Is it time for the British crown to man up to its signed agreements in the Idle No More issues?

reply to post by aboutface


Ok lets try this again ok,our governments are not representative of the people.

ALL our governments are the same and for the same reasons.

In a nutshell,the systems of collecting votes and then allowing many many layers of government to take those results and manifest them into action is intentionally fraught with insurmountable challenges,this is INTENTIONAL.

In times of ere we had massive geographical challenges that we needed to overcome in order that all peoples voice be heard in as timely and current time period as possible,this meant we needed to construct many facets and layers to our procedures and to our governmental structure,it is within these structures and procedures that the voice of the people is erased and the voice of the government is put in its place,.

The civil legal system is intertwined with our government policys because of people and groups sueing the government,this is how the government justifys not doing as we ask,they say the ARE doing as we ask but they are bound by the laws as we all are,this is a lie.

Heres an example.Capitol Punishment ,my favorite.

I have been coast to coast in my country,every province and territory through my career,I have spoken to many many people from all areas and all walks of life.Wherever I go I ask the same questions because this is how you learn about your country and the people you share it with.You need a baseline.

I cant stress to you how strongly I feel about this communication issue,suffice to say I am gritting my teeth right now.

EVERYWHERE I have travelled in my country I hear the majority by far of people support Capitol Punishment,yet we do not have it in Canada.WHY NOT???????????

For me the buck stops there,there is a huge monumental problem somewhere,right??These types of mysterys get me going.It isnt a mystery its a FRAUD.

It is impossible for me to travel countrywide and hear the opinions of the MAJORITY of Canadians and accept that we dont have this law .

I ask why and I find that my government is not representative of the people and this is a willing dynamic that the government fosters to initiate a lack of accountability,

If a Politician or political party says they will do something before we vote them in then by what power do we hold them accountable for that promise??There is NO POWER TO DO THIS.
Which leads us to the next obvious issue,politicians are supposed to be facillitators,NOT policy makers.The PEOPLE define the policys precisely and the government does as the peolle SAY not as they ASK.We dont need to ASK our governments for Jack Squat!!!

Dont tell me its our fault because we dont vote for it,we vote all the time,but heres the filthy trick .

If it is not politiclly correct or in other words in the best interest of the political party NOT the PEOPLE ,then the issue will never be used as a base to seek election,and will never be enacted,you see first we need to give the politicians power,THEN we can ASK them to do what we HOPE will be done.

Screw that,it is a fraud and is very easy to see and conceptualise and explain.

But no one can fix it because all the systems work together and are selfsupporting,all based on money and selfsupporting.

We need real-time internet voting BY THE PEOLE,and then we need to give those DECISIONS to the politicians to facillitate them.

We DO NOT need politicians to make any core decisions whatsoever,EVER.

Democracy could ever truly exist prior to the internet because we could never get everyones real opinions in REAL-TIME,so we relyed on a system that could be bastardised and corrupted and be non-representative of our true feelings to exist and propogate.

This WAS all based on a geographical communication challenge we all faced----globally--hence Democracy in its truest form has NEVER EXISTED YET,it COULDNT HAVE.

Today we can use cyberspace to get the REAL TRUE opinions in 24 hrs,and we can ELIMINATE--BA HA HA HA --all the corrupting levels of government and the corrupt fraudulently initiated voting systems we see today,we can CLEAN UP THE CRAP,in a very short time.

We can see a TRUE democracy at work and we can all experience what that really means.

Goodbye,National Security lies,goodbye,ultra-rich peiople,goodbye corporate/government /religon marriages--BA HA HA HA--helloe to the voices of the people,the REAL voices.

And goodbye racist policys,and goodbye liberal whining legal challenges to the wants and needs of a countrys citizens.

Actually goodbye to two thirds of the corrupt groups in existance overnight with about a six month shelf-life for those that survive day one.

Once we clean up the false democracys we see everywhere we can work on creating a day of GLOBAL FISCAL EMANCIPATION,during which ALL DEBT GLOBALL is forgiven from each person.
GOODBYE GLOBAL ELITE---goodbye millionaires and billionaires.

HELLO HUMAITYS FUTURE.

reply to post by one4all

So, (speaking as someone who does not support a constitutional monarchy) the irrelevant British Crown does not need to 'man up' regarding the wild claims in the OP. It's good to see we agree there.

reply to post by one4all


Hey that was almost a rant, haha. Seriously, I have a huge problem with internet voting and hacking. Remember the month delay in the Bush-Gore election, and the NDP leader voting delays because of hacking attempts? Do you really trust political parties not to resort to dirty tricks? I do get your thinking on this however, but since not everyone is plugged in and online, especially in poor neighborhoods and remote communities, my thinking is that this will have to wait a while as it would be equal for all.

Do we all agree now that the outdated and irrelevant Crown/head of state has no tangiable influence in the governance of Canada anymore though?

reply to post by grainofsand

On the surface of things, the managment side I do. However I do see a very strong crown agenda under the surface that cannot be ignored, one that influences our parliament and our media.

Many chiefs announced that since the crown will not be represented at the Friday meeting with Harper, they would not be attending either.

The GG announced he would not be attending, but now in a turn of events, he has announced that he will be meeting with the chiefs at 6PM tonight. No doubt he wants to de-escalate the mood of dissent that is rising and preoccupying the media. It would be interesting to see if there were any progress made in sorting out this mess. I wonder if anyone is really holding their breath

reply to post by aboutface

I would agree with that sentiment.
It's the same for us in the UK, the Crown has no formal power which could be exercised over the government of the country (which wouldn't cause a constitutional crisis if attempted) but I would be a fool to assume that there is no influence over the decisions made by elected representatives.
For example, every week the Queen has a meeting with the Prime Minister and no record is made of the discussions.

Personally, I am totally against a constitutional monarchy, but I am satisfied that as soon as enough people feel the same way we will be able to remove this outdated royal/political link through popular vote.
That is the key point for me, there is no legislation able to stop the people changing any part of our political system if we want it enough. The reason this continues is because not enough people are passionate enough to advocate the change - This would appear to be similar to the situation in Canada.

reply to post by aboutface


Hi,
It really sucks that the natives really aren't as savage as once led to believe...
They'd just rise up and take it back, if the crown weren't so savage itself, it'd be an easy take...

Originally posted by loveguy
They'd just rise up and take it back, if the crown weren't so savage itself, it'd be an easy take...

It's nothing to do with the Crown anymore, Canada runs it own shop these days.
The Chiefs are making their negotiations more difficult by refusing to meet with the real policy makers of the country without the Governor General being there as well. The same Governor General, by the way, who stated the issue is nothing to do with the Crown.
If anyone needs to 'man up' it's the Canadian citizens who wish to remove the Crown from their constitution.
If enough people want it the Crown is unable to stop the change. Australia nearly did it but again, not enough people supported the change.

I accept the Crown was savage back in the day but it's pretty toothless these days in the Commonwealth.

reply to post by loveguy

Sometimes I wonder what everything would look like in our world if the British soldiers had not located the one or all three spots on the cliffs below the Plains of Abraham that they could scale.

As a child, my friends and I were determined to find the spots and although my parents would have grounded me for life had they known of the many slips and misses we had, we did successfully climb up. I suspect the soldiers climbed to the west of the plains and marched east for their surprise battle. And because of that, just think of it, she lays claim to most of the land in Canada, we are now subjects of the queen and have to pay allegiance to her. Where is karma when you need it?

Originally posted by aboutface
we are now subjects of the queen and have to pay allegiance to her.

That statement seems to conflict with the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 which has legally identified you as a citizen not a subject since then.

reply to post by loveguy

The natives decribed themselves to me in this way: They were of four types, hunter-gatherers, farmers (corn, potatoes, root vegetables and berries), fishers and warriors. One type would be predominant in response to the times, so that when one type rose to the fore another type was less predominant.

Despite all the politics involved, the natives have been steadily rising in the public eye as keepers and watchers over the land and waters. Even though the warriors have shifted their image through education, their visibility until now has been suppressed in the media. This movement has brought them more into the light and I hope people will study what they say with a less prejudicial eye.

reply to post by aboutface
The Crown, for the most part, signed treaties with the First Nations. Not like they were a good deal for them, but it gave it all an air of legality. The terms should be respected by the Government of Canada. That won't solve all the problems...but it's a start.

reply to post by grainofsand


I had to swear allegiance when I briefly worked in a federally funded hospital. New citizens have to at the swearing in ceremony. The Royal Canadian Air Force is a new name...why?

reply to post by aboutface


we are ever stuck in the devide and conquer results of the past 500 years of european imperialism.
lets forget as much as possible about the political bs of imperialism, british or otherwise.

imo, the only solution to the dark age of the past 500 years is to declare all humans equal and having the same rights.

make it illegal to ask anyone on any government form what their perceived racial or ethnic claim is.

make it illegal to keep statistics that even consider racial or ethnic consideration.

make the transition by allowing those now living to continue to hold on to their crutch.

but all born from now on will have no classification on their birth certificate, census form or anywhere else.

we are one human race, lets dump the divisions of race, religion and other stupidities of the past.

jail any trouble maker that tries to devide people into categories.

reply to post by citizen6511


Agreed, however the painful process we're seeing now is how to get there from here. I especially like your suggestion to stop registering race on birth certificates. so man people nowadays are of mixed race anway that it's quickly becoming a moot point.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I had to swear allegiance when I briefly worked in a federally funded hospital. New citizens have to at the swearing in ceremony. The Royal Canadian Air Force is a new name...why?

As repugnant as such naming protocols and allegiance swearings are, it does not change my original assertion that the Canadian people can rid themselves of such things if enough of the electorate want it.
Your parliament is ultimately supreme and the Crown is unable to prevent anything the popular vote advocates.

reply to post by grainofsand


(sigh)
I don't think anyone was crazy about the name change for instance, but it was a done deal before we knew about it. That's how Harper works. He brings in omnibus bills under the aegis of a budget bill that is given to the opposition to study mere hours before the vote.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by citizen6511

 

Agreed, however the painful process we're seeing now is how to get there from here. I especially like your suggestion to stop registering race on birth certificates. so man people nowadays are of mixed race anway that it's quickly becoming a moot point.

i hope dna advances eventually will destroy present perceptions of race and ethnic identification.

for centuries politicians, clergy and others have devided and conquered using these classifications to justify their criminal activity.

most treaties with first nations were to legalize and justify an imperial exploitation of natural resourses.
i find it ridiculous that people act as if there was a sliver of honesty involved in imperialism.
imperialism is a criminal adventure, even the missionaries are to be despised for their role.

most modern political boundries were draw to devide and conquer, whether it be indians or kurds.
the corporations exploiting natural resources is what it's all about, the rest is political bs.

i live in new england where i've read estimates that in each generation half mary outside of their parents ethnicity.
from what i've seen, this is good socially, economically and politically.

it will take a long time, but i beleive that we would be better if we just became humans.
during my life i worked with people from all over the world.
was told by asians, africans and middle east natives that i was the least prejudiced person they had ever met.
so i don't expect my views to be widespread.

growing up in canada, the principal of my high school tried to have me expelled due to my saying that it wasn't right that indians were paid half of what white were making. 1962
she considered me a dangerous radical.

then in the usaf, i was given grief because i gave an indian a desk job, someting my first sargent and line chief disagreed with. 1965. the indian kept his desk job.

so i know that indians have been abused even in the recent past.

i wish them well and hope they don't fall into the trap of dependance, letting others run their economy.

Originally posted by citizen6511
most treaties with first nations were to legalize and justify an imperial exploitation of natural resources.
i find it ridiculous that people act as if there was a sliver of honesty involved in imperialism.
imperialism is a criminal adventure, even the missionaries are to be despised for their role.
i wish them well and hope they don't fall into the trap of dependance, letting others run their economy.

I agree, but I also appreciate the fact that time has marched on. I am not ready to give back my land because the original treaty sucked. But I feel this translates to an obligation to make amends. We provide lots of funding to the First Nations, yet problems persist. So instead of spending more money, it needs to be spent smarter.

Certainly, they ought to get a piece of the action from natural resources on their traditional lands. Jobs, education, health care, and above all, good internal leadership, are what's needed. No easy answers.