The Monarchy & "Liberal" Royalists
Of all things, before all else, I must issue a sincere and heartfelt condemnation to royalists that identify themselves as leftists or liberals. There is nothing liberal or democratic about monarchy, whatever it has done or hasn’t done. Any person who calls themselves a leftist and a monarchist is like a black member of the Ku Klux Klan—an idiot undergoing an identity crisis. One can’t be the upholder of democratic ideals and of an inherently evil and unnecessary institution that is at the core of all the inconsistent whinings about imperialism and colonialism we Canadians have always attributed against the Americans. Republics can correct themselves while monarchies cannot and won’t. Royalists, whatever political stripe, either hate democracy or are too stupid or insane (in some cases both) to realize monarchy is an evil affront to democracy and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. I also want to issue a goddamned slap in the face to all the cowards and cop-outs that conjure up all sorts of excuses to not end the damned institution and end it now. “Let’s wait til it passes; let’s wait til Prince Charles takes the throne.” Then what? Suppose nothing happens? Do we wait until he dies and another? Such a stupid cop-out based on the assumption that we should just sit still and wait til the universe or our elected “representatives” entertain the idea of tackling the head of state, despite the constitutional risk. Speaking of the Constitution, no Canadian has read it, understood it or cared about it, and the wide majority of those who even heard about it are so stupid they don’t know what damned country they’re living in; some people (ordinary folk, the ones Canada’s left miserably fails to reach out to) even believe that the age of consent is eighteen when in fact it’s sixteen (for girls). Things of this importance must be tackled, even if it means having to go through the constitution, which is a bad document anyway, drafted up by London barristers and solicitors who have never been to Canada to begin with. If our constitution is such a headache that it can't be touched or amended, even when absolutely necessary, then it is a bad constitution that Canada and her people don’t deserve or need, and along with the monarchy, must be abolished and replaced with a republican constitution that emphasizes on the universal values and foundations of freedom, equality, and unity. The current “constitution” (which is really the re-named British North America Act, thus it isn’t Canadian) that we, the dwellers of the British colonial outpost, live under is a total failure, as much of a failure as its fellow rag, the Charter, which doesn’t guarantee serious civil liberties since it’s more of a gesture by the powerful to the people to keep the petty rabble quiet as the elite, elected and unelected, sit on their hands and do nothing as usual, than a serious curb to government abuses. We think Canada is great because we imagine it is great, deluded by fantasies painted by our governments provincial and federal, and self-deluded, enticed by idiotic ramblings of a few obscure names that no one cares about, such as Wayne Gretzki or Farley Mowat. The Americans rightfully wrenched themselves free from the throngs of the British Empire—a once powerful land-hungry monster (as all empires were and are) that ruined and exploited the natives of their conquered land, including Canada—over more than just taxes (among the other ideas being the stupidity of a continent being governed by a mere island in Europe), and forged themselves an identity based on ideals that were universal, drawing from the ideas of the enlightenment. Canada stayed in the dark, damp safety of its mother’s basement, masturbating to Star Wars porn (which is an American film) while relishing in the problems its brother has to deal with on its own. This author is a proud Canadian but also a patriot, a Canadian separatist. It appreciates American ideas, American innovation, American spirit, but prefers to stay Canadian. How stupid are Canadian royalists and neutrals to assume that Canada would break-up and become part of the US the moment Canada becomes independent? Very stupid. We’re already in a similar position by being part of the Commonwealth of Nations, the skeletal remains of a dead empire. There’s all this horse-shit about sovereignty and independence while sharing the same head of state as other nations . . . the definition of an empire. The bottom line difference between a republican form of government and a monarchy is that the head of state is elected in a republic, and the head of state of a monarchy is not; executive power for the former is transferred by popular choice, regardless of blood or line of birth, and executive power for the latter is transferred by blood and line of birth, regardless of public input. The rest is commentary. Yet these liberal “royalists” and passive “republicans” (the former insanely clever, insane or both; the latter insanely stupid, insane or both) are part of the disease that has ruined, divided, weakened, impoverished and deluded Canada and Canadians (except people in Quebec, who see themselves as real Canadians) for almost 150, dragged into European wars and affairs to preserve and expand the British Empire. English Canadians view and treat all Francophones and Aboriginals as diseased trophies of conquest, and Francophones and Aboriginals regard Anglophones as oppressors. Now, the common stupid leftist will croak: “Regarding foreign wars, we didn’t enter Iraq!” True, but why then should we have a head of state of another country as Britain, which has troops in Iraq?! Why be associated with that? Is it not supreme commander of the armies of Britain and of Canada? Also, we’re in Afghanistan, and despite the horrors unleashed by the godless Taliban when they seized power in 1996, we went in after almost a decade but for a different reason, which hasn’t been found yet thanks to shifting priorities. Another ire that boggles the mind is that these same people, the liberal “royalists” and passive republicans and fence sitters, who claim they were horrified by the sights and action of the G20, where peaceful protesters, journalists and even ordinary people were violently assaulted, harassed, humiliated by Toronto police, the very same police that pussied-out when anarchists and political extremists trashed and rioted in the downtown core for almost two hours, attacking journalists, photographers, videographers, and ordinary people and trashed the windows of not just corporations but also of small businesses—small businesses, propped up by immigrants who came here to find a new place to live and stay—and torched police cars which, according to legend which stayed as a legend, would’ve caused the police to enact some sort of murderous vengeance against them, and other stupid shit, while a group of world leaders sat around for no reason only to make an unimportant statement . . . excused and dismissed the utter callousness and obliviousness to these horrors by the Old Hen and holder of that useless, undemocratic and un-Canadian sinecure who paid a visit minutes after yet another international event Canadians always embarrass themselves in, with a pageantry of mockery that consisted of visiting only a few provinces, opening a human rights museum, and then proclaiming that “Canada is an example of the world,” as “above politics” or “above the world,” without specifying jack-shit other than perhaps meaning she’s so superior that she’s above morality and human responsibility, which is horse-shit. These people, these disgusting utilitarians, like other moanarchists, think that certain human beings should be so above morality, so above irresponsibility solely based on power alone that they somehow have a “right” to do whatever they like, even tyrannical whenever madness, idiocy or cunning demands . . . such is the motto of tyrants and their supporters who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. Liberal “royalists” are just as stupid as other royalists and thus have no place in calling themselves “liberal” or “leftist.” These people who think that monarchy, an undemocratic and antidemocratic institution imposed on Canadians, is somehow in some bizarre compatible with democracy should set sail to England (and yes, let the smart-asses surge forth and attempt to correct me, I dare them damned bastards!) and stay there. Why be so far away from something they love so much?
And what of the rest of the left? Here we are, fighting for causes we can’t and don't understand, that we assume the business of other nations should be our business while ignoring what happens here. Can we not start change at home first?
"Off With Their Heads!", this is what we heard in the streets of london, england, the previous December!
You seem to think that a lot of people are stupid. Everyone but yourself, actually.
Canada's symbolic monarchy doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, so tell me again why I should get myself all worked up about it?
"You seem to think that a lot of people are stupid."
Of course they are.
"Everyone but yourself, actually."
Really? Because I have different opinions about the monarchy, which are right? Or does that reflect your own opinion of yourself?
"Canada's symbolic monarchy doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, so tell me again why I should get myself all worked up about it?"
Symbolic how? Symbol of what? And how ironic that you had to paraphrase an American that fought for his nation's freedom and wrote its declaration of independence to justify the very thing he fought against. It's mere powerlessness is also a problem for Canadians, that despite being "apolitical," it is nonetheless useless, and a puppet of the political. Try reading the damned thing again.
Hate to bring Macleans into this or any discussion, but at last count, we're apparently paying more per capita for the monarchy than the Brits.
$1.53 per person/year
Roughly 40 to 50 million per year. Yeah, thats more than enough to get worked up about considering the areas that go wanting for support.
"Off With Their Heads!", this is what we heard in the streets of london, england, the previous December!
Yes, perhaps . . . but that's London, ENGLAND, not anywhere in Canada. What provincial capitals? When was the last time we take issue this evil, ridiculous, undemocratic institution?
Hate to bring Macleans into this or any discussion, but at last count, we're apparently paying more per capita for the monarchy than the Brits.
$1.53 per person/year
Roughly 40 to 50 million per year. Yeah, thats more than enough to get worked up about considering the areas that go wanting for support.
Even if they receive pennies from us, there's more than mere finances to dump the damned crown. So we should deprive ourselves and other Canadians democracy for the sake of money? If such is the case, why have parliaments, then? Or elections? Then why not just place all power in the hands of aristocrats so that they save money at our expense, regardless of the rights and needs of the people right? Popular sovereignty is better than the sovereignty of one.
I certainly agree. How are we ever going to contend with the new moneyed aristocracy in this country if we can't even manage to get the old ones off our backs.
I certainly agree. How are we ever going to contend with the new moneyed aristocracy in this country if we can't even manage to get the old ones off our backs.
Oh thank God! Someone with brains.
The monarchy is an interesting - and perhaps necessary - way to embody and symbolise abstract constitutional concepts and sovereignty.
Hate to bring Macleans into this or any discussion, but at last count, we're apparently paying more per capita for the monarchy than the Brits.
$1.53 per person/year
Roughly 40 to 50 million per year. Yeah, thats more than enough to get worked up about considering the areas that go wanting for support.
That figure includes the costs of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors - institutions that would likely exist in some form or another anyway, with or without the House of Windsor.
So, having the Queen as our head-of-state means that we're associated with the Iraq War, because she's also the head-of-state for Britain? I guess by that logic, Jamaica must be strongly associated with gay and lesbian equality, since the UK protects gays from discrimination and recognizes civil unions. And Jamaica and the UK both have the Queen as head-of-state.
Patriot wrote:
When was the last time we take issue this evil, ridiculous, undemocratic institution?
Well, we're terrified of taking action, because then god knows what Perfidious Albion will do. Remember when Australia had their referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1999? The Queen actually sent in the Royal Navy to burn Sydney to the ground! Sure, some traitors tried to claim that the republicans just lost because they were incapable of presenting a coherent alternative(or for that matter dividing their press releases into readable paragraphs), but we know the truth!
"The monarchy is an interesting - and perhaps necessary - way to embody and symbolise abstract constitutional concepts and sovereignty."
*blank stare*
I think I've read something stupider. Do you not know what the hell monarchy even is?! Or "constitutional"? Or "sovereignty"? "Oh, it keeps things interesting!" Yes, democracy is sacrificed in the name of symbolism and embodiment of . . . what the hell are you talking about? I'm guessing that you're merely guessing what the hell it's there for. And symbol of what?
They're from the same system perpetuated by House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. They serve no purpose here in this country. We don't even rally around them for 'Queen and Country' wars anymore.
I certainly agree. How are we ever going to contend with the new moneyed aristocracy in this country if we can't even manage to get the old ones off our backs.
Odd then, that Sweden is generally regarded as having done a better job than the Americans of keeping their moneyed aristocracy in line, despite Sweden being a monarchy and the US being a republic. (I'm not sure where France would fit into the mix, since they're a republic, but overall to the left of the US. My own guess is it really doesn't matter what head-of-state you have, as long as the unelected ones retain only symbolic authority).
So, having the Queen as our head-of-state means that we're associated with the Iraq War, because she's also the head-of-state for Britain? I guess by that logic, Jamaica must be strongly associated with gay and lesbian equality, since the UK protects gays from discrimination and recognizes civil unions. And Jamaica and the UK both have the Queen as head-of-state.
Patriot wrote:
When was the last time we take issue this evil, ridiculous, undemocratic institution?
Well, we're terrified of taking action, because then god knows what Perfidious Albion will do. Remember when Australia had their referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1999? The Queen actually sent in the Royal Navy to burn Sydney to the ground! Sure, some traitors tried to claim that the republicans just lost because they were incapable of presenting a coherent alternative(or for that matter dividing their press releases into readable paragraphs), but we know the truth!
Oh ha-ha, quite funny, VOTD. And by your logic, the monarchy has nothing do with Canada, so we should keep it. And that makes no sense.
Odd then, that Sweden is generally regarded as having done a better job than the Americans of keeping their moneyed aristocracy in line, despite Sweden being a monarchy and the US being a republic. (I'm not sure where France would fit into the mix, since they're a republic, but overall to the left of the US. My own guess is it really doesn't matter what head-of-state you have, as long as the unelected ones retain only symbolic authority).
Who cares about Sweden?
Let me guess, VOTD, you're one of those idiots that conjures elaborate, confusing excuses to preserve this utterly stupid, useless and dangerous head of theocracies like ours and Australia?
Did you even know what happened in Australia? The royalists there rigged the referendum, and each year celebrate it with that anti-democratic shithead Howard, who is a monarchist that headed the constitutional assembly or conference or whatever there in Australia, and the main issue was direct election of a president vs. parliamentary appointment. Tell me how royalists didn't rig the referendum.
delete
Even the symbols and trappings must eventually go. They are the capstone and cornerstone around which the entire societal structure has been built. They are personified and exalted symbols of privilege that have only ever existed as non-consensual drains on the public welfare coffers.
Also, V(OT)D, it does matter what head of state you have and what powers it has. Though I utterly despise symbolic presidencies, it's a little better, a little better, than symbolic monarchies.
Even the symbols and trappings must eventually go. They are the capstone and cornerstone around which the entire societal structure has been built. They are personified and exalted symbols of privilege that have only ever existed as non-consensual drains on the public welfare coffers.
Why eventually? Why can't we just push them out? Yes, let's wait for Parliament to entertain the idea. Every MP that has forwarded such proposals has been deprived a voice. Even the well-paid media hardly gives notice, and any notice would be stuffed into the backdoor of their magazine or newspaper or blog to keep it out of sight and try not to offend royalists like V(OT)D.
Who cares about Sweden?
Good logic.
A: Birds can fly.
B: What about penguins?
A: Who cares about penguins?
Let me guess, VOTD, you're one of those idiots that conjures elaborate, confusing excuses to preserve this utterly stupid, useless and dangerous head of theocracies like ours and Australia?
So now we're a theocracy, just because we have the monarchy? I guess Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition should just switch to a "Bring back the Queen" position, and they'll have their utopia in one bold stroke?
Anyway, got any of evidence of electoral fraud in the Australian referendum?
What can someone say to a nation that celebrates queen victoria, one of the biggest terrorist in history. 1837-1901, genocide of Tasmanian Aboriginals, land clearances in Scotland, famines in Ireland and India. Ah yes, we do not need to refer what happen here in canada of maybe Africa! God save the qwueen!
Hi patriot, welcome to babble. Now that you're in the thick of things, have another gander at the babble policy you agreed to when you signed up, particularly the part which prohibits personal attacks. I think you will enjoy your time here much more (and much longer) if you stop calling babblers stupid or idiotic. Settle down and make your points respectfully.
Hehe.
Here's Patriot's last attempt to get people all riled up about Liz, a year ago.
Set your clocks for February, 2012 and be prepared to be called stupid if you don't hate the queen.
V(OT)D
Is this some kind of reference to venereal disease? If so, I must commend you on your exquisite taste in terminological anachronisms. In these boring, politically-correct times, most people have switched to the much less romantic Sexually Transmitted Disease.
Who cares about Sweden?
Good logic.
A: Birds can fly.
B: What about penguins?
A: Who cares about penguins?
Let me guess, VOTD, you're one of those idiots that conjures elaborate, confusing excuses to preserve this utterly stupid, useless and dangerous head of theocracies like ours and Australia?
So now we're a theocracy, just because we have the monarchy? I guess Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition should just switch to a "Bring back the Queen" position, and they'll have their utopia in one bold stroke?
Anyway, got any of evidence of electoral fraud in the Australian referendum?
Monarchies are never secular. But for the sake of argument, let's say a secular monarchy existed. That still doesn't justify monarchy's existence.
As for Australia, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'm merely speculating based on what I've known . . . so far. I suggest the Aussies take a look into it themselves. I've stated my reasons and observations for such a thing, which you wilfully ignored. Now go bugger off and masturbate to the portrait of Prince Charles . . . hopefully not of a young Prince Charles. Hopefully.
VOTD, have I ever told you that I like you? Because I do.
V(OT)D
Is this some kind of reference to venereal disease? If so, I must commend you on your exquisite taste in terminological anachronisms. In these boring, politically-correct times, most people have switched to the much less romantic Sexually Transmitted Disease.
And I don't give a damn.
Hehe.
Here's Patriot's last attempt to get people all riled up about Liz, a year ago.
Set your clocks for February, 2012 and be prepared to be called stupid if you don't hate the queen.
So you're out of arguments, then, Snert? You're done? Then fuck off and stop leeching.
Oh dear. patriot, I feel like your relationship and babble's is at an end. Nevertheless, I thank you for your impassioned defence of the monarchy in Canada--your presence on these boards has enriched our thoughts and our lives.
What can someone say to a nation that celebrates queen victoria, one of the biggest terrorist in history. 1837-1901, genocide of Tasmanian Aboriginals, land clearances in Scotland, famines in Ireland and India. Ah yes, we do not need to refer what happen here in canada of maybe Africa! God save the qwueen!
Well you know, in the Great Republic to the south, they have a day honouring every president, some of whom did some pretty nasty stuff as well. I don't know who the republicans over in France honour, besdies Marianne. Maybe Robespierre or Napoleon or some card-carrying liberal like that.
And in the UK, they've actually got a statue of the great regicide Cromwell at Parliament. Our man Patriot might like that, but I can't imagine the Irish are too happy about it.
Yes, by all means dump the Royals - after first ensuring that all the unsatisfied obligations of the Crown to the illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed sovereign Indigenous nations are recognized and assumed by the Republic that replaces the 'Dominion'. Of course this is all moot and purely theoretical in a country that can't get off its political ass to do anything but obey the orders of various vested interests and powers, foreign and domestic.
Oh thank God! Someone with brains.
After nearly a decade of labour here, finally at long last the recognition I truly deserve, however short lived. It all leaves me with the sense that I'm the victim of a conspiracy, and I'm getting tired of this silencing I tell you.
#30, fantastic argument, others have committed crimes against humanity, so, what is your problem....
#30, fantastic argument, others have committed crimes against humanity, so, what is your problem....
Well, my point was that if every country were to stop honouring political figures from the past who did nasty stuff, none of them would be left with anyone to honour. It's hardly a phenomenon confined to monarchies.
What a fascinating concept, accountability!
Sweden's days as an expansionist imperial power waned a very long time ago for the most part, while our own European inspired imperialist structure continues to linger on, with all of its contemporary ramifications. Perhaps the worst of it does wear off over time, but why wait.
1. Damn, arrived too late to ban patriot. And I had such hopes, given this, my last 8 hours as a moderator.
2. It's STIs, people. Get with it.
Just for fun, ban the other Mods.
and while you're at that...entertaining requests?
I have tried, really tried hard, to get worked up about the monarchy.... and I can't. Regardless of the fact that the ancestral family tree has a few limbs that end abruptly at the end of a rope back in Ireland (that is how they dealt with popular discontent back in the day), my blood pressure refuses to climb at the mention of the monarchy. My saliva glands will not work overtime to produce the froth that is being called for by some in this thread. I just cannot get over my massive, huge, practially all-encompassing indifference towards the monarchy.
On the other hand, I can get quite irate when confronted with the "imperial presidency" model we see to the south, or by the pretensions of our current PM to such imperium. It is bad enough he has centralized so much power into his own hands, but are we really interested in giving him the fucking trappings to go with it?
If there is any redeeming grace to our bizarre little constitutional compromise that has the PM as the head of the government, and Liz (and her representative du jour) as the head of state, is that we can be significantly more vocal in our disgust, contempt, hatred, whatever vis a vis the PM without falling into the trap conservatives set for their opponents in the US when they equate an attack on the person of their all-powerful president with a disloyal, traitorous, gosh darn un-American attack on the office of the president. [And isn't it sickly amusing that this trap only works one way?]
_______________
And to reinforce a point NDPP brings up in post #31, before issuing a rallying cry of "off with their heads" (as much fun as that would probably be) - we better be damned sure the FNs agree... their relationship to the symbol is quite different than that of her majesty's settler/subjects.
Just for fun, ban the other Mods.
As an exercise in humility?
If this were a democracy, I could be swayed to vote for that.
*waves (cruelly) to Maysie*
You know the conversation has become ridiculous when you accuse the imperial presidency down south, when the country up north, as we all know it today, was not created not on actions of imperialism but ones of love and peace!
I exorcise my humility every day, Rebecca.
Odd then, that Sweden is generally regarded as having done a better job than the Americans of keeping their moneyed aristocracy in line, despite Sweden being a monarchy and the US being a republic.
One major difference between Sweden and Canada:
Sweden's royal house is just that - Sweden's.
In the case of Canada, the Crown of England was forced upon British North America (later Canada) by Britain's/Canada's colonial history.
The Crown of England, both actually and symbolically, represents Canada's position of serfdom/servitude/slavery within this relationship.
It never ceases to amaze me how many among the Canadian gen. pop. fail to see this.
It never ceases to amaze me how many among the Canadian gen. pop. fail to see this.
It has nothing to do with failing to see anything; some of us just disagree with you.
It seems to me if we are talking about principles of autonomy and servitude a pretty basic part of that is the freedom to have one's own opinion, and to respect others' freedom to have thier own opinions.
As for the subject itself, it was beaten to death several threads ago, in my opinion. I don't see any point in repeating myself all over again.
Getting worked up about the monarchy is a distraction from our real imperial masters the USA. Our subservience to the Queen is nothing in comparison to the soverreignty we are losing right now with deep integration.
It never ceases to amaze me how many among the Canadian gen. pop. fail to see this.
It has nothing to do with failing to see anything; some of us just disagree with you.
Oh dear. It seems I need to make a number of clarifications:
1. Don't confuse me with "patriot."
2. Don't confuse babblers with "many among the Canadian gen. pop."
What I don't get is whenever the queen or prince Charles and lady Camilla Bowles-Parker or now prince William and Kate Winslet visit Canada, the number of Canadians (and many Americans are just as guilty, btw) and the press just gush ad nauseum all over it (the visit)/them (the royal persons.)
Is this the result of years of indoctrination from early childhood with fairy tales about kings and queens, princesses and valiant princes and faraway magic kingdoms?
Getting worked up about the monarchy is a distraction from our real imperial masters the USA. Our subservience to the Queen is nothing in comparison to the soverreignty we are losing right now with deep integration.
But do you think that the reason why many Canadians, the press and their government has substituted their allegiance/fealty/loyalty from the crown of England to the cabal of U.S. oligarchs (the military industrial complex being a good example) is due to the decades and centuries of allegiance/fealty/loyalty to the crown?
Too many Canadian young people have been reading too many fairy tales for too long?
Once a serf/slave, always a serf/slave?
Frmrsldr, I was quoting you, and I don't think there is any diffence between those of us here and the public at large, at least when if comes to the fact that some of us hold informed decisions, and are not necessarily blindly ignorant just because we don't think the monarchy is a malignant parasite on our society.
You feel otherwise? fine. My point is that if you are waiting for everyone to wake up and see the light, you might be waiting in vain.
(edit)
and the implication that my opinion on this makes me a slave is false.
My point is that if you are waiting for everyone to wake up and see the light, you might be waiting in vain.
Wrong on two counts:
1. I'm not here to convert anyone over to anything. So, you don't need to be scared/get defensive. I find discussion of the topic interesting from a political as well as a psychological point of view.
2. I don't equate "many among the Canadian gen. pop." with babblers.
Support/enthusiasm for the crown of England is the result of an "informed decision"? As Mr. Spock from "Star Trek" would say, "Fascinating."
The entire concept of a monarchy is that it is an unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic, inegalitarian idea that holds that persons, by right of birth, are superior to others and who have an inalienable right to govern over others. The current Western monarchies are institutions that date back to the feudal ages.
I can understand people who are Conservative/conservative/aristocracy supporters to be supporters of monarchy. But democrats, egalitarians, socialists, progressives and other supporters of the political left?
For Most Governments the Honeymoon is Over: Why I Don't Want To Pay For Will and Kate Middleton's Honeymoon
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/w...
"Ottawa, the provinces and the territories will foot the bill for the future kin and his bride. But here's the question: if the British understand what a gesture means in this post-recession period, why doesn't Stephen Harper?"
The entire concept of a monarchy is that it is an unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic, inegalitarian idea that holds that persons, by right of birth, are superior to others and who have an inalienable right to govern over others. The current Western monarchies are institutions that date back to the feudal ages.
I always detect a strong streak of literal-mindedness in these sorts of republican critiques of the monarchy. Yes, I suppose, a monarch does symbolize, at some level, all the bad things you mention in your bill of indictment. But really. Can anyone today point to some nasty aspect of life in Canada that is caused, or even just being made worse, by the presence of an almost-entirely symblic head-of-state? Would abolishing the Crown somehow make our politics less beholden to the whims of the moneyed classes? Hasn't really worked that way in the US. And that's probably because the power of moneyed classes is no longer dependant on receiving its powers from the monarchy.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that the USA's political problems result in any way from their being a republic. And if I were an American, I would almost certainly want to maintain republicanism, simply because returing to monarchy would be a lot of effort, for very little tangible payback(It's not as if a figurehead king would have any more power to enact universal health care than Congress does). And the same would hold true for changing Canada's monarchial system: Lots of paperwork with not much to show for it in the end. You could probably characterize my position as monarchist-by-default.
They are one of the most visible symbols of the imperium, alongside the state police. Their Royal hand wave visits among the peasantry who have been queued up for hours, their painted on smiley faced ‘how do you do' comportment is intended to obscure centuries of vicious worldwide colonialism which continues to linger on to this day. It is for good reason that we find statues among the first symbols to be torn down in any revolutionary situation. In the imperialist construct, they signify a consistent reminder of state tyranny as if they were literally presiding over it in person.
I can understand people who are Conservative/conservative/aristocracy supporters to be supporters of monarchy. But democrats, egalitarians, socialists, progressives and other supporters of the political left?
I agree 100%. The "left" argument for the monarchy - which seems to boil down to that it distinguishes us from the imperialist Americans - is pretty absurd.
But you have "left" supporters of Catholic school funding in Ontario as well which seems equally ridiculous.
1. I'm not here to convert anyone over to anything. So, you don't need to be scared/get defensive
I'm neither scared nor defensive. I just think portraying opinions other than your own as a lack of understanding is kind of insulting. I think I explained my position on it pretty clearly a few times already. Whether you agree with me or not is not important, but I thinkI have given you enough already for you to understand why I feel the way I do about it.
Yes my political beliefs are on the left (though obviously not left enough for some) but no, I don't think getting rid of the monarchy as part of Canada's political system would be a good idea. Frankly I don't think it is even a realistic expectation.
If royalists are ever offended or insulted by anything we republicans say . . . then good. Why should we care about or cater to their petty feelings?
Odd then, that Sweden is generally regarded as having done a better job than the Americans of keeping their moneyed aristocracy in line, despite Sweden being a monarchy and the US being a republic.
One major difference between Sweden and Canada:
Sweden's royal house is just that - Sweden's.
In the case of Canada, the Crown of England was forced upon British North America (later Canada) by Britain's/Canada's colonial history.
The Crown of England, both actually and symbolically, represents Canada's position of serfdom/servitude/slavery within this relationship.
It never ceases to amaze me how many among the Canadian gen. pop. fail to see this.
That's a perfectly good argument if you have no concept of class.
Serfdom/servitude/slavery is no better under Canadians than it is under citizens of the UK. Why would I care?
The entire concept of a monarchy is that it is an unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic, inegalitarian idea that holds that persons, by right of birth, are superior to others and who have an inalienable right to govern over others. The current Western monarchies are institutions that date back to the feudal ages.
If you are a strong/very strong supporter of (grass roots) democracy and egalitarianism/equalitarianism,
Then the existence (and support - whether active or tacit, "by default") of monarchy is logically contradictory and deeply offensive to one's moral and political values.
One is either a grass roots democrat and egalitarian/equalitarian or a monarchist.
One cannot, logically, be both as the two ideologies/beliefs are contradictory.
What Former Soldier said, right on!
Paul Martin would have sent Canadians to Iraq, but as he said to a US news reporter who asked him whether he would send troops to that country, Paul Martin said we didn't have enough. When the same CNN reporter pressed Martin on whether he would not or could not send troops, Martin repeated the same answer, implying that he would send them if we had enough troops.
Canada's secret war in Iraq
Our plutocrats in Ottawa think Canadians are basically stupid.
The monarchy as it exists is essentially harmless. If we abolished the monarchy, we'd either need to replace it with some form of federal and provincial presidencies, so the $1.53 / year cost would remain. Plus whatever the cost of reworking the entire constitutional settlement until we achieve unanimous consent of the provinces.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with having an hereditary head of state. We shouldd do something about that.
Right after we've finished fixing te problems that real people have to deal with - like child poverty.
On the list of the top ten priorities of an NDP federal government, abolishing thhe monarchy should be number 1,234,567,890th.
"That's a perfectly good argument if you have no concept of class."
Define class.
"Serfdom/servitude/slavery is no better under Canadians than it is under citizens of the UK. Why would I care?"
Because it's our country. That's why you should care.
"The monarchy as it exists is essentially harmless."
No, it isn't.
"If we abolished the monarchy, we'd either need to replace it with some form of federal and provincial presidencies, so the $1.53 / year cost would remain."
For your information, presidencies are only the heads of state of federal republics. Don't you mean the provinces would have governors? Do you even bother to research? Plus despite the cost, at least we'll elect them.
"Plus whatever the cost of reworking the entire constitutional settlement until we achieve unanimous consent of the provinces."
How or why the hell would it cost money? You don't think that democracy is worth the cost?
"Yes, there is something inherently wrong with having an hereditary head of state. We shouldd do something about that."
Damn right there is.
"Right after we've finished fixing te problems that real people have to deal with - like child poverty."
Yeah, and child poverty will never be tackled with as long as this currently diseased system we under remains. In fact, no one has done anything about child poverty.
"On the list of the top ten priorities of an NDP federal government, abolishing thhe monarchy should be number 1,234,567,890th."
Monarchy's abolition should be the first priority for ANY federal government. Though that won't happen considering public apathy and the massive amounts of corruption and rotten politics we allow to run amok . . . thanks to monarchy.
Regicide, you are SO out of here.
Hosted by his own moniker.
Regicide, you are SO out of here.
Why?
Palmerston wrote:
The "left" argument for the monarchy - which seems to boil down to that it distinguishes us from the imperialist Americans - is pretty absurd.
Hey, I've been one of the leading monarchists on this thread, and I will have you know that I scrupulously teach "zee", not "zed", to my ESL students. So don't try and pin some bum High-Tory nationalist rap on me.
NDPP wrote:
Why?
Good question. This has been a fun thread, even if Regicide lacked the historical wherewithal to figure out that the proper medical metaphor when trying to abuse monarchists is hemophilia, not VD.
As to NDPP's why?
Last night, when I flagged it as offensive, Regicide's first comment in the thread included a declaration that Regicide was, in fact, the same individual as the previously banned Patriot. It also included gratuitous insults (similar in tone and content to the ones emplioyed by Patriot upthread) towards posters who had the temerity to disagree with Regicide/Patriot. The comment appears to have been edited between last night and this morning to remove such statements and I am unable to reproduce exactly what was said from memory, but I strongly suspect that the re-banning of this individual might have something to do with the fact that I alerted the moderating staff that Patriot had resurfaced with a new handle.
As to NDPP's why?
Last night, when I flagged it as offensive, Regicide's first comment in the thread included a declaration that Regicide was, in fact, the same individual as the previously banned Patriot. It also included gratuitous insults (similar in tone and content to the ones emplioyed by Patriot upthread) towards posters who had the temerity to disagree with Regicide/Patriot. The comment appears to have been edited between last night and this morning to remove such statements and I am unable to reproduce exactly what was said from memory, but I strongly suspect that the re-banning of this individual might have something to do with the fact that I alerted the moderating staff that Patriot had resurfaced with a new handle.
No, I realize what reejee was doing in terms of sock-puppeting and gratuitous insults. I guess it's just that, speaking as the guy who was twice on the receiving end of his VD insults, I wasn't personally all that offended by it.
But I think you made a good call in notifying the mods about the sock-puppet. I probably would've done the same myself, but the computer I was on wasn't allowing me to log-in for some reason. Whether I agree with a mod's decision or not, I think it should be enforced in order to maintain the orderly functioning of the board.
EDIT: Reviewing the thread, he also did imply that I was a pedophile, so I guess he was pretty much begging to be banned.
As to NDPP's why?
Last night, when I flagged it as offensive, Regicide's first comment in the thread included a declaration that Regicide was, in fact, the same individual as the previously banned Patriot. It also included gratuitous insults (similar in tone and content to the ones emplioyed by Patriot upthread) towards posters who had the temerity to disagree with Regicide/Patriot. The comment appears to have been edited between last night and this morning to remove such statements and I am unable to reproduce exactly what was said from memory, but I strongly suspect that the re-banning of this individual might have something to do with the fact that I alerted the moderating staff that Patriot had resurfaced with a new handle.
You weren't the only one who hit the report button. And yes, he edited his declaration of who he was, Patriot and all of the insults out of his first comment.
thanks - I missed the preliminaries
For your information, presidencies are only the heads of state of federal republics. Don't you mean the provinces would have governors? Do you even bother to do research?
More than you do, apparently.
Yes, we should probably abolish the monarchy. But anyone who thinks that it is the most important thing is clearly delusional. The importance of having a purely ceremonial office elected instead of appointed is hardly a matter of vital importance.
The notional power of the monarch (or, practically speaking, her representatives) is virtually absolute. All executive authority rests with the Crown. In practice, the Crown only exercises that executive authority on advice. The only reason for that canventional practice is that the Crown has no democratic legitimacy. If we simply elect the Governor General / Lieutenant Governors (by whatever nomenclature), then the office will have democratic legitimacy, and the Parliament / Legislatures, Ministers and Cabinets are all irrelevant. And since the GG/LG has no defined term, we'd have a pretty pickle.
Thus, abolition of the monarchy and election of the GG/LG requires far deeper constitutional revisions than most republicans are prepared to acknowledge.
There are several more republics than the one to the south. The fact that they have a President nationally and Governors at the state level, while perhaps of marginal interest, is completely irrelevant. Or do you even bother to do research?
When and if we abolish the monarchy, assuming we take the (relatively) simplest route and recast the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors with new republican names, we are under no obligation to ape the Americans. We certainly MAY refer to the offices as "president" and "governors." Or we may refer to them all as "presidents." We could even retain "governor general" and "lieutenant governors." We could call them "high king" and "petty kings" if we of a celtic / romantic inclination. We could call them "pooh-bah" and "periwinkles" if we want.
I'd prefer the left expend its energy on matters of substance rather than wasting energy on unimportant yet complicated matters of symbolism.
"More than you do, apparently."
On the contrary, you misunderstood what I had wrote regarding presidencies and governors, though that was my fault; unintentional but I am responsible for such a mistake. I meant to say that in federal republics, only the head of state of such republics are presidencies, and that the supreme executive of provinces/states would be "governors." I mis-wrote that.
"Yes, we should probably abolish the monarchy."
I agree, yes.
"But anyone who thinks that it is the most important thing is clearly delusional."
On the contrary, those who don't think it's the most important thing are delusional and stupid. Also, what an extreme slur coming from you towards republicans on this site that see it as top priority but sadly keep their mouths shut under threat of expulsion without questions or calls for civility by the mods or the tattlers that plague this forum.
" The importance of having a purely ceremonial office elected instead of appointed is hardly a matter of vital importance."
Read the little article I had wrote above.
"The notional power of the monarch (or, practically speaking, her representatives) is virtually absolute. All executive authority rests with the Crown. In practice, the Crown only exercises that executive authority on advice. The only reason for that canventional practice is that the Crown has no democratic legitimacy. If we simply elect the Governor General / Lieutenant Governors (by whatever nomenclature), then the office will have democratic legitimacy, and the Parliament / Legislatures, Ministers and Cabinets are all irrelevant. And since the GG/LG has no defined term, we'd have a pretty pickle."
Read the article I had written that started this thread and you'll understand where I come from, sonny.
"Thus, abolition of the monarchy and election of the GG/LG requires far deeper constitutional revisions than most republicans are prepared to acknowledge."
No shit. Read what I wrote above.
"There are several more republics than the one to the south."
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
"The fact that they have a President nationally and Governors at the state level, while perhaps of marginal interest, is completely irrelevant. Or do you even bother to do research?"
I know and knew what was talking about. Look at the first comment. I am human and made mistakes and not everyone speaks perfectly all the time.
"When and if we abolish the monarchy, assuming we take the (relatively) simplest route and recast the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors with new republican names, we are under no obligation to ape the Americans."
Of course not!
"We certainly MAY refer to the offices as 'president' and 'governors.' Or we may refer to them all as 'presidents.'"
If they were all referred to as presidents, then there'd be quite some confusion, wouldn't there?
"We could even retain 'governor general' and 'lieutenant governors.' We could call them 'high king' and 'petty kings' if we of a celtic / romantic inclination. We could call them 'pooh-bah' and 'periwinkles' if we want."
Well, only if necessary, which in this case isn't and shouldn't since we'd be embarassing ourselves even more, apart from our exports like Justin Bieber and Celine Dion.
"I'd prefer the left expend its energy on matters of substance rather than wasting energy on unimportant yet complicated matters of symbolism."
This has to do with more than mere symbolism.
I know I'll be brief, so I'd like to condemn utterly the merciless policies of this site regarding threads and words. Merely insluting each other gets one banned? Why? Are others too pussy to stand up for themselves or insult back? Is there no warning or temporary suspension policy? No second chances or reconsideration? Or a call for calm and civility by the mods? It's just arbitrary whim by the mods. And yes I edited my re-introduction because I didn't want to re-enter this site's anus shooting around. I'm condemned for making a gesture of civility by deleting new insults rather than encouraged to reconsider what I wrote or edit what I wrote? What kind of site is this? A communist one?!
Also, damn all you tattler/rats/snitch cowards for not giving second thoughts or chance to what's said and done or why. As if you have the moral high ground on everything. Fuck you! And I can't say that, or edit my comment to make corrections like I did just now! So I get attacked after I banned so that I can't defend my position or state my case. This isn't a free website for Canadians! This is North Korea!
Oh, and V(OT)D, I didn't call you a pedophile. I wouldn't be surprised if you're in school to get a diploma yet can't read your own language. I didn't even say "You're a pedophile" or "Stop diddling children" or anything close to it, so calm down and stop overreacting to everything you read. You have no sense of humour so you whine to the mods until the alleged source of your petty grievances, which are online, gets banned and silenced. Take a joke and get a life.
Oh, and why can't you Mods simply remove or edit certain comments rather than got extreme and merely ban people like me online? What are you? Lazy?
Oh, and Snert, I only asked in my first thread on this issue what people's views on the monarchy is. How is that my "last attempt to get people all riled up about Liz, a year ago?" Riled up? People on this site talk about revolution yet are too pussy to get riled up about the monarchy? And not just Liz, you idiot. So much for you being a "rabble-rouser-supreme," which is as genuine as the beliefs the people on here profess.
Well, my time is up, over and out. See you all in hell. So much for being "rabble-rousers."
And so much for this, too: "babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up." Horse-shit.
Banned ... again.
Tx.
But if I might respond to a couple of the "points" he raised.
IF Canada were to abolish the monarchhy, we can call the newly rebranded GG and LG positions whatever we want. His posturing canges nothing.
In terms of actual policy effect, the monarchy as it stands is virtually harmless. Except in extremis, it does nothing and is purely ceremonial. As long as it is purely ceremonial (except in extremis) there is no point - none whatsoever - in making abolition a policy priority.
Unless, of course, one would like it as a diversion from real issues.
Which is exactly what I think Patriot / Regicide / Canadian Republic really wants. He'd like to sidetrack Canadian progressives into chasing an irrelevance so that he and his Liberal corporate elite friends can carrying on the pillage.
I like his persistence (and the moderators for that matter).
I'm no fan of any monarchy - our own included. At best, they're irrelevant. In reality, they live a parasitic existence, smiling, waving, sleeping with inappropriate people, dressing up as nazis, and occasionally doing something useful like ... hmmm .... gimme a few moments on that one.
They're barely a blip on the important issues radar in Canada, and are easily dismissed in favour of REAL issues.
In fairness to the Battenburgs and their assorted hangers on, several of them do support a range of worthy causes and lend their names to an assortment of good things. A few view their civil list benefits (and there are fewer of them with income from the civil list) as the basis of an obligation to be of service.
All that said, some of them are just asshhats.
But as to their parasitical existence - Canadians don't pay for any of it unless they happen to be visiting Canada in an official capacity. And most of those costs would still exist if they came to visit merely as UK Royals and not as Canadian ones.
The rest of the monarchial infrastructure - essentially the GG and LGs, about $1.53 / year / Canadian - would exist regardless, even if we gave the offices new names.
I find the obsession some people have with the question to be very odd. I really do think it is a ploy by the corporate elites to distract progressives from more important matters.
But as to their parasitical existence - Canadians don't pay for any of it unless they happen to be visiting Canada in an official capacity. And most of those costs would still exist if they came to visit merely as UK Royals and not as Canadian ones.
The rest of the monarchial infrastructure - essentially the GG and LGs, about $1.53 / year / Canadian - would exist regardless, even if we gave the offices new names.
My use of the term 'parasitic exsistence' was generalized and not directed at Canada. An animal that lives off another without providing significant benefit is a parasite.
For me, it has nothing to do with money - I'll be relatively poor and struggling with or without our Gracious queen
I like his persistence (and the moderators for that matter).
I have his IP number and am not afraid to use it.
Thus, abolition of the monarchy and election of the GG/LG requires far deeper constitutional revisions than most republicans are prepared to acknowledge.
I'd prefer the left expend its energy on matters of substance rather than wasting energy on unimportant yet complicated matters of symbolism.
I agree.
I am of the Sam Adams (you know, Sam and John Adams of American Revolutionary War of Independence fame) frame of mind:
First throw the bums (monarchy) out. Then take as long as you like changing the Constitution to make it legal.
That is the shortest, simplest most economical, efficient and effective way to do it.
All this talk about how difficult, complex, complicated, uneconomical, inefficient, ineffective and talk of other more important social issues to be addressed is defeatist talk spoken by a strange breed of progressive who are closet or not so closet royalist/monarchy supporters.
In all the countries today that were monarchies but are now republics, if such defeatist ideas had won the day, these countries would never have become republics.
Of all the socialist and workers' gains that have been made throughout the world, there is not one that was not achieved through struggle. If you want to live in a world of liberty, democracy, equality and justice where no one can say that they are either the superior or inferior of another, then this practice of hereditary rule by virtue of birth is an abomination and like all the other ills and evils of this world, must be abolished.
In fairness to the Battenburgs and their assorted hangers on, several of them do support a range of worthy causes and lend their names to an assortment of good things. A few view their civil list benefits (and there are fewer of them with income from the civil list) as the basis of an obligation to be of service.
This is an argument that societies like "Friends of the Monarchy" use to (presumably) justify the existence of monarchy: We need a crown because look at all the good things the main members of the British crown do - "Noblesse Oblige."
This is a ludicrous argument. One could point out all the worthy causes musician Bono (of U2) for example, does and therefore claim that on this basis, he should replace Liz as the currently reigning crown of England.
Fmrsldr, if the Canadian monarchhy were like the Bourbons or like the Romanovs, I'd be all for throwing the bums out and happily leave the sorting out of constitutional niceties until later. As it stands, they are a harmless anachronism, and they aren't worth the trouble of throwing out.
The comment about the work some of the civil list recipients do was not offered as an argument for retaining the monarchy. It is merely the observation that some of them - perhaps even most of them - are decent enough people even if their aristocratic status is an anachronism. Perhaps you could respond to things I say instead of to things you assume I'm saying.
Fmrsldr, if the Canadian monarchhy were like the Bourbons or like the Romanovs, I'd be all for throwing the bums out and happily leave the sorting out of constitutional niceties until later. As it stands, they are a harmless anachronism, and they aren't worth the trouble of throwing out.
Re-read what I wrote above. Oh but the British crown - Canada's monarchy - is like the Bourbons and Romanovs (king Louie xvi and Marie Antoinnette and czar Nicky ii and the czarina were not bad and evil people) as are all monarchies - they are hereditary despots who are superior by birth over everyone else in society. Monarchy on the one hand and democracy, liberty, equality and justice on the other, are contradictory. You cannot have a free, democratic, egalitarian and just society existing alongside a monarchy. A so-called "Constitutional monarchy" is an oxymoron.
The comment about the work some of the civil list recipients do was not offered as an argument for retaining the monarchy. It is merely the observation that some of them - perhaps even most of them - are decent enough people even if their aristocratic status is an anachronism. Perhaps you could respond to things I say instead of to things you assume I'm saying.
Wrong. The above quote reads exactly like a tv commercial. Television ads seldom explicitly say that if you buy a certain product, it will make you cooler, sexier, more (physically) attractive, part of the "in crowd", make you more popular, respected, improve your love/sex life, etc. It is (subliminally) implied.
I don't know if you're aware or not or whether it was intentional or not, but the above quote runs exactly like a soft PR campaign to "sell" the notion of the British crown as the ultimate head of the Canadian government.
If not, then this begs the question of why did you bother to post it? So members of the British crown are decent people because they support decent causes. So what? Who's making the argument that people like Liz and bonny prince Charles are evil and therefore, on that basis, ought to be deposed? No one. If they were stripped of their status and entitlements they would still be decent people (assuming this would not alter their support of such worthy causes.) In fact, stripping them of their unearned status, priviledges and entitlements would bring them the far greater benefit of making them equal to you and I and all the rest of their brothers and sisters who share equality with all of humanity. As I pointed out, by your standard, Bono is also a decent person because he supports decent causes. But again, so what?
What's the relevance, why did you post it here, where are we going with this?
Fmrsldr, comparing our anachronistic constitutional monarchy to the absolute monarchies of the Bourbons or thhe Romanovs is just slly. We've got a remnant of a ceremonial head of state - in all practical respects the same as the President of Germany or the President of Italy. The manner of choice is silly and probably should be changed, but it isn't worth the trouble.
As for your second point, I think it's a bit arrogant of you to tell me what's in my head. Rebecca had referred to them as parasites, which I thought was unfair to those civil list recipients who actually do make an effort. That's all. At no point did I suggest that this was a justification for hereditary monarchy, and to claim that I did is a blatant lie. You aren't a mind reader, so stop pretending. It just makes you look foolish.
If you want to waste your energy on fixing this small blemish on our democracy, fill your boots. In the mean time, real progressives have real issues to deal with.
It doesn't matter whether it is an absolute or (oxymoronic) "Constitutional monarchy."
The principle upon which they are founded is the same for all/any monarchy: an inegalitarian society in which the royals are naturally superior and have an inalienable right to lord/govern over others.
One who supports liberty, equality, democracy and justice cannot, as a progressive, (either overtly or tacitly by "default") logically and morally, support monarchy at the same time.
One can, however, set priorities. One doesn't have to "support" an institution in order to conclude that reforming / replacing it is not a priority.
The Canadian monarchy has no effective rule any more - and haven't had for years. It is an anachronism. All things being equal, it should go. But energy expended removing this little mole is wasted when there are far greater things to address.
If it serves no practical purpose (and some would argue against this and point to the crown of England's de jure powers)
Then it only makes logical sense to get rid of it.
As I suggested above, this can be done very easily.
I have to chuckle at the "very Canadian revolution/coup."
In 1982 Canada could have made a UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence.)
When the Constitution was ratified, Trudeau could have handed the British crown a fait accompli by declaring Canada an independent republic along with the Constitution of its own.
What would the British crown and government have done?
At best accept it with good grace.
At worst bitch and bellyache about what a bunch of unseemly upstart ingrates Canadians are.
Now we know Herr Harper, at the present time, would never do such a thing.
Even though he could.
I mean, it's not like King Stephen I didn't make a royal proclamation declaring that ~950 Canadian troops were going to stay in Afghanistan until at least 2014, or anything.
Although he may be the de facto Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces,
The crown of England is the de jure Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.
When one is inducted into the Canadian Armed Forces, one swears an oath of allegiance to the crown of England.
I think the continued assertions that removing the monarchy is totally "easy peasey" are flying in the face of something that has already been raised, quite clearly, by NDPP-up thread in post 31:
[...]after first ensuring that all the unsatisfied obligations of the Crown to the illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed sovereign Indigenous nations are recognized and assumed by the Republic that replaces the 'Dominion'.[...]
When sketching out little diagrams of how things should unfold, I would suggest that a lot more care should be given to how this issue is addressed.
While recognition and assumption of the obligations ia a starting point, meeting/satisfying these obligations themselves seems a more pressing concern than the symbolism behind the political structure that finally addresses them.
You mean the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England, as least when I took the oath it was Queen of Canada
I seem to recall it being "Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs, and successors."
http://davemiller.org/projects/shaking_hands_with_dictators/
The oath is to "Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law."
Fmrsldr, you fail to outline what replaces the current de jure head of state. If its just the same old PM picked GG, I fail to see what the point could possibly be.
You mean the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England, as least when I took the oath it was Queen of Canada
Right now queen Liz is the (sitting human) representative of the crown of England. The oath also says "the [crown's] successors, heirs and representatives", meaning when she dies, is succeeded or replaced.
The oath is to "Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law."
Fmrsldr, you fail to outline what replaces the current de jure head of state. If its just the same old PM picked GG, I fail to see what the point could possibly be.
It is in contradistinction to your claim that the crown of England is a symbolic and powerless position.
Being the Commander-in-Chief of the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc., Armed Forces de jure or by law is rather a vast amount of power.
Some people will say such power will never be abused.
But the potential is there:
Look at how King Stephen I abused to his advantage the arcane practice of the prorogue - by way of analogy
Ah yes. The impending royalist coup. I'm told that wearing a tin foil hat helps avoid these ideas.
And there is, constitutionally speaking, no such place as England.
And there is, constitutionally speaking, no such place as England.
Which "Constitution" are you talking about?
Britain's "constitution" of Common Law(s), Magna Carta, Statutes and other laws, etc.?
Mrs. Battenburg (aka the Princess Philippos of Greece and Denmark) is formally Queen of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc., etc.
Mrs. Battenburg (aka the Princess Philippos of Greece and Denmark) is formally Queen of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc., etc.
Yeah, I realize that.
The United Kingdom gets its name from the fact that it is the union of the historical kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland and the northern (rump) of Ireland.
The "crown of England" is a historical title/reference.
Where do you think the title of "prince of Wales" comes from?
Edward II. Edward I (the Hammer of the Scots & Welsh) promised they would be ruled by a Prince born in wales. This made them happy until he presented his son, who had been born in Wales and would be the unfortunate Edward II
Edward II. Edward I (the Hammer of the Scots & Welsh) promised they would be ruled by a Prince born in wales. This made them happy until he presented his son, who had been born in Wales and would be the unfortunate Edward II
Enslavement by England's crown through colonialism/imperialism started with Wales and Ireland and then spread to the Caribbean, British North America (Canada), America (later U.S.A.), British Honduras (later Belize), British Guyana (later Guyana) India and Scotland, the Pacific, Africa, Asia, etc.
The fact that the crown of England is still the ultimate head of state of Canada signifies that Canada is still a (slave) colony of England/U.K./Britain.
Not really. She is the Queen of Canada, and is also the Queen of Australia, Great britain etc. The two are not really connected since aside from sharing a queen, no government in the UK can effect rule in Canada at all. And in fact neither can the Queen, according to the rules set down. Her rep, the GG has strictly limited abilities which only come into play in minority governments and then not really even then. The prorogue by Jean was an oddity not the common way at all. Nor does the GG consult with the queen before acting in that manner either.
Whatever delay between when Harper visited her and when she allowed the prorogue was because she was thinking about it and getting adivce from around her, not because she was waiting for a decision from the queen. And these would be the same powers that whatever we replaced the queen with would have. I cannot even state a preference for a Head of state separate from the queen or the queen since she hasnt ever interfered and the GG (appointed by the prime minister, not the queen) would be a lackey politician no matter who was there.
We have better things to worry about and work on instead of opening something that would cause the spending of tons of money and litigation, etc over treaty lands and constitutional issues in a time when money for anything is lacking and Im sure any right wing government would LOVE a debate like this since they could spend a ton on it and then cut anything else they liked since the money was gone.
The Harper administration isn't going to open this issue because the current political state of affairs works quite well for him/it, thank you very much.
When a soldier is inducted into the Canadian military s/he swears an oath of allegiance to the crown (of England) by name (of the person currently holding that position.)
Think about what that means. The soldier does not swear an oath of allegiance to Canada, its people and Constitution. Canadian soldiers do not swear to defend Canada - the land (sovereignty, territorial integrity), the people, the Constitution, its culture or society, etc.
What Canadian soldiers swear to defend are the crown's (of England) Canadian possessions.
People who come up with these lame Canada should remain an (oxymoronic/contradictory) "Constitutional monarchy" by default, are thinking like (small "c") conservatives/royalists/monarchists and not like revolutionaries.
What did the bolsheviks do when they took power in Russia after 1917? They repudiated all treaties agreed to by the former Czarist and Kerensky regimes. They published all formerly secret treaties, agreements and associated documents.
Countries that had been partners to those former treaties threatened to sue the Russian bolshevik government, but the bolsheviks would hear none of it arguing that they were an entirely new/different government and had nothing to do with the original treaties.
Harper isn't going to do this. As I stated/implied in above posts Canada could become a republic through a UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence.) Although Canada was enslaved by the crown of England, Canada doesn't need to ask the crown for its/Canadians' liberty and independence. Who but a slave would ask his/her "master" for liberty?
"Oh, Canadians have just 'stolen' the property of the crown (of England)? TFB (Too Fucking Bad): Those possessions/property were stolen by the crown from Canada's First Peoples. You want to sue us over that? Go right ahead. You aren't going to get any cooperation from us."
If you are going to abolish the crown (of England) as Canada's ultimate head of state, then what do you need the GG (the crown's representative in Canada) for? You don't. You're not replacing the crown and their representatives. You're getting rid of them.
As for the treaties between Canada's Indian Nations and HM's government, a Canadian republic should approach the treaty/agreement process on the basis of fairness, equality and justice. If the treaties (with HM's government) are just, then the government should continue to honor them. If the treaties can be improved, then they should continue to be honored with additions and amendments to them. If better treaties can be agreed to, then go with that. This has/is happening with Canada's current political makeup. There is no need for this negotiation process between the Canadian government and Indigenous Nations to change should Canada become a republic.
When it comes to prorogue, the GG should follow historical precedent. Which (btw) dictated against the decisions made by Michael Jean. The whole rotten affair of the last two prorogues provide two very strong arguments for getting rid of the monarchy, not for keeping it.
If you are going to abolish the crown (of England) as Canada's ultimate head of state, then what do you need the GG (the crown's representative in Canada) for? You don't. You're not replacing the crown and their representatives. You're getting rid of them.
And replacing them with a new head of state with basically the same powers. Or not, and giving all powers to the prime minister ala the US system
No thanks
..., and giving all powers to the prime minister ala the US system
You think things as they are now are any different? Canada is a "Constitutional monarchy." Under this regime, Herr Harper has been expanding the powers/creating a "Presidential" or "imperial" Prime Minister anyways. - (Expanding the powers of the executive over the legislative branch of government.)
In the U.S. Constitution, the division of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are very clear. What the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent was a despot or an "imperial President." According to the Constitution, the President or the executive is the weakest branch of the U.S. government.
The "imperial President" creep under the Nixon and George W. Bush/Cheney and allowed to remain in the Obama administrations, is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the wishes of its original framers.
Continued here.