Why Canada should keep the monarchy.

[the caracal kid]

the monarchy is an imposition from the colonial days. by a canadian monarchy, i mean a 100% in canada aristocricy.

canada does not need a monarch, nor an institution as the ultimate source of authority that has the form of an aristocracy.

It is time to strip references to kings, queens, princes, etc from all of our systems and canada to progress.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Why Canada should keep the monarchy.

the monarchy is an imposition from the colonial days.

A relic perhaps, but certainly not an imposition any more, not since the Imperial Conference of 1926.

i mean a 100% in canada aristocricy.

That's the last thing we need, and I'm sure we agree on that.

canada does not need a monarch, nor an institution as the ultimate source of authority that has the form of an aristocracy.

Functionally, you're right, we don't need that, but we do need some means of ensuring continuity between governments. The principal function of the Crown, the formal institution, as distinct from the person who wears it, is to ensure that there's always a prime minister and a responsible cabinet in office. To do away with the monarchy as a Canadian institution would require some other means of ensuring that. In simple terms, we could just rename the office of Governor-General to President, not require the Queen's rubber stamp of approval on the appointment, and leave everything else unchanged. Then we'd be a republic, and every reference to the Crown or the sovereign in our statutes would be changed to refer to the President.

That'd require a constitutional amendment though, and if you know anything of Canadian history over the last 40 years or so, you'll know what a messy and divisive process that can be. I don't see that we have a problem that requires that solution. Nothing's broken in this context; it seems pointless to me.

 

[JomZ]

the monarchy is an imposition from the colonial days. by a canadian monarchy, i mean a 100% in canada aristocricy.

canada does not need a monarch, nor an institution as the ultimate source of authority that has the form of an aristocracy.

It is time to strip references to kings, queens, princes, etc from all of our systems and canada to progress.

And replace it with what: Presidents, there are drawbacks to having heads of state that are elected as well. (ie Bush).

There is also a major difference between the head of state and head of government. There are rules that define the role of Senate and other bodies that control it. If you look into it more you'll realize that the Prime Minister has a lot of say in the Senate and with the GG.

The GG is more a figure head then a power base.

The Governor General fulfills a number of obligations associated with The Crown In Canada (the legal entity which embodies the Government). ~http://www.nsd.nf.ca/HTML/Information/role.html

The jobs of the other two bodies is too maintain that Parliment acts accordingly. Its also not a throw back to Colonial days but a reminder that we are still members of the British Commonwealth but are seperated from the rule of the British Parliment and allowed to govern ourselves.

Look it up:

The Govenor General
http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp
http://www.nsd.nf.ca/HTML/Information/role.html

The Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate#History

And like Dexter said the only thing that would change would be the titles. So why go to all the hassel?

 

[the caracal kid]

there is quite a bit in a title, that is why.

I would also like to see Canada no longer a part of the commonwealth.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

No longer part of the Commonwealth? Whatever for?

 

[JomZ]

Beyond the symbolic nature of the Commonwealth, why should we remove it? I know you do not like titles, but are there any other major reasons to do so?

 

[the caracal kid]

i have a vision of a progressive, inclusive canada consisting of several distinct but equal nations under one flag.

this is in contrast to a figurehead and being part of a system that represents inequality.

I was born in canada but do not consisder myself canadian. why is that? part of it stems from a lack of any meaningful idea of what being canadian is! The strongest notion of nationality anywhere in canada comes from the separatist movement in quebec. what does that say about this country?

I would like to see a strong, separate canada that represents canada and canada alone, inclusive of ALL its peoples. References to british monarchs (or any), to deities are acts of exclusion and division. Is it any surprise canada may well fall apart. I see three choices for me, work for a strong canada as described above, work for a separate BC, or move out of canada entirely. I prefer the first.

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: Why Canada should keep the monarchy.

i have a vision of a progressive, inclusive canada consisting of several distinct but equal nations under one flag.

this is in contrast to a figurehead and being part of a system that represents inequality.

I was born in canada but do not consisder myself canadian. why is that? part of it stems from a lack of any meaningful idea of what being canadian is! The strongest notion of nationality anywhere in canada comes from the separatist movement in quebec. what does that say about this country?

I would like to see a strong, separate canada that represents canada and canada alone, inclusive of ALL its peoples. References to british monarchs (or any), to deities are acts of exclusion and division. Is it any surprise canada may well fall apart. I see three choices for me, work for a strong canada as described above, work for a separate BC, or move out of canada entirely. I prefer the first.

Go Caracal Kid! I totally agree Canada must get rid of it's old boring relics.

Forward is the way to go!

 

[JomZ]

i have a vision of a progressive, inclusive canada consisting of several distinct but equal nations under one flag.

So your looking at a European Union Idea, but there are a lot of drawbacks too that as well.

Go Caracal Kid! I totally agree Canada must get rid of it's old boring relics.

Forward is the way to go!

Yes it is but we must also hold on to our history or we are doomed to repeat it. Look at the U.S. it beat its so-called occupiers and now it is repeating this history itself by being an occupier, with its actions in the world.

I was born in canada but do not consisder myself canadian. why is that? part of it stems from a lack of any meaningful idea of what being canadian is!

Canada is still a growing nation, I mean most cultural identities are traced back thousands of years, Canada is only a few hundred years old.

Look, we are not that bad off as a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Yes, the British Empire does not have the best history as an occupier, but it could have been worse.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm sometimes a sucker for the quaint, and (dagnabit it!) what could be quainter than our vey own crown-wearing Monarch in a Palace and our very own deity, both watching over li'l ol' Canada.
Long live the God of Canada and praise be the Queen! :flower:

I'm with Jay and Colpy on this, though I suspect for slightly different reasons...

 

[Finder]

I'm a Social Democrat, Republican, but I've not joined the Republican movement in Canada because it's way too hostile. I don't have any great hate towards the Monarchy, I just think it's a relic of medievil society and monarchist are Romantics of this society which only made the lives of 2-5 percent of the people enjoyable. Indeed who elects the Queen/King, who says she/he protects our interests.

Though I believe Monarchists in Canada do not support the monarchy because of the true roots of the Monarchy but because of tradtion again I bring up a point to recognize the power and authority of the monarchy is to recognize that some people are born better then others and I do not believe that is a characteristic of Canadian society as well (Though I might be wrong).

I think tradition is fine and when we go our own way and finally become a republic we should stay in the Common Wealth and we should still have some ties to the monarchy as many Republics inside the Common Wealth do have. I highly dout Canada will become a Republic in the next 20 years just because most Canadians could care less about the Queen/Monarchy one way or the other. I as a moderate Republican don't think it's a big issue and it's not something we have to change right now.

Monarchist and Republicans who push to stay with a Monarchy or form a Republic are out of touch with the interests of the common Canadian who thinks the issue on either side is a joke.

 

[jimmoyer]

In a Republic, Civil and Military Authority is vested in the STATE, which is controlled by PARLIAMENT, whereas in Australia (and Britain and every other Constitutional Monarchy) such Authority is ultimately PROTECTED from political control because it is vested in The Crown which is responsible TO THE PEOPLE.

-------------------------Blackleaf---------------------

So the whole premise of being more democratic
lies in the belief that the Crown is responsible (and
responsive?) to the people ?

I can see that The Crown is another independent
power in that it is beholding to no one else, but what law and what tradition allows the
Crown to step in and veto an action by the Parliament?

_________________

 

[Skye]

I'm sometimes a sucker for the quaint, and (dagnabit it!) what could be quainter than our vey own crown-wearing Monarch in a Palace and our very own deity, both watching over li'l ol' Canada.
Long live the God of Canada and praise be the Queen! :flower:

I'm with Jay and Colpy on this, though I suspect for slightly different reasons...

Agreed.
:lol:

 

[Finder]

I was reading the opening a little more closely this time. I have to say the the whole pro's of being a monarchy such as "However of all the former British Colonies, it is only those Dominions, such as Australia, which have retained The Crown, which have been able to keep their freedoms and democracy intact." are opinionated and dismissive.

The system of government of Government used by most constitutional monarchies are in fact hyprids of the classical republican module anyways.

Point in fact.
Checks and balances.
Head of State
Head of Government
The Populace
The Nobles
The courts.

These are the classical checks and balances, all of which are in play in the UK and generally in the constitutional monarchies of some commonwealth nations such as Canada.

Of course they are called different things in different nations. Put really it is as simple as changing a name in a constitutional monarchy and replacing it with a president to make a republic.


If you want more proff of the classical republican module in play read on.

Take the early Repubic of Rome and the current system in the UK.

Concul- King/Queen
Senate- House of Lords
Commons- Assembly of the Plebs/The Mob
Primminster/PM- Tribunate/Tribune

The government reflects that of the Republic of Rome but with only changes to the names.

You could argue because of the Constitutional monarchy and modern society, the Queen/King and the nobles in our society are not seen as being important because of our belief everyone is born basically equal, and thus the Head of State and the "Senate" the house of Lords have little power as they once had. If the UK replaced the house of Lords with elected persons with manadates and replaced the Queen or made an elected proxy for her, then these people and posistions would have true manadates.

I don't mind living in a constitutional monarchy because it's close to a republic anyways but I'd prefer to give the Senate's/House of Lords and the Queen more power by giving them, or the proxys manadates.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Why Canada should keep the monarchy.

Edit N/M