[Pants-of-dog]

But you didn't.

If you are claiming that the Queen owns Canada, please give me one example of the Queen actually showing ownership of the land, or describe the legal framework that gives her ownership.

If not, perhaps the Queen does not own the land in Canada.

[SolarCross]

But you didn't.

If you are claiming that the Queen owns Canada, please give me one example of the Queen actually showing ownership of the land, or describe the legal framework that gives her ownership.

If not, perhaps the Queen does not own the land in Canada.

As monarch she owns Canada, just as she owns the UK and Australia and a number of other places. This is allodial title which is distinct from and superior to freehold title. That is how it works with kingdoms. In a republic allodial title is held by a corporate identity separately from any officers that administer it. Kingdoms however have allodial title held by a living person, the person of the monarch.

Allodial title

Land is "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth realms. Some realms (such as Australia and Canada) recognize aboriginal title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant. Some land in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, known as udal land, is held in a manner akin to allodial land in that these titles are not subject to the ultimate ownership of the Crown.

Interestingly she may not own all of Canada as it appears some land has aboriginal title.

[Pants-of-dog]

As monarch she owns Canada, just as she owns the UK and Australia and a number of other places. This is allodial title which distinct from and superior to freehold title. That is how it works with kingdoms. In a republic allodial title is held by a corporate identity separately from any officers that administer it. Kingdoms however have allodial title held by a living person, the person of the monarch.

Allodial title

This is a promising beginning. This is only a slight misuse of the terms.

Now, please note that your quoted text cites aboriginal title. Exactly how much Canadian land has been legally ceded to the Crown from indigenous groups?

[SolarCross]

This is a promising beginning. This is only a slight misuse of the terms.

Now, please note that your quoted text cites aboriginal title. Exactly how much Canadian land has been legally ceded to the Crown from indigenous groups?

Please note, that I already know that the quoted text cites aboriginal title, please note I was the one who posted the quote and also please note that I always read the quotes I post therefore don't need you to note for me that which I have already noted. (lol)

As to your question, I don't know the answer to it and do not care to find out. If it is interesting to you why don't you find out for yourself?

[Pants-of-dog]

So it is possible that the Queen does not actually own vast swathes of land in Canada. She may own little pieces here and there and most of it is actualy owned by indiegnous people.

[SolarCross]

So it is possible that the Queen does not actually own vast swathes of land in Canada. She may own little pieces here and there and most of it is actualy owned by indiegnous people.

Yes it is possible from a legal perspective.. However law as already noted is opinion married to force. The armed forces at Her Majesties disposal have considerable power whereas the aboriginals are exceedingly weak in comparison. It is a generosity on the part of the Crown to recognise aboriginal claims as equivalent to allodial title.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes it is possible from a legal perspective..

....which is what we are discussing.

However law as already noted is opinion married to force. The armed forces at Her Majesties disposal have considerable power whereas the aboriginals are exceedingly weak in comparison. It is a generosity on the part of the Crown to recognise aboriginal claims as equivalent to allodial title.

The fact that the Crown can act as a military dictatorship is not relevant to your legal claim. Such behaviour on the part of the Crown would actually contravene the laws of the Crown and of Canada.

[SolarCross]

Yes it is possible from a legal perspective..

....which is what we are discussing.

Indeed but do you understand that it is force that makes opinions into law?

However law as already noted is opinion married to force. The armed forces at Her Majesties disposal have considerable power whereas the aboriginals are exceedingly weak in comparison. It is a generosity on the part of the Crown to recognise aboriginal claims as equivalent to allodial title.

The fact that the Crown can act as a military dictatorship is not relevant to your legal claim. Such behaviour on the part of the Crown would actually contravene the laws of the Crown and of Canada.

The Crown is a military dictatorship, albeit a benign one, all governments are or they not government at all. It is relevant which way the Crown wants to play it as to whether your legal claim will stand or not, all the laws of Crown and of Canada depend upon the force at the Crown's disposal and what She makes She can unmake. They can choose to back a claim or choose to crush it, so it is a generosity on the part of the crown to recognise aboriginal title as equivalent to Her allodial title, no?

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed but do you understand that it is force that makes opinions into law?

That is one of several factors that affect law.

The Crown is a military dictatorship, albeit a benign one, all governments are or they not government at all. It is relevant which way the Crown wants to play it as to whether your legal claim will stand or not, all the laws of Crown and of Canada depend upon the force at the Crown's disposal and what She makes She can unmake. They can choose to back a claim or choose to crush it, so it is a generosity on the part of the crown to recognise aboriginal title as equivalent to Her allodial title, no?

Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

It is not a dictatorship. For someone who complained about not using language properly, this is noteworthy.

Getting back to the actual discussion, there is debate as to whether or not there is a valid legal claim to Canadian lands by the Crown.

[SolarCross]

Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

It is not a dictatorship. For someone who complained about not using language properly, this is noteworthy.

Getting back to the actual discussion, there is debate as to whether or not there is a valid legal claim to Canadian lands by the Crown.

Okay fair dinkum I was playing fast and loose with the word "dictatorship", in my defence I was being poetic to make a valid point, which I will elaborate on in a bit. Before that I will note for you that socialists also play fast and loose with this word to poetically make a point, hence the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat".. The common usage of the word is to denote government by a single individual or small group so plainly a "dictatorship of the proletariat" could not be this by the common usage of the word. Okay so to the point, government is government because it governs which it does by dictating what shall be or not be, who will pay what and what will be done or not done and people must obey if they don't want force to be visited upon them. So it is with a dictatorship...

There may be a debate on the Crown's claim on Canada but that is just a debate and just like our debate here will be entirely moot unless settled by power, if not Her Majesties Armed Forces then some other victorious armed forces, the PLA or the Russian Armed Forces.. or the US army.

[Pants-of-dog]

Or the military does not even need to be involved.

Not all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. For example, Canada did not take indigenous lands by force.

[SolarCross]

Or the military does not even need to be involved.

Not all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. For example, Canada did not take indigenous lands by force.

"Involved" is a relative term, they don't need to be involved in a direct sense but all governance relies on a military however many refined layers of civil reasoning and formalities are built atop it. Mao Zedong was absolutely correct on that one. The authorities of Britain and by extension British Canadians may not have taken indigenous lands by force, I guess they chose not to do that, but who else could enforce any legal agreements concerning them?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

Let me know when you care to discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for occupying indigenous lands.

[SolarCross]

Sure.

Let me know when you care to discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for occupying indigenous lands.

Okay but don't hold your breath, I am not that interested in the subject. Perhaps we should get back to the point of this thread? Check out the OP if you have forgotten what it was.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have already answered that question.

We then discussed it, and my last reply to you was here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=163099&start=120#p14710355

If you wish, you may pick it up from there.

[SolarCross]

I have already answered that question.

We then discussed it, and my last reply to you was here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=163099&start=120#p14710355

If you wish, you may pick it up from there.

Alright, so let me ask you why specifically do you want government to do these things that you want? What is the special ingredient that government has that charities, private companies and individuals, religious institutions and other non-government entities don't have?

[Pants-of-dog]

Actual success in the real world.

[SolarCross]

Actual success in the real world.

Meh, you obviously haven't witnessed the rolling catastrophe that is my local county council at literally everything they do.

Since you haven't worked out what is it that makes government different from other groupings of people, I'll tell you, it is force: soldiers and cops. That is what your socialism depends on.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not care about your opinion about your local county council.

I do know that I enjoy a health care system that is free at point of service, costs significantly less than more private options, and is provided by my gov't. I also know that the free market has nothing that even compares to it.

[SolarCross]

I do not care about your opinion about your local county council.

I do know that I enjoy a health care system that is free at point of service, costs significantly less than more private options, and is provided by my gov't. I also know that the free market has nothing that even compares to it.

The market doesn't get to stomp on the faces of doctors and nurses when they want a pay rise... Gov't does.