The Federal Republic of Canada

[ScottSA]

Yes. I had a public education and am proud of it. PS ?? in NYC in 1963-4, Quaker Ridge School in Scarsdale, New York from Fall 1964-Spring 1971 and Scarsale High School from Fall 1971 to Spring 1975, then Cornell University (private) and Boston University Law School (private).

Prol. We used to send our used ascots to your type, eh wot? *sniff*

http://www.s-sm.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1

[jbg]

Well, can't complain about your education regarding history. I learned most of what I know on my own and that isn't much. Public schools weren't too bad when you and I went to school. There was some experimentation with things such as the New math and the whole language method of teaching reading today they indoctrinate kids with political claptrap like the Gore documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth"

I was at a blue rodeo concert tonight in NYC. I met a 27ish woman from of all places Winnipeg who did not know who Louis Riel (apparently a Manitoba NDP and Francophone hero, though a rank traitor) was.

I am waiting for no queenslave to answer g_bambino's latest post.

You'll be waiting a while.

[August1991]

Bump.

Vote.

[jbg]

Bump.

Vote.

I "voted" for a constitutional monarchy. Sometimes I wish we could have one too.

[August1991]

Hi, I've always thought that how Canada works was like how the U.S.A worked. A constitutional republic, with the Queen on the top for symbolic purposes, or purposes I could never really understand. So then I got to thinking, what is the point of that? As a result to this thought, I looked some things up.. and it turns out that when you join the Canadian army, you don't pledge your allegiance to the constitution nor the Canadian Flag. You pledge allegiance to the Queen and her Crown.

Intrigued by this, I looked it up.

Hchech, you're right:

A Canadian army captain has lost his fight to be exempt from requirements to display loyalty to Queen Elizabeth.

Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh's appeal was struck down by a Federal Court judge on Monday.

Mac Giolla Chainnigh, who lives in Ottawa and teaches physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., was trying to overturn a decision by Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of Canada's defence staff.

CBC

----

This is wrong and it hurts Canada in numerous ways. The young women and men serving in Afghansitan are not there because of "Queen Elizabeth". They are serving us all, and our basic principles.

I am truly offended that a federal officer must pledge an allegiance to the British Queen. Canada, surely, is more than that.

If Canada is to be whole, we must openly decide our own affairs our own way.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I'm in favour. Any monarchists on the bench? I'll argue, and happily explain why you're wrong.

I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it. Why the heck is that foreign face on our money anyway?

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians.

So, is Canada a "real" country?

Wow... That's a REALLY OLD thread

And here's me thinking I brought it up for the first time:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=11840

[cybercoma]

I'm all for continuing to have the Queen on our money and the Lieutenant-Governors and Governor-General as a way to remind the French that they lost the war yet were still allowed to keep their language and identity.

[jbg]

If Canada is to be whole, we must openly decide our own affairs our own way.

The problem is that changing the symbols has not brought Quebec on board. Canada has:

1. Changed the flag from the red ensign to the maple leaf. Has that brought Quebec onside?
   
2. Repatriated the Constitution. Has that brought Quebec onside?
   
3. Eliminated "royal" from the names of the variouis armed forces services and merged those. Has that brought Quebec onside?
   
4. Eliminated royal references from passports and many other government documents. Has that brought Quebec onside?
   
5. Instituted official bi-lingualism and allowed Quebec to go renegade on the rights of English speakers. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   

When and where will the appeasement stop? Is there any reason to believe that changing the oath in the armed services will accomplish anything?

Edited to fix spelling of "brought".

Edited October 6, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

I'm all for continuing to have the Queen on our money and the Lieutenant-Governors and Governor-General as a way to remind the French that they lost the war yet were still allowed to keep their language and identity.

Yes, many do forget that many issues were settled at the Plains of Abraham. There is some value to finality in any contest.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The problem is that changing the symbols has not brought Quebec on board. Canada has:

1. Changed the flag from the red ensign to the maple leaf. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   
2. Repatriated the Constitution. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   
3. Eliminated "royal" from the names of the variouis armed forces services and merged those. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   
4. Eliminated royal references from passports and many other government documents. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   
5. Instituted official bi-lingualism and allowed Quebec to go renegade on the rights of English speakers. Has that brough Quebec onside?
   

When and where will the appeasement stop? Is there any reason to believe that changing the oath in the armed services will accomplish anything?

Quebec aside, I think our country needs to move away from its colonial past and start looking into the futre.

Let UK have their queen, let us have our democracy.

[cybercoma]

Quebec aside, I think our country needs to move away from its colonial past and start looking into the futre.

Let UK have their queen, let us have our democracy.

Why? What purpose does it serve? How is being a constitutional monarchy affecting you?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Why? What purpose does it serve? How is being a constitutional monarchy affecting you?

As I said in the other thread I find the concept of Monarchy itself insulting.

As a free man the last thing I want to be is "subject" to an authoritarian entity.

[g_bambino]

This is wrong and it hurts Canada in numerous ways. The young women and men serving in Afghansitan are not there because of "Queen Elizabeth". They are serving us all, and our basic principles.

I am truly offended that a federal officer must pledge an allegiance to the British Queen. Canada, surely, is more than that.

If Canada is to be whole, we must openly decide our own affairs our own way.

yawn... That's just more of the usual nationalistic jingoism and purposefully misleading insinuations, August. Surely you've come up with something more original than that by now.

[g_bambino]

Let UK have their queen, let us have our democracy.

Uh huh... because the UK is a dictatorship and we are still its colony? Vive la révolution! And so on, and so forth.

As I said in the other thread I find the concept of Monarchy itself insulting.

As a free man the last thing I want to be is "subject" to an authoritarian entity.

Then you must find the whole concept of society, management, and government insulting, what with its oppressive customs, etiquette, laws, and the like. I bet you give everyone the finger if they tell you what to do. Must be hard for you to hold down a job.

Edited October 5, 2008 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

As I said in the other thread I find the concept of Monarchy itself insulting.

As a free man the last thing I want to be is "subject" to an authoritarian entity.

You're a subject to the laws of Canada whether we're a constitutional monarchy or not. You also have to obey the Canadian authorities (ie: local police, RCMP, judges, etc) when it comes to the application of those laws.

Regardless, you've agreed to a contract with our society. You, knowing that the head of state is the Queen, have committed yourself even more so than others who might be unaware. By staying in this society, you agree to accept all that the Queen and our constitutional monarchy provide for you, in return you accept her as the monarch. If you are not willing to accept her, nor the constitutional monarchy, you're free to leave that contract, and give up all that is offered through her, by going to another nation that does not recognize her majesty, the Queen.

Edited October 6, 2008 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And if none of that is good enough, the Queen and Governor General only serve in ceremony anyway. They don't hold any functional power in Canada and as such, getting rid of them is a moot point.

If you want to really stir some crap, talk about bringing back the Annexation Manifesto.

Edited October 6, 2008 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

And if none of that is good enough, the Queen and Governor General only serve in ceremony anyway. They don't hold any functional power in Canada and as such, getting rid of them is a moot point.

Well, that's not completely true. They are predominanlty seen acting in a ceremonial manner, but if the Crown is removed then all power of the state resides in a vacume, up for grabs by anyone who wants it. As I said elsewhere, the main function of the Queen and her viceroy is to hold power away from the politicians.

[independent]

Intrigued by this, I looked it up.

Hchech, you're right:CBC

----

This is wrong and it hurts Canada in numerous ways. The young women and men serving in Afghansitan are not there because of "Queen Elizabeth". They are serving us all, and our basic principles.

I am truly offended that a federal officer must pledge an allegiance to the British Queen. Canada, surely, is more than that.

If Canada is to be whole, we must openly decide our own affairs our own way.

They do not pledge their allegiance to the British Queen they pledge their allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II who acts as both the British Queen and the Canadian Queen. Trudeau had our constitution repatriated so we have not been under England for quite some time.

[August1991]

They do not pledge their allegiance to the British Queen they pledge their allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II who acts as both the British Queen and the Canadian Queen. Trudeau had our constitution repatriated so we have not been under England for quite some time.

If you want to believe that absurd fiction, go ahead.

In the meantime, explain to me how any Canadian can ever become "Queen of Canada"? Think about it. No Canadian will ever become our head of state. In fact, the only way to become Canada's head of state is to be born into a specific family.

This is nepotism on a horrendous scale. I can't believe that any civilized society in the 21st century would decide its head of state in such a manner. If one argues that our head of state is purely a "symbolic, figurehead", then I say more reason for us not to let birth choose the person.

What kind of symbol does the Queen represent? "To succeed in life, choose your parents well."

You're a subject to the laws of Canada whether we're a constitutional monarchy or not. You also have to obey the Canadian authorities (ie: local police, RCMP, judges, etc) when it comes to the application of those laws.

And PoliticalCitizen is also entitled to point out when the laws are ridiculous and need to be changed. Edited October 6, 2008 by August1991

[g_bambino]

They do not pledge their allegiance to the British Queen they pledge their allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II who acts as both the British Queen and the Canadian Queen. Trudeau had our constitution repatriated so we have not been under England for quite some time.

Indeed. And the Oath of Allegiance is quite explicit as to whom featly is being given:

I, ……………, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

Not one mention Britain anywhere in there.

[Topaz]

First Republic of Canada...then the Republic of NAU, no thank you!

[g_bambino]

If you want to believe that absurd fiction, go ahead.

In the meantime, explain to me how any Canadian can ever become "Queen of Canada"? Think about it. No Canadian will ever become our head of state. In fact, the only way to become Canada's head of state is to be born into a specific family.

This is nepotism on a horrendous scale. I can't believe that any civilized society in the 21st century would decide its head of state in such a manner. If one argues that our head of state is purely a "symbolic, figurehead", then I say more reason for us not to let birth choose the person.

What kind of symbol does the Queen represent? "To succeed in life, choose your parents well."

This a prime example of where Canadian republicans usually scurry: to areas of denial and lies, where, behind a shield of nationalistic slogans and catch words, their unique versions of reality are protected from the scourge of facts. The defense is so paper thin, though: the monarch must be made to appear foreign in order to imply colonialism and inferiority; historical facts must be ignored in order to imply oppression and stagnation. It's because of this I say that it is the republicans who live in the 18th century; they have to, in order to make their cause seem worth while. But, what they (including you, August) can and can't beleive is of absolutely no consequence; they'll just go on fighting phantoms while the rest of us go on about our lives in our constitutional monarchy that is more stable, secure, democratic, and prosperous than 98% of the worlds supposedly free and popular republics.

Edited October 6, 2008 by g_bambino

[Hcheh]

This a prime example of where Canadian republicans usually scurry: to areas of denial and lies, where, behind a shield of nationalistic slogans and catch words, their unique versions of reality are protected from the scourge of facts. The defense is so paper thin, though: the monarch must be made to appear foreign in order to imply colonialism and inferiority; historical facts must be ignored in order to imply oppression and stagnation. It's because of this I say that it is the republicans who live in the 18th century; they have to, in order to make their cause seem worth while. But, what they (including you, August) can and can't beleive is of absolutely no consequence; they'll just go on fighting phantoms while the rest of us go on about our lives in our constitutional monarchy that is more stable, secure, democratic, and prosperous than 98% of the worlds supposedly free and popular republics.

Except the republicans in the 18th century actually had a reason to break free from the monarchy. For example, the American people were being treated like second-class citizens with no rights. They initially never wanted to break free from the English monarchy. However, after failing to negotiate peace terms with the king, they had no choice but to become fully independent. Back then, there was an obvious aura of despotism going around, with the treatment of the Americans in that time. However, now is not the case, we have all our rights and work with democratic institutions - unlike the American people back then, we have nothing to complain about.

[g_bambino]

Except the republicans in the 18th century actually had a reason to break free from the monarchy. For example, the American people were being treated like second-class citizens with no rights. They initially never wanted to break free from the English monarchy. However, after failing to negotiate peace terms with the king, they had no choice but to become fully independent. Back then, there was an obvious aura of despotism going around, with the treatment of the Americans in that time. However, now is not the case, we have all our rights and work with democratic institutions - unlike the American people back then, we have nothing to complain about.

Well, the treatment of the American colonies had little to do with the monarchy; the issue was much more complex, and it has been noted that George III actually was often at odds with his ministers over their advice about New England, finding it to be too punitive in nature. But, as for the modern day: that's absolutely my point. Though republicans generally go on about how republics are the epitome of modern constitutional evolution, they argue as though nothing had changed in three or more centuries and Canada was worse than Saudi Arabia.

Edited October 6, 2008 by g_bambino

[August1991]

This a prime example of where Canadian republicans usually scurry: to areas of denial and lies, where, behind a shield of nationalistic slogans and catch words, their unique versions of reality are protected from the scourge of facts. The defense is so paper thin, though: the monarch must be made to appear foreign in order to imply colonialism and inferiority; historical facts must be ignored in order to imply oppression and stagnation.

Made to appear foreign? She is foreign!

But in truth, her foreignness is not the sole source of my opposition to having a monarchy in Canada.

Even if we had a Canadian born monarch, I would still object to a monarchy. I object to choosing our head of state solely by birth. That's not the kind of society that I want to have. I prefer a semblance of meritocracy. I think anyone in Canada should be able to dream of becoming our head of state.

Moreover, I think that "we the people" should somehow choose our head of state. We should be responsible for own affairs.

At present, our head of state is decided solely by birth into a particular family. This is a source of endless snobbishness in the UK of which we in Canada preserve only the most egregious example.

Some traditions and symbols matter and the method of choosing a head of state is one of them. Canada will eventually become a Federal Republic and the sooner we become one, the better.

First Republic of Canada...then the Republic of NAU, no thank you!

So, Canada requires a foreign head of state to ensure that it is a sovereign State. That would be pathetic if it weren't absurd.

Topaz, give more credit to your fellow citizens. Canada, this place on the map, has existed for many centuries and it will exist for many centuries more.

Edited October 6, 2008 by August1991