Maxwell C.

Hey Max, you and Rex must be the only two people clinging to Dominion. You will simply get "reverted" every time, because as Kevin explained patiently to you (and we can tell you are not a calm and patient person) Dominion is not the legal name of Canada. Read the article on British dominions. Dominion was inserted in the BNA Act because British politicans would not use the word Kingdom which is what the fathers of Confederation wanted. Having seen the might of the Union Army 1860-65, they were not anxious to antagonize American republicans. The word "dominion" came to be used gradually as a synonymn for "federal" as in Dominion government, Dominion-Provincial relations, or Dominion building but this was not immediate. As Kevin said, you are going to have convince a lot of people. As J.M. Barrie said so well in his play The Admirable Crichton, "I am not young enough to know everything". Open your mind, Max, and listen to the arguments. The name of Canada is Canada, it is "styled" Dominion. Why don't you comb through the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and who knows, maybe you will find a decision supporting your case. I doubt it. Good luck with your quixotic mission.--BrentS 03:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Max, I'm afraid your multiple crowns theory doesn't hold up legally:

From Judge Paul Rouleau's judgement of June 2005 in the case of O'Donohue vs Regina (with my emphasis added):

CONCLUSION

[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.

[37] These rules of succession and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy and, therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

[38] In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

[39] In conclusion, the lis raised in the present application is not justiciablc and there is no serious issue to he tried. Public interest standing should not he granted. Given my ruling on these issues I need not deal with the other considerations that apply to the granting of public interest standing. The application is dismissed.

[40] If the parties cannot agree as to costs, the respondents are to provide me with brief written submissions within 10 days hereof and the applicant his submissions within 5 days thereafter.

Note also the use of the phrase "Union under the British Crown" in the ruling. I'm sorry guys but if you actually look at the law as it is written and as it is interpreted by the courts it seems that the MLCs propaganda about "multiple crowns" and equality between the crowns is not supported. If you can cite any decision by a Canadian court that contradicts the one above, I'm all ears. Remember, legal theorists can claim any myriad of interpretations but what matters is not what your house legal and constitutional experts claim but what judge's actually decide. Of course, I guess the MLC could join O'Donohue's appeal but I suspect that would be unlikely. AndyL 12:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier, gbambino claimed "It is well established that the 1931 Statute of Westminster ended any presence of the "British Crown" in Canada" -- tell that to the judge. Mr Toproski and Mr. Aimers can theorise whatever they like but theories by lawyers or "experts" have no weight against a judicial judgement. AndyL 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max, I'm afraid your multiple crowns theory doesn't hold up legally:

From Judge Paul Rouleau's judgement of June 2005 in the case of O'Donohue vs Regina (with my emphasis added):

CONCLUSION

[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.

[37] These rules of succession and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy and, therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

[38] In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

[39] In conclusion, the lis raised in the present application is not justiciablc and there is no serious issue to he tried. Public interest standing should not he granted. Given my ruling on these issues I need not deal with the other considerations that apply to the granting of public interest standing. The application is dismissed.

[40] If the parties cannot agree as to costs, the respondents are to provide me with brief written submissions within 10 days hereof and the applicant his submissions within 5 days thereafter.

Note also the use of the phrase "Union under the British Crown" in the ruling. I'm sorry guys but if you actually look at the law as it is written and as it is interpreted by the courts it seems that the MLCs propaganda about "multiple crowns" and equality between the crowns is not supported. If you can cite any decision by a Canadian court that contradicts the one above, I'm all ears. Remember, legal theorists can claim any myriad of interpretations but what matters is not what your house legal and constitutional experts claim but what judge's actually decide. Of course, I guess the MLC could join O'Donohue's appeal but I suspect that would be unlikely. Mr Toproski and Mr. Aimers can theorise whatever they like but theories by lawyers or "experts" have no weight against a judicial judgement. AndyL 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see what your comments have to do with Judge Rouleau's ruling. AndyL 11:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of warez groups on VfD

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. —RaD Man (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)