Monarchy Yes or No...

[s_lone]

OK, so we dump the monarchy, and than???? What replaces our present system of government. All this talk of how little influence it has on the government is silly, so many things would be impacted for Parliament.

I don't pretend knowing what system would be the best in a post-monarchic Canada. But however flawed democracy can be, i'll take an elected leader anytime over a "royal" leader appointed by the outdated principles of monarchy.

Monarchy has no place within a democratic society. It has no place in a modern country like Canada.

 

[s_lone]

We don't need the queen of a foreign country to be a guard dog to our democracy. We the Canadian people have the responsiblitiy to ensure the health of our own democracy. We owe it to oursleves.

 

[Jay]

Still, in my opinion an excuse. If a man loved his country, he would explore its heritage.

I suppose then we can remove educators and politicians from the definition of man.

 

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/35647-monarchy-yes-no-post539771.html

Considering we have a public education system with educators quote]

just one off topic question...Might I ask whom you would expect to run the school systems if not educators??? Perhaps labourers???

Perhaps parents..even if they were "labourers". They might not do the job, but they would at least tell their children where they cam from. "Constant revolution" may be for some but not for all.

 

[the caracal kid]

Still, in my opinion an excuse. If a man loved his country, he would explore its heritage.

"love of country" is a symptom of a greater problem.

 

[sanctus]

"love of country" is a symptom of a greater problem.

Indeed, and why would that be? Why shouldn't we as Canadians embrace our own country's heritage and culture? Why shouldn't we be expected to be proud of ourselves as a distinct people with a distinct history? I am not at all ashamed to say I love this country. Do I agree with everything that happens here as good for the country, no, but in general I am proud of our heritage as a people and our history. That is not a problem and should not be one for any Canadian.

 

[sanctus]

Perhaps parents..even if they were "labourers". They might not do the job, but they would at least tell their children where they cam from. "Constant revolution" may be for some but not for all.

Parents already are the chief educators of their children. But in a school system, obviously we need educators to educate the children in terms of book learning.

 

[sanctus]

I suppose then we can remove educators and politicians from the definition of man.

That is not at all what I meant, and I suspect you know that.

 

[sanctus]

We don't need the queen of a foreign country to be a guard dog to our democracy. We the Canadian people have the responsiblitiy to ensure the health of our own democracy. We owe it to oursleves.

Personally, whenever this discussion arises in various circles in this country, I get rather weary of people labelling Her Majesty in this fashion. She is not the Queen of a foreign country, per se, but the Queen of Canada.

 

[sanctus]

I don't pretend knowing what system would be the best in a post-monarchic Canada. But however flawed democracy can be, i'll take an elected leader anytime over a "royal" leader appointed by the outdated principles of monarchy.

Monarchy has no place within a democratic society. It has no place in a modern country like Canada.

Nonsense, if you'll allow me to state that. One thing that tires me of radical political thoughts is the general incompletion of thought. In other words, and in this situation, someone presents a plan but does not give an answer. So we have, dump the monarchy. Fine, grand idea. And replace it with...???? See my point. I feel if you believe in abolishing something, you best have an alternative to offer.

 

[s_lone]

Nonsense, if you'll allow me to state that. One thing that tires me of radical political thoughts is the general incompletion of thought. In other words, and in this situation, someone presents a plan but does not give an answer. So we have, dump the monarchy. Fine, grand idea. And replace it with...???? See my point. I feel if you believe in abolishing something, you best have an alternative to offer.

I'm not an expert in the technicalities of our political system. But here's what I have to offer:

Exactly the same thing we have now but without monarchy! What's so complicated with that?

It's quite simple really...The governor general of Canada would represent herself or himself and not a queen or a king. The governor general would be the new head of state representing both the people and the government.

If you want to develop the idea, why not have the provincial lieutenant-governors plus the governor general form a national comitee that would be asked to vote if EVER there occured a critical situation in which a wise decision was needed.

 

[sanctus]

I'm not an expert in the technicalities of our political system. But here's what I have to offer:

Exactly the same thing we have now but without monarchy! What's so complicated with that?

It's quite simple really...The governor general of Canada would represent herself or himself and not a queen or a king. The governor general would be the new head of state representing both the people and the government.

If you want to develop the idea, why not have the provincial lieutenant-governors plus the governor general form a national comitee that would be asked to vote if EVER there occured a critical situation in which a wise decision was needed.

That simple, eh. OK, devil's advocate time. Why keep the Gov-Gen andLt. Gov.'s? Aren't they part of the system you want to remove? Or you just don't want a Queen anymore, is that it? How can you remove the head of the country and not the apparatus that supports her? Why couldn't the PM be the head of State? In fact, would we need to keep Parliament at all if we were a republic? Wouldn't the PM become a President? (Keep in mind that the office of the PM actually has more power than the American President).

So, you would not want to keep the moarch, but you would keep paying for all the people who represent her? Crown lands, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

In short, it would seem that removing the monarchy would cost more money than it is worth.

 

[sanctus]

I'm not an expert in the technicalities of our political system. .

Interesting line, often spoken by anti-monarchists actually(I've talked to quite a few of them in my time)

What you are saying is, in essence, I don't know much about how our government works, but I want to remove the Head of State anyway! Seems to me if you're not sure how it works in the first place, you shouldn't be prepared to "fix" it.

 

[s_lone]

That simple, eh. OK, devil's advocate time. Why keep the Gov-Gen andLt. Gov.'s? Aren't they part of the system you want to remove? Or you just don't want a Queen anymore, is that it? How can you remove the head of the country and not the apparatus that supports her? Why couldn't the PM be the head of State? In fact, would we need to keep Parliament at all if we were a republic? Wouldn't the PM become a President? (Keep in mind that the office of the PM actually has more power than the American President).

So, you would not want to keep the moarch, but you would keep paying for all the people who represent her? Crown lands, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

In short, it would seem that removing the monarchy would cost more money than it is worth.

My main motivation in this debate is indeed to get rid of the queen or king . I am fundamentally opposed to the concept of monarchy. I don't want to scrap monarchy for money issues... I couldn't care less about the costs of monarchy ot the costs of no monarchy. The costs of keeping or scrapping it are rather insignificant if you ask me...

It's a question of principles. I don't want my head of state to be appointed according to the principles of monarchy, which appear to me as being completely inappropriate in a 21st century Canada.

In the idea I presented, the "governor general" and "lieutenant generals" represent themselves, the government, and the Canadian people, not a monarch. You can call them something else if you like. I am open to keeping the "apparatus" simply because the only argument that I accept from monarchists is the one of having someone to guard our democracy in case of crisis...

I just suggested a crude idea because you asked me to... But there are a hell of a lot of possibilities. I'm very open... just very anti-monarchic...

A whole lot of countries work without monarchy, I just don't see the complications you see into scrapping it.

 

[s_lone]

Interesting line, often spoken by anti-monarchists actually(I've talked to quite a few of them in my time)

What you are saying is, in essence, I don't know much about how our government works, but I want to remove the Head of State anyway! Seems to me if you're not sure how it works in the first place, you shouldn't be prepared to "fix" it.

You don't need to know how to fix something to spot one of its fundamental problems! Our head of state is appointed according to monarchic principles, that is the fundamental problem.

 

[sanctus]

...

A whole lot of countries work without monarchy, I just don't see the complications you see into scrapping it.

Fair enough. But you cannot simply remove a piece of the government without it impacting on the rest of the system. ALLOT of time and effort would have to go into it. "Dump the Queen" is just too simplistic a statement to make!It is not a simple thing, in the long run.

Tell me, your views are noted regarding the ideology of a monarch obviously, but how exactly does having a Queen as our Head of State deny you or anyone else your democratic rights in this country? Or, for that matter, impact on your daily life?So in short, it seems to me the republican position in this country can best be summed up by the Bard himself "much ado about nothing".

 

[sanctus]

You don't need to know how to fix something to spot one of its fundamental problems! Our head of state is appointed according to monarchic principles, that is the fundamental problem.

Hardly an indicator of a "problem". Newsflash, we don't get to pick allot of things in our lives. Do you go to church--if so..did you vote on your priest(minister)? Or was he appointed for your congregation? Did you vote on the Gov.-General? Or was she appointed? Yet you don't see that as a "problem", in fact you want to keep that position! What about the Lt-Gov.? Vote on him or her? It just seems you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. In truth, the majority of Canadians want to retain the monarchy, so shouldn't we bow to the wishes of our democratic society?

 

[s_lone]

Sanctus you are right, I do not feel any true problems living in the system we have presently. It is much a do about nothing when you think about it.

There are many other causes that are infinitely more important than this one. But I remain anti-monarchy... When the Queen dies, I hope Canadians will at least be willing to debate the question honestly and seriously because while the practical implications in our lives are minimal, the implications for our national identity are not.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[Hamlet]

There's been a lot of back-and-forth on having a Monarch of Canada. Those who are against having a monarch generally refer to prinicpals of equality, fairness, lack of democracy, etc. when supporting their position. However, in truth, there is an element of democracy in establishing the monarch. When Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, did she just "happen" to become the Queen of Canada? Actually, no. The Privy Council of Canada proclaims a new sovereign for Canada. I suppose, that detractors of the monarchy could claim that it is nothing more than a superficial body that rubber stamps the new sovereign as monarch of Canada. However, the members of the Privy Council are democratically elected. (Well, some of them; they comprise current and former federal cabinet ministers, Chief Justices, and perhaps even oppositions leaders and maybe even some premiers might be on the Privy Council). So, even those these members are appointed by the Prime Minister, they were elected to their offices. When Queen Elizabeth dies and Charles is proclaimed King, I suppose the Privy Council could choose not to proclaim a new sovereign for Canada. But in my opinion, that will never happen.

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus you are right, I do not feel any true problems living in the system we have presently. It is much a do about nothing when you think about it.

There are many other causes that are infinitely more important than this one. But I remain anti-monarchy... When the Queen dies, I hope Canadians will at least be willing to debate the question honestly and seriously because while the practical implications in our lives are minimal, the implications for our national identity are not.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

It was equally interesting for me as well, so I also thank you. I understand the feeling republicans have about the monarchy, but I just think it is hardly that much of a big deal having a Queen..especially when you think of the real problems we have in this country--