Conspiracy theorists Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley show their ignorance when discuss the Westminster system of government and the British Monarchy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b51LMBxQIo
Alex Jones makes a big deal about the Queen being Canadas Head of State, not seeming to realise that in Parliamentary systems of government the Head of State and Head of Government are separate. It is the Prime Minister, not the Queen, who holds all executive power.
Jones also appears to be under the impression that Stephen Harpers Conservative party lost the October 2008 Canadian federal election. In fact the Conservatives won the election, increased its vote share and number of seats in the House of Commons. Jones states Harpers party is the minority party when in fact it was the biggest party in parliament, it just didnt have an overall majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_2008
Jones frequently refers to a Reuters article as evidence that the Queen has suspended Parliament. However the article in question does not say that, the headline he quotes and shows to camera clearly says Canadian PM wins suspension of Parliament.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B34BC20081204
Jones then introduces Webster Tarpley who is described as an expert on the British system of government and the Commonwealth of Nations. However Tarpley doesnt seem to know how many countries are in the Commonwealth (he says there are over 70 countries when there are only 53, he says Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of States of all of them, when its only 16). Most startling for someone described as an expert, Tarpley thinks Governor General Michaëlle Jean is a man, when she a woman.
Although the article he talks about states Parliament was prorogated at the request of the Prime Minister, Tarpley says that Governor General has the most power, because [s]he is the one who suspended Parliament. It may be the Governor General who actually did the act but she wouldnt have been able to do so without the Prime Ministers explicit instructions.
Tarpley states two examples to try and show that the Queen and Governor General have the real power. First he says the Queen appointed new senators to vote the way she wanted in the North American Free Trade Agreement debate – yet again, Tarpley gets it wrong. Appointments to the Canadian Senate are only ever made by the monarch on prime ministerial advice. Also, it wasnt the NAFTA debate where new senators were appointed it was the Goods and Services Tax debate and it was Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who wanted the new appointments not the Queen.
The other example stated by Tarpley is The Dismissal, which was a constitutional crisis in 1975 Australia where the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was removed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr. Tarpley suggests that this was all the work of the Queen, he gives no evidence of this, in reality the Queen kept out of the situation and the Governor-General who was surrounded in controversy.
Tarpley dramatically over simplifies what happened. Without wanting to do that same, one of the key things to note is that Tarpley does not mention that the Whitlam Government was accused of attempting to illegally borrow money from Middle Eastern countries, bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury. It had nothing to do with London and New York as Tarpley suggests. Also the government was dismissed by the Governor-General who did not consult the Queen. In fact the Queen released a statement at the time saying the only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.
http://whitlamdismissal.com/documents/letter-from-queen.shtml
Alex Jones continues to make several historical errors, not just about the British Monarchy but also basic history of the United States. Jones states that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was on the British thrown during the time of the American War of Independence. This is wrong; it was the House of Hanover at the time. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only came to the British thrown after Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and their son became King in 1901, 125 years after the United States declared independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs#House_of_Hanover
Jones also says that the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against Britain because King George III tried to removed the colonists weapons. In reality the war stated because the colonists rejected the right of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation.
I literally laughed out loud when Jones said how important it was to know history, I only hope he and Webster Tarpley take that advice soon.
Duration : 0:7:35
[youtube dPMG8Xj5Vxk]
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
@MORCOPOLO0817
…
@MORCOPOLO0817
Jones and Tarpley are clearly not right anywhere near 100% of the time. Just watch the video, every other word they get something wrong.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
@Medeasbiggestfan …
@Medeasbiggestfan The cover story about U.S. elections is that the President is elected by the people. But if you saw that last election, you would know that it was all fraud and that no looser like Obama would be elected by the people if he did not have all that money in his camp to hide things, make fraudulent claims about his background and above all perpetrate voter fraud!
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
@Medeasbiggestfan …
@Medeasbiggestfan Look Super Walex Dupont, get over your blind pride and realize that s..t has hit the fan and the UK is the most liberal bloated nation short of a communist country. And Jones and Tarpley are on target close to 100% of the time and if you don’t know that this world is in sorry shape, you are blinder than a bat!
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Doesnt the Queen …
Doesnt the Queen pick the PM? I know everytime she has picked the majority party or biggest party, but whats stopping her from going “to with this, I’m picking Gerry Adams”?
Just curious.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Such idiocy; an …
Such idiocy; an abject paucity of basic grade school history –a real an embarrassment –it’s just amazing anybody at all takes these guys (Jones & Tarpley) seriously… By the way what are Tarpley’s credentials?
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Such idiocy; an …
Such idiocy; an abject paucity of grade school history –a real an embarrassment –it’s just amazing anybody at all takes these guys (Jones & Tarpley) seriously… By the way what are Tarpley’s credentials?
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
A successful vote …
A successful vote of no confidence demands that parliament be dissolved and a new election be held. Jones’ wording may have been technically awkward but the inaccuracy is based on a misunderstood nuance of Canadian law.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
instead of saying ‘ …
instead of saying ‘the queen’. he shoulda just stuck with ‘the crown’ represented by the GG.
and faux pas and a half on the ‘he’ for michelle jean.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Good work. Keep …
Good work. Keep exposing this guy.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
The relationship …
The relationship between representatives of the People – Parliament, representatives of the Government -Ministers of State and representatives of the Queens Global Estate (of which she collects rent etc) – GGenerals is clearly defined on paper but I’m not convinced that the checks and balances on the way authority flows within governing hierarchies is necessarity maintained or audited by these defined terms.
The way power is exercised is academic, because it is mostly hidden behind closed doors
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
This is how …
This is how parliamentary systems have worked for almost 1000 years, and they are generally regard as safer and being more democratically accountable than most other systems.
The PM can’t suspend Parliament forever. It was less than 2 months in Canada. In that time the Prime Minister was able to convince the other parties to not hold the vote.
The other parties had no reason to have a confidence vote anyway, they just wanted an election. It wasn’t about holding the government to account.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
What you are saying …
What you are saying doesn’t make much sense. It is never necessary to suspend the representatives of the people. If you don’t want them to have the ability to call for a new election, then take away that legal ability. However, I would warn you that impeachment or calling for new elections is an essential check on executive power (which obviously doesn’t function well in canada). If elected representatives can’t be held to task for crimes, then what incentive do they have to obay the law?
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
It is the same …
It is the same setup in Parliamentry Republics. If Canada had an elected President the same thing would have happened.
Sometimes it’s necessary to suspend Parliament. The opposition parties were trying to hold a confidence vote which if they had won would have ment the calling of an election. I don’t think the people would want the party they voted for just two months earlier to be forced from office.
By the way, the Queen appoints the GG on the advice of the PM.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
No one should ever …
No one should ever suspend parliament, ever, except for the people of course, but who would you rather suspend it, someone who was elected, or someone who was appointed by the queen? Look, if you want to criticize Jones there are plenty of ways, but here he’s just reading the article and coming to the logical conclusion that most people would come to. The prime minister decided to suspend parliament, right, and then the GG decided to LET him do it.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
It would be …
It would be dangerous if a Prime Minister could suspend Parliament by himself. The GG is there as a safeguard against a PM who might abuse his power. Having said that, it would be extraordinary for the GG to say no to the PM.
In any case, Jones and Tarpley were talking as if it were the GG’s decision to suspend Parliament when it was clearly the Prime Minister’s.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
According to what …
According to what you said, it did not say he “did” it, it said he “won” it. From what I have read about this particular incident, it seems like he had to ask the governor general (the modern name for “viceroy”) to give him *permission* to suspend parliament. Now, I am no expert on the governor general, but it sounds like she has some power to me, if she didn’t, the prime minister wouldn’t have asked her, he would have just done it.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Jones and Tarpley’s …
Jones and Tarpley’s point is that it was the GG and/or the Queen who decided to shut down parliament when the article they’re citing clearly says it was the PM’s decision.
The Governor General may have been the one who technically did it, but it was the Prime Minister who wanted it to happen.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Yes, it says …
Yes, it says british prime minister “wins” suspension, not that he suspended it himself. You know how he won it? He went to the queen’s representative in canada and she GAVE it to him.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
What do you mean by …
What do you mean by ‘cesored responces’? I see no sign of censorship on here,
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
it is nice to know …
it is nice to know that alex jones and webster tarpley is still a couple of mentally retarded fame seeking ill informed idiots who pedal out the usual crap pity their parents didnt consider abortion as a viable option
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Interesting …
Interesting information, I will have to look into this. But it doesn’t matter anyway if you discredit some of the things Alex Jones says. For the most part, on his show, he quotes facts as he sees them and devotes hours upon hours to research this. Canada will not exist after the NWO forms the NAU. That is an indisputable fact. Jones is labeled a conspiracy theorist because our news doesn’t talk about it. You may live in canada and miss our point of view. The media hides stuff here. EX: HR-2454
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
I am not saying …
I am not saying somehow we need to oppose NEW WORLD ORDER or fight for freedom because that is idiocy~ hahaha~
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
I understand that. …
I understand that. but I don’t subscribe to Alex Jones’ view or Tarpley’s. All you gotta do is look back history. We are always gonna have few ruling many. few is not Brown or Harper but Queen of England and othe royal families around the world and some banking families. Sumerian Civilization had ruling few, it was priesthood. Also, Queen do not need to veto anything because maybe she likes what is going on~ hahaha~
so rule of law~ rule of law is rule of few~ hahaha~
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
When was the last …
When was the last time a monarch vetoed a law passed by a parliament?
Alex Jones says that Gordon Brown is some sort of master in the ‘new world order’. However, I bet when Brown loses the election next year Jones will find some convoluted way to dismiss it.
When everything is proof nothing is proved.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 am
Queen is one of …
Queen is one of those oligarchy in Europe. If you think Western civilization is ruled by parliamentary system or democratic system, you are totally lost. We are ruled by finance capital or financial oligarchy. Queen is one of them. Oligarchs always help each other.