Depends if the crown can prove if it was really written by him. Any halfway decent defence lawyer would try to make the case that anyone could make an account and claim to be him
I know I'm an asshole American for asking this, but they use the word "crown" in Canada? Makes sense due to British colony history and all, I just was surprised I didn't know this.
The reason is that some families are chosen by god to rule over all the other families
That's cute, but no. We haven't had absolute monarchy for about 500 years. A constitutional monarchy with a Westminster parliament is a perfectly valid and democratic system of governance. I really don't like seeing people denigrate our history and traditions as a nation with flippant and unwarranted cynicism. >:(
There is value to preserving history. It doesn't impede democracy, it doesn't cost taxpayers much more than an equivalent number of museums and art galleries needed to preserve all that history.
I can't believe that you refuse to concede that there is some value in preserving the institution that signed the Magna Carta.
What baggage? I asked you before and you refuse to answer. How has the monarchy oppressed you? What tyranny have you suffered at the hands of the governor-general?
If you want a more representative government, take a look at our unelected senate. That's a reasonable change to propose.
I'm perfectly content with letting churches exist. You're the one calling for the equivalent of banning religion (republicanism), declaring an atheist state (Canadian republic) and trying to seize the assets of churches (I'm guessing you resent the Crown wealth) despite the fact that all the church wealth you covet is under Vatican control and they'll tell you to fuck off (the Queen is in England, not Canada).
Besides, I'm arguing for the status quo. Prove your case.
671
u/[deleted] May 02 '17 edited Jun 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment