I return invective for invective.
You would have done well to have read the thread.
You’ve been calling people twits, cattle, bagmen, and stupid. That’s just on memory. That’s not invective?
Fine, you keep saying it’s so easy to do, tell us the process you would follow to acquire the Canadian governmental system of your dreams. Please keep in mind that you have to work through the system as it exists now in order to reach your goal.
I never said it’s a “wave a magic wand” proposal. But it’s no less impossible than the changes made to the constitution since 1867.
That comment is a bit rich coming from a person whose country went to war to end its colonial status and celebrates that major problem every year.
I hold Canadian citizenship.
Yet live in a country that split from its colonial masters, according to your post information.
Yes. Do you have a point? Canada appears to have become an independent and sovereign nation without fighting a war of revolution. Do you believe that Canada would be better off if it had? Or if it had surrendered to various U.S. attempts to seize it?
No. Nice job excluding the middle, but it’s a fail.
What middle? You’re the one who brought up revolution.
And assuming that the middle is a political process that ends in your goal of no governor general, no lieutenant generals, no commissioners, and no senate, you’ve been remarkably obstinate on not talking about how you would accomplish this.
Two things.
First, to Kenm:
You’re getting into personal insult territory here, which is not allowed in this forum. Dial it back.
And a general comment to everyone: this thread seems to have strayed quite far from the OP’s question, in my view. Please, let’s bring it back on topic. Thanks.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada shot down a matter that, had it found for the Applicant (who was just out of law school and argued for himself all the way to the top court), could have buggered up the Perth Agreement, which is the deal between the Commonwealth Realms that sets out a shared line of succession criteria. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision is posted, but the Ontario Superior Court decision is the one that delves down into the constitutional guts of the monarch and also gives a quick review (including citations) as to why the Charter should not be used to trump other parts of the constitution (the necessity of which I recognize, but still find distasteful).
The deal now ends sex discrimination in the line of succession, and lessens but preserves religious discrimination. The applicant argued that such discrimination runs contrary to our Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He lost because he had no business bringing the suit in the first place, and because the courts have found that the rules of succession are part of the fabric of our constitution such that it is not for a court to change that part of our constitution (succession) to bring it in line with another part of our constitution (Charter).
In any event, I expect that the ongoing struggle to change or end the monarchy will get considerable aring in the days approaching the coronation (as opposed to immediately upon her death, which I expect will focus more on her life rather than get into the details of why the succession is the what it is), so having a boo at the Superior Court’s decision and the cases it cites provides for a terrific into to the complexity of a seemingly simple issue. Hopefully the ensuing discussion shortly following Elizabeth’s death will help inform the public as to what is involved in making changes concerning the head of state. Could be that her passing might be the impetus to get the monarchy issue sorted, one way or the other.
(For lawyers, if you’re into cringe worthy shits and giggles unrelated to the substantive issues, check out the costs decision of the Ontario Superior Court. I’ve never seen anyone get hammered so hard before. That’s got to be some sort of a record – being hammered mercilessly by a judge and still making it to the SCC despite just having become a lawyer! “. . . badly mishandled this matter and generated huge volumes of irrelevant documentation . . . recent law school graduate who would be well advised to seek legal assistance . . . a large number of documentary exhibits that were not appended to an affidavit . . . raised new grounds and sought new remedies not in his Notice of Application, including a claim for Charter damages of $440,000 . . . filed a supplementary factum and a voluminous additional documentary record, in contravention of the applicable time limits . . . seeks a costs award against the respondent of $100,000 . . . completely devoid of merit . . . lacked standing . . . .”)