Radical group may disrupt Prince William's visit

[toyotatundra]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/29/patrick-bourgeois-reseau-de-resistance_n_887326.html

THE CANADIAN PRESS -- MONTREAL - A controversial Quebec pro-independence group is ratcheting up its protest plans for the visit of Prince William and Kate and is now promising a "militant" demonstration in Montreal.

The Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois described its plans in an email to The Canadian Press.

The group, which has a history of disrupting events, had already announced plans for a demonstration Sunday in Quebec City.
History shows his group has a tendency to get rowdy when it comes to the Royal Family.

In 2009, Bourgeois' organization led an anti-monarchy demonstration during a visit to Montreal by Prince Charles and Camilla.

The protest delayed their arrival at a military ceremony by about a half-hour, and Charles and Camilla had to enter through a back door because of the raucous demonstrators.

The group also helped block the planned 2009 re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and has protested the performance of Anglo songs at Quebec's Fete nationale holiday.

Some people are enthusiastic about the royal family. Others are not. However, regardless of one's stand on the monarchy, Prince William and Kate have done nothing to merit "militant actions" aimed at disrupting their trip.

 

[john10]

Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.

People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.

People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.

That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.

Besides, how many of those who would object to the role of the monarchy have actually considered that it currently provides the constitutional layer of authority above the Prime Minister. Or do they want Stephen Harper to be a virtual dictator with nothing holding him back between elections?  >

 

[lethalLemon]

The Constitutional Monarchy has a big piece in Canadian history... as if it weren't for them, we might have turned out like our neighbours to the south, or worse... speaking German and forced to eat sauerkraut (although I quite enjoy sauerkraut). The Monarchs no longer hold any kind of real significant power over the elected governments.

It seems that the only people who have a huge problem with our Royal historical figureheads are the Quebecois and their typical anti-everything-not-French-or-Quebecois (excluding the good ones out there, I refuse to lump them all into the same pile) and of course those silly Anarchists who probably never learned the significance of the Monarchy in school.

 

[john10]

That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.

Oh of course. Anything illegal or violent is out of bounds in my book. A loud and vigorous denunciation of their trip is perfectly fine.

Besides, how many of those who would object to the role of the monarchy have actually considered that it currently provides the constitutional layer of authority above the Prime Minister. Or do they want Stephen Harper to be a virtual dictator with nothing holding him back between elections?  >

As lethalLemon notes, the monarchy does not exercise any real power in Canadian politics. A majority PM can effectively pass any bill he likes if he has the support of his party.

 

[57Chevy]

Sure they have.

They have no right to disrupt the Royal couples' visit.

By assuming their role in the monarchy

Assuming ?  I would understand it to be a birthright.

they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution..

You mean the perpetuation of their heritage.
Unlike most of those arrogant "anti-anything" types who search through endless
pages of imaginary coats of arms in hope of finding some sort of recognition to
their useless borrowed surname.

People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.

No they don't.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As lethalLemon notes, the monarchy does not exercise any real power in Canadian politics. A majority PM can effectively pass any bill he likes if he has the support of his party.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127

The representative of the Crown also has the power to dismiss or force the resignation of the Prime Minister or Premier. This is one of the most sensitive decisions that any Governor General or Lieutenant Governor can be called upon to make. It is made only under the most serious circumstances. For example, if a Prime Minister or Premier were to lose the support of a majority in the legislative body on a vote of non-confidence and then refuse to resign, there could be justification for dismissal. In a broader application, a Prime Minister or the government could be dismissed if the Governor General believes an exceptional situation has created a crisis of confidence in government. This power has been exercised on five occasions in Canadian provinces: Québec in 1878 and 1891 and British Columbia in 1898, 1900 and 1903. This power has not been used in Canada for the federal government, but it was exercised in another Realm of the Commonwealth: by the Governor General of Australia, in 1975.

Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.

 

[aesop081]

No they don't.

They certainly do have the right to protest the visit.

 

[lethalLemon]

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127

Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.

Well, what I meant by no real significant power over the elected governments is that the Monarch can't sit down on his/her throne and dissolve parliament and start ruling a nation within their power (Commonwealth) or every nation for that matter - just because he or she wants to. They still have to exercise the democracy part of a Constitutional Monarchy parliament system.

EDIT: I am well aware of the Queen's and her representatives power. But their power is not what it used to be.

 

[john10]

They have no right to disrupt the Royal couples' visit.

Hi Chevy57. Depends what we mean by "disrupt". Anything violent, illegal or physical, I disagree with. Exercising their constitutionally-protected right to express their disagreement with the institution and the trip? Absolutely.

Assuming ?  I would understand it to be a birthright.

Of course, but it's completely legitimate to disagree with the idea that this right should exist. The idea of power transmitted through hereditary birthright is utterly ridiculous to me.

You mean the perpetuation of their heritage.
Unlike most of those arrogant "anti-anything" types who search through endless
pages of imaginary coats of arms in hope of finding some sort of recognition to
their useless borrowed surname.

They can perpetuate their heritage without taking taxpayer money.

No they don't.

Yes, they do. Descriptively, as in, the laws allow them to. And normatively, as in, they should have that right.

I've gotta say, I sure am glad to live in a society where our political leaders, like Stephen Harper, believe in freedom of expression and conscience, and not in one led by intolerant authoritarians like you.

 

[john10]

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287423584953/1298042473127

Just because it seldom occurs, and hasn't in living memory in Canada, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as a measure of control over the Government if needed.

You're right that it exists formally, but in reality, they don't exercise that power. If the Queen or the Governor-General don't like some aspects of the omnibus crime bill, they won't veto it. As you noted in your original post, the PM of a majority government can effectively act as a dictator in legislative matters, if he can maintain his party's following, and as long as the laws he chooses to pass are constitutional according to the courts.

 

[Michael OLeary]

EDIT: I am well aware of the Queen's and her representatives power. But their power is not what it used to be.

Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country.

The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary

 

[lethalLemon]

Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country.

The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary

And I agree.

 

[john10]

Perhaps not, but there is a vestige which remains which is in the best interests of the people of Canada. Without that, there is one less level of control (no matter how seldom exercised) over the elected politicians running the country.

The point remains, if anyone wants to sweep away all aspects of the monarchy, how will they replace that small "safety valve", or prove to the satisfaction of all Canadians that it is unnecessary

You can still have a Governor General, but instead of being a representative of the Queen, he could be elected by some combination of the House of Commons, the Senate or even in a popular election. The idea that a check on Canadian legislative power *has* to be a monarch descended from Princess Sophia of Hanover, and who inherited his/her position by birthright, is silly (and I'm not saying that's your opinion, I'm just saying it's not an either/or proposition).

 

[57Chevy]

Hi Chevy57. Depends what we mean by "disrupt". Anything violent, illegal or physical, I disagree with. Exercising their constitutionally-protected right to express their disagreement with the institution and the trip? Absolutely.

There is nothing of political importance involved with their trip. But, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, but it's completely legitimate to disagree with the idea that this right should exist. The idea of power transmitted through hereditary birthright is utterly ridiculous to me.

You and others can disagree all you want.
I, like my fathers' father carries our surname and my son carries it further on.
....ansi comme suit.
I believe there is a very large list of the next possible heirs to the throne and that is the way it should be.
List of heirs to the British throne:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heirs_to_the_British_throne

They can perpetuate their heritage without taking taxpayer money.

When I see the costs related to exercising some peoples' perverted idea of "rights", I don't mind a tittle how
many pieces of copper it costs me to upkeep the Monarchy.

Yes, they do. Descriptively, as in, the laws allow them to. And normatively, as in, they should have that right..

Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right. And those sore people should find something better to do with their
time, or just stay home.

I've gotta say, I sure am glad to live in a society where our political leaders, like Stephen Harper, believe in freedom of expression and conscience

And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on.
But rights and freedoms should not be demented or unrightous causing
strife only for the sake of causing strife, or causing harm to innocent bystanders
who are in effect exercising their own lawfull rights of giving praise where praise warrants.

and not in one led by intolerant authoritarians like you.

I am quite the tolerant type, but I am the king of my castle.

 

[aesop081]

Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right.

Fortunately, they do have that right.

You know, the whole democracy thing. You might have heard of it. I hear allot of Canadians fought and died to keep it that way.

Violence, rioting and shyte like that, yeah, it's not on.

Protesting, thats G2G.

 

[john10]

There is nothing of political importance involved with their trip. But, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Their trip is an expression of a silly and wasteful institution. It is a completely legitimate target for expressions of disagreement. In any case, the right to freedom of expression and conscience is not dependent on the political importance of the target of that expression.

You and others can disagree all you want.
I, like my fathers' father carries our surname and my son carries it further on.
....ansi comme suit.
I believe there is a very large list of the next possible heirs to the throne and that is the way it should be.
List of heirs to the British throne:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heirs_to_the_British_throne

What does that have to do with power by birthright?

When I see the costs related to exercising some peoples' perverted idea of "rights", I don't mind a tittle how
many pieces of copper it costs me to upkeep the Monarchy.

And Canadians are entitled to disagree and to voice this disagreement to William and Kate.

Unfortunately. Yes they do have that right. And those sore people should find something better to do with their
time, or just stay home.

And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on.
But rights and freedoms should not be demented or unrightous causing
strife only for the sake of causing strife, or causing harm to innocent bystanders
who are in effect exercising their own lawfull rights of giving praise where praise warrants.

People who are protesting are doing so because they believe the monarchy is a silly and outdated institution. That is their constitutionally-protected right. It's people like you who need to grow up and stop trying to prevent others from expressing their point of view if it doesn't conform to yours.

 

[57Chevy]

Fortunately, they do have that right.

You know, the whole democracy thing. You might have heard of it. I hear allot of Canadians fought and died to keep it that way.

Yes, I know.
I was actually referring to those violently peacefull protesters whose manhandling costs
become astronomical. Like so many other protests where protesters have
exercised their idea of fundamental rights.

Even after winning or losing hockey games.

It is unfortunate that some people become violent when trying to express themselves.

 

[57Chevy]

It's people like you who need to grow up and stop trying to prevent others from expressing their point of view if it doesn't conform to yours.

But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?

Am I supposed to comform to your point of view ?

 

[john10]

But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?

Am I supposed to comform to your point of view ?

Don't confuse my disagreement with your silly assertion that Canadians do not have the right to protest the monarchy, with trying to prevent you from expressing your point of view. Living in a liberal democracy means having to put up with disagreeable points of view. I am in favour of your right to express what you believe, and the protestors' right to express what they believe.

Unfortunately, you want to deny the rights of those with whom you disagree.