Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The monarchy is an anachronism, but does anyone really want to open the constitution to change it? As someone old enough to remember Meech Lake, I'm content enough to stick with the status quo.
This exactly - why change it to no benefit other than to appease the"we don't need no Queen!" crowd. The current way the Governor-General is appointed works, has worked for 150 years, and will likely continue to work in the future. Anachronistic doesn't necessarily mean ineffective or in dire need of change.
It's also one of the identifiable differences between American and Canadian culture - we are (well I am, anyway) proud of being directly politically descended from British tradition, whereas Americans are proud of having had their system born from a revolution against the Crown. And that makes a huge difference in how we perceive the role of government and the law.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
This exactly - why change it to no benefit other than to appease the"we don't need no Queen!" crowd. The current way the Governor-General is appointed works, has worked for 150 years, and will likely continue to work in the future. Anachronistic doesn't necessarily mean ineffective or in dire need of change.
It's also one of the identifiable differences between American and Canadian culture - we are (well I am, anyway) proud of being directly politically descended from British tradition, whereas Americans are proud of having had their system born from a revolution against the Crown. And that makes a huge difference in how we perceive the role of government and the law.
Just to be a little pedantic... the way the Governor General works has changed many times over the years over the last century and a half, particularly following the King-Byng Affair. The GG is little more than a ceremonial figurehead now, but (especially) before the Statute of Westminster, the GG held a great deal of power to overrule our elected government.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Also the queen is the queen of Canada so it isn't a foreign monarch. It's Canada's monarch who just doesn't happen to live in Canada.
Canada is ruled by Canada's queen not ruled by england
The whole concept of a monarchy is repulsive to me. While the role of the monarchy has changed, and might continue to change, the idea that these people are heads of state solely based on the vagina the existed is, no good.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Already Trudeau is proving to be a more honest leader than Harper. Instead of nepotism determining most of the cabinet posts, we're seeing actual qualified people getting the top spots. Quite a refreshing change
Nepotism? I get that you did not like Harper but that's too far, what relatives were favored by Harper? Ministers? Where on earth did you get this information?
Nepotism? I get that you did not like Harper but that's too far, what relatives were favored by Harper? Ministers? Where on earth did you get this information?
Rempel. A friend of Laureen who was basically handed a safe riding, who avoided any sort of public forums during her first election. Not sure of others.
" nepotism-the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."
Not all necessarily incompetent, but definitely not the best choices and very likely under-qualified for the roles they were put in. There were others that had more experience that were not appointed.
Gary Goodyear - Fundamentalist creationist, climate change denier and chiropractor - Minister of state and science
Ed Holder - Insurance broker with philosophy degree - Minister of state and science
Rona Ambrose - Poli-Sci major - Minister of environment, minister of health
Leona Aglukkaq - Never made any post secondary education public and refused to do so - Minister of health, minister of environment
Greg Rickford - Nurse/Lawyer - Minister of natural resources
Peter Mckay - Lawyer - Minister of defense
Vs. some of the appointments now...
Minister of transport - astronaut, minister of science - Nobel prize winner and scientist, minister of health - gasp, an actual doctor, minister of defense - decorated soldier, minister of social development - poverty economist
I'm thinking this is a wee bit more aligned to what is actually needed for the role rather than just patronage for loyalty no? Aside from the whole forced gender equality bits.
I find it funny that because half the ministers are females, that it must be forced gender equality. Like, there is no way that the number of qualified ministers just can't be disproportionately women for once in the last 150 years.
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I find it funny that because half the ministers are females, that it must be forced gender equality. Like, there is no way that the number of qualified ministers just can't be disproportionately women for once in the last 150 years.
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
I think there's little doubt it was forced. Exactly 50% is no coincidence and Today admitted it. The dumb part is suggesting that a male candidate would have been better suited. It's highly subjective and there's many capable candidates, so to suggest they aren't suitable or a good choice is absurd
