Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the Constitutional Monarchy does not benefit Canadians


Recommended Posts

Is Jagmeet Singh for real?  Did he swear allegiance to the Queen when he became a member of Parliament?  If so, is he now breaking his oath when he said on main stream media today that the monarchy does not benefit Canadians?  When he said the Communist revolution in Cuba lifted the Cuban people up, did he know the Communist revolution in Cuba killed tens of thousands of people, imprisoned thousands of others, confiscated private property, and deprived the people of their freedom?  This guy is a follower of a false religion and apparently a Marxist sympathizer who was given a platform he can now use to attack our democratic Constitutional monarchy system that has given more freedom and human rights than most other countries in the world.  As a Canadian educated lawyer, was he not taught the purpose and function of our Constitutional Monarchy?  Apparently not.  Otherwise he would know that the system works to prevent a would-be dictator from seizing power and establishing a totalitarian state.  Having the Queen as Canada's Queen and a GG acting on her behalf means if a rogue PM tried to abolish the system, the Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Queen, could arrest the would-be dictator and prevent a takeover.  The continued allegiance of a large swath of the population, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces ensures a dictator can not easily seize power and abolish our democratic system.  Can this guy be trusted?

"Before a duly elected Member may take his or her seat and vote in the House of Commons, the Member must take an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the Sovereign and sign the Test Roll (a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath). When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, a Member is making a pledge to conduct him-or herself in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds a Member of the serious obligations and responsibilities he or she is assuming.

The obligation requiring all Members of Parliament to take the oath is found in the Constitution Act, 1867, with the text of the oath itself outlined in the Fifth Schedule. [207]  The Act states: “Every Member of the … House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him … the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act …” The wording of the oath is as follows: “I, (Member’s name), do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.” [208]  As an alternative to swearing the oath, Members may make a solemn affirmation, by simply stating: [209]  “I, (Member’s name), do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”  

The House of Commons and Its Members - The Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Allegiance (ourcommons.ca)

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • blackbird changed the title to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the Constitutional Monarchy does not benefit Canadians
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's nothing Jagmeet Singh says or does that's relevant to anything in Canadian politics. He's irrelevant, his party is irrelevant.  He's just a store mannequin sitting there taking up space. 

Canada is full of Marxists of varying degrees.  That should be obvious.  Liberals and NDP are good examples of people with very little or no moral principles.  When you have a national political party

And yet constitutional monarchies dominate every list of countries with the best quality of life.

Posted Images

Especially in the view of the recent revelations it must be obvious to anyone how's outdated entrenched and aristocratic institution must be absolutely essential to a dynamic and functional democracy in the 21st century.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, myata said:

Especially in the view of the recent revelations it must be obvious to anyone how's outdated entrenched and aristocratic institution must be absolutely essential to a dynamic and functional democracy in the 21st century.

No institution is perfect and no human being is perfect and we all make mistakes.  If a member of the family makes a bad decision or says some appalling thing, we don't give them capital punishment or kick them out of the family.  The institution of the Constitutional Monarchy is still doing the job for Canada that is was meant to do and we don't destroy a good thing.  Canada's parliamentary system and Constitutional Monarchy, via the Governor General is unaffected by this present problem involving Harry, Meghan, and Archie.  That situation may be resolvable to a large extent.  We have nothing to replace the Constitutional Monarchy with that would be as valuable and as indispensable in ensuring the continuation of our Parliament democracy as we know it.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myata said:

Especially in the view of the recent revelations it must be obvious to anyone how's outdated entrenched and aristocratic institution must be absolutely essential to a dynamic and functional democracy in the 21st century.

Especially after the recent much ballyhooed Meghan and Harry coming out party on Oprah, it's obvious that the dumb, inbred, degenerate British royals and their equally old, decrepit advisers (The Firm) are absolutely no match for Hollywood royalty, who know how to play the game of using MSM entertainment media to full advantage! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No institution is perfect and no human being is perfect and we all make mistakes.  If a member of the family makes a bad decision or says some appalling thing, we don't give them capital punishment or kick them out of the family.  The institution of the Constitutional Monarchy is still doing the job for Canada that is was meant to do and we don't destroy a good thing.  Canada's parliamentary system and Constitutional Monarchy, via the Governor General is unaffected by this present problem involving Harry, Meghan, and Archie.  That situation may be resolvable to a large extent.  We have nothing to replace the Constitutional Monarchy with that would be as valuable and as indispensable in ensuring the continuation of our Parliament democracy as we know it.

There's a natural limit to the privilege upon privilege wrapped in excessive and unnecessary privilege Russian doll though and it's called "public budget". One would have to give, and why would the culture of privilege give anything, like is there any incentive? That makes the destination pretty clear, time of arrival not so certain but it's coming, very little doubt about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, myata said:

Especially in the view of the recent revelations it must be obvious to anyone how's outdated entrenched and aristocratic institution must be absolutely essential to a dynamic and functional democracy in the 21st century.

And yet constitutional monarchies dominate every list of countries with the best quality of life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And yet constitutional monarchies dominate every list of countries with the best quality of life.

If quality of life in the 21st century is correlated with the constitutionality of monarchy then the UK should be way ahead of every other country by quality of life. But of course, constitutional monarchies aren't all equal, there can be instances that are inclusive and productive.

In this country though combined with outrageously expensive and inept public bureaucracy the example of self-serving privilege simply doesn't look like a good recipe for a stable and sustainable prosperity. For the annual amount of pensions to the past and future GG, LG and all the other Gs and with a lean and effective public service we could be running state of the art schools and community services in all remote communities. Only a matter of priorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Is Jagmeet Singh for real?  Did he swear allegiance to the Queen when he became a member of Parliament?  If so, is he now breaking his oath when he said on main stream media today that the monarchy does not benefit Canadians? As a Canadian educated lawyer, was he not taught the purpose and function of our Constitutional Monarchy?  Apparently not.  Otherwise he would know that the system works to prevent a would-be dictator from seizing power and establishing a totalitarian state.  Having the Queen as Canada's Queen and a GG acting on her behalf means if a rogue PM tried to abolish the system, the Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Queen, could arrest the would-be dictator and prevent a takeover.  The continued allegiance of a large swath of the population, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces ensures a dictator can not easily seize power and abolish our democratic system.  Can this guy be trusted?

He does have a point, one could glean all of the benefits you mentioned from writing a new Constitution, for say a Republic like the US, only this time perhaps we can add a shit load of "rights" into like property rights, rights to defend ones family and property with weapons anyways the list goes on ....  

Quote

take an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the Sovereign and sign the Test Roll (a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath). When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy.

Are you saying we are bound to only Constitutional monarchy system , What if we want to change it all, would we not be going against our oaths...  i think that being critical of the monarchy is covered under free speech. 

 Britian is very critical of the royal family and yet the have the same government. I think you'll find lots of items hidden in our laws that would no longer up held in our courts, take the act of treason, and look at Omars case or for that matter any terrorist that has gone of to war to fight against Canadian soldiers. our courts say it was to vague, and yet it reads black and white to me..

Besides nothing is going to change, it would be an imposable task for any current government to change anything in our current constitution let alone re write a brand new one from scratch ...., Shit Quebec has still not signed on to the current one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, myata said:

Especially in the view of the recent revelations it must be obvious to anyone how's outdated entrenched and aristocratic institution must be absolutely essential to a dynamic and functional democracy in the 21st century.

By 'recent revelations' do you mean the bleating and whining from a pampered Hollywood princess sniveling about how people were mean to her?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, myata said:

There's a natural limit to the privilege upon privilege wrapped in excessive and unnecessary privilege Russian doll though and it's called "public budget".

The only studies with which I'm aware indicate that the increased tourism the UK gets out of the royals and their palaces and activities brings in about a hundred times more money than is ever spent on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2021 at 3:33 PM, Army Guy said:

He does have a point, one could glean all of the benefits you mentioned from writing a new Constitution, for say a Republic like the US, only this time perhaps we can add a shit load of "rights" into like property rights, rights to defend ones family and property with weapons anyways the list goes on ....  

Are you saying we are bound to only Constitutional monarchy system , What if we want to change it all, would we not be going against our oaths...  i think that being critical of the monarchy is covered under free speech. 

 Britian is very critical of the royal family and yet the have the same government. I think you'll find lots of items hidden in our laws that would no longer up held in our courts, take the act of treason, and look at Omars case or for that matter any terrorist that has gone of to war to fight against Canadian soldiers. our courts say it was to vague, and yet it reads black and white to me..

Besides nothing is going to change, it would be an imposable task for any current government to change anything in our current constitution let alone re write a brand new one from scratch ...., Shit Quebec has still not signed on to the current one.  

Since he swore an oath of allegiance to the monarchy, I think it was wrong for him to denigrate it by saying it doesn't benefit Canadians.  Freedom of speech does not include the right to revolutionary comments or opposing the system particularly when he has a special position as an MP and leader of a political party being interviewed on mainstream media.  What is the use of MPs or others taking the Oath of Allegiance if it is not going to be upheld or mean anything?

Yes, I think we are bound to show a certain degree of loyalty to the Constitutional Monarchy and the Queen.  This is why school kids once sang God Save the Queen in schools.  Nowadays, kids are taught to be disrespectful to traditional values.  This will have dire consequences for a nation.  Apparently it was not necessary for every province to agree to the Constitution for it to become valid.  It appears no province has a veto to it.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myata said:

There's a natural limit to the privilege upon privilege wrapped in excessive and unnecessary privilege Russian doll though and it's called "public budget". One would have to give, and why would the culture of privilege give anything, like is there any incentive? That makes the destination pretty clear, time of arrival not so certain but it's coming, very little doubt about that.

It costs Canada very little to have the Queen as our head of state.  The benefits far outweigh any small cost.  We waste far more money, actually over a hundred million a year on the unelected Senate.  I would favour not paying retired governor generals an unlimited expense account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

History repeats itself...this is what happens when the royals insist on banging independently minded American women.

It's very snobby for us to be commenting on who other people fall in love with. At the end of the day, it's no one's business who wealthy people choose to love. Have you ever dated someone, and had a bunch of your friends put your relationship under a microscope? Then you know what it feels like for Harry to constantly be defending Meghan against the world. Maybe we should all just wish the best for them, and leave them alone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AntiConservative said:

It's very snobby for us to be commenting on who other people fall in love with. At the end of the day, it's no one's business who wealthy people choose to love. Have you ever dated someone, and had a bunch of your friends put your relationship under a microscope? Then you know what it feels like for Harry to constantly be defending Meghan against the world. Maybe we should all just wish the best for them, and leave them alone.

Do you think they could be talked into leaving us alone?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Typical of Marxists to dislike royalty and the monarchy and want to get rid of them.  Canada's Constitutional Monarchy is not oppressive and long ago gave up it's power to Parliamentary democracy.  It's only function now is to protect the parliamentary system from being taken over by a dictator, such as Marxists and therefore it provides a valuable purpose.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, myata said:

If quality of life in the 21st century is correlated with the constitutionality of monarchy then the UK should be way ahead of every other country by quality of life. But of course, constitutional monarchies aren't all equal, there can be instances that are inclusive and productive.

In this country though combined with outrageously expensive and inept public bureaucracy the example of self-serving privilege simply doesn't look like a good recipe for a stable and sustainable prosperity. For the annual amount of pensions to the past and future GG, LG and all the other Gs and with a lean and effective public service we could be running state of the art schools and community services in all remote communities. Only a matter of priorities.

 

There are actually very few constitutional monarchies yet most of them are near the top when it comes to quality of life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

History repeats itself...this is what happens when the royals insist on banging independently minded American women.

 

00-dip.jpg

 

MM and her girlfriends...they're quite the lot. Sophie, Jessica and the lesser knowns...it's like they planed it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what it comes down to is, people see Meghan as an imposter. I just don't see Meghan as a trashy girl from the hood. Unlike some of the snobs in the Royal family, Meghan seems organic. They could of used her to help connect with the global community, and instead blew it, by allowing the press to throw her under bus. With Meghan's acting experience, they should of had her traveling the world. She could have made powerful speechs, and that would have improved public relations for the Monarchy.

Edited by AntiConservative
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After QEII we should review this peculiar arrangement. This might keep monarchists happy - ignore the funeral and declare her head of state in perpetuity. A safer bet than giving Chuck the wheel. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aristides said:

And yet constitutional monarchies dominate every list of countries with the best quality of life.

Most of those countries have their own monarch who lives at home. When Britain itself needed new royals it had no qualms about finding foreign princes to do the business. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AntiConservative said:

... With Meghan's acting experience, they should of had her traveling the world. She could have made powerful speechs, and that would have improved public relations for the Monarchy.

 

Canada has already seen what "acting experience" gets you in one Justin Trudeau.   Powerful speeches...not so much.

These two tried to leverage their royal platform for their own agenda.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn’t a topic I’m too excited about one way or the other. Having a quaint connection to some European monarchy is kinda neat in its own way and doesn’t really matter. I do see how it distinguishes us from the Americans who make a much graver mistake in combining the roles of head of government and state - very silly. If you want to keep that Wills and Kate, pomp and circumstance, celeb malarkey going, fair enough, but make sure we have a real head of state here, i.e. a GG who is truly independent of the PM, not some hapless crony. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 ...I do see how it distinguishes us from the Americans...

 

This is very important to the collective Canadian psyche, making any changes that much more difficult.  Canada's identity is fundamentally defined as "not American".   Ironic that it is an American woman causing such a ruckus.

Cue The Guess Who's...American Woman... from 1970.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...