Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

Good evening-- nearly morning :) I look forward to the last round, and wish you a good night. Same format: "You keep making statements as a indoctrinated person would without any documents ; claiming you don,t need any proving that you are indoctrinated. If you had documents to back up your claims you could then claim you based your statements on them, and were not indoctrinated; but you refuse to do that. I wonder why you want to demonstrate how indoctrinated and uninformed you are about Canadian politics . It took the government 100 years of propaganda to indoctrinate the people and it seems like it will take you that long to understand Canadian politics. Read the Synagogue of Satan and you may understand how the government works on their principal." I think 5 rounds may be a bit much for this debate, the simple reason being that you are quite literally refusing to consider any of the empirical evidence which I have laid before you as documentation to my claim that the Canadian government is, in fact, a practicing democratic mechanism. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again (where's my parliamentary document proving that Canada ditched England permanently?) without actually stating what is inaccurate about my portrayal of the system of government. Does Canada not have a parliamentary system? Are those members not elected by Canadian citizens? Is the PM not an appointed member of parliament from the largest represented political party within the legislative branch? What am I misconstruing about Canadian politics? You are, funnily enough, doing precisely what you can only accuse me of. You are repeating the same unwarranted claim over and over again, and hoping for a different result. "You state in your research you have not found any notation of sovereignty exist ; and yet haven't the ??? to understand sovereignty is a requirement before a democracy can be established. Their is nothing in a dictatorship that stops that government from operating like the Canadian parliament, assuming power, allowing elections, as long as those elected swear allegiance to the supreme ; appointing corrupt judges, passing any law it wants. ," I'm not sure what the "???" is supposed to mean, but I'll take on the rest of the argument you present. I actually did find said notation that you speak of. That would be the Canadian Constitution, ratified in its last incarnation in 1982 and now considered the supreme law of the land in Canada, also ratified in the same year by the British parliament. I also don't see any of the human rights violations occurring in Canada that would be inherent to such corruption. What evidence can you bring to the table that shows this corruption? What human rights violations? What corrupt elections? Just because you assert a conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. "The creation of the Canadian parliament was a colonial government not a sovereign government. Wrong - the governor general is anointed by the Canadian government not the crown. The governor general does not appoint the P.M. You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge on Canadian politics." "The Canadian Governor General is selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, although the formal appointment is made by the Queen. The term of office of the Governor General is usually five years, but it is sometimes extended up to seven years. There is a tradition of alternating between anglophone and francophone Governors General in Canada." (http://canadaonline.about.com...) Notice, please, that this source, as well as approximately half a dozen others I have found, clearly supports my previous statements. The Crown officially appoints the Governor General, but it is advised on her choice by the Canadian PM (see round 1 for my original comments), and it always takes the Canadian PM's advice. Where's the offense here? You are helping me prove that Canada steers its own democratic destiny by having its PM pick the Crown's representative in Canada. The Crown, therefore, has only ceremonial jurisdiction over Canada, which basically means absolutely nothing in terms of sovereign power. "[Duty of the Governor General:] inviting the leader of the party with the most support in the House of Commons to form the government. That party leader becomes Prime Minister." (http://canadaonline.about.com...) Again, though the official appointment of Canadian PM is an invitation from the Governor General, the appointment is always the leader of the majority party elected to the parliament. Thank you, once again, for reaffirming my round 1 argumentation. You offer no offense, as you've only confirmed what I already said. "If you think you have some knowledge on Canadian politics other than your indoctrination post the letters of patent for the governor general. You claim of elected members is a claim of democracy; then using your indoctrinated reasoning all communist or dictatorship governments which have elections are democracy's." It isn't just elections that make something democratic. The Canadian parliamentary system mirrors the US system, which was our example of democracy throughout the round. They have a bicameral legislation, a system of checks and balances, as well as their very own Constitution, amendable by only the Canadian territories without considering of the British parliament. All of these things are things I've already outlined. "Your refuse to acknowledge first the people must be free before a democracy can be established demonstrating your indoctrination of what a democracy is. If you believe Britan could give Canadians a democracy without the people having any input or right of ratification; then you must believe the U.S. could of passed a bill giving Iraqe a democracy insted of creating one by means of a war and allowing the freed people a vote on a constitution.. You have demonstrated you have no understanding of what a democracy is or how one is created. You just believe Canada has a democracy because of your indoctrination beliefs , without any documentation to prove Canada is a democracy. All you have demonstrated is Canada is still goverend by colonial laws, and as such is not a democracy but you believe it is.. As a colony was Canada a democracy in your belief? What changed ? Canadians never ratified a constitution in 1982 as you claim. If you claim Canadians ratified a constitution except Quebec ; then you have to claim Quebec is not part of Canada because it didn't ratify the constitution. Your indoctrination is proven." Unfortunately, you really still haven't proved I'm brainwashed by anything. I've not argued national sovereignty because I don't need to. And, you haven't once referred to my analysis on why we don't need to look at national sovereignty. You just repeat that a nation must be sovereign to be a democracy. The definition which you hand-picked for this resolution simply states that free citizens have sovereign rule of their government. I have shown, in fact over and over and over again, that in practice the citizens of Canada have this ability to self-govern. You've shown that you aren't reading my arguments entirely prior to responding, as you've called me ignorant of the workings of the Canadian government, when clearly I am not, as is evidenced by the above citations. Not only that, but you have entirely sidestepped the Canadian Constitution from the last round, which is yet another reason to negate on face (and, considering Quebec has attempted to secede from Canada, maybe it doesn't want to be part of the country...I'm not sure why this stops a set of supreme laws and rights which are inherently democratic from being enforced throughout the country, since empirically they are). You've yet to give me one instance in which the Canadian government's decisions have been undermined by the Crown, or by British parliament in any sort of a modern sense.