False press releases by public companies

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Ralph-Klein

"A problem drinker, Klein, under the influence, in the company of his entourage, once verbally abused homeless people, threw change at them, and spat on them at an Edmonton-area shelter. After the incident, Klein reportedly sought to end his alcoholism. Though Klein was intoxicated during the incident, this was consistent with an earlier stance on welfare he had taken, which was to offer destitute people "a bus ticket to Vancouver" to exploit the (then) more generous social assistance of British Columbia."

Compassionate Canada. The tears are overwhelming me.

This man was the governor of Alberta, or the closest thing their Queen will allow. He abused people non-stop, stole public money, drank accessively and was re-elected under the "fair" parlaimentary monarchist election system of the country. The same is true in GB. There is no way in hell Klein was in office fairly. But in countries of the empire, nobody challenges anything.

It's fun to hear about how America is such a bad place from British and Canadian people. At least our homeless don't get spat on by the and verbally abused by a drunken governator.

It's bad enough that they're homeless. Perhaps we should take the Canadian conservative party's advice and give them bus tickets to Vancouver also?

I bet none of them would go. At least here even the poorest and most destitute person has a fighting chance.

"They are not part of Britain, or an "empire" in any way at all"

The current system both in Quebec and Ontario is an extension the system described in the chart below. If you study the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms or the Charter of the French language, that is fairly evident. And so the crown corporations are under the same model. Far out of reach of the public which finances them.

It is thinly veiled. That becomes even more apparent when you converse with peoples of the First Nations which have direct contracts with the Queen and the crown which do not involve delegation of power.

"Would you like to explain exactly what is unfair about the election system in the UK or Canada?"

I could write a thesis on this topic, but I do not wish to right now.

A lot of it actually is still in effect.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1

Look at the "first ammendment" to the current constitution.

" The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

Who is the head of state of this democratic society? It is the Queen.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#codese:16

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#codese:23

Declaring an official language and enforcing it is contrary to free speech. These rights were given in the Quebec Act by the Queen and in various treaties with native american tribes.

The british gave these people these "rights" in order for them to continue to bow to the thrown. If you can't see a problem with this then you are definitely not an American and are probably used to such violations by your own government.

You should probably also know that if anyone claimed to be a viceroy to a foreign monarch in this country, and was serious about it, they would be imprisoned. I'm talking today.

"You're aware that Canada or Australia would need no consent from Westminster (or, more specificaly, the Westiminster Government) to become republics (afaik, and even if they do it's highly unlikely that permsion would be denied)?"

The Monach's viceroy of Canada has the legal right to depose(fire) the prime minister of the country. AFAIK this is true of any of the commonwealth/empire nations. The viceroy can dissolve parlaiment, and has other rights superior to those of the prime minister.

There is no federal executive branch(directly elected leadership) in these governments except for the monarch and her viceroys.

"You realise that if a member of the royal family even so much as makes a political sounding statement beyond the carefuly prepared speaches they read at new year and the like they get attacked by the press and politicians for abuse of position right?"

The Queen has the legal right to appoint people to her crown corporations or to use the money to do whatever she wishes. Most of the time this is done through appointees. The government pools the money in right of the Queen in a trust under her name. She can legally veto legislation and she can seize property by right of the federal government.

These are all within her powers.
The British monarchy had forced conscription in WWI for example.

"You're aware that if the monarch tried to even use their residual power they would be imediatly deposed of by parliament?"

The mere fact that they have residual power can be taken as an indicator that those in the commonwealth/empire countries would attempt to overthrow or succeed from the federal governments if it stood on it's own. That's why the monarch picture is still on both the paper and coin currency.

They never directly abuse the power. They do it with indirection as not to alarm the royal subjects. By mentioning royal subjects I am not using a euphemism. The people of those countries are literally royal subjects. The ministers including the Prime minister must take and honor an oath to defend the monarch and her family to the death and is inaugurated by her viceroy.

The British house of lords* is not elected, but rather appointed or selected by other wealthy members symbolic of landowners in the medieval times.

*(the upper house where the parlaiment is the lower house of government)