Constitutional Crisis In Canada

[Femacamper]

As many of you Canadians are well aware, three opposition parties in Canada are banding together to try and topple the currently democratically elected conservative government. While I am far from agreeing with the current party's policies, the opposition group, headed up by Quebec separatists, seeks to destroy what little sovereignty Canada has left in preparation for the North American Union.

Please send your feelings about this to the current powers-that-be in Canada, including, the Governor General, and your Member of Parliament (as well as other elected representatives such as your Premier, the Prime Minister and your city council.

BE ACTIVE CANADA! WE ARE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY!

The word needs to get out. Pasted below is a copy of my email send to the Governor General. Feel free to copy and paste:


Dear Governor General Michaëlle Jean,

As a Canadian citizen, I do not want a coalition party.

As I am not a member of the mainline opposition: NDP, Liberals or the Bloc Quebecois, I do not wish to have them ruling Canada as they are neither democratically elected nor popular with the Canadian people.

The Bloc Quebecois clearly has an agenda of controlling this new coalition party, and will try and separate Canada or at least wrench a lot of funding from Canada for Quebec people only. This is not democratic.

The Liberal party has a long track record of abuses and scandals including campaign lies and deliberatre financial mishandlings. Their reinstitution would not be democratic.

The NDP is not a populist party, nor does it represent the mainstream of Canadian citizens.  Their rulership would be hard-line socialist and not democratic.

Please do not allow Canada to be destroyed and dissected by American and global corporate interests pushing the coalition party and their cronies. Think about your future, your children's future - it will be destroyed by a coalition government if they were to come into power.

We do not need to go into financial doom like America has been with their excessive corporate welfare. We do not need to wage endless wars against shadowy enemies like Osama Bin Laden in far-off lands, purportedly to protect our freedoms. We do need a restoration to the way politics were done 50 years ago...with honesty, a conservative fiscal policy and military restraint.

Sincerely,

(Signature)

[Boubear]

Done

[spangler]

I'm not sure I go along with the idea that these parties are engaging in something undemocratic. You could argue that they are restoring democracy to the system. The Harper government is after all a minority government. That means the majority of Canadians go without representation. Should this maneuver succeed the majority of Canadians will have representation, albeit uneven.

I believe this parliamentary maneuver may be a coup but not a coup in the way (some) Canadians think it is.

I think it might be a little more sinister, more subterranean, more of a threat to Canadian democracy than we think.

All three of these parties are in opposition to the majority of Canadians on the key issue of global warming. Canadians do not want to combat global warming if it means personal sacrifices.  Take the B.C. carbon tax for example.

On this point at least, Canadians are represented by Harper. Harper to his credit opposes any serious measures against global warming.
In fact he campaigned against Dion's carbon tax.
 
Is this a "coup" designed to advance the elites' global warming agenda these three parties advocate by removing the Harper obstacle and bring Canada into a global system of carbon taxes, credits, courts and limits as is being discussed now and previously - despite the will of the Canadian people?

[L2Design]

I keep trying to open the eyes of an aunt in Alberta...

But she think its not affecting Canada...

[Norrin]

Nope.  Harper is the worst thing for Canada right now.  You're on the wrong side of this one, FemaCamper.  He's gotta go. 

[Boubear]

Nope.  Harper is the worst thing for Canada right now.  You're on the wrong side of this one, FemaCamper.  He's gotta go. 

Harper was the elected PM even if he did have a minority.  If the government fails then we should have new election, simple as that. 

[Lex_Quadruplator]

Constitutional crisis? Democracy?

LOL Let's first get a couple of facts straight here people!!!

A: "Canada" is a corporation created by the union of corporate bodies known as "provinces" through the British charter of incorporation called the BNA Act.

B: The "government" of Canada is a corporation known as the "Queen/Regina/Crown" in that, in legalese, when we speak of the Queen, we are making a reference to the personification of an office in which is found the undertaking of "government" that is, the Queen holds the executive office of government and majesty royal and is the sovereign having authority of and over "Canada" (in right) and all Canadians are considered her "subjects".

C: The Governor General and Prime Minister are merely executive officers within her government carrying on the government on her behalf and in her name. 


Constitutional crisis? The British instrument of incorporation (constitution) that created the corporation along with its corporate structure, limited powers and so on is not in crisis.

Democracy? The only thing that might resemble democracy in Canada is the choosing of executive officers who will administer the "government" on behalf and in the name of the Queen. Again, this on the behalf and in the name of the Queen, not her "subjects"!!!

What we have here is an argument between governmental actors as to who should be acting on behalf and in the name of the Queen. And since it's on her behalf and in her name, she will have the final say (through her Governor General). As for the Queen, this will be a question as to the internal functions of her parliament, yet another corporation.

Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

[Norrin]

Harper was the elected PM even if he did have a minority.  If the government fails then we should have new election, simple as that. 

No, Harper was NOT elected PM.  The only people who voted for Stephen Harper were the people in his riding.  We do not vote for Prime Ministers in our elections, we vote for Members of Parliament, who choose a PM from amongst themselves.  That's how it works, that's how it's always worked. 

What you are overlooking is the fact that only 38% of Canadians voted for the Conservatives.  The other 62% voted Liberal or NDP, in essence, splitting the left vote in half.  These two parties decided to work together and combine our votes to take control away from a megalomaniacal buffoon before he completely destroys the country. 

The 62% of Canadians who did not vote Conservative are showing strong support for this move.

[RickT]

I was just comfortable with Harper being a slight counterweight to a President Obama.  While we know these people are controlled, they do have play their role from time to time.

Unabashed leftists completely running Canada and the US is disturbing to me.  Canada will take such a drastic turn to the left under this coalition that we'll never come back toward what can be even considered the center.  Greenshift, complete gun banning, crazy spending, a government program for everything, government knows best etc... here we come.

As for popular vote, that's the nature of multiparty systems.  Chretien never got more than 41% of the vote in 3 elections.

My worst nightmare used to be PM Dion and President Obama or PM Harper and President McCain (or Palin)... little did I know my nightmare was just a blip in comparison to reality.

[Matt Hatter]

I think all 4 parties should merge together to form just one government.   

[Freeski]

I think all 4 parties should merge together to form just one government.   

Done.

[RickT]

The GG just allowed Harper to prorogue government until January 26th, a Budget will come down right away.

OK... that's alright.

[Lex_Quadruplator]

It is to note that the act of proroguing that is, the act of terminating a session of parliament is a right that belongs entirely to the Queen (crown). And of course this is why it had to be done by the Governor General who carries on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen.

----------
Parliament of Canada Act -- CHAPTER P-1

Prerogative saved

3. Nothing in section 2 alters or abridges the power of the Crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament.
----------
Governor General's Act -- CHAPTER G-9

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL

Corporation sole

2. The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.
----------

Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

[RickT]

It is to note that the act of proroguing that is, the act of terminating a session of parliament is a right that belongs entirely to the Queen (crown). And of course this is why it had to be done by the Governor General who carries on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen.

I would hope Canadians would know what the GG's job is.  I don't think it's news or a surprise that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth.

[Freeski]

I would hope Canadians would know what the GG's job is.  I don't think it's news or a surprise that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth.

This just gives the Queen dictatorial power over Canada, but only if she wants it.

[plantop14]

This just gives the Queen dictatorial power over Canada, but only if she wants it.

Free, ya'll should've revolted against those royal f--ks a long time ago! When we lived up in New Brunswick, Prince "PUSSY" Charles came through Fredericton one day and my wife dared to ask me to go and see this jerk off ride by in a motorcade................well with my Texan ass you could only imagine what my reply was...............and, hell no I didn't waste my time standing on the side of the f--king road waving to this loser!!!!!!

[Hagbard Celine]

I agree with the coalition government,furthermore I agree with the idea of Quebec finally getting out of the protectionism of Canada.Isn't sovereignty what we're trying to preserve or or am I wrong?

Without being run by the same federal government anymore,Quebec and Canada could become two strong allys through better relations.Believe me they're never gonna work it out.Imagine two coworkers sharing the same paycheck but one party wanting a bigger parts


Last elections seats won:    

Stephen Harper (Conservative leader) 143    

Stephane Dion (Liberal Party) 77    

Dilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois<<Separatists) 49     <<<<<49 seats these guys represent a lot of people.

Jack Layton (NDP)  37


conservative parties = the enemy.

[barndoor77]

I'm not sure I go along with the idea that these parties are engaging in something undemocratic. You could argue that they are restoring democracy to the system. The Harper government is after all a minority government. That means the majority of Canadians go without representation. Should this maneuver succeed the majority of Canadians will have representation, albeit uneven.

I believe this parliamentary maneuver may be a coup but not a coup in the way (some) Canadians think it is.

I think it might be a little more sinister, more subterranean, more of a threat to Canadian democracy than we think.

All three of these parties are in opposition to the majority of Canadians on the key issue of global warming. Canadians do not want to combat global warming if it means personal sacrifices.  Take the B.C. carbon tax for example.

On this point at least, Canadians are represented by Harper. Harper to his credit opposes any serious measures against global warming.
In fact he campaigned against Dion's carbon tax.
 
Is this a "coup" designed to advance the elites' global warming agenda these three parties advocate by removing the Harper obstacle and bring Canada into a global system of carbon taxes, credits, courts and limits as is being discussed now and previously - despite the will of the Canadian people?

Tell you what if its REALLY democratic, lets have an election and see if:
 - Liberal Voters Like Bloc pushing their party around.
 - NDP Voters Like Bloc (or Liberal) agendas pushing their party around.
 - And lets see if Voters who vote for Bloc like the idea.

And the only way to do that is have an election.

If the people want that for their country, then let them have it.

IMHO this is the first step in breaking up the country.  If their is another referendum,  this time Quebec WILL separate.

And you want to know what?  The radio stations in Alberta are already priming the public to seriously move and study how to take Manitoba, SK and BC and break apart.

Ontario and the Maritimes would end up STARVED for cash - without their nice oil revenue bailouts that Alberta has been giving them for the last 30 years.  So they would quickly end up being absorbed in the United States.

And all that would be required is one more Rent-A-False-Flag...

[Norrin]

I need someone to find a link that proves that permission to suspend parliament (or prorogue) comes directly from the Queen of England.  Trying to convince idiots over here.

[xfahctor]

I need someone to find a link that proves that permission to suspend parliament (or prorogue) comes directly from the Queen of England.  Trying to convince idiots over here.

Almost everyone I talk to in Canada swears up and down the queen has no authority there anymore and that the GG is basicly a ghost monarch. I'd love a link too because my ex girlfriend, who is Canadian, always swore the Queen still had ultimate authority in Canada. So I'm REALLY confused.

[xfahctor]

I need someone to find a link that proves that permission to suspend parliament (or prorogue) comes directly from the Queen of England.  Trying to convince idiots over here.

While not specificly what your looking for, , here's a little tidbit:
http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page5179.asp

[xfahctor]

BINGO!
http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/p5_e.asp

[IridiumKEPfactor]

I need someone to find a link that proves that permission to suspend parliament (or prorogue) comes directly from the Queen of England.  Trying to convince idiots over here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B34BC20081204

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a rare suspension of Parliament on Thursday, managing to avoid being ousted by opposition parties angry over the minority Conservative government's economic plans and an attempt to cut off party financing.

Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state -- agreed to Harper's request to shut down Parliament until Jan 26. Parliament was reconvened just weeks ago after the October 14 election.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html


constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation

Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.



chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Michaelle JEAN (since 27 September 2005)
head of government: Prime Minister Stephen HARPER (since 6 February 2006) cabinet: Federal Ministry chosen by the prime minister usually from among the members of his own party sitting in Parliament
elections: the monarchy is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister for a five-year term; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition in the House of Commons is automatically designated prime minister by the governor general


The Queen is the Chief of state. The head of the government is Steven Harper.

[IridiumKEPfactor]

Queen Elizebeth II is the Head of State of the UK, Canada, New Zealand the Faklands and Australia plus some other pieces of land.

[Suck1tUp]

I would hope Canadians would know what the GG's job is.  I don't think it's news or a surprise that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth.

Yeah, the Receiver General steals all your money then the Governor General guards all the loot for his masters across the pond 

[DAVIDE MTL]

the way I see it, scammer parties 2, 3, and 4 are trying to take over scammer party 1, why they're doing this who knows....but I see it futile to sign any petition for this matter

[Dig]

Here are the key issues to look for...

Consolidation of Power v. transfer of power to more local/individual rights.

Anything else is a side show for monkeys.

[Revolt426]

The Prime Minister must "ask" the Queen of England to dissolve or suspend parliament, more like the Queen demands in reality but yes, the Queen runs Canada.

[Revolt426]

Queen Elizebeth II is the Head of State of the UK, Canada, New Zealand the Faklands and Australia plus some other pieces of land.

BINGO - and when you see things in certain major newspapers from these counties it is the British Propaganda machine, Australia yesterday called for an Indian attack on Pakistan since "The U.S. does it all the time" (paraphrase).

[Xill]

The Bloc Quebecois clearly has an agenda of controlling this new coalition party, and will try and separate Canada or at least wrench a lot of funding from Canada for Quebec people only. This is not democratic.

lol not democratic? The bloc is the last remnant of Democracy in Canada, the entire rest is a bunch of bureaucrats that follows the industrial lobbies' decisions; The Bloc has a mission, they follow a path toward a vision we will never gave up on. Ideas are bullet proof. We have a vision our future, the dream of creating a nation that represent our own uniqueness in creativity, there is nothing more inspiring. Independence is strength; Canada is falling into communism and since it wont save itself we will have to save ourselves from it.

[Revolt426]

I am not from Canada but in order to save your liberty you must sever ties with the British Common Wealth, they own you.

[Lex_Quadruplator]

Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.

Very few Canadians understand what is meant by "a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution" which is a real tragedy.

In legalese, the statement has a very specific meaning. In short, the statement says that the government is a corporation. To be a little more specific, it says that the government is the Queen (monarch).

Now let's expand on that.

First and foremost, people need to understand that the Queen is the "federal government". Federal Government = Queen or Queen = Federal Government.

----------
Criminal Code -- CHAPTER C-46

"government" means

(a) the Government of Canada,

(b) the government of a province, or

(c) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province;
----------


Now as most people associate the word Queen to that of a human being, in law, the "Queen" is a reference to a corporation, the personification of an office in which is found the undertaking of "government" (to govern/to steer).


----------
B.C. v. R., 1992 CanLII 164 (BC S.C.)

According to the common law the Queen is both a physical person and a non-statutory corporation sole: J.E. Verreault v. Fils Lté v. Attorney General of Quebec,[1977] 1 S.C.R. 41 at 47; Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque, 1980 CanLII 24 (S.C.C.), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057 at 1082; Attorney General of Canada v. Newfield Seed Ltd. (reflex-logo) reflex, (1989), 63 D.L.R. (4th) 644 at 660-1 (Sask. C.A.). See also Crown Law, P.Lordon, Q.C., 1991, pp.4-5.
----------
Penney v. Lahey, 2002 NFCA 47 (CanLII)

[2] The most salient aspect of the corporation sole which needs to be kept in mind in addressing this appeal is that it personifies the office held by its successive individual office holders from time to time, and the undertaking of that office. This aspect is succinctly explained in the first edition of Professor L.C.B. Gower's text, The Principles of Modern Company Law (1954) Stevens & Sons, London, where, in distinguishing the natures of corporations aggregate and sole, he stated at p. 62:

... the idea behind the corporation sole is the same as that underlying the corporation aggregate, the personification of the undertaking as opposed to the natural persons operating it from time to time. In the case of the corporation aggregate it is the undertaking which is personified to distinguish it from its members; in the case of the corporation sole it is the office (of bishop, vicar or the like) which is personified to distinguish it from the individual holder from time to time. It should be stressed, however, that the distinction between the two kinds of corporation has no necessary connection with the number of members; a company is a corporation aggregate, not sole, even though it may be a one-man company.
----------
The Century Dictionary

King

The office of king is now, as a rule, hereditary in principle; but in former times it was often elective, or in some manner the subject of choice or selection.
----------


Indeed my friends The King Never Dies!!!! While the human being might die, the body politic (corporation) attached to the human being enjoys absolute immortality.


----------
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone

Book I:   Rights of Persons

Chap.   7:  Of the King's Prerogative

"A THIRD attribute of the king's majesty is his perpetuity. The law ascribes to him, in his political capacity, an absolute immortality. The king never dies. Henry, Edward, or George may die; but the king survives them all. For immediately upon the decease of the reigning prince in his natural capacity, his kingship or imperial dignity, by act of law, without any interregnum or interval, is vested at once in his heir; who, is, eo instanti, king to all intents and purposes. And so tender is the law of supposing even a possibility of his death, that his natural dissolution is generally called his demise; demissio regis, vel, coronae: an expression which signifies merely a transfer of property; for, as is observed in Plowden,25 when we say the demise of the crown, we mean only that in consequence of the disunion of the king's body natural from his body politic, the kingdom is transferred or demised to his successor; and so the royal dignity remains perpetual."
----------
Case of the Duchy of Lancaster (1561), cited in Maitland, supra note 12, at 134

"[T]he [king] has a body natural adorned and invested with the estate and dignity royal, and he has not a body natural distinct and divided by itself from the office and dignity royal, but a body natural and a body politic together indivisible, and these two bodies are incorporated in one person and make one body and not divers, that is, the body corporate in the body natural et e contra the body natural in the body corporate. So that the body natural by the conjunction of the body politic to it (which body politic contains the office, government and majesty royal) is magnified and by the said consolidation hath in it the body politic."
----------


And so please note that while everyone here is talking about a little old lady, the lawyers are talking about a corporation limited by its constitution.

chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Michaelle JEAN (since 27 September 2005)
head of government: Prime Minister Stephen HARPER (since 6 February 2006) cabinet: Federal Ministry chosen by the prime minister usually from among the members of his own party sitting in Parliament
elections: the monarchy is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister for a five-year term; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition in the House of Commons is automatically designated prime minister by the governor general


The Queen is the Chief of state. The head of the government is Steven Harper.

The Queen holds the executive office of government and majesty royal and is the sovereign having authority of and over "Canada" (in right) and all Canadians are considered her "subjects".


----------
Constitution Act, 1867

III.   EXECUTIVE POWER

9.  The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

10.  The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.
----------
Criminal Code -- CHAPTER C-46

Definition

(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby

(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or

(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
----------


The Queen's government (corporation) is made up of different departments and the heads (officers) of these departments are called ministers. The Prime Minister is the leader of these heads of departments (which collectively is called the executive administration). All ministers are executive officers within the Queen's government carrying on the government on behalf and in the name of the Queen.


----------
The Century Dictionary

minister

3. In politics: (a) One of the persons appointed by the sovereign or chief magistrate of a country as the responsible heads of the different departments of the government; a minister of state: as, the minister of foreign affairs, of the interior, of finance, of war, of justice, etc. These officers constitute the ministry or executive department of the government; at their head is the prime (first) minister, or premier, the immediate deputy or representative of the sovereign or chief magistrate; he and other ministers, selected by him, are called collectively, as his coordinate advisers in matters of policy, the cabinet.
Minister is used in most European countries as the official title of all heads of departments, but in Great Britain only in a generic sense (as, a minister of the crown), the individual ministers being officially designated the secretary of state for foreign affairs, for war, for the colonies, etc., or by other titles, as chancellor of the exchequer (minister of finance). In the government of the United States the title minister is not used at all, and there is no ministry; the
corresponding officers, differing from the preceding both in mode of appointment and degree of power and responsibility, are called secretaries (of state, of the interior, of the treasury, of war, of the navy, of agriculture), post-master-general, and attorney-general. see cabinet, 4.
----------
A Law Dictionary
by John Bouvier

MINISTER, government. An officer who is placed near the sovereign, and is invested with the administration of some one of the principal branches of the government.

2. Ministers are responsible to the king or other supreme magistrate who has appointed them. 4 Conn. 134.
----------


It's all about corporations and their corporate structures my friends. The state is a corporation, a province is a corporation, the government is a corporation, the Queen is a corporation and even Parliament is a corporation.



----------
U.S. Supreme Court

CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

"The only law concerning corporations, to which I conceive the least reference is to be had, is the common law of England on that subject. I need not repeat the observations I made in respect to the operation of that law in this country. The word 'corporations,' in its largest sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be restricted or transcendant, is in this sense 'a corporation.' The King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29. b. So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement, 1Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not only each State singly, but even the United States may without impropriety be termed "corporations."

"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of powers.""
----------


To properly understand the law and politics is the understanding of corporations and their corporate structures.


Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

[Lex_Quadruplator]

Almost everyone I talk to in Canada swears up and down the queen has no authority there anymore and that the GG is basicly a ghost monarch. I'd love a link too because my ex girlfriend, who is Canadian, always swore the Queen still had ultimate authority in Canada. So I'm REALLY confused.

What better authority on the subject but the law itself???

Keep in mind that "Queen/Regina/Crown" are all one and the same.

----------
Parliament of Canada Act -- CHAPTER P-1

Prerogative saved

3. Nothing in section 2 alters or abridges the power of the Crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament.
----------
Constitution Act, 1867

III.   EXECUTIVE POWER

9.  The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

10.  The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.
----------


You can even point out to them that all Canadian armed forces BELONGS to the Queen!!! We're just raising them for her. How's that for "authority"?? lol


----------
Criminal Code -- CHAPTER C-46

"Canadian Forces" means the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada;

"Her Majesty's Forces" means the naval, army and air forces of Her Majesty wherever raised, and includes the Canadian Forces;
----------


Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

[Just_me]

I am shocked to see the disinformation spread in this thread and others going along with it.

While I am far from agreeing with the current party's policies, the opposition group, headed up by Quebec separatists

The opposition group is led by Stéphane Dion of the liberal party and includes all 3 opposition parties: Liberal, NDP and Bloc québécois (Quebec separatists). This opposition was created after Harper's constant bullying didn't target only canadian people but other political parties as well, as he tried to cut political funding which would result in a small cut for his own party but huge cuts for the others.

I am, myself, a Quebec separatist that has become so because of the direction Canada is taking. It is slowly - but steadily - being assimilated as a US state since the conservative party took power. Harper was for the Iraq invasion and did everything he could to force Canada into it but, at the time, he was in the opposition.

Since he was elected, he constantly pushed his police state agenda, up to even talking about the possibility death penalty. Basically, he represents the destruction of Canada as i know it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a Quebecer, the only way to face the NWO is to separate from Canada since that country has already been hijacked. They tried to highjack Quebec as well with the provincial party ADQ which was rejected by Quebec and is now heading down the drain (they think they'll get 12% of the vote in the Quebec december 8th election).

It's interesting to see how agents of the NWO have infiltrated this forum and spread their pro-NWO agenda.

Femacamper and all the others, you have been exposed.

Rest assure Femacamper, Quebec will resist you and your NWO.

[Lex_Quadruplator]

I would hope Canadians would know what the GG's job is.  I don't think it's news or a surprise that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth.

I'll bet you that most Canadians have no idea that the "Governor General" is in fact a corporation, the personification of an office and subsequently its undertaking, an artificial person. Or that people are acting on behalf of this separate entity said to having its own rights and obligations. In fact, I bet you I've already lost most of the readers as they are ignorant (by design) not only of the fact that we are dealing with corporations but what they are and how they are used.

----------
Governor General's Act -- CHAPTER G-9

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL

Corporation sole

2. The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.
----------


Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

[Hagbard Celine]

My point in this topic is that you have to be careful as to what to think about what corporate medias and society as a whole labels as "dangerous to", "might lead to"   and as most of you already know using the word "terrorism"... etc  Most of the time it means much more to the political actors that to what the population itself really wants.I'm tired of the bogus placebo answers I've been dictated/constrained to use.I want to go my own way.

Most of the concern about creating a separate nation for Quebec were about the rise of nationalism in it's worst form,racism.Then they came with the sudden idea that Canada will lose so much money over it,that even on the far side of Canada,people could lose their whole life's savings.Do I need to mention this was all concocted theories by the government propaganda machine,bet you knew it.

People don't just turncoat overnight and go kill their Anglo-speaking neighbor when they just received freedom don't they?

Economic partnerships,when it comes to the breaking of a nation's constitutional agreement is basically undocumented apart from some World Bank/United Nation's crap which we all don't want,which is good for both party in order to keep the situation at the same level of stability,all it needs is good will from both sides.

Now why would anyone want you to overlook thinking about that?


The "agenda" is freedom,the "idea" is equality and yet the opposing side go most people believing there is an apocalyptic outcome to this.


Direct influence from the "Crown" is undeniable in Canada,just as well as the free spirit of American and French people is undeniably imprinted in the Quebec society.

[RickT]

I'll bet you that most Canadians have no idea that the "Governor General" is in fact a corporation, the personification of an office and subsequently its undertaking, an artificial person. Or that people are acting on behalf of this separate entity said to having its own rights and obligations. In fact, I bet you I've already lost most of the readers as they are ignorant (by design) not only of the fact that we are dealing with corporations but what they are and how they are used.

----------
Governor General's Act -- CHAPTER G-9

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL

Corporation sole

2. The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.
----------


Lex Quadruplator

The Corporate Lie
www.lexquadruplator.org

How about Canada and Japan being SEC registered companies: (probably more countries too)

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000230098&owner=include&count=40

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000837056&owner=include&count=40

I assume you've looked up "corporation sole"?  Isn't that terrifying in the grand scheme of things to be freaked out about.

[Just_me]

The "agenda" is freedom,the "idea" is equality and yet the opposing side go most people believing there is an apocalyptic outcome to this.

The context is also extremely different from what it was 10 years ago. My agenda is freedom but the separation of Quebec is not as much for freedom as it is jumping down a sinking ship.

When a ship is sinking, you take lifeboats and take your chance with the sea and it's sharks and other dangers. That is Quebec's current context, in 2008, as Harper is subverting and destroying Canada as we know it.

We already know how far down that ship is gonna sink: assimilation into the US at it's level of a police state (ie, get life in prison for stealing a chocolate bar as it happened in California), wars, flag-worshipping, blind patriotism...

I'd wish it was freedom and creating a free country called Quebec... but it's more: sauve-qui-peut, or in english: everyone for himself.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'd like to push this further and warn people that in fact,opposing to Quebec sovereignty is a move towards the dreaded North-American Union.Why would that be?

Well first because it is true that this province is by far the ideal candidate for pursuing such a goal thanks to it's high level of tolerance  towards individual freedoms and multicultural society model which is by far the most diverse on the planet.Basically,if the next guy doesn't bother you,he's o.k,sounds pretty Libertine right?Well the "Crown" doesn't appreciate that word because it means otherwise than slavery.

 
In order to preserve,you must also create and not destroy,same goes for freedom,but same goes for power.The Monarchs have always understood this and have always through history gradually separated the power over land,people,money while not forgetting to heighten their own up until the point where they had to start pretending they don't have any left anymore...Then why am I in this debate today?

Because a world government is the final stage in acquiring all powers and leave no one else but you to blame when things go wrong.

Hell,they are already blaming separatists in Quebec for breaking something that as far as I know,is not broken.

Don't fall for government propaganda,they are still trying to lead the ball against the will of people you know.

[RickT]

Just_me, if Quebec is so free of NWO influence, why do so many of our PMs come from there and why is DesMarais such a big player amongst NWO elites.

Quebec appears to me to be ground 0 for NWO roots and influence in Canada.

Oh and are you aware Canada was never asked to go into Iraq... we were asked for more troops for Afghanistan, which Chretien gladly provided.  JTF2 commandos also went to Iraq, but nobody can formally ask about them and if you count our Navy, we were actually the 3rd largest force who participated in Shock & Awe. 

Chretien runs around lying about keeping us out of the Iraq War.