g_bambino Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Any attempt to make Canada a republic would plunge the country into a year-long debate. I'm not sure any politician would want to let such a topic dominate the stage. A year long debate? Look how long it took to patriate the constitution simply because we couldn't agree on an amending formula! Removing the Monarchy from the constitution would not be a matter of changing the words "Queen" and "Governor General" to "President." It would require an almost entire re-writing. No wonder no politician wants to bring it up. If Harper adopted a republican stance, would it be popular? You tell me: What does a timeline of Canadian independence, with a failed Metis republic thrown in there, have to do with Canada becoming a republic now? Or, are you one of those who believes republics to be the pinnacle of a nation's evolution? Perhaps you should look to France (now on it's, what... fifth republic?) as an example of how that isn't necessarily so. As much as I would prefer the republican question be considered on it own merits - Australia held a referendum - in Canada, the question is inextricably mixed up in English/French issues and with a dose of English-Canadian anti-Americanism thrown into the brew for good measure. That's unfortunate and I envy the Australians their ability to treat the question of a republic purely on its merits. Strangely, English/French issues do arise in the monarchy vs. republic debate - as minimal as it is. It is, however, strange when we consider that, as I mentioned in my previous post, the sovereigntists really don't care about the Monarchy one way or another. A Canadian republic will be no more appealing to them that the kingdom we are now. Also, wanting to be distinguished from the United States is not anti-American. Despite what republicans assert, maple syrop, beavers, and a Canadian president will not differentiate us enough from the US republic. And, Australians didn't look at republicanism purely on merit. Australian republicans tried to win over the populace like a used car salesman trying to rope in a customer. It wasn't about how the government would function better, or how Australians would lead more productive lives, or be more free. Instead it was about false symbolism (the lies about colonial status again), international insecurity (what do other countries think of us?), political correctness that bordered on reverse racism (why does one white "foreigner" get all our power? (that'd be the politicians talking, of course)), slander (Charles is a moron (behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated against any other individual)), and using celebrity endorsement to pitch the sale. They even wanted the words "republic" and "president" kept off the referendum ballot! Yea, purely on merit! Right! Sometimes I suspect that many English Canadians are orphans, and your rant above supports my suspicion. Argus, you can blame Trudeau for taking away your parents but in fact it's modern life that committed regicide. Despite what bambino posts here, Canada (English Canada included) for all intents is not a monarchy. Even in English Canada, the Queen is as relevant as a 1938 Eaton's catalogue. Ah, the old "it is because it is" argument. Answer this question, August (and I'm sure I've asked you this before, but still lack a response): Why is the Queen not relevant to many Canadians today? While pondering on that, ask yourself: Could it be because Trudeau and his political descendants have made sure Canadians don't know anything about their institutions or the history behind them, which parallels the history of the country? Could it be because history has been revised to teach that the "real" Canada began in 1967, and everything before that was mean British people beating up Indians and French people? Could it be because today image and showmanship is valued more than substance and stability? Oh, and when you're done with that, ask yourself: What is a country headed by a monarch? That one's simple - so I won't offer any further insight. Canada (English Canada included) must grow up and decide what it is. Becoming a federal republic would be an honest step in the right direction. All of Canada needs to decide - for the past 40 years or so we've been having our government tell us what it means to be a Canadian, but it hasn't sat well with anyone - Francophone or Anglophone, or speaker of any language in between. But, when Canadians will be no wealthier, no more secure, no more unified, no better represented, and a republic would be a foreign concept imposed on them after 500+ years of monarchy, how could a "federal republic" possibly be a step in the right direction? You've constantly asserted this since March 14, 2004, yet have never given one convincing argument as to why it is so. Like most republicans (and many politicians) your full of patriotic rhetoric, and certainly repetitious, but ultimately your arguments are a shallow front to a hollow, desperate plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.