Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say

[s_lone]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

The Web site you’ve referenced refers to the Queen’s role as the Queen of the United Kingdom, something entirely exclusive of Her Majesty’s role as the Canadian head of State. Pursuant to the Royal Style and Titles Act, as passed by the Parliament of Canada, the Queen’s title as Canadian head of State does not refer to the Church of England in any capacity, but rather it refers to the Defender of the Faith. You can try to confuse the issue all you’d like with whatever the Queen’s roles are in the fifteen other Realms of the Commonwealth, but we are discussing the Canadian constitutional monarchy.

It seems to me that you are the one trying to confuse the issue FP. You have the right to be a monarchist, but at least be coherent and accept the realities that come with it. Canadian monarchy is deeply tied with religion. It is by nature discriminative in the sense that it's impossible for anyone who is not part of the Church of England to be Canadian Head of State. The Canadian Monarch is by default Supreme governor of the Church of England. The issue is not whether this has any official status in Canada. The issue is whether or not we believe in the value of secularism.

Monarchy is also tied to sexism in the sense that succession is ruled by the principle that men are better than women. You can defend male-preference cognatic primogeniture all you want by saying ''it's simply a tradition'' but the facts remain that it's a sexist tradition.

Either we have ties to the British Monarchy or we don't. You can't pick what you like about it and what you don't. The United Kingdom is the mother country and despite our political independence, there is absolutely no distinction between the Canadian Head of State and the British Head of State. It is the same person.

 

[wulfie68]

OK so the monarchy is old-fashioned, some don't like the fact that Queen is also the Defender of the Faith because they are worried about her "religious objectivity" (for lack of a better term), some are objecting to the tradition of sexism in the passing of the Crown (males take precedence over females, regardless of age), and there is the most valid, perhaps, in that the Monarch is not elected by the people.

In the end it all amounts to some pretty thin reasons to spend the huge amount of cash that would be needed to re-codify every single Canadian legal document and statute, not to mention other ancilliary costs, vs chopping the yearly budget of the GG and Royal visits just doesn't equal it. The cost-benefit analysis on this is a non-starter, and that doesn't go into the functionality aspect (we have a system that is functional and I haven't seen any suggestion to replace that doesn't involve massive constitutional issues that would probably never be resolved given the regional divisions in this country).

Either we have ties to the British Monarchy or we don't. You can't pick what you like about it and what you don't. The United Kingdom is the mother country and despite our political independence, there is absolutely no distinction between the Canadian Head of State and the British Head of State. It is the same person.

Who cares? As long as there is no conflict between the two offices, why does it matter? Its admitted that we have political independence so where is the issue? Does this mean none of us should carry out two roles? That for instance I can't be a father and a husband at the same time because there are differing obligations to each title? Absolute nonsense.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Time will seal the monarchy's fate in Canada. Changing demographics will ensure this.

 

[s_lone]

Who cares?

Those who oppose monarchy. Who do you think?

As long as there is no conflict between the two offices, why does it matter? Its admitted that we have political independence so where is the issue? Does this mean none of us should carry out two roles? That for instance I can't be a father and a husband at the same time because there are differing obligations to each title? Absolute nonsense.

You're diverging. I didn't say one can't carry out two roles. It's obvious the Queen has many roles. My issue is with the roles she has, not the fact that there are many.

As I already said, I don't believe the system needs to be changed no matter what. There are clearly some higher priorities. But that shouldn't stop us from discussing and debating the value of what is at the heart of our national institutions. Sooner or later, situations will arise where we will need to reassess whether or not we believe monarchy is coherent with what Canada stands for. Such a situation will be when the Queen dies (I wish her good health). Another will be when the constitutional debate is inevitably reopened. Remember the fact that Quebec hasn't signed the document? Perhaps you don't care about this, but it remains a lingering issue that will have to be dealt with eventually.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Time will seal the monarchy's fate in Canada. Changing demographics will ensure this.

Perhaps. But not for several more decades.

 

[AnnaG]

Time will seal the monarchy's fate in Canada. Changing demographics will ensure this.

Changing demographics will certainly do that. Kick out all the monarchists. That should do the trick.

 

[Trotz]

If I had my way I would deport the Queen back to Germany!

We do not need the monarch for our identity and I am upset that our Queen's representative (Governor General) and senate are unelected.

I repeat our identity has nothing to do with the Queen. Being British in Britain has nothing to do with the Saxe-Cothburgs but afflitation with geography (British Isles) and the descendents of England, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland who share a common synethized culture.

Canada our identity stems from being state (British) loyalists during the American Rebellion.

Though if I posted this on an American forum I'll have wise cracks telling me Canadians are the same as Americans, haha not from what I've observed in the America (God = Politics down there)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If I had my way I would deport the Queen back to Germany!

We do not need the monarch for our identity and I am upset that our Queen's representative (Governor General) and senate are unelected.

I repeat our identity has nothing to do with the Queen. Being British in Britain has nothing to do with the Saxe-Cothburgs but afflitation with geography (British Isles) and the descendents of England, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland who share a common synethized culture.

Canada our identity stems from being state (British) loyalists during the American Rebellion.

That may all be true, but how is that an argument for getting rid of monarchy?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

It seems to me that you are the one trying to confuse the issue FP. You have the right to be a monarchist, but at least be coherent and accept the realities that come with it. Canadian monarchy is deeply tied with religion. It is by nature discriminative in the sense that it's impossible for anyone who is not part of the Church of England to be Canadian Head of State. The Canadian Monarch is by default Supreme governor of the Church of England. The issue is not whether this has any official status in Canada. The issue is whether or not we believe in the value of secularism.

Monarchy is also tied to sexism in the sense that succession is ruled by the principle that men are better than women. You can defend male-preference cognatic primogeniture all you want by saying ''it's simply a tradition'' but the facts remain that it's a sexist tradition.

Either we have ties to the British Monarchy or we don't. You can't pick what you like about it and what you don't. The United Kingdom is the mother country and despite our political independence, there is absolutely no distinction between the Canadian Head of State and the British Head of State. It is the same person.

Very well said. And true. You get the whole package with the queen, monarchy, roayl family. This legal slicing and dicing is laughable.

There is living religious discrimination in the queen because you cannot be the head of state of the UK or Canada unless you are an Anglican. And the queen is an Anglican. There are no religious restrictions on any elected or political position in Canada. Because we cannot change the laws of the UK, we ought to cut our ties with the monarchy and get a Canadian prez/GG/whatever.

I don't think Queen holds a political office. Her office is mainly ceremonial (with plenty of glamour and pomp), which also happens to have a political side to it.

I'm not sure what that means.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

[QUOTE = SirJosephPorter]
I don't think Queen holds a political office. Her office is mainly ceremonial (with plenty of glamour and pomp), which also happens to have a political side to it.

I'm not sure what that means.

What that means is that monarchy in Britain is a national tradition (and not a political office), the duties are largely ceremonial. The main function of the Queen is to act as a goodwill ambassador for her country, greeting foreign dignitaries, hosting functions, parties, honouring the artists, inventors, philanthropists etc. in Britain (by bestowing honours on them) and so on. Whatever political duties she may have (dissolve the Parliament, invite the leader of the biggest party to form the government etc.), they form only a small part of her overall duties.

 

[wulfie68]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

What that means is that monarchy in Britain is a national tradition (and not a political office), the duties are largely ceremonial. The main function of the Queen is to act as a goodwill ambassador for her country, greeting foreign dignitaries, hosting functions, parties, honouring the artists, inventors, philanthropists etc. in Britain (by bestowing honours on them) and so on. Whatever political duties she may have (dissolve the Parliament, invite the leader of the biggest party to form the government etc.), they form only a small part of her overall duties.

Her function and duties are largely ceremonial but she does have real power that she can wield, should she deem it necessary. In recent years tradition has evolved so that the use of this power only happens when the government is acting undemocratically, counter to the wishes of the populace and good of the country, but that ability to act when necessary still exists. Too many people forget this when they talk about the role of the Monarchy.

 

[FiveParadox]

You’ve made a very good case for holding onto our constitutional arrangements, wulfie68; these powers exist for the purpose of safeguarding democracy, as do the powers exercised by the representative institutions of the Office of the Governor General, and the Offices of the Lieutenant Governors. The very existence of these powers serve as an influential deterrent against abuses of our institutions and our constitutional framework.

 

[wulfie68]

You’ve made a very good case for holding onto our constitutional arrangements, wulfie68; these powers exist for the purpose of safeguarding democracy, as do the powers exercised by the representative institutions of the Office of the Governor General, and the Offices of the Lieutenant Governors. The very existence of these powers serve as an influential deterrent against abuses of our institutions and our constitutional framework.

Well, I'm more pro- than anti- monarchy and will be until someone can demonstrate an effective plan to replace it that also includes enough additional benefit to justify the huge cost involved...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, I'm more pro- than anti- monarchy and will be until someone can demonstrate an effective plan to replace it that also includes enough additional benefit to justify the huge cost involved...

I think many Canadians (including me) feel that way. I don't have any particular love for monarchy and would oppose its introduction if we didn't have it already. But we already have it, it works reasonably well, and there is no good alternative. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

What that means is that monarchy in Britain is a national tradition (and not a political office), the duties are largely ceremonial. The main function of the Queen is to act as a goodwill ambassador for her country, greeting foreign dignitaries, hosting functions, parties, honouring the artists, inventors, philanthropists etc. in Britain (by bestowing honours on them) and so on. Whatever political duties she may have (dissolve the Parliament, invite the leader of the biggest party to form the government etc.), they form only a small part of her overall duties.

The queen and the royal family are the head of an aristocracy and a class based society. We are indirectly reinforcing this unequal system in Britain by keeping the monarchy here. Slavery used to work too just fine for many people but was abolished because it was not a symbol of progress among other reasons. For some it seems, keeping a tradition that symbolizes inequality is okay. Most of us aren't aristocrats.


Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings

• Wealth and private school remain key to professions
• Radical proposals include £5,000 voucher for all

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

The queen and the royal family are the head of an aristocracy and a class based society. We are indirectly reinforcing this unequal system in Britain by keeping the monarchy here. Slavery used to work too just fine for many people but was abolished because it was not a symbol of progress among other reasons. For some it seems, keeping a tradition that symbolizes inequality is okay. Most of us aren't aristocrats.


Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings | Society | The Guardian

Britain's closed shop: damning report on social mobility failings

• Wealth and private school remain key to professions
• Radical proposals include £5,000 voucher for all

What does closed shop have to do with monarchy? If there are problems with social mobility, they should be addressed, but that is a separate issue from monarchy.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

What does closed shop have to do with monarchy? If there are problems with social mobility, they should be addressed, but that is a separate issue from monarchy.

I just wanna let you know, when the revolution comes, people like you are gonna be the first to get it. I would just make some ver quiet inquiries on some good caves. You see, the aristocrats don't want equality because they are at the top of the social hierarchy and want to keep others down any way they can.

Dumping the monarchy creates social equality because for one thing, ordinary successful people can be on our money. Successful people like scientists who invented, say, insulin can grace our coinage instead. Rather than burnouts or appointed hacks who had the right dad or political pals.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, I'm more pro- than anti- monarchy and will be until someone can demonstrate an effective plan to replace it that also includes enough additional benefit to justify the huge cost involved...

.... and I am more anti-monarchy than pro-, but I can't see much justification for changing what we currently have, either.

Dumping the monarchy creates social equality because for one thing, ordinary successful people can be on our money. Successful people like scientists who invented, say, insulin can grace our coinage instead. Rather than burnouts or appointed hacks who had the right dad or political pals.

Yup. There sure is a lot of equality in the States, India, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

I just wanna let you know, when the revolution comes, people like you are gonna be the first to get it. I would just make some ver quiet inquiries on some good caves..

Was there ever any doubt? People like me are thorn in the flesh of any revolution, any dictatorship. No revolution tolerates free thinkers, people who ask awkward questions. French Revolution for instance.

Or any dictatorship. In a Fundamentalist Christian or Fundamentalist Muslim dictatorship (or a Communist, Nazi dictatorship), people like me would be the first to be herded into concentration camps.

People like me are the product of a tolerant democracy. Free thinkers don’t exist in a revolution or a dictatorship.

However, beware. People like you may not necessarily be safe. In a revolution nobody is really safe; you don’t know when the wrath of revolution will be directed against you (after people like me are disposed off) for something you inadvertently said or did. Again look at French Revolution.

 

[Cardano]

I am in agreement with abolishing the monarchy. Just change the name of the GG to President. A number of countries have a ceremonial president, and that's what I'd prefer. In the beginning just leave the duties and powers the same for the new GG renamed President. He or she could be either elected or appointed (but if appointed, by a nonpartisan panel, not by the PM, and I prefer election).

While we're at it, let's make sure the rules are changed so that PMs may not prorogue parliament for frivolous or self-serving reasons.

Final comment: If we're going to keep a monarchy, then let's at least do it right, and have one who is born and lives in Canada. This hybrid arrangement, with a foreigner as a monarch is a sign of not being fully grown up as a country. Are we going to the let the Ozzies beat us to dumping the monarch? Or even the Brits?

BTW, all four of my grandparents were born in the UK, one Scottish, one Welsh and two English. And in spite of what I've expressed, I don't think it's in the top 5 or 6 problems I'd like to see fixed. Just that if I had the chance to vote on it, I'd vote the way I've indicated.