Let's keep Victoria Day

[CANADIEN]

From the Toronto Star

Let's get rid of Victoria Day

May 15, 2008 04:30 AM

Bob Hepburn

RE-COPIED article deleted

refer to link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/425517

Actually, we can be grown-up, and we are. Canada has historical ties with Great Britain. That connection is part of our country's identity, of who we are. You want to change the name? Let's extend it beyond Victoria and call it Monarchs' Day, then. Altough I would stick to Victoria Day myself.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Charles Anthony
re-copied article deleted by moderator

[Remiel]

Think of the irony involved in saying we should no longer commemorate the birthday of a " foreign monarch " because the country of origin of that person no longer does, given the past relationship between this country and that country of origin.

[g_bambino]

Actually, we can be grown-up, and we are. Canada has historical ties with Great Britain. That connection is part of our country's identity, of who we are. You want to change the name? Let's extend it beyond Victoria and call it Monarchs' Day, then. Altough I would stick to Victoria Day myself.

The author is obviously a person born into the most selfish generation in the Western world's history and raised in the Trudeaupian fashion. Now a liberal perpetually stuck in the Canadian 1960s, he carries on the adolescent identity crises from that era and continues to exalt the wishy-washy, values and feelings, new-Canadiana imposed back then as an effort to quell the manufactured unrest. Of course, to keep this up long beyond its expiry date, and to maintain his air of superiority, he has to be stereotypical, duplicitous, and derisive of Canada's British past (monarchists are retrograde Victorian imperialists who actually like Canada's shameful British past), but disguise this behind a veil of sensitivity and inclusiveness (Indo-Pakistani, Chinese, and French-Canadian cultures are great!). He also has to keep up a fantasy that Canada is still somehow a non-sovereign colony because of the bad, bad monarchy, and live in denial of the arguable point that constitutional monarchies tend to be the most fertile ground for the multiculturalism he so loves. Christ, he can’t even get the basic fact that since 1957 Victoria Day has been the official marker of the present reigning sovereign’s birthday, just like those Queen’s Birthday holidays in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK that he talks about as being better.

The whole article is just an ignorant little piece of baby-boomer cultural cringe.

[August1991]

The author is obviously a person born into the most selfish generation in the Western world's history and raised in the Trudeaupian fashion.

Selfish and Trudeaupian? Why not also call me a fascist?

I think only English Canada (Ontario) refers to Victoria Day. In Quebec, it is the Day of Patriots - or la Fête de la Reine.

Long ago, I started a thread asking why we have a foreign monarch as Head of State. I want to live in a Federal Republic of Canada. I think my country would be more civilized if we were a federal republic. As citizens, we would be responsible for our collective affairs.

The thread. (It's a poll so click and go and vote.)

Edited May 16, 2008 by August1991

[eyeball]

I want to live in a Human Republic of Earth. I wonder how many thousands of years it will be until there is one?

[Regulus de Leo]

I want to live in a Human Republic of Earth. I wonder how many thousands of years it will be until there is one?

By 3008 there will be two countries: The Republic of Earth and an a free and independant Scotland.

And there's nay yoo buggers can do aboot it!

http://www.freescotlandparty.org/

[g_bambino]

Selfish and Trudeaupian? Why not also call me a fascist?

I think only English Canada (Ontario) refers to Victoria Day. In Quebec, it is the Day of Patriots - or la Fête de la Reine.

Long ago, I started a thread asking why we have a foreign monarch as Head of State. I want to live in a Federal Republic of Canada. I think my country would be more civilized if we were a federal republic. As citizens, we would be responsible for our collective affairs.

The thread. (It's a poll so click and go and vote.)

Indeed, selfish and Trudeaupian. But, unless you're the author of the piece, I wasn't talking about you.

As for the holiday, "only English Canada" would be nine other provinces, not one. Quebec just has Journée nationale des patriotes because a separatist government made the provincial holiday on the same day as Victoria Day as a way to stick their collective tongue out, with typical juvenility, at the feds and Anglophones. That's certainly no reason for the federal holiday to be dedicated to something else.

As Rex Murphey once put it, "there's no courage in questioning the monarchy. It's the most weary, stale, pseudo-debate in the history of high school speaking contests. The courage to debate the monarchy passed long, long ago when the monarch gave up the dungeon, the tower and the rack." All the whimpering about completely manufactured "issues" such as foreign monarchs, subservience, and imperial rule is a perfect example of what he's talking about. Canadian republicans need to haul themselves into the 21st century; the monarchy has been constitutional for three and a half centuries, the government has been a responsible one for two centuries, the monarchy of Canada has been Canadian for seven decades. Only once they admit that could there be a serious debate on whether or not the country would be more "civilized" with a politician as head of state, and accordingly something as inane as "Prime Ministers Day."

[CANADIEN]

Indeed, selfish and Trudeaupian. But, unless you're the author of the piece, I wasn't talking about you.

As for the holiday, "only English Canada" would be nine other provinces, not one. Quebec just has Journée nationale des patriotes because a separatist government made the provincial holiday on the same day as Victoria Day as a way to stick their collective tongue out, with typical juvenility, at the feds and Anglophones. That's certainly no reason for the federal holiday to be dedicated to something else.

As Rex Murphey once put it, "there's no courage in questioning the monarchy. It's the most weary, stale, pseudo-debate in the history of high school speaking contests. The courage to debate the monarchy passed long, long ago when the monarch gave up the dungeon, the tower and the rack." All the whimpering about completely manufactured "issues" such as foreign monarchs, subservience, and imperial rule is a perfect example of what he's talking about. Canadian republicans need to haul themselves into the 21st century; the monarchy has been constitutional for three and a half centuries, the government has been a responsible one for two centuries, the monarchy of Canada has been Canadian for seven decades. Only once they admit that could there be a serious debate on whether or not the country would be more "civilized" with a politician as head of state, and accordingly something as inane as "Prime Ministers Day."

We could easily do without the monarchy; mind you, there are more important things to debate. As for Victoria Day... I for one like the idea of celebrating our historical tie with Great Britain.

[Oleg Bach]

We could easily do without the monarchy; mind you, there are more important things to debate. As for Victoria Day... I for one like the idea of celebrating our historical tie with Great Britain.

Long live the Queen! She did my folks a favour and gave them santuary..I owe the old girl...sure she can be a bit steely eyed and hard..and Victoria was a romantic with a who loved grouse in butter sauce...I say celebrate. There is more good in her than not....heaven forbit the Charels becomes queen...he looks horrible in a dress.

[Wilber]

We could easily do without the monarchy; mind you, there are more important things to debate. As for Victoria Day... I for one like the idea of celebrating our historical tie with Great Britain.

Our historical tie with GB exists, unless you want to re write history but that is the tactic of totalitarian regimes not free societies.

[Oleg Bach]

Our historical tie with GB exists, unless you want to re write history but that is the tactic of totalitarian regimes not free societies.

You don't deny the existance of your grandfather and your beginings. If you do turn from the past and re-write it..You become the proverbial turnip that fell off the back of the truck. To know where you are going you must know your past. With immigration and so-called multi-culturalism, if we dump our traditional ties with the monarchy then we become like a corporation that loses it's founders vision..totalitarianism and a bleak utilitarian existance without colour or beauty is not for me. To think of a Canada without the queen staring up at you from the surface of a dollar bill is to much to bare..besides - I love spending the queens money...of course it belongs to her. Her picture is on it!

[g_bambino]

We could easily do without the monarchy; mind you, there are more important things to debate. As for Victoria Day... I for one like the idea of celebrating our historical tie with Great Britain.

Could we do without it so easily? Not only is there a cultural aspect to deal with, but, there's a constitutional nightmare awaiting anyone who wants to try and write the monarchy out of it. History is one thing, but federation is quite another. I think Victoria Day should do its double duty of celebrating the past and our cultural roots, and reminding us of our stable constitutional structure built around the Crown by marking the present sovereign's birthday.

Edited May 18, 2008 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

Could we do without it so easily? Not only is there a cultural aspect to deal with, but, there's a constitutional nightmare awaiting anyone who wants to try and write the monarchy out of it. History is one thing, but federation is quite another. I think Victoria Day should do its double duty of celebrating the past and our cultural roots, and reminding us of our stable constitutional structure built around the Crown by marking the present sovereign's birthday.

The House Of Windsor is no paper tiger nor is it some residence for figure heads. The Queen has trememdous finacial and social power. Even Bush seeks her approval..but was just to rude to fit in and was rebuffed. All power is conducted in secret..and the best security is to not exists as a political influence. The Queen is still queen of America - Canada and the rest of the former common wealth..just more low key.

[CANADIEN]

Indeed, the Monarchy is entrenched in our Constitution, and virtually impossible to remove. But it's not exactly like today's Monarchy has that much powers beyond the symbolic. So, while I'd prefer a Canadian and non-hereditary Head of State (remember people, we're getting CHARLES next, almost enough of a reason to be a republican ), there are a lot of far more pressing matters in this world.

And I still say that our historic ties to Great Britain are reason enough to keep Victoria Day.

[g_bambino]

Indeed, the Monarchy is entrenched in our Constitution, and virtually impossible to remove. But it's not exactly like today's Monarchy has that much powers beyond the symbolic. So, while I'd prefer a Canadian and non-hereditary Head of State (remember people, we're getting CHARLES next, almost enough of a reason to be a republican ), there are a lot of far more pressing matters in this world.

And I still say that our historic ties to Great Britain are reason enough to keep Victoria Day.

You have a Canadian as head of state already. A non-hereditary one raises a whole host of issues. Charles will be fine as king, he's been raised his whole life to fit the post, and, besides, by the time he ascends he'll be pretty old, and William is following right behind him.

But, sure, history is a good and imporant thing too.

[Wilber]

You have a Canadian as head of state already. A non-hereditary one raises a whole host of issues. Charles will be fine as king, he's been raised his whole life to fit the post, and, besides, by the time he ascends he'll be pretty old, and William is following right behind him.

But, sure, history is a good and imporant thing too.

I'd take Elizabeth as head of state over most all of the presidents and prime ministers who have served during her reign.

[CANADIEN]

The Queen is not a Canadian. And there might be a lot of problems with an hereditary as well as non-hereditary Head of State; the one advantage of non-hereditary Heads of State is that in a democracy they are not there for life, so if they don't do a good job they can be replaced.

As for Charles, the biggest favour he could do to Great Britain, Canada and the Commonwealth is to step out from the line of succession and let his son become the next King. William may be still a bit young, and he has and will make mistakes, but he is unlikely to ever embarass his country the way Charles has done with his mess of a personal life.

[g_bambino]

The Queen is not a Canadian.

Evidence? The constitution would make it seem otherwise.

As for Charles, the biggest favour he could do to Great Britain, Canada and the Commonwealth is to step out from the line of succession and let his son become the next King.

It's not really up to him alone. The succession isn't purely hereditary, there are laws involved as well. Only with the consent of all his parliaments could Charles abdicate in favour of William - a possibility given what happened in 1936, but would be more difficult today given Canada's constitutional evolution since that time. It does go to show, though, that a monarch may not necessarily be there for life; they can be ousted from the throne or a regent can be put in if the sovereign is deemed unfit to rule.

Edited May 18, 2008 by g_bambino

[Borg]

Well, we tossed Dominion Day for Canada Day and the Union Jack for that silly maple leaf that grows in most of eastern canada - I personally think we should have picked the poplar tree - at least it grows from coast to coast - but I digress - after all what's another tradition or two down the drain?

Borg

[CANADIEN]

Well, we tossed Dominion Day for Canada Day and the Union Jack for that silly maple leaf that grows in most of eastern canada - I personally think we should have picked the poplar tree - at least it grows from coast to coast - but I digress - after all what's another tradition or two down the drain?

Borg

The Union Jack is the British flag. Respecting and honoring our historical connection to Great Britain is one thing, adopting their national symbols instead of creating our own is a quite different. OUR flag tells the world we are Canadians, the Union Jack did not.

As for having "tossed" Dominion Day... good. Dominion Day was fine when we were a British Colony. We now are our own country, thank you very much.

[Remiel]

As much as I would rather have William as King than his father, I must admit that if I do find William more agreeable I should wish Charles a long reign as King so as to spare William the burden. It is something of a paradox.

[CANADIEN]

As much as I would rather have William as King than his father, I must admit that if I do find William more agreeable I should wish Charles a long reign as King so as to spare William the burden. It is something of a paradox.

Won't happen. The Queen is probably another 15 years to live, and I don't think she's gonna abdicate. Charles would be 75 years old by that time. Not a long reign, and if his health or Camilla's is not that good he might very well decide to renounce the throne. By that time, William would be about 40 years old.

[Bryan]

I'm no Royalist, and at one time I used to think dropping the Monarchy was not only a good idea, but something we needed to do.

Now, years later, I'm OK with it. The symbolism and tradition is nice. It doesn't really hold us back from anything, it just adds a layer of character.

[CANADIEN]

I'm no Royalist, and at one time I used to think dropping the Monarchy was not only a good idea, but something we needed to do.

Now, years later, I'm OK with it. The symbolism and tradition is nice. It doesn't really hold us back from anything, it just adds a layer of character.

That's more or less my thinking on the topic.

[g_bambino]

The Union Jack is the British flag. Respecting and honoring our historical connection to Great Britain is one thing, adopting their national symbols instead of creating our own is a quite different. OUR flag tells the world we are Canadians, the Union Jack did not.

As for having "tossed" Dominion Day... good. Dominion Day was fine when we were a British Colony. We now are our own country, thank you very much.

Actually, the Royal Union Flag (Union Jack) is still an official Canadian flag, only just as a symbol to be flown on Commonwealth Day and the like. Canada used to be represented by the Red Ensign, which had a RU in the canton and the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada on the main. I don't particularly dislike that flag, but it was very similar to a number of other flags of ex-British colonies and didn't stand out the way the Maple Leaf flag does.

As for Dominion Day, it wouldn't have been so bad if the word "dominion" didn't come to be synonymous with "self-governing colony of the British Empire." After that it did take on a connotation of subservience, and even the Commonwealth Office dumped the word in the 1950s in favour of "realm," in order to better reflect the equality that had been established amongst the countries.