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. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 have his IP number and am not afraid to use it.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.