The Federal Republic of Canada

[g_bambino]

If we give up on what made this country great and become a republic, then we might as well, become the 51st state and that exactly what will happen.

That's a bit of a stretch. By politicising our head of state, Canada might culturally move slightly closer to the US, the degree to which depending on the type of republic adopted. But I hightly doubt the country would be one step away from union with its southern neighbour.

[Sukhpreet Singh]

Of course Canada should be a republic (i.e get rid of the monarchy) the monarchy is a symbol of oppresion and undemocratic principals regardless if the queen has no power. This notion that it separated us from the U.S. and therefore we should keep it to be different is a stupid argument. The people will create the countries identity. I have high regard for the founders of America who did not adopt this despotism style which is still symbolizes. The system where one is privileged because of who is born to is rediculous, besides the only reason these people have the label queen and king beside them is because their ancestors looted and killed more people and their opponents, otherwise they are human beings just like you and me. You bitch about democratic principals and preach to the world that we are democratic and others should follow, make sure we are practicing full democratic principals first including mere symbols.

[g_bambino]

Of course Canada should be a republic (i.e get rid of the monarchy) the monarchy is a symbol of oppresion and undemocratic principals regardless if the queen has no power. This notion that it separated us from the U.S. and therefore we should keep it to be different is a stupid argument. The people will create the countries identity. I have high regard for the founders of America who did not adopt this despotism style which is still symbolizes. The system where one is privileged because of who is born to is rediculous, besides the only reason these people have the label queen and king beside them is because their ancestors looted and killed more people and their opponents, otherwise they are human beings just like you and me. You bitch about democratic principals and preach to the world that we are democratic and others should follow, make sure we are practicing full democratic principals first including mere symbols.

There's so much nonsense in this "argument" it's impossible to know where to begin. Do you think this is 750AD Mercia? Please look into information on the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution Acts 1867 through 1982, and the concept of constitutional monarchy in general.

[Sukhpreet Singh]

There's so much nonsense in this "argument" it's impossible to know where to begin. Do you think this is 750AD Mercia? Please look into information on the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution Acts 1867 through 1982, and the concept of constitutional monarchy in general.

typical monarchist idiot. It wont change the fact that the monarchy is completely against democratic principals, it wont change the fact of the history of the monarchy( which is full of despotic rule) i dont care if the monarchy is "constitutional" now it is still symbolic of what monarchy really means. Its time we abolish it.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Sukhpreet Singh

[Smallc]

So then your argument is based on something that no longer is...and you call other people idiots?

[Sukhpreet Singh]

So then your argument is based on something that no longer is...and you call other people idiots?

If one calls my arguement of a monarchy in all its forms being undemocratic and a symbol of tyranny nonesense then yes i think you need to give your head a shake. The monarch is not elected, it is determined by someone's birth(which is completely against a free society and any principals of equality). There should be no arguement there thats common sense.

[Smallc]

Oh, so you're one of those people that think democracy starts and ends with voting. Now I understand your misguided opinion.

You see, our constitutional democracy provides a stable platform in which our democratic institutions are able to exist. Some of the most successful democracies on the planet are constitutional monarchies. Norway, Japan, the Netherlands....

[g_bambino]

It wont change the fact that the monarchy is completely against democratic principals, it wont change the fact of the history of the monarchy( which is full of despotic rule) i dont care if the monarchy is "constitutional" now it is still symbolic of what monarchy really means.

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying any less inane. To build your case, you first have to show 1) how the monarchy is "completely against" democratic priniples (especially in light of the fact that a number of other countries around the world both have monarchies and are considered democracies), 2) when the monarchy has ever been "despotic", and 3) why misconceived symbolism matters more than facts and rational thought.

[g_bambino]

The monarch is not elected, it is determined by someone's birth...

...and succession laws passed and subsequently supported by generations of parliamentarians elected as representatives of the political majority. So, your point is...?

[+]

Edited November 3, 2011 by g_bambino

[wyly]

Oh, so you're one of those people that think democracy starts and ends with voting. Now I understand your misguided opinion.

You see, our constitutional democracy provides a stable platform in which our democratic institutions are able to exist. Some of the most successful democracies on the planet are constitutional monarchies. Norway, Japan, the Netherlands....

monarchies are totally irrelevant to democracy, democracy thrives in spite of monarchies which are the antithesis of democracy...

[Smallc]

monarchies are totally irrelevant to democracy, democracy thrives in spite of monarchies which are the antithesis of democracy...

Since that doesn't seem to be the case at all, you're going to have to provide some evidence. Many successful democracies follow a model that is very close to that of constitutional monarchies, even when they're republics.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Yea, monarchies are great...why just this past week the Commonwealth agreed that the line of succession should not be biased towards kinfolk with testicles instead of ovaries. Welcome to the 20th century!

[Wilber]

Yea, monarchies are great...why just this past week the Commonwealth agreed that the line of succession should not be biased towards kinfolk with testicles instead of ovaries. Welcome to the 20th century!

And yet, female prime ministers are not uncommon in the Commonwealth. How many presidents with ovaries have you had? I was going to say without testicles but that would be debatable.

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet, female prime ministers are not uncommon in the Commonwealth. How many presidents with ovaries have you had? I was going to say without testicles but that would be debatable.

There have been lots of female presidents in republics, and candidates in the US with the opportunity to occupy the office. They were not excluded by royal sexism, which is different from Canada's prime minister.

[Wilber]

There have been lots of female presidents in republics, and candidates in the US with the opportunity to occupy the office. They were not excluded by royal sexism, which is different from Canada's prime minister.

Canada has had a female prime minister, so has New Zealand and Australia currently has one. Even though the succession goes through the male line, females are not excluded. Some of Britain's greatest monarchs have been female, Victoria and the two Elizabeth's come to mind. Since the Empire became the Commonwealth, it has had only one monarch, the present Queen. Most of the Commonwealth's inhabitants have only known a female monarch. When she goes, using the term "King" will seem very strange to a lot of people, including Americans. It did when Victoria died and Elizabeth will be around even longer than her. As both Charles and William were first born, it will be some time before gender becomes a real issue in the succession.

On the other hand, if you weren't US born or born to US citizens, forget about being President.

[g_bambino]

Since that doesn't seem to be the case at all, you're going to have to provide some evidence.

You shouldn't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for him to offer up his plan for getting rid of and replacing a supposedly "irrelevant" institution.

[g_bambino]

Even though the succession goes through the male line, females are not excluded...

On the other hand, if you weren't US born or born to US citizens, forget about being President.

There's always going to have to be limitations on who can become head of state. In republics, there are written rules that exclude, as there are in monarchies. But, since presidents are also politicians, who must run in elections and be elected, there develop in republics additional unwritten factors limiting who can and cannot become HoS. Hell, it's not so infrequently that family dynasties emerge in republics, anyway; just politically powerful ones; which, ironically, is more akin to absolute monarchy than most actual monarchies.

[c/e]

Edited November 4, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has had a female prime minister, so has New Zealand and Australia currently has one. Even though the succession goes through the male line, females are not excluded.

Just barely...she was turfed in short order. You go girl!

Some of Britain's greatest monarchs have been female, Victoria and the two Elizabeth's come to mind. Since the Empire became the Commonwealth, it has had only one monarch, the present Queen. Most of the Commonwealth's inhabitants have only known a female monarch. When she goes, using the term "King" will seem very strange to a lot of people, including Americans.

Don't be silly....we go to Burger King all the time for Whoppers.

It did when Victoria died and Elizabeth will be around even longer than her. As both Charles and William were first born, it will be some time before gender becomes a real issue in the succession.

Great...monarch for life...such a deal.

On the other hand, if you weren't US born or born to US citizens, forget about being President.

..and if you're Catholic, no royal jelly for you.

[wyly]

Canada has had a female prime minister, so has New Zealand and Australia currently has one.

canada has never elected a female PM...

On the other hand, if you weren't US born or born to US citizens, forget about being President.

even so an american has a much better chance of being elected president than you becoming a queen... Edited November 4, 2011 by wyly

[Smallc]

canada has never elected a female PM...

Yes actually, we have....as an MP. We don't elect prime ministers.

[Smallc]

even so an american has a much better chance of being elected president than you becoming a queen...

Only if the American was born in America.

[wyly]

Only if the American was born in America.

and a canadian born anywhere has no chance of becoming queen...

[Smallc]

and a canadian born anywhere has no chance of becoming queen...

It is technically possible, but regardless, they can be the Governor General of Canada.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

canada has never elected a female PM...

Canada has never elected a prime minister. But, I'll assume you mean: Canada's never had a female PM. In response to that, two words: Kim Campbell.

even so an american has a much better chance of being elected president than you becoming a queen...

That depends on which American you're talking about. It's possible for anyone to become Canada's monarch; they just have to get the laws changed by the federal and provincial parliaments. It's difficult, but not impossible. Just like it is for a lot of Americans to become president.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only if the American was born in America.

Not true...John McCain was born in Panama.