RMC Officer Sues to Avoid Saluting, Toasting Queen?

[George Wallace]

Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.  

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.
Max

So?  Following your logic, we should do away with the CDS?

 

[SupersonicMax]

So?  Following your logic, we should do away with the CDS?

I never said we should do away with the Queen. 

 

[George Wallace]

I never said we should do away with the Queen. 

OK.............You got me.

So?  Following your logic, we should no longer have a CDS, because in your opinion he only plays a "symbolic" role.  He does not command anything.  I wonder if you really understand the hierarchy of the CF at all?  Who do you think the CDS is, and who do you think sits around his conference tables during "Prayers" and other "Discusion" and "Orders" Groups?  Who do you really think is the military "Driver" of the CF?  Not DND, but the CF?

 

[Occam]

Check your +/- ratio for that poll. That unscientific poll.

The vast majority of Canadians have not made this an election issue -- I'd wager that makes it moot to them -- acting in the typical, non-chalant, Canadian-like, not really care one way or the other manner.

If it's getting YOUR knickers in a twist, you are in the minority. This doesn't even cross the minority of Canadians radar as being an issue -- let alone cause the majority of Canadians to call for Her ouster.

+/- 3.1%, 19 out of 20 times.  What's unscientific about it?  

I didn't claim it was an election issue, that was your suggestion.  I pointed out to you that based on the latest poll, the majority are unsupportive of the monarchy as it exists - nothing more, nothing less.  Lots of things have very strong or very weak public support, yet remain off the table as election issues.

I also didn't say it's "getting my knickers in a twist" - would you mind explaining where you got that idea from?  My intent was merely to point out that support is declining for the monarchy, and is currently at its lowest point in Canadian history.  If the trend continues, you may well see it become an election issue.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment. 

Ostensibly Parliament, but backbenchers vote according to Cabinet instructions (or get kicked-out!), and Cabinet decisions are dominated by the PMO (esp. since Trudeau).  I really don't think the Queen has much political influence over what happens in Canada, despite her legal authority.

 

[SupersonicMax]

OK.............You got me.

So?  Following your logic, we should no longer have a CDS, because in your opinion he only plays a "symbolic" role.  He does not command anything.  I wonder if you really understand the hierarchy of the CF at all?  Who do you think the CDS is, and who do you think sits around his conference tables during "Prayers" and other "Discusion" and "Orders" Groups?  Who do you really think is the military "Driver" of the CF?  Not DND, but the CF?

The example of the CDS was just to give the crowd an example of theoratical vs practical...

 

[Cat]

Mortarman


I do beleive you can - I know when I was un public school we reaffirmed our citizenship with an oath - I have the paper somewhere saying that I did it.

I dunno what you'd have to do to arrange  it though.

 

[George Wallace]

The example of the CDS was just to give the crowd an example of theoratical vs practical...

So?  Which way do you want to "run" with him?  The same as the Queen?  Yes or No?  That is the question.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So?  Which way do you want to "run" with him?  The same as the Queen?  Yes or No?  That is the question.

I assume you didn't get my point... 

I wanted to show you what I meant by Theoratical vs Practical.  I never directly compared CDS vs Queen.... 

 

[George Wallace]

Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment. 

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.

Max

I assume you didn't get my point... 

I wanted to show you what I meant by Theoratical vs Practical.  I never directly compared CDS vs Queen.... 

Looked pretty much like you did to me.  So?  Yes or No?  Do we get rid of the CDS as your logic suggests?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Looked pretty much like you did to me.  So?  Yes or No?  Do we get rid of the CDS as your logic suggests?

Don't make my logic suggest something it didn't please, especially when I tell you it doesn't.


If you look carefuly at my post, there is a paragraph change.  I talk about the Queen and her practical power, then change paragraph, changing the focus of the conversation to the difference between theoratical/legal vs practical (powers). 

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.

Then, I give an example to clarify what I mean between theoratical/legal and practical

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.

I don't see how I implied that we should we rid of the CDS with that statement....

Max

 

[armyvern]

+/- 3.1%, 19 out of 20 times.  What's unscientific about it?  

I didn't claim it was an election issue, that was your suggestion.  I pointed out to you that based on the latest poll, the majority are unsupportive of the monarchy as it exists - nothing more, nothing less.  Lots of things have very strong or very weak public support, yet remain off the table as election issues.

I also didn't say it's "getting my knickers in a twist" - would you mind explaining where you got that idea from?  My intent was merely to point out that support is declining for the monarchy, and is currently at its lowest point in Canadian history.  If the trend continues, you may well see it become an election issue.

So, now you see that your poll is moot yes? Their own damn website tells you that the poll is unscientific.

-3.1% margin means your 53% majority could very well turn out to be 49.9% ... and that equals a "NO" vote ... even in Quebec.  

What's unscientific about them??

How about this:

53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...55 per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince Charles becomes King

53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...26% per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince William becomes King

Hmmm, what a difference the wording could make eh? Polls have leading questions.

People answered only because they were ASKED. If they had NOT been asked ... would they really have given a shit one way or the other?? I'd wager not, being that, as I already pointed out ... they sure as heck don't seem to be screaming for the Monarchy to be done away with ... nor faintly whispering either. They're not making it an issue at elections simply because, for the vast majority -- it is a NON issue.

 

[George Wallace]

OK?  I don't think you are reading what your wrote.

Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.

Now, I take it that you say the Queen has "theoratical power" over us, but the "practical power" is with the PM and Parliament.

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.

This, I take you to mean that the CDS has "theoratical power" over the CF, but the "practical power" lies with the commanders in the CF, not the CDS.

Thus, if you feel there is no need for the Queen as she only has "theoratical power" and not "practical power", then you must feel the same about the CDS and that there is no need for him as he holds "theoratical power" and not the "practical power" of the 'commanders' of the CF.  

I think you were quite clear on that sentiment.  Don't you even recognize your own logic?

 

[SupersonicMax]

This, I take you to mean that the CDS has "theoratical power" over the CF, but the "practical power" lies with the commanders in the CF, not the CDS.

For the Xth time, it was an isolated example of what is practical and what is theoratical.  We all know that the CDS also takes decision at his level.

I think you didn't understand what I meant... But that's fine, you must know better than me what I meant

Max

 

[George Wallace]

Just following the logic of your statements.   If you want to live in denial.......fine.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just following the logic of your statements.   If you want to live in denial.......fine.

I'll just smile

 

[Occam]

So, now you see that your poll is moot yes? Their own damn website tells you that the poll is unscientific.

No, I don't see how it's moot.  I also don't see where it says that it's unscientific.  Unscientific polls are those such as are found on newspaper websites.  They are inaccurate because they can be skewed for a number of reasons.  Angus Reid and Ipsos conduct scientific polls, if you do a little research into the subject.

-3.1% margin means your 53% majority could very well turn out to be 49.9% ... and that equals a "NO" vote ... even in Quebec.  

It could turn out to be 56.1%, too.  Your point?  The median of the responses is still a majority.

Hmmm, what a difference the wording could make eh? Polls have leading questions.

Now you're really reaching.  What's leading about these questions?

Q. Next, we’d like to ask you some questions about the monarchy. Under the terms of the Canadian Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Canada’s head of state. Would you support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?
Q. In the future, Prince Charles may become King of the United Kingdom and Canada. If Prince Charles does become King, would you then support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?
Q. Thinking about the future King of the United Kingdom and Canada, which of these options would you prefer?

People answered only because they were ASKED. If they had NOT been asked ... would they really have given a crap one way or the other?? I'd wager not, being that, as I already pointed out ... they sure as heck don't seem to be screaming for the Monarchy to be done away with ... nor faintly whispering either. They're not making it an issue at elections simply because, for the vast majority -- it is a NON issue.

You sure seem stuck on this "election issue" point.  You introduced it to the discussion, I didn't.  If you want me to admit that it's not an election issue, then sure - it's not an election issue...right now. 

 

[armyvern]

It could turn out to be 56.1%, too.  Your point?  The median of the responses is still a majority.

No it's not. As they point out with their -/+ rating.

Now you're really reaching.  What's leading about these questions?
...
You sure seem stuck on this "election issue" point.  You introduced it to the discussion, I didn't.  If you want me to admit that it's not an election issue, then sure - it's not an election issue...right now. 

There are many threads on this site which show how poll questions can "mislead" individuals into selecting whatever answer the pollster wants to achieve. "Should Canada be using LAV in Afghanistan" springs immediately to mind. Of course, this question was asked immediately after an accident which cost a Canadian life, and of course there was no follow on to the question to make it reflect the current reality of "Should Canada be using LAV in Afghanistan when not using them means the troops would be on foot for the most part?" You always get what you want with polls. They'd have gotten a totally different result on that poll had it reflected the actuality of the question the were asking AND it's implications. There's also many posts on this site about those of us who've found ourselves hung up upon re Afghanistan polls as soon as we answered the "type of work" lead up question with "other", to then answer "Canadian Forces" when asked to describe that "other".

No, you're right I brought up the election issue as a direct counterpoint to your stating that the majority of Canadians want to see it gone. You based that comment on ONE poll, with a small sampling. With a very ambiguous result to that poll -- quite possibly a minority as stated by the poll -/+ itself. If it were such a huge majority and such an important issue it WOULD be an election issue. It's not, right now. Nor are there even mere whispers of it being so from that vast majority of obviously way too silent Canadians for whom you are professing it is, and whom you are stating want to see the Monarchy go.

 

[Lumber]

For the Xth time, it was an isolated example of what is practical and what is theoretical.  We all know that the CDS also takes decision at his level.

I think you didn't understand what I meant... But that's fine, you must know better than me what I meant

Max

I think your statement would have been more clear if you had changed your wording from "practical power" to "practicality". In theory, the CDS could issue orders to each and every field commander, however, that would be highly unpractical. Of course altering your wording so would make your attempt to distinguish between theoretical power and practical power useless. I do agree, however, that your were in no way trying to propose that either we need to do away with the CDS or that the CDS is useless. How GW would come to this conclusion and why he would press it so far, I don't know. As soon as you said that's not at all what you meant he should have grown up and said "Sorry, didn't understand properly, thank you for clarifying."

As for what you were trying to say in regards to the Queen and her practice of power in Canada I totally agree. People keep saying how important the GG (and the Queen through her) are because it is their seal that actually brings a law into effect. However, it is parliament that actually proposes, debates, and votes on those laws. The Queen or GG never interfere with that process, and I invite anyone here to give an example of where the GG has NOT given a law royal ascent.

Now lets take a step into the hypothetical and use or imagination. Canada is about to vote in a law that is very important for Canada, but which, for some reason, the Queen absolutely objects to. She then forbids the GG from giving it royal ascent, preventing it from actually coming into law. My hypothesis: Canada requests/demands the Queen change her decision. If she does not, Canada says, well we really don't need your permission, and severs ties to the monarchy.

While hypothetical, IMO, that's how it would go. I, for one, am all for maintaining the monarchy!. It breeds cooperation and friendship with other commonwealth nations. This example, however, should exemplify the symbolic nature of the crown.

 

[vonGarvin]

I think the word you seek is "impracticable".
"It would be impracticable for the CDS to avoid using the chain of command and instead personally issue orders to all field commanders in the Army"