From what I've been told, he told the then Governor General that if she didn't suspend parliament, he was going to go directly to the Queen. That has never happened in Canadian history.
... hmm and our warmer, non-metric neighbour is feeling smug because they survived 8 years under a President who was never elected once? Or because their response to political bickering, of the most immature kind is to pout, stamp their feet and let their country come within a cunt hair of defaulting on it's debt? I give the good old USA another ten years before it self-destructs or becomes the Second-Coming of Nazi Germany. Yay democracy,... pffft!
You could also say this was an done as response to an attempt to remove an elected leader from power, and replace him with an unelected coalition backed by a party dedicated to breaking up the country.
This isn't the black and white issue the video made it out to be.
@Craigmw45. What you have said is untrue, any leader of a coalition government would be an elected member of parliament, so no they were not unelected. Canada Has a rich history of coalition governments. In our system we don't elect our PM we elect MPs and the party or group of parties working together forms the government and then that party or group of parties chooses the PM. this was not an attempted coup or even underhanded, its just how our system works, who ever has the most support is PM.
@Craigmw45. What you have said is untrue, any leader of a coalition government would be an elected member of parliament, so no they were not unelected. Canada Has a rich history of coalition governments. In our system we don't elect our PM we elect MPs and the party or group of parties working together forms the government and then that party or group of parties chooses the PM. this was not an attempted coup or even underhanded, its just how our system works, who ever has the most support is PM.
No, no, no. It can't happen here. Harper is going down this time. People are finally paying attention and many will vote...which is exactly what he doesn't want.
Wow. I'm a huge critic of Harper, but Maddow sounds like a bimbo in this video. In fact, Americans usually sound ridiculous when talking about Canadians with other Americans. It's so cute, how they try to sound so cute when talking about their "mild mannered neighbours to the cold and metric North".
This is certainly an interesting twist on the facts, as presented by Ms. Maddow. One would almost think that what Harpo did was illegal. It wasn't. Curiously, many months have passed since this little brew-haha and guess what, Stephen Harper is STILL the PM. Guess the cooling off period was just what was needed.
Parliament wasn't dissolved, it was prorogued. Parliament is dissolved before an election, not before a break.
I hate when American media outlets cover Canadian political news, because they try to cram in way too much information and they usually mess something up.
Harper stated he would Help Haiti build a new Parliament Building. Why, he should just give Haiti ours. It is a beautiful matched set of buildings and it is not used by him or his friends.
This is just one of the reasons why I am so pissed we Canadians still have an overlord (G.G) in the Canadian Parliament. The Queen is practically useless anyways, but her powers can be used effectively by sneaky little bastards such as Harper.
Let me get this straight: The GG is an overlord but its the PM that uses the useless Queen's powers. Huh? The Queen and her rep are checks against unconstitutional acts by the PM. If you think Harper's a sneaky little bastard now, imagine what he'd be like if there were no head of state.
Remember how Canadian Prime Minister 's of past talked to the media? How they'd be caught coming down stairs or walking through the halls of Government buildings and stop for a moment and speak to to citizens of Canada? Harper does lots of speeches - but NONE to Canadians. He got in office and STOPPED ALL MEDIA FROM SPEAKING WITH HIM. He does speak on stages around the world to citizens of other Countries - but NEVER to Canadians!!!!
This video is 1 year old,, but the SAME Prime Minister Has just done this AGAIN! He had cancelled (suspended) Parliament until MARCH! No government, no bills brought forward or passed, no elected rpresentatives of Canadians meeting, No gov't committees! UNBELIEVABLE!!!
I know right? If Harper keeps pulling this sort of stunt, it could cost the conservatives their position as the governing party, because Canadians are sick of this nonsense.
haha they have alot more then there position to worry about you can't take those freedoms away from the people those are fighting words people have died and fought for less i don't know how long it's going to take my country men to figure that out i don't want this bullshit anymore i want persons in politics not juvinille's that play childish games i want the same rights and freedoms i was intitled too when i was born work hard full time earn quilty life 60hrs week and still shit food&houseing
He is a liar and a fool, and he will get what he deserves. May God come down on him for the lack of accountability, and understanding he has shown. In my books he nothing more than a F**king criminal with a silver spoon shoved up his ass.
Canada, struggling and insecure? Only the US, Liberia and Myanmar aren't Metric. If Harper wouldn't have prorogued the gov, he would have lost a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons...we don't like the way he rules...OUT! Unlike ummm the US...George W anyone? And your final sarcastic statement was uncalled for as well...I thought you liked Liberal Canada. I've lost respect for you Rachel...pick on Afghanistan, not Canada..we're one of the few countries that still sorta like you guys.
"If Harper wouldn't have prorogued the gov, he would have lost a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons...we don't like the way he rules...OUT!"
Loosing a non-confidence vote is a part of the Canadian system. Harper didn't want to work within the rules so he suspended parliament (that's what prorogued means) he did act like a banana republic dictator. And he is a Conservative fool trying to drag Canada down the GW BUsh path. For once the US has it right. Go Obama!
I hate her attitude. She has absolutely NO idea about Canada. She is given a script and gets paid for how good she carries it out. The US has no concept about Canadian customs much less her governmental attributes. So when you live here and know the way we work come back and try that announcement again.
So you think it is OK to for a PM to suspend the parliament because they are about to fire him? And for the queen of a foreign country to have that kind of power over Canadian politics? Did Rachel actually get the facts wrong or is it just her tone you didn't like?
Rachel and you both got your facts wrong: it isn't the "Queen of England" (there's no such thing and it's not a synonym for Queen of the UK) that has power in Canadian government, it's the Queen of Canada - same person, different offices. In any parliamentary republic the quandry would have been the same - what option should the president choose? Somehow, though, that situation wouldn't raise an eyebrow; only constitutional monarhies are open to mocking attacks like Maddow's, apparently.
That's because presidents are ELELCTED, either by the people or the people's representatives. A queen is, well, born to the right family. Which is a daft source for authority.
Oh, it's daft. I see. Because... well, because you said so? No, sorry, you need a better argument as to why Canada's constitution - supported as it has been by elected law-makers since its inceptioin - is "daft". I certainly can't see how a self-interested, partisan politician would have been any more valid an authority than an impartial viceroy.
It's daft because people shouldn't have political power unless they were elected by the people, or appointed by someone who was elected (like a supreme court judge, for example). Inheritance is a stupid source of political power. There is a reason why true monarchies don't exist in the western world anymore. They are unjust and unfair. What qualifies Queen Elizabeth to make this decision? Nothing. She could be an uneducated moron and still have this power because of her Mom and Dad. = Daft.
They shouldnt have power because... again, you say so? The support of the people can be shown in ways other than elections; the people have supported the constitution - which creates and controls the monarchy, including the line of succession - because they have not urged their elected representatives to change it. They don't say its daft, so who cares if you do?
Look at the post made by caillou2000 - a Canadian. How easy is it to change a constitution? If there are 50% of people in the state who oppose this, is it still just? Can you give me YOUR reason why a Queen should have so much power? What is the logic behind it? Why should the Queen have more power than the people's elected representatives? She can practically do away with the parliament every time they do something against her will!
Who cares about the level of ease or difficulty in changing the constitution? The point is that there's no drive to change it at all. This is likely because it works; most importantly amongst many other reasons, it creates a nice balance between partisan and non-partisan, each keeping the other in check. Having both sides partisan upsets that balance, and can lead to unfortunate consequences. It's in republics more often than constitutional monarchies that parliaments are done away with.
Fine. Fine. Hail your Queen next time she passes by on her chariot while replacing an imaginary light bulb with her right hand. It's still ridiculous that a person with no qualification can shut down the elected parliament at a whim.
"It's still ridiculous".... Talk about daft; you still stick to this juvenile rancour in the face of fact and logic. Without a shred of rational argument to back up your claim, you're forced to retreat with nothing more than a raspberry to your opponent. Well done. A win for the monarchist side... Again.
Actually if you bother to FULLY READ my posts you can see little words like "because" after "daft", "stupid" and "ridiculous", and if you read even farther, you'll see that I make quite a good case for republics, using logic and rational. My main point is that inheritance doesn't make a person fit to rule. Being elected, or being appointed by an elected person, does. This is why monarchs all over Europe have slowly lost their power to elected governments. Monarchists are losing... everywhere.
Yes, I saw your use of "because". "Because they must be elected" is your opinion, not a substantiated argument. Inheritance alone doesn't make someone fit to rule, but constitutional monarchy has never been as simple as mere inheritance; elected bodies are only one part of a complex equation developed over centuries. Many republics have proved that election alone doesn't make a person fit to rule; Cambodia & Spain returned to monarchy from republican despotism. So, rethink your last statement.
Read a about the Spanish civil war. Not so much of a "republic" under Franco. I guess you think a monarch would have stopped that cue? To say monarchy is better than a republic and then bring Franco's Spain and Cambodia as fine examples of what a republic is... why not throw in China as well? Or other "republics" who aren't republics at all. Anything to support your claims in favor of monarchy. I argue in favor of democracy, and monarchy is not it, not with real power to the monarch.
There certainly are more examples of the failures of republicanism; they're all something to consider before putting forward as a reason why constitutional monarchy is "ridiculous" the claim that democracy is guaranteed by an elected chief executive.
They are not examples of "failed republicanism". They are examples of regimes who claim to be a republic, when they are not. I thought I made that clear. Forget it. You obviously have serious problems with reading comprehension that I can't fix. I guess being a monarchist screws your mind in unexpected ways. Goodbye.
Oh, are you taking your ball and going home in a snit? Well, if you ever do meekly pop your head back in here, you might catch this: in Cambodia and Spain the monarchies were overthrown in the name of "the people"; as a countries not led by hereditary monarchs, they became what modern lexicon defines as a republic, though not a democracy. Perhaps while you're off in your huff you can brush up on some political theory. Bonne chance!
You're the one with an obsession for republics, not me. I have an obsession for democracy, and a monarch with any kind of ruling power isn't it. Neither is a tyrant like Franco. You just can't justify power taken by force or passed by inheritance. Every tyrant, king or otherwise, claims to be ruling "in the name of the people", and if you can't distinguish empty words from reality - you're an idiot. I don't argue with idiots, it's a waste of time. PS - seems like Canadians here agree with me...
Oh, you're back so soon! As a republic is defined as a country not headed by a monarch, you sure are all about the republics. Good on you for supporting democracy, but you have to realise that it isn't as simple as direct voting. As I've said already: the Queen reigns over Canada by the consent of the people because they have not agitated for anything different, even while free to do so. I won't be so rude as to call you an idiot, but you certainly need to widen your understanding of democracy.
The actions of the crown in this case were undemocratic. Imagine a president in the democratic republic doing the same thing - there would be an uproar, and he will soon lose his presidency. But a monarch can do this, because monarchy screws up peoples minds - as it certainly screwed yours. Good to see that at least two of you fellow Canadians still think straight.
PS - are you really such an advocate for monarchy? Or is it dear Mr Harper you like so much? A monarchist? or just a conservative?
You provide mere speculation and wander into the absurd. There's somehow an intrinsic legitimacy in one elected official dismissing another? That would result in peace and dancing across the land? Proof, please. Canadian MPs should never have let their juvenile squabble go so far as to require the Crown's involvement, but they did. The Crown did as taksed: ensure the continuity of stable government. Blame Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe, but you can't blaim the Governor General.
So you are a conservative. You couldn't care less about the stupid Queen, it's Mr. Harper's policy you love so much. The MPs are "juvenile" to oppose him, the fact that he is putting forward an economic plan they feel would be devastating it this fragile time, the fact that he is doing so against his election promises, the fact that they have the majority in the parliament - who cares. You're a conservative and you like his policy, so damn everything else and screw democracy.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Did you forget there are Conservative MPs in parliament, and that Harper himself is one? You're so blinded by your own bias that you can't see anything but it, even where it doesn't exist. Get a clue.
The appointed rep of the British monarch should not have the power to decide who the PM of Canada is. That power belongs to the Canadian House of Commons. If a majority of MPs were willing to support Mr. Dion as PM and indicated their lack of confidence in Mr. Harpers ministry , he should have been forced to resign. Jean's move set a very scary precedent. I dont think you can show one instance in any other parliamentary democracy where a head of state has acted in such an undemocratic way.
Good thing then that there is no appointed rep of the British monarch and the PM is selected by the House of Commons.
It wasn't Jean's move that set the precedent, it was Harper's. Jean's number one duty is to ensure stable government, which means not calling elections every three months or installing newborn coalitions. She was thus correct to follow her prime minister's advice and let him stand resposible for it.
Good thing then that there is no appointed rep of the British monarch? Are you kidding me? And yes, it was Jean's move. She honored Harper's request to prorogue Parliament rather than face the House.
Look, Im sorry you are woefully ignorant about Canadian government but the GG is the representative of the British Monarch in Canada. She signs into law all federal legislation. She appoints Lieutenant Governors in all the provinces which sign all provincial legislation into law. All the decisions are made on behalf of the British Queen: Elizabeth II. Look on the back of any coin fool.
Look up the Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act. The country is a sovereign kingdom, not a colony under British control, so it's legally impossible for the GG to represent the British monarch. She represents the Canadian queen, despite the fact that the same person also holds the British Crown. Look up "Monarchy of Canada" on Wikipedia and smarten up.
The Statute of Westminister allowed Canada to engage in its own foreign policy and the Constitution Act 1982 finally brought the constitution home (meaning that Canadians could amend their own constitution without the approval of the British Parliament). However, the queen still has tremendous reserve powers which she does not exercise. All pieces of provincial and federal legislation need her approval. Just because there is a separate office Queen of Canada doesnt mean its a different person.
Yes, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are not different people; which is precisely what I said in my previous post. And, yes, Elizabeth II acts for Canada in the same manner as she does for the UK, with her Royal Prerogative & etc. This doesn't prove, though, that Canada is still under the control of the British monarch; no more, anyway, than Britain is under the control of the Canadian monarch. So, your original claim still remains unsubstantiated.
I hope you realise the irony in using mangled syntax and grammar to call others stupid. Probably you don't, though. If most republicans are as hopelessly ignorant and illogical as you, the movement is thankfully doomed to failure.
I'm originally Canadian and there was nothing inaccurate about Maddow's comments except for her incorrectly calling 'prorogation' 'dissolution'. That being said shes spot on. The fundamental principle of Canadian democracy is responsible government. In India (which operates as a parliamentary democracy, like Canada) when the left front withdrew support from the government the PM was asked by the President to show his support in Parliament. Jean is a dumb bitch.
Look at the history of the world and see what people do to keep in power. Some kill some just down right lie and bribe. Stephen Harper did what what was best for Canada. If parliament gets too much power any country is in danger. Harper did good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The United States guarantees the stability and prosperity the world has. Canada should be part of the United States, instead of a second rate world player, so that the U.S. could better utilise Canada's resources to this end. The two countries never should have been separated into two entities. We have the same culture. Canada should become part of the United States in the interest of a better world. I mean this in all seriousness.
LOL. We do NOT have the same culture. Yeah lots of stuff in common, but not the same culture. Bring it up again when you guys learn French.
Canada is more European on social issues, while the US is still controlled by the Christian Right. I love the US and Americans, but I'd freak if someone seriously proposed having Canada join the US.
MSNBC is very diverse. Their night lineup is usually liberal commentators. Their morning to afternoon lineup is conservative commentators. Their main news has show no sign of leaning either which way.
what r u an idiot who the fuck watches msnbc during daytime most important time period is night, and its ALLL LIBERALS, but like retard gay fag hippie liberals that smoke 10 pounds of grass a day
The Prime Minister is only the de facto *recommender* of whom should be appointed as governor general or to the Senate. Both the Queen and the GG retain the right to refuse their PM's recommendations.
Only if there's a constitutionally sound reason, which is very rare, if it can even happen. Canada is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, not an dictatorship ruled by the Queen of England..
This might have been funny if this chick had half a clue about parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, and personal union. All she does, though, is reinforce the image of the igorant American deriding another country for not being American. Talk about the 21st century, this broad is still stuck 300 years in the past, when the throne of England still existed and Canada was a colony. Oh, Maddow, really.
You'd be hard pressed to point out what exactly she's close to being right on. The last Queen of England died in 1707, Canada has been a sovereign kingdom since at least 1982, proroguing parliament is not a "banishment" of opposition MPs... Need I go on?
Er, no, she's Head of the Commonwealth, not queen of it. She's only queen of 16 countries in the Commonwealth, of which England is not one, as it isn't a sovereign state. Canada is one of those countries, however, and unless you can prove otherwise, as long as the country is a constitutional monarchy, it will be a kingdom.
Satire relies on a base of accurate facts, and Maddow was way off on a good number of them.
There are 50 Commonwealth countries, 53 if you count the 4 countries of the United Kingdom as separate countries. Not 16. The UK is in the commonwealth. Saying England isn't in the Commonwealth is like saying Ontario isn't in the Commonwealth.
Constitutional monarchies aren't kingdoms because the monarchy has no real power.
That wasn't satire, I don't think, so much as it was sarcastically mocking the situation.
I can only wonder where you're getting your "facts" from, Benyohama. The Commonwealth has 53 countries, *not* counting the four constituent, non-sovereign countries of the UK; counting them is akin to including Ontario as a Commonwealth member state. Of those 53, only 16 have Elizabeth II as head of state, and, by the dictionary definition of the word, any country with a monarch as head of state is a kingdom. Also, the dictionary definition of satire includes the use of sarcasm to critique.
I dont like Harper and his bullies but Rachel should shut up! Even the left in the U.S. is far right if anyone remembers! And our right is more to the centre. It doesnt matter, Iggy the guy who wanted us in Iraq is gonna Buddy up with him anyways. We all lose!!!
Parliamentary democracy isn't gentle to anyone idiotic enough to run a minority as if it was a majority. Harper can run but he can't hide from his own stupidity.
Proroguing Parliament is exactly the kind of cheap ploy Mulroney (Harper's good buddy) would've pulled in his shoes - but then, Lyin' Brian never had to submit to minority rule.
Good riddance to bad rubbish - he can join Dion in looking for an honest job soon enough. His party would be daft to keep such a total failure on board.
No, the Governor General is Head of state. Her name's Michaelle Jean. She's the queen's representative, she wasn't chosen by the Queen but by our former Prime Minister; Paul Martin. The Queen doesn't have any political (or cultural control for that matter), she comes in July, I think and ppl give her flowers, does a little tour of cities, waves and see ya next year granny, lol! I find her harmless but the french speakers think she's the devil... We have a different independant constitution.
This woman obviously has no idea of what she speaks. Our Prime Minister is certainly justified in his action as the losing parties have ganged up to get in the back door. In Canada we take our votes seriously.
HA HA! The yanks laughing at us, when they let a man with the IQ of a chimpanzee take their country down the toilet. Hey, Maddox! It isn't Canada that's circling the drain.
This has nothing to do with our parliamentary system. Harper's acting like the leader of some 3rd rate banana republic. If you want to change campaign finance laws, here's a hint, DONT hide them in the budget and hope noone will notice. Harper is the only man responsible for this mess.
A friend tells me Maddow's mom is from Newfoundland, so she really should know better. Maybe she was just going for the laugh. But, really, it is no laughing matter what Harper has done, what he is doing to stir up anti-Quebec sentiment, national dis-unity, us'n'them divisiveness. It's reprehensible. I believe Canadians are wise enough to see through that divide and conquer strategy.
I like Rachel Maddow but she shows how little she really knows about our Canadian Parliamentary system of governance. Then again, some commenters here show they know even less, given the Con Talking Points they spew regarding illegitimacy of coalition governments, etc.
She understands what is going on, but the details of how we vote and who we vote for may be a bit lost on her. Hell there are still Canadians who actually think we vote for our Prime Minister. If you are voting based on who you want to be Prime Minister, you are a dreadfully irresponsible voter in Canada.
If you vote, period, you are living in a major illusion. If you think the world will change overnight because you just stuffed yourself in a booth to vote for a new head of state, think again. You want real change, then the whole system has to change, not just the hood ornament.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think Rachel should concentrate on bush-bashing and eating pussy, and keep her stupid comments about our country to herself. I hate Harper as much as the next guy but it's our problem and we don't need to be made fun of by someone who's country has many many problems of their own.
what is most frustrating about this issue is that Harper tried to pull the same coalition thing back when the Martin Liberal gov't was in power. Harper banded with the Bloc and NDP back then... but to do so today is putting the power in separist's hands? give me a break. Separatism is low on the priority list for French Canadians... they want their jobs as much as Albertans do, they worry about the environment and healthcare system and culture. This suspension is outrageously undemocratic.
First, are we Canadians so precious that we can't take a joke - ie. the aboot thing? Americans mention it all the time, oh no, I'm so offended.
Second, but more importantly, proroguing parliament is undermocratic and something we'd expect in some banana republic. Regardless of what you think of the idea of Harper loosing confidence, when it was obvious that he lost the confidence of the house, pulling that stunt was autocratic at best.
Wow, Rachael Maddow is an idiot. I say that as a liberal too. From the dumbass "Aboot" remark to the snide comment at the end. All she did was just explain the british parliamentary system then make a stupid remark. Pretty sad.
I'm a dumbass? Fucking hell you are a complete FUCKING moron aren't you? The British Parliamentary system IS OUR system fuckhead, that's what it's fucking called. Wow, just wow. What a fucking stupid ass you are. Do you have a job? Does someone so fucking dumb get hired anywhere?
Are you hallucinating, halcyon? I'm not a fan of Fox, MSNBC or any of the other major biased networks, but Fox has liberals on their shows ALL THE TIME. I've seen O'Reilly interview liberals tons of time. However, I've never seen Olbermann *DARE* to have a conservative on his show. He'd be eviscerated.
Like Michael Moore, Olbermann and Madcow don't seem to understand that there are plenty of legitimate political issues. No need to make shit up or focus on irrelevent minutia.
Typical Rachel Madcow. Telling only half the story. Where's the part about how Dion and Layton got girly hysterical and formed a coalition with the support of an avowedly separatist party *before the budget had even been handed down*? Where's the part about how Dion and Layton's feelings were hurt NOT because Harper was going to make budget cuts, but because he was going after the all-sacred public financing?
Madcow, like Olbermann, is great at telling (at best) 1/10th of a story.
It's ok xxless. Don't fret. 'Cause she also neglected to mention Harper's outright lying to the Canadian people to garner support, playing to the lowest common denominator among the imbecilic right, and his shitting all over the constitution and majority will of the people of Canada. So, it kind of evens itself out. Don'cha think?
Maybe she should concentrate on the do-nothing Congress, the Democrats double standards. Imepachment and prosecution for war crimes. But then that would mean getting cancelled in the middle of a global recession. Do we really need another MSM "pundit" on the unemployment line?
Another aspect of this is being overlooked. Many people are saying Maddow is so great, yadda yadda yadda. She's the new progressive on cable. No she's not.
If she's a real progressive, then (1)why does she work for a neocon network like MSNBC? And (2)why does she continue to do her Air America show (also a neocn network). Answers: money, Mark Green the AA CEO is tight with NBC, she sold out for the big bucks. The list goes on.....
You fool. she's half Canadian. She knows about Canada inside and out! Chill. She makes fun of everybody, America, Russia, Bhutan, and yes, even Canada. Put your insecurities aside and enjoy her humour. She is fully aware that Canada is a more advanced society than the States. She's a far far lefty. and have I mentioned. SHE'S HALF CANADIAN!!!
Good god, it is painful to listen to Americans talking about Canadian politics. The woman really isn't comprehending how angry Canadians are at attempted overthrow of the elected government by an alliance with Canadian separatists. Yes, it is legal to form a coalition government but it is smelly to form a government where separatist parties are giveen veto power.
But we're just the cold and metric neighbors to the north.
Most Canadians oppose a coalition government because the Canadian Conservatives have radio ads playing on the airwaves to say that the opposition is trying to go into power without their consent. Unfortunately that is not correct. The majority of Parliament is held by the opposition parties. A PM is not chosen by the voters - the House of Commons has this selection power. Whatever you hear on the Conservative ads is just a play on words. Canadians DO NOT choose their PM.
Yes, Harper lied and so do his supporters. The bloc is not part of the coalition government, they have only agreed to support the coalition for a given time limits.
The Reform/Conservative alliance want to ban workers ability to strike (welcome to 3rd world wages and benefits) They send our jobs to other countries in the form of free trade and NAFTA, to what?? allow for increased CEO and Shareholder profit.
Obama swept U.S. with a message for the worker and creates work for the people.
NAFTA gives away 65% of our oil & gas, our forest industry is crumbling, and they plan to eliminate good Postal jobs so we can drive to get mail. WTF, Help Wanted, Jobs 2
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of reality.
An Ipsos poll found that 68% of Canadians supported prorogation. Canadians overwhelmingly do not want their government replaced by a coalition led by the loser of the last election, and separatists that want to destroy the country.
Delaying a motion 7 weeks to allow for compromise between all parties is a far cry from suspending parliament indefinitely to hold onto power. Of course I wouldn't expect accuracy from MSNBC, America's other Fox News
Hi domtar, actually it is being broadcasted the same way here in Canada, on CBC and CTV. Canada has been embarrassed by the representation and the begging of Harper. Please I don't want to lose my job, please choose us over the separatists...the same separatists that the Cons almost joined with to topple the Liberal government. The it's okay for me, but not for you philosophy.
he is a bilderberg group puppet same as Dion they are a threat to the world who looks to Canada for guidance ,people just goggle the evil Bilderberg Group,Harper and Dion are both the same crisis makers to keep the sheep asleep and distracted
,there will never be a New World Order!!!
That,s A FACT ,Canadians are waking up to the NWO and why they might be a small country they are all Patriots who will rips this idiot a new one in the near future.
doesn't anyone get it? Canada has ALWAYS been a Banana republic! If we were so concerned about sovereignty, we wouldn't have sold off all our business to more powerful nations.
When the states own all the trees, the beavers eat bananas!
No, the Queen is the head of state. The governor-general is her representative in Canada. If say, the Queen happens to be in Canada during a throne speech, the Queen would give it. Additionally the Queen repatriated Canada's constitution in the early 1980's and you could technically ask her to fire the governor-general. PM Whitlam likely would have done that to governor-general Kerr, had he known about "the dismissal" in their 1975 case.
riderdave, just to inform you on your stupidity quotient. that "idiotic" woman is a rhodes scholar with a PhD in Political Science, FROM OXFORD YOU ASS!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To be fair, she sounds very ill-informed about Canada. Parliament is being suspended for 7 weeks (it is usually not in session during the holidays anyway). As a Westminster democracy Canada is governed by unwritten rules, and evolving conventions and precedents. That gives us the flexibility say, to avoid appointing a government most Canadians oppose.
A "Banana Republic" is what dictator Harper has reduced Canada to. I urge people and leaders around the world to denounce this undemocratic abuse of power!
I do.I'm Australian. We have coalitions governments a lot in Australia. I always thought it was a fundamental principle of the Westminster system that the government must have the confidence of the lower house i.e. in this case the House of Commons. Starting to sound like a coup (at least from a distance.I'm not sure when parliament was next scheduled to meet).
It WAS a fundamental principle in Canada as well... up until last week when the Straussian goon we have holding the chair of Prime Minister here, in a move unprecedented in our history, decided to take a dump on our constitution and run like a coward from the noble tradition of our democratic procedure so he can hold on to power in spite of the will of the people.
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep to your own country you retard
Mengha 4 months ago
From what I've been told, he told the then Governor General that if she didn't suspend parliament, he was going to go directly to the Queen. That has never happened in Canadian history.
somewhatlongdong 4 months ago
Next election let's kick Harper's ass
georgekostaras 5 months ago
... hmm and our warmer, non-metric neighbour is feeling smug because they survived 8 years under a President who was never elected once? Or because their response to political bickering, of the most immature kind is to pout, stamp their feet and let their country come within a cunt hair of defaulting on it's debt? I give the good old USA another ten years before it self-destructs or becomes the Second-Coming of Nazi Germany. Yay democracy,... pffft!
FatFred2U 6 months ago
You could also say this was an done as response to an attempt to remove an elected leader from power, and replace him with an unelected coalition backed by a party dedicated to breaking up the country.
This isn't the black and white issue the video made it out to be.
Craigmw45 7 months ago
@Craigmw45. What you have said is untrue, any leader of a coalition government would be an elected member of parliament, so no they were not unelected. Canada Has a rich history of coalition governments. In our system we don't elect our PM we elect MPs and the party or group of parties working together forms the government and then that party or group of parties chooses the PM. this was not an attempted coup or even underhanded, its just how our system works, who ever has the most support is PM.
Fireflygamer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Craigmw45. What you have said is untrue, any leader of a coalition government would be an elected member of parliament, so no they were not unelected. Canada Has a rich history of coalition governments. In our system we don't elect our PM we elect MPs and the party or group of parties working together forms the government and then that party or group of parties chooses the PM. this was not an attempted coup or even underhanded, its just how our system works, who ever has the most support is PM.
Fireflygamer 6 months ago
harper is a joke
Spazzy4Twenty 7 months ago
lol msnbc is the biggest joke of anews station, the onion tells more truth than them.
zazszdzfzgzhzjzkzlzx 9 months ago
stephen harper is a fucking moron. and the worse part is, hes prolly gonna get reelected.....
shiznak55 10 months ago
@shiznak55
No, no, no. It can't happen here. Harper is going down this time. People are finally paying attention and many will vote...which is exactly what he doesn't want.
zizimycat 10 months ago
@zizimycat i pray to God that you're right!!!!!!
shiznak55 10 months ago
Wow. I'm a huge critic of Harper, but Maddow sounds like a bimbo in this video. In fact, Americans usually sound ridiculous when talking about Canadians with other Americans. It's so cute, how they try to sound so cute when talking about their "mild mannered neighbours to the cold and metric North".
ColdCalc 11 months ago
@ColdCalc i thought she nailed it. she was pointing out how undemocratic harper was being, whats wrong about that?
shiznak55 10 months ago
This shows Americas ignorance of the having more than 2 parties.
DarnellCotez 1 year ago
This is certainly an interesting twist on the facts, as presented by Ms. Maddow. One would almost think that what Harpo did was illegal. It wasn't. Curiously, many months have passed since this little brew-haha and guess what, Stephen Harper is STILL the PM. Guess the cooling off period was just what was needed.
YmirGF 1 year ago
When the left implodes like it did (Chretien/Martin) and (Dion?Kennedy/Ignatieff)
whats left.......The Governor General had a really easy decision. Made him wait for a while to make it seem a thorough decision was made.
Nice Spin Ms Maddow. You have to admit Stevie's power gets you hot like no other male can...
00Billy 1 year ago
Parliament wasn't dissolved, it was prorogued. Parliament is dissolved before an election, not before a break.
I hate when American media outlets cover Canadian political news, because they try to cram in way too much information and they usually mess something up.
PoliticsStudent 1 year ago
Harper stated he would Help Haiti build a new Parliament Building. Why, he should just give Haiti ours. It is a beautiful matched set of buildings and it is not used by him or his friends.
regszikora 1 year ago
Michaëlle is a gem. The MP leaders..not so much. The Queen Liz is cool. Ignatieff, Harper, Layton et al need to get their gears in shape.
Froggie2121 1 year ago
This is just one of the reasons why I am so pissed we Canadians still have an overlord (G.G) in the Canadian Parliament. The Queen is practically useless anyways, but her powers can be used effectively by sneaky little bastards such as Harper.
frankystein12 2 years ago
Let me get this straight: The GG is an overlord but its the PM that uses the useless Queen's powers. Huh? The Queen and her rep are checks against unconstitutional acts by the PM. If you think Harper's a sneaky little bastard now, imagine what he'd be like if there were no head of state.
gbambino 1 year ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember how Canadian Prime Minister 's of past talked to the media? How they'd be caught coming down stairs or walking through the halls of Government buildings and stop for a moment and speak to to citizens of Canada? Harper does lots of speeches - but NONE to Canadians. He got in office and STOPPED ALL MEDIA FROM SPEAKING WITH HIM. He does speak on stages around the world to citizens of other Countries - but NEVER to Canadians!!!!
Now prorogue-ing Parliament?
He is a dictator - wake up!!!!
canadakim1 2 years ago
This video is 1 year old,, but the SAME Prime Minister Has just done this AGAIN! He had cancelled (suspended) Parliament until MARCH! No government, no bills brought forward or passed, no elected rpresentatives of Canadians meeting, No gov't committees! UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Shellianne 2 years ago 15
I know right? If Harper keeps pulling this sort of stunt, it could cost the conservatives their position as the governing party, because Canadians are sick of this nonsense.
CanadianQueer 2 years ago 3
haha they have alot more then there position to worry about you can't take those freedoms away from the people those are fighting words people have died and fought for less i don't know how long it's going to take my country men to figure that out i don't want this bullshit anymore i want persons in politics not juvinille's that play childish games i want the same rights and freedoms i was intitled too when i was born work hard full time earn quilty life 60hrs week and still shit food&houseing
mrsuperterd 2 years ago
He is a liar and a fool, and he will get what he deserves. May God come down on him for the lack of accountability, and understanding he has shown. In my books he nothing more than a F**king criminal with a silver spoon shoved up his ass.
victimofgovt 2 years ago 2
Yup...and don't forget, Harper is an Evangelical Christian to boot! UGH! (He is smart with the economy though, you have to give him that.)
Froggie212121 2 years ago
Canada, struggling and insecure? Only the US, Liberia and Myanmar aren't Metric. If Harper wouldn't have prorogued the gov, he would have lost a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons...we don't like the way he rules...OUT! Unlike ummm the US...George W anyone? And your final sarcastic statement was uncalled for as well...I thought you liked Liberal Canada. I've lost respect for you Rachel...pick on Afghanistan, not Canada..we're one of the few countries that still sorta like you guys.
Froggie2121 2 years ago
"If Harper wouldn't have prorogued the gov, he would have lost a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons...we don't like the way he rules...OUT!"
Loosing a non-confidence vote is a part of the Canadian system. Harper didn't want to work within the rules so he suspended parliament (that's what prorogued means) he did act like a banana republic dictator. And he is a Conservative fool trying to drag Canada down the GW BUsh path. For once the US has it right. Go Obama!
verstwo2 2 years ago 2
I hate her attitude. She has absolutely NO idea about Canada. She is given a script and gets paid for how good she carries it out. The US has no concept about Canadian customs much less her governmental attributes. So when you live here and know the way we work come back and try that announcement again.
Canadabeautiful1 2 years ago 2
So you think it is OK to for a PM to suspend the parliament because they are about to fire him? And for the queen of a foreign country to have that kind of power over Canadian politics? Did Rachel actually get the facts wrong or is it just her tone you didn't like?
tamari123 2 years ago
Rachel and you both got your facts wrong: it isn't the "Queen of England" (there's no such thing and it's not a synonym for Queen of the UK) that has power in Canadian government, it's the Queen of Canada - same person, different offices. In any parliamentary republic the quandry would have been the same - what option should the president choose? Somehow, though, that situation wouldn't raise an eyebrow; only constitutional monarhies are open to mocking attacks like Maddow's, apparently.
gbambino 2 years ago
That's because presidents are ELELCTED, either by the people or the people's representatives. A queen is, well, born to the right family. Which is a daft source for authority.
tamari123 2 years ago
Oh, it's daft. I see. Because... well, because you said so? No, sorry, you need a better argument as to why Canada's constitution - supported as it has been by elected law-makers since its inceptioin - is "daft". I certainly can't see how a self-interested, partisan politician would have been any more valid an authority than an impartial viceroy.
gbambino 2 years ago
It's daft because people shouldn't have political power unless they were elected by the people, or appointed by someone who was elected (like a supreme court judge, for example). Inheritance is a stupid source of political power. There is a reason why true monarchies don't exist in the western world anymore. They are unjust and unfair. What qualifies Queen Elizabeth to make this decision? Nothing. She could be an uneducated moron and still have this power because of her Mom and Dad. = Daft.
tamari123 2 years ago
They shouldnt have power because... again, you say so? The support of the people can be shown in ways other than elections; the people have supported the constitution - which creates and controls the monarchy, including the line of succession - because they have not urged their elected representatives to change it. They don't say its daft, so who cares if you do?
gbambino 2 years ago
Look at the post made by caillou2000 - a Canadian. How easy is it to change a constitution? If there are 50% of people in the state who oppose this, is it still just? Can you give me YOUR reason why a Queen should have so much power? What is the logic behind it? Why should the Queen have more power than the people's elected representatives? She can practically do away with the parliament every time they do something against her will!
tamari123 2 years ago
Who cares about the level of ease or difficulty in changing the constitution? The point is that there's no drive to change it at all. This is likely because it works; most importantly amongst many other reasons, it creates a nice balance between partisan and non-partisan, each keeping the other in check. Having both sides partisan upsets that balance, and can lead to unfortunate consequences. It's in republics more often than constitutional monarchies that parliaments are done away with.
gbambino 2 years ago
Fine. Fine. Hail your Queen next time she passes by on her chariot while replacing an imaginary light bulb with her right hand. It's still ridiculous that a person with no qualification can shut down the elected parliament at a whim.
tamari123 2 years ago
"It's still ridiculous".... Talk about daft; you still stick to this juvenile rancour in the face of fact and logic. Without a shred of rational argument to back up your claim, you're forced to retreat with nothing more than a raspberry to your opponent. Well done. A win for the monarchist side... Again.
gbambino 2 years ago
Actually if you bother to FULLY READ my posts you can see little words like "because" after "daft", "stupid" and "ridiculous", and if you read even farther, you'll see that I make quite a good case for republics, using logic and rational. My main point is that inheritance doesn't make a person fit to rule. Being elected, or being appointed by an elected person, does. This is why monarchs all over Europe have slowly lost their power to elected governments. Monarchists are losing... everywhere.
tamari123 2 years ago
Yes, I saw your use of "because". "Because they must be elected" is your opinion, not a substantiated argument. Inheritance alone doesn't make someone fit to rule, but constitutional monarchy has never been as simple as mere inheritance; elected bodies are only one part of a complex equation developed over centuries. Many republics have proved that election alone doesn't make a person fit to rule; Cambodia & Spain returned to monarchy from republican despotism. So, rethink your last statement.
gbambino 2 years ago
Read a about the Spanish civil war. Not so much of a "republic" under Franco. I guess you think a monarch would have stopped that cue? To say monarchy is better than a republic and then bring Franco's Spain and Cambodia as fine examples of what a republic is... why not throw in China as well? Or other "republics" who aren't republics at all. Anything to support your claims in favor of monarchy. I argue in favor of democracy, and monarchy is not it, not with real power to the monarch.
tamari123 2 years ago
There certainly are more examples of the failures of republicanism; they're all something to consider before putting forward as a reason why constitutional monarchy is "ridiculous" the claim that democracy is guaranteed by an elected chief executive.
gbambino 2 years ago
They are not examples of "failed republicanism". They are examples of regimes who claim to be a republic, when they are not. I thought I made that clear. Forget it. You obviously have serious problems with reading comprehension that I can't fix. I guess being a monarchist screws your mind in unexpected ways. Goodbye.
tamari123 2 years ago
Oh, are you taking your ball and going home in a snit? Well, if you ever do meekly pop your head back in here, you might catch this: in Cambodia and Spain the monarchies were overthrown in the name of "the people"; as a countries not led by hereditary monarchs, they became what modern lexicon defines as a republic, though not a democracy. Perhaps while you're off in your huff you can brush up on some political theory. Bonne chance!
gbambino 2 years ago
You're the one with an obsession for republics, not me. I have an obsession for democracy, and a monarch with any kind of ruling power isn't it. Neither is a tyrant like Franco. You just can't justify power taken by force or passed by inheritance. Every tyrant, king or otherwise, claims to be ruling "in the name of the people", and if you can't distinguish empty words from reality - you're an idiot. I don't argue with idiots, it's a waste of time. PS - seems like Canadians here agree with me...
tamari123 2 years ago
Oh, you're back so soon! As a republic is defined as a country not headed by a monarch, you sure are all about the republics. Good on you for supporting democracy, but you have to realise that it isn't as simple as direct voting. As I've said already: the Queen reigns over Canada by the consent of the people because they have not agitated for anything different, even while free to do so. I won't be so rude as to call you an idiot, but you certainly need to widen your understanding of democracy.
gbambino 2 years ago
The actions of the crown in this case were undemocratic. Imagine a president in the democratic republic doing the same thing - there would be an uproar, and he will soon lose his presidency. But a monarch can do this, because monarchy screws up peoples minds - as it certainly screwed yours. Good to see that at least two of you fellow Canadians still think straight.
PS - are you really such an advocate for monarchy? Or is it dear Mr Harper you like so much? A monarchist? or just a conservative?
tamari123 2 years ago
You provide mere speculation and wander into the absurd. There's somehow an intrinsic legitimacy in one elected official dismissing another? That would result in peace and dancing across the land? Proof, please. Canadian MPs should never have let their juvenile squabble go so far as to require the Crown's involvement, but they did. The Crown did as taksed: ensure the continuity of stable government. Blame Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe, but you can't blaim the Governor General.
gbambino 2 years ago
So you are a conservative. You couldn't care less about the stupid Queen, it's Mr. Harper's policy you love so much. The MPs are "juvenile" to oppose him, the fact that he is putting forward an economic plan they feel would be devastating it this fragile time, the fact that he is doing so against his election promises, the fact that they have the majority in the parliament - who cares. You're a conservative and you like his policy, so damn everything else and screw democracy.
tamari123 2 years ago
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Did you forget there are Conservative MPs in parliament, and that Harper himself is one? You're so blinded by your own bias that you can't see anything but it, even where it doesn't exist. Get a clue.
gbambino 2 years ago
The appointed rep of the British monarch should not have the power to decide who the PM of Canada is. That power belongs to the Canadian House of Commons. If a majority of MPs were willing to support Mr. Dion as PM and indicated their lack of confidence in Mr. Harpers ministry , he should have been forced to resign. Jean's move set a very scary precedent. I dont think you can show one instance in any other parliamentary democracy where a head of state has acted in such an undemocratic way.
ndesai256 2 years ago
Good thing then that there is no appointed rep of the British monarch and the PM is selected by the House of Commons.
It wasn't Jean's move that set the precedent, it was Harper's. Jean's number one duty is to ensure stable government, which means not calling elections every three months or installing newborn coalitions. She was thus correct to follow her prime minister's advice and let him stand resposible for it.
gbambino 2 years ago
Good thing then that there is no appointed rep of the British monarch? Are you kidding me? And yes, it was Jean's move. She honored Harper's request to prorogue Parliament rather than face the House.
ndesai256 2 years ago
Nope, not kidding. This is 2009, not 1929. And Harper did have to face the house.
gbambino 2 years ago
Look, Im sorry you are woefully ignorant about Canadian government but the GG is the representative of the British Monarch in Canada. She signs into law all federal legislation. She appoints Lieutenant Governors in all the provinces which sign all provincial legislation into law. All the decisions are made on behalf of the British Queen: Elizabeth II. Look on the back of any coin fool.
ndesai256 2 years ago
Look up the Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act. The country is a sovereign kingdom, not a colony under British control, so it's legally impossible for the GG to represent the British monarch. She represents the Canadian queen, despite the fact that the same person also holds the British Crown. Look up "Monarchy of Canada" on Wikipedia and smarten up.
gbambino 2 years ago 2
The Statute of Westminister allowed Canada to engage in its own foreign policy and the Constitution Act 1982 finally brought the constitution home (meaning that Canadians could amend their own constitution without the approval of the British Parliament). However, the queen still has tremendous reserve powers which she does not exercise. All pieces of provincial and federal legislation need her approval. Just because there is a separate office Queen of Canada doesnt mean its a different person.
ndesai256 2 years ago
Yes, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are not different people; which is precisely what I said in my previous post. And, yes, Elizabeth II acts for Canada in the same manner as she does for the UK, with her Royal Prerogative & etc. This doesn't prove, though, that Canada is still under the control of the British monarch; no more, anyway, than Britain is under the control of the Canadian monarch. So, your original claim still remains unsubstantiated.
gbambino 2 years ago 3
Same fucked up family and stupid canadians still keep kissing their ass.
ndesai256 2 years ago
I hope you realise the irony in using mangled syntax and grammar to call others stupid. Probably you don't, though. If most republicans are as hopelessly ignorant and illogical as you, the movement is thankfully doomed to failure.
gbambino 2 years ago 2
Governor General it's a symbolic position with no 'real' powers, just as the Queen is in England.
verstwo2 2 years ago
I am a Canadian and I totally agree with Maddow's comment. Mr. Harper's actions were anti-democratic and should be exposed as such.
caillou2000 2 years ago
I'm originally Canadian and there was nothing inaccurate about Maddow's comments except for her incorrectly calling 'prorogation' 'dissolution'. That being said shes spot on. The fundamental principle of Canadian democracy is responsible government. In India (which operates as a parliamentary democracy, like Canada) when the left front withdrew support from the government the PM was asked by the President to show his support in Parliament. Jean is a dumb bitch.
ndesai256 2 years ago
Look at the history of the world and see what people do to keep in power. Some kill some just down right lie and bribe. Stephen Harper did what what was best for Canada. If parliament gets too much power any country is in danger. Harper did good.
Canadabeautiful1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The United States guarantees the stability and prosperity the world has. Canada should be part of the United States, instead of a second rate world player, so that the U.S. could better utilise Canada's resources to this end. The two countries never should have been separated into two entities. We have the same culture. Canada should become part of the United States in the interest of a better world. I mean this in all seriousness.
robertjohnson487 2 years ago
LOL. We do NOT have the same culture. Yeah lots of stuff in common, but not the same culture. Bring it up again when you guys learn French.
Canada is more European on social issues, while the US is still controlled by the Christian Right. I love the US and Americans, but I'd freak if someone seriously proposed having Canada join the US.
tcarrier79 2 years ago 4
over our dead bodies WE will NEVER and I mean NEVER become one with the U S
tovasdad 2 years ago
ment thumbs up lol sorry
insert32coins 2 years ago
no wonder no on watches this bitches show, seriously like 6 million must watch it, thank god i dont get msnbc in Canada with no liberal bullshit
got my fox news baby
leafs4life3danield 3 years ago
WOOOO
YEAH LETS INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY YEAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCKIN BEER PARTY MANNN!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
CONSERVATIVES FOR THE FUCKING WIN!!!!! I WANNA SEE FAGS BURNNNN YEAHHH!!!
RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA FTW WYAAAAAAAA!!!!
Fuckin redneck moron.
Propagandhi900 2 years ago
i havent heard anything wrong with that man except that MSNBC is SOOOO LIBERAL, there is not conservative bias,
and im not a redneck i live in toronto buddy so suck it
leafs4life3danield 2 years ago
Yeah. You Torontonians can be rednecks.
MSNBC is very diverse. Their night lineup is usually liberal commentators. Their morning to afternoon lineup is conservative commentators. Their main news has show no sign of leaning either which way.
Conservative bias = FOX NEWS moron.
Propagandhi900 2 years ago
what r u an idiot who the fuck watches msnbc during daytime most important time period is night, and its ALLL LIBERALS, but like retard gay fag hippie liberals that smoke 10 pounds of grass a day
i do like joe scarborough though
leafs4life3danield 2 years ago
"retard gay fag hippie liberals"
Okay. I'm a Marxist, straight, no mental handicap, and i never have or will smoke weed. I do support it's legalization though.
I guess it's my turn to stereotype you.
...ALLL CONSERVATIVES, but like uneducated, bible thumping, racist, rednecks that molest little boys or solicits gay sex.
Propagandhi900 2 years ago
I don't know who is in charge of Frivolous Facts, but the PM - like the former U.S. president - is "The Decider".
The rest, like votes in the current Congress - give or take a couple of reasonable Republicans - are just formalities.
nlperpave 3 years ago
She also forgot Canada has 105 member Senate that is unelected and appointed by the Governor-general, who is also unelected!
AdvanXer 3 years ago
Actually, they're appointed by the Prime Minister.
fourtyblinks 3 years ago
No, they're appointed by the Governor General, who is appointed by the Queen.
gbambino 3 years ago
The Prime Minister is the de facto appointer of both the Governor General and Senators.
fourtyblinks 3 years ago
The Prime Minister is only the de facto *recommender* of whom should be appointed as governor general or to the Senate. Both the Queen and the GG retain the right to refuse their PM's recommendations.
gbambino 3 years ago
Only if there's a constitutionally sound reason, which is very rare, if it can even happen. Canada is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, not an dictatorship ruled by the Queen of England..
fourtyblinks 3 years ago
That, fourty, is absolutely correct.
gbambino 3 years ago
This might have been funny if this chick had half a clue about parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, and personal union. All she does, though, is reinforce the image of the igorant American deriding another country for not being American. Talk about the 21st century, this broad is still stuck 300 years in the past, when the throne of England still existed and Canada was a colony. Oh, Maddow, really.
gbambino 3 years ago
She's actually pretty close to right on here, actually.
BENY0HAMA 3 years ago
Comment removed
gbambino 3 years ago
Comment removed
gbambino 3 years ago
You'd be hard pressed to point out what exactly she's close to being right on. The last Queen of England died in 1707, Canada has been a sovereign kingdom since at least 1982, proroguing parliament is not a "banishment" of opposition MPs... Need I go on?
gbambino 3 years ago
"The last Queen of England died in 1707"
Elizabeth II is Queen of the whole commonwealth, including England
"Canada has been a sovereign kingdom since at least 1982"
It's not a kingdom
"proroguing parliament is not a "banishment" of opposition MPs"
Not in a literal sense, nor was it meant that way
BENY0HAMA 3 years ago
Er, no, she's Head of the Commonwealth, not queen of it. She's only queen of 16 countries in the Commonwealth, of which England is not one, as it isn't a sovereign state. Canada is one of those countries, however, and unless you can prove otherwise, as long as the country is a constitutional monarchy, it will be a kingdom.
Satire relies on a base of accurate facts, and Maddow was way off on a good number of them.
gbambino 3 years ago
There are 50 Commonwealth countries, 53 if you count the 4 countries of the United Kingdom as separate countries. Not 16. The UK is in the commonwealth. Saying England isn't in the Commonwealth is like saying Ontario isn't in the Commonwealth.
Constitutional monarchies aren't kingdoms because the monarchy has no real power.
That wasn't satire, I don't think, so much as it was sarcastically mocking the situation.
BENY0HAMA 3 years ago
I can only wonder where you're getting your "facts" from, Benyohama. The Commonwealth has 53 countries, *not* counting the four constituent, non-sovereign countries of the UK; counting them is akin to including Ontario as a Commonwealth member state. Of those 53, only 16 have Elizabeth II as head of state, and, by the dictionary definition of the word, any country with a monarch as head of state is a kingdom. Also, the dictionary definition of satire includes the use of sarcasm to critique.
gbambino 3 years ago
Comment removed
gbambino 3 years ago
she's american what canada does shouldn't be any of her business!!
she can go back to the lezbo bar you came out of!
alagogo 3 years ago
Actually she's half-Canadian. Since half her family live in Canada. She's not some uneducated backwoods hick like you.
halli321 3 years ago
i like being an uneducated backwoods bitch
how about you.....
alagogo 3 years ago
meh... I called you a hick but if you want to call yourself a bitch, you go on and do that.
halli321 3 years ago 3
I dont like Harper and his bullies but Rachel should shut up! Even the left in the U.S. is far right if anyone remembers! And our right is more to the centre. It doesnt matter, Iggy the guy who wanted us in Iraq is gonna Buddy up with him anyways. We all lose!!!
rayzorsedge77 3 years ago
Parliamentary democracy isn't gentle to anyone idiotic enough to run a minority as if it was a majority. Harper can run but he can't hide from his own stupidity.
Proroguing Parliament is exactly the kind of cheap ploy Mulroney (Harper's good buddy) would've pulled in his shoes - but then, Lyin' Brian never had to submit to minority rule.
Good riddance to bad rubbish - he can join Dion in looking for an honest job soon enough. His party would be daft to keep such a total failure on board.
jamesmorgandavies 3 years ago
the Queen of England is still canada's head of state?! haahahahaha! crazy canadians!
ndesai256 3 years ago
No, the Governor General is Head of state. Her name's Michaelle Jean. She's the queen's representative, she wasn't chosen by the Queen but by our former Prime Minister; Paul Martin. The Queen doesn't have any political (or cultural control for that matter), she comes in July, I think and ppl give her flowers, does a little tour of cities, waves and see ya next year granny, lol! I find her harmless but the french speakers think she's the devil... We have a different independant constitution.
sidvidle 3 years ago
This woman obviously has no idea of what she speaks. Our Prime Minister is certainly justified in his action as the losing parties have ganged up to get in the back door. In Canada we take our votes seriously.
beadafficiato 3 years ago
Get in the back door? More people voted for the NDP and Liberals combined than the conservatives.
A coalition government is 100% legal, democratic and is a part of parliamentary politics.
Ireland, Israel, and Germany to name a few, all have coalition governments.
Propagandhi900 3 years ago 2
HA HA! The yanks laughing at us, when they let a man with the IQ of a chimpanzee take their country down the toilet. Hey, Maddox! It isn't Canada that's circling the drain.
bcmjp 3 years ago 2
I Wish we could vote Barack out within 2 months...
FreedomAintFree1 3 years ago
Arg, we have been a democracy for as long as the states don't call us young.
Its sad that our leader has left Canada open to such attacks. What a child he is.
Tarathiel123 3 years ago
Why did he do it? To save his ass.
bcmjp 3 years ago
racist
fourtyblinks 3 years ago
Why is this news? Maddow show's complete disrespect for our parliamentary system.
rousseau5550 3 years ago
This has nothing to do with our parliamentary system. Harper's acting like the leader of some 3rd rate banana republic. If you want to change campaign finance laws, here's a hint, DONT hide them in the budget and hope noone will notice. Harper is the only man responsible for this mess.
johnedwards1968 3 years ago 2
A friend tells me Maddow's mom is from Newfoundland, so she really should know better. Maybe she was just going for the laugh. But, really, it is no laughing matter what Harper has done, what he is doing to stir up anti-Quebec sentiment, national dis-unity, us'n'them divisiveness. It's reprehensible. I believe Canadians are wise enough to see through that divide and conquer strategy.
thereginamom 3 years ago 6
I like Rachel Maddow but she shows how little she really knows about our Canadian Parliamentary system of governance. Then again, some commenters here show they know even less, given the Con Talking Points they spew regarding illegitimacy of coalition governments, etc.
thereginamom 3 years ago
She understands what is going on, but the details of how we vote and who we vote for may be a bit lost on her. Hell there are still Canadians who actually think we vote for our Prime Minister. If you are voting based on who you want to be Prime Minister, you are a dreadfully irresponsible voter in Canada.
ponyboy316 3 years ago
If you vote, period, you are living in a major illusion. If you think the world will change overnight because you just stuffed yourself in a booth to vote for a new head of state, think again. You want real change, then the whole system has to change, not just the hood ornament.
Ronpaulquebec 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Rachel should concentrate on bush-bashing and eating pussy, and keep her stupid comments about our country to herself. I hate Harper as much as the next guy but it's our problem and we don't need to be made fun of by someone who's country has many many problems of their own.
ElectricPineapple79 3 years ago
It's news. Grow up. Pussy-eating? And you dare to call yourself Canadian.
ponyboy316 3 years ago
And you call yourself a human being.
ElectricPineapple79 3 years ago
what is most frustrating about this issue is that Harper tried to pull the same coalition thing back when the Martin Liberal gov't was in power. Harper banded with the Bloc and NDP back then... but to do so today is putting the power in separist's hands? give me a break. Separatism is low on the priority list for French Canadians... they want their jobs as much as Albertans do, they worry about the environment and healthcare system and culture. This suspension is outrageously undemocratic.
achanceromance 3 years ago 5
Every PM facing a confidence vote will be able to do it now.
ponyboy316 3 years ago
First, are we Canadians so precious that we can't take a joke - ie. the aboot thing? Americans mention it all the time, oh no, I'm so offended.
Second, but more importantly, proroguing parliament is undermocratic and something we'd expect in some banana republic. Regardless of what you think of the idea of Harper loosing confidence, when it was obvious that he lost the confidence of the house, pulling that stunt was autocratic at best.
vkeightyfive 3 years ago 7
Wow, Rachael Maddow is an idiot. I say that as a liberal too. From the dumbass "Aboot" remark to the snide comment at the end. All she did was just explain the british parliamentary system then make a stupid remark. Pretty sad.
jer5876 3 years ago
She explained OURS you dumbass. That's the problem with our system. Govenor Generals are pointless at best, and are an aristocracy at worst.
ponyboy316 3 years ago 5
I'm a dumbass? Fucking hell you are a complete FUCKING moron aren't you? The British Parliamentary system IS OUR system fuckhead, that's what it's fucking called. Wow, just wow. What a fucking stupid ass you are. Do you have a job? Does someone so fucking dumb get hired anywhere?
jer5876 3 years ago
Are you hallucinating, halcyon? I'm not a fan of Fox, MSNBC or any of the other major biased networks, but Fox has liberals on their shows ALL THE TIME. I've seen O'Reilly interview liberals tons of time. However, I've never seen Olbermann *DARE* to have a conservative on his show. He'd be eviscerated.
Like Michael Moore, Olbermann and Madcow don't seem to understand that there are plenty of legitimate political issues. No need to make shit up or focus on irrelevent minutia.
xxlesslikeitsmathxx 3 years ago
Typical Rachel Madcow. Telling only half the story. Where's the part about how Dion and Layton got girly hysterical and formed a coalition with the support of an avowedly separatist party *before the budget had even been handed down*? Where's the part about how Dion and Layton's feelings were hurt NOT because Harper was going to make budget cuts, but because he was going after the all-sacred public financing?
Madcow, like Olbermann, is great at telling (at best) 1/10th of a story.
xxlesslikeitsmathxx 3 years ago
It's ok xxless. Don't fret. 'Cause she also neglected to mention Harper's outright lying to the Canadian people to garner support, playing to the lowest common denominator among the imbecilic right, and his shitting all over the constitution and majority will of the people of Canada. So, it kind of evens itself out. Don'cha think?
BloatedSensations 3 years ago 4
nicely put
goliveonline 3 years ago
Maybe she should concentrate on the do-nothing Congress, the Democrats double standards. Imepachment and prosecution for war crimes. But then that would mean getting cancelled in the middle of a global recession. Do we really need another MSM "pundit" on the unemployment line?
OverdueChange 3 years ago
She has constantly attacked the democrats for being hypocritical.
darksideofthenation 3 years ago 3
Another aspect of this is being overlooked. Many people are saying Maddow is so great, yadda yadda yadda. She's the new progressive on cable. No she's not.
If she's a real progressive, then (1)why does she work for a neocon network like MSNBC? And (2)why does she continue to do her Air America show (also a neocn network). Answers: money, Mark Green the AA CEO is tight with NBC, she sold out for the big bucks. The list goes on.....
OverdueChange 3 years ago
True, but i still agree with some of what she said, and all of what she said on this video.
darksideofthenation 3 years ago
Thank you, This is great, it took an American to call Harper out on his dictatorship ways.
darksideofthenation 3 years ago 4
Thanks a lot Harper...you bring shame to Canada.
BrownMan8 3 years ago 7
More CNN or MSNBC circus reporting. It is good melodrama though.
rayefield 3 years ago
At least he isn't sending Conservative Party stormtroopers.
7boon 3 years ago
You fool. she's half Canadian. She knows about Canada inside and out! Chill. She makes fun of everybody, America, Russia, Bhutan, and yes, even Canada. Put your insecurities aside and enjoy her humour. She is fully aware that Canada is a more advanced society than the States. She's a far far lefty. and have I mentioned. SHE'S HALF CANADIAN!!!
zentropy78 3 years ago 5
Good god, it is painful to listen to Americans talking about Canadian politics. The woman really isn't comprehending how angry Canadians are at attempted overthrow of the elected government by an alliance with Canadian separatists. Yes, it is legal to form a coalition government but it is smelly to form a government where separatist parties are giveen veto power.
But we're just the cold and metric neighbors to the north.
FoolWesterner 3 years ago
Most Canadians oppose a coalition government because the Canadian Conservatives have radio ads playing on the airwaves to say that the opposition is trying to go into power without their consent. Unfortunately that is not correct. The majority of Parliament is held by the opposition parties. A PM is not chosen by the voters - the House of Commons has this selection power. Whatever you hear on the Conservative ads is just a play on words. Canadians DO NOT choose their PM.
bubbasheeko 3 years ago 5
Yes, Harper lied and so do his supporters. The bloc is not part of the coalition government, they have only agreed to support the coalition for a given time limits.
darksideofthenation 3 years ago 2
Fool, you misspelled neighbours
publicpost4ever 3 years ago
My deepest apologies for the spelling faux pas. How can you ever forgive me?
FoolWesterner 3 years ago
The Reform/Conservative alliance want to ban workers ability to strike (welcome to 3rd world wages and benefits) They send our jobs to other countries in the form of free trade and NAFTA, to what?? allow for increased CEO and Shareholder profit.
Obama swept U.S. with a message for the worker and creates work for the people.
NAFTA gives away 65% of our oil & gas, our forest industry is crumbling, and they plan to eliminate good Postal jobs so we can drive to get mail. WTF, Help Wanted, Jobs 2
publicpost4ever 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of reality.
An Ipsos poll found that 68% of Canadians supported prorogation. Canadians overwhelmingly do not want their government replaced by a coalition led by the loser of the last election, and separatists that want to destroy the country.
Delaying a motion 7 weeks to allow for compromise between all parties is a far cry from suspending parliament indefinitely to hold onto power. Of course I wouldn't expect accuracy from MSNBC, America's other Fox News
domtar76 3 years ago
Hi domtar, actually it is being broadcasted the same way here in Canada, on CBC and CTV. Canada has been embarrassed by the representation and the begging of Harper. Please I don't want to lose my job, please choose us over the separatists...the same separatists that the Cons almost joined with to topple the Liberal government. The it's okay for me, but not for you philosophy.
bubbasheeko 3 years ago
he is a bilderberg group puppet same as Dion they are a threat to the world who looks to Canada for guidance ,people just goggle the evil Bilderberg Group,Harper and Dion are both the same crisis makers to keep the sheep asleep and distracted
,there will never be a New World Order!!!
That,s A FACT ,Canadians are waking up to the NWO and why they might be a small country they are all Patriots who will rips this idiot a new one in the near future.
get the queens ugly mug off Canadian moneys
dfghji8765r 3 years ago
Oops! My bad. ^
likes2p 3 years ago
doesn't anyone get it? Canada has ALWAYS been a Banana republic! If we were so concerned about sovereignty, we wouldn't have sold off all our business to more powerful nations.
When the states own all the trees, the beavers eat bananas!
kbuzzred 3 years ago
the Governor General is the Head of State, not the Queen.
likes2p 3 years ago
No, the Queen is the head of state. The governor-general is her representative in Canada. If say, the Queen happens to be in Canada during a throne speech, the Queen would give it. Additionally the Queen repatriated Canada's constitution in the early 1980's and you could technically ask her to fire the governor-general. PM Whitlam likely would have done that to governor-general Kerr, had he known about "the dismissal" in their 1975 case.
domtar76 3 years ago 3
riderdave, just to inform you on your stupidity quotient. that "idiotic" woman is a rhodes scholar with a PhD in Political Science, FROM OXFORD YOU ASS!
zentropy78 3 years ago 2
ah, you must be just as educated as she.
she's very ill-informed about Canadian politics
riderdave 3 years ago
That 'idiotic' women is a hell of a lot smarter than you.
lovellderrick 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To be fair, she sounds very ill-informed about Canada. Parliament is being suspended for 7 weeks (it is usually not in session during the holidays anyway). As a Westminster democracy Canada is governed by unwritten rules, and evolving conventions and precedents. That gives us the flexibility say, to avoid appointing a government most Canadians oppose.
domtar76 3 years ago
I bet Rachel got a kick out of poking fun at half her family.
zentropy78 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who is this idiotic woman?
riderdave 3 years ago
Try doing some research.
Salydra 3 years ago
I agree. Harper has brought shame to Canada both at home and Internationally.
Shame.
lovellderrick 3 years ago 9
A "Banana Republic" is what dictator Harper has reduced Canada to. I urge people and leaders around the world to denounce this undemocratic abuse of power!
gigantibyte 3 years ago 11
I do.I'm Australian. We have coalitions governments a lot in Australia. I always thought it was a fundamental principle of the Westminster system that the government must have the confidence of the lower house i.e. in this case the House of Commons. Starting to sound like a coup (at least from a distance.I'm not sure when parliament was next scheduled to meet).
NI4DpathtoShamballa 3 years ago
It WAS a fundamental principle in Canada as well... up until last week when the Straussian goon we have holding the chair of Prime Minister here, in a move unprecedented in our history, decided to take a dump on our constitution and run like a coward from the noble tradition of our democratic procedure so he can hold on to power in spite of the will of the people.
BloatedSensations 3 years ago 4