The Federal Republic of Canada

[jbg]

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.

The Queen became the Queen of Canada separately during St. Laurent's watch, during 1953 or 1954.

[jbg]

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.

I suspect the Brits would have been happy to give the US the "Alberta treatment", i.e. a number of constituencies proportional to its population. The taxation would have been "with representation" but 20 constituencies in a 400 MP Parliament would not have had much impact.

[g_bambino]

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.

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.

Yes, yes; I suppose you believe the mantra that if it's repeated often enough it becomes true. So, tell us all what a foreign infection the monarchy is, and how the Queen scowls and bears her teeth at any little apple cheeked, starry eyed child who dreams of being president. Whatever. Our head of state is decided by birth in a particular family; so what? Drop the ultra-socialist, revolutionary idealism and deal with reality: who their parents were has got a lot of people in this world into prominent and powerful places. Either that, or how much money they had at their disposal. Yes, this happens even in republics; quite frequently in republics, in fact. So, face it: hierarchy, along with inheritance, are facts of civilised human society, and for each and every one of us there are positions in that strata we will most likely never attain. That doesn't mean we're oppressed, or denied liberty; if you want it bad enough, August, even you could become Canada's head of state. Ah, I can imagine that's a pleasant thought for you. But, that would mean you find political elitism and privilege to be fine, and that buying and lying your way there is perfectly acceptable. After all, it can't be bad when it's backed by "We the People" - well, one segment of "We the People" anyway; screw the rest of your comrade brothers. I'd agree, though; politics is a necessary part of democratic life, and it produces its own elite. But that does not mean that the royal privilege is not supported by the people, as if votes were the only way for a people to express itself. The monarch is the non-partisan ying to the political yang, and, in a country where the people may speak freely against the current system, their predominant silence in regards to their Westminster style parliamentary and democratic constitutional monarchy means a consensus on its usefulness, success, and acceptance. So, spare us the attempts to draw us into your revolution against a foe that you dreamt up.

Edited October 6, 2008 by g_bambino

[PoliticalCitizen]

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

Why not? Let's get rid of Monarchy and then maybe be one of the first countries to step beyond democracy.

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.

No.

I find it insulting when someone pretends to be holier than others, "appointed by god", or owning my country.

[PoliticalCitizen]

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.

I obey the laws and I'm true to my oath.

I did not swear allegiance to the queen's heirs, and in all fairness she's going to die relatively soon.

That could be a good moment to throw away the token monarchy and enjoy a truly free, democratic and multicultural society.

[Smallc]

and enjoy a truly free, democratic and multicultural society.

Do we not enjoy that now? Are you saying things would be different simply because we got rid of the Monarchy.

[Hcheh]

I suspect the Brits would have been happy to give the US the "Alberta treatment", i.e. a number of constituencies proportional to its population. The taxation would have been "with representation" but 20 constituencies in a 400 MP Parliament would not have had much impact.

First of all, the point isn't if it would make a difference or not, its the fact that they didn't have any representation at all. If it wouldn't have made a difference anyway, why did they refuse to give them this right? Secondly, it wasn't simply just about one issue. They were being treated like second class citizens, with ridiculous taxes and no rights. Are you trying to debate the validity of the American Revolution? I don't see how you could succeed with that argument... Don't get me wrong, I am all for this constitutional monarchy that we currently have. However, it was not always as good as it is now. It is only through long years of trials and errors that a system of government could be shaped and weathered into a system that is what we have now. The monarchy was not always this good.. I believe that arguing so would be quite a blind cause.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Do we not enjoy that now? Are you saying things would be different simply because we got rid of the Monarchy.

A truly multicultural and democratic society cannot be any kind of Monarchy, constitutional or other.

The millions of Chinese immigrants do not ask that we put Hu Jintao on our money.

But having the queen of England as the head of our state probably makes even less sense to them than it does to me as it is the exact opposite of multiculturalism.

As a matter of fact having the English queen as our national symbol deprives Canadians even of their own culture, forget about the cultures brought over by immigrants.

[g_bambino]

Why not? Let's get rid of Monarchy and then maybe be one of the first countries to step beyond democracy.

"Beyond democracy"?

I find it insulting when someone pretends to be... owning my country.

Then, you insult yourself.

[PoliticalCitizen]

"Beyond democracy"?

Look at what's happening in the world and you'll understand that current social structure called "democracy" is far from perfect.

Then, you insult yourself.

No, I find the idea of having a monarch insulting.

[M.Dancer]

As a matter of fact having the English queen as our national symbol deprives Canadians even of their own culture, forget about the cultures brought over by immigrants.

Not to me, a first generation Canadian. People comne to Canada to be Canadian, not to be something else. If they wish to be something else, then by all means they are free to be something else somewhere else. But for most, to be part of one of the worllds most enduring and most stable system that allows them the freedoms that are gaurenteed by the sovereign is a precious thing.

[g_bambino]

"democracy" is far from perfect.

Democracy never will be perfect.

No, I find the idea of having a monarch insulting.

Maybe you do, but that's not the point. You said:

I find it insulting when someone pretends to be... owning my country.

By calling it "my country", you clearly are pretending to own it, which means you insult yourself.

Ah, well, you're too easily insulted, then.

[g_bambino]

But for most, to be part of one of the worllds most enduring and most stable system that allows them the freedoms that are gaurenteed by the sovereign is a precious thing.

That's a good point. I often wonder if those who push for elimination of the monarchy are actually just craving more chaos; they're political junkies, or simply bored of their lives, and feel that because the post of head of state could be turned into one thing to compete over, yet another fight that they can become armchair commentators on, it should be. I always sense this hint of selfishness behind their exclamations of good and glory for the proletariat when we overthrow the autocratic queen.

Edited October 7, 2008 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

That's a good point. I often wonder if those who push for elimination of the monarchy are actually just craving more chaos; they're political junkies, or simply bored of their lives, and feel that because the post of head of state could be turned into one thing to compete over, it should be.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To the point, there is neither a compelling reason to change or a compelling model to change to.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Not to me, a first generation Canadian. People comne to Canada to be Canadian, not to be something else. If they wish to be something else, then by all means they are free to be something else somewhere else. But for most, to be part of one of the worllds most enduring and most stable system that allows them the freedoms that are gaurenteed by the sovereign is a precious thing.

But that doesn't mean this system cannot be imporved and changed to better reflect the will of its people.

[PoliticalCitizen]

By calling it "my country", you clearly are pretending to own it, which means you insult yourself.

Ah, well, you're too easily insulted, then.

I called it my country because I live here. But it appears to formally belong to the English Queen.

[PoliticalCitizen]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To the point, there is neither a compelling reason to change or a compelling model to change to.

If the society would follow these rules we would still be living in a matriarchal primitive commune.

[g_bambino]

But that doesn't mean this system cannot be imporved and changed to better reflect the will of its people.

You have to show what an improvement would be before you'll have the will of the people behind you.

[PoliticalCitizen]

You have to show what an improvement would be before you'll have the will of the people behind you.

Dropping the token monarchy would be a good start

[g_bambino]

Dropping the token monarchy would be a good start

That just repeats the desire. You've yet to show what the improvements would be.

[August1991]

Soixante-cinq pour cent des Canadiens souhaitent que le Canada cesse d'être une monarchie constitutionnelle après le règne d'Elizabeth II, indique un sondage publié mercredi à l'occasion du 142e anniversaire du Canada.

«Nous avons été surpris par l'ampleur du désir de couper les liens avec la monarchie», a déclaré Peter Donolo de l'institut Strategic Counsel qui a réalisé l'étude pour le quotidien the Globe and Mail et la chaîne de télévision CTV. C'est au Québec que le niveau d'opposition à la monarchie est le plus élevé (86%), tandis que la province voisine de l'Ontario affiche le plus faible taux d'opposition, avec 58%.

La Presse

Raison plus.

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Non. There is no reason or benefit to making the change. Better educating people on the system on the other hand would come as a benefit.

[g_bambino]

Non. There is no reason or benefit to making the change. Better educating people on the system on the other hand would come as a benefit.

No kidding. 95% of Canadians can't name their own head of state. That lot's been asked to answer on the spot a biased question about Canada's "ties" (restrictive, binding) to the "British" (foreign) monarchy, and we're supposed to be surprised at the result? Better education is most definitely needed, especially on what the alternative is: one more self-interested politician in Ottawa. Ask the populace if they'd like that and see what's the most popular answer. There's a huge danger in citizens learning about their constitution only through the lazy, controversy starved, mass media.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited July 3, 2009 by g_bambino

[jbg]

No kidding. 95% of Canadians can't name their own head of state..

That's shameful. Even I, a Yank can. However, I can only name Canadian PM's since 1936, and a few before such as Borden, Meaghen and Macdonald. That emphasizes how little I know about Canada.

[g_bambino]

That's shameful. Even I, a Yank can. However, I can only name Canadian PM's since 1936... That emphasizes how little I know about Canada.

Shameful and pathetic. And it only gets worse: The number who could identify the following was:

- Michaelle Jean: 50%

- John A. Macdonald: 40%

- Tommy Douglas: 21%

- the year of Confederation: 26%

- Celine Dion: 90%

So, really, you're doing pretty well in comparison.

The depressing results:

Dominion Institute

Toronto Sun

Actually, I should update the results on the Queen; apparently they've improved to a whopping 8% who know who the head of state is.¹

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited July 3, 2009 by g_bambino