Sometimes a discussion is too big to be just a response

@coulls gave a response to one of my posts today. I am writing this because it does allow me to clarify a point. It also allows me to discuss my political position a little.

The head of our government is not the Prime Minister. It is the Governor-General who, in turn, represents Queen Elizabeth. @coulls described the veto power the Governor-General has as an emergency brake. Describing it as an emergency brake is apt. The Governor-General can veto any legislation. To remove the Governor-General position (or the Queen, or Lieutenant-Generals from the provincial governments) would require unanimous agreement in both houses and all the provinces. In theory, it might happen, but it isn't very likely in practice.

@coulls goes a little further and uses the events in the USA a year ago to expand on the point:

That bill and the idea of an emergency brake neatly brings us to a modern example of what happens when you remove that brake. The US example of Jan 6th, shows that when an Elected President goes rogue, and the military is supposed to follow orders of it's Commander in Chief (the President), you're only minutes away from a potential coup. Under the Commonwealth system, the military is controlled by the Government, but has allegiance with the Monarch - meaning if Trudeau, for instance, went full-Trump and tried to do the same, every military of the Commonwealth would come help the Canadian Military to restore order under the Monarch.

I'm not sure if Trudeau can go full-Trump because the Governor-General can veto any legislation and dissolve parliament and create a coalition government from the other parties.

I never like to reference Trump or opposition to Trump. I have a policy of not believing people who lie. How often does a news agency need to lie before you disregard what they say? When I want to learn about what is happening in the United States, I listen to mainstream news sources from India and Australia. I have found news sources from both the USA and Canada unreliable.

If Trump were guilty of insurrection, he would have been impeached or criminally charged. The news media demonized people who were later found innocent, but some who were inciting the riots were ignored. CNN used this person as a reporter of the riots, but while not a Trump supporter, this person was inciting the riot.

He and she were not the only ones.

I have said before that I don't think it is wise to follow other people's opinions. It is essential to fall back on data.