Young Liberals want to dump the monarchy


mentalfloss
#1


Young Liberals want to cut royal ties

OTTAWA—Liberal party members will debate whether Canada should sever its ties to the monarchy when they meet in Ottawa this month.

A policy resolution, calling for an elected Canadian head of state, has been put on the policy agenda of the Liberal convention by the youth wing of the party.

“Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the Parliament of Canada to form an all-party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state, popularly elected, and sever formal ties with the British Crown,” states the resolution, which is among 30 policy ideas deemed “priority” items for debate at the Jan 13-15 gathering.

The prospect of cutting ties to the monarchy flies in the face of the Conservative government efforts in recent years to boost the royal image — and runs counter to polling last year that showed Canadians are still largely in favour of those historic links to the throne.

Pro-monarchy sentiment ran high last summer, for instance, around the visit to Canada of Prince William and Kate.

An Angus Reid poll at the time showed 58 per cent of Canadians in favour of continued ties to the monarchy, with only 33 per cent who wanted Canada to break away from the throne. Quebecers felt differently, with 58 per cent of respondents agreeing it was time to end Canada’s royal connections.

The Young Liberals of Canada, in their resolution, lay out a number of arguments against the monarchy.

“Canadians believe in earning one’s position in life and not being simply born into privilege,” the resolution states.


It also argues that, at present, no Canadian can ever aspire to be head of state and that under the rules of royal succession, no one except a person of the Anglican faith can be the monarch reigning over Canada. “Our head of state should be a true representative of the people of Canada,” states the resolution.

Last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government reintroduced the “royal” title back into the names of Canada’s navy and air force. As well, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird ordered portraits of the Queen to be given more prominence at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa and in Canadian embassies around the world.

It remains to be seen whether the anti-monarchy resolution will find favour with the Liberal party as a whole when it holds its first convention since getting knocked to third-party status for the first time in its history. Even if it did pass, it would mainly be a symbolic gesture, since the party is in no position to implement any of the policies it adopts at the gathering.

Other ideas up for debate at the convention include calls for a national child-care program, support for the Canadian Wheat Board and full-tuition subsidies for students in first and last years of post-secondary education. These were all ideas that had been embraced by past Liberal governments, but rejected or scrapped by the Conservative government.

Meanwhile, in the race for party president, candidate Mike Crawley — one of five vying to replace long-time president Alf Apps — received an endorsement from former cabinet minister Belinda Stronach Tuesday. Crawley has been a vocal critic of the party’s operations and has promised to give members a greater voice in the development of policy.

Also running for party leadership are former cabinet minister Shelia Copps, Kingston-area riding president Ron Hartling, long-time Liberal party organizer Charles Ward, and former Montreal MP Alexandra Mendes.

Canada News: Young Liberals want to cut royal ties - thestar.com
 
Machjo
#2
I'm surprised it did not mention that the monarch is also not allowed to be married to a Catholic, something which ought to irk any Canadian Catholic, especially since there is no obstacle for the monarch to marry anyone else otehr than a Catholic as long as the monarch himself remain Anglican.

Weird laws indeed.

I still lean in favour of monarchy in principle, but with reforms indeed. Perhaps an elective monarchy for example.
 
mentalfloss
+2
#3
I'm completely in the dark on this issue so forgive my ignorance.

Why do we need a monarchy again?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+4
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I still lean in favour of monarchy in principle, but with reforms indeed. Perhaps an elective monarchy for example.

I'm against the monarchy in principle. Birthright is such a ridiculous concept in the 21st century.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm completely in the dark on this issue so forgive my ignorance.

Why do we need a monarchy again?

We need an executive branch of government of some kind, whether monarch, president, or other. Of course there are varying degrees in both cases, such as the almost figure-head monarch of the Commonwealth or President of Germany to the one with considerable teeth such as the king of Saudi Arabia or to a much lesser degree the President of France.

I personally would rather more power in the legislative branch, thus more of a figurehead executive branch. One advantage with let's say an elective monarch is since elections would be less frequent or even for life maybe with parliament being able to depose and elect another in extreme cases it would allow for some balance against mob rule. Democracy is not perfect either after all.

In a Republic, with the President being elected more frequently by the people, there is less of a counterbalance to mob rule.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm against the monarchy in principle. Birthright is such a ridiculous concept in the 21st century.

A traditional elective monarchy has nothing to do with birthright.
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

In a Republic, with the President being elected more frequently by the people, there is less of a counterbalance to mob rule.

I see what you're saying, but one could argue that mob rule is more democratic and just for how a state should operate.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

A traditional elective monarchy has nothing to do with birthright.

Monarch | Define Monarch at Dictionary.com

"1. a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor."
 
Machjo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I see what you're saying, but one could argue that mob rule is more democratic and just for how a state should operate.

Majority rule is not always just. Just look at how the majority of Canadians have voted in favour over many generations against First Nations, or in favour of defending the Separate school system, etc.

Sure this was all done in spite of monarchy. You do have a point there. A republic would be just as bad. Though it might be possible to create some kind of elective monarchic system that could effectively balance such mob rule in theory if it were well-planned.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Monarch | Define Monarch at Dictionary.com

"1. a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor."

That's a modern interpretation. I'm talking about out-conserving the Conservatives:

Elective monarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historically monarch's were traditionally elected, not born into it.

Originally there was even a debate in the US over an elective monarchy, whereby the monarch would be elected for life unless impeached, with proposals that it would have advantages over a four-year presidential term.
 
mentalfloss
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Majority rule is not always just. Just look at how the majority of Canadians have voted in favour over many generations against First Nations, or in favour of defending the Separate school system, etc.

I don't agree with those moves, but if that's the will of the people, however dumb it is, it should be honoured in order to be democratic.
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't agree with those moves, but if that's the will of the people, however dumb it is, it should be honoured in order to be democratic.

In order to be democratic, yes. But certainly democracy is merely a tool, not an end in itself. There does need some kind of control over mob rule.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Historically monarch's were traditionally elected, not born into it.

I don't give a **** what was done historically. Canada's monarch is not elected. Nobody voted for Liz. She got her position because of who her daddy was. Anybody that supports the monarchy does not believe in the idea that all people are created equal. Playing word games doesn't change that.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I don't give a **** what was done historically. Canada's monarch is not elected. Nobody voted for Liz. She got her position because of who her daddy was. Anybody that supports the monarchy does not believe in the idea that all people are created equal. Playing word games doesn't change that.

And who does believe the myth that everyone is created equal? It's a nice sentiment and would be excellent if it were so. Ya think the $8 million execs son is equal to the son of a sharecropper? I believe in Canada the difference can be made up but it takes a hell of a lot of scraping and clawing. One advantage is that people born with silver spoons in their mouths can generally be depended upon sooner or later TO DO SOMETHING STUPID! We've seen it with the Kennedys!
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I don't give a **** what was done historically. Canada's monarch is not elected. Nobody voted for Liz. She got her position because of who her daddy was. Anybody that supports the monarchy does not believe in the idea that all people are created equal. Playing word games doesn't change that.

I already said I support an elective monarchy, not the current system. Essentially I support a system similar to that supported by Alexander hamilton for the United States, not our current system.

His ideas did not win out in the end, but he still accepted the one they have now.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I already said I support an elective monarchy, not the current system. Essentially I support a system similar to that supported by Alexander hamilton for the United States, not our current system.

His ideas did not win out in the end, but he still accepted the one they have now.

Why would we think we'd have better success "electing" the monarchy, when we've been such a dismal failure at electing other officials?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And who does believe the myth that everyone is created equal?

Run along JLM, clearly this discussion is over your head.

The reality is that, in Canada, we are all created equal. We all have the same rights (well, except for the aboriginals but we're still trying to figure out if they are Canadian or not). Every Canadian has the same legal rights and opportunities. The Monarchy is anti-Canadian. While some people feel that it is acceptable to give people their position based on heredity, this concept is and should be dying out in the 21st century. Heads of state (in fact all leaders) should have to earn their position.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+2
#16
I give this proposal by the Young Liberals pretty much the same response I give to Dumpy when he brings this up:

What do they want to replace the Monarchy with, to justify the expense of doing away with the institutions, name changes and other administrative costs? Seriously, it would have to be a pretty good alternative to get the majority of the provinces on board with the constitutional ammendments it would require.

I can understand the logic behind wanting to get away from non-democratic institutions like the Monarchy but to me, democracy is not the end game as much as good government. When I look at the sub-debate Cannuck and Machjo are having, I have to admit something that is not popular or polite: I believe people are stupid cattle at times and as such do not know what is good for them. To me an undemocratic Monarchy, which acts as a check on our democratic system is a very good counter to mob rule and with the constitutional limitations on the Monarchy, I don't know that it can get any better. In a historical sense, I try to assess what was worse: the selfish and uncaring autocrats in France or the bloody purges of the mob in the French Revolution? Furthermore, if people really want to attack undemocratic Canadian government institutions, why is there more noise about cutting our royal ties than about reforming the senate?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Run along JLM, clearly this discussion is over your head.

Maybe, but what difference does that make as ALL discussions are over YOUR head?
 
Machjo
#18
i personally support scrapping the Senate altogether. Save some money there.
 
mentalfloss
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

In order to be democratic, yes. But certainly democracy is merely a tool, not an end in itself. There does need some kind of control over mob rule.

So, hypothetically speaking then.. If the people of a state vote to do something which has been shown to be harmful to themselves, do you think democracy should be forsaken in favour of a state control to avoid that harm?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#20
Having a monarch might not be so bad if the monarch is a Canadian. but not some inbred foreigner.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

So, hypothetically speaking then.. If the people of a state vote to do something which has been shown to be harmful to themselves, do you think democracy should be forsaken in favour of a state control to do otherwise?

That is what governments are supposed to do.
 
petros
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Having a monarch might not be so bad if the monarch is a Canadian..

Ill be King.
 
mentalfloss
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

That is what governments are supposed to do.

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate so enjoy the ride but hear me out.

Why shouldn't we have the freedom to do what is harmful to ourselves if it is the will of the people?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate so enjoy the ride but hear me out.

Why shouldn't we have the freedom to do what is harmful to ourselves if it is the will of the people?

I know the game. Played it before. The simple answer is that elected governments are supposed to do what is right, not what is popular. Otherwise what you have is really and truly mob rule. Also another reason why the legislative branch must not have total control over the judiciary.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

The reality is that, in Canada, we are all created equal. We all have the same rights (well, except for the aboriginals but we're still trying to figure out if they are Canadian or not). Every Canadian has the same legal rights and opportunities. The Monarchy is anti-Canadian. While some people feel that it is acceptable to give people their position based on heredity, this concept is and should be dying out in the 21st century. Heads of state (in fact all leaders) should have to earn their position.

Heard on the radio just yesterday that students of rich parents do better in school than those of poor parents, if THAT is so it begs the question about all people being born equal!
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#25
How would one elect a monarchy? President, Fearless Leader, Executive Counsel I could see.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Why shouldn't we have the freedom to do what is harmful to ourselves if it is the will of the people?

There is very little human collateral in damaged human goods.
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

How would one elect a monarchy? President, Fearless Leader, Executive Counsel I could see.



As an American, you should be familiar with some of Alexander Hamilton's views. he eventually consented to a presidential four year term, but primarily supported the idea of an elective monarchy, elected for life but impeachable and with constitutional controls.
 
petros
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Heard on the radio just yesterday that students of rich parents do better in school than those of poor parents, if THAT is so it begs the question about all people being born equal!

How about educated parents are raising educated kids?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I know the game. Played it before. The simple answer is that elected governments are supposed to do what is right, not what is popular.

I can see how democracy is essentially a popularity contest, but if that is the will of the people then it is just. Government should operate under the guise of what people want, not what is truly good for them.
 
petros
#30
Democracy works best without national parties.
 

Similar Threads

157
Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say
by dumpthemonarchy | Aug 3rd, 2010
18
Time to Dump the Monarchy
by dumpthemonarchy | Sep 17th, 2007
no new posts