I'm no fan of the Royal family - but i don't think Amir Khadir is doing himself any good by calling Prince William and Kate "parasites". Its too bad Khadir was starting to show increasing popularity and now he'll be an object of ridicule.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/royal-newlyweds-called-parasites-que-mna-152820...
I actually agree with gist of what he's saying, but this is a very poor choice of words.
...a better example of parasites would be Larry Smith, Fabian Manning and Josee Verner!
I actually agree with gist of what he's saying, but this is a very poor choice of words.
You're right. Hang on while I look up "bloodsucking royal militarist narcissist imperialist lowlife scumbags" in my English-French dicitionary.
Oh wait - no - I forgot - all of Christendom was enthralled by their fairy-tale fucking fertility rites! Yeah, Khadir should watch his tongue - goddam disrespectful Muslim immigrant. Doesn't know his place.
But never fear, Stockholm, that neo-con ADQ leader Deltell has smart political advisors, knows how to show respect to the royal deities. See, not all Quebeckers are radicals.
...but this is a very poor choice of words.
I agree. I would have used something stronger.
I have no problem with attacking the institution of the monarchy. But I don't think making personal attacks on tow individuals who by all accounts are perfectly nice people accomplishes anything.
Yes, I understand you, but they represent something that I have a really, really hard problem with.
But I don't think making personal attacks on tow individuals who by all accounts are perfectly nice people accomplishes anything.
"Perfectly nice", my royal arsehole. He's a bloodthirsty two-bit imperialist.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8469247/Prince-Will...
Prince William will not allow married life to get in the way of his continued determination to serve in Afghanistan, The Telegraph has learnt.[/url]
Honestly, Stockholm, where were you brought up?
Oh poo.....
Does he not have any real business to take care of, that he is being a humbug about the circus coming to town? This seems like a pretty easy target, and an easy way to get some national press and score som epoints for the cause without actually doing much.
A whole $25,000 it's going to cost? Geez, maybe he should ask the local shopkeepers, restaurant and bar owners, and hotelkeepers if they think the parasites should stay home,
Never mind the hot dog sellers, hawkers, balloon twisters and buskers, and panners who are probably going to pocket that $25,000 in half a day.
(edit)
For that matter, I bet those protesters will be buying a few hot dogs too. and as near as I can tell, the esteemed member of the national assembly has done pretty well by the parasites' visit himself.
But I don't think making personal attacks on tow individuals who by all accounts are perfectly nice people accomplishes anything.
"Perfectly nice", my royal arsehole. He's a bloodthirsty two-bit imperialist.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8469247/Prince-Will...
Prince William will not allow married life to get in the way of his continued determination to serve in Afghanistan, The Telegraph has learnt.[/url]
He could always end up making the ultimate sacrifice for "Queen and Country" by "buying the farm" over in the 'Ghan.
Oh poo.....
Does he not have any real business to take care of, that he is being a humbug about the circus coming to town? This seems like a pretty easy target, and an easy way to get some national press and score som epoints for the cause without actually doing much.
A whole $25,000 it's going to cost? Geez, maybe he should ask the local shopkeepers, restaurant and bar owners, and hotelkeepers if they think the parasites should stay home,
Never mind the hot dog sellers, hawkers, balloon twisters and buskers, and panners who are probably going to pocket that $25,000 in half a day.
(edit)
For that matter, I bet those protesters will be buying a few hot dogs too. and as near as I can tell, the esteemed member of the national assembly has done pretty well by the parasites' visit himself.
Those parasites (the businesses) can only make a profit on this circus if enough people are willing to spend their money (i.e., if there is enough interest) on this.
Oh, okay. I suppose he does have his military job. I'm not sure what Kate's excuse is.
They aren't biological parasites but they certainly are economic ones. Another Quebecker of the left telling it like it is and Anglo NDPers getting squeamish about the cultural disconnect with their concessions to the Anglo-consensus. I get the feeling this is going to be the theme for the next few years. The Canadian left is at a crossroads.
Another Quebecker of the left telling it like it is and Anglo NDPers getting squeamish about the cultural disconnect with their concessions to the Anglo-consensus. I get the feeling this is going to be the theme for the next few years. The Canadian left is at a crossroads.
Have you ever read Brian Topp's research into why the working class supports right-wing parties? That formula worked particularly well in English-speaking countries, specifically Canada, the US, Britain, and Austraila. It's not a coincidence that Quebec being dominated by a language other than English also never warmed up to Harper, despite the historical roots of the PCs in that province.
The NDP should embrace what Khadir said and should make a point of presenting itself as the MOST "non-British" party in Canadian politics.
Canada is just going to keep getting less and less British, and it's silly for anyone on even the center-left to waste any time showing any deference to the Battenbergs.
At this day and age, I think we can assume that anybody who's still nostalgic for the era when the Union Jack flew over Canada(or even the Red Ensign)is on the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum.
The NDP should embrace what Khadir said and should make a point of presenting itself as the MOST "non-British" party in Canadian politics. At this day and age, I think we can assume that anybody who's still nostalgic for the era when the Union Jack flew over Canada(or even the Red Ensign)is on the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum.
Maybe not a bad way of putting it, although you would be speaking of a very older demographic. I've known the Maple Leaf my whole life, and that to me is my flag. I respect Canada's British history, but I personally feel no sense of attachment to British institutions like the monarchy.
I see the royals on the same level as the Justin Bieber. More mindless crap being imposed on me by the mass media. I can't understand why people care. Even my wife who is half Irish Catholic was watching that stupid wedding, and ooing and awing over it. WTF?
Oh no, the fact I'm even ranting about it...doh
The NDP should embrace what Khadir said and should make a point of presenting itself as the MOST "non-British" party in Canadian politics.
Canada is just going to keep getting less and less British, and it's silly for anyone on even the center-left to waste any time showing any deference to the Battenbergs.
Woa Nellie!
Good one, Ken!
I see the royals on the same level as the Justin Bieber. More mindless crap being imposed on me by the mass media... Even my wife who is half Irish Catholic was watching that stupid wedding, and ooing and awing over it. WTF?
Ever wondered what the effect of intense and prolonged psychological conditioning looks like?
You've just described it.
... I can't understand why people care... Oh no, the fact I'm even ranting about it...doh
It's the ooing and awing combined with apathy that has caused monarchy to exist for so long.
If we wish to abolish monarchy, we will have to do something about it.
If we wish to abolish monarchy, we will have to do something about it.
Once we're done dealing with things that actually matter, fine.
They aren't biological parasites but they certainly are economic ones. Another Quebecker of the left telling it like it is and Anglo NDPers getting squeamish about the cultural disconnect with their concessions to the Anglo-consensus. I get the feeling this is going to be the theme for the next few years. The Canadian left is at a crossroads.
Actually, the way that calling someone a 'parasite' comes across is as if Khadir is a Palin/Tea Party-esque figure of left. Basically it's eliminationist and dehumanizing rhetoric in regards to ones political enemies. It's not so much that I care whether or not they're respected. The point is that it's very tacky, and I'm strongly republican (small-r) so I don't actually have any respect for the Monarchy as an institution that ought to have a place in a modern state. But, whatever, don't bring anyone around to your position and whine about the "squeamishness" of "weak kneed" people on the anglo left being the reason people don't flock towards your stance. There are many ways to call them irrelevant and useless in improving people's lives, not to mention a waste of tax dollars, without saying someone is a parasite. Which, even in an economic sense, is tacky and is typically used by people on the right to defund social programs that benefit the poor. But whatever, it's not as if this is an issue on which QS, the NDP, or the broader left's political future rests.
It is when the symbols and representations of oppression are swept away that it becomes easier to convince reactionary supporters that nothing remains for them to rally around. We should never be fooled into believing that these institutions merely perform benign ceremonial functions. They are symptoms of a pathology that reduces citizens to the status of carriers of the disease.
Yeah.... then we can all rally around "The Masses".
Right. So it's a symbolic thing that gets some people's goat.
Down tools, everyone. We've got a big emergency to deal with!!
They are symptoms of a pathology that reduces citizens to the status of carriers of the disease.
I could not have said it better, myself. Bravo!
Right. So it's a symbolic thing that gets some people's goat. Down tools, everyone. We've got a big emergency to deal with!!
It's not actually symbolic if every disgusting act which merits opposition is undertaken in its name. The smart revolutionary should always be mindful of an economy of effort, where in such cases the stratagem of toppling figureheads first might very well result in fewer attention deserving buffoons, lackeys and apologists.
Once we're done dealing with things that actually matter, fine.
You mean the things that matter to you? It actually matters to a lot of people that we rid ourselves of such parasitic institutions, which even in their many moments of leisure have only every sucked the working classes as dry as they could. This is why the honourable tradition of toppling the statues of despot rulers typically becomes one of the first acts undertaken by the populace whenever revolutionary fever makes its appearance in the streets. It is when the symbols and representations of oppression itself are swept away that it becomes easier to convince reactionary supporters that nothing remains for them to rally around. We should never be fooled into believing that these institutions merely perform benign ceremonial functions. They are symptoms of a pathology that reduces citizens to the status of carriers of the disease.
It doesn't matter to me as much as abolishing the anti-democratic Senate which frustrates the democratic will.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing the inequitable electoral system that allows for corporate government based on false majorities.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing climate change, child poverty or most aspects of administrative law.
My problem with this circular discussion (now spread out again over several threads) is the bizarre demand that this purely symbolic yet constitutionally convoluted issue has to be a priority. That is pure madness.
As I said elsewhere, if my basement is flooding and my garage is on fire, I rather doubt choosing new colours to paint the bedroom is my immediate concern.
Oh oh, I agree with Malcolm here.
As I just posted in the other thread, we might have a case if there were any concrete examples of this system - the queen or the GG - actually subverting democracy.
And all the talk of tyrants and conditioned servitude and disease carriers aside, there actually is nothing there.
We may have had a problem in 1926 (sort of, though really it was a deference to parliament - which I presume was actually the GG trying to be MORE democratic than the PM wanted), and the more recent prorogation was actually by-the-book in following the will of the PM .
It's not actually symbolic if every disgusting act which merits opposition is undertaken in its name.
Ah. So we should replace the monarchy with an elected position, and then we can undertake disgusting acts in the name of that position?
Oh oh, I agree with Malcolm here.
It's not that bad, really. I'm sure we'll be back to disagreeing soon. 
Cruel but fair.
And why are our tax dollars being used on these visits when the Royals are billionaires?
I think we can definately call the Senate an office of parasites along with Bay Street,the cast of characters on SunTV and Canada's current government.
In any case,you'll be hard pressed to find a majority of Quebecers that are offended by Khadir's words,anyhow.
If we wish to abolish monarchy, we will have to do something about it.
Once we're done dealing with things that actually matter, fine.
And when will that be, according to your schedule, sometime next millenium?
Yeah.... then we can all rally around "The Masses".
What's your opinion of "The Masses"?
Good, i.e., democracy?
Bad, i.e., "mobocracy" or "dirty, smelly, ignorant peasants"?
It doesn't matter to me as much as abolishing the anti-democratic Senate which frustrates the democratic will.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing the inequitable electoral system that allows for corporate government based on false majorities.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing climate change, child poverty or most aspects of administrative law.
My problem with this circular discussion (now spread out again over several threads) is the bizarre demand that this purely symbolic yet constitutionally convoluted issue has to be a priority. That is pure madness.
As I said elsewhere, if my basement is flooding and my garage is on fire, I rather doubt choosing new colours to paint the bedroom is my immediate concern.
Obviously someone who can't, won't or has a hard time multitasking.
Why do you have such a difficult time concieving that it's quite possible to do all these things at the same time?
Example, if you are going to introduce a Fair Vote system, reform or abolish the Senate, abolish the monarchy. Why not make a clean sweep of it and accomplish these things all at once?
Canada consists of more than one person.
People will naturally concentrate their efforts on the issue(s) that concern/they are interested in the most.
How soon they are accomplished depends on how difficult or easy they are to solve and the level of enthusiasm and effort devoted to the task.
Governments that try to do everything all at once end up accomplishing very little, accomplishing it very badly, and frequently leaving the door open to having their agenda undone by a subsequent government.
Real governing - as opposed to the rarefied talking shop which is babble - involves selecting a limited number of priorities for the first term, accomplishing them, consolidating them and then moving on to the next set.
Were I a part of a federal government or advising a federal government, I would not put this on my first list of priorities, or my second, or probably my third.
Come talk to me when we've fixed the voting system, abolished the Senate, eliminated child poverty . . .
... and the more recent prorogation was actually by-the-book in following the will of the PM .
That is demonstrably false.
The only "book" to go by are conventions.
The conventions in the U.K. and all other Westminster Parliamentary democracies that are constitutional monarchies including (originally) Canada, the convention is that the British monarch or (Canadian) Guvnah Genral follows the will of Parliament NOT the Prime Minister.
Constitutional experts, former Guvnahs and other experts in this field have criticized Michael Jean, saying she erred and set a dangerous precedent.
This is another example/result/effect of Prime Ministerial creep or the evolving of an imperial/Presidential/despotic Prime Minister that has been going on in Canada over the past decades.
Ah. So we should replace the monarchy with an elected position, and then we can undertake disgusting acts in the name of that position?
You bet.
That way if you didn't like what the person did, you can hold that person accoutable and vote them out of office the next time around.
It doesn't matter to me as much as abolishing the anti-democratic Senate which frustrates the democratic will.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing the inequitable electoral system that allows for corporate government based on false majorities.
It doesn't matter to me as much as addressing climate change, child poverty or most aspects of administrative law.
My problem with this circular discussion (now spread out again over several threads) is the bizarre demand that this purely symbolic yet constitutionally convoluted issue has to be a priority. That is pure madness.
As I said elsewhere, if my basement is flooding and my garage is on fire, I rather doubt choosing new colours to paint the bedroom is my immediate concern.
Obviously someone who can't, won't or has a hard time multitasking.
Why do you have such a difficult time concieving that it's quite possible to do all these things at the same time?
Example, if you are going to introduce a Fair Vote system, reform or abolish the Senate, abolish the monarchy. Why not make a clean sweep of it and accomplish these things all at once?
Canada consists of more than one person.
People will naturally concentrate their efforts on the issue(s) that concern/they are interested in the most.
How soon they are accomplished depends on how difficult or easy they are to solve and the level of enthusiasm and effort devoted to the task.
While I agree with you on the monarchy, I suspect you'd get a more sympathetic response from Malcolm(who also opposes it) if you'd stop falsely accusing him of being a closet monarchist just because he doesn't see abolition as the first item on the agenda.
He agrees with you on abolition...will you please just accept that already? You have no reason to keep baiting the guy. It's not as if Canada would be a republic already if it weren't for Malcolm. Trust me, he's good, but he's not THAT good.
I'm sorry if I'm shadow-moderating, but you really need to get off of Malcolm's case already. He doesn't deserve the way you've treated him here. He's not your opponent on the issue, ok?
Governments that try to do everything all at once end up accomplishing very little, accomplishing it very badly, and frequently leaving the door open to having their agenda undone by a subsequent government.
Real governing - as opposed to the rarefied talking shop which is babble - involves selecting a limited number of priorities for the first term, accomplishing them, consolidating them and then moving on to the next set.
Babble is a government?
You think these Herr Harper fascist clowns are going to make Canada more democratic?
I'm not talking about government or babble.
I'm talking about WE the PEOPLE.
Were I a part of a federal government or advising a federal government, I would not put this on my first list of priorities, or my second, or probably my third.
Come talk to me when we've fixed the voting system, abolished the Senate, eliminated child poverty . . .
So that canard you always put out about fixing the voting system, abolishing the Senate, eliminating child poverty . . . is nothing more to you than a tactic of convenience used to avoid/delay abolishing the monarchy.
According to your last quote, you aren't even going to raise a finger to do anything to solve these problems.
You're just going to sit back and wait for us to inform you whether we have succeeded or failed in our efforts.
There's the fundamental difference between you and I.
I work for grass roots, "bottom up" democratic change.
You sit with the status quo. Whatever the people get or is taken from them comes from the government, "top down."
That's mighty elitist of you. No surprise that you're pro monarchy.
With allies like that, who needs detractors/opponents?
While I agree with you on the monarchy, I suspect you'd get a more sympathetic response from Malcolm(who also opposes it)... He agrees with you on abolition...will you please just accept that already?
No he doesn't (agree with me on abolition.) Those insignificant little nods to abolition are smoke being blown in our face (see my above post.)
You have no reason to keep baiting the guy.
... I'm sorry if I'm shadow-moderating, but you really need to get off of Malcolm's case already. He doesn't deserve the way you've treated him here. He's not your opponent on the issue, ok?
Compared to how we can/have been, we're being eminently civil to each other, Malcolm and I.
Don't get your feathers ruffled over Malcolm. It's been coming from both parties.
Malcolm has been baiting me in the other related threads.
Don't get your feathers ruffled over me either.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Adversity only makes me stronger.
Actually, the way that calling someone a 'parasite' comes across is as if Khadir is a Palin/Tea Party-esque figure of left. Basically it's eliminationist and dehumanizing rhetoric in regards to ones political enemies. It's not so much that I care whether or not they're respected. The point is that it's very tacky, and I'm strongly republican (small-r) so I don't actually have any respect for the Monarchy as an institution that ought to have a place in a modern state. But, whatever, don't bring anyone around to your position and whine about the "squeamishness" of "weak kneed" people on the anglo left being the reason people don't flock towards your stance. There are many ways to call them irrelevant and useless in improving people's lives, not to mention a waste of tax dollars, without saying someone is a parasite. Which, even in an economic sense, is tacky and is typically used by people on the right to defund social programs that benefit the poor. But whatever, it's not as if this is an issue on which QS, the NDP, or the broader left's political future rests.
I have a problem with the picking apart of Khadir's language and ascribing the worst possible spin to his words. I have a lot of respect for Khadir, he's an ally and I don't think he's trying to dehumanize anyone. I think he's speaking up for the prevalent Quebec view that the Monarchy is an archaic, parasitic, uninclusive, imperialistic institution that they find offensive and it's prominence in Canada taints their respect for the country.
The Monarchy is a problematic symbol for Quebec. On this thread I see a bunch of people for whom its not a problematic symbol, saying it's just not that important and should be a low priority. That's not the way you build strong alliances or movements. It might not be a defining issue by itself but it doesnt bode well for the future.
Have you ever read Brian Topp's research into why the working class supports right-wing parties? That formula worked particularly well in English-speaking countries, specifically Canada, the US, Britain, and Austraila. It's not a coincidence that Quebec being dominated by a language other than English also never warmed up to Harper, despite the historical roots of the PCs in that province.
@ melovesproles
As I said, I don't know what is stopping a movement in Quebec from lobbying your national assembly to end its relationship with the crown. Until such a movement gains steam I think trying to equate this with anti-Quebec sentiment is disingenuous.
Or are you suggesting that Quebec somehow needs Canada to take the lead on this and show it the way? I certainly wouldn't; I don't think there is anything stopping you from acting on this yourselves if it is the most important issue there.
But you might want to start by dealing with the symbol of the House of Bourbon.
I'm not from Quebec, I'm from BC. Where did I say 'anti-Quebec'. I don't throw that prefixe around willy nilly. Do you?
Ah. So we should replace the monarchy with an elected position, and then we can undertake disgusting acts in the name of that position?
Why not? It worked for the USA!
Perhaps I mis-read your comment,
But you seem to be suggesting that if this is not a priority in the rest of Canada it means we are ignoring something you feel is a priority in Quebec, and that our behaviour means we do not want to build strong alliances with Quebec,
In the first place, I don't think the rest of Canada has to feel exactly the same on every issue as the people of Quebec do, nor should that be an indicator of willingness to work together generally.
But more specifically, when this issue becomes a high enough priority issue in Quebec, then we can talk about missed opportunities for alliances.
I would rather see cuts to payments to the British monarchy than cuts to current public services. Stopping the outrageous spending proposed by Harper for the military would be first priority but anything going to the House of Windsor would be next on the list for me.
When Prince Charles visited Montreal in 2009, it cost Quebec taxpayers $25,000.
They got a bargain? When the Queen was rumored to be visiting my home town in Northern Ontario, I think it was in the 1960s or so, the locals went overboard with redecorating the Windsor Hotel downtown at some outrageous cost. The dock on the waterfront also had to be refurbished to make the town appear a little more prosperous. And when the Liz and Phil Windsor didn't come, it was all for nothing. No shows.
It was Woody Allen who said that 80 percent of life is just showing up, and the Queen and Phil couldn't even manage that. They should be fired off the job. They are not even legit. The real heir to the British throne lives in a bungalow in Australia. That's according to a BBC documentary on the subject anyway. These "Windsors" are total frauds.
As I said, I don't know what is stopping a movement in Quebec from lobbying your national assembly to end its relationship with the crown.
Nothing.
They are just another Referendum away from sovereignty.
All it takes is a majority "YES" vote and Quebec's relationship with the British crown is ended.
But you might want to start by dealing with the symbol of the House of Bourbon.
You and Malcolm like to go on about how unimportant and irrelevent the power of the British crown/monarch and its sybolism is.
The "Bitch of Babylon"* whose mug is on all your currency is the de facto head of your state and the de jure Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces.
The Fleur de Lille is the symbol of a monarchy that was ditched by France a long time ago.
*A Jamaican reference to the British queen.
I would rather see cuts to payments to the British monarchy than cuts to current public services. Stopping the outrageous spending proposed by Harper for the military would be first priority but anything going to the House of Windsor would be next on the list for me.
No Canadian money is spent to support the Windsors. Virtually all of the cost of the monarchy would continue to be spent if we were to restyle the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors with republican titles. There are logical arguments for abolition. The non-existent money going to the Windsors is not one of them.
Fmrsldr, you are a liar. My debate has always been about your ill-informed demand that abolition be a priority issue. You know that, and yet you keep on lying.
I believe that lying about other babblers violates babble policy.
The rest of your arguments are so illinformed and confused as to be scarcely coherent. You might consider actually reading a book.
