Amir Khadir calls William and Kate "parasites"

Just admit he's anti-monarchist, already, please?  He doesn't have to put abolishing the monarchy FIRST to just to prove he's anti-monarchist.

Quote:

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.

For what would a symbolic postion be accountable?? That doesn't even make sense.

Ken Burch wrote:

Just admit he's anti-monarchist, already, please?  He doesn't have to put abolishing the monarchy FIRST to just to prove he's anti-monarchist.

Antimonarchist, my ass.

The "priority issue" is a canard. It has been pretty fairly established that it's possible to deal with a number of democracy and social justice issues at the same time. If other countries can abolish the monarchy before poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable diseases, high childhood mortality, etc., - in short issues that have plagued us since the beginning of human history, then so can Canada.

If he were an "honest broker" on this subject, then why doesn't he devote an equal amount of time using his talent and energy making cases for the abolition of the British monarchy in Canada, rather than devoting most of it to throwing obstacles in our path? If he were to do that, then I'd be convinced.

He's been reading the wrong kind of books. He's probably exhausted all the ones on how it's (nearly) impossible to abolish the monarchy in Canada (and on the British monarchy.)

I suggest he reads the others that explain how the monarchy in Canada can be abolished.

Frmrsldr wrote:

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.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Exactly. Why create elected dictatorship where none exists? 

Oh, so an institution/title/position that is unelected, unrepresentative; inherited, is not "dictatorship"?

Quote:

For what would a symbolic postion be accountable?? That doesn't even make sense.

So, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand (and possibly other) soldiers can maim, murder, commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against Afghans and Libyans in the British queen's name (as the British crown/monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of all these countries)

But, "Oh no!" we can't hold the British monarch accountable.

Not that "cute harmless little grannie" (according to some.) We couldn't possibly do that, now could we?

[/quote]

Frmrsldr wrote:

So, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand (and possibly other) soldiers can maim, murder, commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against Afghans and Libyans in the British queen's name (as the British crown/monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of all these countries)

But, "Oh no!" we can't hold the British monarch accountable.

Not that "cute harmless little grannie" (according to some.) We couldn't possibly do that, now could we?

Attributing this level of importance and responsibility to tabloid fodder like the British royal family is, well, silly.  It's like saying Britney Spears is a threat to democracy.

And, in the end, is it any more honourable to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the name of an irrelevant and racist 18th century document signed by a bunch of slave owners?  I should think not.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

But, "Oh no!" we can't hold the British monarch accountable.

 

Uh, they're symbolic. They're not making the decisions, our elected representatives are.

 

Oh, but wait, the Queen is supposed to intervene. Is that it? You don't want the Crown calling the shots, unless it's to override our elected officials' choices?

 

That also doesn't make sense.

I mentioned this in another thread, but the week of the wedding there was an article about Morrissey's reaction in which he called the Queen a fascist. His reason - because she DIDN"T step in and remove the elected PM Margret Thatcher during the violence and abuses over Northern Ireland in the 1980s.

Just to make sure everyone gets it.... he's calling her a fascist because she's not a fascist.

I'm beginning to think the monarchy actually does have a purpose beyond the tea service-buying contingent - and that is as a release valve for those who need a punching bag.

And I think it's a fair guess that the British tabloids would be out of business without them.

Not that I'm in favour of the monarchy in Canada.

Here... found it. And excuse me.... it was the Dublin visit.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/morrissey_compare...

And for all the claims that we're brainwashed, I did notice that the CBC ran an interview with a quaint British couple who had a guillotine in their back yard who were planning to put on a demonstration on the wedding day.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And for all the claims that we're brainwashed, I did notice that the CBC ran an interview with a quaint British couple who had a guillotine in their back yard who were planning to put on a demonstration on the wedding day.

The objectivity scam.  The CBC always puts in the thinest slice of non status quo reporting on any issue.  Then they can tell people they are objective and many people believe them.  I think it is merely part of the slight of hand that makes the propaganda effective.  Without it everyone would see through the lies.  I think it also helps many people remain blissfully and willfully blind to what is really being done in their names.

I hope that Khadir's party kicks ass in the next provincial election and that its success will allow our Quebec caucus the room to expound policies based on principles not watered down principles based on electoral expediency.  The good news for me is that with that many seats if the people of Quebec want the NDP to be more pro-active they might get their wish.  

Before this election losing the left of the NDP would mean losing Libby and Bill and a handful of other MP's.  Now if Quebec voters actually voted for a party of the left the NPD by going to the middle stands to lose those seats or a major portion of them as quickly as we got them. 

Layton should have just ignored the wedding. I found the whole CBC coverage of this spectacle on the eve of an election to be insulting to democracy.  Mind you I will admit the royal pundits were more accurate in their predictions of how the events would unfold than the political pundits following our election.

Frmrsldr wrote:

The monarchy is an institution that is hereditary and therefore unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic, and inegalitarian.

Snert wrote:

None of which matters for a symbol. You might as well be saying that it's totally different because the Queen is old and Britney Spears isn't.

Another Canadian symbol is the Beaver. Elections were not held among the animals of the forest. The Beaver was simply appointed. I don't mean to get you even more riled up but
how undemocratic is THAT??

Your argument doesn't hold because it's absurd.

Latin: Argumentum ad absurdum - To argue the absurd.

Snert wrote:

 

Another Canadian symbol is the Beaver. Elections were not held among the animals of the forest. The Beaver was simply appointed. I don't mean to get you even more riled up but how undemocratic is THAT??

Clearly the top priotity of a future NDP government must be to address this horrific injustice!

sorry i mean born

Rebecca West wrote:

Attributing this level of importance and responsibility to tabloid fodder like the British royal family is, well, silly.  It's like saying Britney Spears is a threat to democracy.

And, in the end, is it any more honourable to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the name of an irrelevant and racist 18th century document signed by a bunch of slave owners?  I should think not.

I just dropped into this thread to look at the mockery that has been made of it - no thanks to the moderators, I'm sad to say.

There are plenty of idiotic threads debating whether to abolish the monarchy. This was not one of them.

Amir Khadir, for the information of anyone who still cares, did not call for the abolishment of the monarchy. He doesn't care. Neither do I. He simply said that given their unelected status, and that it wasn't a state-to-state visit, etc., Quebeckers should not be forced to pay the costs of their visit.

He pointed out that William and Kate were "parasites" for living off the forced contributions of others, but he didn't mean or say that he didn't like or respect them personally. In fact, he stated that if they were to pay a visit, he would offer and be pleased to take them for a tour of his riding (Mercier).

As for the tone of this thread, I have a simple belief. When someone calls someone else a liar (once), they should be warned. When someone does it every time he opens his mouth (yes, masculine gender), he should be sent on a detox program until he's ready to return and talk in a civilized fashion.

And Rebecca - blaming aggressor and victim equally is really questionable in my book. But I guess we each have our own book.

Quote:

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.

That's an expression of one of the most myopic viewpoints I've seen written here lately.

Who wouldn't be nostalgic for the days when you could make money on just a quarter-section of land, when there was an elevator, a few stores and gas stations in every town, not just a post office box, when the CCF was making the big banks and grain companies quake in their boots, when the original six was the apex of OUR game, and when the likes of Mart Kenney and Guy Lombardo made music, not that racket the kids listen to nowadays.

And the Red Ensign is a cool flag, not like that Safeway banner that Pearson foisted upon us.

Yeah, bring back the fifties! Everyone who mattered was white and spoke English without a foreign accent; Canadians were all "British subjects"; we sang God Save the Queen in school every morning; we all loved the Queen because she was the head of our beloved armed forces who had recently wiped fascism off the face of the Earth forever (even though many of her relatives and inlaws had supported Hitler for years); none of us had ever seen a Russian, or a Thai, or a Somali; Quebeckers were not "uppity"; and the flag of Empire waved proudly from our flagpoles.

 @MS

But just  what in the past are we supposed to be nostalgic about...except the common bond of surviving fascism and the birth of the social safety net during that dustup?  What does criticism of invective like "the Bitch of 'Babylon" have to do with this history? You'd have to be one mighty strange socialist to extol the virtues of an imperial past, eh? Or is this some sort of history lesson - sans the  perspective of historical materialism, some sort of warped liberal idea of progress?

@ M Spector

You might want to have another look at that history book. 

In the 50s we had at least one prime minister (a conservative one, no less) who didn't just do everything the Americans told him. 

And we had at least one government which was actively working to build social services and public ownership, unlike the situation we find ourselves in today.

(edit)

As backwards as those days might seem to some, it's important to remember that every thing we have today is built on those who came before us.

@ Lefauve

No, you're right. I was just responding to the comment about the era - it was not a reference to the monarchy.  

I don't think the queen had any effect at all on our political situation back then. 

Same as today, really.

That wasn't all Dief's fault...and, actually, for whatever it's worth, the Windsor Germans didn't found NATO.  The U.S, under founding Cold War maniac Harry Truman. and the postwar Labour government in the UK, were the main instigators of that.

I think what 6079 Smith W was referring to was Diefenbaker's rejection of the U.S. missiles in Canada in the last year of his government.

Actually Ken, it wasn't Diefenbaker's fault at all. If anything Diefenbaker's tenure was a step back from the toadying up to the U.S. and NATO that marked Louis St. Laurent's time in office. He certainly fucked up a few things, but at least he had the determination to say no when it counted, and I am sure most of you know what I am referring to.

And Ken (cross posted with you) . Yes, that was the main thing I meant. I believe at one point he had the missiles packed with sand rather than accept the nuclear warheads that Kennedy had assumed he would just take as part of the deal.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually Ken, it wasn't Diefenbaker's fault at all. If anything Diefenbaker's tenure was a step back from the toadying up to the U.S. and NATO that marked Louis St. Laurent's time in office. He certainly fucked up a few things, but at least he had the determination to say no when it counted, and I am sure most of you know what I am referring to.

Yeah, like Lester B. Pierson, it was more the appearance of being independent from the U.S. rather than the reality.

I didn't see Dief (like French President Charles DeGaulle) take Canada out of NATO. I didn't see Dief take Canada out of NORAD.

It was Dief who canceled the Avro (Canada) Arrow program. Now why do you suppose he did that?

Canada was quite a good little enabling satrap during the Cold War when it came to passing on information, exposing and capturing Russian KGB agents.

Don't know who was Prime Minister at the time, but Canada's soldiers provided praiseworthy service to Uncle Sam in his war on Korea - just like Canada is doing today in Uncle Sam's and NATO's wars on Afghanistan and Libya.

The more things change...

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Who wouldn't be nostalgic for the days when you could make money on just a quarter-section of land, when there was an elevator, a few stores and gas stations in every town, not just a post office box, when the CCF was making the big banks and grain companies quake in their boots, when the original six was the apex of OUR game, and when the likes of Mart Kenney and Guy Lombardo made music, not that racket the kids listen to nowadays.

And the Red Ensign is a cool flag, not like that Safeway banner that Pearson foisted upon us.

 @ Fidel

If we want to talk about impotence, I don't have to look any further than the interpretation that our history is just an endless stream of toadies and stooges, and that the only result is failure. I wonder how you would have spun Diefenbaker's legacy if he had kept the Arrow, and put Canada on the leading edge of the arms manufacturing industry. Would you have supported that as a positive and progressive move? 

As for the Bomarc, neither of us knows what would have happened if he had not resisted the pressure to accept nuclear arms into Canada. But the fact is he did it, which is a hell of a lot better than I expect our current PM would have done. Who can say if a more willing PM had been there in his place that we would not have missile silos on our soil now, rather than across the line in North Dakota.

I'm not under any illusion that Diefenbaker was a perfect prime minister any more than you are. But at least his tenure was a break with the collaboration and corruption of the St. Laurent government, and he made progress on human rights and suffrage, as well as resisting American influence.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

And the Red Ensign is a cool flag, not like that Safeway banner that Pearson foisted upon us.

What's your point al?

Mocking your country's baby steps toward full sovereignty and becoming a nation-state by suggesting that the adoption of a national flag was somehow influenced by corporate America?

Malcolm wrote:

[Laughing emoticon]

Betrays both of your monarchist sympathies.

First Canada (like colonial America) didn't have a national flag of its own but saluted the flag of a foreign country - the British Union Flag.

The (any) Ensign is not a national flag.

It is no wonder that a country so sorely lacking in national identity and in sovereignty was such a willing satrap of first the British then the American Empire.

But go ahead, laugh to your heart's content if you find self-mockery so amusing.

Frmrsldr wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't think the queen had any effect at all on our political situation back then. Same as today, really.

Malcolm wrote:

Yeah, it comes as no surprise to me that a monarchist like you wouldn't find my reply to 6079_Smith_W's quote amusing.

I think Smith's observation about the political irrelevance of the Queen was quite insightful.  For you, however, I rather wish we had a "yawn" emoticon.

Frmrsldr wrote:

 First Canada (like colonial America) didn't have a national flag of its own but saluted the flag of a foreign country - the British Union Flag. The (any) Ensign is not a national flag. It is no wonder that a country so sorely lacking in national identity and in sovereignty was such a willing satrap of first the British then the American Empire.

I remember when Mort Sahl landed at Toronto airport for a local gig during the flag debate and a reporter asked him what he though of a country without a national flag. He replied "It's a start."

I liked that reply at the time and I still do.

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

Fmrsldr, despite your rhetoric, this is still a democracy, even here at babble.

You are free to have your ideas about what should be a priority for progressives.

I am free to disagree with your priorities.

Until someone makes you the King of Babble, I guess you'll just have to suck it up and live with it.

In the meantime, I don't believe that symbolic matters of little practical relevance should be our priorities.  And apparently I am not alone in that.

Why this enrages you isn't entirely clear to me.  Why you feel the need to lie about other peoples positions is similarly unclear to me.  Perhaps you should go get some rest now.