dChan
Anonymous ID: 0e68f6 Dec. 12, 2018, 12:56 a.m. No.4269938   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9957 >>9969

>>4268748 (PB)

Anon wrote: "Canada has her own constitution the crown is just a figure head has no real power or authority."

Yeah, we patriated our consyitution in 1982 effectively removing the power of the Privy council to make decisions for Canada. Effectively, the system was set up so that the Governor General would be the Queens representative in Canada and any governance issues like laws were to be first approved by the Privy council. Canada may have patriated our constitution but the Prime minister and members of government still swear an oath to the Queen and not to Canada.

Anonymous ID: 0e68f6 Dec. 12, 2018, 1:02 a.m. No.4269969   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4269938

The process of being sworn in as a Prime

Minister of Canada involves three separate oaths. The first

was the Oath of Allegiance:

 

I, ____, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true

allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,

Her Heirs and Successors.

So help me God.

 

The Oath of Allegiance is a requirement for assuming many

high offices in Canada as well as forming part of the Oath of

Citizenship sworn by those who wish to join the Canadian

family. The Oath of Allegiance is often taken along with other

specific oaths (as it is here). The second oath Justin Trudeau

took on Wednesday was the Oath of the Members of the

Privy Council:

 

I, ____, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall

be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the

Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in

all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully,

honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret

all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall

be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a

faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

So help me God.

 

Notice that while both oaths require sworn loyalty to the

sovereign the context is different. The first is a promise to be a

loyal Canadian, to do no harm to her Majesty (or her heirs),

and to present yourself as a friend to Canada. The second oath

is a promise (while also upholding loyalty) to do one's duty for

Canada. To finish everything off Justin Trudeau also took the

Oath of Office:

 

I, ___, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare)

that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge,

execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ………..

So help me God.

 

This is the only oath that does not require swearing some sort

of loyalty to the sovereign. This makes a bit more sense when

you consider that the office of Prime Minister is still merely primus inter pares, first among equals. You can't become

Prime Minister (or cabinet minister) without first being a

member of the Privy Council. It is this large group of Her

Majesty's advisers that Justin Trudeau became 'first among'.

 

There has been a tendency to concentrate power into the Office of the Prime Minister over the years. This slow-motion presidentialization of the office is one thing that the new

Prime Minister has promised to fix. It remains to be seen as

to whether he will follow through and become once again

first among Her Majesty's servants or continue to think of

themselves as over mighty presidential wannabes.

Anonymous ID: 0e68f6 Dec. 12, 2018, 1:41 a.m. No.4270118   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0145 >>0170 >>0182 >>0200 >>0401 >>0485 >>0574

Twitter Impose Islamic law

When Canadian columnist Anthony Furey received an email said to be from Twitter’s legal team telling him he may have broken a slew of Pakistani laws, his first instinct was to dismiss it as spam.

 

But after Googling the relevant sections of Pakistan’s penal code, the Toronto Sun op-ed editor was startled to learn he stood accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammad — a crime punishable by death in the Islamic republic — and Twitter later confirmed the correspondence was genuine.

 

His perceived offense was to post cartoons of the prophet several years ago.

 

Furey and two prominent critics of extremism in Islam say they are “shocked” to have received notices by the social media giant this past week over alleged violations of Islamabad’s laws, despite having no apparent connection to the South Asian country.

 

They say the notices amount to an effort to stifle their voices — a charge Twitter denies, arguing the notices came about as a result of “valid requests from an authorized entity,” understood to mean Pakistan, helped users “to take measures to protect their interests,” and the process is not unique to any one country.

 

But Furey is the third prominent user in the space of days to publicly complain about receiving a message linked to Pakistan.

 

The other two are Saudi-Canadian activist Ensaf Haidar and Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, a progressive Muslim scholar from Australia who was born in Iran.

 

Both are outspoken critics of religious extremism and have accused the social media giant of helping to silence progressive ideas within Islam.

 

– ‘ Validates blasphemy laws’ –

 

Furey, who detailed his experience in a column for his newspaper on Saturday, told AFP: “I’m somewhat alarmed that Twitter would even allow a country to make a complaint like this, as it almost validates their absurd blasphemy laws.”

 

The tweet in question was a collage of cartoons of Mohammad that he posted four years ago.

 

“Looking back, I remember I did it right after there had been an ISIS-inspired attack in retaliation over the cartoons,” Furey wrote in his column, adding he had not posted similar material before or since.

 

Haidar, who is the wife of Saudi writer Raif Badawi who was jailed in his country in 2012 for charges including apostasy, told AFP: “I’m very shocked by Twitter. They want to silence any voice telling the truth.”

 

Twitter wrote to her concerning an August tweet which showed a woman wearing the Islamic full veil, with the caption: “Retweet if you’re against niqab.”

 

A notice sent to her and seen by AFP advised her that Twitter had received official correspondence saying she could be violating Pakistani law for the tweet, adding: “You may wish to consult legal counsel about this matter.”

 

Tawhidi meanwhile was sent a similar notice flagging a tweet that called on Australian police to investigate extremism in mosques following a deadly knife attack in Melbourne in November.

 

The scholar attached the legal notice sent to him by Twitter informing him of possible violations of Pakistani law, and tweeted: “I am not from Pakistan nor am I a Pakistani citizen.

 

“Pakistan has no authority over what I say. Get out of here.”

Rest here: https://www.livetradingnews.com/twitter-impose-islamic-law-116043.html