The NDP's view on monarchy
I found this online analysis of the partys' views on the monarchy while searching for Can news on the royal wedding. I'm still on the fence about the monarchy's relevance in this country but I thought it offered some fascinating insight on the NDP, esp. Jack Layton's comments.
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/voters_guide_2011.html
I suggest reading the link first before commenting. The group that published the guide isn't a bunch of American wanabees like I thought at first. They advocate just removing the constitutional link to the Queen which would make us a parliamentary republic with the GG being the ceremonial head of state. Sort of like Ireland or Germany. Commonwealth membership and the way parliament is set up would not be changed.
Comments
Remember that little war of aggression against the British and her colonies' in 1812?
That wasn't Manifest Destiny.
That was called "land hunger."
Remember that little war of aggression against the British and her colonies' in 1812?
That wasn't Manifest Destiny.
That was called "land hunger."
Manifest Destiny came out at about the time of the Monroe Doctrine.
Land hunger? I highly doubt that, maybe if the war started today.
That said, I don't care how rational and Voltairean one is, there is no mistaking that the USA is as much of a religion as any other faith out there.
Yes. Note the present term "IS."
It's not what America WAS.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
In other words, there was no desire among the Founders to export American culture.
They also abhorred perpetual war because they feared it would turn the President into a despot (like Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama) and that it would destroy liberty at home as in the (Un)Patriot(ic) Act, Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, GTMO and other overseas gulags, etc.
That is the vast chasm of difference between us.
I KNOW that the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and from a practical perspective has little or no effect on your system of government.
What I am arguing about is the SYMBOLIC, philosophical, moral and meta-theoretical implications of the monarchy in Canada.
First, think about what monarchy IS at a conceptual, moral, meta-theory level.
Then consider this, when the Canadian government kow-tows to, recognizes, honors, celebrates, pays homage to etc., the British crown/monarchy, this at a SYMBOLIC level is the moral equivalent of recognizing, honoring, celebrating, paying homage to etc., Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day, for instance.
Does this make any sense, or am I out to lunch on this?
I would say you are sort of right (since I agree it is largely irrelevant as well). On the other hand its mechanics are pretty deeply ingrained in our system of government and laws, and it is a tradition.
So while I agree with you on that level, I think your seeing it as an affront to liberty and sovereignty is kind of over the top. It just doesn't work that way.
While you are in part right, I think some of it might also come from your country's mythology - the notion that you were born fighting a tyrant (although you were actually fighting parliament, and aided by a monarch who ruled over a far less democratic system , though he wasn't a tyrant either).
But I certainly give you that our conception of the monarchy is a myth. But then again, we all have them - and not just overt symbols like flags. The whole individual liberty myth in the states is good in some ways - but it has seriously fucked up a lot of things in your country, and looking from the outside it seems just as absurd and warped as you must think the monarchy seems.
(now I hope I am explaining myself properly)
And I should add, that I'm not sure if you have noticed, but your presidents get far more royal treatment than our prime ministers. We have nothing to compare with your inaguration days, I wouldn't quite say it's royalty envy, but...
Land hunger? I highly doubt that, maybe if the war started today.
American farmers in the northern border states casted covetous eyes on the farms of their British North American (Canadian) neighbors.
If the war started today, it would be water, oil and strategic minerals and resources.
With a sellout like Herr Harper in office, he'll give these resources away. War won't be necessary.
Do you have a link for that the land claim?
Isn't oil already a strategic resource? 
The whole individual liberty myth in the states is good in some ways - but it has seriously fucked up a lot of things in your country,...
That is the fundamental difference between America and Canada.
A reading of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights informs the reader that the Founders had an individualist, liberal, mechanistic view of society that was popular at the time.
These documents revolve around the primacy or even supremacy of the indivual and individual rights and liberties. The great fear was the expansion of government powers, rights, liberties at the expense of individual rights and liberties. If rights and liberties were to be curtailed, it would be the government's. If rights and liberties were to be expanded, it would be the individual's.
I see it in myself. Depending on the issue, I sometimes have a libertarian paranoia of a bloated and despotic government attempting to usurp individual rights. Rights I will fight to the death to preserve.
Even today, by and large, as an individual, you are on your own. It's up to YOU to sink or swim.
The problem this has caused can be seen in the degree of privatized healthcare: Where a corporation's right to earn a profit is greater than a person's right to access to healthcare, a reasonable standard for a healthy and fulfilling life and even the right to life itself.
Values like healthcare, childcare, a national stardard for education, a reasonable wage, adequate social security, pensions, etc., are not RIGHTS but COMMODITIES to be bought and sold on the marketplace for the highest price they will bring.
This is Economic Darwinism where 'Survival of the Fittest' is 'Survival of the Richest.'
Why do so many Americans accept this and not fight it?
Because many Americans have been sold on the myth of the "American Dream."
Everyone has the "same" opportunity to be rich and successful. All you have to do is work hard, make the right choices and have faith in yourself and "the system."
A reading of the Canadian Constitution (at some point) the reader comes across the passage that states something like this: "It is the responsibility of government to provide peace, order and good governance."
The authors of this document had a collectivist, "social" or group and organic view of society. In America, the rights of individuals need to be protected from the government. In Canada, government has a duty to protect the welfare of its people.
Canada has things like universal healthcare, a national standard of education for your children, a national pension.
These social "goods" did not come from the British monarch.
They came from (previous) Canadian governments.
You should deeply cherish these political values and "social goods."
This is something as Canadians, you should be deeply proud of.
I can tell you, they are the envy of many intelligent/learned/switched-on Americans.
NEVER take these things for granted.
Every society has its good and bad aspects, whether it be Canada or America or wherever.
It deeply sorrows me when people misunderstand and think that I wish Canada to become like the United States.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have no desire for this to ever happen,
but Herr Harper might.
Value these social "goods" your society has created and do all that you can to prevent anyone from taking them away.
Imagine what would have happened if the British had "won." How would they be able to establish peace, law and order and governance under such circumstances?
They'd have looked to what the United Empire Loyalists had created in Upper and Lower Canada and thought, " Ah, so that's how one creates 'Peace, Order and Good Government!'"
Humor aside,
the reverse is true.
What the British learned from their defeat in the Independence War, they applied to the United Empire Loyalists in Upper and Lower Canada.
This could also be the reason why the British monarchy is so deeply entrenched in (most of) English (speaking) Canada: A few centuries of a very intense and effective propaganda effort.
I agree with you that change was inevitable. Hard to say if British defeat was inevitable,... But I don't think the way things turned out was inevitable at all.
You don't think the defeat in Vietnam was inevitable?
You don't think defeat in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya and the (imminent, I should think) fall of the American Empire is inevitable?
And comparing slavery to monarchism as just "habits"?
Then why does kicking the monarchy habit seem to be as difficult as kicking the smoking habit?
Making money off the slave trade would be a difficult habit for some to kick too.
... or that John Brown comment. I care less about his religious fanaticism than his "guerilla" efforts, flawed though they were.
Murder is never justified no matter how just the cause (is believed to be.)
You can guess my views on this from the name I choose to post under here.
But there is a time and place. Of all the issues and challenges facing the country now, a debate on making Canada a Republic just isn't top priority. It solves no economic or social problems, and those require our full attention.
But as a small "r" republican, I'd say that the time will come for such a debate, right around the time when Charles Hanover takes over from his mother. Elizabeth has been canny, and understands her position quite well, and has not done anything in 50 years to make such a debate relavant to most Canadians.
Her son has so far demonstrate no similar understanding. I would wait for him to start the debate.
And he will.
Couldn't read past that, sorry.
Scratch foreign policy as well from the list of issues that currently have no time and place among NDP talking points.
Why not wait and let the British people end their own monarchy? It has little effect on us, other than having to decide what replaces the functions of Governor General.
It's kinda like...ours too.
Statement by New Democrat leader Jack Layton on the Royal Wedding
From the link in the OP:
A few MPs have been vocal in opposing the monarchy: Pat Martin, in particular, is quite passionate about it. Joe Comartin as well.
It's also worth mentioning - if only to understand the party's wider republican ideology - that the monarchy has been an issue in the provincial wings as well.
The Nova Scotia NDP successfully fought against an initiative by the ruling Conservatives to restore the singing of God Save the Queen at the opening of the legislature.
According to then Opposition Leader Darrell Dexter: "The Royal Anthem is not appropriate in a legislative chamber whose constitutional purpose is to assert people’s democratic right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by a monarch"
A former naval officer, Dexter is now the Premier of Nova Scotia.
and:
Recommendation: If you have social democratic to centrist values and you're republican to the core, then the NDP is your party.
The winner? The NDP.
This is not an endorsement of any party. It's merely a guide for people to judge a party on this single issue. If anything, it's a wake-up call to the others to get moving on generating monarchy/republic policy before the NDP owns it. We hope someday soon all parties in Canada can score in the same vicinity as the NDP has in this guide. Until then, it holds the most potential for making history and being the first one to announce a pro-republic policy. And with the rising tide of new support at the end of this 2011 campaign, that could be sooner rather than later.
Regardless of whether or not that support results in a dramatic change in the party's influence, the NDP will most definitely be a major contributor to the inevitable parliamentary debate.
Couldn't read past that, sorry.
I don't doubt that part at all
"Jack Layton visiting his favourite bike shop. Sept 17, 2010"
http://bit.ly/kluOg3
As I said, I'm not taking a side, just curious about why this topic is so openly debated by Aus & NZ social democrats but the NDP is still whispering about it in the closet.
... to assert people’s democratic right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by a monarch"
By logical extension, there is also the right of a nation to be fully independent and sovereign.
A nation cannot be fully independent and sovereign when its head of state is that of a foreign country.
Kicking out the Queen - does that automatically end our membership in the Commonwealth for good?
Kicking out the Queen - does that automatically end our membership in the Commonwealth for good?
Yes.
Kicking out the Queen - does that automatically end our membership in the Commonwealth for good?
Yes.
Nope. Apparently not. Most members of the Commonwealth are already republics.
Oh, that's right.
The most significant thing this Commonwealth 'English tea garden club' has done for the past decades is hold their equivalent of the Olympic games, the "Commonwealth Games."
Membership in the Commonwealth is voluntary. Just like keeping or abolishing the British monarchy is supposed to be.
Let's keep discussion relevant to the lives of the ordinary masses, until the election results are released, at least.
Where are they ALL on the subject of UFOs?
As I said, there's been nary a peep out of them about foreign policy.
Oh, that's right.
The most significant thing this Commonwealth 'English tea garden club' has done for the past decades is hold their equivalent of the Olympic games, the "Commonwealth Games."
Membership in the Commonwealth is voluntary. Just like keeping or abolishing the British monarchy is supposed to be.
The more I dig, the more I find that really bothers me. Like what you say about the monarchy being voluntary. I don't beileve it is at all. Before Trudeau patriated the const., ending the monarchy required the consent of 7 out of 10 prov. rep. 50% of the pop. plus parl & Senate just like all other amendments. To get provincial OK to patriate, that was changed to 10/10 provinces. Not impossible but clearly an attempt to make it so.
Maybe its just my nature but the moment someone says I can't have something, it makes me want it more. It reminds me of arguing with my father as a kid. Regardless of how much sense I through at him, he always had one response in reserve: "Because I said so"!
If keeping the monarchy is an argument that holds any weight, than why are we being told that no matter what the public beleives, it doesn't matter, its a done deal?
(bolding emphasis mine)
Holy crap - I didn't know that. Why would Trudeau have agreed to such an impossible condition? Was Trudeau a monarchist?
(bolding emphasis mine)
Holy crap - I didn't know that. Why would Trudeau have agreed to such an impossible condition? Was Trudeau a monarchist?
No, he just wanted the constitution patriated really badly, I guess. You know, the legacy thing. :P
The more I dig, the more I find that really bothers me. Like what you say about the monarchy being voluntary. I don't beileve it is at all. Before Trudeau patriated the const., ending the monarchy required the consent of 7 out of 10 prov. rep. 50% of the pop. plus parl & Senate just like all other amendments. To get provincial OK to patriate, that was changed to 10/10 provinces. Not impossible but clearly an attempt to make it so.
O'Donohue v. Canada was a legal challenge to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne of Canada. The applicant sought a declaratory judgement that certain provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 violate the equality-rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2003 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the case, finding the matter non-justicial.
Here's the explanation for the ruling:
... As a sovereign nation, Canada is free to alter its own laws, but its Constitution includes the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which set out the convention that all of the Commonwealth realms must have symmetrical lines of succession to the throne, to maintain the unity of the Crown... Thus the constitutional law that predominantly governs the line to the throne, the 1701 Act of Settlement, must remain identical to the same law in the other realms, including the United Kingdom.
... As a sovereign country, Canada, it was argued, should be free to change any laws regarding who becomes the country's head of state.
... "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODonohue_v._Canada *
This case raises a number of problems:
1. The case involved federal laws, the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law. What jurisdiction did a provincial (Ontario) Superior Court Justice have to rule on this case? Shouldn't the case have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada?
2. The ruling violates the principle of sovereignty upheld by international laws such as, among others, the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 and the Statute of Westminster 1931, which it cites. The Statute of Westminster holds that Britain could not/cannot pass laws for the (Commonwealth) countries it called the "Irish Free State" (now The Republic of Ireland, 1947), "The Union of South Africa" (now The Republic of South Africa, 1960), Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. Hence, after 1931, Britain could no longer pass laws for these countries. When Britain passed, amended or repealed a law that also concerned the above-mentioned Commonwealth countries, according to the Statute of Westminster the other countries had the power to pass, amend or repeal them. Although they necessarily had to make a decision on the law, they were entirely at liberty as to what that decision would be. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. Doesn't that mean that Britain could not pass laws for these countries after 1931, but that these countries could not amend or repeal British laws they inherited prior to 1931? The Statute of Westminster holds that the above- mentioned countries could amend or repeal British laws. This means that laws that were passed by the British government but not passed (i.e., were inherited) by the above countries can be amended or repealed by those countries. In that sense, the Statute of Westminster can be applied retroactive to its date of passage, (1931.)
3. "As a sovereign nation, Canada is free to alter its own laws, but its Constitution includes the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which set out the convention that all of the Commonwealth realms must have symmetrical lines of succession to the throne to maintain the unity of the crown... 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."
The ruling - that If Canada wishes to remain a Commonwealth realm (a Commonwealth country that has the British monarch also as its head of state), Then it must have symmetrical lines of succession to the throne to maintain unity of the crown. 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 - is a legal argument for the continuance of monarchy based on an assumption, the grounds of which, a priori, cannot be accepted over legal arguments for abolition. But what if Canada and the majority of Canadians do not wish Canada to remain a realm of the Commonwealth? What if there is no longer a wish to maintain the unity of the crown? What if there is no longer the wish for the proper functioning of the constitutional monarchy? A legal challenge based on the Constitution and international laws (such as the Treaty of Westphalia, the Statute of Westminster and others) over the principle of sovereigntly, would unquestionably be a channel to accomplish the objective of Canada abolishing the monarchy and achieving full sovereignty and independence.
* The apostrophe in the web address prevents the link from connecting. To connect, type in the address.
Holy crap - I didn't know that. Why would Trudeau have agreed to such an impossible condition? Was Trudeau a monarchist?
There are two things to keep in mind:
1. The province of Quebec has not ratified (signed/passed) the Constitution.
2. Trudeau asked the British queen to sign the Canadian Constitution. A symbolic gesture, if you will, that is not required by the Statute of Westminster. According to the Statute of Westminster, Canada can amend or repeal British law(s) and can ratify, amend or repeal its own laws. There is no requirement for the consent or "assent" of the British government.
... to assert people’s democratic right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by a monarch"
By logical extension, there is also the right of a nation to be fully independent and sovereign.
A nation cannot be fully independent and sovereign when its head of state is that of a foreign country.
Canada stopped being a sovereign nation when it allowed the banking cartel to take control of money from the state.
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/
... to assert people’s democratic right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by a monarch"
By logical extension, there is also the right of a nation to be fully independent and sovereign.
A nation cannot be fully independent and sovereign when its head of state is that of a foreign country.
Canada stopped being a sovereign nation when it allowed the banking cartel to take control of money from the state.
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/
Although a banking cartel is not a head of any state,
I say:
Abolish the monarchy.
End the power of the banking cartel and take back control of the currency.
Why We Don't Welcome The Visit of The British Queen
http://www.wsm.ie/c/no-welcome-british-queen-anarchism
'The British Queen - An enemy of the working class, an enemy of the poor, head of the imperialist British state, symbol of privilege, inequality and oppression.'
I've held that opinion almost as long as I've been alive. I never, ever sing that crappy song, "God Save Our Queen". Even as a kid I'd just pretend, but I did that with "O Canada" as well. Jingoistic paeans just don't cut it with me.
Trudeau asked the British queen to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, he asked the Queen of Canada, who is Canada's Head of State, to sign the Canadian Constitution.
Trudeau asked the British queen to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, he asked the Queen of Canada, who is Canada's Head of State, to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, the British queen.
Lizzie is only the queen of Canada and Canada's head of state when she's actually in Canada.
Otherwise it's the Guvnah (Genral.)
It was a 'very nice gesture' on Trudeau's part but (according to treaties like the Treaty of Westphalia and the Statute of Westminster) completely unnecessary.
Spoken like a true monarchist, btw.
If you want to free yourself from monarchist serfdom and slavery, it starts with how you look at things, think, the words you use and how you say things. Actions follow.
Trudeau asked the British queen to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, he asked the Queen of Canada, who is Canada's Head of State, to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, the British queen.
Lizzie is only the queen of Canada and Canada's head of state when she's actually in Canada.
Otherwise it's the Guvnah (Genral.)
It was a 'very nice gesture' on Trudeau's part but (according to treaties like the Treaty of Westphalia and the Statute of Westminster) completely unnecessary.
Spoken like a true monarchist, btw.
If you want to free yourself from monarchist serfdom and slavery, it starts with how you look at things, think, the words you use and how you say things. Actions follow.
I beg to differ on the Peace of Westphalia. Apart from being nearly 400 years old, and not terribly relevant to this discussion, by the standards of its time it instituted change in Europe that had less to do with peace and more to do with the creation and protection of sovereign states and the protection of diverse religious practises (Christian, of course). It set the stage for democratic states to exist free from monarchy, or with limited monarchical powers.
I beg to differ on the Peace of Westphalia... it instituted change in Europe that had less to do with peace and more to do with the creation and protection of sovereign states...
In this abbreviated quote,
there is no difference between our positions.
What I call the Treaty of Westphalia is the first treaty of significance that establishes the principle of sovereignty (for Europe and by way of extension, the Americas) right up to the Statute of Westminster and the most recent "Kosovo" scenario.
O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.
O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.
Reminds me of why I'm both a republican and an atheist.
In this abbreviated quote,
there is no difference between our positions.
What I call the Treaty of Westphalia is the first treaty of significance that establishes the principle of sovereignty (for Europe and by way of extension, the Americas) right up to the Statute of Westminster and the most recent "Kosovo" scenario.
My apologies - I misread your post to mean that the Peace (Treaty) of Westphalia was as superficial as Trudeau's bringing home the Constitution. I should have read more carefully.
... as superficial as Trudeau's bringing home the Constitution.
For Canada to have a Constitution is a good thing.
Bizarrely it was a turning point in history that failed to "turn."
Normally drafting and ratifying a Constitution is a means of establishing oneself as a sovereign nation-state, where the supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the supreme lawmaker is the national government.
Abolition of the suzereignty of the British crown over and the full sovereignty and independence of Canada as a nation-state should have naturally followed.
Trudeau was a 'conservative revolutionary' who seems to have taken the easiest route to establish the legitimacy of the Constitution.
It was a case of one step forward: ratifying the supreme national law of the land, the Constitution with (for the sake of simplicity I'll call it a) "bill" of rights, and one step back: further entrenching the crown/monarch of Britain as Canada's head of state; thereby denying Canada's full sovereignty and existence as a fully independent nation-state.
Please forgive me as a foreigner (I'm American) but I just can't figure this out.
I just can't 'square the logical circle' on this one.
Was this some kind of 'Canadian coup?'
Please forgive me as a foreigner (I'm American) but I just can't figure this out.
I don''t want to seem disrespectful, because I do respect your opinion about the monarchy, even though my feelings about it are quite different from yours.
But your being an American might explain some of the differences; I know there are some things about American political culture that are completely foreign from our ways of doing it and seem quite bizarre to me. Not to say there aren't Canadians who feel the same way about the monarchy as you do. I know there are plenty.
But I think the arguments you are going to make are in part shaped by where you are coming from. I can think of plenty of good reasons to not have the monarchy. THe notion that she has absolute power is not one of them because I can see that in a practical sense that is not true, and for that reason it is not an important issue for me.
Canada gained its political autonomy from Britain - primarily in the early to mid 1800s - in a way that was quite different than the U.S. The step that you are wondering about was not one which was at all necessary for Trudeau and the heads of the provinces to make. If fact, the negotiiations were enough of a game of brinkmanship as it was. I doubt the deal would have succeeded if for some reason becoming a republic was part of the bargan.
THe notion that she [current monarch of Britain] has absolute power is not one of them because I can see that in a practical sense that is not true, and for that reason it is not an important issue for me.
I have never made that claim - that the crown of Britain is an absolute monarchy.
In other threads I have made the argument that a "limited, (or) Constitutional monarchy" is a contradiction, an oxymoron: It is not possible for a hereditary and therefore unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian institution to logically or realistically exist within a democratic society.
The claim that I am making in this thread is that for Canada to have a foreigner and a foreign institution - the monarch and crown of Britain - as its head of state means that Canada lacks full sovereignty and is not a fully independent nation-state.
Canada gained its political autonomy from Britain - primarily in the early to mid 1800s - in a way that was quite different than the U.S. The step that you are wondering about was not one which was at all necessary for Trudeau and the heads of the provinces to make. If fact, the negotiiations were enough of a game of brinkmanship as it was. I doubt the deal would have succeeded if for some reason becoming a republic was part of the bargan.
There was the BNA Act (the British North America Act) of 1867.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it established Canada as a Dominion. What the actual significance of that is (to me is unclear.)
The problem with it is that it was an act that was passed by the British government for Canada. It was another one of those British laws (like the Act of Settlement) that was involuntarily inherited by Canada.
Here's the timeline I use to determine where Canada starts to gain greater (again not complete sovereignty and indepenent nation-statehood, though):
The British crown, as represented by the current serving monarch, is still the (de jure) Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces.
In 1898, Britain started a colonial war against the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (the Boer War 1898 - 1902.) The Canadian government, like a loyal satrap called for Canadian volunteers to go fight in this war. Anglo Canada jubilantly responded to this call. French Canada (mostly Quebec) was vehemently opposed to this war, saw it as a means of English Canada to subsume Quebec and French Canadians within English Canada.
In WW1, when Britain went to war, Canada, the Dominions and colonies were automatically at war. As you know, sentiments concerning the war and the 1916 draft were again salient differences between English and French Canadians.
The first time when Canada (and the Dominions) had an opportunity to become fully sovereign nation-states according to an international treaty was in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.
As I mentioned above, the Statute of Westminster, inline (it seems) with the principle of sovereignty established as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia, established the principle/precedent that Britain could nor would no longer, enact legislation and laws for the Dominions (the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and that the Dominions could amend or repeal British laws.
Right there, Canada or any of the Dominions could have become fully sovereign nation-states by repealing the Settlement Act, for example.
In WW2 Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King waited a week before declaring war and entering Canada into the war. This was a significant step toward greater sovereignty as it established the principle that although the British monarch is the de jure Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces, the Prime Minister is the de facto Commander-in-Chief and Canada would no longer go to war automatically when Britain did.
History repeated itself concerning sentiment over the war and the 1943 draft between English and French Canadians.
Of the five original Dominions, look at how the Republic of Ireland (1947) and Republic of South Africa (1960) became fully sovereign nation-states.
At the time of the Constitutional debates, ratification of the Constitution required a 7 of 10 province majority. Unanimous consent was something that came later.
If the requirement to ratify the Constitution was the signature of the Prime Minister and at least 7 Premiers and the queen was simply not consulted (her royal assent was not sought) then perhaps Quebec would also have ratified the Constitution with its signature.
If at the time the process was opened up to the Canadian public through a referendum that asked:
Do you wish to abolish or retain the monarchy, YES or NO?
1. YES, the monarchy should be abolished.
2. NO, the monarchy should be retained.
My guess is there might have been enough Indigenous, Metis, French, Indo, Chinese, Asian and non-British decendant Canadians who would have voted "YES" to abolishing the monarchy and thus Canada's full sovereignty and independence as a nation-state might have been accomplished as a 'quiet' revolution.
My focus, Frmrsldr. was on your main question, which I took to be why Canada was not made a republic when the constitution was repatriated. My answer - because it was not a question which was relevant to what they were trying to do. It was a notion out of left field which would probably scuttled it completely - considering they barely got it done at all, and left one-quarter of the population - Quebec - out of the deal.
I am aware of the BNA Act - which was an act of the elected British parliament, not a unilateral royal decree - and the fact that Canada was drawn into World War One automatically - also after it was declared by the British parliament, not decided by the King. Those are two of the reasons why I did not say the job was finished by the turn of the 1900s.
But the real first step to autonomy was the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in the 1830s and the formation of democratic and responsible government in the 1840s - against the will of the some (not all) British Governors, and the Family Compact.
And also by simply treating as irrelevalt some of the British rules which simply did not apply here (like the one making English the only official language in the House) and conducting their affairs the way they wanted - in both French and English.
In the same way, I appreciate your position, but the fact is that in practical terms the monarchy does not have all this power you claim even though on paper it seems so because of the queen's position as head of state.
It is similar to if I said your electoral college decided who was president, not the voters - if I understand your system correctly.
I did read a funny story last week at the time the Queen visited Dublin. Morrissey - the pop singer - said the queen was a fascist because she should have removed Margaret Thatcher as PM during the horrible violence and abuses that took place in Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain in the 1980s.
It is similar to if I said your electoral college decided who was president, not the voters - if I understand your system correctly.
The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent areas or regions within the U.S. from having greater influence over others in electing the President.
Its purpose is to avoid what occurred in Canada's most recent election: Urban areas getting more seats (for the Conservatives) than rural areas, B.C. and Alberta getting more seats than Sask. and Man.
In the same way, I appreciate your position, but the fact is that in practical terms the monarchy does not have all this power you claim even though on paper it seems so because of the queen's position as head of state.
I realize that the British crown/monarch has very little power. The little power that I ascribe to it, I speak of in vague and general terms.
That is not the focus of my argument in this thread (nor has it ever been anywhere else.)
In this thread, the focus of my argument revolves around the questions:
1. What is sovereignty?
2. What is a (fully independent) nation-state?
In concrete terms, the answer may be found in posing the questions:
What would it take for Tibet to be a sovereign nation-state?
What would it take for Gaza and the West Bank (i.e., Palestine) to be a sovereign nation-state?
What would it take for Quebec to be a sovereign nation-state?
Is Kosovo a sovereign nation-state? If so or if not, why?
For me sovereignty is a government and a people/culture that have complete control of their future and destiny. No foreign government or head of state has direct legal jurisdiction to make laws or decisions or to influence or affect laws or decisions or where consultation or request or "assent" is required for some laws or decisions or is simply the head of state of another government, people, culture or nation-state.
It doesn't matter how much or how little power or how real or symbolic this power, position or title is. The mere fact of this iniquitous relationship is enough to limit and reduce the sovereignty of the subordinate country.
In the case of Canada, a foreign head of state is also Canada's head of state. For as long as this condition exists, Canada lacks full sovereignty and is not a fully independent nation-state.
Then according to you, none of the EU states are sovereign
Then according to you, none of the EU states are sovereign
No.
Here's why:
Global organizations like the EU or the UN or NATO are not heads of state of any one nation-state.
They are organizations of equal partners that nation-states freely decided to join and from which they can freely choose to leave. The rules, laws, etc., were mutually formulated and agreed upon by the members as equals. The fact that these rules, laws and conventions have any force is due to member states agreeing to observe and follow them.
Like any club, there can also be rogue members that if they don't like the rules at a given time, they can simply ignore them, even though they participated in drafting the rules and laws and may have signed or ratified them.
Look at the U.S.A./American Empire and how it ignores international laws when it comes to waging wars of Empire.
Although according to the Statute of Westminster and rules and conventions of the (British) Commonwealth of Nations, Canada can abolish the (British) monarchy if it so chooses, the fact that the British crown/monarchy is Canada's head of state was never a compact or agreement that Canada originally freely entered and thus was and is an iniquitous relationship between the two countries and reduces Canada's sovereignty and independence.
Hmm not exactly true. Un or NATO agreed but not the EU. the EU specifically takes away a lot of the decision making of a sovereign state tho they did willingly give that up like we willingly accepted the Queen as head of state. But many a unpopular law or rule and even border security has been dealt to member states even tho they would never do so themselves. If you looked through some history books about the period there was considerable debate about the place of the monarchy here
... the EU specifically takes away a lot of the decision making of a sovereign state tho they did willingly give that up like we [Canada] willingly accepted the Queen as head of state. But many a unpopular law or rule and even border security has been dealt to member states even tho they would never do so themselves. If you looked through some history books about the period there was considerable debate about the place of the monarchy here
The EU has two necessary conditions that make it different from the cases of Canada, Palestine and Tibet:
1. Equality of the members.
2. Voluntary entering, exiting and respecting the laws and conventions of the Union by its members.
The fact that the EU is able to enforce its laws and conventions is by virtue of the fact that members on an ongoing basis have freely and voluntarily agreed to give up some of their individual liberty and sovereignty to enjoy the greater collective good(s) they deem they benefit from membership and compliance. If a nation(s) feel that compliance or membership is more harmful or more burdensome than beneficial, they can suggest changes, engage in noncompliance, threaten to or actually leave.
This makes the EU like the UN and NATO but distinguishes it from the Canada, Palestine and Tibet examples.
When was Canada given the opportunity as an equal partner to freely choose to accept the British crown/monarch as its head of state?
Never.
By the 1931 Statute of Westminster, Canada was given the liberty to amend or repeal British (involuntary inherited) laws which could lead to Canada choosing to abolish the British crown/monarchy.
This is like arresting innocent people for political crimes. Then decades later, the authority tells them that what they did is no longer a crime but instead of giving them liberty merely offer them the choice of liberty or continued incarceration. The original crime or wrong (initial unjust arrest and incarceration) was never accounted for and amended.
Some will choose liberty. Others suffering the malady of the Stockholm syndrome may choose continued incarceration. ALL deserve liberty.
In the case of Palestine, what happens when Palestinians protest state of Israel oppression?
Israel state police either assault, arrest or shoot them or state of Israel armed forces wage war against them.
What happens when Chinese authorities see Tibetan citizens as a threat? Tibetan citizens are spied upon, beaten, shot or arrested.
These cases are different from the EU in that they lack equality, consultation on a basis of equality and freedom of choice for all parties concerned.
@ Frmrsldr
Well, one could say your electoral college was designed to make sure that the people didn't make the "wrong" decision by making sure the final decision was in the hands of an elite body. That was a bit closer to the framers' original intent. And the original imbalance it was intended to correct - it was indeed an urban-rural issue, but the real problem was the great number of people who could not vote in the south because they were slaves.
And correct me if I am wrong (and I may be) but as far as I know the electors are still technically free to vote for whomever they wish. In other words, your president is not democratically elected at all.
And although the electors have traditionally gone with the will of the people, there have been cases where the president was not chosen by popular vote (George Bush, for one),
Of course we both know that practically speaking it is a fairly democratic (if archaic) system that for the most part works. and not too many people down there are breaking down the doors to change it. But technically your head of state and executive branch isn't democratically elected at all. Near as I can tell, anyway, and please correct me if I am wrong.
The parallels with our monarchy is quite siimilar, actually.
As for some of your other points. They may be important to you (and indeed they may be important to some people up here) but I'm not sure the fact we have a head of state who lives in another country is a defining point of political sovereignty. It certainly is not so just because you say it is.
Like your quaint system it may seem a bit odd, but it doesn't give a foreign government control over ours, and frankly, when I think of things in our political system I would want to change, the monarchy is pretty far down the list - below the senate, below proportional representation, and even below getting the damned cameras out of the house of commons.
@ Frmrsldr
Well, one could say your electoral college was designed to make sure that the people didn't make the "wrong" decision by making sure the final decision was in the hands of an elite body. That was a bit closer to the framers' original intent.
No, most definitely it would not have been the framers' original intent for the electoral college to be an elitist check and balance against the people.
And the original imbalance it was intended to correct - it was indeed an urban-rural issue, but the real problem was the great number of people who could not vote in the south because they were slaves.
As I said, the original imbalance it was intended to correct was areas and regions having undue influence over others. In practice however, this has never actually happened.
The issue of slaves being disfranchized and "three-fifths of a person" has nothing to do with the electoral college. It had to do with the number of lawmakers sent to Congress prior to the Civil War. The population of the North being greater than the South, Congress and the White House wanted there to be close parity between North and South in Congress.
And correct me if I am wrong (and I may be) but as far as I know the electors are still technically free to vote for whomever they wish. In other words, your president is not democratically elected at all.
And although the electors have traditionally gone with the will of the people, there have been cases where the president was not chosen by popular vote (George Bush, for one),
When one Presidential candidate wins by at least a discernable majority, the electoral college doesn't serve any purpose.
It's only when there is a razor thin close election when the electoral college serves its purpose.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any country or society that currently practices direct democracy - like in the Ancient Greek city states where every eligible male was automatically a member of the government and had a direct voice in how they were governed. It's all indirect democracy where eligible people, if they so choose (to vote, that is) elect others to represent them. The electoral college does make things a little more indirect but it came into being as an intended fair and egalitarian means of deciding close Presidential elections. In Canada, those who vote for the "Prime Minister" is limited to those in that "MP's" riding. After an election, it's the party that forms the government that choses the Prime Minister. In a close race, the Guvnah (Genral) enters the selection process.
Of course we both know that practically speaking it is a fairly democratic (if archaic) system that for the most part works. and not too many people down there are breaking down the doors to change it. But technically your head of state and executive branch isn't democratically elected at all. Near as I can tell, anyway, and please correct me if I am wrong.
So yeah, you stand corrected.
The parallels with our monarchy is quite siimilar, actually.
That's where you're categorically wrong.
The parallels would exist only insofar if Canada were a nonmonarchial or Republican Westminster democracy like the Republics of Ireland, South Africa or the nation-state of India, for example.
The President is indirectly elected by the people to represent them, ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE and the AMERICAN NATION.
The British monarch represents its own interests and holds all the powers, priviledges, rights and entitlements by virtue of birth and transfers them onto their offspring or nearest relevant family member at death, incapacity or Parliamentary 'displeasure' (i.e., some wrongdoing was committed.) As I've said ad nauseum to some by now, the British monarchy is hereditary which means it is existentially (i.e., by virtue of what it is or by its very nature) unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian. The monarch, although not a Canadian citizen, but by virtue of birth, when he or she accedes to the throne, gets some title that automatically confers suzerainty over Canada on this person.
They may be important to you (and indeed they may be important to some people up here) but I'm not sure the fact we have a head of state who lives in another country is a defining point of political sovereignty. It certainly is not so just because you say it is.
What I have done is come up with definitions of key concepts like "sovereignty" and "independent nation-state" to show how having a foreign head of state prevents Canada from being a fully independent nation-state and from having full sovereignty.
If you wish to show the fallacy in my logical reasoning, then you will have to establish how Canada or a country can be a sovereign nation-state while at the same time having a foreign head of state.
Think Palestine (Gaza and West Bank), Tibet, Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and pre-independence Kosovo.
I'm not so sure I am corrected, as you did not address my main point.
As far as I know the electors in your college do have the freedom - technically - to vote any way they want, At least you did not indicate that I was mistaken there.
Similarly our governor general - technically - has the power to refuse the passage of legislation by witholding his or her signature.
Of course neither happens, because both your electors and our governors general almost always follow strict protocol. But the fact is, both are systems where the people technically do not have the final say even though that technicality is never exploited, and therefore it is not an issue.
So whatever your complaints about the monarchy - and again, I respect your position on that - your notion that it undermines democracy is a red herring. In practical terms, it has almost no effect on our democracy whatsoever,
I don't take your analysis of "constitutional monarchy" as a serious point, because as we have hashed out a few times before, the British parliament has been the undisputed final authority in that country for over 300 years. THey hand-picked the family which now sits on the throne. They set the rules of succession, They forbid the monarch from being a Catholic and the monarch must obey.
And you can make up whatever definitions you want for "nation state". Who we have as our head of state is completely irrelevant to our sovereignty, The only relevant point is that our government's power to conduct its affairs is not controlled by any outside government,
Now that does raise the question of some things - like the WTO, or other treaties - but the monarchy? Sorry, but there is no practical power there, and any power which used to exist was that of the British parliament.
And not to dwell on the electoral college (because I am sure you do know more about it than I do, and it's not directly relevant to my point) but the wikipedia listing on it specifically mentions the percentage of slaves in the south as one of the reasons why they used the system they did. And electoral college seats are based on the number of representatives in congress, no? so the 3/5 compromise actually was relevant.
But again, that was not my main point - just questioning your assertion that it had to do with urban-rural imbalance.
So whatever your complaints about the monarchy - and again, I respect your position on that - your notion that it undermines democracy is a red herring. In practical terms, it has almost no effect on our democracy whatsoever,
I don't take your analysis of "constitutional monarchy" as a serious point, because as we have hashed out a few times before, the British parliament has been the undisputed final authority in that country for over 300 years. They set the rules of succession, They forbid the monarch from being a Catholic and the monarch must obey.
Some people fail to see what hypocrites they are: Who I am referring to are those British who wax on and on about what a democratic society they live in. Their so-called democratic society has a head of state that possesses all its powers, priviledges, rights and entitlements by virtue of heredity. Democracy is supposed to be government for, by and of the people. It is supposed to be elected, representative and egalitarian. How can it be when you have a family that has power it inherits, is superior to everyone else and only represents its own interests?
It can't.
THey hand-picked the family which now sits on the throne.
O.K. So let's see, we have a bunch of British aristocratic twits who couldn't handle Britain being a republic. So they go slumming around looking for another monarch and made two royal losers, William and Mary who lived in an orange colored house in Holland, the king and queen of Britain.
Now why do you suppose they did that and not find a British Jane Jones or Samuel Smith, someone who was as 'common as dirt' and elect them to be king and queen and then hold successive elections of other such commoners for king and queen every 4 to 6 years?
I'll tell you why. Because from Magna Carta on, barons and Parliament, etc., didn't add, give or confer powers to the monarch. The process was a negative one. It took powers away that existed a priori, i.e., were pre-existing. That is why, when Britain was without a monarchy these clowns had to find a family that was of royalty. Because they had pre-existing, a priori, pre-ordained, god given power, rights and entitlements that gave them legitimacy to be rulers and the head of state. The powers that they lost were taken away by human law, but the powers that they still have were given by "natural" or "divine right." Don't confuse the divine right of kings (to be kings) with absolute monarchy. The only difference is the amount of power, not the pre-ordained, god given nature of those rights and powers.
And you can make up whatever definitions you want for "nation state". Who we have as our head of state is completely irrelevant to our sovereignty, The only relevant point is that our government's power to conduct its affairs is not controlled by any outside government,
Now that does raise the question of some things - like the WTO, or other treaties - but the monarchy? Sorry, but there is no practical power there,...
Imagine what it would look like if, say, the U.S., Russia, China, India and Brazil had the head of state of a foreign country as their head of state.
Yes, the British crown is such a wonderful reminder of Canada's glorious colonial past (and sovereignty and independence as a nation-state.)
Are you an adult?
Because if you are, do you ask your parents if you can watch a PG-13 or Mature or Restricted rated movie? Do you ask your parents for keys to the car on a Friday night? Do you ask your parents if you can stay out on a Friday or Saturday night and drink with your friends?
In 1982, Canada ratified its own Constitution - usually a document of independence. Yet Trudeau had to ask mama's permission if that was alright.
And electoral college seats are based on the number of representatives in congress, no?
No.
It is persons (delegates) at the state legislature level of government who are members of either the Republican or Democratic parties who are part of the Presidential candidates' nomination committees.
And not to dwell on the electoral college (because I am sure you do know more about it than I do, and it's not directly relevant to my point) but the wikipedia listing on it specifically mentions the percentage of slaves in the south as one of the reasons why they used the system they did. so the 3/5 compromise actually was relevant.
But again, that was not my main point - just questioning your assertion that it had to do with urban-rural imbalance.
Either wikipedia is wrong
or your understanding of the article is
or perhaps a bit of both.
Again, it has to do with the election of Presidents (especially in razor close elections, where its purpose becomes most obvious.)
Not the election of lawmakers to Congress.
If it did, and the 3/5 compromize had anything to do with it, then the electoral college would have been abolished after the Civil War.
Don't get your head too wrapped around the concept of the urban-rural imbalance. I only pointed it out in the Candian context of this recent election.
In the American context I have only made a non-specific reference to possible regional or area imbalances. So don't get your head too wrapped around the possible urban-rural or North-South imbalances in the U.S. context. Another possible imbalance in the U.S. context could be between New England and the Mid-West, or between California and New York state, for example.
Anyway, I'm not too 'religious' about the electoral college.
If we keep it, I'm fine with that.
If we amend or abolish it, I'm fine with that too.
Anyway, I'm not too 'religious' about the electoral college.
If we keep it, I'm fine with that.
If we amend or abolish it, I'm fine with that too.
Funny... that's pretty much how I feel about the monarchy - with two important counter-points.
Having a head of state chosen by partisan election is a bad and ridiculous idea.
And trying to remove the monarchy from our political system and laws is a bit more complicated than you might appreciate. For something which has no effect whatsoever, it would be a colossal waste of time and energy.
And I am not sure what you mean about Trudeau or anyone else asking permission. In practical termts the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.
On the other hand, near as I can tell the 200-year old vestigal growth on your political system actually does mean your president isn't chosen democratically. Members of the college are free to choose whomever they want to be president. Does it matter that they have always been nice sports about it and chosen according to the results of your elections? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that a cabal of 500 people has absolute power to choose who runs your executive branch, and exercise veto power over your congress.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_hist...
And the original college was based on number of congressional seats, and therefore weighted by the 3/5 compromise so that southerners got to count the people they had enslaved without actually letting them vote.
If democracy means anything to you don't you think it is worth the effort to get rid of this antiquated, elitist, authoritarian and undemocratic system that essentially controls your government?
Not trying to yank your chain too much Frmrsldr. I do know that in practice your federal elections are more or less democratic - though there is a lot about them, including the fact that each state uses its own system, which is VERY odd and unsettling.
I am just applying the same reasoning to your political system as you are to ours to demonstrate that it is not an accurate reflection of how things really are.
I don't know why everyone's so excited about the monarchy, considering that the strings of power in this country are being pulled in corporate boardrooms in New York and Chicago.
Traîtres! Heureux mai deux quatre.
@ Ward
Yeah.... now there was a guy who wanted absolute monarchy (although he wanted it controlled by Rome).
And al-Q - Precisely.
I don't know why everyone's so excited about the monarchy, considering that the strings of power in this country are being pulled in corporate boardrooms in New York and Chicago.
Maybe frmsldr wants that formalized so thats why he is so fanatical about removing the monarchy, even tho hes not canadian and its really none of his concern. Why does he constantly harp on us over it like we are errant children unable to govern ourselves and the big all knowing americans must tell us how it should be?
Having a head of state chosen by partisan election is a bad and ridiculous idea.
You don't consider that in a monarchy, where the head of state regardless of whether the person is a genius, average, a moron, a simpleton or mentally handicapped because that position and its powers, rights, priviledges and entitlements, etc., is hereditary, is not a worse and even more ridiculous idea?
Spoken like a true monarchist/elitist.
What's the matter, don't you trust your fellow citizens expressing their political will by exercising their right to vote? This coming from someone who just above expressed support for Fair Voting or PR, of all people. See the contradiction in that?
Notice how, generally speaking, monarchy and authoritarian, hierarchical, inegalitarian power-based structuring of society tends to predate/preceed democracy.
One might tend to gather from this that democracy, equality and rights-based society tends to be more progressive than monarchic/authoritarian ones.
And trying to remove the monarchy from our political system and laws is a bit more complicated than you might appreciate. For something which has no effect whatsoever, it would be a colossal waste of time and energy.
And I am not sure what you mean about Trudeau or anyone else asking permission. In practical termts the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.
IF the British crown/monarchy "has no effect whatsoever," THEN what purpose does it serve, why keep it, why is it so difficult to get rid of?
The 1931 Statute of Westminster established the principle that Canada can amend or repeal any law (it involuntarily inherited) from Britain. Abolishing the monarchy is as simple as the federal government repealing the 1701 Settlement Act, making a Declaration of Independence or ratifying a Constitution.
IF, "in practical terms the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.", THEN why did Trudeau seek royal assent by presenting the Canadian Constitution before the queen to sign?
On the other hand, near as I can tell the 200-year old vestigal growth on your political system actually does mean your president isn't chosen democratically. Members of the college are free to choose whomever they want to be president. Does it matter that they have always been nice sports about it and chosen according to the results of your elections? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that a cabal of 500 people has absolute power to choose who runs your executive branch, and exercise veto power over your congress.
That statement is completely false. There is no fixed number of delegates and "super" delegates. The number is determined by the number of votes contenders get. Delegates of the electoral college do not "choose whomever they want to be President." Just like in Canada, when parties select their leader, party members vote for those who have declared they are running for the position. Delegates of the electoral college (who are Congressional lawmakers - i.e., elected officials thus, as I stated above, it is an indirect democratic process) vote for those who have declared they are in the race for nomination as party leader and Presidential candidate, and NOT whomever they want.
And the original college was based on number of congressional seats, and therefore weighted by the 3/5 compromise so that southerners got to count the people they had enslaved without actually letting them vote.
Your understanding of the electoral college fails because you are trying to construct it along Canadian lines.
The NUMBER of Representatives elected to the House (of Representatives) is based on (simple) "Rep. by Pop."
The NUMBER of Senators elected is based on a hybrid: The first two Senators are guaranteed - this is based on the population of the least populated state. After that, the NUMBER of Senators a state elects is based on an agreed upon number of times greater the other states have over the least populated state. I don't know what the number is - it could be 1.5x, 2x, 2.007x, whatever. So every state is guaranteed 1 Senator, plus another guaranteed Senator - another given to the least populated state and all the others because they have a higher population. After that it's "Rep. by Pop."
This is to prevent government from growing too large and to try to introduce some fairness in representation of states and regions in the Senate. It's a check and balance to the House and to the Executive.
The electoral college has NOTHING to do with the election of Congressional lawmakers.
Congressional and Presidential races are two separate and distinct entities (in direct contrast to Canada, excluding Canada's Senate which is not elected, of course.)
The electoral college had NOTHING to do with disfranchizing people and legally treating them as if they were "3/5ths of a person" based on the color of their skin. It was CONGRESS and the WHITE HOUSE, to their shame, who came up with that detestable compromize.
The reason why they did was the same reason given by Chretien for the ADSCAM Sponsorship Scandal: They wanted to prevent America from breaking up through secession and civil war - which happened in any case.
The electoral college is an 'emergency autopilot' feature where its actions only have any effect when there is a razor close Presidential election. To make a Canadian comparison, its function is like that of the Guvnah Genral when there has been a vote of no(n) confidence or when no party has won enough seats to form a majority government. Unlike the Guvnah (who is appointed by the Prime Minister), the delegates of the electoral college are lawmakers who were elected by the people.
Why do you keep harping (sorry for the pun) on about the disfranchizement and legal considering people "3/5ths of a person" based on the color of their skin? This antidemocratic, unrepresentative, inegalitarian, discriminatory and odious practice has been abolished, unlike the equally antidemocratic, unrepresentative, inegalitarian, discriminatory and odious institution of the monarchy.
I am just applying the same reasoning to your political system as you are to ours to demonstrate that it is not an accurate reflection of how things really are.
I am not applying any "reasoning" (read as criticism) to your (i.e., Canadian) political system.
Given my vast ignorance of the details of your system, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume to criticize your system and to either explicitly or implicitly argue that the American system of government would be better for Canada. That is something Herr Harper would (and is) do(ing). In fact, I look with horror and revulsion at the way Herr Harper is corrupting your political system by making it more American.
My belief is that every country is unique and must choose its own path when it comes to its destiny and political evolution.
The only thing I am criticising is monarchy.
Monarchy is hereditary and therefore an unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian institution.
As such, all democrats, egalitarians, libertarians, leftists and progressives, etc., should find it an odious abomination and an affront to their political values.
Just like a person, a nation needs to move out of the basement of its parent's home and start fending for itself (metaphor for "sovereignty.")
To not do so is unhealthy.
Yeah, fending for themselves the way the folks down in the great republic revere their founding fathers and the improved humans of the Soviet Union fought so vigorously to defend their motherland.
Rather than have some elected shyster as a head of state, I kinda like the idea of the big cheese being a meaningless figurehead.
Rather than have some elected shyster as a head of state, I kinda like the idea of the big cheese being a meaningless figurehead.
The elitist position that you don't trust democracy, then?
It's best for Canada to have as head of state a foreign hereditary one?
Elitist authoritarians know better than their equals (fellow citizens)?
Whatever would we do without americans to tell us whats wrong with our country and what our opinions are (because obviously we dont know when we are elitist or monarchists) and how to fix things. Its ever so much better than working to fix their own shortcomings and leaving us to decide our own issues. Which ironically whats his point, that with a queen we cannot make our own decisions and must have america show us the way.
Its ever so much better than working to fix their [America's] own shortcomings and leaving us to decide our own issues. Which ironically whats his point, that with a queen we cannot make our own decisions and must have america show us the way.
With quotes, show me where I said that.
You say it every time you post on the monarchy Yankee
You say it every time you post on the monarchy Yankee
Provide quotes.
Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated prejudiced bias.
IF, "in practical terms the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.", THEN why did Trudeau seek royal assent by presenting the Canadian Constitution before the queen to sign?
Because it is impolite to call it what it is - ordering her to rubber-stamp it, because she dare not refuse. The last time a monarch refused royal assent was in 1708.
If you knew how our system worked you would know what that really meant. It is a very simple and basic part of our government. We pass it; they sign it. Period.
As I said, practically speaking, your argument has no foundation. It has no bearing on our democracy who we have as our head of state and it is no one else's business. What is important it that another country does not have any control over our govenrment's decision=making power. And as I and others have said, while international treaties and organizations certainly are a threat, our monarch, and even the British parliament, is not.
In short, while I respect your dislike of the monarchy (after all, there are enough Canadians who are) your argument against it makes no sense.
Your electoral college does not have such a spotless record. There is actually nothing in your constitution requiring electors to vote for the candidates they were pledged to, and there are a number of cases of electors switching. Sometimes for benign reasons, and other times betraying trust.
http://archive.fairvote.org/faithless.htm
Again, I know that practically speaking these are are not changes which have changed the course of elections, but they are still cases of the votes of many people being tossed out the window, and the decision instead being made by one person with impunity.
And even if most of them do play by the rules, the fact that they are not legally bound to do so, and we only have their word and their trust to go on is very similar to the way in which our governor general and lieutenant governors act in good faith.
Indeed, it is no different than the great power you imagine the monarch has to withhold that pen stroke, even though it has never been done in the history of our country.
The elitist position that you don't trust democracy, then?
Elitist authoritarians know better than their equals (fellow citizens)?
You must have heard that your founding fathers were so concerned about mob rule (some people call it "democracy") that they created a system of checks and balances in the US system to ensure the ruling elite would never be in danger of losing control.
IF, "in practical terms the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.", THEN why did Trudeau seek royal assent by presenting the Canadian Constitution before the queen to sign?
Because it is impolite to call it what it is - ordering her to rubber-stamp it, because she dare not refuse. The last time a monarch refused royal assent was in 1708.
If you knew how our system worked you would know what that really meant. It is a very simple and basic part of our government. We pass it; they sign it. Period.
Your argument makes no rational or logical sense.
So, when it came to Trudeau ratifying the Constitution, he went cap in hand to the British monarch.
Nation-states that have sovereignty do not do this.
Such a thing is a nationally humiliating thing to do.
There is no rational reason to do this:
1. There was no legal compunction for Trudeau to seek the British crown/monarch's assent.
2. The British crown/monarch's assent was a forgone/rubber stamp conclusion, the British crown/monarch was compelled by convention to do it.
3. The 1931 Statute of Westminster offered/offers a legal, diplomatic and polite out from this kind of situation.
This legal/political act is symbolic of Canada's relationship to the British crown and Empire. It is symbolic of Canada's colonial past where Canada was (still is in this regard) a subordinate vassal of communities, cultures and peoples to the superior colonial power of the British Empire. "Know thy place servant, when you are in the presence of thy master, the British monarch!"
Canada's colonial past is a national humiliation. Why have successive Canadian governments since 1931 allowed their and all Canadian's noses to be rubbed in this humiliating past?
I don't know what the percentage of Canadians is who don't get this. But there are many Irish, Africans, Asians and peoples from the Caribbean and Pacific and Oceana countries who are or were colonies of Britain who do.
Do you not see the symbolism of this, what this represents?
WHY then was this done?
The explanation you offer/suggest is that Canada's and Britain's (Westminster Parliamentary) governments operate a good deal on (often) unwritten conventions.
This is what's called the "inertia of history."
Q: Why do you do that?
A: It's the way we've always done it.
Doing things this way poses two problems:
1. It causes a culture to become resistant to change: It becomes a readymade excuse not to change.
2. Poses the danger that this way of doing things may slide into the "Is to ought fallacy:" This is the way things are done and this is the way things morally ought to be done.
By way of analogy, let's imagine that an entire group of people are still legally disfranchized, considered "3/5ths of a person" and are legally considered "property" (slaves) based on the color of their skin:
The "Is to ought fallacy" would look like this: "These people are slaves, they're like livestock, they are personal property, why they aren't even human beings, when the U.S. census is taken, they count for only "3/5ths of a person" in the eyes of the law, so we can have parity in Congress with them Northern Yankees. Hell, they can't even vote. This is the way it is. And that's the way it (morally) ought to be. It's the way of the world, boy."
We pass it; they sign it. Period.
That's the way it is. That's the way of the world. That's the way it ought to be. Don't question it.
You must have heard that your founding fathers were so concerned about mob rule (some people call it "democracy") that they created a system of checks and balances in the US system to ensure the ruling elite would never be in danger of losing control.
Quaint interpretation.
Wrong interpretation.
The intention of the Founders was to prevent the federal government and even branches of the government from usurping power and becoming despotic, esp. with regard to usurping the individual rights of its citizens.
Last I heard, 1% of your ruling elite makes as much money in a year as 45% of your citizenry. Nice egalitarian system you've convinced yourself you have.
Suck-er.
Last I heard, 1% of your ruling elite makes as much money in a year as 45% of your citizenry. Nice egalitarian system you've convinced yourself you have.
Suck-er.
That's had.
You talked about the intent of the Founders.
In their time America was a pre-capitalist society.
The intentions of the Founders were good.
It was not their intent for America to become an oligarchic despotism.
As you know, we live in a world where things become corrupted.
Peoples' intents may originally be good.
Sadly, in time they may (usually are) corrupted.
However, that is no excuse to accept things the way they are.
In fact, it may serve as a means to inspire us to strive for improvement.
Frmsldr, your views on monarchy and its role in Canada have been put forward time and time again, with the only result being conflict and name-calling.
We get it. Some agree, some don't. Repeatedly stating your position, and beligerantly I might add, isn't discourse - it's bullying.
Move on or move out.
Rebecca, it seems to me that there was a fairly high-brow discussion on, despite al-q calling fmrsldr a sucker. Why are you threatening fmrsldr? Makes no sense...
Geez, quoting Bugs Bunny is now considered a low-brow form of discourse?
I suppose I can take being called a hypocrite, a child, told that the fact I don't share his opinion means I am a slave, and being told in very insulting terms that our country is not a real country and that our entire political structure is a humiliation.
I don't judge Frmrsldr for his views on the issue of the monarchy, nor for the fact that he is American. But it does explain his lack of insight, It is also pretty ironic being told by the elephant in the bed how we are doing it all wrong (speaking of Trudeau).
I can also overlook that he doesn't seem to appreciate the symbolism of having our head of state personally sign the document transferring Canada's administration from an Act of the British Parliament to one of the Canadian Parliament. Virtually all other legislation is just rubber stamped by the governor general, not enacted by crawling on hands and knees for Her Majesty's permission.
Although coming from a country where their flag, their eagle, political imagery and pictures of their presidents are EVERYWHERE you;d think he would have an appreciation for symbolism, because the Americans wear it on their sleeve more than most nations. And believe me, looking at it from the outside, it can seem just as ridiculous and superficial as I am sure you think our national symbols are.
But then again, it doesn't matter what I think about it; what matters is that those symbols mean something to Americans. I might remind him that it is no different with our institutions.
And as for the intentions of your founding fathers being good, evidently not in all things. THeir ideals were not so perfect that they didn't overlook the institution of slavery and bury it until it had to be settled by war. And the political differences between John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton (among others) is evidence that some of them had their own agendas, and they were certainly not all of one mind about the course of your country.
And of course, your electoral college which (again, like our governor general) may work just fine, but it is still technically an undemocratic act of faith) ...wIth the difference that there have been more people in your system hwo have abused the privilege.
I don't mean to mis-judge the founders of the U.S. because I know they probably did the best that they could under the circumstances; but what they produced was far from perfect, and not all of it was of good or wise intent.
But as for this discussion, I don't see it going much further because we are clearly - again - at an impasse.
I don't mean to mis-judge the founders of the U.S. because I know they probably did the best that they could under the circumstances; but what they produced was far from perfect, and not all of it was of good or wise intent.
I hardly think that's a fair comment, given that the the USA is the manifestation of divine revelation as revealed to the founding fathers.
Was the American Revolution Fought to Save Slavery?
Word spread like wildfire throughout the slave communities in America that Britain was freeing slaves. This was simply not the case as Lord Mansfield went to great lengths to try to stress the importance of this particular case and not a judgment of slavery overall. But the interpretation was broad and the perception was that freedom was more likely to be with the British than with the American colonists.
Shortly after the Sommerset decision, the American Revolutionary War against the British began in 1775. As the British were beginning to lose battles in the North early in 1775, they began to look to the South. The British knew, however, that the plantation owners in the South were nervous about the slave rebellions elsewhere and about possible insurrections on their own turf. They wanted to make them feel even more nervous. In light of that, somewhat like the Spanish, Lord Dunsmore issued a proclamation offering enslaved Africans freedom and land if they left the plantations and joined the British in battle. Dunsmore's decision backfired. But first some statistics.
Repeatedly stating your position, and beligerantly I might add, isn't discourse - it's bullying.
Move on or move out.
Beligerent adj. 1, waging war; as, beligerent nations; 2, warlike; as, belliegerent words: - n. a nation or person at war; as, the belligerents laid down their arms.
Provide a quote from this thread to show me where I was belligerent or warlike so I may amend my errors.
If I'm banned from posting on this thread it probably will kill the debate.
No one learns anything from others always agreeing with them.
Nor from people disagreeing with them or objecting to their condescension apparently
I'm somewhat dismayed that my arguments are not understood as analogies and that what I'm criticizing is the philosophy, meta-theory and ethical issues of monarchy.
When I discuss democracy, egalitarianism, sovereignty, "nation-statehood", liberty, etc., I am not referring to specific examples.
I am not talking about the American-ness, Canadian-ness or British-ness of democracy, egalitarianism, sovereignty, "nation-statehood", liberty, etc.,
I am discussing these ideals as universal values.
My arguments against "monarchy" are in the same vein as other babblers arguing against the celebrating/observing/paying homage to Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day.
By my understanding, a key philosophical cornerstone, or political and moral value of rabble is opposition to colonialism/imperialism.
Or have I got that wrong?
Nor from people disagreeing with them or objecting to their condescension apparently
Believe me, the more I learn about Canadian politics, the more I learn how little I know about it.
If I wasn't learning anything on babble, I wouldn't come here.
I hardly think that's a fair comment, given that the the USA is the manifestation of divine revelation as revealed to the founding fathers.
LOL.
When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution the Federalist Papers, etc., it was during what was called "The Age of Enlightnement."
They were influenced by contemporary Enlightenment thinkers.
This was a time when rational and logical thinking and discourse were pre-eminent.
The majority of the Founders were agnostic, believed that one's personal-private religious views shouldn't enter the public domain of politics.
They weren't very "religious" about their religion.
A religious revival occurred in the 19th Century:
The notion of Manifest Destiny (if religious overtones are thrown into it) came into being circa 1820.
The Mormons forming their own community in Utah.
The religious fanaddict John Brown murdering pro slavery persons in the name of god.
It wasn't until Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when a U.S. President's personal religious views became a matter of public concern.
Frmrsldr, I don't mind talking with you at all. in practical or theoretical terms,
I just think if this is indeed a theoretical argument, it might be good to dial back the rhetoric about us being slaves, and not having a real country, because neither is true.
I know there are plenty of Canadians who are strongly anti-monarchist, some for different reasons than yours.
But I would venture to say that even for most of them it is hardly a burning political issue. If there is one thing I would like you to understand it is that in practical terms the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and has virtually no effect whatsoever on our system of government.
It is a tradition, no different than the many traditions you have in your country. You don't have to like it, but I think it would be better if you looked at it in its proper perspective.
(edit)
cross-posted with you Frmrsldr
I think al-Q was making a joke about how some revisionists see the founding of your country.
Though I don't think the everything inspired by the Enlightenment was that progressive, and although it was not religious, it certainly had its own version of fanaticism.
Jefferson's declaration that the tree of liberty needed regular feedings of blood is all the more hypocritical given that the closest he got to the war effort was running away from Monticello when British troops were approaching.
For all Jefferson's talk of tyrants, it was John Adams who did the work of negotiating with the French monarch and Dutch financiers to bankroll the revolution. - And negotiating with British Generals.
Again, I know your country was born in a difficult time and with competing interests, but I think a lot of the problems you still have to day - specifically to do with the tension between federalism, states rights, and individual liberty - come from your first revolutions - the war, and Jefferson's later political one.
The notion of Manifest Destiny came before 1820, I would think about 1810 or so if not earlier.
Remember that little war of aggression against the British and her colonies' in 1812?
@ Todrick
Washington actually sent an ill-fated expedition to try and foment revolution in Quebec, and shortly thereafter Ben Franklin went to Montreal with a printing press, and a similar mission. Franklin left, but the press stayed and was eventually used to start the Montreal Gazette.
@ Smith W
Thanks, I was not aware of the printing press. I will look for more information on this subject.
I was going to say something snarky, but 6079 Smith W made a rational comment about my post before I could.
That said, I don't care how rational and Voltairean one is, there is no mistaking that the USA is as much of a religion as any other faith out there.
Shortly after the Sommerset decision, the American Revolutionary War against the British began in 1775. As the British were beginning to lose battles in the North early in 1775, they began to look to the South. The British knew, however, that the plantation owners in the South were nervous about the slave rebellions elsewhere and about possible insurrections on their own turf. They wanted to make them feel even more nervous. In light of that, somewhat like the Spanish, Lord Dunsmore issued a proclamation offering enslaved Africans freedom and land if they left the plantations and joined the British in battle. Dunsmore's decision backfired.
Two thoughts:
It's one of those great "What if?" moments of history:
What if the British won and slavery in America was abolished?
The emotional side of me wishes it had happened.
The rational-logical side tells me that British defeat was inevitable.
As I said in the above post, the time of the American Revolutionary War of Independence was during "The Age of Enlightenment."
Logic and reason informed most Americans that slavery would soon pass because it was morally wrong and freed wage earning workers and/or technology in the form of farm machinery would continue to sustain the profitability of an agrarian economy after emancipation.
Why then, did slavery persist?
I would venture that it is the same reason why people become emotional and defensive about the continued existence of the monarchy in Canada:
They are/were ingrained habits. Slaveholders and monarchists convince(d) themselves that their political/cultural practices are/were like a house of cards. Yank away the slavery/monarchy card and the whole house comes crashing down.
That didn't happen when slavery was abolished. It's not going to happen when the monarchy is abolished. But try to convince people of this at the time. It's not very easy, is it?
The reason why British defeat was inevitable is the Independence War was an anti-colonialist guerrilla war. The track record in anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist wars for the colonial/imperial power or for the "Visitors Team" is not very good.
The ploy on the part of the British to cause the slaves to insurrect and support them in their war effort by promising them freedom was something the British never seriously intented to do. They knew from the start it was doomed to failure. They resorted to it out of desperation and spite: Their only real aim was to inflict as much harm, chaos and damage as they could.
Imagine what would have happened if the British had "won." How would they be able to establish peace, law and order and governance under such circumstances?
The Americans would simply have continued the fight into America's vast hinterland. Britain would have found itself at perpetual war. Britain did not have the human and financial resources to oversee such a "victory." Such a "victory"/perpetual guerrilla war would have financially destroyed and thus ended the British Empire right then and there.
This attempt to free and arm the slaves is the same tactic the American Empire is employing in Iraq and Afghanistan with its policy of arming, training and financing militias to fight against their fellow country people insurgents.
That is why this ploy is largely a "No sale" among those concerned.
They'd have looked to what the United Empire Loyalists had created in Upper and Lower Canada and thought, " Ah, so that's how one creates 'Peace, Order and Good Government!'"
I would venture that it is the same reason why people become emotional and defensive about the continued existence of the monarchy in Canada:
They are/were ingrained habits. Slaveholders and monarchists convince(d) themselves that their political/cultural practices are/were like a house of cards. Yank away the slavery/monarchy card and the whole house comes crashing down.
Not just habit. A lot of people made a lot of money off of slavery , and not just slave owners. Plenty in the north profited from the triangle trade as well.
I agree with you that change was inevitable. Hard to say if British defeat was inevitable, or indeed if the U.S. had gotten into a war with France if they would have prevailed. There are too many factors - one major one being France's support of the U.S. effort as part of its war with Britain. So I agree something was likely to change simply because your colonies were distinct cultures. But I don't think the way things turned out was inevitable at all.
And comparing slavery to monarchism as just "habits"? I dunno about that, or that John Brown comment. I care less about his religious fanaticism than his "guerilla" efforts, flawed though they were.
And al-Q:
Sorry. Feel free to be snarky.
But I would venture to say that even for most of them it is hardly a burning political issue. If there is one thing I would like you to understand it is that in practical terms the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and has virtually no effect whatsoever on our system of government.
That is the vast chasm of difference between us.
I KNOW that the monarchy is largely irrelevant, and from a practical perspective has little or no effect on your system of government.
What I am arguing about is the SYMBOLIC, philosophical, moral and meta-theoretical implications of the monarchy in Canada.
First, think about what monarchy IS at a conceptual, moral, meta-theory level.
Then consider this, when the Canadian government kow-tows to, recognizes, honors, celebrates, pays homage to etc., the British crown/monarchy, this at a SYMBOLIC level is the moral equivalent of recognizing, honoring, celebrating, paying homage to etc., Thanksgiving or (Christopher) Columbus Day, for instance.
Does this make any sense, or am I out to lunch on this?
Jefferson's declaration that the tree of liberty needed regular feedings of blood is all the more hypocritical given that the closest he got to the war effort was running away from Monticello when British troops were approaching.
Jefferson found inspiration for this from passages of John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government."
Again, I know your country was born in a difficult time and with competing interests, but I think a lot of the problems you still have to day - specifically to do with the tension between federalism, states rights, and individual liberty - come from your first revolutions - the war, and Jefferson's later political one.
Amen brother. I agree with you entirely.