Dumping the Monarchy

[dumpthemonarchy]

A fair number of articles and letters on google news regarding dumping the monarchy. Great news.

Canada mature nation without monarchy's 'muscle'

Canada mature nation without monarchy's 'muscle'


Edmonton Journal January 30, 2011




Re: "Monarchy is democratic muscle," by Philip Raworth, Letters, Jan. 16.

Philip Raworth began his support of the monarchy with the words " ... while I as an Englishman ... ."
I will begin with, I as a Canadian, I as a citizen of this and not a foreign country, take no pleasure in seeing that no Canadian is deemed worthy enough to be our head of state. What rubbish!

The queen seems to be a likable enough person, who inherited her job because of her genes and not because she had any other qualifications. Canada is a mature nation -- a member of numerous prestigious world organizations. We are no one's colony. The British monarch is one member of a white, privileged, Anglo saxon family, who lives in a foreign country, subsidized by the English government and in fact is regarded as the head of the Church of England. If that is not enough to turn us off, consider that the queen does not live or work in Canada, pays no taxes, nor is she expected to take on any of the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen.
In short, that our judges, lawyers, military -- to name a few -- must swear allegiance to a foreigner who proclaims to be our commander-in-chief is simply ridiculous.

The short-term problem is that while the present monarch seems a decent, sensible enough person, that cannot be said of the antics of several other members of that "royal" family. Would we want any of them to move into the role of our head of state?
What of the monetary cost of the monarchy to Canada with appointed subordinates as representatives of the monarch, i.e. the governor general, lieutenant governors and the cost of visits and security?
What of our countrymen who are of a different colour, heritage or religion? Does having an English monarch make them feel more equal?

We could elect a Canadian as our own head of state, by our members of Parliament, from the members of Parliament for a seven-year term, which extends beyond the mandate of any individual Canadian government.
It is time we matured as a country and dropped this whole monarchy nonsense before we go any further.

Harry Buddle, Edmonton

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal






​

 

[Corduroy]

I support a Canadian republic and this is all very nice but the article doesn't really cover the best argument against monarchy and some of the arguments are down right racist.

What difference does it make that the Queen is white and Anglo-Saxon? Anglo-Saxons aren't allowed to be heads of state in Canada? The fact that she isn't really Canadian (though technically she is) is a decent point but not the best.

How about that Canadians are a free people with the right to self-determination and Canada is a democratic nation. We don't need a whole family claiming perpetual ownership of our government, symbolic or not, and without our consultation and in a manner of succession which is undemocratic, sexist and sectarian.

 

[Colpy]

I support a Canadian republic and this is all very nice but the article doesn't really cover the best argument against monarchy and some of the arguments are down right racist.

What difference does it make that the Queen is white and Anglo-Saxon? Anglo-Saxons aren't allowed to be heads of state in Canada? The fact that she isn't really Canadian (though technically she is) is a decent point but not the best.

How about that Canadians are a free people with the right to self-determination and Canada is a democratic nation. We don't need a whole family claiming perpetual ownership of our government, symbolic or not, and without our consultation and in a manner of succession which is undemocratic, sexist and sectarian.

I say keep the monarchy.

Replacing the monarchy with a Canadian head of state would require constitutional change....good luck with that. And God knows what sort of a political horse we would wind up with.........certainly not anyone neutral enough to play the game as it should be played.

We are a nation that uses English common law, our constitutional legal framework stretches back beyond Runnymede, and these are things we do not wish to change, if we are sensible.....and I think the monarchy is part and parcel of that tradition.

If it works, don't fix it.

The essence of conservatism.

 

[Corduroy]

Replacing the monarchy with a Canadian head of state would require constitutional change....good luck with that.

How sad is that? We shouldn't get rid of the monarchy because Canada is a constitutional mess and any major changes to our constitution risk tearing the country apart. To me this is really the best argument in support of the monarchy. Personally, I wouldn't want to base my politics on such a fatalistic calculation. But it is still worth considering.

And God knows what sort of a political horse we would wind up with.........certainly not anyone neutral enough to play the game as it should be played.

A head of state doesn't have to be neutral. Plenty of nations have political heads of state. And it isn't like the Queen's recent ancestors (or some of her descendants) were all apolitical either. The real problem is when undemocratic heads of state or ceremonial heads of state are political. This problem of yours is a non-issue when the head of state is like, say, the American president and supposed to be a political figure.

We are a nation that uses English common law, our constitutional legal framework stretches back beyond Runnymede, and these are things we do not wish to change, if we are sensible.....and I think the monarchy is part and parcel of that tradition.

The United States and India use English common law and they are both republics. Monarchism isn't required for basing our government on this. English constitutional and common law have evolved historically. The argument from tradition doesn't apply against change in this case because, if anything, the English constitutional framework is defined by change.

If it works, don't fix it.

Well, I don't think it works. Canada is a free country and it's citizens exercise self-determination in their government. You can't have that when the government is owned by a monarch.

 

[earth_as_one]

Technically, the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada. She is above citizenship and has sovereign rights in any common wealth nation.

I can guess where you stand.

I see the GG and the Queen acting like an emergency stop valve. The GG can refuse to sign a law and the Queen would have agree to any changes to the Charter. If a PM granted themselves dictator powers by declaring a permanent state of emergency, the Queen could block their attempt to change the charter by refusing to sign. It would delay the power grab and make a statement.

Plus when she visits Canada, it generates tourist revenue.

BTW, I'm not a fan of the Royal Family, but until they do something which would justify becoming a Republic, I'm content not to change the status quo.

 

[taxslave]

I'm tired of reporting to the Great White Grandmother across the waters.

 

[TenPenny]

Well, I don't think it works. Canada is a free country and it's citizens exercise self-determination in their government. You can't have that when the government is owned by a monarch.

If we can't have that when the government is owned by a monarch, then I guess we don't have it, except you say that we have it, so...

 

[Starscream]

Well, I don't think it works. Canada is a free country and it's citizens exercise self-determination in their government. You can't have that when the government is owned by a monarch.

How does it not work?

We can't have a free country and self-determination because our government is owned by the crown? We have been autonomous from the British Empire since 1931 (Statute Of Westminster), and the last vestige of British power over us ended with the Canada Act 1982.

 

[talloola]

the queen does not interfere in anything we do, and maybe we should be thankful that there
is that stop-gap procedure, which protects us from our prime minister 'ever' getting 'funny'
ideas about himself and his party, as he does have another level above him to answer to if
he decided to take the country into his own power.

That certainly saves us all from having to revolt, and try to get it back.


well, one never knows does one. we are so pampered and comfortable and live as though
nothing could ever harm us, and everyone should feel that way, BUT not without protection
'just in case'.

 

[barney]

What difference does it make that the Queen is white and Anglo-Saxon? Anglo-Saxons aren't allowed to be heads of state in Canada? The fact that she isn't really Canadian (though technically she is) is a decent point but not the best.

The author's point was clearly that the Queen and her ethnicity--which can't be anything else due to the position being based on ancestral bloodline--is symbolic of Anglo-Saxon dominance in what is still a Dominion of a majority Anglo-Saxon English state (the origin of the Anglo-Saxon ethnic group). This is a not-so-subtle statement of the fact that Canada's population is no longer made up of an Anglo-Saxon majority, and hasn't been for a while now. (Not all non-Anglo-Saxon Canadians are "French" or "visible minorities.")

Yes, the Queen is technically the Queen of Canada and Canada has its own Royal Family that doesn't coincide exactly with the English/British Royal Family, but, let's get real: she's the bloody Queen of bloody England and the bloody British Empire and the bloody head of the bloody Church of England. For all practical purposes, she's not Canadian...she just happens to own a bloody hell of a lot of real estate here.

How about that Canadians are a free people with the right to self-determination and Canada is a democratic nation. We don't need a whole family claiming perpetual ownership of our government, symbolic or not, and without our consultation and in a manner of succession which is undemocratic, sexist and sectarian.

Canadians are various peoples that form a multi-nation federal state. There is no Nation of Canada and I dare you to tell your local Reserve-dweller that we're all one big happy group of free people.

For all practical purposes, the Monarchy has virtually no effect on this country's ability to be a functioning democracy. You wouldn't immediately notice any difference under a Parliamentary Republic; rest assured, you'd still have Canadians negligently voting for the same ol' sell-outs who stay awake at night thinking about new crap to shove through Parliament that will make Canada even more mediocre than it already is.

I'll go as far as to say that the Monarchy actually preserves Canadian democracy by maintaining a link with European civilization. Have you seen the ultra-violent plutocracy we share a border with lately?

We are a nation that uses English common law, our constitutional legal framework stretches back beyond Runnymede, and these are things we do not wish to change, if we are sensible.....and I think the monarchy is part and parcel of that tradition.

Our legal system has managed to stray so very far from its sound Common Law origins that it's not even worth bringing this up.

If it works, don't fix it.

I'm trying hard to think of some aspect of Canada that this phrase applies to.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I doubt very much that it matters whether Canadians want the monarchy or not. The last two attempts to amend Canada's constitution failed utterly, primarily due to the fact that Mulroney decided that any amendment had to have 100% provincial support and a referendum to boot. Getting ten provinces to agree on anything is pretty much universally impossible; as a result unless we actually elect a government with the courage to push something through against strong opposition, nothing is going to happen. Interestingly enough, the last time Canada had a government like that was when Trudeau managed to patriate the constitution and even then he needed nine of the ten provinces onside.

 

[Corduroy]

Technically, the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada. She is above citizenship and has sovereign rights in any common wealth nation.

I can only respond with the greatest question ever asked in human history and the question explicitly or implicitly asked during every struggle for human freedom: by what right?

And just to nitpick, the majority of nations in the commonwealth are republics.

I see the GG and the Queen acting like an emergency stop valve. The GG can refuse to sign a law and the Queen would have agree to any changes to the Charter. If a PM granted themselves dictator powers by declaring a permanent state of emergency, the Queen could block their attempt to change the charter by refusing to sign. It would delay the power grab and make a statement.

This is because of our hideously deformed system of government. If we had a proper separation of powers, Canada wouldn't need to worry about the Prime Minister granting himself dictatorial powers. As it stands, the only check on the PMO during a majority government is his own party. Hardly reassuring. The argument that Canada needs the Queen in case we get a little too ahead of ourselves is an argument from Canadian immaturity.

How does it not work?

We can't have a free country and self-determination because our government is owned by the crown?

Exactly.

We have been autonomous from the British Empire since 1931 (Statute Of Westminster), and the last vestige of British power over us ended with the Canada Act 1982.

The government is still owned by the Queen. It's referred to as Her Majesty's Government.

the queen does not interfere in anything we do, and maybe we should be thankful that there
is that stop-gap procedure, which protects us from our prime minister 'ever' getting 'funny'
ideas about himself and his party, as he does have another level above him to answer to if
he decided to take the country into his own power.

That certainly saves us all from having to revolt, and try to get it back.

This is the same argument earth_as_one made, but I'm going to answer it differently.

This scenario you two are imagining has actually happened, though not with a Prime Minister becoming dictator but a military coup. The Fijian government, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, was overthrown in a military coup in 1987. Did the sovereign intervene via her legal right and prevent this? No, she abdicated.

But even if we didn't have an example of Mrs. Windsor-Mountbatten failing to exercise her own legal authority over a threatened government, do you really think she could have if she wanted to? Do you really believe that if the Prime Minister decided to illegally take over the country, legal recourse to the crown would be applied to prevent it?

 

[Colpy]

I can only respond with the greatest question ever asked in human history and the question explicitly or implicitly asked during every struggle for human freedom: by what right?

And just to nitpick, the majority of nations in the commonwealth are republics.

This is because of our hideously deformed system of government. If we had a proper separation of powers, Canada wouldn't need to worry about the Prime Minister granting himself dictatorial powers. As it stands, the only check on the PMO during a majority government is his own party. Hardly reassuring. The argument that Canada needs the Queen in case we get a little too ahead of ourselves is an argument from Canadian immaturity.




Exactly.

The government is still owned by the Queen. It's referred to as Her Majesty's Government.



This is the same argument earth_as_one made, but I'm going to answer it differently.

This scenario you two are imagining has actually happened, though not with a Prime Minister becoming dictator but a military coup. The Fijian government, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, was overthrown in a military coup in 1987. Did the sovereign intervene via her legal right and prevent this? No, she abdicated.

But even if we didn't have an example of Mrs. Windsor-Mountbatten failing to exercise her own legal authority over a threatened government, do you really think she could have if she wanted to? Do you really believe that if the Prime Minister decided to illegally take over the country, legal recourse to the crown would be applied to prevent it?

By the right of a constitutional framework developed over hundreds of years, and by the consent of the people.

And the thrust (rightly or not) of the parliamentary form of government is a concentration of power within a constitutional framework.....separation of powers is an American ideal....

No, in the case of unconstitutional seizure of power, all the Crown can do is say so, dissolve the government, and let the people enforce it......but that power of influence, of moral judgement is not unsubstantial.....

Oh the morass of dumping the Monarchy! It would be so convoluted.....each province has a different relationship with the
Crown..........the lawyers would make millions!

 

[TenPenny]

What has not been mentioned is that the Queen considers herself responsible to the people.

 

[Blackleaf]

Yes, the Queen is technically the Queen of Canada and Canada has its own Royal Family that doesn't coincide exactly with the English/British Royal Family, but, let's get real: she's the bloody Queen of bloody England and the bloody British Empire and the bloody head of the bloody Church of England. For all practical purposes, she's not Canadian...she just happens to own a bloody hell of a lot of real estate here.

She's not the Queen of England. There hasn't been a Queen of England since 1603.

She is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Also bear in mind that, since 1603, England has technically been ruled by Scotland's monarchy.

The Queen is also not English. Her mother, the Queen Mother, was a Scot and her father, King George VI, had German ancestry - his great-grandfather was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's German busband.

 

[The Old Medic]

You can find support for ANYTHING on Google. That has about as much significance as finding fish poop on the bottom of the sea.

 

[taxslave]

I doubt very much that it matters whether Canadians want the monarchy or not. The last two attempts to amend Canada's constitution failed utterly, primarily due to the fact that Mulroney decided that any amendment had to have 100% provincial support and a referendum to boot. Getting ten provinces to agree on anything is pretty much universally impossible;

I bet we could get them to agree to raise taxes in less than 10 minutes.

She's not the Queen of England. There hasn't been a Queen of England since 1603.

She is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Also bear in mind that, since 1603, England has technically been ruled by Scotland's monarchy.

The Queen is also not English. Her mother, the Queen Mother, was a Scot and her father, King George VI, had German ancestry - his great-grandfather was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's German busband.

WE all know that the entire European monarchy is just one large incestuous family.

 

[talloola]

instead of embracing one's heritage as a canadian, 'to the monarchy', many are like children trying
to get rid of their mother, as they feel they can't walk on their own, while still hanging on to
the apron strings.

with all of the horrid leaders in this world, and all of the dictatorships, and leaders who starve
their own people and deny them a 'normal' life, our monarchy is quiet, peaceful, far away and I
have never ever felt any interference at all.

it would be interesting to know just how much it would cost to 'get rid' of the crown and be
totally on our own. would it really be worth it, maybe those who wish for such a life, should
know the price we would pay. I haven't a clue, but maybe someone does.
i think that it would be more constructive to be using our money more wisely.

 

[Corduroy]

By the right of a constitutional framework developed over hundreds of years, and by the consent of the people.

People have the right. Not abstractions or inanimate objects and not a series of individual events retroactively imagined as a system.

And the thrust (rightly or not) of the parliamentary form of government is a concentration of power within a constitutional framework.....separation of powers is an American ideal....

Actually, it's a Greek ideal. And as ancient Greece is the cradle of Western civilization, it is a Western ideal.

No, in the case of unconstitutional seizure of power, all the Crown can do is say so, dissolve the government, and let the people enforce it......but that power of influence, of moral judgement is not unsubstantial.....

You've just substituted my "illegal" with "unconstitutional". So the question remains the same and in fact your vocabulary improves its force: if there was an unconstitutional seizure of power in Canada, would their be proper recourse to constitutional means of preventing it? By its very nature, an unconstitutional seizure of power negates the constitution (an unconstitutional seizure of your person, for example, wouldn't and you would have constitutional recourse - notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause). Does anyone seriously believe that the Queen could dissolve a government that just threw out constitutional restraints on its power and that government would listen? The Queen is supposed to be one of those constitutional restraints the government would have thrown out! Or does any believe that the people would need the Queen to sanction our opposition to this? Hell no, the people would be in streets and hurling rocks at 24 Sussex before the Queen had her morning tea. In this situation, as in Fiji, the Queen long stripped of all real power would not be able to exercise even her pretend prerogatives.

instead of embracing one's heritage as a canadian, 'to the monarchy', many are like children trying
to get rid of their mother, as they feel they can't walk on their own, while still hanging on to
the apron strings.

So you agree that part of the argument in support of the monarchy is an argument from Canadian immaturity? You think that Canada is like a child that wants to stand on its own but can't? I have a little more respect for Canadians, especially when you consider that Canada's inability to stand on its has been demonstrated to be false. Canada has been standing on its own for decades. The Queen does nothing but sit as an insult to that independence.

We are a free and democratic nation but nominally, with the Queen claiming ownership of our government, we are not.

with all of the horrid leaders in this world, and all of the dictatorships, and leaders who starve
their own people and deny them a 'normal' life, our monarchy is quiet, peaceful, far away and I
have never ever felt any interference at all.

it would be interesting to know just how much it would cost to 'get rid' of the crown and be
totally on our own. would it really be worth it, maybe those who wish for such a life, should
know the price we would pay. I haven't a clue, but maybe someone does.
i think that it would be more constructive to be using our money more wisely.

The rest of your argument seems to be based on fear of the unknown. As irrational as that fear is, the idea is doubly irrational considering that there is no unknown. Plenty of former monarchies are now free and prosperous republics.

All your arguments, save the one from expense, could really be reduced to saying "Canada can't handle not having an ineffectual and powerless member of the House of Windsor as our head of state." It's like, if I decided to scrape off all Toyota identifications on my car and then questioned whether it would still run properly and protect me if I got into an accident.

 

[barney]

i think that it would be more constructive to be using our money more wisely.

This. Considering all of the problems this country has, dumping the Monarchy should rank very low on the list of priorities.