extensively to many of the Countries smaller and remote communities.
-She will preside over countless charity events across the country.
-She will preside over the Governor General Awards for Excellence for all Canadians. A tradition which I'm not willing to give up.
-She will travel the world as "YOUR" representative to provide a high level presence for our troops. Another tradition the Forces would more than likely not give up.

These are all functions that the PM does not have time to do. Most modern countries have a high level person that does all of this. Some call them Presidents, some call the VP's, some call them Kings or Queens. 

Our Governor General may read the throne speech, but the PMO writes it. I say get rid of the monarchy, but the GG is a vital and important post. And do remember, that eliminating it will "NOT" save tax dollars. It will cost tax dollars because someone will still need to attend these things, fund these things, show up and smile.

Are you going to tell the leader of a small country to catch a cab over to the Motel 6 when they arrive. Gimmee a Break.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iPetie said:


> I say get rid of the monarchy, but the GG is a vital and important post.


As much as I may disapprove of some of the house of Windsor, the fact is that Canada *IS* a Constitution Monarchy. The Crown is very much a part of our founding documents as I've gone on (at length) about in the past.

The last thing this country needs is to open up the constitution to write out the monarchy. The monarchy in no way impedes, impinges upon or in any way affects my life in Canada. If anything it represents the symbol by which all of our rights here are granted.

For the most part I like our constitution and charter... they work for me. They uphold many of the values which I find dear. I say leave them to be for now.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Ms Jean is married to a documentary film maker and methinks he might be just a tad more fiscally responsible than a self annointed "philosopher king" as is the case with Ms Clarkson's spouse
> 
> nevermind that Ms Clarkson comes off very much like an elitst


sorry, but he's a philosopher as well...

"Jean-Daniel Lafond, Chair of the Documentary Network

An acute observer of Quebec society, the world, and his time, Jean-Daniel Lafond is a filmmaker, writer and former professor of philosophy." 

Btw, there was some talk today on the local radio (CFRA) stating that he was involved with documentaries that were pro FLQ, and that he is a proponent for Quebec souvernty.

I cannot confirm these statements, but look forward to hearing more about his views.
I wonder if this is just Ottawa politics, or if these claims have any merit.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

posted by da_jonesey


> The last thing this country needs is to open up the constitution to write out the monarchy. The monarchy in no way impedes, impinges upon or in any way affects my life in Canada.


you've go to be kidding
civil servants are required to swear an oath to the crown aka the queen and even our own Dr. G., was asked to do so upon becoming a citizen of Canada

It's high time we move the last remnant of British imperialism - the monarchy
Canada is a country of inclusion and of many peoples from many different lands
Great Britain has a record of imperalism that does not sit well with many Canadians

The monarch serves no purpose except to let blue haired old ladies lament about "the homeland" and complain about how nobody speaks English anymore in Canada, while having their "tea and biscuits"


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> As much as I may disapprove of some of the house of Windsor, the fact is that Canada *IS* a Constitution Monarchy. The Crown is very much a part of our founding documents as I've gone on (at length) about in the past.
> 
> The last thing this country needs is to open up the constitution to write out the monarchy. The monarchy in no way impedes, impinges upon or in any way affects my life in Canada. If anything it represents the symbol by which all of our rights here are granted.
> 
> For the most part I like our constitution and charter... they work for me. They uphold many of the values which I find dear. I say leave them to be for now.


I agree with what you say for the most part, however, I also agree with Macspectrum.



> civil servants are required to swear an oath to the crown aka the queen and even our own Dr. G., was asked to do so upon becoming a citizen of Canada
> 
> It's high time we move the last remnant of British imperialism - the monarchy
> Canada is a country of inclusion and of many peoples from many different lands
> ...


 Canada must be a society that adapts to its ever changing mosaic. The Monarchy does make many new Canadians uncomfortable for imperialist reasons. But, there are many cases of immigrants coming to Canada because of our ties to the Monarch and the Commonwealth.
This is a political issue which will sort itself out over time depending on the preponderance of views of the populace at a specific point of time. It is my view, that this time will come sooner rather than later.
I'm a White Anglo Saxon Protestant and my feelings are that it is time to let it go. My Mother is rolling in her grave right now. My Grandmother is coming back from the grave to cuff me on the head.
Times Change!


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> You mean this:
> _Outspoken, she is also what is called a journaliste engagée -- a politicized journalist. After the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, *she expressed sympathy for the victims* but also raised questions about the world's response.
> 
> "*Why such outpouring and compassion for New York and so little for the hundreds and thousands of victims in Rwanda a few years ago?*" she asked. She also drew a link between the attacks and U.S. foreign policy. "The attacks on New York and Washington were, in a way, foreseeable."​_Emphasis mine... What's wrong with what she has said? Sounds like she's got her hand on the pulse of the world to me... or perhaps you think Romeo Dallaire was overreacting over the situation in Rwanda, or merely incompetant?
> ...


I was supporting her point of view, as in we're on the same side of that issue


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> lpkmckenna, if you and I were to run for office in the provincial or federal ridings we now live in, and were elected, we would have to swear allegience to the Queen and all of her heirs. This is why I feel that a constitutional monarchy does put limits on certain freedoms. As well, there are certain federal jobs that require everyone to take this pledge.


And how does this pledge limit your freedom? And if it was instead a pledge "to the flag" or "to Canada," would that limit your freedom, too? What's the difference?



Dr.G. said:


> Did you have to take this pledge to join the Canadian forces?


Yes.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> As much as I may disapprove of some of the house of Windsor, the fact is that Canada *IS* a Constitution Monarchy. The Crown is very much a part of our founding documents as I've gone on (at length) about in the past.
> 
> The last thing this country needs is to open up the constitution to write out the monarchy. The monarchy in no way impedes, impinges upon or in any way affects my life in Canada. If anything it represents the symbol by which all of our rights here are granted.
> 
> For the most part I like our constitution and charter... they work for me. They uphold many of the values which I find dear. I say leave them to be for now.


 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Would we would be better off without the monarchy? No. Virtually nothing would change. To have our statemen waste time on something that has little practical revelance because of "symbolism of imperialism" is juvenile.

You can abolish the monarchy, but you cannot abolish the fact that Canada itself is a relic of imperialism. That fact cannot be erased by dumping the House of Windsor.

(How's this for a crazy idea: we keep the monarchy without the Windsors. We could establish a new royal house out of a native or inuit family. That would be the one thing that could symbolically undo the imperialist past of Canada. His Royal Highness The Prince Graham Greene, the Governor-General of Canada?)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> (How's this for a crazy idea: we keep the monarchy without the Windsors. We could establish a new royal house out of a native or inuit family. That would be the one thing that could symbolically undo the imperialist past of Canada. His Royal Highness The Prince Graham Greene, the Governor-General of Canada?)


I like it. Is this just your crazy idea, or is there a group of people actually proposing this?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> It's high time we move the last remnant of British imperialism - the monarchy
> Canada is a country of inclusion and of many peoples from many different lands
> Great Britain has a record of imperalism that does not sit well with many Canadians
> 
> The monarch serves no purpose except to let blue haired old ladies lament about "the homeland" and complain about how nobody speaks English anymore in Canada, while having their "tea and biscuits"


Come out of that misty dreamland, MACSPECTRUM.

"last remnant of British imperialism" Now who's joking? Canada itself is a remnant of imperialism.

"Great Britain has a record of imperalism that does not sit well with many Canadians" Canada has a record that does not sit well with Canadians. Stop demanding one rule for the UK and another for us.

You may dismiss the monarchy as the whimsy of blue-haired old ladies (sexism and ageism!), that it doesn't change the fact that opening a constitutional debate will do little more than waste politician's time, waste taxpayer's money, and most of all - create yet more divisions and tensions such constitutional alterations always lead to. Remember what the last three constitutional changes created?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I like it. Is this just your crazy idea, or is there a group of people actually proposing this?


My crazy idea. You heard it here first, folks!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

:clap: 

Maybe you should see if aboriginalmonarch.org it taken.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, there is a federal civil servant in Winnipeg that was denied a high ranking position, one in which he was the most qualified for, because he refused to sign this oath. This is now working its way through the court system, and shall be at the doorstep of the Supreme Court someday. 

Would you be any less of a brave and committed soldier had you refused taking this oath? I don't think so.

If I, or anyone else, was elected to serve my province as an elected official in the House of Assembly, or in Parliament, and I/we were denied the opportunity to serve because I/we refused to take this oath, what happens to the freedoms of those who elected me/us, along with my freedom to serve my province/country as an elected?

I would pledge allegience to Canada, and to the Constitution and Charter of Rights of Canada, and even to the Canadian people, but NOT to the Queen and all of her heirs.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> (How's this for a crazy idea: we keep the monarchy without the Windsors. We could establish a new royal house out of a native or inuit family. That would be the one thing that could symbolically undo the imperialist past of Canada. His Royal Highness The Prince Graham Greene, the Governor-General of Canada?)


What a wonderful idea.
Congratulations!
:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> lpkmckenna, there is a federal civil servant in Winnipeg that was denied a high ranking position, one in which he was the most qualified for, because he refused to sign this oath. This is now working its way through the court system, and shall be at the doorstep of the Supreme Court someday.
> 
> Would you be any less of a brave and committed soldier had you refused taking this oath? I don't think so.


If I hadn't taken this oath, I wouldn't be a soldier.



Dr.G. said:


> If I, or anyone else, was elected to serve my province as an elected official in the House of Assembly, or in Parliament, and I/we were denied the opportunity to serve because I/we refused to take this oath, what happens to the freedoms of those who elected me/us, along with my freedom to serve my province/country as an elected?


Before running for election, you know of the oath. If you run for election knowing you will refuse the oath, you have wasted everyone's time. You have not been denied the opportunity to serve, you were trying to assume a position without meeting all of the obligations.



Dr.G. said:


> I would pledge allegience to Canada, and to the Constitution and Charter of Rights of Canada, and even to the Canadian people, but NOT to the Queen and all of her heirs.


You cannot pledge allegience to an inanimate object, and you cannot pledge to the Canadian people directly because they cannot directly demand anything of you. Americans pledge allegience to the flag, but that logical absurdity was a hasty implementation to deal with the fact that they were now a republic but didn't have all the details worked out.

It is important to remember that an oath of allegience is an anachronism that doesn't really fit with the concepts of liberal democracy. A man would pledge loyalty to a lord, thus obligating himself to the will of the lord.

But a liberal democracy has no lords. It is a government of law, not men. An oath to Canada or the Canadian people makes no sense because the people cannot directly make legal obligations on other people. The people elect politicians, who make laws, which government all conduct. So to whom do we owe alliegance: the people, the law, the politicians?

The theory of contitutional monarchy is simple: the power of the crown is not exercised by the crown, but by the representatives elected by the people. The representatives are not bound by the will of the people, they are simply limited by it (ie, can be removed by them). Thus, laws are made which the representatives (not the people) believe are right. The laws are universally binding. This peculiar tangle of the will of the people and the power of the crown is what makes the oath difficult to implement. (As you can see, the power of the government does not come from "the flag," hence is a ridiculous idea for any government.)

If we do not pledge alliegance to the Queen, we should pledge alliegance to no one. If the oath of alliegence goes, it should be dropped entirely. Something like "I promise to obey the laws of Canada" would at least be meaningful.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, then I say let's drop the oath totally. I feel that if I am qualified to serve in a provincial assembly, or in Parliament, or in certain federal positions in the civil service, or even in the military, then I am qualified, oath or no oath. I feel that I am no less a Canadian citizen because I remained silent at the section when we had to swear allegience to the Queen and all her heirs. I sang "O Canada" just as patriotically as anyone else in my immigrant/new citizenship group that day. I am proud to be a Canadian, but I feel that while we are a Constitutional Monarchy, I shall always be somewhat less than a full citizen, in that I am not able to uphold one of my four responsibilities as a Canadian citizen, which is to vote and possibly run for office. Granted, it is because of my beliefs that prevent me from saying this oath, just like it was my beliefs that prevented me from being a combat soldier (I was drafted as a non-combatant Conscientious Objector). 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I, like Dr. G. would prefer we abolish the GG entirely.

Having said that, I still go on record as objecting to the choice of yet another CBC government controlled crony to the post. It is an insult to Canadians to do so twice in a row.

As for the new GG, I recognize she has certain qualities and talents. We just don't need them. Paul Martin and members of his caucus should be doing what she will do. It is time they earned their fees for eating from the public trough called politics.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> If he was, no doubt you'd be begging that he spend more time in parliament, and writing laws, and stuff.


Yeah, right, like the gun control fiasco and same sex marriage?

Spare me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I, like Sinc, would prefer we abolish the office of GG entirely.
Having said that, I still go on record as supporting Ms.Jean as GG. I did support Ms. Clarkson initially, however, her free-spending ways, and the fact that we had to spend taxpayer dollars on her husband, who was nearly given equal "billing" as the GG, brought me to again call for the abolishment of the office of the GG.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An Edmonton Journal columnist got it right when he wrote today:

Lorne Gunter
The Edmonton Journal

Friday, August 05, 2005

"If you yearn to be the Governor General, here's some career advice: Become a visible-minority, foreign-born woman. Get a job at the CBC hosting shows that promote fashionable lefty causes. And marry a controversial ideologue.

That's been the recipe for success for the last two Queen's representatives."

EXACTLY!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sinc, you guys built that firewall yet?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sinc, you guys built that firewall yet?


Nope, we don't need it.

But please, tell me what is not true about what he wrote?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What are "fashionable lefty causes"?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> "If you yearn to be the Governor General, here's some career advice: Become a visible-minority, foreign-born woman. Get a job at the CBC hosting shows that promote fashionable lefty causes. And marry a controversial ideologue.


How does one become a "visible-minority"?

I'm sure that outside of Quebec, she is not very well known.
Sinc what has she promoted that is a 'fashionable lefty cause"?
What has her husband said or done to irk you?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am an "invisible minority" (i.e., Jewish), but an overt "auditory minority" (i.e., New York City accent). I also watch CBC and listen to CBC 1 and 2. I guess that might put me in the running for GG........................if I was willing to not only swear allegience to the Queen, but to be her rep here in Canada. Guess not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> How does one become a "visible-minority"?
> 
> I'm sure that outside of Quebec, she is not very well known.
> Sinc what has she promoted that is a 'fashionable lefty cause"?
> What has her husband said or done to irk you?


Apparently you didn't read my post.

Had you done so, you would not be asking me questions about something I did not write. 

I simply stated I agreed the author was correct.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> An Edmonton Journal columnist got it right when he wrote today:
> "If you yearn to be the Governor General, here's some career advice: Become a visible-minority, foreign-born woman. Get a job at the CBC hosting shows that promote fashionable lefty causes. And marry a controversial ideologue.
> 
> That's been the recipe for success for the last two Queen's representatives."


What nonsense. You can't have a trend of two.

John Ralston Saul is hardly a controversial ideologue; you can't be controversial and irrelevant at the same time.

Media personalities make rather good choices, actually. They are nationally known and professionally knowledgable about world events. And they are professionally removed from political party interests. Someone who has spent her entire career as a detached and objective commentator of politics is perfect for the political but not partisan job of GG.

There are a lot of respectable people who really aren't appropriate. A powerful businessman like our PM would have too many entrenched interests. A professor has likely spent too much time in an ivory tower. A soldier of any prominence likely has a conflict-based outlook on the world. Doctors and scientists are not necessarily good socially. I think lawyers and priests are obviously inappropriate. That leaves former politicians, which reduces the role of GG to yet another patronage position.

SINC, your postings seem to have a very definitive style. I'm beginning to see what a national asset you are. If anyone wants to be right about anything, they should just look at what you think, and take the opposite position.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:



> SINC, your postings seem to have a very definitive style. I'm beginning to see what a national asset you are. If anyone wants to be right about anything, they should just look at what you think, and take the opposite position.


Glad you appreciate it lpk. After spending 42 years of my life in the media, I wouldn't want it any other way.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC's ramblings are nothing more than the childish wailings of a person who spends too much time focusing on the outside, rather than the inside. Clearly he's willing to disregard everything else that makes her an ideal person for the GG position outside her gender, race and previous place of employment.

It could be worse... she could have worked for the Sun.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> SINC's ramblings are nothing more than the childish wailings of a person who spends too much time focusing on the outside, rather than the inside. Clearly he's willing to disregard everything else that makes her an ideal person for the GG position outside her gender, race and previous place of employment.
> 
> It could be worse... she could have worked for the Sun.


You miss the point entirely MP. The office of the GG is redundant and a representation of a badly dysfunctional family we need to remove from the Canadian scene entirely.

I don't care who the PM appoints. The real point is he shouldn't appoint anyone.

And by the way, I never worked for the Sun. Our division was far removed from the tabloids.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You don't care who? Ha ha ha ha!!!



> Two visible minorities in a row?
> Two CBC journalists in a row?
> Two females in a row?
> And from Quebec too?
> Certainly does not appear to reflect mainstream Canada to many westerners.





> We just don't need her and we certainly don't need another Liberal tainted CBC broadcaster.





> Having said that, I still go on record as objecting to the choice of yet another CBC government controlled crony to the post. It is an insult to Canadians to do so twice in a row.





> An Edmonton Journal columnist got it right when he wrote today:
> 
> Lorne Gunter
> The Edmonton Journal
> ...


Clearly, you are the dysfunctional one...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I simply point out the absurd choice of a position that should no longer exist. I really don't care about the person chosen, but I do love to ridicule it for its repetitive nature. That is fact.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> I simply point out the absurd choice of a position that should no longer exist.


Interesting, however, that you simply chose to focus on the race and gender of the person, rather than the position itself with your first post on the matter.

That is a fact.

It's also interesting that you would consider the next GG an absurd choice. Why? Because she's female? She's a minority? Convenient you focus on her history with CBC, yet disregard the fact that she helped establish a network of shelters for women and children across Quebec and Canada. She also worked in organizations that helped immigrants who came to Canada... also worked for Employment and Immigration Canada and the Conseil des Communautés culturelles du Québec. 

You mention repetition, but oddly, Adrian Clarkson was the first non-white GG in the history of Canada. She was also the second woman to have held that position... seems to me, historically speaking, you fit the description of repetition of GG's in Canada more so than Michaele Jean.

That is a fact.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I still agree with Sinc's view that "The office of the GG is redundant and a representation of a badly dysfunctional family we need to remove from the Canadian scene entirely." I say we compromise -- we keep the office of the GG so long as Elizabeth II is Queen. Once she dies or abdicates, we end this office. I don't think that would take a constitutional revision, as would changing our status to a republic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why do you want a republic??

What on earth is wrong with having a ceremonial representative of Canada?

Yes the GG is deeply embedded in parliamentary and constitutional function as the office has deadlock breaking powers so some other method would be required.

The Speaker of the House has similar deadlock functions for parliament used rarely but needed none the less as we saw a few months back.

Lose the Queen, keep the office - call it something else if it irritates you. The function will get filled anyway as it's a needed role.

.....and the choice for GG ALWAYS says something about the elected leader.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

by Dr. G.,


> I don't think that would take a constitutional revision, as would changing our status to a republic.


I think it will as the crown or it's representative (the GG) opens and closes/dissolves parliament.

Not to worry though, we "republicans" (note small 'r') will win one day.
The monarchists can't live forever and with each new wave of immigrants comes new support to remove the monarchy, in any and all of its forms, from the beautiful tapestry we call Canada.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

We shall see, Michael.........we shall see. As one who was part of that "wave of immigration", I hear what you are saying. The year I became a citizen (July 1st, 1997), there were 34 other persons taking the citizenship pledge with me, but I was the only one from the US. Many were amazed that I came from the US to Canada, especially NL. After 28 years, I have few regrets. Paix, mon petite "r" ami.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr. G, are you advocating a US style republic?
Our system of goverment has evolved and I think that we have done a good job. 
The ties to the Queen are at this moment symbolic in essence and a link to Canada's past.

Sinc, you agree with the author's post yet it's not what you said. Let someone else speak for me by proxy, that way I'm not responsable for what the says....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sinc, you agree with the author's post yet it's not what you said. Let someone else speak for me by proxy, that way I'm not responsable for what the says....


No one speaks for me by proxy or otherwise. I simply stated that I happen to agree with his observations on the similarity of this appointment versus the last appointment. That does not make me responsible, as you put it, for his thoughts or deeds or actions.

The monarchy needs to be turfed and the speaker could handle any duties currently carried out by the GG.

Our constitutional monarchy is slowly dying in the very manner MACSPECTRUM puts forth. Best we pull the trigger and put it out of its misery, the sooner, the better.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I would not want a full US-style republic, in that I would suggest that the Senate be abolished along with the GG's office. If we have to have the Senate, then it should be an elected Senate, with equal representation or proportional representation based on population. However, these senators would not be running in a riding, but in the province as a whole. Granted, province-wide senators are similar to the US, but in the US, every state gets two senators. Here, in provinces with a million or less in population, they would get one elected senator. Then, go up a million for each additional senator. Thus, ON would have either 10 or 11 senators, AB with 2 or 3, MB with 1 or 2, BC 3 or 4, PQ 7 or 8 senators, depending upon the latest population figures. The three Territories would get one senator for the three jurisdictions combined.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, trust me, I stick out like a red apple in a sea of green grapes when I start to speak. I have lost some of my NYC accent after 28 years in St.John's, but you would know I am not from Canada once I start to talk about "Dawson, dog paw sauce" or "I like to play with my dog and a ball near the mall". As the Sage from Saltspring oftentimes says, "Trust me on this."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Okay. You don't have to register your guns (at your own peril), but do lock them up well. And try not to shoot anyone, or let your loved ones shoot you, since no criminal will ever have access to them.


Since I no longer own any guns, that will be no problem.



HowEver said:


> Also, we'll spare you marrying your own sex. I've got a feeling that your own sex will generally spare you from that one all on their own.


You got that totally right.



HowEver said:


> As for Martin bothering to attend parliament instead of shaking hands and promoting Canada at the dizzying pace we require of the Governor General, I guess we'll have to let him keep attending. With no viable opposition except for people who promote additional gun rights and few human rights, it looks like he'll keep on governing long enough to select the next several Governors General.


Wouldn't expect anything else from a resident of Ontario.



HowEver said:


> Thanks for that.


You're welcome.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> The monarchy needs to be turfed and the speaker could handle any duties currently carried out by the GG.


What? Sure in parliament, what about the other stuff. You "DO" understand that there are rules of protocol in diplomacy and foreign affairs. I will repeat my previous post.



iPetie said:


> She will,
> -Be at anywhere near 300 the 400 embassy parties for foreign dignitaries.
> -She will at Rideau Hall, host and house many of those dignitaries.
> -She will at Rideau Hall, host countless events and garden parties for school children from across Canada and around the world. (I was there as a kid)
> ...


So, I'll ask one last time, who is going to do this? Demolishing the Office makes zero political or fiscal sense. You could rename it, you could dispatch the Royalty portion, but in the end, the post will need to continue in one form or other.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Pardon me but that list is far from essential or vital by any means. That is why the GG's office spending is out of control. We simply don't need all that high brow stuff some seem to feel is important. Toss the GG, the Queen and all that mucky muck stuff with them.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If that is the case, why such a great cry of protest from Canadians coast to coast when Queen Adrienne took 50 of her cronies on that infamous world tour? The millions spent on that fiasco alone should not have bothered Liberals in any way, according to that logic.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> Pardon me but that list is far from essential or vital by any means. That is why the GG's office spending is out of control. We simply don't need all that high brow stuff some seem to feel is important. Toss the GG, the Queen and all that mucky muck stuff with them.


High Brow, The GG costs nothing. Would you suggest we sell Rideau Hall. How about Jasper national park, how about Banff?
Is being a good and gracious host to foreign dignitaries "High Brow". Do we not extend to them the same or better hospitality and respect they give us?
Do we tell the the ambassador from the Ukraine to go F himself when he invites the Government of Canada to a Social or business event?

You attitude wreaks of the same attitude many westerners have toward the real world and the way it is expected to work. We as Canadians (read Easterners) don't set these standards, but as one of the richest countries in the world, we certainly should try to adhere to them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me then, those duties should be handled by ambassadors, save the whole expense of the GG thing, And rid ourselves of those dysfunctional royal fools overseas in the process.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> Seems to me then, those duties should be handled by ambassadors, save the whole expense of the GG thing, And rid ourselves of those dysfunctional royal fools overseas in the process.


So, then we would have to appoint an Ambassador to the leagues of Embassies and consulates across the country. That person would have to be politically neutral to the policies of the Canadian Government. Oh, wait a minute, that in it's very description discounts the word Ambassador. Ambassadors are there to further the political and foreign policy agenda's of of a specific government.
At any rate, someone would have to be hired. They may as well stay at Rideau Hall, since it is central to the majority of embassies in Ottawa. It is also a National Treasure so we can't pawn (Read- Eastern speak for "privatize its Ass")it off to developers. Let's take the prime parkland it resides in and close to the public that owns it. That'll save a few shekels.
Uhm, wait a second, it won't save a penny!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Today's Edmonton Sun reflects what many of us think:

Sun, August 7, 2005
EDITORIAL: One more western snub

In recent years, under the cynical rule of the federal Liberals, the distinguished offices of Canada's vice-regal reps has deteriorated into a sad state.

Albertans suffered through it when former prime minister Jean Chretien appointed his political pal Bud Olsen to the lieutenant-governor's job. Olsen proved to be a surly and cantankerous fellow, totally ill-suited for the largely ceremonial position, and left office before his term was up, due to ill health.

We though the Grits had finally wised up when Olsen's successor became Lois Hole - the extremely popular Queen of Hugs. And after Mrs. Hole's tragic death, ex-Eskimo footballer Normie Kwong was also a fine choice.

This certainly contrasts with the blunder the Liberals made at the federal level when former CBC broadcaster Adrienne Clarkson was awarded the Governor General's job.

Not only was this bizarre lady with peculiar fashion sense inflicted on Canadians, we also got her overbearing partner, John Raulston Saul, as part of the package. 

Between the two of them, they turned what is supposed to be a ceremonial and populist position at times into either a laughingstock or an outrage.

Their lavish trips with a gang of pseudo-intellectual cronies in tow at taxpayers' expense brought the office of Canada's head of state into disrepute.

So much so that MPs took the unprecedented step of slashing her budget to hopefully send a message that ordinary Canadians were not amused.

And when Clarkson missed Lois Hole's funeral - and was later discovered hanging out on a Europe vacation on what was billed by her office as a "prior personal commitment" - her popularity hit rock-bottom among large numbers of Albertans.

At the same time, thousands of Edmontonians braved the wind and rain in Commonwealth Stadium this spring to catch a glimpse of Queen Elizabeth.

Proof positive that the monarchy - and the office of the Governor General, who is her representative in Canada - remains a very popular and important institution in this part of our troubled country.

You would have expected that Paul Martin would have got the message by now.

Well, guess what? The the prime minister clearly hasn't.

With the announcement last week that someone called Michaelle Jean will be passed the vice-regal torch from the failing hands of Adrienne Clarkson this fall, the Ottawa Liberals have once again demonstrated they don't get it.

Already being referred to as "Michaelle Who?" Jean is hardly the respected, credible national figure that Albertans and Canadians expect in a Governor General.

But rather, it's a crass and cynical attempt by the manipulative Liberals to appease Quebecers who have been going over to the separatist Bloc Quebecois in droves, following the disgusting revelations of the Gomery inquiry about the inherently corrupt nature of the federal Liberal party.

Jean's apparent qualifications for the job are that she's black and an immigrant, and has somewhat of a profile as a newsreader on French CBC (notice the connection here).

But most of all she's from Quebec.

Outside of that she's a total unknown anywhere else west of the Ottawa River.

At one time in our country's history, when the bonds with the old country were stronger, British aristocrats were sent over to do the governor general's job.

This was hardly a satisfactory situation for a supposedly independent country. But at least a few of them left behind some fine sports trophies.

They were replaced by a series of distinguished Canadians who earned their respect because of their exemplary military and diplomatic records.

Neither Adrienne Clarkson nor, apparently, Michaelle Jean have any of this to offer.

Jean also comes with a fifth-wheel in the name of Jean-Daniel Lafond - a taxpayer-supported documentary filmmaker.

Hopefully he can take a hint from the present vice-regal couple's follies and remains in the shadows - seldom seen and never heard.

Martin, at one point in his erratic career as prime minister, insisted he was going to right the wrongs of western alienation once he got his prime minister's job legitimized with a national election.

Now that he has squeaked through - and survived the spring's non-confidence votes - he has a strange way of living up to his promises to this part of the country.

Michaelle Who and Jean-Daniel are not the kind of message many Albertans who feel neglected and distanced from the national government are going to accept as anything but business as usual for a Liberal government.

And that's "do whatever it takes to appease the Quebec separatists." But at the same time, ignore the aspirations and concerns of the West.

They say that Michaelle Jean has a personality that grows on people. Well, she's got a lot of growing to do before the Haitian-born CBC escapee is sworn in on Sept. 27 in the Senate chamber. And it's clear that Paul Martin still doesn't get it.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

With all due respect Sinc, that position is not what you have been preaching. Quite the contrary in fact. 
The author of the article has no clue what he is talking about. First off, and the most glaring example is the fact that since the GG's became Canadian, they have alternated between English and French Canadians.
This type of commentary is only designed to be inflammatory, based little on fact. Interesting it comes from a Sun newspaper. What kind of idiot describes Canada as a troubled country?

And, I'm sorry, but what rock do people who don't know who Michaelle Jean is live under. She has been a "national" presence for quite some time. Oh, I forgot, people in the west don't watch TV. To busy reading trash in the Sun, sending us "Leaders" like Day and Harper.

Face it, the only problem with her is: a) her predecessor and b) She is not Anglo, white and from Medicine Hat and born in Swift Current.

I'm still trying to figure out Western Alienation. I lived in Calgary for 8 years during the late 90's and early 00's. Economies booming, health care in better shape than here, jobs a plenty. Westerners have become a bunch of spoiled whiners. And as in is the majority of Canadians feel about Quebec, we are now feeling about the west. Shut up or build that wall. But stop whining about how hard life is because "we're alienated". Your forefathers that built the west with a "can do" mentality would be ashamed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> With all due respect Sinc, that position is not what you have been preaching. Quite the contrary in fact.
> The author of the article has no clue what he is talking about. First off, and the most glaring example is the fact that since the GG's became Canadian, they have alternated between English and French Canadians.
> This type of commentary is only designed to be inflammatory, based little on fact. Interesting it comes from a Sun newspaper. What kind of idiot describes Canada as a troubled country?


Neither Clarkson nor Jean are English or French Canadians, they are immigrants so that "fact" is incorrect. Any country that has faced the threat of separation of 25% of its population for decades is indeed "troubled".



iPetie said:


> And, I'm sorry, but what rock do people who don't know who Michaelle Jean is live under. She has been a "national" presence for quite some time. Oh, I forgot, people in the west don't watch TV. To busy reading trash in the Sun, sending us "Leaders" like Day and Harper.


Since I do not watch CBC news, I had never seen her before her appointment. Is that so hard to fathom? I prefer unbiased news, not Liberal controlled news.



iPetie said:


> Face it, the only problem with her is: a) her predecessor and b) She is not Anglo, white and from Medicine Hat and born in Swift Current.


That is pure BS. I just think we don't need ANYONE as GG.



iPetie said:


> I'm still trying to figure out Western Alienation. I lived in Calgary for 8 years during the late 90's and early 00's. Economies booming, health care in better shape than here, jobs a plenty. Westerners have become a bunch of spoiled whiners. And as in is the majority of Canadians feel about Quebec, we are now feeling about the west. Shut up or build that wall. But stop whining about how hard life is because "we're alienated". Your forefathers that built the west with a "can do" mentality would be ashamed.


On the contrary, my forefathers would be applauding our attempts to defend our beliefs.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Neither Clarkson nor Jean are English or French Canadians, they are immigrants so that "fact" is incorrect.


I'm disgusted. Are you saying immigrants aren't Canadian?



SINC said:


> Since I do not watch CBC news, I had never seen her before her appointment. Is that so hard to fathom? I prefer unbiased news, not Liberal controlled news.


While it would be hard to deny that the CBC tends to have a "left-wing" slant, it is absurd to state they are controlled by the Liberal party. I mean, do you also think the Sun is a biased, Conservative-controlled newspaper?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> I'm disgusted. Are you saying immigrants aren't Canadian?


Not at all, just that neither are French or English by the strictest definition.



lpkmckenna said:


> While it would be hard to deny that the CBC tends to have a "left-wing" slant, it is absurd to state they are controlled by the Liberal party. I mean, do you also think the Sun is a biased, Conservative-controlled newspaper?


The fact remains that the CBC is funded by the government of Canada, and last time I checked, that was run by the Liberals.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

By the strictest definition, almost no one is French or English Canadian. You clearly missed the point. I think iPetie was stating that the GG alternately comes from english-speaking Canada and french-speaking Canada. I think it is only too obvious that in Canada, a political post cannot be limited to one's racial background.

You were denying that someone could be French or English Canadian if they were an immigrant. That is, by strictest definition, untrue, since if they had immigrated from the UK or France, or from an English or French colony, they could clearly be French or English Canadian.

I work for the Canadian Forces, clearly funded by the government. Is it biased and Liberal controlled, too? How about the universities and colleges? How about public transit? How about the Arts Council?

You are equivocating. Funded != controlled.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> By the strictest definition, almost no one is French or English Canadian. You clearly missed the point. I think iPetie was stating that the GG alternately comes from english-speaking Canada and french-speaking Canada. I think it is only too obvious that in Canada, a political post cannot be limited to one's racial background.


If that is what iPetie meant, then I agree.



lpkmckenna said:


> You were denying that someone could be French or English Canadian if they were an immigrant. That is, by strictest definition, untrue, since if they had immigrated from the UK or France, or from an English or French colony, they could clearly be French or English Canadian.


I concede your point that in some remote cases they can be, but not most. And please don't take it as racist. It is simply an observation of cultural background.



lpkmckenna said:


> I work for the Canadian Forces, clearly funded by the government. Is it biased and Liberal controlled, too? How about the universities and colleges? How about public transit? How about the Arts Council?
> 
> You are equivocating. Funded != controlled.


My next door neighbour works for the Canadian Forces as a lawyer. His opinion is that if the current government stopped interfering, the military would be much better off. That and providing adequate funding. Not my observations, but from one of your own.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Political discussions always seem to lead to language discussions.

If the government introduces policies that someone agrees with, that someone will call it innovative.
If the government introduces policies that someone disagrees with, that someone will call it interfering.

The fact is the executive level of government has limited influence on military activities. Day to day military life is governed by legislation. The only significant way that the government can innovate/interfere with the military is new legislation. That simply hasn't happened under the Martin government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Many would argue it is exactly because of that inaction by the Martin government that the military is underfunded and overworked, but I doubt your new commander in chief, the GG will have any influence on those issues. Time to turf the GG as CIC and have a real CIC who can effect change perhaps?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> You were denying that someone could be French or English Canadian if they were an immigrant. That is, by strictest definition, untrue, since if they had immigrated from the UK or France, or from an English or French colony, they could clearly be French or English Canadian.


My argument was meant to read from English Canada and French Canada. Interesting though that Clarkson was from Hong Kong, an English colony at the time. Jean from Haiti, a French colony.



Sinc said:


> Any country that has faced the threat of separation of 25% of its population for decades is indeed "troubled".


Typically, a troubled country would be a country under imminent threat of violence or at war. Every country in the world has day to day or year to year difficulties and challenges. A peaceful march towards separation or Quiet Revolution is not an indication of a troubled country. On the contrary, it is a sign of a country that is very healthy and at peace. Not allowing it to happen, by force or otherwise would indicate a troubled country.



Sinc said:


> Since I do not watch CBC news, I had never seen her before her appointment. Is that so hard to fathom? I prefer unbiased news, not Liberal controlled news.


There is no such thing as unbiased news. Gathering news from all sources is the responsibility of every individual. Upon investigation of many sources, an individual can then make there own decision. You, in particular, being a news person should subscribe to this. Therefore, you should know who Jean is.



Sinc said:


> That is pure BS. I just think we don't need ANYONE as GG.


Interesting, the article you quoted was decidedly pro Vice Regal



Sinc said:


> Today's Edmonton Sun reflects what many of us think:


You need to make up your mind Mon Ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My opinion on the person selected and the validity of the position itself are two distinct subjects, so "making up my mind" is not an option.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050812.wlafon0812/BNStory/National/



> Premiers differ on Jean's vote in Quebec referendum
> Banff, Alta. — Did Michaëlle Jean and her husband vote yes or no?
> 
> New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell want to know how Canada's next governor-general voted in a referendum on Quebec independence, but Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams says it's nobody's business.
> ...


Uh oh....


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Oh Man! Given the source of the accusations and the obvious attempt of soveriegnists to discredit her, I find it difficult to believe that any politician would even mention it.
...but we are in Canada! Eastern Premiers = Downplay and ignore. Western Premiers = well ,there is a surprise. Gawd!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> Oh Man! Given the source of the accusations and the obvious attempt of soveriegnists to discredit her, I find it difficult to believe that any politician would even mention it.
> ...but we are in Canada! Eastern Premiers = Downplay and ignore. Western Premiers = well ,there is a surprise. Gawd!


At least western premiers have the intestinal fortitude to ask questions, not blindly go along with the Liberal view like sheep.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And ironically Stephen Harper was in Montreal yesterday and his entourage had to pay patrons of a Dairy Queen to go up to him for a photo-op. Yes, I know he's not premier or on the provincial level but if this represents the West....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And ironically Stephen Harper was in Montreal yesterday and his entourage had to pay patrons of a Dairy Queen to go up to him for a photo-op. Yes, I know he's not premier or on the provincial level but if this represents the West....


Coercing people is a common practice amoungst all political parties when they're on the campaign trail. Nothing new here.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Oh Man! Given the source of the accusations and the obvious attempt of soveriegnists to discredit her, I find it difficult to believe that any politician would even mention it.
> ...but we are in Canada! Eastern Premiers = Downplay and ignore. Western Premiers = well ,there is a surprise. Gawd!


Last I checked New Brunswick is out east.


----------



## Oddsbodkin (Jul 30, 2005)

*And I'm a Parselmouth*

Scanning through this thread brought to mind a verse of a Bob Dylan song:
"I went down where the vultures feed
I would've gone deeper, but there wasnt any need
Heard the tongues of angels and the tongues of men
Wasn't any difference to me."
I don't so much mind Ms Jean's appointment as I bemoan the fact that I was not chosen.  Odds


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Coercing people is a common practice amoungst all political parties when they're on the campaign trail. Nothing new here.


Nope, but paying 5$ for someone to go and order a slushie from Harper is well, amusing...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Last I checked New Brunswick is out east.


Bottom line with Mrs Jean and family, they are proud Quebecers and loyal Canadians. The people raising a stink are hardline seperatist trying to get a reaction from the rest of Canada.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> Last I checked New Brunswick is out east.


Uhm...Ya, You have a strong, if not, impregnable argument here. Uhm......  

Just that I decided about a month ago that every time I heard a westerner whine, I would take it to task. I'm sick of it. However, NB does not deserve such treatment. They have a real reason to whine.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul Martin still has time to overturn the appointment, especially in light of this:

New Gov. Gen. toasts Quebec sovereignty in film
Husband made documentary in the early 1990s
*
Jack Aubry

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

OTTAWA - Governor general designate Michaelle Jean joins two of the most prominent Quebec separatists in a toast to "independence" in one of her filmmaker husband's documentaries in the early 1990s.
In La maniere negre (The ***** Method), Jean-Daniel Lafond's examination of the work of a poet named Aime Cesaire from Martinique and his influence on the Quebec independence movement, Jean is shown in a bar toasting "independence" with several hardline separatists, including Gerald Godin and Pierre Vallieres.
Seated next to Vallieres, a founding member of the Front de liberation du Quebec, Jean supports the separatist's statement that Martinique "should not only go for independence, but towards a revolution, like Quebec also."
"In general! Yes, independence is not something that is given -- it is something that is taken," said Jean.
Later in the documentary, according to the transcript, Jean indicates that Quebec's independence may be inevitable.
She says when it comes to independence, there are three choices: the painful kind, as that experienced in Haiti; there is one of compromise, as experienced by Martinique; and there is finally one of waiting, as found in Quebec.
In his book based on the documentary, Jean's husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, asks if Quebec should become a sovereign country and immediately answers in the affirmative.
"Yes, and I applaud it with both hands and I promise to be at all of the processions of the St. Jean ..."
The context of these remarks is sure to raise more questions about Jean's commitment to federalism.
Scott Reid, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, did not directly comment on the documentary except to again confirm that Jean underwent rigorous background checks by the Privy Council Office, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP before her appointment.
"Moreover, Madame Jean confirmed her and her husband's commitment to Canada in the most direct of terms with us -- which she obviously reinforced clearly at the time of her announcement through her comments to the people of Canada," said Reid.
The couple will not release a statement or make themselves available for interviews before Jean is sworn in to office at the end of September.
Last week, questions were raised about Jean's and her husband's ties to hardline separatists, with the PMO confirming that convicted FLQ terrorist Jacques Rose built a bookcase for Lafond.
The Prime Minister's Office maintained the couple are the victims of a "smear campaign" and will not ask them to clarify their positions in regard to Quebec independence.
The controversy reached Britain's largest broadsheet newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, which carried a story about Jean, pointing out she holds dual French nationality and has been accused of divided loyalties. The newspaper, which is read by the country's elite, said the matter has launched "a bitter row that has exposed the country's historical fault line."
Some premiers, including Alberta's Ralph Klein and New Brunswick's Bernard Lord, have called on Jean and Lafond to clarify their position, including how they voted in the 1995 referendum.
Another scene in the documentary shows Vallieres, who wrote ****** blancs d'Amerique (White ******* of America), explaining to Haitian-born Jean that he was referring to people being exploited and dominated on the continent, specifically in Quebec.
Commenting on Montreal's growing black population, Jean says: "And more and more, the white Quebec ******* also have their own black *******."
Le Quebecois, a French publication that has been leading the separatist charge in attacking the surprise appointment, said in a press release Monday that the documentary should convince skeptics that the "freedom fighters" of Quebec will now have allies living at Rideau Hall.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

_"Mme Jean confirmed her and her husband's support of Canada to us. She also repeated during the announcement of her nomination that she was committed to the Canadian people." - PM_

This is clearly all that matters NOW. The rest is mudslinging, tabloidesque, irrelevant bull$hit.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Hahhh Sinc, don't let the facts get in the way and make sure you relate out of context....

"Bourgeois does admit its context was a discussion about Martinique... Bourgeois said his target in the revelations about Lafond, and now Jean, is Prime Minister Martin" -


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I don't give a rats ass what she says now - anybody who supported that idea does not deserve to be the Head of State for our country. I'm 100% against her appointment.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I thought the struggle between federalism and Quebec separatism was all about convincing people to change their minds and their votes. 

And yet now some suggest that if someone once supported Quebec sovereignty but later decides to choose a united Canada, then that person forever bears the taint of past positions.

Or does that only apply to high-profile appointments and the like? Everyone is welcome to embrace Canada so long as they stay out of the public eye?

BTW, I saw a clip on TV last night of Michaëlle Jean participating in a toast. Either there was no audio or I missed it. Has anyone heard, first hand, what the toast actually was?


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

iMatt said:


> And yet now some suggest that if someone once supported Quebec sovereignty but later decides to choose a united Canada, then that person forever bears the taint of past positions.
> 
> Or does that only apply to high-profile appointments and the like? Everyone is welcome to embrace Canada so long as they stay out of the public eye?


For me it's the fact the the Governor General is technically the highest position in Government (higher than the PM) - and having someone whose loyalty has been called into question as the GG isn't a great idea.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I saw it. It was pretty much "smoking gun" type evidence that both our newly minted GG and her hubby are totally sympathetic to Quebec separation.  

Hmmm...lets' see now....a Governor General of Canada with dual nationality....who was not born in Canada...and who is now seen to be publicly sympathetic to the eventual breakup of our Nation....

Only the Liberals could have come up with this one. They are SUCH a bunch of rascals. Gotta love em.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

Just thought I'd let people know that I've written to my local MP and even the PMO to voice my objections to her appointment


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I saw it. It was pretty much "smoking gun" type evidence that both our newly minted GG and her hubby are totally sympathetic to Quebec separation.


Watch your verb tense, MacNutt. I've now had a chance to read the reports in today's Globe and Mail. Everything's from circa 1993: that gun stopped smoking twelve years ago. A lot can happen to a person's beliefs and politics in twelve years.

Is there any evidence of more recent support, perhaps something from this decade, or do we just assume "once a separatist, always a separatist"?

Still, I do understand people's unease with the appointment in light of the revelations. I'm just not convinced of their relevance <i>today</i>. I am open to being convinced, but we're not there yet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I saw it. It was pretty much "smoking gun" type evidence that both our newly minted GG and her hubby are totally sympathetic to Quebec separation.


What did you "see"? 
Did you even understand it? 
What evidence? There exist none.
The West and many others are ready to believe garbage being drawn up by hard core separatists. Remember that when these separatist start ragging on Canada...



MacNutt said:


> Hmmm...lets' see now....a Governor General of Canada with dual nationality....who was not born in Canada...and who is now seen to be publicly sympathetic to the eventual breakup of our Nation....


She has never been sympathetic to the breakup of the Nation.
Offer proof or....



MacNutt said:


> Only the Liberals could have come up with this one. They are SUCH a bunch of rascals. Gotta love em.


It's a great choice oh Scottish one....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Out of 30+ million citizens... all we could find is Jean? There must have been other people qualified for the position. We couldn't find one without past/present seperatist sympathies? I know they had to work a little harder in Ottawa than usual this year... but come on... spend 5 minutes and do a background check.

If Jean was going to be appointed to pretty much any other position I wouldn't have a problem. To the head of government it just a little too much salt in the wounds... even if it's 12 year old news.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suspect that LOTS of Canadians are thinking precisely the same thing right now, Mugatu.

It's also amusing to watch the apologists make their usual excuses for yet another Federal Liberal screw-up.  

If Canada were a true democracy then we'd have a say in all of this. Too bad it isn't. Too bad, indeed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What screw-up? Sorry MacNutt, the sun must be hitting your noggin pretty hard....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I saw the same clip Macnutt saw, but as the commentator stated, there was a toast, but it was not necessarily for sovereignty. Thus, I would rather go with the actual facts of the situation rather than to jump to see a "smoking gun". I tend to agree with the view of iMatt when he states that "I thought the struggle between federalism and Quebec separatism was all about convincing people to change their minds and their votes." This makes more sense and is in keeping with the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities than the view of Macnutt when he states "Hmmm...lets' see now....a Governor General of Canada with dual nationality....who was not born in Canada..." Keep in mind that I do NOT believe in the office of the GG, nor our situation as a Constitiutional Monarchy. However, I shall support the rights of those with dual nationalities, like myself, and the rights of those not born in Canada. 

Gerry, as I said in another post, "From my cold dead hands" shall be the only way you may take my rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen from me. I love this country too much to let one such as you make those of dual-nationalities feel like less of a citizen. Trust me on this one.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> If Canada were a true democracy then we'd have a say in all of this. Too bad it isn't. Too bad, indeed.


NO democracy is a TRUE democracy... regardless, if the GG position was voted on, it would end up being a big gripe-fest about how the bigger provinces would winning by voting for the "hometeam."

Let's face it... most people wouldn't care to be bothered voting over such a thing. Interestingly enough... your idea would waste a lot of money. How "Liberal" of you to suggest such a thing.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I saw the same clip Macnutt saw, but as the commentator stated, there was a toast, but it was not necessarily for sovereignty. Thus, I would rather go with the actual facts of the situation rather than to jump to see a "smoking gun". I tend to agree with the view of iMatt when he states that "I thought the struggle between federalism and Quebec separatism was all about convincing people to change their minds and their votes." This makes more sense and is in keeping with the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities than the view of Macnutt when he states "Hmmm...lets' see now....a Governor General of Canada with dual nationality....who was not born in Canada..." Keep in mind that I do NOT believe in the office of the GG, nor our situation as a Constitiutional Monarchy. However, I shall support the rights of those with dual nationalities, like myself, and the rights of those not born in Canada.
> 
> Gerry, as I said in another post, "From my cold dead hands" shall be the only way you may take my rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen from me. I love this country too much to let one such as you make those of dual-nationalities feel like less of a citizen. Trust me on this one.


But in a few months, Jean won't be an ordinary citizen - she will be our head of Government. If I'm not mistaken, people with dual nationalities are subject to both of their respective countries. Again, if I'm not mistaken, our Head of State will be subject to the laws and obligations of France...which doesn't sit well.

It seems that a lot of people don't fully comprehend exactly the powers the Governor General is legally entitled to (Head of State, Commander-In-Cheif of our _Military_ to name a couple)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> I saw the same clip Macnutt saw, but as the commentator stated, there was a toast, but it was not necessarily for sovereignty. Thus, I would rather go with the actual facts of the situation rather than to jump to see a "smoking gun". I tend to agree with the view of iMatt when he states that "I thought the struggle between federalism and Quebec separatism was all about convincing people to change their minds and their votes." This makes more sense and is in keeping with the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities than the view of Macnutt when he states "Hmmm...lets' see now....a Governor General of Canada with dual nationality....who was not born in Canada..." Keep in mind that I do NOT believe in the office of the GG, nor our situation as a Constitiutional Monarchy. However, I shall support the rights of those with dual nationalities, like myself, and the rights of those not born in Canada.


I think the problem so many people have with this is the idea of a Governor General having divided loyalties through dual nationality. Not regular citizens having dual nationality. The sepratist connections that our new GG has are an added red flag.

In my mind, the highest representative of the crown here in Canada should be a person who is completely devoted to this country above all else. Clearly this is not the case with Jean.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> What screw-up? Sorry MacNutt, the sun must be hitting your noggin pretty hard....


You don't see a screw-up here? 

Then why the heck is it all over the news? Why all the questions and outrage? Why all of the newspaper editorials?

Or....maybe you only watch the CBC. If so, then everything's just ducky. (ignorance is bliss, after all)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

trump said:


> But in a few months, Jean won't be an ordinary citizen - she will be our head of Government. If I'm not mistaken, people with dual nationalities are subject to both of their respective countries. Again, if I'm not mistaken, our Head of State will be subject to the laws and obligations of France...which doesn't sit well.
> 
> It seems that a lot of people don't fully comprehend exactly the powers the Governor General is legally entitled to (being said collectively)


_PRECISELY!_ At least some one around here "get's it".


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

While I support Ms. Jean as GG now that it would appear to be done, I do have to question the moron in the PMO who did not adequately research both her and her husbands background. That is the headline.

I mean, whether they were once separatists or not, is really irrelevant to who they are today.

I voted for Bob Rae out of protest, and look what happened. Is that going to follow me around for the rest of my life. In my earlier years I was conservative, then socialist, then when living in Alberta, I even voted for Ralphy.

Peoples political directions change. To be sympathetic to separatists while making a film about them would not be that uncommon given the immersion into that train of thought.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> _PRECISELY!_ At least some one around here "get's it".


Funny how the media doesn't seem to pick up on this, but would rather focus on mudslinging... oops!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The non Liberal funded media (i.e. Global and CTV) have been all over this today.

It's only "mudslinging" if you are one of the apologists for the buffoonish Liberals. Otherwise it's simple fact. And well worth asking some pointed questions about, as well.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> It's also amusing to watch the apologists make their usual excuses for yet another Federal Liberal screw-up.


Surely it can't be any more amusing than watching a bunch of loyal Canadians scrambling to applaud and augment a smear campaign launched by the evil separatists.

There's a different page of the separatist book that the rest of us need to consult here: the one where it says that almost every separatist of note was once a federalist, but at some point underwent a conversion. (The stories usually have a nearly religious tone to them.)

If you point to, say, Jacques Parizeau and say "hey, he was once a federalist! He's probably <i>still</i> a closet federalist!" the separatist response will be a confident "Nonsense, he's one of us now."

Now we have some péquiste spin doctors saying "she was once one of us...probably still is!" (cue ominous bass-heavy music)

What's the response? Some of us are saying: "so what? barring evidence to the contrary, she's one of us now." And some are choosing to ring the alarm bell, implicitly or explicitly denying the possibility of any such conversion to federalism. Which makes more sense, truly?

Canadians need to develop enough confidence in federalism to accept that conversion can happen the other way. We need to stop treating separatism like a disease or a genetic trait, and accept that it's no more nor less than a political movement and position that can be discussed and changed, and that can be rejected by individuals. We need to believe that federalism can have its conversion stories too, and we need to teach separatists to accept that it is possible for some to leave the flock.

Until then, I guess we'll just have to sit back and watch péquiste flacks spin the news whichever way they please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As stated above, the seperatist sympathies of both our new GG _AND_ her husband are just a red flag that makes us look a lot closer at this.

It's the dual nationality and the divided loyalties that so many are questioning. Rightly so.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> It's only "mudslinging" if you are one of the apologists for the buffoonish Liberals. Otherwise it's simple fact. And well worth asking some pointed questions about, as well.


The only buffoons I've seen are when the Cons' all-star quarterback fumbled when it really mattered.










YeeHaw!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> As stated above, the seperatist sympathies of both our new GG _AND_ her husband are just a red flag that makes us look a lot closer at this.
> 
> It's the dual nationality and the divided loyalties that so many are questioning. Rightly so.


Sorry my Scottish rig-rat friend, read what he wrote.
Basically that the Separatist are calling the shots on this story and the fools dance up and down saying "she's got to go"....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

trump said:


> But in a few months, Jean won't be an ordinary citizen - she will be our head of Government. If I'm not mistaken, people with dual nationalities are subject to both of their respective countries. Again, if I'm not mistaken, our Head of State will be subject to the laws and obligations of France...which doesn't sit well.
> 
> It seems that a lot of people don't fully comprehend exactly the powers the Governor General is legally entitled to (Head of State, Commander-In-Cheif of our _Military_ to name a couple)


Read it again. THIS is what is in question here. The seperatist angle is just fuel for the fire. 

And if any of you don't think that appointing someone who is subject to the laws of a foreign country as our head of state and as commander of our military isn't the height of buffoonery...or a MAJOR screw-up....

Then I might point to some of the other massive scandals and screw-ups that Chretien/Martin and Co. have inflicted upon us.

The list grows.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> As stated above, the seperatist sympathies of both our new GG _AND_ her husband are just a red flag that makes us look a lot closer at this.
> 
> It's the dual nationality and the divided loyalties that so many are questioning. Rightly so.


The story on the front page of today's Globe is all about the separatist angle. It includes not a single word about dual citizenship.

The editorial in the same paper is about the political aspects of the appointment, specifically how it may/should help the Liberals in certain Montreal-area ridings with large numbers of voters of Haitian origin, giving the appointment at least a faint taint of partisanship, and it is therefore a bad thing that the PM (not just PM the PM, any PM) can make this kind of appointment without consulting the opposition. Perhaps the most valid angle of criticism I've seen yet...but not one word about dual citizenship.

The Globe, by the way, is owned by the same shareholders who own CTV.

I see people in this thread discussing "divided loyalties": can you point me to some other place where this "issue" is being discussed? Preferably a news outlet?

My understanding is that she has French citizenship by virtue of being married to a French national. She is not a representative of the Republic of France. My limited understanding of dual citizens is that their solemn obligation is to respect and uphold the laws of their country of residence. I have seen not one iota of evidence that Michaëlle Jean does or has done anything but.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Subject to the laws and obligations of France"

While acting as head of state for Canada. And commander in chief of our military.  

Not sure how it could be any clearer than that.

The fact that she and her husband have shown sympathy towards a group who's sole reason for existance is to break up the country that she will apparently be serving as the cheif of state just makes it worse. FAR worse.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Subject to the laws and obligations of France"
> 
> While acting as head of state for Canada. And commander in chief of our military.
> 
> ...


MacNutt, you are really reaching here.
Stay focused my friend, one point at the time....
She can always give up the French citizenship, if she is advised to do so.

Showing sympathy towards the FLQ is different from being behind them. Then you have to define "sympathy" - doing a documentary, you sometimes have to get close to the subject. No where is it said she was/is a Separatist...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> MacNutt, you are really reaching here.
> Stay focused my friend, one point at the time....
> She can always give up the French citizenship, if she is advised to do so.
> 
> Showing sympathy towards the FLQ is different from being behind them. Then you have to define "sympathy" - doing a documentary, you sometimes have to get close to the subject. No where is it said she was/is a Separatist...


Q-At what point has she ever said she would "give up her French citizenship"? (answer...never)

Q-She and her husband (especially her husband) have shown more than a passing amount of sympathy for both the old FLQ and the modern seperatists. At what point does this conflict with her upcoming job? (answer...immediately)

_SOMEONE_ here is certainly "reaching". And busy trying to explain away yet another example of very bad decision making from our ruling Liberals.

Like THAT was any surprise...especially given their track record.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I say we listen to Macnutt and Jacques Parizeau and round up all of the "ethnics" and those with dual citizenships and put them into re-education camps where they can be educated in the Canadian way of Life, and could be watched 24/7. Salt Spring Island is too small for all of these people, so I suggest the south central part of the island of Newfoundland. No one lives there until you get to the south coast of our island. 

This way, all those "almost Canadians" can contemplate what it might be like to be a Canadian born in this country.

Seriously, it was abhorant during the second world war when Japanese-Canadians were forced to give up everything and be "relocated", and it would be abhorant non.

Gerry, I resent your contention that because Ms.Jean, or the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were not born here in Canada, me included, care any less for our great land. I resent your contention that we cannot be trusted with a position of authority such as the Gov. General's post. I am as much a citizen as you. I have a Canadian passport and a US passport. I am proud to be a citizen of both countries. 

If you feel that holding these two passports/citizenships makes me less trusted than native-born Canadians, regardless of the position I hold, then I say to you "From my cold dead hands" shall you take away either passport or my right to be a Canadian citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities that comes with being a citizen.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Subject to the laws and obligations of France"
> 
> While acting as head of state for Canada. And commander in chief of our military.
> 
> Not sure how it could be any clearer than that.


So you are saying that a dual citizen's first obligation is <i>not</i> toward her country of residence? Can you back that up?

What does "subject to the laws and obligations of France" mean, anyway? Is she obliged to vote in French elections? Do the French require their overseas dual citizens to spy on their other country of citizenship? Is Ms. Jean obliged to yield to all traffic coming from the right? If Canada and France get into a dispute over fishing near St. Pierre and Miquelon, is she under the "obligation" to dissolve the Canadian military and surrender the whole country for the purpose of reinstating Nouvelle France from coast to coast to coast?



MacNutt said:


> The fact that she and her husband have shown sympathy towards a group who's sole reason for existance is to break up the country that she will apparently be serving as the cheif of state just makes it worse. FAR worse.


Don't forget that she hired an ex-con to do carpentry in the study -- and he built a <i>top-secret compartment</i> into the bookcase! That obviously makes her pro-crime and pro-hiding things.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> I say we listen to Macnutt and Jacques Parizeau and round up all of the "ethnics" and those with dual citizenships and put them into re-education camps where they can be educated in the Canadian way of Life, and could be watched 24/7. Salt Spring Island is too small for all of these people, so I suggest the south central part of the island of Newfoundland. No one lives there until you get to the south coast of our island.
> 
> This way, all those "almost Canadians" can contemplate what it might be like to be a Canadian born in this country.
> 
> ...



Oh _STOP_ it Marc.....

I am talking about someone becoming a head of state. The most pivotal position of honour in our country. THAT is where the "divided loyalties" thing comes into play. No one EVER said anything about "rounding up" anyone old buddy. We are simply asking how someone who is beholden to another land can become the head of OURS. Time to holster your outrage, methinks.

Apparently, I'm not the only one asking thses questions, either.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iMatt said:


> So you are saying that a dual citizen's first obligation is <i>not</i> toward her country of residence? Can you back that up?
> 
> What does "subject to the laws and obligations of France" mean, anyway? Is she obliged to vote in French elections? Do the French require their overseas dual citizens to spy on their other country of citizenship? Is Ms. Jean obliged to yield to all traffic coming from the right? If Canada and France get into a dispute over fishing near St. Pierre and Miquelon, is she under the "obligation" to dissolve the Canadian military and surrender the whole country for the purpose of reinstating Nouvelle France from coast to coast to coast?
> 
> ...


Still working very hard to explain away the latest faux-pas by the fumbling Liberals, I see. Some things never change.

Next thing you will be attempting to explain to the people of Toronto how those billions of tax dollars the Liberals wasted on a completely ineffective gun registry have made their streets a lot safer from gun violence.

But...HEY! I'm listening. Take a "shot" at it if you feel up to the task.  

(should be good for a laff or two)


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

She has sympathies for the FLQ? :O The same FLQ that murdered a Quebec cabinet minister. Sheesh, I'd like to see who was number two on the list to become the GG.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Some guy called bin Laden, I hear.

Apparently the Liberals are hoping to "sway the Islamic community" in TO or some such political nonsense. Gotta work very hard these days, what with that tiny minority and all.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Still working very hard to explain away the latest faux-pas by the fumbling Liberals, I see. Some things never change.


No, I am asking you to back up your claims.

To wit:

1. That there is any present-day relevance to the separatism business. The most recent info we have on this is twelve years old. Again: got anything from this decade?

2. That a dual citizen is "beholden" to her country of non-residence in any way. No one has posted anything that demonstrates this.

Again, I am not a fan of the Liberals, and I see good reasons to question this appointment (potential for partisan gain, for example)...but neither of the above two points has yet been even remotely demonstrated by you or anyone else.

Unbacked assertions and vague innuendo won't cut it, and repeating them again won't make 'em stick. Trying to change the subject won't work, either. Sorry.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> She has sympathies for the FLQ?


Got any evidence for this?

Edit: sorry, I see now that you're just asking. No, there is no credible evidence of FLQ sympathy. It is known that her husband became acquainted with some ex-FLQ members some 23 years after the October Crisis and 12 years before now. How that indicates that she "has sympathies" is beyond me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sorry, Gerry, but that does not cut it with those of us who are dual citizens. The Freedom Riders felt the same way in the 60's when then went down south to support the right to vote, and to sit at a lunch counter at Woolworths. Either everyone has the right to be served, or no one should be served. The same holds true here. You can't have it both ways -- either we are citizens of this great country, or we are second-class citizens. We could all wear yellow armbands with a big "SC" on it, so that those of us who are not readily identifiable could be easily recognized and rounded up if need be. 

"From my cold dead hands"............ If you want to silence those of us who are rightfully citizens of this great country that is what you are going to have to do in the final analysis. Trust me on this one.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

An awful lot of fuss over a purely ceremonial position.



MacNutt said:


> Some guy called bin Laden, I hear.
> 
> Apparently the Liberals are hoping to "sway the Islamic community" in TO or some such political nonsense. Gotta work very hard these days, what with that tiny minority and all.


Excuse me while I vomit.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Subject to the laws and obligations of France"
> 
> While acting as head of state for Canada. And commander in chief of our military.
> 
> Not sure how it could be any clearer than that.


The fact that this woman is to be our representative of the Canadian Monarchy should not in any way make her dual-citizenship an issue. After all, our Queen is Head of State and Commander of the Military in several nations, and she doesn't even live in Canada.

MacNutt, I fail to see why this dual-citizenship stuff manners to you. (Or rather, you have failed to reasonably explain.)

It is important to note that there was much concern about some of the senior people in the old Reform party, because a few of them were active in the short-lived "separatist" movement in Alberta.

Goose, meet Gander.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Seems to be a new mantra of the right wing: Canada for "true" Canadians..... (i.e. only those born here). Fortunately, such repressive xenophobia is roundly denounced by the majority of Canadian born citizens as well as immigrants.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm with MacNutt all the way on this one.

Martin blew it once again - thinking he had all his bases covered here (female, young, visible minority, ex-CBC hack, rags-to-riches story, the whole shebang).

Too bad he didn't realize she was a traitor to Canada in the past. As is/was her husband.

Ed Broadbent would have been a much better choice. Now that's a loyal Canadian.

Mel

P.S. Flame away! I do realize this board is chock-full of left-leaners...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This whole issue could be solved by doing the right thing and abolishing the GG and the monarchy along with it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Seems to be a new mantra of the right wing: Canada for 'true' Canadians..... (i.e. only those born here). Fortunately, such repressive xenophobia is roundly denounced by the majority of Canadian born citizens as well as immigrants." Amen, Jim. Amen.

Keep in mind one thing -- those of us who came to Canada and became a citizen, did so by choice. I am a true a Canadian as anyone here, no better, no worse. I try each day to faithfully uphold the four responsibilities of a Canadian citizen that we were required to explain as part of our citizenship test.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Seems to be a new mantra of the right wing: Canada for 'true' Canadians..... (i.e. only those born here). Fortunately, such repressive xenophobia is roundly denounced by the majority of Canadian born citizens as well as immigrants." Amen, Jim. Amen.
> 
> Keep in mind one thing -- those of us who came to Canada and became a citizen, did so by choice. I am a true a Canadian as anyone here, no better, no worse. I try each day to faithfully uphold the four responsibilities of a Canadian citizen that we were required to explain as part of our citizenship test.


Amen Brother!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Right back at you, iPetie. Not sure if you are born in Canada or not, but it does NOT matter to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, 6-15-27. Three strikes........you lose. "From my cold dead hands...." Paix.

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms 

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. 
Rights to move and gain livelihood (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and 
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. 

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "Seems to be a new mantra of the right wing: Canada for 'true' Canadians..... (i.e. only those born here). Fortunately, such repressive xenophobia is roundly denounced by the majority of Canadian born citizens as well as immigrants." Amen, Jim. Amen.
> 
> Keep in mind one thing -- those of us who came to Canada and became a citizen, did so by choice. I am a true a Canadian as anyone here, no better, no worse. I try each day to faithfully uphold the four responsibilities of a Canadian citizen that we were required to explain as part of our citizenship test.


Hang on Dr G. Let me get you a tall ladder so you can step down off of that high horse and rejoin the rest of us unfortunate surface dwellers. You know...the ones who are now questioning this latest bit of Liberal buffoonery? Rather loudly, I might note. 

Have you watched this evening's news? And I'm not talking about that Liberal financed propaganda on what's now left of the CBC, either..... 

People outside AND inside of Quebec are howling in protest at this VERY questionable appointment to the Governor General's office. I'm betting that the pressure will be on Paul Martin and his batch of stumblebums to recind this choice and go with whatever is waiting in the wings.

And you KNOW what the Federal Liberals do when they sense real public pressure...especially public pressure that might threaten what little voter sympathy that they still have left... (ESPECIALLY in the sainted province of Quebec)

They bolt and run. Or they throw OUR money at the problem. Or they buy someone off. Using OUR money. Or they make secret backroom deals. Using OUR money in order to buy political power for themselves.
   

If this keeps up for any amount of time...watch for a sudden reversal from Mr Dithers and his merry band of politically motivated dimbulbs on the choice of GG. He isn't exactly known for his decisiveness, after all. (minor understatement.)  

You heard it here first, folks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Have you watched this evening's news? And I'm not talking about that Liberal financed propaganda on what's now left of the CBC, either....." Yes, CTV and Global. I still don't hear anyone "howling" other than you about her being less of a citizen because of her being a dual-citizen and candidate for the Gov.General's office.

Macnutt, 6-15-27. Three strikes........you lose. "From my cold dead hands...." Paix.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As MacDoc stated, "http://images.theglobeandmail.com/R...ov-gen04/gg.jpg

Proud day for Canada and an EXCELLENT CHOICE."

Long live those who stand atop a "tall ladder" and proclaim that a Canadian citizen is something to be proud of in this world.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again with the "cold dead hands" thing, Marc???

Are you a closet gun freak by any chance?? Dare we consider the thought????? 

( _NEWS BULLETIN! [AP WIRE SERVICES]_
_"Newfoundland police descended on the home of a a mild mannered St. John's University professor today, and found a large cache of high powered weapons stashed in his modest house!_ _The weapons, which included handguns, high-powered rifles, claymore mines, machine guns, and a loaded bazooka (!), were discovered in a secret closet area beneath his doxies sleeping basket_ 
_Police declined to make any comment on why this otherwise nondescript (but award-winning) professor would choose to secret away such a large quantity of firearms...but they DID note that he was originally from New York City and still retains his US citizenship._ _As he was being led away in leg irons he was heard ranting..."FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!"_


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Right back at you, iPetie. Not sure if you are born in Canada or not, but it does NOT matter to me.


Born and raised in Ottawa Dr. G. 5th generation Canadian and no better or worse than "ANY" other Canadian Citizen. No matter where born.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, "St. John's University" is in Queens, New York. Granted, I grew up in Queens, but never could have afforded St.John's University.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, the only time you shall find a gun in my hands will be because someone placed it in my "cold dead hands". 

iPetie, you are of the mindset that helps to make Canada "strong and free". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, AP does not have any "WIRE SERVICES" here in NL.

As well, none of our doxies has a "sleeping basket". Guess you got your news incorrect once again. Don't fret. It was not your first time and it shall not be your last time either. Trust me on this one.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Stilll....I bet you secretly enjoyed the jest, mi compadre.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, I never liked guns. Had too many friends die in Vietnam. Nor do I like being considered a "second-class citizen". Still, I shall peacefully defend your right to hold your views and to freely express them to the public. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure why you would ever consider yourself a "second class citizen" here in Canada, Marc. And I don't think I ever even began to insinuate anything of the sort. Especially since you came clean, dumped the Windows-powered DELL and began to finally use a Macintosh computer here at the premier Canadian Mac forum (around your five thousandth post, as I recall) 

But the question that remains is whether a foreign-born person who retains their French citizenship...and who would seem to support the breakup of Canada...is a proper choice for the exhaulted and elevated post of Governor General of Canada. The highest post in the land. Technically even above that of the Prime Minister.

Personally....I think NOT. It would seem that many other Canadians agree with my feelings on this. Plenty of them in Quebec, too.  

That should give us all pause. And help to silence some of the apologists for this latest (of many) Liberal screw-ups.

I bet Martin dumps her and moves on. The guy is not well known for staying power in a clinch, after all. To say the least.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Melonie said:


> IToo bad he didn't realize she was a traitor to Canada in the past. As is/was her husband.


After the Civil War, President Lincoln worked to patched the effects of the war on the south. "The war is over," he said, "the rebels are our countrymen again."

And so it is with Quebec separatists. If Lincoln could view the south as comrades immediately following the war's end, I think we can manage forgiveness for the mistakes of 15 years ago.

I do not know the political views of this woman. But I do know: if we can allow the Bloc to sit as "the Loyal Opposition" and the "government-in-waiting," we can allow a former separatist to occupy a purely ceremonial post.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, you said "It's the dual nationality and the divided loyalties that so many are questioning. Rightly so." Either those of us with dual nationalities/citizenships are full citizens or we are second-class citizens. Make up your mind. Rather than take your interpretation of this situation, I shall go back to my Canadian Citizenship certificate that grants me all the rights and freedoms outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Still, one of the freedoms all persons who became a Canadian citizen swore to protect was the right of free speech. So, have your say here and elsewhere. I disagree with some of the things you say, but I shall fight (without a gun) for your right to freely express these views. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Gerry's idea of free speech is being allowed to smoke his cee-gars anywhere he damn well pleases including places where non smokers congregate.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> After the Civil War, President Lincoln worked to patched the effects of the war on the south. "The war is over," he said, "the rebels are our countrymen again."
> 
> And so it is with Quebec separatists. If Lincoln could view the south as comrades immediately following the war's end, I think we can manage forgiveness for the mistakes of 15 years ago.
> 
> I do not know the political views of this woman. But I do know: if we can allow the Bloc to sit as "the Loyal Opposition" and the "government-in-waiting," we can allow a former separatist to occupy a purely ceremonial post.


there was a time when we did, but the difference between the Confederacy and Quebec is that 15 years after the civil war, the Confederacy didn't threaten to try again.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Trump, actually, there was talk of the Confederacy being reestablished back in the 1880's, but it was just talk.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Trump, actually, there was talk of the Confederacy being reestablished back in the 1880's, but it was just talk.


...but the new Separatist movement isn't


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I see that both Jean and the PMO have released statements on this subject today. Both claim that our soon-to-be GG is a loyal Canadian with no ties to any political party...seperatist or otherwise.

Makes a nice change from the dead silence we were getting a few days back.  

The question about her dual citizenship has also now hit the news. Apparently there is an obscure French law that says that no citizen of France can hold higher office in a foreign country. This is particularly interesting due to the fact that the Governor General's position is the highest office in this land.

It should be interesting to see if this just "goes away" as so many of the previous Liberal scandals and screwups have in the past.  

Or...will it continue to build and become yet another public embarassment that the Libs will have to scramble around madly to "fix"?  

Stay tuned.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacNutt, what about my son being GG. He was born in St.John's, NL, of a Canadian mother and an American father. He obtained Canadian citizenship via "jus soli" (Latin for "right of the territory"). However, I also applied for his US citizenship via "jus sanguinis " (Latin for "right of blood"). Thus, he was born in Canada, just like you, and yet, he has dual citizenship. If he were older and qualified, in your opinion, could he become GG?

If he can, why so? If not, why not?

Then, what about me??? Could I claim not only my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a Canadian Citizen, or, as a person on this planet, use Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to a nationality. 
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

?????


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Why was none of this fuss over a person born in another country heard when Adrienne Clarkson, who was born in Hong Kong, became GG?

I freely admit that I do NOT feel that the office of GG is necessary, but in all fairness, I cannot see why someone who has taken an oath to become a Canadian citizen cannot be trusted moreso than someone born here in Canada?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Q-Is he a member of, or shows public sympathy for, any sort of political party that is committed to the breakup of the very country that he would serve as head of state?

Q-Does his "other nationality" have any laws on the books that forbid a citizen of that country from holding higher office in what they deem to be a foreign country? Just as France does with regard to Canada in this particular case?

Answer those two questions Dr. G and then get back to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Order of Canada’s motto is "DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM" ("They desire a better country"). The Order of Canada is open to ALL Canadian citizens, be they "jus soli" or "jus sanguinis ". I don't see anything here that might make those of us born outside of Canada any less Canadian.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You keep hammering away at this "second class citizens" thing, Marc. While studiously avoiding the obvious conflicts involved for a head of state to be also a citizen of a distant country. And one who has been seen to be sympathetic to a political group who's sole reason for existence is to break up the very country that she (may) end up serving as it's highest officer of the Crown! 

Do you not see the obvious conflict here? Others certainly do. especially in Quebec itself...where this has been, and continues to be, a hot topic. 

Try answereing the questions and you might just find your own answer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacNutt, a US citizen who holds high office (e.g., an MP, Prime Minister or GG), or (I believe) one who becomes a member of the military, would have to give up their US citizenship.

Re your question "Is he a member of, or shows public sympathy for, any sort of political party that is committed to the breakup of the very country that he would serve as head of state?", there are no restrictions in the US Constitution that would forbid him from becoming PM or GG, but again, he would have to give up his US Citizenship. 

However, I am troubled about your notion of "...shows public sympathy for, any sort of political party that is committed to the breakup of the very country that he would serve as head of state". Remember, I would fight for your right to express your views. However, what if you were accused of showing "public sympathy" for the "breakup" of this country by a dictatorial Paul Martin or Jean Cretien? What if either of them felt that your comments about each of them showed you wanted to bring down the elected leader of this country? You have to admit that you have said some "harsh" (to put it mildly) things about both Prime Ministers. Still, what if it was YOU that was accused of not being sympathetic to Canada?

Granted, this is a hypothetical question, but I am trying to help you see things in a logical perspective to help you understand some sort of "zeitgeist" re various sorts of issues today.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Q-Is he a member of, or shows public sympathy for, any sort of political party that is committed to the breakup of the very country that he would serve as head of state?
> 
> Q-Does his "other nationality" have any laws on the books that forbid a citizen of that country from holding higher office in what they deem to be a foreign country? Just as France does with regard to Canada in this particular case?
> 
> Answer those two questions Dr. G and then get back to me.


Pardon me for jumping in.

1st Q: you still haven't provided any evidence of any recent signs of separatist sympathies in the GG-designate. Even the old stuff is awfully vague in her case (less so her husband's). Which brings us back to an old question: do previous political leanings or fraternizations trump current ones (or lack thereof)? I recommend you read the op/ed piece by André Pratte in today's G&M. It's not available online unless you're a subscriber, but here's the lead paragraph:



> Falling into the trap set by radical Quebec separatists, some English-Canadian politicians and commentators have asked the next governor-general, Michaëlle Jean, to publicly "renounce separatism" or even to reveal how she voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum. The Prime Minister's nominee will have many occasions to express her faith in the country once she is officially governor-general. To force her to disclose her past leanings and votes would serve no useful purpose. In fact, it would set a dangerous precedent and could have damaging consequences for the unity of Canada.


Why is that? Because if "are you now or have you ever been..." becomes the litmus test for full rights of citizenship, then you are telling current separatists that they can never become Canadians in good standing by renouncing separatism. And that means they won't convert.

2nd Q: I'll be damned, you're actually on to something. The answer is that it's up to France to decide whether she needs to give up her citizenship, much as Canada demanded that Conrad Black turn in his maple leaf if he wanted to accept a lordship. (The Brits didn't care about his Canadian citizenship.) You still have yet to show how French citizenship poses any real problem <i>from a Canadian perspective</i>. "Not sitting well" with a few people is not a "real problem" by any reasonable definition.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> ...especially in Quebec itself...where this has been, and continues to be, a hot topic...


No, Gerry. It's not nearly as hot as you think it is. Most of the heat, if it can be called that, has been coming from the hardline separatists who raised this whole stupid stink to begin with. These characters frequently make noise because that's their main goal in life - or perhaps, that's all they're truly able to do. They raise ****, get people in a tizzy, then they sit back and enjoy themselves. And they certainly are enjoying themselves this time around, because they've managed to spread their special stink _Ad Mari Usque Ad Mare_.

I would say that a significant number of people here view these characters as nothing more than obsessive crackpots, still living in a world that actually died two decades ago. Also, there have been countering comments made by some moderate sovereignists, and some non-sovereignists too, to the effect that the hardliners are way off base and should just shut the _F!_ up. I've found _that_ rather refreshing.

And have you been following the news today at all?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMatt, I think you may have hit upon a solution to all of our problems. The House of Commons needs to create the House of Commons Un-Canadian Activities Committee (HCUCAC -- pronounced Huck-You-Cack), which will call thousands upon thousands of witnesses before their "hearings". They will start by asking just one question -- Are you now a member of, or have you ever been a member of any social club or political party that does not uphold the ideals of Canadian Values and a MacNuttian Zeitgeist? 

From here, the members of HCUCAC will grill each witness to the point that they will be willing to either admit the "errors of their way", or provide a list of names of those who do not subscribe to the ideals of Canadian Values and a MacNuttian Zeitgeist. Those who are proven "worthy" of rejoining Canadian society may do so. Those found "wanting" will be sent to re-education camps throughout Canada, called "Culogs". We should start with all foreign born nationals living in Canada, and then quickly go to the dual nationals. NO ONE shall be spared their "day in court", so to speak. Ad Mari Usque Ad Mare Ad Mare -- from Sea to Sea to Sea, Canadian will be "screened" for their fitness to live in our country. The unfit shall be "removed", leaving only the pure and true Canadians.

You are brilliant, iMatt. I say this now, because I am not sure when the Committee shall call me, and so .................................wait, there is a knock at the door....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> MacNutt, a US citizen who holds high office (e.g., an MP, Prime Minister or GG), or (I believe) one who becomes a member of the military, would have to give up their US citizenship.
> 
> Re your question "Is he a member of, or shows public sympathy for, any sort of political party that is committed to the breakup of the very country that he would serve as head of state?", there are no restrictions in the US Constitution that would forbid him from becoming PM or GG, but again, he would have to give up his US Citizenship.
> 
> ...


I have never advocated the violent overthrow of any Canadian government. I have railed at the dictatorial powers that the now disgraced Jean Chretien had assumed. And I was not the only one who took note of this, either. Plenty of people in his own Liberal party made mention of this fact.

And I fail to see how advocating the electoral defeat of a government that has both stolen tax dollars and WASTED massive amounts of tax dollars could somehow lead to a "break up" of the country. 

Please explain.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Also note: As far as I am aware, a person can be a citizen of a foreign country and still serve in the US military. I expect that's also the case here in Canada. Military service is not the issue here. Being the commader in chief of the Canadian military IS.

We are, after all, talking about _the HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND_...

This makes a difference. One that you seem determined to minimise. Whilst grinding away at that left-handed axe of yours.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, re your question -- 

"I have never advocated the violent overthrow of any Canadian government. I have railed at the dictatorial powers that the now disgraced Jean Chretien had assumed. And I was not the only one who took note of this, either. Plenty of people in his own Liberal party made mention of this fact.

And I fail to see how advocating the electoral defeat of a government that has both stolen tax dollars and WASTED massive amounts of tax dollars could somehow lead to a "break up" of the country. 

Please explain."

-- remember, it was a hypothetical. I have never said that you have said these sorts of things, or advocated such things, but what IF the current PM took exception to your views? I am certainly not calling any of our PM's dictators, but what it they took on dictatorial powers and made views like the ones you hold illegal and treasonous? The same has been said about the US situation, but it would be views like mine that would be questioned.

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe in what they consider to be true, many often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in Life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways. 

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.

So endeth the lesson.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Advocating the removal of a criminal dictator...or the political defeat of a bad government...does NOT constitute, in any way shape or form, a break-up of the said country.

Claro?

You stand corrected Mr. Professor. So endeth MY lesson.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dr. G., once the committee is done with the foreign-born and the dual citizens, it will have to move on to everyone who has ever spoken to anyone who ever voted in a Quebec referendum or provincial election (since 1976, anyway: let's be reasonable). Then we can worry about the Albertan crypto-separatists, the Ontario Firsters, the Campbell River Liberation Front, etc. etc.

The hearings should only take two or three decades, but they'll be well worth the effort.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Rick Hansen for Governor General.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*And now the rest of the story...*

Gov. Gen. designate denies separatist link

_Governor General designate Michaelle Jean is affirming her commitment to Canada, ending her silence in light of recent allegations that she harboured separatist sympathies.

"I want to tell you unequivocally that both he (husband Jean-Daniel Lafond) and I are proud to be Canadians and that we have the greatest respect for the institutions of our country," Jean said in a brief written statement released Wednesday.

"We are fully committed to Canada. I would not have accepted this position otherwise."

...

"We are equally proud of the attachment to Quebec that we have always shown beyond any partisan considerations. Let me be clear: we have never belonged to a political party or the separatist movement," she says.

...

*Jean's dual citizenship*
Meanwhile, French embassy officials are trying to determine whether an obscure law could cost Jean her dual citizenship.

According to an embassy spokesman, an article of France's civil code states that a French citizen cannot hold public or military office in a foreign country. 
In her new post, Jean would not only be Canada's de facto head of state but also commander-in-chief of the Canadian military.

"We have no indication of any use of this in the past," the spokesman said. "So this is an interesting point, but only for a specialist in French law." 
Jean took out French citizenship after marrying her husband, who is originally from France.

Jean did not comment on her dual citizenship in her statement released Wednesday. However, it doesn't appear to be a pressing matter.
"(French embassy officials) have never asked anyone to renounce their citizenship in the past and they don't really have any plans to ask Jean to renounce her citizenship in the future," Thompson reported._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Advocating the removal of a criminal dictator...or the political defeat of a bad government...does NOT constitute, in any way shape or form, a break-up of the said country." I agree, and you agree............but in the history of many countries, this is considered treason. 

You are missing my point. Look at it logically and try not to think of this as an attack. I am your friend, and a teacher, and I am simply trying to show you an alternate way of looking at things. Understand this lesson, and you might understand why people are attacking you in various threads. I don't approve of these personal attacks. Still, while I am not trying to get you to think as I do, I am hopefully an effective enough teacher to try to explain the rationale underlying many of my views.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There you go... in stereo.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMatt, the "hearings" could be streamlined with a "guilt by association" clause in its mandate. Thus, if I am taken away, and I name you (which I would never do willingly), then you shall be taken away as well. If we have associated in some manner, even just online here in ehMacLand, and I am guilty, ergo, you are guilty. We could call it iMatt's 6 degrees of separation from the guilty. I implicate you, who implicates others, who implicates still more people.............and soon the committee has plenty of free time to select those who follow the "correct" way of thinking about Canada.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "Advocating the removal of a criminal dictator...or the political defeat of a bad government...does NOT constitute, in any way shape or form, a break-up of the said country." I agree, and you agree............but in the history of many countries, this is considered treason.
> 
> You are missing my point. Look at it logically and try not to think of this as an attack. I am your friend, and a teacher, and I am simply trying to show you an alternate way of looking at things. Understand this lesson, and you might understand why people are attacking you in various threads. I don't approve of these personal attacks. Still, while I am not trying to get you to think as I do, I am hopefully an effective enough teacher to try to explain the rationale underlying many of my views.


Dr. G....at what point since I showed up here HAVEN'T I been "attacked"? As you well know, I thrive on this stuff. And I like to make people think very hard about some of the things that they have taken as gospel for so very long. Especially if it's been spoon fed to them by some of their handlers. I am the resident sh*t disturber around here. 

Been quite successful at it, too. According to the emails. 

And I didn't miss your point...you missed mine. Go back and try to figure it out for yourself.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Rick Hansen for Governor General. Second choice...Wayne Gretzky. But he'd have to move back home to Canada.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Speaking of French dual citizens holding office, I understand that cabinet minister Stéphane Dion holds French citizenship in addition to his Canadian papers, and there are surely a number of other dual citizens at various levels of government.

Should we make a list and question their loyalty?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bouchard's wife is American... should be interesting...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Only if they become PM or Chief of State. Or the commander in chief of the whole of Canada's military.

Anything below that is not a problem. Are you getting it now?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dion was once Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; his primary role was Anti-separatist Hardass.

Everybody knows that separatists love France and expect it to be Quebec's Best Friend after Independence; likewise, the French love Quebec and sympathize with its plight. Ergo, there's something fishy about a French citizen handling the national unity file on the federalist side. It seems, in retrospect, that pehaps his loyalties were divided and he may not have done everything he might have for Canada, because France has an interest in liberating Quebec. Maybe he even subverted the process in Quebec's favour. (Hell, putting a Quebecer, let alone one with a French passport, on that file without asking him his wherabouts between 1961 and 1996 is foolhardy enough, wouldn't you say?)

Now this gentleman is Environment Minister, a position that involves negotiating all kinds of international agreements...and in some of those agreements, Canada's interests and France's may not dovetail. Who cares if he swore an oath to Canada when he was made a Minister of the Crown? He's got the citizenship, so he must be "beholden" to France and its laws and interests.

Time for an investigation, no? 

Perhaps just a wee outcry?

Oh wait: he's white, he was born here, and his background is in academe not the CBC. Nevermind.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Truth be told...I'm not all that crazy about some of the choices for any higher office that the Liberals have made over the years. And I certainly didn't like that period when the official opposition was actually a party that was bent on seperation. 

But I REALLY get worked up when we start talking about the highest office in the land, or commander in chief of the military. Or Prime Minister, even.

THAT is where I would draw the line.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> But I REALLY get worked up when we start talking about the highest office in the land, or commander in chief of the military.


What do you have against the Queen?
She is our Commander-in-Chief, the G-G only has the duties....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Near as I can tell....the highest _APPOINTED_ office in this land is the GG. The highest _ELECTED_ office is the PM.

The Queen was born into it. Neither she nor we ever had a real choice in that.

As Dr. G might say....End of lesson.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Near as I can tell....the highest _APPOINTED_ office in this land is the GG. The highest _ELECTED_ office is the PM.


Actually, the PM is not an elected position. You don't even have to be elected to a seat in Parliament (in limited circumstances).



MacNutt said:


> The Queen was born into it. Neither she nor we ever had a real choice in that.


No one can force a member of the Royal Family to accept their role. And yes, we do have a choice. Last I checked, the power to alter the constitution lies in the hands of Canada.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Actually, the PM is not an elected position. You don't even have to be elected to a seat in Parliament (in limited circumstances).
> 
> 
> No one can force a member of the Royal Family to accept their role. And yes, we do have a choice. Last I checked, the power to alter the constitution lies in the hands of Canada.



The PM not elected???!! Damn it...I KNEW we weren't really a democracy!! Been saying it all along..... 


(Thanks lpkmckenna. Jeeze...that only took about fifty complex chess moves. I was getting worn out there. Would have been much easier if Woodgett was on the board. He's a pushover.)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> And I certainly didn't like that period when the official opposition was actually a party that was bent on seperation.
> 
> But I REALLY get worked up when we start talking about the highest office in the land, or commander in chief of the military. Or Prime Minister, even.
> 
> THAT is where I would draw the line.


You merely dislike the fact that the Government-in-Waiting were separatists, but you "draw the line" at a purely ceremonial position?

Canada didn't even have a Canadian-born GG until Vincent Massey (1952).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, I would agree with your comment that "I am the resident sh*t disturber around here", but don't you want some degree of respect for many of your views? Disturb this "stuff" all you want, but at some point there has to be a reason for all of this disturbance, or else it is just noise. You have some good things to say, at times, but mostly people either attack you or just tune you out. Someday, watch a two-year old throw a tantrum and watch that tantrum suddenly stop when he/she realizes that no one is watching/listening to this fuss. Try actually considering that what other people say might be accurate, or contain some element of truth. This way, you won't always be on the offensive or defensive, but rather, you will be in a situation in which you might be able to carry on a logical and reasonable discussion with others in ehMacLand. 

Just a thought, and I say this as a friend. Seriously, trust me on this one.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You guys still don't get it do you?

You been HAD, lad. By the master. 

Ask Woodgett. He falls into my pungee pits all the time. Altho he usually realises it right away (smart dude. just easy)  

Go back and read the thread. The BINGO moment was just a few posts back. It was fun, too.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Near as I can tell....the highest APPOINTED office in this land is the GG. The highest ELECTED office is the PM." Yes re the GG's office, but no about the PM's office. If Martin steps down and there is a leadership convention and Belinda Stronach becomes PM, she was not elected to this office, but rather, selected by our elected Liberal Parliamentarians.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The PM not elected???!! Damn it...I KNEW we weren't really a democracy!! Been saying it all along.....
> 
> 
> (Thanks lpkmckenna. Jeeze...that only took about fifty complex chess moves. I was getting worn out there. Would have been much easier if Woodgett was on the board. He's a pushover.)


Your ignorance stuns me, MacNutt. The office of the PM is not elected. The PM is simply the leader of the party with the greatest influence in the house. And no, it's not democratic either, since the governing party doesn't even need to win a majority.

The leader of the governing party doesn't need to have won his seat. Should he fail to win his riding, another member of his party can vacate his seat for the leader to occupy. The leader is still the PM.

(By tradition, the PM is expected to win in a riding by-election within the next year. Or, he can step down and the party would elect a leader from the sitting parlamentarians.)

Your smugness is matched only by your ignorance.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Example: John Turner was Prime Minister of Canada, but was not a sitting member of the House of Commons while doing so.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, I had forgotten about good old John Turner. Thanks for the micro-history lesson.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> You guys still don't get it do you?
> 
> You been HAD, lad. By the master.
> 
> ...


I think that was once. But who's counting? (I've the sensitivity of a de-boned codfish) Unfortunately, every time MacNutt is called on a whopper of a factual inaccuracy or false prophecy (cough, last election, cough, WMDs, cough....), the lad diverts attention and refuses to admit the error. It's a personality thing I guess.....

Welcome back, BTW.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, they have new non-medicinal products for the nasty "cough" of yours.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for the concern. Glad I'm not a smoker......

Looks like Paul Martin is standing by Ms. Jean (oops, cough, another MacNutt prediction bites the dust, and only, cough, after one day, cough).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, I would look into that cough. You are good seeing how early identification and formative assessments of health issues help to keep a person healthy. Maybe you have been exposed to "predictory dust", which comes as a result of being around incorrect predictions and speculations. Sort of like asbestos removal I fear.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, be careful with your pointing out that certain people have made "...a factual inaccuracy or false prophecy", for as it is written in the Bible --

"… if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 and

1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.'' 

Better to accept the Word of MacNutt on faith than to "inherit the wind". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Jim, be careful with your pointing out that certain people have made "...a factual inaccuracy or false prophecy", for as it is written in the Bible --
> 
> "… if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 and
> 
> ...



for macnutt and his factual inaccuracies I refer you to The Word (no typo) According to MACSPECTRUM;
"Kiss my ass!"
 

It amazes me that macnutt alleges to have been some sort of "data analyst" with some sort of "oil exploration company" where he claims to have been in charge of "oodles" of data and be responsible for oil drilling locations
yet, his propensity for factual error would indicate that he isn't "right" far too often.

perhaps this is why oil rigs only find oil about 1 in 9 wells?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"for macnutt and his factual inaccuracies I refer you to The Word (no typo) According to MACSPECTRUM; "Kiss my ass!"" Michael, such language!!! There shall be no Order of Canada, or the Order of Macnutt for you.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Dr.G. said:


> "for macnutt and his factual inaccuracies I refer you to The Word (no typo) According to MACSPECTRUM; "Kiss my ass!"" Michael, such language!!! There shall be no Order of Canada, or the Order of Macnutt for you.


How about the order of fries from Sir Ronald?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't think that they serve such things in Rideau Hall.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I don't think that they serve such things in Rideau Hall.


Actually, Mrs Clarkson had Poutine prepared for herself and Jean-René Dufort (a Radio-Can "journalist").


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I doubt Ms. Clarkson goes to the MacDonalds drive thru for her poutine.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Clarkson has criticized the Chretien government for not defending her during the public flogging over her "free-spending ways."

CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...kson_interview_051009/20051009?hub=TopStories

Some people may think it inappropriate that she is speaking out like this, but really she demonstrated great resolve in not firing back at her critics while in office.

And the government should have come to her defence. The lavish world tour was their idea, after all. Shame on Chretien.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

Damn straight, it was their idea. One of their saner ones, too, and they should have shown the backbone that God gave an elephant in defence of that one, instead of on the helicopter cancellation promise(for one example).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "for macnutt and his factual inaccuracies I refer you to The Word (no typo) According to MACSPECTRUM; "Kiss my ass!"" Michael, such language!!! There shall be no Order of Canada, or the Order of Macnutt for you.


A more than fair exchange, even though I do have the "legs" to wear a kilt.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, I think it takes more than legs to wear a kilt. And what might the new GG say to you if this was to take place???


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, I think it takes more than legs to wear a kilt. And what might the new GG say to you if this was to take place???


"Where have you been all my life?"
(Où avez-vous été tous ma vie ?)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

So THIS is why she gave up her French citizenship!!! Michael, are you ready to have an instant family?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> So THIS is why she gave up her French citizenship!!! Michael, are you ready to have an instant family?


Not only that, but she's learning how to make borscht and perogies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Does she speak Ukranian?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Not only that, but she's learning how to make borscht and perogies.


With a Uke and Kraut backgound, I'd like to be the judge in that competition...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Does she speak Ukra_nian?_


_

I'd make an exception.

_


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, sorry about the misspelling.


----------

