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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.