The Federal Republic of Canada

[no queenslave]

How True.

I might add, the Queen holds no citizenship British or Canadian.

In fact she bestows citizenship for ALL countries she is head of state.

You could very well say that the Queen is more Canadian than 'no queenslave'.

you could say it but that has nothing to do with the fact that i am more Canadian then any figerhead ever will be.

[kengs333]

My rationale for ending the monarchy in Canada is discussed in this thread.

There is no reason for "ending the monarchy in Canada". Absolutely none.

[August1991]

There is no reason for "ending the monarchy in Canada". Absolutely none.

Do you think it's reasonable to have Canada's Head of State chosen solely by birth?

Canada can remain a member of the Commonwealth, reflecting a British heritage, but we should become a Federal Republic.

[kengs333]

Since John Manley is in the news now, I saw this quote of his:CBC

You see, even John Manley doesn't understand what he's talking about, yet look at the positions that he's held in Canadian government... No republican can make an argument against the monarchy without making false, misleading or inaccurate statements.

[Melanie_]

There is no reason for "ending the monarchy in Canada". Absolutely none.

What is your reason for keeping it? Can you rebutt my argument regarding freedom of religion?

[kengs333]

Do you think it's reasonable to have Canada's Head of State chosen solely by birth?

Yes, absolutely. Monarchs are educated and bound by a sense of duty to an extent that far exceeds that of any elected Head-of-State. The Monarch's sole purpose is to govern; elected Head-of-States simply take on the role of leadership temporarily, and in many cases attain their position because they represent certain interests rather than have the necessary qualifications. Look at the United States and the presidents that it has elected--spoiled sons, mediocre actors and peanut farmers...

Canada can remain a member of the Commonwealth, reflecting a British heritage, but we should become a Federal Republic.

Do you really think so? I highly doubt it.

[kengs333]

What is your reason for keeping it? Can you rebutt my argument regarding freedom of religion?

We keep it because it is the best form of government devised.

[Melanie_]

We keep it because it is the best form of government devised.

This is rather brief. Can you elaborate?

[bush_cheney2004]

Look at the United States and the presidents that it has elected--spoiled sons, mediocre actors and peanut farmers...

This has worked for the Americans, who had to govern a nation after specifically booting a spoiled king in the ass. Maybe it was easier just being a vassal and minion of another, but certainly not acceptable.

Edited October 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

I haven't followed this thread all the way through but there is one advantage to having a head of state that is not elected in that everything they do is not politically motivated.

[no queenslave]

August, out of interest could you type out a factual list of what makes a switch from a constituational Monarchy to a republic that much better. I am not by any means a strong supporter of remaining apart of the commonwealth, but I also have yet to see a convincing arguement for change. I sometiems wonder if it would cause more pain, more trouble, and more anger then it is worth.

On a side note, it would have been nice to have a poll for us to vote in to go along with this thread.

if you took the time to learn how much fraud and lies were used in the passing of the bna act and what was supposed to be its purpose you would be against the monarchy; or you must be part of the corrupt government.

Get a copy of the Quebec resolutions that were supposed to be the bases of the bna act and you will see direct taxes were to be a power the colonies were not willing to give to a united Canada. Not only did they not give us a sovereign country ; but kept canada as united colony using the term dominion, which was the legal definition of a united colony. After much complaining -to clarify the matter the statute of westminster was passed to give the people and provinces their independence ; but like all dictators the federal government did not allow the provinces and people to form the type of government and constitution the desiyered. This country was formed and run on lies and fraud from day one in the name of the monarchy. Any Canadian who supports the monarch supports fraud.

[Pliny]

if you took the time to learn how much fraud and lies were used in the passing of the bna act and what was supposed to be its purpose you would be against the monarchy; or you must be part of the corrupt government.

Get a copy of the Quebec resolutions that were supposed to be the bases of the bna act and you will see direct taxes were to be a power the colonies were not willing to give to a united Canada. Not only did they not give us a sovereign country ; but kept canada as united colony using the term dominion, which was the legal definition of a united colony. After much complaining -to clarify the matter the statute of westminster was passed to give the people and provinces their independence ; but like all dictators the federal government did not allow the provinces and people to form the type of government and constitution the desiyered. This country was formed and run on lies and fraud from day one in the name of the monarchy. Any Canadian who supports the monarch supports fraud.

It is a fact that the government of Canada represents the Crown, is it not? How is that fraudulent? And if the current structure is fraudulent how has that hurt you personally? The Queen is interested in the welfare of her loyal subjects and asks that governments of the commonwealth treat them respectfully so long as they remain loyal to the laws of the nation.

Without the Crown would we have the socio-political economic stability we currently enjoy? Would we be like the United States or have an installed puppet dictatorship like that of some third world countries? We definitely would not have been able to militarily defend our borders and our resources are quite valuable. I think the British Commonwealth has afforded us some protections.

What was the type of government and constitution the people desired when the country was formed?

[kengs333]

This has worked for the Americans, who had to govern a nation after specifically booting a spoiled king in the ass. Maybe it was easier just being a vassal and minion of another, but certainly not acceptable.

One can easily argue that the government of the United States is corrupt and further removed from the average citizen than the Monarchy. Whatever the case, if you are content being governed by "spoiled sons, mediocre actors and peanut farmers" then that's your problem; I prefer an enlightened Head-of-State, one whose sole purpose is to govern. Truth of the matter is that many Americans are fascinated by the Monarchy, I suppose because they recognize it as a more stable and enlightened form of governance.

[bush_cheney2004]

Truth of the matter is that many Americans are fascinated by the Monarchy, I suppose because they recognize it as a more stable and enlightened form of governance.

No, the monarchy is fascinating to them in the same way as any celebrity (e.g. Brittney Spears). They didn't give a damn about the efficacy of governance when watching the Princess Di fiasco.

Truth of the matter is that the US was founded by specifically and categorically rejecting any such notion of spoiled blood lines and governance by incest.

Gode save the Queen.

[g_bambino]

IT is time to stop the colonial rule of Canada with all it's corrupt institutions.and civil servents.

Don't you think Canadians are finally educated enough to formulate their own constitution instead of using an old colonial bill drafted by politicians and their lawyers to benefit them; imposed on us as our constitution?

Canada's constitution is a product of evolution; it is not one single document composed by any one particular set of politicians, and its foundations rest actually on unwritten prinicipals going back at least 300 years. I honestly do not think Canadians are educated enough to write a constitution, let alone a superior one to what we have now; most can barely manage proper grammar, let alone constitutional law-making. However, we do have the ability to express our discontent and/or our desires with and/or for how we are governed; if we don't speak up enough about it then its nobody's fault but our own; it certainly isn't the constitution's.

[g_bambino]

she does not live in Canada and is a foreigner by such definition. I know more about our corrupt form of government then you will ever take the time to learn; all you know is what you have been indoctrinated to believe-propaganda.Will you admit Canada was a colony until 1931?In you

learning when did the sovereign people of Canada ratify a constitution? Remember the bill was called and pased as the BNA Act not the constitution of Canada.

Is it not a little narrow-minded to define someone's "foreignness" by where they live? I didn't live in Canada for over a year; did that mean I became a foreigner to my own country?

If all executive authority is vested in the Queen, she is the kingpin of our constitution, all our laws are enacted with her (or her deligate's signature), she is the locus of allegiance as the personal embodiment of the state, and citizenship itself stems from her, how in god's name could she be considered a foreigner?

[g_bambino]

My rationale for ending the monarchy in Canada is discussed in this thread.

Is it really necessary to abolish the entire institution for the sake of one law? Seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[g_bambino]

Do you think it's reasonable to have Canada's Head of State chosen solely by birth?

Don't be so disingenuous. You know full well our head of state isn't chosen solely by birth.

[kengs333]

No, the monarchy is fascinating to them in the same way as any celebrity (e.g. Brittney Spears). They didn't give a damn about the efficacy of governance when watching the Princess Di fiasco.

The Monarchy and Princess Diana are two different things; many people who admire(d) and adore(d) Princess Diana hate the Monarchy because they feel that Princess Diana was a victim (which she wasn't) of Royal Family intrigues. What we are talking about is more than Royal watching--it's about a system of governance that a number of Americans acknowledge as superior to the current system.

Truth of the matter is that the US was founded by specifically and categorically rejecting any such notion of spoiled blood lines and governance by incest.

Actually, the American Revolution was instigated by a small group of elites who were frustrated by economic restrictions, not the marriage habits of the monarchy. Let's not forget that many of these rebels were siring illegitimate children with their slaves, were involved in Free Masonry and other questionable ideological beliefs. The result has been nothing short of embarrassing; leaders of questionable intellect and ability, corruption, an ever increasingly tyranical government... (Didn't Plato state that all Republics degenerate into tyranies?) Currently, the American government is influenced more by foreign interests than the will of the people... It's certainly not a model of government to be envied.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Monarchy and Princess Diana are two different things; many people who admire(d) and adore(d) Princess Diana hate the Monarchy because they feel that Princess Diana was a victim (which she wasn't) of Royal Family intrigues. What we are talking about is more than Royal watching--it's about a system of governance that a number of Americans acknowledge as superior to the current system.

No, they are one and the same...rejected by Canada and America alike. A sad tale of an Empire lost as the minions had no more need for monarchy's obsolescence..

Actually, the American Revolution was instigated by a small group of elites who were frustrated by economic restrictions, not the marriage habits of the monarchy. Let's not forget that many of these rebels were siring illegitimate children with their slaves, were involved in Free Masonry and other questionable ideological beliefs.

Yes...these institutions came from the monarchy!

The result has been nothing short of embarrassing; leaders of questionable intellect and ability, corruption, an ever increasingly tyranical government... (Didn't Plato state that all Republics degenerate into tyranies?) Currently, the American government is influenced more by foreign interests than the will of the people... It's certainly not a model of government to be envied.

Nor duplicated.....300,000,000 and growing strong....one vote to a customer....and no need to bow heads, kiss rings, or curtsey. Funny part is that the "much superior" monarchy had to borrow money and blood from the mongrel rebels just to survive.

[August1991]

Don't be so disingenuous. You know full well our head of state isn't chosen solely by birth.

True. They can get disqualified if they marry an American divorcee.

[Pliny]

Actually, the American Revolution was instigated by a small group of elites who were frustrated by economic restrictions, not the marriage habits of the monarchy. Let's not forget that many of these rebels were siring illegitimate children with their slaves, were involved in Free Masonry and other questionable ideological beliefs. The result has been nothing short of embarrassing; leaders of questionable intellect and ability, corruption, an ever increasingly tyranical government... (Didn't Plato state that all Republics degenerate into tyranies?) Currently, the American government is influenced more by foreign interests than the will of the people... It's certainly not a model of government to be envied.

"Nothing short of embarrassing."?

Well, we know you are just puffing up your chest.. I find it hard to believe that you haven't noticed the influence of America in the world, even discounting all of it's governments activities.

It is my opinion that the original model was something the general populaces of European countries looked upon with envy, while the nobility arrogantly scoffed at it as an oddity bent on failure.

We can presume you are not in need of improving your standard of living.

[g_bambino]

True. They can get disqualified if they marry an American divorcee.

Exactly. The sovereign reigns at the behest of his or her people.

[g_bambino]

No, they are one and the same...rejected by Canada and America alike. A sad tale of an Empire lost as the minions had no more need for monarchy's obsolescence..

Yes...these institutions came from the monarchy!

Nor duplicated.....300,000,000 and growing strong....one vote to a customer....and no need to bow heads, kiss rings, or curtsey. Funny part is that the "much superior" monarchy had to borrow money and blood from the mongrel rebels just to survive.

Bow heads and kiss rings perhaps not (god forbid anyone should show respect), but scrub for money, pander to special interest groups, and kiss ass, definitely.

The American system is merely an adaptation of monarchy without the idea of responsible government; it's certainly no coincidence that in the two and a half centuries since the American revolution only three or four other countries around the world have adopted the American congressional system, while almost every other has a form of Westminster parliamentary democracy, despite the fact that the US grew to be the most powerful country amongst them all. This is most likely because America achieved this not because its constitution was superior, but because it reaped vast wealth through slavery and a pretty hubristic idea of manifest destiny; just as how the British Empire came to be, minus all the CIA interference with the politics and regimes of other nations.

With slavery long gone, and difficulty in maintaining its empire in a post-modern world, regard as America's domain begins to fracture before our eyes while the president becomes more tyrannical than any Brit/Canadian monarch has been for something like 300 years. The US may be 300 million strong, but India and China got that population beat down-pat, and they've got the near-slave labour now.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bow heads and kiss rings perhaps not (god forbid anyone should show respect), but scrub for money, pander to special interest groups, and kiss ass, definitely.

Yes, but anybody can rise to such distinction in America....not so in a monarchy.

...despite the fact that the US grew to be the most powerful country amongst them all. This is most likely because America achieved this not because its constitution was superior, but because it reaped vast wealth through slavery and a pretty hubristic idea of manifest destiny; just as how the British Empire came to be, minus all the CIA interference with the politics and regimes of other nations.

Of course...no slavery or manifest destiny in the British Empire...LOL! The Americans did it faster and 'mo better....even taking pause to help the old girl out during WW2.

With slavery long gone, and difficulty in maintaining its empire in a post-modern world, regard as America's domain begins to fracture before our eyes while the president becomes more tyrannical than any Brit/Canadian monarch has been for something like 300 years. The US may be 300 million strong, but India and China got that population beat down-pat, and they've got the near-slave labour now.

The "Canadian monarchy" is still trying to figure out Quebec! Tell us more about "fracture".