m Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB |
206.108.167.156 (talk) →Quebec: the 1982 constitution, coup d'etat, putsch, compact theory |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Quebec == |
== Quebec == |
||
The opening paragraphs state the Act was never "signed or ratified by the government of Quebec." The government of Quebec has no role in approving or signing federal documents; indeed, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec could not add his/her signature to a document already given Royal Assent by the Governor General or the Queen herself. The |
The opening paragraphs state the Act was never "signed or ratified by the government of Quebec." The government of Quebec has no role in approving or signing federal documents; indeed, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec could not add his/her signature to a document already given Royal Assent by the Governor General or the Queen herself. The phrasing of the sentence is misleading. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:What does this actually mean in terms of the effect of the Act? Is Quebec not bound by it? [[User:QuinnHK|QuinnHK]] 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
:What does this actually mean in terms of the effect of the Act? Is Quebec not bound by it? [[User:QuinnHK|QuinnHK]] 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
[1] The reference to Quebec's not "signing" the constitution is deliberately designed to be misleading. The ultimate intent is to destroy (dismantle) Canada for regional union with USA and Mexico. The facade being put in place is the so-called "compact theory", i.e., the idea that the provinces all "signed" some kind of agreement, to which the BNA Act of 1867 passed by UK Parliament "gives effect". The implication is that Quebec did not sign the 1982 "pact" for the "new" constitution, therefore, it is not bound. This is all scifi fantasy far outside the way that real constitutional law operates. (Moreover, there is no "compact" in Canada for many good legal reasons.) Enough said for now. |
|||
[2] The "effect" of the "act" -- referring now to the Canada Act 1982, and not to the Quebec UDI palmed off as a statute --- is that in reality, the 1982 constitution of Canada is not a constitution at all, it is a coup d'état. It was imposed unlawfully, outside the law, by persons occupying (detaining) office for purposes opposed to the lawful Constitution, i.e., it was a usurpation if you want to be kindly about it; but coup d'état is what it really was. |
|||
One of the perpetrators of the coup, Barry Lee Strayer, who advised the Trudeau putsch, admitted in a pair of Cronkite Lectures in 1982, about 6 months after the coup, that the so-called patriation was indeed illegal (you have to understand legal language in order to get that point). Strayer raises the theories of philosopher of law Hans Kelsen, used to "legitimate" coup d'états, including the 1965 Southern Rhodesian coup by Ian Smith et als. Smith and his fellow members of the initially lawful Executive, one day decided to hang onto office and simply replace the constitution with a new one of their own devising. At that point, they became a sitting COUP D'ETAT, not government. That is the general example used by Strayer to illustrate the ILLEGALITY of the 1982 "new" constitution imposed on Canada; in contrast with its "political" "success" -- simply because the putsch got away with it... or at least they have so far. The coup is still open to challenge. |
|||
The Strayer paper was been scanned (out of a Rare Books collection) and put online, along with an OCR you can read right here: |
|||
SCAN: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179088076acaee09 |
|||
OCR (with commentary): https://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.wordpress.com/ |
|||
- 30 - |
Revision as of 00:54, 20 February 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quebec
The opening paragraphs state the Act was never "signed or ratified by the government of Quebec." The government of Quebec has no role in approving or signing federal documents; indeed, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec could not add his/her signature to a document already given Royal Assent by the Governor General or the Queen herself. The phrasing of the sentence is misleading. --G2bambino 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- What does this actually mean in terms of the effect of the Act? Is Quebec not bound by it? QuinnHK 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[1] The reference to Quebec's not "signing" the constitution is deliberately designed to be misleading. The ultimate intent is to destroy (dismantle) Canada for regional union with USA and Mexico. The facade being put in place is the so-called "compact theory", i.e., the idea that the provinces all "signed" some kind of agreement, to which the BNA Act of 1867 passed by UK Parliament "gives effect". The implication is that Quebec did not sign the 1982 "pact" for the "new" constitution, therefore, it is not bound. This is all scifi fantasy far outside the way that real constitutional law operates. (Moreover, there is no "compact" in Canada for many good legal reasons.) Enough said for now.
[2] The "effect" of the "act" -- referring now to the Canada Act 1982, and not to the Quebec UDI palmed off as a statute --- is that in reality, the 1982 constitution of Canada is not a constitution at all, it is a coup d'état. It was imposed unlawfully, outside the law, by persons occupying (detaining) office for purposes opposed to the lawful Constitution, i.e., it was a usurpation if you want to be kindly about it; but coup d'état is what it really was.
One of the perpetrators of the coup, Barry Lee Strayer, who advised the Trudeau putsch, admitted in a pair of Cronkite Lectures in 1982, about 6 months after the coup, that the so-called patriation was indeed illegal (you have to understand legal language in order to get that point). Strayer raises the theories of philosopher of law Hans Kelsen, used to "legitimate" coup d'états, including the 1965 Southern Rhodesian coup by Ian Smith et als. Smith and his fellow members of the initially lawful Executive, one day decided to hang onto office and simply replace the constitution with a new one of their own devising. At that point, they became a sitting COUP D'ETAT, not government. That is the general example used by Strayer to illustrate the ILLEGALITY of the 1982 "new" constitution imposed on Canada; in contrast with its "political" "success" -- simply because the putsch got away with it... or at least they have so far. The coup is still open to challenge.
The Strayer paper was been scanned (out of a Rare Books collection) and put online, along with an OCR you can read right here:
SCAN: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179088076acaee09
OCR (with commentary): https://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.wordpress.com/
- 30 -