Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

The Federal Republic of Canada

Canada as a federal republic  

110 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Uh...is that really necessary? Seriously, you can make your point without resorting tio use of racial slurs, even if it is suppossed to be "ironic".

I didn't enjoy using that particular word, but you'll note it was in quotations. I was only using the very word the person I was replying to used about himself (at the end of his post above he says "Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.")

I should use the disclaimer "the opinions expressed by my opponents do not reflect the views of myself....", or something like that.

No offence was meant.... on my part anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off-- don’t be so presumptuous as to think all french-speaking Canadians want to separate from Canada.

I don’t, but us swearing loyalty to something that has nothing to do with them does nothing to gain their goodwill. I mean, if there was a French King, watching 6 million of my fellow Canadians have him as their figure head would make me retch.

But I don’t understand what it is you’re really getting at. When you say “We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country?” are you implying that we still have a monarchy because we feel we still need to “belong” to the British Empire? If that’s the case, then I hate to tell you, but the British Empire is gone. Canada doesn’t even have a link to the British Crown anymore, aside from the fact that we share the same woman as Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. You need to get this through your head: For you and I, Elizabeth II is only the Queen of Canada.

I think I get it pretty good. I have a Queen whom I did not vote for, does not do anything for me or my country (except make Monarchists happy) and costs me money in one form or another. She carries out duties that could very well be done by politicians, corporate heads, heads of charities or even volunteers. Any one of them could be replaced if they do not perform properly.

Just for the record, Prince Charles works quite often out in the fields of his own organic farm at Highgrove. He is also very interested in the farming that takes place in Canada’s praries.

And I wish I had the time to do all that, long time since I had the ability to simply ‘work my organic garden.’ Give me a break! Like when was the last time old Charlie got a tax audit and had to come up with the last four (or even seven) years of receipts for his small business? How about sweating over a broken motor in the middle of Texas and wondering how his business was going to survive a twenty thousand dollar hit? How about being laid off and trying to figure out how he was going to make his mortgage payments, kids dental bills, car payment? You know where I’m going here..

And if you choose to belittle the efforts of people to raise money for the betterment of others, well, that just goes to show your moral values.

Who the heck is belittling them? When you have lots of time, no pressing personal problems to deal with, you do what you can. The true heros are those who have all these responsibilities and still make time on weekends and evenings to work for charities, not the big stars. You put these people up on a pedestal when you should be putting people like those who have commitments that are handled by none but themselves, people without fat bank accounts and kids to feed and pick up after school there instead. These people are giving up things in order to meet with local charities and organizations to do good will. If I had all the time in the world, nothing to do and lots of money you want to bet I would be working for a cause other than personal survival. Matter of fact, I am so busy myself that the only way to do charity work was to mix it in with my work life. You work with what you have, and if you have the power of royalty, it shouldn’t be that wonderous of a thing to see them throwing support here and there for causes.

Though, I do wonder at the accuracy of your claims that fund-raising Hollywood stars all wear sunglasses to hide their drug highs. Were you getting high with them?

No, but you must be high to make a claim that Stars like Sean Penn, Elizabeth Taylor, Nick Nolte, Tim Allen and Ben Afflick (there is more, lots more names) who work or represent charities are drug free.

That seems like a bit of an assumption. Do you have any proof of your claim that Her Majesty only reigns because she “gets off on it”? I’d say it’s more because of her strong sense of duty, and a knowledge of how important her role is in the constitutions of many countries.

No I do not. You brought up the issue of this being such a hard thing to do, inferring that it is such an ordeal. I wonder, why do people seek public office? Why do they seek to stay in that office? Why do Stars try to make comebacks? Because it is so beneficial to the people? By this reasoning, Janet Jackson is such a wonderful human being, as is that money grubbing Striesand. Money, fame, beats taking orders from a teen-ager. Lots of reasons other than ‘strong sense of duty’ although, that may be part of it, it is hardly the only reason.

As she said when opening the Canadian Parliament in 1977: “"I dedicate myself anew to the people and the nation I am proud to serve."

I imagine that it went over much better than the truth. ‘I can’t believe that you guys haven’t turfed me and elected somebody who is better qualified to do this job. Thank you, thank you.’

Besides, that claim doesn’t help in your republican argument. I could take your very words and apply them to any president. Every president on the planet ran for the presidency because they “get off on it”, and once in office hold “onto power because [they are], after all, [the president].” As President of the United States, George Bush “likes it”. “Gets off on it, makes [him] feel that [he] is better than you and I.” And so on…..

You got it. They all like the power first, the feeling that they are doing something their way and, in a way that they think is beneficial to the people. It is really not that hard to understand and is human nature. What makes this agreeable is that we do need a leader, not five or ten of them, just one, an elected one. And that he is leader for a term of say four years, not life.......... and his kid’s life and so on.

All your words have pointed out is nothing more than a personal hatred for members of the Royal Family based on ignorance and jealousy.

No, you are wrong, it is not personal but rather the position I abhor. It is time to get rid of them. Not the person but the position. It serves no purpose other than to provide a sense of history and belonging. One that is duplicated by a flag and education of our heritage and roots. A statue of former rulers would suffice quite well. Possibly it would be paid for by the House of Windsor as a going away present, from the money they have bilked off our fathers for the last three hundred or so years.

Or are you condemning the Queen for being queen because she is white (as though ‘white’ is a race)? That could be interpreted as being a little racist in itself. But anyway, she is the Queen because a) our constitution says so, and because of who her ancestors were. And those ancestors include people who were Arab, Armenian, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Persian etc... As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.

No, I think you missed it. Royalty is a form of ruling where the ruler is predetermined largely by blood. Hence, a commoner cannot be king Because his blood is considered inferior. Hmmm, I suppose in retrospect that it is racist. And, as you said, “As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.” Sure, but being one of them? Beneath her, she is, after all, royalty, not one of us. As for your comment of her being French, German and all, have you heard of inbreeding? The hemophilia that affected Alexis Romanov? Anything to avoid getting commoner blood injected into the line. Smells like racism to me.

Furthermore, I used the term ‘nigger’ as a vile analogy of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ relationship. It was in no way intended to be racist but does illustrate the dark end to the ‘bloodline’ argument. You know, ‘Royalty’, ‘commoner’ ‘peasant’ that kind of thing. If one wants to propagate this kind of thing or accepts it then they hold a belief that some are better than others. Where does that reasoning stop I wonder? Before or after the above despicable word becomes fashionable again? By being a Monarchist, it makes me think that you also hold that belief although you are one of us. You know, like the head trustee in a prison or something. Is she better than us in your view?

The other benefit to having a sovereign ascend to the throne because of their bloodline is this: They are not elected. Unlike elected officials, they owe no allegiance to any party, to any army, to any union, to any friends, or to anyone who donated to their campaign. They only owe their allegiance to every citizen of the countries of which they are sovereign—regardless of race, color, language, religion, political belief, or annual income. All those biases can be left to the politicians.

No, they would be left to the people who vote the politicians in. You know, democracy. However, since her position is without power (or is it? Have you figured that one out yet?) What does it matter if she is for the MJ Party?

Except for this ominous phrase you used “ She holds reserve powers to be used at times of governmental crisis. They’re pretty much the same reserve powers most presidents would hold.” Hmmm, what if I want Burger King to wield power if the government crumbles, do I get a vote here or what?

Plus the symbolic fact that the Queen is the descendent of kings and queens who played important roles in the development of this country. Elizabeth II became Queen of Canada because her ancestors (direct and indirect) were the 32 kings and queens who had reigned over the country since Henry VII and Francois I. These monarchs brought about the discovery, exploration, settlement, defence and development of Canada.

Erect a statue then. Make sure they use their own money, this is one Canadian that is sick of this cash outlay.

And I think if you do your research you’ll find the Queen, and Adrienne Clarkson (a refugee herself), are strong advocators of human rights.

I knew that. And both are not elected and hence, bogus as a representative of the people.

As for the money spent on State Visits, it comes from other ministries and departments. Against what you seem to believe, the Governor General can’t simply fly off with her friends to someplace and send Ottawa the bill. It is constitutional convention that the Queen and Governor General follow the advice of ministries and departments. So, when it comes to a State Visit, the Governor General will be asked by the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs to take the trip. Who goes and how much will be spent is decided by Foreign Affairs. How they get there is decided by the RCMP. Heritage Canada may also play a role. So, don’t go ignorantly believing that Madame Clarkson lives some kind of Marie Antionette lifestyle all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Have you picked up a paper in the last six months? Adrienne and her budget explosion are all over the scandal reports. Double her predecessors budget, jets to her retreat on the Georgian Bay and all. Her housewife hubby berating the press for not understanding how hard it is being them and all, if it wasn't so indicative of what the Liberal government has regressed to it would be more indicative of how Royalty and it's representatives view the public coffer. No, there is more than one group at work here with a sense of entitlement. This election may see them gone with the other soon to follow .

And, tell me how it is a president of a Canadian republic would be any different, or somehow spend any less.

Elected in, serve the term and not re-elected.

To elect a king would make him a president. Are you therefore saying presidents are security blanket? Are you proposing Canada become a republic without a president? I’m interested to hear just how that would work

Term limits.

Again, if you don’t like the way it is in this country… leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You are by no means an indentured “nigger”

and;

If you feel you do not belong to Canada, then by all means, you are able to move elsewhere. You have that freedom.

No, it is my country with all it’s faults. And I will continue to work to make it for the people, not for those who wish to maintain an archaic system where some are considered better than others simply because of bad teeth and blood lines. You on the other hand, are free to leave it when us anti Monarchists succeed, or you can stay and work with us as we continue on with a democratic system - for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks August, I will, in future only respond to one or two points in order to make it read less like an epic novel. There was just so much to respond to though. I appoligise.

Have a great weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't we have bigger issues to contend with then whether or not various people are happy with the monarchy aspect of our governmental structure?

I mean, why not focus on something meaningful instead of wasting time and effort on a big fat red herring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kidding right? Thread was dead and burried for weeks, you come along and feel it is so important that you devote 1/3 of your posting history to it. This was number three for you wasn't it?

Welcome aboard LOL!

Now onto more serious issues .......... like people who practice inbreeding and a chaste type of racism along with wasting millions of our dollars, and the people who love them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROYALTY, CELEBRITIES, AND THE AVERAGE CANADIAN

From what I understand, you feel that all celebrities, a group in which you seem to include the Queen and the Royal Family, should be banished and the average working (or unemployed) Canadian elevated to take their places.

Well, your first mistake is painting the Queen and Royal family with the same brush as Hollywood stars (and I would assume professional athletes as well). To claim that the Royals remain royal simply because they get millions of dollars, world wide fame, and the use of these mysterious ‘Royal Powers’, in the same manner that any type of celebrity remains famous because they get millions of dollars, world wide fame, and mysterious ‘Star Power’, is a baseless argument.

Whatever your opinion about Barbara Streisand or Janet Jackson, or even your opinion of the monarchy, celebrity cannot be associated with being a head of state. That would be like comparing George Bush to Puff Daddy, Jacques Chirac to Britney Spears, or the King of Thailand to Mick Jagger.

While it is an unfortunate truth that today many people treat the Queen as a celebrity, she is seen that way mostly because she is spread all over tabloids and appears frequently on television in some sort of baseless, media concocted scandal. Little is ever shown of her performing her constitutional duties, which leaves most people ignorant of the fact that she is the Canadian (or even the British) Head of State. Yet, the truth remains: being head of state has absolutely nothing to do with celebrity status, money, or fame. The powers and responsibilities associated with being a head of state are vastly different to those that come with being a Star. So, the fact is: the Queen is not queen because of celebrity. The Queen is not queen because of money, fame, or power.

This is because:

a) She does not earn any money from being Queen. Britons pay directly for the maintenance of royal palaces and the Queen’s travels when she represents Britain. Canadians pay for the Vice-regal residences, the expenses of the Governor General, and the Queen when she is acting in her role as Queen of Canada. Canadians pay nothing directly to the Queen—nothing at all. In essence, what we pay for is the office of the Crown.

Certainly she is personally wealthy, but it is not because she makes any money from being queen. Unlike Madonna and Janet Jackson, the Queen does not sell her image, or sell any royal ‘product’. Even though you see her and her children plastered across newspapers, on the news, or in documentaries, you must know that they make no money from it. The Queen is not paid to be in the tabloids, or to have footage of her used on TV. She doesn’t even give interviews at all. The Queen’s personal wealth comes only from inheritance, horse breeding, and her investment portfolio—all of which goes towards her own private expenditures. Even the money made off of her lands (the Royal Farm and Windsor Private Estate) is net outgoing—it does not go to her purse. Her children earn their personal money in the same manner as any other independently wealthy person. And Prince Charles receives no money from the State (Canada, Britain or elsewhere), but funds himself from the profits made from the Duchy of Cornwall, and what he earns from it he pays tax on (approx. 40%).

Most of the ‘wealth’ we see does not belong to the Royal Family. The palaces, much of the art, the coaches, the cars, and the Crown Jewels do not belong to them. The Queen, as the Head of State, holds them in trust because they belong only to the State. If the Queen were to become personally bankrupt, she would still be the same Queen of all her realms, and still live in the palaces as she does now.

B) She does not do it for the fame. She actually dislikes all the invasive, prying media attention paid to she and her family. I believe she feels that when she or her relatives appear in the media it should be about their official duties as representatives of the state, rather than about what kind of underwear Andrew wears. And you’ll never see her hosting the MTV awards.

c) She gains no personal power being queen. You claimed “Why do they seek to stay in that office? Why do Stars try to make comebacks?…. Money, fame, beats taking orders from a teenager.” And, “They all like the power first, the feeling that they are doing something their way and, in a way that they think is beneficial to the people. It is really not all that hard to understand in human nature.”

Well, the Queen never gets things ‘her way’. Maybe with Prince Phillip when he leaves the toilet seat up, but not when she is in her role as sovereign and representing the people of Canada. Unlike Madonna’s selling power, the Queen’s constitutional powers do not belong personally to her, as she is vested with them only through our constitution as sovereign of the Canadian Crown. The reserve powers are very real, but to exercise them without the blessing of the people would be a breach of trust, would mean breaking her Coronation Oath, and would break the laws of Canada. As the saying goes, the Queen does not rule, she only reigns. All she can ever do is the will of the people.

Or, as another author put it: “The Crown has no power in itself except the power to prevent others having absolute power”

Elizabeth II is queen only because the constitutions of sixteen countries around the world say she is, and she is the descendent of a family that has played major roles in the history of Britain, Europe, North America, Canada, and the world. She does not have an agent, and does not market herself. She is not a commodity. As a matter of fact, she, and any other king or queen around the world, is less of a ‘marketed’ item than any president. Presidents must be elected, and that makes them politicians—and as such they must campaign. Going on the campaign trail is just another way of saying ‘selling myself to the people’. The Queen need never ‘sell herself’, but must only fulfill her duties to her people.

Your second mistake is claiming average citizens would make better leaders, or should be ‘idolised’ (placed on a “pedestal”, as you put it), simply because they have lived ‘every day’ lives.

Your comments infer that you feel that someone who has struggled over their tax forms, or those who’ve kicked their cars in frustration when they broke down on the highway, or those who’ve lost their jobs, would somehow make a more acceptable role model. And because we are talking about the Queen here, I would assume a better head of state as well.

Well, firstly, a head of state must be a role model providing example to the people of their country, but at the same time must be a mirror of the people, taking example from them. Yet surely someone’s personal wealth or background plays no part in this. Money and fame have nothing to do with the ability to lead or be an example (ie. a head of state). Nor does a lack of it.

Just because Joe had a tax audit, or Emily had her car break down, does not mean they would be better than the Queen. Conversely, Janet Jackson or 50 Cent, for all their fame and money, would most likely not make an acceptable head of state either. What makes an appropriate head of state, one who can be respected, is someone who can represent and look out for the best interests of their people, and at the same time have a deep knowledge of government, of foreign affairs, of economics, of diplomacy, and many other things.

You can’t look at it simply as who has done ‘average’ things, and who hasn’t. For instance, when do you think was the last time Mary McAleese or Johannes Rau did their taxes or took their car to the garage? Do you think they’ll worry about their kids’ dental when they leave their post as president? They will receive big pensions, security for life, and use their positions as ex-presidents to sell their books and go on lecture tours.

You’re correct to say that those who sacrifice their time and money for the betterment of others deserve their due respect (and the Queen and Governor General often recognise these people with awards and honours). But, If you argue that those with money do not make acceptable leaders or role models, then not just the Queen, but Paul Martin, both George Bush Senior and Junior, John F. Kennedy, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, etc., were, or are, all terrible people for their positions. They were, or are, after all, independently wealthy people. Basically, none of them were just an Average Joe. (You must especially dislike Trudeau who was not only rich, but also outright famous.) But in all honesty, does that, or did that, truly affect their abilities to be presidents or prime ministers? Should it affect someone’s ability to be a king or queen?

Your third mistake is to take these opinions that the ‘common’ man is below the Queen, her blood is ‘superior’, etc., and confuse all of this with racism, giving the reason to be because the royal families of dozens of European countries once married amongst each other.

I think you’re making an error associating social position with race. You said “a commoner cannot be king Because his blood is considered inferior. Hmmm, I suppose in retrospect that it is racist.” And “Anything to avoid getting commoner blood injected into the line. Smells like racism to me.”

Well, since when were the poor a race? Or even the middle class, for that matter? I hope I don’t have to explain to you what racism means.

As I said, because the current Queen of Canada can identify numerous ancestors from different races, you cannot claim that the ‘royal bloodline’ is racist. Did royals exclude a certain CLASS of people in the past? Yes. But that was common practice for centuries amongst all European societies. Even non-royalty adhered to the rules of class divisions. A respectable middle class family of the 19th century would not look happily on their son or daughter marrying ‘below’ them.

To believe that the Queen feels she is still ‘Queen by the grace of god’ as her medieval ancestors did, or that she believes her children should only marry other royals with blood as blue as her own, is a fantasy perpetuated by an ignorance of the modern monarchy. The Queen knows that she is a human being, like all others on earth. She knows she is no ‘better’ in the sense of being super-human, or a demi-god. She is not better because she is rich. She is not better because she has white skin. She is only ‘above’ in the sense that all our leaders are ‘above’ the rest of us. The President of the United States is never regarded as a common man. The Prime Minister of Canada is never regarded as a common person. They are all, president, prime minister, king or queen, elevated ‘above’ us as they are leaders. As I said before, they don’t take their cars to the garage, or worry about their kids’ dental. Even once out of their positions they never return to ‘average’ life. Race and the ‘common man’ plays nothing into it.

There will always be divisions between the rich and the poor, between the leaders and the ‘commoners’, the “us and them” you talked about. It seems you believe that we can somehow rid the world of these divisions—no rich vs. poor, no union vs. independent, no leader vs. follower, no American vs. Canadian, no Leafs vs. Habs. Well, that’s nothing more than an uber-communist fantasy where everyone is some kind of banal replication of everyone else.

Face it, there are people in the world who are not ‘Average Joes’—indeed, what exactly defines the average person? Humanity has a broad spectrum of different people in different positions in different societies. So, yes, the Queen is indeed different to me. Better? As a human being? No. As a Queen? As a head of state? As an international diplomat? Yes. Her family is definitely different to mine, being one which has played such an important role in the history of Canada, Britain, Europe, and the world for more than 1500 years. Yet, at the same time, they are just a family.

Elizabeth Nickson put the whole thing excellently in the National Post: “...And that's the fundamental argument to be made for royalty. They represent. They are defiantly ordinary people...They are not movie stars, they are not extra-smart, they are not "special." After learning from the blow-outs of the 1980's and 90's, they show up every day and, without fuss, do the work. They represent the values of ordinary middle-class families all over the world, who are restrained, sensible, kind, practical, steadfast, penny-pinching, punctual, dutiful, charitable, trustworthy and good. These are the values we must celebrate and promote, because these are the values, and no others, that make our lives possible; not the awful corruptions of Hollywood or the "I'm so clever I must run your life" egomania of Ottawa. That's why we must keep the Windsors in perpetuity. And that's why I'll curtsy if I ever meet The Queen.”

MONARCHY AND DEMOCRACY

You claim that the monarchy is undemocratic when you say “no, they would be left to the people who vote the politicians in. You know, democracy.” It seems you’d find a republic more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. Well, I think this argument, yet again, has hints of your ‘common man’ vs. monarch beef, and again, the argument is baseless.

If you feel the monarchy is undemocratic, then tell me, what means does it use to impose itself on this oppressed nation? Mind-control? A secret police? If it is, it’s a surprise to me. The monarchy exists because it has the support and consent of the ‘ordinary people’ of this country you talk so much about. That is true democracy.

When you say it's undemocratic, what you’re really saying is that it is outside the boundaries of party politics. That's not an argument against it, that is an argument in its favour. No republican leader can be above partisan politics, as the impeachment of President Clinton showed very clearly.

So, for all your talk of voting, and ‘the people’, how do you account for the fact that no elected official can ever remain above, or out of, partisan politics? It is their job to appeal to one group or another, and they will always be biased towards one group or another. How many times do I have to say this? – only a monarch can represent all the people. They don’t owe their allegiance to any one group of voters, donors, army, etc. They owe their allegiance only to the people. all the people.

As the Queen herself said, the role of a constitutional monarchy is “To personify the democratic [italics mine] state, to sanction legitimate authority, to ensure the legality of its measures, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will [italics mine]. In accomplishing this task, it protects the people from disorder.”

Let me put it this way—while politics and elections are one of the major cornerstones of our democracy in Canada, our head of government, the prime minister, will always take sides. Anyone who is elected will. So, having an elected politician as our head of state is like asking one of the players in a hockey game to also be the referee. Our Queen can be impartial in a way no elected office holder ever can.

Sir Charles Petrie said: “No elected ruler can feel that the people are his children in the way that a king can feel it; for the former they can never cease to be his fellow-citizens, and those who have assisted him to reach his high office are naturally dearer to him than the others. When, for example, Queen Elizabeth II refers to "my people", she is giving expression to a sentiment which no president can possibly share, and without which any nation must be poorer.”

The other benefit to having a non-elected, non political head of state, is though politicians are leaders, they will come and go, beginning their political career in their 20s and ending it in their 50s. A monarch, on the other hand, is taught to be a head of state from their birth, and will be so until they die. It has been said by many prominent ministers in Britain, Canada and elsewhere that because her reign has been so long, and so much has happened in the last fifty years, the Queen is one of the best people to go to for advice on global or national affairs. She may not be able to propose laws or vote, but she is still very aware of everything that is going on in her realms, and meets very often with ministers to discuss it.

Finally, you also seem to think that monarchy is, as you put it, “archaic”, and so by inference I’d imagine you think a republic is un-archaic, and therefore modern. Plato wrote 'The Republic' around 400BC. That's nearly two and a half thousand years ago. That’s a thousand years older than the monarchy that reigns over us now. So, don’t go saying monarchy is archaic.

No, constitutional monarchy is very democratic, and a very stable system of government. Canada has a history of constitutional stability that only a tiny handful of republics could even claim to match. How many presidents has Argentina, a sophisticated, cosmopolitan, educated society, once one of the richest countries in the world, had recently? There’s a country with a fine modern, republican constitution. What exactly has France gained by the adoption of a republican regime for the fifth time? Does it count any more in the counsels of the world, or are its citizens any happier, than if the French King were reigning in Paris? The stormy and chequered career of Germany since the conclusion of the First World War hardly encourages the belief that the Reich is better for the absence of an Emperor, or its constituent members for that of their particular dynasties.

More importantly, do any of them see themselves as any more democratic than Canada? And what do you think they would give for the stability that our monarchy provides, and which you are so eager to destroy?

THE CANADIAN CROWN AND CANADIANS

You seem to continue to have this belief that the Queen, as sovereign of the Canadian Crown, is somehow still a symbol of Britain and exercising Imperial British rule over Canada. Again, your opinions on the monarchy are about 200 years out of date.

Canada is a fully autonomous and independent country. We are no longer, in any way what-so-ever, a colony of Britain, and the Queen, for our affairs, has nothing to do with Britain. So, why then do you say “if there was a French King, watching 6 million of my fellow Canadians have him as their figure head would make me retch.” What does a French king have to do with anything?

There is no foreign monarch reigning over Canada. No King of Norway. No Danish monarch. Not the King of Thailand. Only the Canadian monarch—Elizabeth II who is titled Queen of Canada. If you’re confusing this with the fact that she also reigns as Queen of the United Kingdom, then you may as well take it further and bitch that the Queen of Jamaica reigns over Canada, or the Queen of New Zealand. But that would, of course, be wrong.

Just because we share a queen with fifteen other countries, does not mean in any way that any of those countries have sovereignty over us. The sixteen countries of which Elizabeth II is currently queen are all equal and autonomous nations.

Thus, as I’ve said before, if some Canadians, French-speaking or not, view Elizabeth II as the British Queen ruling over Canada, then all they are doing is demonstrating an extreme ignorance about the very country in which they live. And, as I’ve also said, to change the system to suit the ignorance, rather than erradicate the ignorance itself, would be the most useless and damaging route to take.

To wrap it all up I want to quote Dalton Camp, a political columnist: “The point to be made is that the Queen is Our Monarch and likely she and her successors will be all that will be available in that line of work. Our ruler only does what we say and only says what we asked be said, and goes where we tell her to go......But for all those who don't want the Queen there are easily as many who don't want a President and even more who certainly would not want one if they knew who it would be. As you can readily see, I have given more thought to this subject than most and I have reached my own conclusion. God save the Queen.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't we have bigger issues to contend with then whether or not various people are happy with the monarchy aspect of our governmental structure?

I mean, why not focus on something meaningful instead of wasting time and effort on a big fat red herring?

Ignore the childish cynicism of KrustyKidd, because you're absolutely right. There are much bigger issues to contend with in this country.

Why I'm posting here is purely because there seems to be so much complete and utter ignorance about the Crown in Canada. I can't allow a couple of people to spread inaccuracies and baseless opinions without posting some truths and facts to try and counteract them.

I mean, that's the only way anyone can make a proper and informed opinion, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be like comparing George Bush to Puff Daddy, Jacques Chirac to Britney Spears, or the King of Thailand to Mick Jagger.
George Bush and Jacques Chirac were elected. Puff Daddy, Britney Spears and Mick Jagger sold records. The King of Thailand, was, well BORN.
Well, firstly, a head of state must be a role model providing example to the people of their country, but at the same time must be a mirror of the people, taking example from them.
Great model. Pick the right parents when you're born.
The Prime Minister of Canada is never regarded as a common person. They are all, president, prime minister, king or queen, elevated ‘above’ us as they are leaders.
All true, but the queen GOT HER POSITION BY BIRTH.

Do you get the single point that matters?

Don't we have bigger issues to contend with then whether or not various people are happy with the monarchy aspect of our governmental structure?
Good point. But symbols matter, as you have demonstrated at length.

And if it were a choice between keeping Canada together and keeping the monarchy, I wouldn't hesitate for two seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Bush and Jacques Chirac were elected. Puff Daddy, Britney Spears and Mick Jagger sold records. The King of Thailand, was, well BORN.

And? Bush, Chirac, Puff Daddy, Spears, Jagger and Bhumipol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, were all born. I don’t see how your comment plays into the discussion. My point was that a head of state, no matter how they are chosen, cannot be compared to a celebrity.

Great model. Pick the right parents when you're born.

How does anyone pick their parents? Hence, leaving the choice of a king or queen to the completely natural occurrences of birth and death makes them non-partisan and owing to nobody other than the entire population of their realm which opts to keep them as an un-biased balance to their elected officials.

I’ve said as much in my posts before.

All true, but the queen GOT HER POSITION BY BIRTH.

I don’t need to repeat myself on the benefit of having a head of state chosen by that method. But remember, the Queen ultimately has her position because our constitution says she does.

If 30 million Canadians wished to bind themselves together and move towards a republic, it could certainly be done, and the Queen would cease to be a queen in this country. However, the system of constitutional monarchy is far more advantageous for the many reasons I’ve already stated, so why would this country want to move to a less stable form of government (especially for a federation like Canada)? Certainly there have been, and perhaps still are, constitutional issues in Canada—but removing the Crown would not solve any of them, and would more than likely cause even more divisions within the country.

Good point. But symbols matter, as you have demonstrated at length.

Of course there is a symbolic aspect to a head of state. But keep in mind that symbols only appear to each individual as they alone interperate it— and too many people incorrectly interperate the Canadian Crown as the British Crown ruling Canada simply because Elizabeth II is sovereign of both. If more people realised she is distinctly the Queen of Canada, separate to the Queen of the United Kingdom, Belize, Tuvalu, Australia, Jamaica, St. Kitts, and so on, then she would become a different symbol to them. The Canadian Crown would mean more. I am a case in point.

However, the Crown and position of sovereign is far more complex than simply a symbolic one.

And if it were a choice between keeping Canada together and keeping the monarchy, I wouldn't hesitate for two seconds.

Indeed, if left with that choice, I would probably opt for the same—rather like sacrificing a limb to save a life. But, though Canada might remain together, it would, like someone who has lost a limb, face a difficult recovery after that loss with a strong possibility of death. I suspect removing the Crown to save Canada would only lead to the destruction of the present Canada when it came time to re-write the constitution in a republican fashion. Imagine the debates and demands from all the regions, provinces, and peoples of Canada. Is the president elected by the people? By the politicians? Appointed? Do Quebecois votes count for more? Will the president only be an appointee by Ontario? How will a president from the Maritimes represent the people of the West? Must the nominees alternate between French-speaking and English-speaking? What about First Nations? Will First Nations votes count for more? What powers will the president hold? How do we know they wont be a partisan yes-man to the Prime Minister? And on, and on, and on, and on. Billions of dollars, argument after argument, and for what? Some ultra-Canadian, politically correct, uber-nationalist, symbolic notion?

Also, your choice would be an ultimatum, a last chance to keep the country alive. Right now, why would we choose to cut off our own limb when we’re already quite strong and healthy?

Anyway, I hope you’re not implying a link between Quebec sovereignty and the Crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t need to repeat myself on the benefit of having a head of state chosen by that method. But remember, the Queen ultimately has her position because our constitution says she does.
I guess that's where we part ways.

I don't think the occupant of the job of head of state should be determined by birth, or "that method", as you say. (Think of what "that method" symbolizes for all the other jobs to be filled in a society.)

Since I see no benefit, I think the constitution should be changed.

Anyway, I hope you’re not implying a link between Quebec sovereignty and the Crown.
Yes I am. I have always wondered what would happen to the Canadian "psyche" if our passports and money said "République fédérale du Canada". (Heck you're right. It's absurdly irrelevant at this stage.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada can't be classified as a nation. We have nothing in common. This can be seen in our social values. This country will probably seperate by 2020. Western Canada will probably seperate, or join up with the state due to the fact their sick of living by Central Canada's rule. Atlantic Canada will be sick of relying on everybody else, and decide to go on their own, and Central Canada will still be Canadian. I think that in a few years Canada will simply become the 51st state, due to the fact the military is in poor condition, and that we no longer share the same values that we shared before Trudeau came in. Alot of the American's that I have talked to said their is no difference between America and Canada. I find it pretty pathetic that we can only find pride in our blatant anti-Americanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the occupant of the job of head of state should be determined by birth, or "that method", as you say.

I understand that you don’t feel the Canadian head of state should be determined by birth—you’ve made that very clear. However, what remains unclear is just how you would determine who our head of state should be.

If we maintain our parliamentary system of government, we need a president. If we move to a system similar to the United States we need a president. So, how is that president to be placed in office? There are two choices—elections, or appointments.

If the president is elected, they become a politician. Firstly, given the corruption which is rampant amongst our politicians, do you honestly believe Canadians wish to see yet another politician in a high Canadian office? And secondly, if a president is elected he or she can only represent those who voted for them, not to mention those who contributed financially to their campaign. Thus, they will never work for the interests of every Canadian, but only those interests which will attract the most votes and the most money.

And how is it that a politically elected head of state can have the power to dismiss the politically elected head of government? How can a head of state, who must remain politically impartial, be so when they are elected in a political fashion? It’s an oxymoron.

If the president is appointed by the government, then there is no guarantee that he or she will remain politically impartial. They rely on the government for their job, and so would most likely remain a ‘Yes Man’ to the PMO and Privy Council. In a time of governmental crisis how could we rely on this person to dismiss the government, when the government could simply dismiss them?

These are the very questions that plagued the Australian republican movement, and they obviously found no viable, acceptable answer.

Think of what "that method" symbolizes for all the other jobs to be filled in a society.

There is no other job in Canada like being the head of state.

“Anyway, I hope you’re not implying a link between Quebec sovereignty and the Crown.”

Yes I am. I have always wondered what would happen to the Canadian "psyche" if our passports and money said "République fédérale du Canada".

What connection is there between the Crown and Quebec sovereignty? I can’t see how the Crown plays into the issue at all. Can you clarify this for me?

Do you truly believe that Canada will be a more unified country under a president rather than a monarch? I think it would take more than the “République fédérale du Canada” on our passports to solve the issues of the seperatists, or to solve any issue in Canada right now.

Heck you're right. It's absurdly irrelevant at this stage.

The notion of removing the monarchy is, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada can't be classified as a nation. We have nothing in common. This can be seen in our social values. This country will probably seperate by 2020. ..... Alot of the American's that I have talked to said their is no difference between America and Canada. I find it pretty pathetic that we can only find pride in our blatant anti-Americanism.

Was this a mistake? Why was this posted here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd bring this old thread to the top so that it's clear to all that M. Bambino is a neanderthal monarchist.

Bambino believes that the symbolic leader of a country should get the job solely by the accident of birth. What a symbol!

You tangle at your peril!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you prefer? And why?

What will we, as Canadians gain if we dump the Crown? Will the average Canadian's day to day life change if we became a republic?

Whats the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada need a new political structure for the new century. A Republic because its a symbol of democracy. And then in its political structure Canada need to be decentralize. The last election showed it pretty well. The liberal did not get elected in the west and in quebec. they got elected in ontario and the maritime. So they shouldn't have any power over quebec or the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August, out of interest could you type out a factual list of what makes a switch from a constituational Monarchy to a republic that much better. I am not by any means a strong supporter of remaining apart of the commonwealth, but I also have yet to see a convincing arguement for change. I sometiems wonder if it would cause more pain, more trouble, and more anger then it is worth.

On a side note, it would have been nice to have a poll for us to vote in to go along with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada need a new political structure for the new century. A Republic because its a symbol of democracy. And then in its political structure Canada need to be decentralize. The last election showed it pretty well. The liberal did not get elected in the west and in quebec. they got elected in ontario and the maritime. So they shouldn't have any power over quebec or the west.

Are you saying that Canada is not a democracy?

Why do we need to be a republic to have a new political structure? IMHO, a triple-E senate would be a start, but that doesn't mean we need to boot the crown and become a republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needless to say I'd prefer the Republic of Alberta

Republic of Alberta

If you don't want to live in Canada, do us a favour,

shut-up and move.

Shut up? easy there gestapo. And us right wingers are the fascists? lol

Like I've said before, we'll leave but we'll take our province with us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shut up? easy there gestapo. And us right wingers are the fascists? lol

Like I've said before, we'll leave but we'll take our province with us...

Though I think a seperate West would be ideal, I would still be in favour of staying in the Commonwealth andf having a member of the crown as our head of state. With that said, an elected Senate would be a must. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needless to say I'd prefer the Republic of Alberta

Republic of Alberta

If you don't want to live in Canada, do us a favour,

shut-up and move.

Shut up? easy there gestapo. And us right wingers are the fascists? lol

Like I've said before, we'll leave but we'll take our province with us...

1. I have never called you a fascist

2. I am not a lefty

3. I told the sepratists to leave the country. It would take more then 2% of Albertans to take the Province with them.

I don't have a gun to your head, and i don't plan on it, but if you are un-happy in Canada, don't stay, i wouldn't want to keep you here against your will, I'll drive you to the airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...