Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Jamie Armstrong <J.D.Armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:18:56 +0100
Derek Broughton wrote:
Jamie Armstrong wrote:Yes, that is precisely what I mean: whatever happens we're stuck with the monarchy (unless, as seems most unlikely, we establish the second Republic); Canadialand (along with all the former colonies) can opt out if they choose: indeed, Australia very nearly did a few years back.
Stan Brown wrote:
1. Legally all the dominions (and maybe even all the CommonwealthThis surely cannot be the case: I cannot see any way in which the
countries) have to pass enabling legislation. That is unlikely to
happen.
Falklands or Gibralter can object in any meaningful way to how we (the
British people represented by parliament) chose to alter our
constitutional arrangements - it's *our* monarchy which they
*acknowledge*.
Well, no, actually it's _our_ monarchy. I'm not sure what the actual
Canadian law is, but there was talk years ago of getting our "own" King -
back when Andrew went to school here. So I would think that you're right - you can do what you want with your laws, and we can choose to follow along,
keep the existing system (meaning that eventually your monarch wouldn't be
the same as ours) or change the system altogether.
Mind you, from what you say it seems that the Royals missed out on a trick there: syndication!! :)
<snip>
Does Canada not have an official religion?I do have mixed feelings on this: I am a complete republican (monarchy
is an absurd antiquated system) and an atheist, and yet if we *are* to
be lumbered with the system I do feel that the sexism and the religious
bias is fundamentally wrong.
That's one place where our monarchies differ - the Queen of Canada has
nothing directly to do with any of our religious institutions.
Yes indeed, and Mary as well (they were technically joint rulers after all). My bad.But this is sheer nonsense: Cantue; Harold II; William I; Henry IV;
Edward IV; Richard III; Henry VII; James I; George I: none of these were
born to be king of England.
You missed William of Orange (Williamandmary) :-)
They all either 'applied' for the job by claiming the throne or were offered it.That last point can be countered on the basis of symbolism: if sexI think this is where people don't quite get sexual (or racial) equality
equality is a good thing, then there should be roughly equal numbers
of reigning Kings and Queens.
and confuse it 'positive' discrimination: it's not saying that there
should be equal numbers of men and women (or whites and blacks) in a
position, but that each time a post is available it should be open to
anyone of who has the right qualifications and experience *irrespective*
of gender or race. It may be that every single time the WASP male is the
best candidate, but at least the process was *fair* and *open*.
Or it may be that women don't want the job. If they don't want the job
because particular pressures are applied to women _in_ that job, that's
still discrimination.
Indeed.
But if they don't want the job because they thinkYeah, like being PM!!
you'd have to be nuts to want it, that probably just means its a demeaning
job that only men are stupid enough to want...
Jamie (back from an enforced period of usenet interruptus due to a
faulty power adaptor)
That's why we have Internet at work...
Ah, but that would mean attempting to use Google Gropes, and I just find it tedious trying follow threads!
Jamie
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Derek Broughton
- Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- References:
- Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Prai Jei
- Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Stan Brown
- Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Jamie Armstrong
- Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- From: Derek Broughton
- Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- Prev by Date: Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- Next by Date: Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- Previous by thread: Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- Next by thread: Re: Tar-Ancalimë Law for Britain?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|