g_bambino Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 It's typically the job of the head of state of the host country to open the Olympic Games. In Canada's case, of course, we have a stand-in head of state who could also perform the task in the Queen's stead. The Queen opened the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, while the Governor General opened the 1988 Olympics in Calgary. As the 2010 games are only two years off, VANOC and the PMO should be making arrangements for who will open the games. A petition has just recently been started asking for Elizabeth II to perform the duty. If you support the idea, put your name on the list. Invite Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, to Open the 2010 Olympic Games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 It's typically the job of the head of state of the host country to open the Olympic Games. In Canada's case, of course, we have a stand-in head of state who could also perform the task in the Queen's stead. The Queen opened the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, while the Governor General opened the 1988 Olympics in Calgary. As the 2010 games are only two years off, VANOC and the PMO should be making arrangements for who will open the games. A petition has just recently been started asking for Elizabeth II to perform the duty. If you support the idea, put your name on the list.Invite Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, to Open the 2010 Olympic Games Why not the GG if it was he (or she) or did the job in 1988? After all, that it is what the GG's role is - to represent the Queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 Why not the GG if it was he (or she) or did the job in 1988? After all, that it is what the GG's role is - to represent the Queen. I would say because the GG is not the head of state. As you allude to, the GG is just a representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 I would say because the GG is not the head of state. As you allude to, the GG is just a representative. Which is obviously not a problem if the GG opened the Calgary Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 What a load of codswallop. The Olympics should be opened by the Prime Minister. The Queen doesn't even have a seat on the Olympic Committee. I think the Queen is a nice lady. I think it's great that the Brits have a Queen. Why in the name of hell do we need one? As for the Governor General, I think we are missing a big opportunity. I'd like to see this position morph into some sort of diplomatic service ombudsman. OK, not some idiot cabinet minister, but somebody with the same sort of weight as a Supreme Court judge. An experienced diplomat appointed for a limited but specific length of time and with the kind of profile that is needed to protect us when we are abroad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 What a load of codswallop. The Olympics should be opened by the Prime Minister. Goes against IOC rules. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 Goes against IOC rules. Sorry. That sets the protocol. If QEII is not interested and the GG has better things to do then the Olympics will be opened by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 Why in the name of hell do we need one? Exactly. What is so special about the queen anyways? Her DNA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 I think it would be fantastic, and perfectly fitting, if the Queen would open the Olympics. Of course, if something happened to her between now and then, I rescind this wish as I don't want "King" Charles. But maybe Prince William in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 I vote to have a lottery among taxpayers and randomly pick two to open up the games. It is Canadian taxpayers who are picking up the tab for this nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) What a load of codswallop. The Olympics should be opened by the Prime Minister. The Queen doesn't even have a seat on the Olympic Committee. I think the Queen is a nice lady. I think it's great that the Brits have a Queen. Why in the name of hell do we need one?As for the Governor General, I think we are missing a big opportunity. I'd like to see this position morph into some sort of diplomatic service ombudsman. OK, not some idiot cabinet minister, but somebody with the same sort of weight as a Supreme Court judge. An experienced diplomat appointed for a limited but specific length of time and with the kind of profile that is needed to protect us when we are abroad. This is getting to be more and more of a common attitude. It seems to be a reflection of the dilution of our British heritage. I guess I've lived through the transition. I was born in 1952 and in those days we sang God Save Our Queen to open every school day. We all understood that we SHARED a Queen with Britain and that Britain itself did NOT rule us! We were proud of our history. One of our character traits was to be welcoming to peoples from all over the world who came to Canada for a new life. We expected them to be proud of their own memories but to adopt the mainstream Canadian culture. Somehow that all got changed. Those of us with the traditional heritage are now in the minority. Decades of Liberal policies have taught new Canadians that they are hyphenated, with -Canadian second after the hyphen and not first. Our British or even French based history was reduced or even eliminated from our schools, especially our proud service in two world wars. I'm not looking to argue about whether or not this is a good or bad thing. That's a thread that likely could never be resolved. I'm just saying two things. First, while I agree with anyone PRIVATELY supporting an immigrant heritage I'm not at all comfortable with the OFFICIAL policies towards multiculturalism and the devaluing of our traditional culture. There's little or nothing I can do about it but I certainly can refuse to kowtow to it. When people drive around town flying foreign flags from their cars, honking their horns for a soccer win I feel like putting a Canadian flag on my car and cutting into their parade! Second, when someone calls for abolishing the role of our Queen I feel just a little regretful that I helped champion multiculturalism all those years ago. It's like if you welcomed some people into your home and after a few years they want to repaint your decor and change your furniture, without giving a damn how you, the original owner, might feel about it. Oh well, that and $1.50 might get you a large Timmy's... Edited July 18, 2008 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) This is getting to be more and more of a common attitude. It seems to be a reflection of the dilution of our British heritage.First, while I agree with anyone PRIVATELY supporting an immigrant heritage I'm not at all comfortable with the OFFICIAL policies towards multiculturalism and the devaluing of our traditional culture. There's little or nothing I can do about it but I certainly can refuse to kowtow to it. When people drive around town flying foreign flags from their cars, honking their horns for a soccer win I feel like putting a Canadian flag on my car and cutting into their parade! Second, when someone calls for abolishing the role of our Queen I feel just a little regretful that I helped champion multiculturalism all those years ago. It's like if you welcomed some people into your home and after a few years they want to repaint your decor and change your furniture, without giving a damn how you, the original owner, might feel about it. I think it's actually the dilution of Canadian heritage; as rooted in British tradition as it is, it's still distinctly Canada's. People who gripe about the monarchy usually display two key characteristics: They hate anything that's even remotely associated with Britain; riding on the victim bandwagon, they use multiculturalism and Charter rights to strike down what parts of English Canada's traditions that they personally find offensive (note: French Canadian culture is untouchable). On the periphery are those who support this type of victim thinking; they don't personally see British-inspired traditions as offensive, but ride along with those who cry opporession because it's fashionable to be caring and sensitive. Usually combined with this, and indeed what helps fuel this type of anti-British sentiment, is a complete ignorance about how the constitution and all systems of government - cabinet, parliament, the courts, the military, the police - operate. From that, the routine workings of British parliamentary government appears so efficient that people (like a few on these forums) feel free to criticize the authority under which such efficiency takes place. They don't realise at all that it is a fine line holding it all together; remove the Crown and the prime minister may begin to think that the state is him. Ignore the Crown, humiliate it, try to kick it down, but one cannot assume it. Its obsintate power to deny others its authority it its ultimate weapon. It says something about the selfishness of certain individuals when they stomp their feet and pout because all this 1000 years of constitutional evolution gets in the way of what they want, ironically using that very system to achieve their goal of destroying it. At the same time, I suppose, that system has, for the past few decades, been telling people that what they want, individually, is of paramount importance, culture and history be damned. Edited July 18, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 Which is obviously not a problem if the GG opened the Calgary Olympics. Not a problem. Just inferior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 Not a problem. Just inferior. So the Calgary Olympics were inferior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 So the Calgary Olympics were inferior? Only in as much as who opened them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 Only in as much as who opened them. And nobody remembers and nobody cares. As will be case in Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 And nobody remembers and nobody cares. As will be case in Vancouver. If the more globally known figure doesn't open them, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 If the more globally known figure doesn't open them, yes. The success of the Vancouver Olympics will be determined by the quality of the athletic endeavor not who presides over the opening ceremony. Similarly, who opens the Beijing Olympics is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 The success of the Vancouver Olympics will be determined by the quality of the athletic endeavor not who presides over the opening ceremony. Similarly, who opens the Beijing Olympics is irrelevant. The quality of the endeavour includes the opening ceremony, which itself includes who is in attendance. I don't think its a disputable fact that more people around the world will recognise the Queen as opposed to her Canadian viceroy. That alone means that her front-and-centre presence in itself increases the impact of the games' opening. The GG opening the games won't make the ceremonies a disaster, just less than what they could be. This was a phenomenon understood by the organizers of Quebec City's 400th; they wanted the Queen there to increase interest and the stature of their event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 The GG opening the games won't make the ceremonies a disaster, just less than what they could be. This was a phenomenon understood by the organizers of Quebec City's 400th; they wanted the Queen there to increase interest and the stature of their event. Don't worry. Paul McCartney will make up for her absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Don't worry. Paul McCartney will make up for her absence. Who's worried? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) The success of the Vancouver Olympics will be determined by the quality of the athletic endeavor not who presides over the opening ceremony. Similarly, who opens the Beijing Olympics is irrelevant.IOW, the Olympics are a propaganda show.Why am I taxed to pay for a show that I don't watch or enjoy? If a backward, third world amateur government in Beijing wants to use old propaganda techniques to attempt to show that it's "iPod-brand-modern", then fine. Let it choose foolishly and make a fool of itself. But I object to living in a sophisticated modern country where a government attempts the same through my (federal) taxes. Pierre Trudeau refused to give any federal money to the Montreal 1976 Olympics. I hope no federal money is going to these 2010 Olympics. You want a show? Pay for it yourself. Edited July 20, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 IOW, it's a show.Why am I taxed to pay for a show that I don't watch or enjoy? If a backward, third world amateur government in Beijing wants to think that it's iPod brand modern, then fine. Let it choose foolishly. But I object to live in a sophisticated modern country where a government attempts the same through my (federal) taxes. Pierre Trudeau refused to give any federal money to the Montreal 1976 Olympics. I hope no federal money is going to these 2010 Olympics.l The Olympics has no credability - it's a dead tradition - after this China thing...it can no longer be viewed as a good thing...the movement has been hyjacked by wicked jerks...imagine having games in a place where you can not breath the air and where non-compliant workers are tortured and killed? No matter where the games are held - it's over.....How in the name of goodness can you have games in a place where under the stadiums in the dungeons - some creeps are cutting the liver out of a so-called political prisoner and selling it to some chump in India or America for a few thousand bucks...lets be honest - if cannibalizm was legal and accepted in the world...China would have a million people hung on meat hooks.......besides - do we really need new land fill walmart garbage that breaks when you touch it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Why is it that the strident republicans are always the ones who also seem to be high of having a strong military, yet they are essentially disrespecting the sacrifices that our veterans made in fighting for the Empire during the Boer War, WWI and WWII. The Queen is our head-of-state, that's simply the way it is; that is our system, a system that derives from the most successful and long-standing democratic tradition in the modern world. People who go around advocating republicanism are borderline traitors; they want to undermine a system that works relatively well and is more flexible in adapting to the changing modern world and want to replace it with a system that breed corruption and time and again has been proven to be inherently flawed. That said, whether of not the Queen is able to come to Canada in 2010, I think it's a role best suited for Prince Charles. Let's hope that he has the chance to come here prior to that, too--but of course the government is trying to keep this from happening, as it has already several times in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Why is it that the strident republicans are always the ones who also seem to be high of having a strong military, yet they are essentially disrespecting the sacrifices that our veterans made in fighting for the Empire during the Boer War, WWI and WWII. The Queen is our head-of-state, that's simply the way it is; that is our system, a system that derives from the most successful and long-standing democratic tradition in the modern world. People who go around advocating republicanism are borderline traitors; they want to undermine a system that works relatively well and is more flexible in adapting to the changing modern world and want to replace it with a system that breed corruption and time and again has been proven to be inherently flawed. That said, whether of not the Queen is able to come to Canada in 2010, I think it's a role best suited for Prince Charles. Let's hope that he has the chance to come here prior to that, too--but of course the government is trying to keep this from happening, as it has already several times in the past. As a kid I actually knew and old man that fought in the Boer War - which is off topic - as for the Queen - it was her who opened up the door to my father and gave him santuary after WW2 - I was born under the Queen's wardship...for that I am thankful..BUT.. the Queen does have a lot of power and is not some silly figure head...she is also the head of what is left of the Christian church - the doctrines that prospered the Empire and the doctrines my family was persecuted for by the Soviets and the Nazis. To be honest with you ...I would rather have a queen than a democracy run by the mob...and if you look at the fools to the south..crimminal enterprise has taken over America. Having said that - it was comforting whent the Queen snubbed Bush and Cheney for being white trash - via Tony Blair - with her instruction and blessing....corporational rule stinks...Jezz I guess that makes me a royalist - don't tell anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.