there would not 'even' be a canadian government if it wasn't for the monarchy, it is why we have a
'canada' in the first place, or as I have said in the past, this would 'all' be the u.s. of america.
Thanks to the monarchy for this land.
Dumping the Monarchy
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
there would not 'even' be a canadian government if it wasn't for the monarchy, it is why we have a
'canada' in the first place, or as I have said in the past, this would 'all' be the u.s. of america.
Thanks to the monarchy for this land.
That statement is completely false. The term Her Majesty's Government derives from the many governments that lye within the Commonwealth realms. As the British Empire formed into the Commonwealth Of Nations the Dominions came to be seen as equals to the U.K. and from the 1920s-1930s the term Her Majesty's Government began to be used by the U.K. and the Dominions. Today, the term Her Majesty's Government is used only in formal circustances, like when the Queen visits Canada. It DOES NOT signify in any way or form that the Canadian government is OWNED by the Queen.
Have you not read my original post? I have specifically stated that the Monarchy no longer rules over our (Canada) affairs by the acts of 1931 AND 1982. The Queen HAS NO AUTHORITY in the day to day business of the Canadian economy, internal politics, foreign affairs, the military, our election methods, judicial system, and society as a whole. Now what part of this DON'T you understand?
Do you have any proof that the Republic system is any better than the Constitutional Monarchy system? Exactly how would electing a president be beneficial to any aspect of Canadian life, like lowering taxes, increasing trade, more effecient healthcare system to name a few? If dumping the Monarchy is so much better then how come in the U.N. Human Developement Index for 2009 that six of the top ten highest nations are Constitutional Monarchies and only four are republics? How is having a Constitutional Monarchy a hinder to the advancement of Canadian society? How would dumping the Monarchy improve national unity?
Are you going to address any of my responses to your points or are you just going to try to make new ones?
If it's not hers, then why the apostrophe s? Her Majesty is Government? Her Majesty is Loyal Opposition?
You never said the monarchy no longer rules over our affairs. You said the British Empire doesn't. I would have given you the benefit of the doubt in misrepresenting your own point, but you used the words "specifically stated" and in histrionic fashion went on to emphasize the clarity of your first post (as in asking me what part I don't understand).
Perhaps you are confusing rule by the British parliament with the Queen's rule over Canada.
Can you point out to me the sections of the Statute of Westminster, the Canada Act and the Constitution Act where the Queen loses her authority?
Here they are:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11
Do you think that the success of these six countries is attributed to them being constitutional monarchies? How does the monarchy contribute materially to the human developmental success of Canada, its society and unity when according to your own argument the Queen has no authority "in the day to day business of the Canadian economy, internal politics, foreign affairs, the military, our election methods, judicial system, and society as a whole."
The "stop-gap" procedure? What's that? Just a lot of vagueness that some mommy or daddy will save us from the bad men. If you never take an interest in a country and rarely visit, such interventions can only be based on ignorance. In the old days a monarch did some actual work, now they are just pets of parliament with no bite.
Caanda has no rename itself a parliamentary republic, the term constitutional monarchy sounds like North Korea.
We have been Federation, Dominion, and recently:
CANADA CIK#: 0000230098 (see all company filings)
SIC: 8880 - UNKNOWN SIC - 8880
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0331
(Assistant Director Office No 99)
Business Address
CANADIAN EMBASSY
1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW
WASHINGTON DC
20036
What morre do you want, an Ltd. put at the end?
My point in my first post has been clearly made. I have made my points to your arguments about dumping the monarchy. You one the other hand have done nothing but made opinions based on little to no research. And on top of that you haven't even answered a single question from my previous post, or even presented a single shred of proof to further your cause to get rid of the Monarchy, and are instead using things like grammar to disreguard my arguments. That's pretty sad really. Mis-representing my own point? Like I have stated before, my point was clearly made, you are just grasping at straws because you can't come up with any proof that getting rid of the Monarchy will be better for this country, and odds are VERY MUCH you won't find any either.
The British Empire's head of state IS the Monarchy, so my use of British Empire is valid. The U.N. human index of 2009 that I have used shows that there IS NO actual evidence that a Constitutional Monarchy hinders a nation's development. But of course you have failed to see that. Yes, thank you for repeating my in the day to day business sentence, and now prove how getting rid of the Monarchy will benefit ANY of these aspects of Canadian society.
You want to further your views and actually have good arguments about getting rid of the Monarchy? Start by going back to post #22, read the last paragraph and start ansering them.
Anyone can decide what they seem to be, in their own mind, then there 'is' what they actually are.
I have never thought of them as 'pets'. Those two young beautiful people who are going to marry, are
fine people, no one's pets, just trying to get along in life, as you or I, want to succeed and have
a family, they seem to me to be a good example to young people of how to behave and how to be
polite and gracious to others, william has had a good education, worked hard in the military, and
will be responsible in his duties thruoughout his life, and it would be nice if we could say that
about all young people, but so many do not have good examples to look up to.
I respect the monarchy.
Correction. In any Commonwealth Realm. India is a Commonwealth nation, but not a Commonwealth Realm. The Commonwealth Realms are listed here:
Commonwealth realm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And while all Commonwealth Realms are also Commonwealth countries, not all Commonwealth countries are Commonwealth Realms.
I'm not disputing that. Your point in your first post was clearly made. It wasn't relevant and it didn't refute the argument that the government of Canada is the Queen's government, as you believed it did, but it was clearly made.
No research? Here is a list of evidences I have used in this thread. Tell me which ones you think haven't been researched and I'll prove them to you.
1) Plenty of nations have politicized heads of state
2) The Queen's recent ancestors (and even her descendants) are not apolitical
3) The United States and India use English Common Law
4) English constitutional and common law have evolved historically
5) The majority of Commonwealth nations are republics
6) The government of Canada is the Queen's government
7) In 1987 Fijian government was overthrown in a military coup and the Queen abdicated
8) Separation of powers is a Greek ideal
9) Plenty of former monarchies are free and prosperous republics
You might noticed that none of this (save number 6) was actually used in support of abolishing the monarchy, but rather used to refute arguments in favour of keeping it. Some of these points you might not be interested in, but they are all laid out there. I'll defend every point I've made.
One point you are specifically asking me to defend, though, is a point I haven't made: that abolishing the monarchy will be materially beneficial to Canada. How will Canadians see an improvement in their health care, trade, taxes and lives if we abolish the monarchy? I don't care. This isn't one of the reasons why I support abolishing it.
Your caps lock and harping isn't going to make me prove a point I haven't made. But, I did ask you prove a point you made and you ignored it.
You said that the acts of 1931 and 1982 made it so that the monarch no longer rules over our affairs. I asked you if you could point out the sections in those acts where it says this. I provided the links to those acts for you, but since you have made such a big deal about research, I suppose it was unnecessary because you had those acts ready for reference, yes? And again, since research is so important to you, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult for you to produce the sections that prove your claim, because you must have already done the research, yes?
So I await your response.
OK, first of all, we should stop using British Empire. It's a bit anachronistic. Is United Kingdom good for you? Great!
Let me get this straight, are you saying that the United Kingdom and its Monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) are one in the same because the Monarch is the UK's head of state?
I never said you had to. As you seem content with not responding to anything I said to you, but are instead just quoting me and then talking past me, I was merely asking you if you would continue this practice. Because if you want to exercise your right to make any non sequitur you want, I want to exercise mine to stop paying attention.
Because the flag debate was such a great success? British Columbia kept the Union Jack and three other provinces went on; after 1965, to adopt British symbols into their flags.
The Federal Supreme Court and Senate might be full of stooges and morons but I would think second about the provincial governments who are already tired as it is with Ottawa. Removing the Queen; even though I've made it clear in the past I don't like Elizabeth II or Charles, will have immense backlash and cause further annoyance from Northern Ontario to B.C.
But of course none of that matters to you Ontarians in the Armpit (Toronto) or you Quebecers.
The Federal Supreme Court and Senate might be full of stooges and morons but I would think second about the provincial governments who are already tired as it is with Ottawa. Removing the Queen; even though I've made it clear in the past I don't like Elizabeth II or Charles, will have immense backlash and cause further annoyance from Northern Ontario to B.C.
But of course none of that matters to you Ontarians in the Armpit (Toronto) or you Quebecers.
I am glad that we have Her Majesty the Queen of Canada as our head of State.
Having a constitutional monarchy is a tremendous advantage for Canada, because it gives us the flexibility to respond to the day-to-day political needs of the country, with a non-partisan and apolitical head of State able to act as a vestige of executive power. The Queen reigns, but does not rule--that is, Her Majesty remains our head of State, and the chief executive; however, the political decisions are made by Her Majesty's Government for Canada, and are carried out in Her Majesty's name.
The reason why we use the term "Her Majesty's Government," and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition," is so that we are always reminded that our legislators--both the Government and the Opposition--must always remain loyal to the head of State, and therefore our constitutional structure. No Government may seek to extent its own powers unilaterally, as it is the Queen's Government, and must act within Her Majesty's laws (since all laws are enacted by the Queen, in formal terms). No Opposition may overthrow the Government in a way that is unconstitutional (as the Opposition must be loyal to Her Majesty). These terms are a reminder that despite the contentious debates that might take place in the legislature, all of our representatives must work for and within the bounds of the Canadian governance structure.
Having a constitutional monarchy is a tremendous advantage for Canada, because it gives us the flexibility to respond to the day-to-day political needs of the country, with a non-partisan and apolitical head of State able to act as a vestige of executive power. The Queen reigns, but does not rule--that is, Her Majesty remains our head of State, and the chief executive; however, the political decisions are made by Her Majesty's Government for Canada, and are carried out in Her Majesty's name.
The reason why we use the term "Her Majesty's Government," and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition," is so that we are always reminded that our legislators--both the Government and the Opposition--must always remain loyal to the head of State, and therefore our constitutional structure. No Government may seek to extent its own powers unilaterally, as it is the Queen's Government, and must act within Her Majesty's laws (since all laws are enacted by the Queen, in formal terms). No Opposition may overthrow the Government in a way that is unconstitutional (as the Opposition must be loyal to Her Majesty). These terms are a reminder that despite the contentious debates that might take place in the legislature, all of our representatives must work for and within the bounds of the Canadian governance structure.
Are the Queen's duties as our head of state so involved that if they were entrusted to the Prime Minister he wouldn't be able to get any real work done?
Our constitution does state according to law and there is no law stating that. Convention (unspoken) law won't mean much if Queen Elizabeth decides to become a tyrant.
Effectively the royal family; until the constitution is rewritten again, could launch a coup de'tat on the elected government but it isn't so much a coup but rather an reassertion of her rights on this estate.
Effectively the royal family; until the constitution is rewritten again, could launch a coup de'tat on the elected government but it isn't so much a coup but rather an reassertion of her rights on this estate.
Canada didn't gain independence through revolution and war. We were granted the Dominion of Canada by the Sovereign and out of gratitude, Canada has remained loyal to the crown ever since.
I reject the argument that in order to be a mature nation, we should reject the Queen. The UK is a modern nation and like Canada is a constitutional monarchy for similar reasons as Canada. (peaceful transition of power) Whether Canada has a sovereign ruler or not makes no difference as to whether Canada is modern or mature. Does having a Queen interfere with anyone's internet access? If you want to talk about immaturity, try taking in a House of Commons debate. Getting rid of the Queen would not solve that immaturity problem.
I reject the argument a that we are ruled by a foreign aristocrat. Some Brits make the same argument. This debate is really about symbols and statements. Sovereign rights are symbolic. Whether or not she is our head of state makes little practical difference in the lives of most Canadians. Getting rid of the monarchy would be like getting a divorce. Canadians would be divided and only the lawyers would be better off as a result. The GG's office allows Canada to make inspirational statements. Michelle's Jean's appointment as GG inspired many Canadians and Haitians that they could also reach the highest levels of power. Adriane Clarkson's appointment made a statement about the status of women and minorities. The GG's office frees the PM from having to entertain every visiting foreign dignitary.
Even though her visits cost Canada about a million a day, her visits generates tens of millions in spin offs in tourism and trinkets as well as thousand dollar a plate gala's for charities like hospitals.
I'm seeing any convincing arguments in support of making Canada a republic. The change would require a huge effort and in the end achieve little.
A far more worthy objective requiring a similar effort would be to get rid of or reform the Senate patronage system of appointments first. Senators cost Canadians far more than the Queen, with far fewer benefits. Also, Canadians are more united regarding senate reform. Few Canadians support the current system.
I reject the argument that in order to be a mature nation, we should reject the Queen. The UK is a modern nation and like Canada is a constitutional monarchy for similar reasons as Canada. (peaceful transition of power) Whether Canada has a sovereign ruler or not makes no difference as to whether Canada is modern or mature. Does having a Queen interfere with anyone's internet access? If you want to talk about immaturity, try taking in a House of Commons debate. Getting rid of the Queen would not solve that immaturity problem.
I reject the argument a that we are ruled by a foreign aristocrat. Some Brits make the same argument. This debate is really about symbols and statements. Sovereign rights are symbolic. Whether or not she is our head of state makes little practical difference in the lives of most Canadians. Getting rid of the monarchy would be like getting a divorce. Canadians would be divided and only the lawyers would be better off as a result. The GG's office allows Canada to make inspirational statements. Michelle's Jean's appointment as GG inspired many Canadians and Haitians that they could also reach the highest levels of power. Adriane Clarkson's appointment made a statement about the status of women and minorities. The GG's office frees the PM from having to entertain every visiting foreign dignitary.
Even though her visits cost Canada about a million a day, her visits generates tens of millions in spin offs in tourism and trinkets as well as thousand dollar a plate gala's for charities like hospitals.
I'm seeing any convincing arguments in support of making Canada a republic. The change would require a huge effort and in the end achieve little.
A far more worthy objective requiring a similar effort would be to get rid of or reform the Senate patronage system of appointments first. Senators cost Canadians far more than the Queen, with far fewer benefits. Also, Canadians are more united regarding senate reform. Few Canadians support the current system.
Last edited:
Sure, we are a mature nature, but that maturity is de facto not de jure. Our government is not ours. It's the Queen's and plenty of the arguments made in this thread come from an assumption that we are not mature enough to handle government without the Queen. Apparently the only possible ceremonial head of state is a monarch and this monarch protects us from dictatorship, which we wouldn't be able to do on our own. It's really the monarchists here who believe Canada is immature.
What do you believe the monarchy symbolizes?
Yeah, the Governor General's pretty cool huh? Hey, you know what... the Governor General is not a monarch and doesn't serve for life, and yet performs all the duties of our absent head of state. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? You're coming around aren't you?
As I've stated in numerous other threads on this subject, my reluctance to support the removal of the monarchy is centered around a couple points:
- the cost would be enormous. Our entire legal framework would have to be redone, as well as many of our institutions would need to be at least cosmetically reformed if we removed our ties to the Royal Family.
- as Colpy (and others) have mentioned, it would require massive constitutional reform, something that this country, in its regionally divided state won't agree to for decades if ever.
- I want to see an improved way of conducting the business of governing the nation before I agree to changing things. Change for change's sake is not a valid goal, IMO, and I have seen no proposals from anti-monarchists that highlight any practical change. Many people like to dwell on the flaws of the current system, but I want to see how they would be addressed in the new.
- the cost would be enormous. Our entire legal framework would have to be redone, as well as many of our institutions would need to be at least cosmetically reformed if we removed our ties to the Royal Family.
- as Colpy (and others) have mentioned, it would require massive constitutional reform, something that this country, in its regionally divided state won't agree to for decades if ever.
- I want to see an improved way of conducting the business of governing the nation before I agree to changing things. Change for change's sake is not a valid goal, IMO, and I have seen no proposals from anti-monarchists that highlight any practical change. Many people like to dwell on the flaws of the current system, but I want to see how they would be addressed in the new.
Just so we're clear, you support the monarchy not because it's the right form of government but because it would be too hard to get rid of it?
And I'm getting a little tired of disproving all the monarchists arguments. I'm going to ask you start doing your own heavy lifting and prove them yourself. There are plenty of examples of former commonwealth monarchies becoming republics so you'll have plenty to work with.
1) How much has it cost other commonwealth countries to abolish the monarchy?
2) Have these countries had to overhaul their legal systems?
I await your evidence.
Sure, we are a mature nature, but that maturity is de facto not de jure. Our government is not ours. It's the Queen's and plenty of the arguments made in this thread come from an assumption that we are not mature enough to handle government without the Queen. Apparently the only possible ceremonial head of state is a monarch and this monarch protects us from dictatorship, which we wouldn't be able to do on our own. It's really the monarchists here who believe Canada is immature.
What do you believe the monarchy symbolizes?
Yeah, the Governor General's pretty cool huh? Hey, you know what... the Governor General is not a monarch and doesn't serve for life, and yet performs all the duties of our absent head of state. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? You're coming around aren't you?
Sure the GG could fulfill the same symbolic head of state function as the Queen. I'd still rather have the post filled by inheritance rather than political appointment. I'd also go for some sort of democratic process. An elected GG?
Well, I'd prefer a political and effective head of state to a ceremonial one. I don't really buy into the idea that we need a person to become an apolitical symbol of national unity. Do you think more people in Canada can name the Governor General than can name the Prime Minister? Maybe more people can name the Queen, but when you think of her and when the rest of the world thinks of her, does Canada come to mind or does the United Kingdom? Who really is more representative of Canada?
How many people, when they think of Italian and German government, think of Giorgio Napolitano and Christian Wulff and how many people think of Silvio Berlusconi and Angela Merkel? And be honest, have you ever actually heard of the first two?
That said, I suppose I'd go along with an elected ceremonial head of state so that we can play dress up and make believe.
Most Canadians probably couldn't name David Johnston as Canada's current Governor General of Canada.
While I don't care for pageantry personally, many Canadians do.
I doubt changing our head of state would be worth the trouble.
While I don't care for pageantry personally, many Canadians do.
I doubt changing our head of state would be worth the trouble.