This confirms my suspicion. The royals are here to check the security of their real, chattel and human (property) assets. The U.K. government, royals and Canadian government have formed a protective circle of support for the war inside while outside, the "howls" of antiwar "wolves" send shivers up and down their backs:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/05/royals-hamilton.html?r...
There are two things to remember about constitutional monarchy: it tastes awful. And it works. I'm sure that if we were all shipwrecked on an island together, no-one would suggest that we should choose a monarch. But we are not about to get that sort of blank slate, and there is nothing egregiously flawed about the monarchy in Canada. Save your fire for our antiquated FPTP electoral system.
It might be as well to remember the Autralian experience of a few years back. Public opinion was running solidly against retaining the Queen as head of state. But when a referendum question was finally posed, the monarchists cannily insisted that it should include an outline of the system that would replace the monarchy. Of course the question failed. Everyone is in favour of a system less tinged with feudal forelock-tugging and deference. But all the alternatives seem tinged with sweaty ambition and sinecure-hunting.
Besides, Prince Charles knows how to wear a suit. Stephen Harper looks like he's been pressure-canned into one of the cardboard-and -asbestos numbers favoured by members of the old Politburo.
There are two things to remember about constitutional monarchy: it tastes awful. And it works. I'm sure that if we were all shipwrecked on an island together, no-one would suggest that we should choose a monarch. But we are not about to get that sort of blank slate, and there is nothing egregiously flawed about the monarchy in Canada. Save your fire for our antiquated FPTP electoral system.
It might be as well to remember the Autralian experience of a few years back. Public opinion was running solidly against retaining the Queen as head of state. But when a referendum question was finally posed, the monarchists cannily insisted that it should include an outline of the system that would replace the monarchy. Of course the question failed. Everyone is in favour of a system less tinged with feudal forelock-tugging and deference. But all the alternatives seem tinged with sweaty ambition and sinecure-hunting.
Besides, Prince Charles knows how to wear a suit. Stephen Harper looks like he's been pressure-canned into one of the cardboard-and -asbestos numbers favoured by members of the old Politburo.
I guess us poor, dirty, smelly little serfs cannot hope to aspire to the hights of our naturally born "superiors" - I guess they will always be our leaders, huh?
Whenever I hear the word "monarchy", I reach for my pistol.
Frdsldr
Yeah, I'd forgotten the name, but Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has mutated into Pledge to Protect P2P.
I repeat what I said before.
Both R2P and P2P are the militarization of human rights. These ideas originate from the right but because they are (ostensibly) an emotional appeal to people's humanitarianism, are accepted and supported by (some of) the left.
War must not be the means of first resort. War must be the means of last resort.
Why has the U.S.A. gone to war against Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia and is threatening Iran?
Why has the U.S.A not gone to war with or in Russia, China, Tibet, Nepal, North Korea, Myanmar (Burma), The Sudan, the DR Congo, Nigeria?
Human rights violations can be used as the excuse for all of them.
For some of them, the U.S.A. would either lose or lose too much (Russia, China, North Korea), lose too much/not worth the effort (Tibet, Nepal, Myanmar (Burma)).
As for Nigeria, the Sudan, and DR Congo - big arms, oil and mining companies make more money with conflict and civil war in these countries and regions that it is better not to have the U.S.A. go to war there. Ever heard of "blood stones" or "blood diamonds"?
THE DARFUR/SUDAN PEACE NETWORK
This link doesn't appear to be spouting the "wage aggressive war to achieve peace" nonsense.
http://peacenetwork.ca/en/action_sheet.html
http://peacenetwork.ca/en/postcards/publicity.html
May not be an aggressive war to achieve peace however the the group wants Canada into be in Sudan.
Besides, Prince Charles knows how to wear a suit. Stephen Harper looks like he's been pressure-canned into one of the cardboard-and -asbestos numbers favoured by members of the old Politburo.
I was appalled at his racist remarks to British students in China so many years ago. Something about them developing a slanted outlook if they hung around too long. I thought then that the royals could all fade away and never be missed by billions of people around the world.
Hi, Fidel
That was Prince Philip who made the appalling "joke." A complete idiot in my estimation. Almost as much as, say, Pierre Poilievre.
Rabblers and babblers could run things better. A helluva lot better,
Well, you could, Fidel!
Edit: So, when are you going to run for office?
And the UK and Canada both have programs to fast-track likely lackeys into positions of political power. We need something similar to train our team and to get people to stop voting for cats - and lawyers.
CBC Archive - Tommy Douglas's MOUSELAND
"Tommy Douglas was the most influential politician never to be elected Prime Minister. He pursued his radical ideas relentlessly until they became so mainstream rival politicians claimed them as their own. Called a communist and threatened by in-party fighting, Douglas battled hard to bring the New Democratic Party to legitimacy in its first ten years. He was often criticized for his singular idealism but through it all Douglas was undeterred, convinced that he was helping to create a better, more humane society. In 2004, Douglas was voted number one in CBC's The Greatest Canadian contest."
4 TV and 12 audio clips here:
http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/parties_leaders/topics/851-4958/
Ha! Good one, Tigana. Only ones missing from that photo are Canada's annointed senators. The lady of the lake selects all of them after they've kissed the blarney stone, or something like that.
The Rebel Countess's words are still relevant to us today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Markiewicz
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Why didn’t you send me? I tell you, don’t trust the English with gifts in their hands. That’s not original, someone said it before of the Greeks—but it is true. The English come to you to-day offering you great gifts; I tell you this, those gifts are not genuine. I tell you, you will come out of this a defeated nation. No one ever got the benefits of the promises the English made them. It seems absurd to talk to the Irish people about trusting the English, but you know how the O’Neills and the O’Donnells went over and always came back with the promises and guarantees that their lands would be left them and that their religion would not be touched. What is England’s record? It was self aggrandisement and Empire. You will notice how does she work—by a change of names. They subjugated Wales by giving them a Prince of Wales, and now they want to subjugate Ireland by a Free State Parliament and a Governor General at the head of it. I could tell you something about Governor-Generals and people of that sort. You can’t have a Governor-General without the Union Jack, and a suite, and general household and other sort of official running in a large way. The interests of England are the interests of the capitalistic class.’
From
http://our-ireland.com/articles/famous-and-historical-irish-people/the-i...
A poem by Yeats on the Countess and her sister is here:
Frmrsldr wrote,
'I guess us poor, dirty, smelly little serfs cannot hope to aspire to the heights of our naturally born "superiors" - I guess they will always be our leaders, huh?'
Harper and McGuinty are Bilderberg men, Prince Philip wanted to be a virus and get rid of people, and the Queen owns uranium mines.
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/2146-ontario-uranium-mining-the-l...
We can certanly offer better alternatives, and until we replace the Dear Leaders ourselves, have a laugh at their expense.
Thanks to Fotheringay-Phipps for this great comment:
"Besides, Prince Charles knows how to wear a suit. Stephen Harper looks like he's been pressure-canned into one of the cardboard-and -asbestos numbers favoured by members of the old Politburo."
'Scots Will See Parasite Monarchy's End' (and vid)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/182424.html
'The UK Royal Family is a parasite on the national order because it unequally separates people into classes based on hereditary and not according to natural law, an analyst says.."
Thank you for that very interesting link.
Trust the Irish (those living in Northern Ireland), Scots and Welsh to abolish the monarchy before Canada.
As I've always maintained:
Monarchy is hereditary - therefore it is unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian.
I found Mr. Veitch's response to the question on a vote or referendum interesting:
"The establishment has manufactured consent. People have been conditioned to be afraid of abolishing monarchy rather to welcome it [abolishing.]"
Something I've also argued.
oops - I forgot this thread was open - sorry!
The Conservatives under Harper appear to be strict Monarchists, so I would not expect any changes to be brought forward from them. I guess our only hope wrt abolishing the monarchy in Canada would be for one of the Opposition parties to propose something - but it might also be political suicide to do so. Comment?
"Monarchy is hereditary - therefore it is unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian."
You forgot "irrelevant." To some of us, having a poweless head of state occuying a meaningless ceremonial position is preferable to electing a demigod to occupy a deified position, as is the case in the Great Republic®.
'Scots Will See Parasite Monarchy's End' (and vid)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/182424.html
'The UK Royal Family is a parasite on the national order because it unequally separates people into classes based on hereditary and not according to natural law, an analyst says.."
Ironic though, that the British monarchy reached its most parasitic (and drove the people to end its power completely) under the Scottish/French royal family.
And Boom Boom, I am not sure how you deduce that the Harperites are particularly monarchist.
This could happen with Jack Layton's suggestion that he is open to discussion on issues concerning the Constitution during the French language Leadership Debates during the election.
Combine this with all the new NDP MPs from Quebec.
The fact that Quebec's National Assembly (provincial government) has not ratified (signed) the Constitution.
Quebec provincial elections are coming up.
With a Quebec unfriendly federal government under Herr Harper, there could be be another Sovereignty Referendum shortly after the (Quebec) provincial election.
Since Herr Harper (and by way of extension, the Cons) stated that he does not want a Constitutional debate reopened, this is a chink in his armor or his Achilles' heel. Hell, this is an issue the Libs can make hay out of (if they're serious about making a comeback.) Anything Herr Harper expresses fear or weakness over, that is exactly what the opposition should make an issue of.
Where this is grounds to make Quebec(kers) feel welcome, since the last Sovereignty Referendum a principle for how to become a sovereign nation-state has been established by Kosovo. This adds impetus to those who wish to open discussions on the Constitution with Quebec.
Since the 1990s surveys have shown not only Quebeckers but a majority of all Canadians would like the monarchy abolished.
Now would be a good time for a nationwide referendum on abolishing the monarchy.
Let send them to a trip in st-Jean-sur-richelieux.
The prince seem quite in shape, we could use a pair of hand.
You forgot "irrelevant." To some of us, having a poweless head of state occuying a meaningless ceremonial position is preferable to electing a demigod to occupy a deified position, as is the case in the Great Republic®.
If that's what you want ("a powerless head of state occupying a meaningless ceremonial position"), why have you convinced yourself that's an impossibility?
Some examples of this would be countries like Germany, Ireland and Israel. If you need other countries to look at for convincing there are quite a few African countries that were colonies of Britain (all in fact) that no longer have the British crown/monarch as head of state. Better still, why doesn't Canada form its own future independence - who is anyone else to tell them how to do things?
Why are you so wrapped around the axle over the U.S.A. as being the one and only example to follow?
I certainly wouldn't and in fact, haven't recommended that.
It's not meaningless for a 30+ y.o. living in his/her parent's basement having to ask mama for the car keys on a Friday/Saturday night so s/he can party with friends (even if it's a foregone conclusion the keys will be given.)
It's humiliating and degrading (and unnecessary.)
The "young 'uns" have to grow up and leave the nest sometime.
The Scots, (Northern) Irish and Welsh are seriously considering it.
Let send them to a trip in st-Jean-sur-richelieux. The prince seem quite in shape, we could use a pair of hand.
Yeah!
Turn them into useful and productive members of society!
If that's what you want ("a powerless head of state occupying a meaningless ceremonial position"), why have you convinced yourself that's an impossibility?
It is what we already have (though I wouldn't say it is entirely meaningless to everyone.
And that car key line of yours is as stale as it is irrelevent. You are aware that it is the Governor General and Lieutenant Lieutenant Governors who give royal assent to our legislation, no? The queen doesn't actually have anything at all do to with the mechanics of our government.
And Boom Boom, I am not sure how you deduce that the Harperites are particularly monarchist.
The response he gave to a reporter during the election concerning a possible change in the law on succession where he indicated he supported the (current) status quo.
The institution of the British monarchy has worked well for him.
As in when the British monarch's representative in Canada when the monarch is not in Canada Guvnah (Genral) Michael Jean granted two prorogues at king Stephen I's request.
And Boom Boom, I am not sure how you deduce that the Harperites are particularly monarchist.
Five years of watching the Harperites on CBC and CTV politics programs - James Moore, especially.
And that car key line of yours is as stale as it is irrelevent. You are aware that it is the Governor General and Lieutenant Lieutenant Governors who give royal assent to our legislation, no? The queen doesn't actually have anything at all do to with the mechanics of our government.
So the situation is even worse than I describe it.
The 30+ y.o. 'kid' who is a Canadian citizen lives in his/her parent's home in Canada. The 'parent' is a British citizen (not a Canadian citizen) who lives in Britain.
When the 'kid' wants the keys to the car, s/he must (again, even though the answer is a given) ask for permission from a Canadian babysitter.
As the audio in NDPP's link states, the British monarch has the power to declare war and peace.
In Canada, when a person is sworn into the military one swears an oath of allegiance to the British monarch (from 1952 to present, it's been a queen.) One signs a legal document that states this in black and white. There is no mention anywhere in this document of Canada's Guvnah Genral. The British monarch is the de jure Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces.
After the Constitution was ratified, who did Trudeau go to get the final signature?
It was the British monarch. Not the Canadian Guvnah.
Even though the Statute of Westminster provided/provides a polite and legal out.
Why are you so wrapped around the axle over the U.S.A. as being the one and only example to follow?
You do see the irony in what you're saying, I should hope.
"Monarchy is hereditary - therefore it is unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian."
You forgot "irrelevant." To some of us, having a poweless head of state occuying a meaningless ceremonial position is preferable to electing a demigod to occupy a deified position, as is the case in the Great Republic®.
I enter this with some trepidation because I don't want to be stalked across other threads on other subjects as happened the last time.
However desirable it is in principle to abolish the monarchy, it is not a simple process - and anyone who implies it is simple is either deluded or dishonest.
As it stands, abolition would require the consent of the Commons and Senate as well as every provincial legistalture. That would be difficult, but arguably possible.
The difficulty is what one replaces it with. The current Constitution ascribes virtually absolute power to "the Crown." By convention, the Crown (practically speaking the Governor General) only exercises those powers on the advice of the leader of the government and, on legislative matters, with the advice and consent of Parliament. Currently, the Governor General is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister - meaning that the office is essentially the Prime Minister's gift. Simply abolishing the monarchy with no other change leaves the office of the Governor General (presumably with a new name such as President) having notionally broad powers constrained only by convention - assuming that the office continues to be an appointment by the Prime Minister.
But the Governor General does have the capacity to act as a check on the Prime Minister under certain circumstances. rguable the incumbent failed in that regard in granting Harper prorogation a couple of years ago, but there have been other cases wheree at least the threat of the vice-regal exercising the reserved powers has served to constrain a first minister. If the Governor General is a creature of the Prime Minister pure and simple, would any Governor General even consider using the reserved powers under any circumstances?
No, having a head of state appointed directly by the head of government is a non starter. So then what? How do we select the new President? Bearing in mind, of course, that a democratically elected President (assuming no other major rejigging of the Constitution) would have almost absolute power - and no reason not to exercise that power fully, without even the constraint of Parliament.
This was where the Australian attempt to abolish the monarchy failed - the proposed manner of selecting the new head of state was not acceptable to the majority of voters in the referendum.
Now, the mere fact that it is difficult, of course, is not an argument against abolition per se. But the difficulty of the task, taken with the relative irrelevance of the office as currently structured, constitute a powerful argument for having this item so far down the priority list that it would be unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.
How much difference would it make to the average Canadian to have government business transacted in the name of President David Johnston rather than in the name of Elizabeth II?
Given that there would still be a head of state (presumably the Governor General restyled as President as well as the Lieutenant Governors restyled, perhaps, as Governors), the cost saving would be negligible. A 2008 study suggested the total cost of the monarchy to Canada amounted to about $1.10 per person per year - but since that number included the costs of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors, very little of that would be saved.
In essence, abolishing the monarchy would expend a great deal of political capital and constitutional energy on a purely symbolic issue that has virtually no effect on real people, with virtually no practical benefit to be found.
I can think of any number of better ways to expend that political capital and that constitutional energy on matters that would actually have tangible benefits for Canadians.
I await the personal attacks.
As in when the British monarch's representative in Canada when the monarch is not in Canada Guvnah (Genral) Michael Jean granted two prorogues at king Stephen I's request.
You mean the representative of our head of state actually followed the direction of the elected head of government? Sounds pretty absolutist and undemocratic to me.
And as for repatriating the constitution, you know why she signed it .... almost 20 years ago.
And why do Canadians swear allegiance to the queen? because she's the head of state.
And Malcolm
No attacks from me. I agree with you - except that I have no problem with a head of state appointed by the head of government, or a commons committee.
And if we were to have a head of state other than the monarch, the easiest choice fror me would be either an appointed GG, or the Speaker of the House of Commons.
@ Frmrsldr
Actually while we are back on this ridiculous subject you said something at the end of our last discussion that I found both ignorant and kind of insulting. You said that your colonists became "Americans" and asked what the identity of British North Americans was, as if to imply that is all we are. It is complete nonsense.
In the first place your country was a number of distinct colonies with distinct and in sone things very conflicted cultures.
And at least 20 percent of those people actually remained loyal to crown and had to leave your country as refugees. And a lot of people down there didn't care one way or another.
I had several lines of my family who lived in your country since the first white people came there, including one put his name on your declaration of independence, and another family whose father was in the vermont militia during your revolutionary war but whose children decided to come north to ontario. It is not so cut and dried as you make out.
And as for the people here, we were not "British North Americans" There were Canadians, Nova Scotians, Quebecois, Acadien, Prince Edward Islanders, Newfoundlanders, Mohawk, Iroquois, Metis, African Canadian, and numerous other cultures at least as complex, and probably moreso than yours.
