GG takes on fake news

[JLives]

This is the problem Urbane. We don't get our own facts. Climate change and evolution are facts. Not my facts, just facts. And fact doesn't mean absolute. It is the widely held theory based on our current knowledge. It really doesn't matter if someone else believes they aren't facts and we should not be respecting the promotion of falsehoods. We need to be calling this out more often. Anti-intellectualism is not a virtue.

[Verum]

Rex Murphy said it well:

On a lesser point, it truly is unbecoming for the Governor General, appointed by a furiously environmentalist prime minister, who has made “climate change, global warming” the central pillar of his government, to be opining with such certitude and aggressiveness on that precise issue. Policy is for the elected, not the selected. And however much she holds strong opinions on the subject as Julie Payette the individual, it is not in her brief as our Governor General to advocate her personal views under the stamp of Her Majesty’s office.

I guess the question is, was she there to represent the Queen or not? If not, she is speaking as a private citizen. If she was representing the Queen, does the Queen take issue with the content of the speech? I would contend that she was there as a private citizen and not to represent the Queen, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in what the Queen has to say.

[Urbane]

This is the problem Urbane. We don't get our own facts. Climate change and evolution are facts. Not my facts, just facts. And fact doesn't mean absolute. It is the widely held theory based on our current knowledge. It really doesn't matter if someone else believes they aren't facts and we should not be respecting the promotion of falsehoods. We need to be calling this out more often. Anti-intellectualism is not a virtue.

There was a time when the "fact" was that the earth was flat. That was certainly "the widely held theory based on our current knowledge." Don't you think it was good that some questioned the "fact" and investigated further? Evolution makes sense to me but if I were the governor general I certainly wouldn't be telling those who think otherwise that they're wrong. Most scientists believe that human activities are causing the planet to warm but there are some scientists who disagree.

Some, like Dr. James Lovelock, still believe in the basic theory but believe that there is more that we don't know than we do know. And he was the father of the Gaia Theory. Again, if I were the governor general I wouldn't be taking sides. Questioning. That's what science should be about. Not a blind adherence to "the widely held theory based on our current knowledge."

[Urbane]

I guess the question is, was she there to represent the Queen or not? If not, she is speaking as a private citizen. If she was representing the Queen, does the Queen take issue with the content of the speech? I would contend that she was there as a private citizen and not to represent the Queen, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in what the Queen has to say.

She was making a speech as the Governor General of Canada. She's no longer a private citizen.

[Verum]

She was making a speech as the Governor General of Canada. She's no longer a private citizen.

Are you saying that she isn't allowed to engage in activities outside of her role as Governor General?

[Urbane]

Are you saying that she isn't allowed to engage in activities outside of her role as Governor General?

She made that speech as Governor General. Of course she can also engage in activities outside of her role as Governor General but that's irrelevant.

[Verum]

Are you saying that she isn't allowed to engage in activities outside of her role as Governor General?

She made that speech as Governor General. Of course she can also engage in activities outside of her role as Governor General but that's irrelevant.

Sorry, I didn't see the piece where it said that she made this speech in her official capacity as Governor General, can you point it out to me? And if she did, has the Queen responded, or is the speech in fitting with her preferred representation in Canada?

[Urbane]

Sorry, I didn't see the piece where it said that she made this speech in her official capacity as Governor General, can you point it out to me? And if she did, has the Queen responded, or is the speech in fitting with her preferred representation in Canada?

When the Queen makes a speech is she making it as the Queen or as Elizabeth Windsor? LOL. I think you must agree that the GG's comments were over the line or you wouldn't be trying to suggest that she wasn't the GG when she made the speech.

[Verum]

Sorry, I didn't see the piece where it said that she made this speech in her official capacity as Governor General, can you point it out to me? And if she did, has the Queen responded, or is the speech in fitting with her preferred representation in Canada?

When the Queen makes a speech is she making it as the Queen or as Elizabeth Windsor? LOL. I think you must agree that the GG's comments were over the line or you wouldn't be trying to suggest that she wasn't the GG when she made the speech.

I didn't say she wasn't the Governor General when she made that speech, but I have no evidence that the speech was given in her official capacity as Governor General, and if it was that it was such that the Queen would have an issue with it.

As for the content, I don't personally take issue with it, nor do I think it over the line in the context it was given. Were she to use that content in a throne speech, then I would be surprised and consider it inappropriate, but it wasn't a throne speech. Context matters.

[Urbane]

I didn't say she wasn't the Governor General when she made that speech, but I have no evidence that the speech was given in her official capacity as Governor General, and if it was that it was such that the Queen would have an issue with it.

As for the content, I don't personally take issue with it, nor do I think it over the line in the context it was given. Were she to use that content in a throne speech, then I would be surprised and consider it inappropriate, but it wasn't a throne speech. Context matters.

She made it in her official capacity as Governor General of Canada.

[Verum]

I didn't say she wasn't the Governor General when she made that speech, but I have no evidence that the speech was given in her official capacity as Governor General, and if it was that it was such that the Queen would have an issue with it.

As for the content, I don't personally take issue with it, nor do I think it over the line in the context it was given. Were she to use that content in a throne speech, then I would be surprised and consider it inappropriate, but it wasn't a throne speech. Context matters.

She made it in her official capacity as Governor General of Canada.

Reference? And what has the Queen had to say about it? If she's cool with it, then so am I.

[Urbane]

Reference? And what has the Queen had to say about it? If she's cool with it, then so am I.

As you well know the Queen never comments on things like this. I've got news for you. Julie Payette is the Governor General of Canada all the time. When she makes a speech before the science academy, with a military officer standing beside her, and is introduced as the Governor General of Canada, she's there as the Governor General.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1088081475841

[Verum]

Reference? And what has the Queen had to say about it? If she's cool with it, then so am I.

As you well know the Queen never comments on things like this. I've got news for you. Julie Payette is the Governor General of Canada all the time. When she makes a speech before the science academy, with a military officer standing beside her, and is introduced as the Governor General of Canada, she's there as the Governor General.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1088081475841

I have no doubt that if she misrepresented the Queen in a manner to deeply offend her that the Queen would at least request that she is replaced, after all, when the Governor General speaks in her official capacity, she is doing so as the Queen's representative.

That said, none of what you mentioned means that her speech was an official act as the Queen's representative.

You can insist that she is not allowed to publicly present her own personal opinions, and that all public appearances she makes at all are to represent the Queen, but I am quite sure that is not the case and will not be seen as the case by the Queen.

Honestly, as the Queen's representative, it should be up to the Queen to decide if she is doing a good job or not. She is not our representative, and whatever we think of her is largely irrelevant.

[Urbane]

^^ Interesting. So the GG could say anything and everything and as long as the Queen doesn't complain you're okay with it. As I say, interesting.

[Verum]

^^ Interesting. So the GG could say anything and everything and as long as the Queen doesn't complain you're okay with it. As I say, interesting.

Yes, in so far as she is the Queen's representative. It's not my place to say what the Queen or her representative should or shouldn't say. If she goes too far, we should look at removing the monarchy. In fact, we should probably do so anyway, but that's a different discussion.