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.
The NDP's view on monarchy
May 1, 2011 - 3:26am
I found this online analysis of the partys' views on the monarchy while searching for Can news on the royal wedding. I'm still on the fence about the monarchy's relevance in this country but I thought it offered some fascinating insight on the NDP, esp. Jack Layton's comments.
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/voters_guide_2011.html
I suggest reading the link first before commenting. The group that published the guide isn't a bunch of American wanabees like I thought at first. They advocate just removing the constitutional link to the Queen which would make us a parliamentary republic with the GG being the ceremonial head of state. Sort of like Ireland or Germany. Commonwealth membership and the way parliament is set up would not be changed.
You can guess my views on this from the name I choose to post under here.
But there is a time and place. Of all the issues and challenges facing the country now, a debate on making Canada a Republic just isn't top priority. It solves no economic or social problems, and those require our full attention.
But as a small "r" republican, I'd say that the time will come for such a debate, right around the time when Charles Hanover takes over from his mother. Elizabeth has been canny, and understands her position quite well, and has not done anything in 50 years to make such a debate relavant to most Canadians.
Her son has so far demonstrate no similar understanding. I would wait for him to start the debate.
And he will.
Couldn't read past that, sorry.
Scratch foreign policy as well from the list of issues that currently have no time and place among NDP talking points.
Why not wait and let the British people end their own monarchy? It has little effect on us, other than having to decide what replaces the functions of Governor General.
It's kinda like...ours too.
From the link in the OP:
A few MPs have been vocal in opposing the monarchy: Pat Martin, in particular, is quite passionate about it. Joe Comartin as well.
It's also worth mentioning - if only to understand the party's wider republican ideology - that the monarchy has been an issue in the provincial wings as well.
The Nova Scotia NDP successfully fought against an initiative by the ruling Conservatives to restore the singing of God Save the Queen at the opening of the legislature.
According to then Opposition Leader Darrell Dexter: "The Royal Anthem is not appropriate in a legislative chamber whose constitutional purpose is to assert people’s democratic right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by a monarch"
A former naval officer, Dexter is now the Premier of Nova Scotia.
and:
Recommendation: If you have social democratic to centrist values and you're republican to the core, then the NDP is your party.
The winner? The NDP.
This is not an endorsement of any party. It's merely a guide for people to judge a party on this single issue. If anything, it's a wake-up call to the others to get moving on generating monarchy/republic policy before the NDP owns it. We hope someday soon all parties in Canada can score in the same vicinity as the NDP has in this guide. Until then, it holds the most potential for making history and being the first one to announce a pro-republic policy. And with the rising tide of new support at the end of this 2011 campaign, that could be sooner rather than later.
Regardless of whether or not that support results in a dramatic change in the party's influence, the NDP will most definitely be a major contributor to the inevitable parliamentary debate.
I don't doubt that part at all
"Jack Layton visiting his favourite bike shop. Sept 17, 2010"
http://bit.ly/kluOg3
As I said, I'm not taking a side, just curious about why this topic is so openly debated by Aus & NZ social democrats but the NDP is still whispering about it in the closet.
By logical extension, there is also the right of a nation to be fully independent and sovereign.
A nation cannot be fully independent and sovereign when its head of state is that of a foreign country.
Kicking out the Queen - does that automatically end our membership in the Commonwealth for good?
Yes.
Nope. Apparently not. Most members of the Commonwealth are already republics.
Oh, that's right.
The most significant thing this Commonwealth 'English tea garden club' has done for the past decades is hold their equivalent of the Olympic games, the "Commonwealth Games."
Membership in the Commonwealth is voluntary. Just like keeping or abolishing the British monarchy is supposed to be.
Let's keep discussion relevant to the lives of the ordinary masses, until the election results are released, at least.
Where are they ALL on the subject of UFOs?
As I said, there's been nary a peep out of them about foreign policy.
The more I dig, the more I find that really bothers me. Like what you say about the monarchy being voluntary. I don't beileve it is at all. Before Trudeau patriated the const., ending the monarchy required the consent of 7 out of 10 prov. rep. 50% of the pop. plus parl & Senate just like all other amendments. To get provincial OK to patriate, that was changed to 10/10 provinces. Not impossible but clearly an attempt to make it so.
Maybe its just my nature but the moment someone says I can't have something, it makes me want it more. It reminds me of arguing with my father as a kid. Regardless of how much sense I through at him, he always had one response in reserve: "Because I said so"!
If keeping the monarchy is an argument that holds any weight, than why are we being told that no matter what the public beleives, it doesn't matter, its a done deal?
(bolding emphasis mine)
Holy crap - I didn't know that. Why would Trudeau have agreed to such an impossible condition? Was Trudeau a monarchist?
No, he just wanted the constitution patriated really badly, I guess. You know, the legacy thing. :P
Here's the explanation for the ruling:
This case raises a number of problems:
1. The case involved federal laws, the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law. What jurisdiction did a provincial (Ontario) Superior Court Justice have to rule on this case? Shouldn't the case have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada?
2. The ruling violates the principle of sovereignty upheld by international laws such as, among others, the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 and the Statute of Westminster 1931, which it cites. The Statute of Westminster holds that Britain could not/cannot pass laws for the (Commonwealth) countries it called the "Irish Free State" (now The Republic of Ireland, 1947), "The Union of South Africa" (now The Republic of South Africa, 1960), Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. Hence, after 1931, Britain could no longer pass laws for these countries. When Britain passed, amended or repealed a law that also concerned the above-mentioned Commonwealth countries, according to the Statute of Westminster the other countries had the power to pass, amend or repeal them. Although they necessarily had to make a decision on the law, they were entirely at liberty as to what that decision would be. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. Doesn't that mean that Britain could not pass laws for these countries after 1931, but that these countries could not amend or repeal British laws they inherited prior to 1931? The Statute of Westminster holds that the above- mentioned countries could amend or repeal British laws. This means that laws that were passed by the British government but not passed (i.e., were inherited) by the above countries can be amended or repealed by those countries. In that sense, the Statute of Westminster can be applied retroactive to its date of passage, (1931.)
3. "As a sovereign nation, Canada is free to alter its own laws, but its Constitution includes the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which set out the convention that all of the Commonwealth realms must have symmetrical lines of succession to the throne to maintain the unity of the crown... These rules of succession, and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy, and therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny."
The ruling - that If Canada wishes to remain a Commonwealth realm (a Commonwealth country that has the British monarch also as its head of state), Then it must have symmetrical lines of succession to the throne to maintain unity of the crown. These rules of succession, and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy - is a legal argument for the continuance of monarchy based on an assumption, the grounds of which, a priori, cannot be accepted over legal arguments for abolition. But what if Canada and the majority of Canadians do not wish Canada to remain a realm of the Commonwealth? What if there is no longer a wish to maintain the unity of the crown? What if there is no longer the wish for the proper functioning of the constitutional monarchy? A legal challenge based on the Constitution and international laws (such as the Treaty of Westphalia, the Statute of Westminster and others) over the principle of sovereigntly, would unquestionably be a channel to accomplish the objective of Canada abolishing the monarchy and achieving full sovereignty and independence.
* The apostrophe in the web address prevents the link from connecting. To connect, type in the address.
There are two things to keep in mind:
1. The province of Quebec has not ratified (signed/passed) the Constitution.
2. Trudeau asked the British queen to sign the Canadian Constitution. A symbolic gesture, if you will, that is not required by the Statute of Westminster. According to the Statute of Westminster, Canada can amend or repeal British law(s) and can ratify, amend or repeal its own laws. There is no requirement for the consent or "assent" of the British government.
Canada stopped being a sovereign nation when it allowed the banking cartel to take control of money from the state.
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/
Why We Don't Welcome The Visit of The British Queen
http://www.wsm.ie/c/no-welcome-british-queen-anarchism
'The British Queen - An enemy of the working class, an enemy of the poor, head of the imperialist British state, symbol of privilege, inequality and oppression.'
I've held that opinion almost as long as I've been alive. I never, ever sing that crappy song, "God Save Our Queen". Even as a kid I'd just pretend, but I did that with "O Canada" as well. Jingoistic paeans just don't cut it with me.
No, he asked the Queen of Canada, who is Canada's Head of State, to sign the Canadian Constitution.
No, the British queen.
Lizzie is only the queen of Canada and Canada's head of state when she's actually in Canada.
Otherwise it's the Guvnah (Genral.)
It was a 'very nice gesture' on Trudeau's part but (according to treaties like the Treaty of Westphalia and the Statute of Westminster) completely unnecessary.
Spoken like a true monarchist, btw.
If you want to free yourself from monarchist serfdom and slavery, it starts with how you look at things, think, the words you use and how you say things. Actions follow.
I beg to differ on the Peace of Westphalia. Apart from being nearly 400 years old, and not terribly relevant to this discussion, by the standards of its time it instituted change in Europe that had less to do with peace and more to do with the creation and protection of sovereign states and the protection of diverse religious practises (Christian, of course). It set the stage for democratic states to exist free from monarchy, or with limited monarchical powers.
In this abbreviated quote,
there is no difference between our positions.
What I call the Treaty of Westphalia is the first treaty of significance that establishes the principle of sovereignty (for Europe and by way of extension, the Americas) right up to the Statute of Westminster and the most recent "Kosovo" scenario.
O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.
Reminds me of why I'm both a republican and an atheist.