Canada is under a dictatorship, not a democracy!!!

To Yoni, I send appreciation for your interest in Canadian topics, as well. Especially on such influential levels as this. By the comments made, there is overwhelming attention put on American content. This promotes ignorance towards the attempts made to bring consciousness to global issues with common concerns. Hopefully, we can help change this! To the audience, I send my appreciation for your time and interest to observe such an issue as what we are debating on and hope that you will find the value of confirmation which brings clarity to what one believes, with promotion to end unconfirmed acceptance without resistant, which would allow validation. First let me state, Lest we forget, that the history of this nation called Canada is not without great atrocities by European governments (particularly Britain) to claim a land from a people at their expense with attempts to wipe out their identity, pervert and deceive the people concerning this history, and then claim its wealth and resources for concentrated and selfish motives. This makes such a claim as mine, concerning the governmental operation of the Canadian system to be constituted under a dictatorship, considerably possible and to be evaluated with great scrutiny independent of common ideology dictated by the same interests which had orchestrated atrocities done to the original occupants and governors of these lands once called Kanata, today referred to as Canada. As stated in the introduction of the Constitution of Canada, under the Declaration of the UNION that, "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare …" This stipulates the terms of the language which is not standard English, but legal terminology. This form of communication allows regulation through Commercial Law, which is often considered to be a branch of civil law and deals both with issues of private law and public law. This allows the dictation of this declaration to be of a business nature. With this in mind, allow me to refer us to a section of the constitution which states in its introduction, prior to the Preliminary and above excerpt: "And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire…" This is an indicator that identifies a system of governing which does not recognize the ‘citizens' of Canada as holding power. The progress, success, and accumulation of wealth to be evenly distributed amongst the people of Canada are not in the sole interests of those which have allegiance to a Democratic Canada. As for the democracy my opponent so readily promotes and regards as the system of government Canada has demonstrated to ALL people, instead of just proclaiming by word and writing, but with hypocrisy in its deeds. Democracy: 1. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. 2. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Once it is not vested in the people, which defines Democracy, is there a point on continuing with a play on words to stimulate debate on whether there is representation for the people or not? If the power is not vested in the people, they have no option to exercise it directly or indirectly. Representation would be towards the interests of the British Empire as stated in the constitution, which is governed by the Queen whom holds ALL power: Authority of and over… vested in the Queen. My opponent stated, "Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy." By her own words this is a demonstration of hypocrisy with the terms democratic and monarchy, exposing the deception of a supposed Democracy. Monarchy: 1. a form of government in which supreme authority is held by a single hereditary ruler, such as a king 2. supreme power and authority held by one person; autocracy. Democracy is a majority, being the people, having the power vested in them. Vested:1. (Law) Settled, fixed, or absolute; being without contingency. Meaning there is no getting around it, it either is, based on this criteria stated in the definition, or it is not! My opponent makes much reference to ‘symbolism' in her explanation of the governing body. "Every system of government has an official who acts as a symbolic embodiment of the state…" "In Canada's case, a Symbolic Executive." There is no declaration or statement within the constitution that gives reference to any of what she stated as being ‘symbolic.' On the contrary, it is particular and literally stated with defined terms and references to be clear what it states, considering the gravity of the issue: governing law of a nation and its occupants! The constitution was not symbolic, nor any aspect of it, but proclaimed. Proclaim:1. To announce officially and publicly; declare. 2. To indicate conspicuously; make plain. "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada…" My opponent stated, "…the Queen as a figure with extremely limited power." However, the constitution states otherwise. She claims that it is limited by, "parliament and law." What law? Separate from the Democracy you claim? As for parliament, according to the constitution: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." With the Queen being part of Parliament and all power is vested in Her, with the power exercised by Parliament being only through the Act of Parliament, who authorizes this process? The Queen of Canada does! As for my opponents reference to a speech made by the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, as my opponent stated, "…the Government shares its vision with Canadians." Well, that vision has become more of a strategy to maintain an ignorance towards the factual perception of the Canadian Constitution from being evaluated with understanding of the terminology chosen without interpretation of other terms which pervert the true definition. Such a strategy is not new to Canada, the aboriginals have a chapter in their history which brought about the deception and proclaiming over their rights and lands. Not to mention who the Governor General is to the Queen. She is one which acts on behalf and in the Name of the Queen. Which is a powerless entity on its own, it has no power except that which is given, for the purpose of exercising it in the interest of whom she represents, being the Queen. My sources are all the same, actual excerpts from the Canadian Constitution without prior interpretation. This gives a plain look at what we are evaluating and the validity of my research. As much as my opponent expressed in the last paragraph of her statement, her resistance to consideration on whether Canada is running under a dictatorship, the reality is that it must be considered. With consideration, the evaluation must be in the context which the laws were designed. Otherwise, it can maintain ignorance to how our government is functioning. The question may arise to those viewing this debate, "why a dictatorship?" As it was said by Michael Corleone, a character in the movie, The Godfather I, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business..." Sources: http://laws.justice.gc.ca... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.merriam-webster.co...