Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and judicially controlled by England.

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and judicially controlled by England.

"What is happening in Canadian politics and what is the real agenda there", is a continuing exploration for me. Recently, I learned something I didn't know. Canada (and likely Australia) are still ruled by England, and very much behind the scenes.

Most Canadians would jump up and down saying that we gained independence in '67, because we got a new flag and changed the words of the National Anthem. We believe that any current references to, the 'Crown', are only symbolic and patronizing gestures of past ownership by England, but this is not true at all. England never lost its political control over Canada, and they are exercising control of our Government before our very eyes without media attention and without general awareness.

Remember in November of 2008, a 'vote of non-confidence' should have brought down the Harper Government and called for a new election under Parliamentary law? That new election was stopped by England, through their true ruler of Canada, the Governor-General, acting on behalf of the Monarch. There are many links and website to prove this and I shall leave a few below, but here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Canada's Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government.

The Crown is thus the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian government, as well as the kingpin of Canadian federalism. Though the monarch retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada, the Governor General is permitted to exercise most of this, including the Royal Prerogative, in the sovereign's name; some as outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867."

"The monarchy of Canada – also referred to as The Crown in Right of Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Canada, or The Queen in Right of Canada – is the constitutional system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of Canada,[1][2][3] forming the core, or "the most basic building block,"[4] of the country's Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.

The Governor General alone is also constitutionally mandated to summon parliament. Beyond that, the viceroy carries out the other conventional parliamentary duties in the sovereign's absence, including reading the Speech From the Throne, and proroguing and dissolving parliament. The Governor General also grants Royal Assent in the Queen's name; legally, he or she has three options: grant Royal Assent (making the bill law), withhold Royal Assent (vetoing the bill), or reserve the bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure (allowing the sovereign to personally grant or withhold assent).[54]

So here we see that the Monarchy can veto Canadian legislation, dissolve government or prorogate government (extend government without dissolving it), the later being what they did in December 2008 and what is rumored to be happening again by Harper. When Government prorogation happens, all pending Bills and legislation die. Only this is not done by Harper as the Canadian media infers, it is done by England and, 'to what agenda', is the question I'd like to leave before this group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant-Governor_%28Canada%29

(Most of my research showed that Australia followed this Canadian model, but would love to hear from any who have studied this)

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

John99,

Interesting post - you are moving into an area that is seldom discussed.  The public is only dimly aware of the Queen’s power.  The Times newspaper published a list of the richest people in the country with the queen at the top – by a long way.  Since then it has never been permitted to be publicly mentioned again, and in subsequent lists of England’s billionaires and her name is always carefully expunged.

Canadians and Australians are gaining a sense of the power the queen has over their lives as you pointed out in your post.  Americans are lagging behind in understanding her role in our country.  It should not be a secret to anyone who has studied the Federal Reserve that the all powerful New York branch of the Federal Reserve was originally owned and controlled by the House of Rothschild.  One must suspect that the control has remained in tact as we have no evidence otherwise.

You are moving towards the very pinnacle of the power pyramid that has ruled the west for hundreds of years (with the U.S. breaking free on occasions before finally succumbing).  Banking, and the creation of money, has always been the chief weapon in the feudal world that we inhabit as serfs.

I don't mean to sound rude or arrogant, but I think the greatest mystery is right before us.  Is mankind ignorant or stupid?

If man is ignorant, that may quickly change with information and truth.  If man is stupid, we will doom ourselves and future generations to debt slavery.

The power structure may seem complicated but the solution is quite simple though it has been carefully hidden from us.  The solution is for nations to issue and control their own money, free from the international banking cabal.  

Here's an interesting video, the production is not very good, maybe someone has a better reference.

Larry 

 

 

Subprime JD's picture
Subprime JD
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 17 2009
Posts: 562
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Operation Enduring Freedom

Deaths

Canada  134

Australia  11

USA   939

UK  243

Its interesting how Canada and Australia are both in Afghanistan. Even more interesting is the high no. of casualties sustained by Canada in Afghanistan. Canada has roughly 2500 troops in Afgh. The US currently has 70,000, although up until recently US had 50,000 troops. Still, Canada has a far higher death rate in AFG then the US does. Why is Canada so involved in AFG? Perhaps mother england needs her there??

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Larry, You continually amaze me with your knowledge and access to info.

On the question of stupid or ignorant, I choose the later (for the moment, cause I have flip-flopped on that one:-) that we remain in ignorance. There is of course an easy solution and it is the 'why' more people do not start to explore these issues and relieve this ignorance that perplexes me.

Read a good article about the majority of us feeling victimized and powerless - 'what can poor little me do?', and that this mentality responds very well to good news, to successes for the underdogs that can cause the spirit to rally. So I eagerly look for good news on that front to share with my group.

Thanks for the info.

John

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

bearmarkettrader,

A very good point indeed, and have a little story for that. A family member who resides in Canada told me she'd heard that Canadian soldiers were assigned to helping the Afghan people - rebuilding schools and such noble things like that.

Not two weeks later, I found myself in a social situation with new people and by chance shared a some time with a Canadian soldier, home on leave. He told a very different story, indeed, and said the Canadians are stationed along the proposed new American gas pipeline, out in a very dangerous area. He spoke of their training to 'shoot first and ask questions later' (which doesn't bode well with the Canadian psyche), and that they are continually under attack.

That might explain the numbers.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

I have to say I am surprised Canada is still a Monarchy government like ours in Australia....  I really did think Canada had won independence.

We had a coup d'etat here in 1975 when our Governor General (a drunk to boot!) sacked our government forcing an election which the opposition won.  I believe anything like this is unlikely to ever happen again, this time there would be blood in the streets!  We tried a referendum to become a Republic way back when, but our monarchic PM at the time scuttled the entire effort by ensuring the republican model that might be voted in was so poor not enough people would vote for it.....

To be honest, whilst I am a staunch republican (not a political party!) I feel we have far more important issues to deal with, like Limits to Growth.

Mike

Gibber's picture
Gibber
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 4 2008
Posts: 35
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

John Howard (ex Australian Prime Minister) committed troops to Afghanistan / Iraq.  The driving reason was to ingratiate Australia with the US to get better trade access.

Having lived in both Australia and New Zealand, I believe the New Zealand Main Stream Media focus is (maybe was) more on England that US. However, Australia has been looking to US for a loong time.

To quote from the Latham Diaries (Latham being opposition leader to Howard some years ago)

Pandemonium, simply because I called Howard an a.....licker in today's Bulletin. If anything, I was restrained - Howard has got his tongue up Bush's clacker that often the poor guy must think he's got an extra haemorrhoid

In other words, there is a view that John Howard was sucking up to the US to give better access to Australian trade.  As it happened a "free trade" agreement was signed some time after Howard committed troops. But as with all "free trade" deals. The devil is in the detail. And Australia ceded significant legal territory in that free trade agreement.

Australia has it's own High Court. While the Queen is techniclly the Head of State, in terms of political power, she doesn't carry any weight.  No Jucdical control of Australia by England. No political control of Australia by England. 

The US has more influence

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Gibber and Damnthematrix,

Thanks for the Aussie info (especially liked Latham's comments:-)

As mentioned in my research into Canada's true political structure I saw time and again Australia in a similar situation, or references sayings things like, 'as with Canada and Australia'.

Canadians believe the Queen, or the Monarchy, or 'the Crown', however the institution is referred to, is merely a figurehead with no real power, which is definitely not the case. If you have a few minutes the short video that DrKrbyLuv posted above has a very good description of how this illusion is presented to the public.

John

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Being an Ex-Brit I'll chime in.

The Queen is head of state of 16 sovereign nations

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahama's, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis.

Larry you're right about her being published as the richest person in the Times, however it was erroneous, it included many properties that she does not own, for instance the Crown Jewels, which are owned by the public, as are Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Her net worth is about $100M the only income she has is from the civil list and some small holdings around Sandringham and Balmoral. The Crown Estate Corporation runs any crown holdings other than these, and it pays roughly 6B GBP to the UK treasury annually. The Crown Land of Canada is held in trust for the Nation (Canada) and cannot be owned or sold by the Queen in any private capacity. However annually Forbes writes her up as owning $450M in assets, however most of these assets belong to the UK treasury (or the people if you prefer).

As far as her political power, she has none, not in British government. She can't even practically veto a bill. Now whether that translates across to the remaining sovereign nations I don't know because under the Westminster system certain powers can be witheld for the Monarch or their representative.

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Gungnir has it right - the Queen has no practical power and is no more than a holdover figurehead from a bygone era. Why (we) Canadians put up with this nonsense is beyond me, however it has been tradition since Confederation back in 1867. We were technically British Subjects up until 1947 and technically our highest Appeal Court was the Privy Council in England until 1949 when the Supreme Court of Canada became the highest court in the land. The idea that the Queen or her representatives hold power over the Canadian Government and its operation in just not true in any practical sense. They have nice garden parties and things like that involving the Governor General & Attorneys General of the Provinces, however nothing beyond window dressing.

If any English royalty began throwing his or her weight around in Canada, Canadians would take up arms in protest if need be.

Jim

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Hello all,

Interesting stuff...enjoyed all the posts.  I think John's thread opens the door to talk about things that don't normally show up on our radar. 

John99 wrote:

"Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and judicially controlled by England." (the Crown)

I'm sure not an expert on the royal family and have little interest in their pompous traditions.  But if the royal family is in some way connected to the Bank of England and the City of London then this subject is a relevant area of inquiry.  The people who control the Bank of England (yes, it's been nationalized but still operates privately from the City of London) also own and control the private Federal Reserve through the omnipotent New York branch.  They also own and control a great share of the central banks of the Western/NATO countries, the BIS and the IMF.

I don't see how any nation may consider itself a sovereign power if it gives up it's most important prerogative and creative opportunity - the issuance and control of it's own money.  We are client states to the international banking cartel and as we know, we are enslaved by terminal debt.  This system has been operating for at least 300 years and coincidentally, some of the same families have been ruling the roost.  

Does the Royal House of Windsor (currently ruled by the Queen) wield any political power in Canada? 

Yes.  In the U.S., we have the president who acts as the head of the executive branch.  Congress passes the laws (supposedly) and the president signs the legislation if it is agreeable and constitutional.  I think in Canada, the prime minister is the head of the legislative branch and the reigning monarch or the governor general (monarch representative) is the head of the executive branch of government in that all legislation must be approved and signed.

If you check, I think you'll find that the ruling monarch can fire the prime minister of any commonwealth country; and that no national constitutions may be changed without her consent.

While we cannot say with any certainty, how much her power has influenced public policy, it is clear that she seldom exercises her right.

Does the Queen wield any economic power in Canada?     

Hell yes!  Legally, I think that Canada's "Constitution of the Bank" establishes the Bank of Canada as a private corporate body with capital and shares.

17. (1) The capital of the Bank shall be five million dollars but may be increased from time to time pursuant to a resolution passed by the Board of Directors and approved by the Governor in Council and by Parliament.  (2) The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

The personal and corporate income taxes paid by Canadians are the profits for the Bank of Canada.  These profits go to Her Majesty and the Bank of England, absorbing more than 10% of the GNP of Canada every year ($1.274 trillion 2007 est., see StatsCan).

I don't want to get sidetracked but the IRS is privately owned; it is the collection arm of the private Federal Reserve.  Not coincidentally, it was chartered in 1913 within months of  the Federal Reserve Act.  We; Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, U.K., U.S., etc., owe the same international banking cartel interest on our public debt.

If the royal family owns/controls a piece of any of these, then they share in all of it.  The Queen controls her own "pirate coves [1]" which are tax havens for international corporations and now, the elite are legally establishing themselves as citizens of places like the Virgin Islands to avoid 40-50% income tax rates that we suffer as a result of the big nation taxation-robbery.

[1]  Pirate Cove - "Tax havens are to those engaged in tax evasion what fences are to thieves. Tax evasion is a crime. It’s not harmless cleverness and fun; it’s theft from the community you live in. Those who engage in it, and those who facilitate it, are criminals. It is time that the more determined, if not yet sufficiently aggressive, attitude and actions of the civilized world towards money laundering is extended to tax evasion through off-shore tax havens and the corrupt states/entities that live off this trade."     

How wealthy is the Queen (royal family)?

Unless you are on the "inside" there is no way of estimating the wealth of the royal family.  

"Queen Elizabeth II's shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002 ... "the reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests..." In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret."

Some bizarre stuff about the "Windsors" and the Queen

I thought that the House of Windor were native to England (U.K.) but it is officially recognised that the real name of the family is "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha."  King George V replaced the German-sounding title with that of Windsor during the First World War".  German monarchs running England?

Beatrix, the Queen of the Netherlands is also from the same family along with other monarchs.  They were principal founders of the Bilderberg Group.

Larry

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

I got into this area of study by researching the NWO, which took me to the Bilderberg Group and happened to notice that an unknown Canadian named, Stephen Harper, was an attendee in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#Canada), and then 3 years later he is Prime Minister of Canada.

Like most Canadians I have grown up believing that the Queen and the Royals are merely figureheads; remnants of bygone days and an era long over. Now I am not sure on that point at all.

The (very controlled) media would have us believe Harper is a self-made man, standing on his own convictions. I now wonder if he is rather merely a 'yes man' following orders?

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Larry

Not sure where you get your information but this stuff about taxes going to the Queen is way off base and just not true

"The personal and corporate income taxes paid by Canadians are the profits for the Bank of Canada.  These profits go to Her Majesty and the Bank of England, absorbing more than 10% of the GNP of Canada every year ($1.274 trillion 2007 est., see StatsCan)."

I wonder what Canadian taxes have to do with Bank of Canada profits. Taxes are collected by Revenue Canada - accounted for and passed over to the Federal government to pay government expenses. Anything left over is held in various bank accounts for future use or used to pay down the national debt.

Jim

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

Jim, Do you have any links or websites?

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

John - haven't had much luck finding good researched work to more clearly portray the Canadian relationship with the Queen of England -- I did grow up in and was educated in Canada and lived there for 30 years so much of what I say is from personal experience. A couple of links I did find follow:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canada-351/Canadian-independence.htm

"Canada is an independent country.  The Queen is our of head of state (technically) and has the title "Queen of Canada" amongest her other titles.  She has no power or influence except ceremonial ones.  So while we have ties to Great Britain through our history there are no ties in terms of GB being able to "tell" Canada what to do and in this way we are the same as many other british Commonwealth countries e.g. Australia, New Zealand, India, Jamaica, Nigeria.  We never "declared our independence" through war or revolution, but rather slowly took over more and more powers slowly through negotiation.  The British North America took effect on July 1st, 1867 by the British Parliament and it was this Act that created "Canada"."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/canada-independence.htm

I looked over the Wikipedia references to the relationship of Canada to the Queen of England, and while much of what is stated is technically correct, I find it extremely misleading if taken at face value.  The practical application of how things work in the Canadian system bears little resemblance to the technical facade honoring the pomp associated with the Monarchy. It is my opinion that the majority of Canadians would happily discard the last vestiges of the Monarchy and are likely to do so one day relatively soon. If the French Canadians had any say, the connections with the Monarchy would have disappeared long ago.

Jim

 

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

On a scale of legal documentation, where does a passport rank? Pretty close to the top, if not right on top, correct?

To reaffirm the assertion in the topic post, have a read of the 1st page of any Canadian passport - it says it all:

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern..., etc"

On the back page, it states, 'British Consulates may be used if no Canadian consulate offices are available'.

Now Harper has prorogued government for a 2nd time, and again this may only be done by the Governor General, on behalf of England, who constitutionally are the only ones with the right to shut down Canadian government. They are the true and hidden rulers of Canada.

We are told Harper is making these decisions, yet my increasing belief he is merely a , yes man'.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Canada (and likely Australia) are still politically and ...

A few years ago, we had a referendum to turn Australia into a Republic.  In that sense, I am a Republican.  Our then Prime Miniscule (the guy mentioned earlier with his tongue up Bush's a$$) very cleverly rigged the referendum question so as to cause many Australian Republicans to vote NO by making the appoitment/election of the President so undemocratic that it was all too unpalatable..... and the referendum was defeated.

So, the Queens remains our head of state.......  but make no mistake, if she ever tried to push her weight in any political sense here to force Australians to do things they disagreed with, there's be a revolution quick smart, and the monarchists would be quickly so outnumbered that we'd figure a way out of the monarchy.

Mike

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments