(Abolish) the Monarchy II

@ Uncle John

Again, are we talking about the monarchy here, or concentration of power in the PM's office? 

And He doesn't actually control the legislative and judicial branches. He appoints judges, but the federal government has lost a few cases there, and he can't overrule the supreme court except by using the notwithstanding clause.

And just a few months ago the speaker found the government in contempt, and they have failed to get a few things passed, so he doesn't always get his way in the legislative branch. As for why he has a majority and more control in the house now..... you can thank democracy. 

But I don't see how giving more people the power to shut things down actually helps get anything done.

Uncle John wrote:

The GG gives the Prime Minister a cover for his actions by giving "Royal Assent" which is a bunch of BS. Abolishing the monarchy will lay the Prime Minister's power bare. Having a President elected by a true majority allowed to veto the Prime Minister means we have some adult supervision of that Prime Minister.

Adult supervision? I suppose.... unless John Baird decides to run for the position. Where are you then?

And the monarchy is a cover and getting rid of it will solve everything by making people realize that Harper is a control freak? I'm not so sure about that.

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, all I've ever talked about in this regard is Canada.  Whether the UK wishes to abolish the monarchy or not is the UK's business.  You are deliberately trying to confuse the debate by misrepresenting what I've said and lying about my position.  It's bad enough you have no clue what you`re talking about.  Your constant lies only add to the confusion.

I provide quotes of what you say.

So if there's any confusion, misrepresentation, cluelessness of what one is talking about and lying - it's coming from you.

Malcolm wrote:

The Canadian Constitution establishes all executive authority in "the Crown" - which means the monarch or (de facto) the Governor General acting as the delegate of the monarch.

The Canadian Guvnah is not the British crown.

The two are different identities.

It's that simple.

Malcolm wrote:

The Crown or its replacement (assuming no other Constitutional amendment) has absolute executive power.  By convention (and convention does have constitutional significance in all Westminster systems) the Crown only exercises its authority on the advice of the person who holds the confidence of the House of Commons (except in extremis).  This is because the Crown lacks democratic legitimacy.

That is very sloppy logic.

In the Westminster systems the crown (if Britain) or Guvnahs Genral (if the other countries, excluding Canada) only exercises its authority on the advice of Parliament.

By contrast it's in Canada, where the Guvnah (over recent decades) exercises its authority on the advice of the "person who holds the confidence of the House" i.e., the Prime Minister.

Malcolm wrote:

If the replacement office holder is elected - directly or indirectly - then the office will have democratic legitimacy and the previous convention will cease to have effect, barring further and extensive amendments to the Constitution delimiting the power of the office.  As a result, the elected President, in Canada, would hold and be free to exercise the full notional authority of the office, without let or hindrance by the House of Commons or anyone else.

This is simply a fact, Fmrsldr - a fact that has been explained to you countless times over the past few months and a fact you defiantly ignore because it does not conform to your ignorant prejudices.

You're just talking parallel with me.

I fully understand the point that you're making. That according to both conventions and the wording of the Candian Constitution the Guvnah has extensive despotic power. The fact that the Guvnah is appointed, therefore lacks democratic legitimacy is a check on the Guvnah becoming a tyrant. Make the position an elected one. The position has democratic legitimacy. There no longer is any restraint on the position. The person holding the position now becomes a despot.

I addressed that issue by searching for countries that were monarchies that were similar to the Canadian situation that became republics. The examples I used were Germany, the Irish Republic and South Africa.

The question I asked was that given this was the case, would these countries become despotisms?

The answer is, no they haven't.

I'll ask you again, given that some similar countries to Canada (Germany, Ireland and South Africa) went from monarchies to republics and didn't become despotic, why do you have this (theory based) paranoia that should Canada abolish the monarchy it, unlike the other countries, would become a tyranny?

Malcolm wrote:

 

There are significant complications in any proposal to abolish the monarchy, quite apart from the need to win the consent of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures.  Indeed, the seemingly simplest solutions actually create the most complications.

Two points:

1. When the Constitution was originally ratified the requirement was for a supermajority of 7 out of 10 provinces. How did it later change to a unanimous 10? Trudeau and/or Trudeau and his government made that change? That should be questioned right there. The unanimous 10 clause was not agreed to by the ten provinces. Quebec did not ratify the Constitution. Therefore, how can the unanimous 10 province clause be met?

On this basis, neither the unanimous 10 (provinces) clause nor the Constitution are legally valid or properly speaking, law.

2. The nature of Westminster Parliamentary government: Every time a new (majority) government is elected, it is not burdened by the policies of the previous government(s). It can institute policies that are a complete 180 degrees of difference, contradicting everything the previous government did. If this government is replaced by a different (majority) government, the new government can again do something completely different and contradictory.

Nothing (in theory, no conventions) prevents Herr Harper's government or any future government from either tearing up or modifying the Constitution as they please. It's just decorum, respect for the wishes of others, practical political expediency, possible desire for stability, etc., that prevents this from happening.

Malcolm wrote:

Uncle John, the United States, France, Russia, Syria, Argentina, Pakistan, China, both Koreas and Singapore (just for a few examples) have no monarchs.  I am pleased to learn that these countries are all egalitarian utopiae with no meaningful amount of class division or social exclusion.

If you believe that changing the Governor General to the President will get rid of the idea that some people are better than others, then you are seriously deluded.

Yeah, and if we are to bring your argument to its logical conclusion: Canada with its hereditary, inegalitarian monarch and foreign head of state, is so much better than those other countries and because of it and, unlike those other countries, does in fact, "have no meaningful amount if class division or social exclusion."

Uncle John wrote:

I believe that changing an unelected person for an elected one is a good thing.

Malcolm wrote:

Indeed, it is.

But why should changing a largely irrelevant ceremonial office be a priority when there are real issues to deal with?  That's what none of you hot-to-trot republicans have been able to answer.

You just don't get it, do you?

Actually, you probably do "get" it and that is why you keep harping (no pun intended) on the irrelevant and ceremonial nature of the British crown/monarchy (in the hope that enough people will be disuaded from demanding its abolishment.)

The fact of the existence of the British crown/monarchy as Canada's head of state is bad enoough.

What it symbolizes is even worse.

Let's look at two analogies and see if your claim of the insignificance and irrelevance of symbolism holds:

I go up to a group of African Americans and show them my tattoos of a Klansman and the letters "KKK." According to you, they shouldn't get all emotional, after all no one should get emotional over (insignificant and irrelevant) symbolism, right?

I go up to a group of Jewish people and show them my tattoo of a swastika. According to you, they shouldn't get all worked up over this either because again, this just more (insignificant and irrelevant) symbolism, right?

I go up to a group of Canadian Indigenous people and start extolling the virtues of the British queen and the monarchy and how it's all good and how I'd be sorry to see it go, etc. Now just what symbolism would the British crown/monarchy have for them and how do you suppose they would react? Any idea?

Frmrsldr wrote:

I go up to a group of African Americans and show them my tattoos of a Klansman and the letters "KKK."

I go up to a group of Jewish people and show them my tattoo of a swastika.

You may want to get those removed.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I got my Christmas tree last year on "Crown" land, but now that I think about it I didn't see any corgis running around when I was out there. I don't think she has ever even been there!

 

Most humorous and very cogent.

I wonder if you told that joke to any of Canada's Indigenous people whose Reservation might be close by, if they'd share your sense of humor.

Fmrsldr, you demonstrate your ignorance yet again.  The Governor General (BTW your misspelling is childish and stupid) IS the personal representative of the Crown.  Your faulty argument is based on your faulty misunderstanding of the system.

Uncle John, please don't join in Fmrsldr's campaign of lies.  No one here is defending the monarchy as an institution.  We are rejecting the argument that abolition should be a priority and we are correcting a series of very serious misunderstandings about how the system actually works.

Quote:

I go up to a group of Canadian Indigenous people and start extolling the virtues of the British queen and the monarchy and how it's all good and how I'd be sorry to see it go, etc. Now just what symbolism would the British crown/monarchy have for them and how do you suppose they would react? Any idea?

Why don't you ask them, instead of just hijacking their voice?

It's a bit dishonest to pretend that the supposed urgency of abolishing the monarchy is "because it offends Natives" or "it offends Quebecois(es)" or "it confuses Americans" or whatever when it really appears that the real reason is a few individuals who feel personally insulted and humiliated by the existence of someone who thinks they're better'n them.

How insecure do you have to be to feel personally belittled by a symbolic figurehead. Seriously. I doubt the royals are wasting their time laughing at you like you think, but I'm laughing.

Please, everyone, stop whatever you're doing right now and work to get rid of the monarchy so that Frmrsldr and Uncle John can feel good about themselves again! Don't let a symbolic figurehead continue to erode their dignity like this!!

Quote:

I go up to a group of Jewish people and show them my tattoo of a swastika.

Given that many of them will have relatives who were killed by the Nazis, that's a symbol of actual harm to them. Any Jew can be assaulted or killed by a neo-Nazi in 2011.

If you want a better analogy, show them a picture of Pharaoh.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The swastika was one of the most ancient and revered symbols in many aboriginal cultures. The Nazi appropriated a symbol of goodness to hide their evil.  That only makes the Nazis evil not the ancient symbol.

Yes, but the majority of people hold which view?

Try to make that argument with Jewish, Slavic, Roma, homosexual, physically or mentally handicapped people or people who were communists, socialists, progressives or who spoke out against the government in 1933-1945 Germany etc., who were victims of the nazis - and what do you think their response would be?

According to the nazis, the Teutonic tribes used the swastika as a symbol of the sun "rolling Westward across the sky." Now, if the Swastika represents the sun one would think it would be a light color.

They chose black. Why do you suppose they did that?

It was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of their enemies.

Hitler, Goebbels and others made no bones about that.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I find the eagle to be a far nastier symbol since it seems to show up in every imperial system as the symbol of authoritarian might.

The eagle can either represent power or liberty.

Granted the American Empire has killed hudreds of thousands to probably millions by now with its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and in its covert proxy CIA wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, the Sudan and who knows where else and with Predator and Reaper drone strikes and with GTMO, Baghram, Abu Ghraib and other overseas gulags where people have been tortured and murdered.

Generally speaking (worldwide) this is not as well known as the horror that took place in WW2 Europe - the conscious and systematized assembly line factory of death state policy of holocaust/genocide of the nazis.

I believe that Americans should strive with the intent of ending the American Empire.

I believe that Americans should strive to make America the republic envisioned by the Founders.

I believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Northern Shoveler wrote:

But even in that not all people would agree with you.  ManWoman loves swastika's and hates Nazis.  Go figure!!

The swastika was one of the most ancient and revered symbols in many aboriginal cultures. The Nazi appropriated a symbol of goodness to hide their evil.  That only makes the Nazis evil not the ancient symbol.

You are right. Actually if you search back we had a discussion about the swastika in the last year. It was not just an Asian and Native American symbol, many cultures had a variation on it. 

In particular, it was an ancient Slavic symbol, and though it might be surprising nowadays, there are examples of it being used in Poland in the 1930s, but having nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism. 

If you don't find photographic examples on the Wikipedia page devoted to the swastika, I know some of the links there will take you to it.

Here it is - they used it as a military insignia as late as 1939; and they were not exactly friendly with Germany at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20...

Sorry if i took my time to comment back, i got some reflection to do on that topic.
here my question and answer during my reflection.

1. is there a use for monarchy? no, monarchy is a relic of the pas and as so, must remain only in the history book.

2. Which System should replace the current monarchy system? Republican style with three level a president a senate and a house of common!

3. how each member of the governement are selected?

- The president should be partyless and ellected by instants runoff and a 50%+1 vote
- The senate is elected at a proportionnal system and unrelated by Geography.
- The house of common is regional base and each deputy is elected with instant run off.

4. What is the power of each group?

- The role of the president is to be the watch dog of the people supervising the democratic life, he got no legislative power
except a veto right, but he is responsible to manage the general verifier, the election manager, he is the first general of the
army he can not declare war on his own but only on the request of both chamber. He is also totaly inacesible to any lobby.

- the role of the senate is the administrative one they handle each ministry administration and supervision they got
legislative power and a veto right. they are also inacessible to any lobby.

- the role of the house of common is the role of relay between the people and lobby to the rest of the system, they filtter all
claim before sending request to the appropriate ministry. they got legislative power and veto as a hole by vote.

5. How to avoid as much as possible corruption? limit donation to party to 3000$ /citizen. children, resident only and corporation/organisation, can't give to political party. Public funding is also availlable with 2$ / vote.

6. how to implement it?
step 1 Setup a referendum with 50%+1 as the limit.
step 2 begin the election of the president and name the senate proportionnally to the result of the last election.
setp 3 once the election of the president is done swap the system.

this is a first scratch and they can be a lot of improvement done but i think it a good start!

 @Frmsldr

I have studied the Teutonic tribes in the past and never have heard this before. I believe you are mistaken about this detail. I believe it is more myth than fact in this case.

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

I have studied the Teutonic tribes in the past and never have heard this before. I believe you are mistaken about this detail. I believe it is more myth than fact in this case.

Try Goths, Ostragoths, Visigoths or whatever other names the Germanic or Gothic tribes went by.

I could have got the ethnic name wrong. I'm not too familiar with this part of German history.

Try searching under the words "Rune" and "swastika" together.

Lefauve, I believe you underestimate how complicated point four is to implement, and how much political capital would be expended.

Snert wrote:

It's a bit dishonest to pretend that the supposed urgency of abolishing the monarchy is "because it offends Natives"

Malcolm wrote:

Thanks for bringing this up, Snert. Yet again Fmrsldr indicate he has no idea what he's talking about. The official voices of First Nations are actually quite insistent on their relationship with the Crown - in the person of the Queen.
In fact, the most likely rock on which an abolition attempt would fail would be strong opposition from the First Nations.

Based on what?

Talking to real live human beings

or did you read it from some books?

I based my claim on talking to people living in and near my community.

Malcolm wrote:

It is simple racism which moves Fmrsldr...

So according to you, I'm a liar and a racist.

Being called a liar doesn't bother me. Being call a racist,

considering the source (in this case), doesn't bother me

either.

I do hope the mods are paying attention, though.

You are digging yourself into a deep, dark and dangerous

hole my friend.

Malcolm wrote:

...to appropriate and misrepresent the voices of Canada's First Nations.

How many groups and subgroups of First Nations peoples do you think there are in Canada?

And yet you claim to be speaking on behalf of ALL of them.

Don't look now Malcolm, but you're guilty of what Snert is admonishing against.

Malcolm wrote:

Lefauve, I believe you underestimate how complicated point four is to implement, and how much political capital would be expended.

Ever hear of the gordian tie, beside you way exagerate the complexity of the situation The australian fail not because of his complexity but where lacking the will to do it, they lose at the referendum! Even if it where that complex, the simplest solution like a referendum with a new system that is the most likely to work!

Malcolm seem to forget he people is the ULTIMATE authority here in canada.

Lefauve wrote:

... [T]he people is the ULTIMATE authority here in canada.

Yeah!

Grass roots participatory democracy of We The People.

Lefauve wrote:

Ever hear of the gordian tie, beside you way exagerate the complexity of the situation The australian fail not because of his complexity but where lacking the will to do it, they lose at the referendum! Even if it where that complex, the simplest solution like a referendum with a new system that is the most likely to work!

I don't think that is accurate.  There was significant political will.  However the proposed alternative (which tried to address the complexities I have repeatedly described) was not able to gain sufficient popular support.  If anything, the Australian experience is the clear example that this is NOT the simple matter some would pretend it is.

Fmrsldr, the relationship between Canada's First Nations and the Crown is not a secret, and if you were more familiar with Canada's constitutional history, you might have been aware of it.  Doubtless the relative importance that First Nations leaders assign to this may be evolving as we begin to see some generational change among Chiefs, but historically Canada's First Nations have seen their relationship as with the Crown in the person of the monarch rather than the federal government.

Again, simply a fact.  Make of it what you will.

Fmrsldr, I'm sure your conversations with First Nations people in the US makes you an expert on this.  Have you ever actually met a First Nations person from Canada? 

It might surprise you that Canadian history and American history have some very significant points of departure.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely your business.  However, Canadian First Nations have traditionally values their direct link to the Crown.  Whether that makes sense to you - or to me - is irrelevant.

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, I'm sure your conversations with First Nations people in the US makes you an expert on this. Have you ever actually met a First Nations person from Canada?

LMAO.

Malcolm, I've been living in Canada for the past little while.

These were Indigenous people living in Canada. It may come as a surprise to you, but not all Indigenous people see themselves as either "American" or "Canadian" but rather as Northern Cheyenne or Cree or Crow or Blackfoot, etc. They do not recognize the distinction of "Canada" or the "U.S.A." or the U.S.-Canadian border. It may also come as a surprise to you that (some) First Nations living in Canada are related to First Nations living in the U.S.

Malcolm wrote:

It might surprise you that Canadian history and American history have some very significant points of departure.
Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely your business.

Sure they have significant points of departure. But they also have similarities.

You're buying into the Canadian myth that you didn't wage "Indian Wars" of your own and that no massacres took place in Canada. Ask yourself why there are no Indigenous people living in Newfoundland. Look into the histories of Alberta and B.C. and you'll find that British/Canadian red coats committed massacres against the Indigenous peoples there (if not in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well.)

Malcolm wrote:

However, Canadian First Nations have traditionally values their direct link to the Crown. Whether that makes sense to you - or to me - is irrelevant.

You're basing this on what?

Exhaustive independent scientific historic and anthropological studies that were conducted over years and decades across all of Canada and where all (or at least all the major) First Nations were interviewed and studied?

So according to you, all Canadian First Nations view the British monarchy affectionately as their "Great White Grandmother" after they were subjected to exploitation, racism, abuse, mistreatment, murder and had their young taken from them and sent to boarding (or "Residential") schools as a result of first British, then Canadian, colonial policy?

Attempting to speak for ALL "Canadian" First Nations peoples is pretty arrogant if you ask me.

So tell me another one Malcolm, tell me another one.

Malcolm wrote:

I don't attempt to speak for all or any First Nations, Fmrsldr. I simply refer to the frequent statements of First Nations leaders whose expertise and opinions on this question I value more highly than yours.

Three points:

1. Those aren't "my" opinions. They are the views expressed by "every day" Indigenous people. People who own businesses, people who work for local businesses, people who are customers of the business I work for, community members, neighbors, friends.

2. First Nations leaders are often lackeys who've sold out or "suck up" to the white man.

3. First Nations leaders are "shrewd business people," just like anyone else.

If their Nation has a treaty with the British crown and government and they think they can get a better deal either keeping or improving the treaty by negotiating with the British crown/government rather than the Canadian government, then that's the direction they'll move.