Montrealers Protest Royalty

[Sir Bandelot]

No, not in parliamentary democracy; you mean: in a parliamentary republic. Electing both the prime minister and president doesn't guarantee more stability and balance; the elected countering the unelected has now been altered so that both sides are elected. This opens the door for conflict between the head of state and his chief advisor to stall governance or cause a constitutional crisis; should they ever disagree on a matter, each will argue they have the popular mandate to impose their will. It happened in the Congo in 1960, Burma in 2004, and East Timor in 2006, to name a few.

[+]

Point is that there are variations of the parlimentary system. It is not a hybrid of the repulbican system, it is essentially the same system as what we have now, the "Westminster" model, with a few minor changes.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[g_bambino]

Point is that there are variations of the parlimentary system. It is not a hybrid of the repulbican system, it is essentially the same system as what we have now, the "Westminster" model, with a few minor changes.

Yes, I'm aware there are alternate versions of the Westminster system; the monarchical kind is the original, though, and so far the longest lasting. The republican version is, on the surface, essentially the same, but it actually brings all sorts of inherent issues of its own; the elected head of state vs. elected advisor is but one. A divisive head of state is another. A politically motivated head of state is but one more. Then come the specifics: how can a republican system be grafted onto Canada's federation, wherein the provinces currently derive their cherished sovereignty from the monarch? How is a president chosen in a country divided by region, culture, and language? What happens to the Royal Prerogative? Etc, etc. The change ain't the walk in the park you made it out to be.

[Smallc]

So we can change the oath, so what. Thats the easy part. Whats the hard part?

That wasn't my point at all.

[Smallc]

I'm sick of Quebec and everyone who calls it their home.

Because generalization is always right. Quebec is just as much a part of Canada as any other province, whether you like it, or not.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

It's possible to have a parliamentary democracy, without a Monarch...

Probably not ours. I don't know if you watched the National last night, but it was quite interesting, as Andrew Coyne echoed something that I had earlier said. Most things in this country are given legitimacy because they are done in the name of the Crown. Take away that legitimacy, and none of it legally exists anymore. That includes the laws and treaties of Canada. That includes almost everything provincial and federal in Canada. There are Constitutional scholars that believe that we can NEVER get rid of the Crown, because Canada would cease to exist as a reult....in fact, it will probably be harder to change it in Canada (because of many factors) than in the United Kingdom. I can make a prediction - The United Kingdom will become a republic before Canada ever does.

[Smallc]

It happened in the Congo in 1960, Burma in 2004, and East Timor in 2006, to name a few.

[+]

That's right Bambino. There are between 147 and 152 underdeveloped countries that are republics (depending on whose numbers you go by). There are only 25 underdeveloped monarchies. As I've said before, monarchy may seem like a ridiculous idea on the surface, but in reality, it seems to work extremely well, given that monarchies make up less than 25% of the worlds total countries but a full half of its developed countries.

[Smallc]

I think everyone needs to learn more about their country in general. A Canadian History course in school that doesn't start before time began and leaves room for the 20th century to be taught would be helpful (we always ran out of time in school, and so we had to leave most of it out). Another suggestion I have to everyone here. Read the new Citizenship and Immigration Guide put out by the Government of Canada yesterday. In my view, it is extremely well done, and they deserve a big round of applause for it.

It seems that much of the dislike people have comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the way our system works. It also seems to come from the inability to comprehend that the institutions that make up Canada are part of what makes this country so great - Quebec and the monarchy included. Why would we want to fundamentally change a formula that has worked well for this country since Confederation and long before that? It makes no sense to me.

[Sir Bandelot]

What if it can be demonstrated that by removing the Crown we defeat the separatists, ideologically. No such protests would likely occur anywhere else in the country. And certainly not on that scale.

[Smallc]

If the protests are only on a scale of a couple of hundred people for something that people there apparently hate so much, well, I'm not too worried. Why would removing the Crown change anything in that way anyway? Quebec separatism is dormant right now, and isn't too much of a worry.

On a (very loosely) related note, I saw yesterday that the Prime Minister and the Prince both left Canada in CC-150s. I didn't know that other examples besides aircraft 01 could be converted to transport people.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

What if it can be demonstrated that by removing the Crown we defeat the separatists, ideologically.

You'd have to demonstrate that first. Given that the sepraratist leaders in Quebec - Duceppe and Marois - have both said the monarchy is irrelevant to them, getting rid of it would clearly have no effect on their sovereigntist opinions.

[sp]

Edited November 13, 2009 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

You'd have to demonstrate that first. Given that the sepraratist leaders in Quebec - Duceppe and Marois - have both said the monarchy is irrelevant to them, getting rid of it would clearly have no effect on their sovereigntist opinions.

[sp]

Question: Do you support or opposed sending troops to Afghanistan?

Response for those "opposed":

Countrywide -- 50%

B.C. -- 43%

Alberta -- 51%

Prairies -- 44%

Ontario -- 42%

Quebec -- 68%

Atlantic -- 51%

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2143861

-----------------

"Residents in Quebec voiced the most opposition to the Canadian mission in the war-torn country, with 68 per cent of those polled in the online survey saying they were against sending troops to Afghanistan"

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Less+than+half+Canadians+support+Afghan+mission+Survey/2145527/story.html

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Smallc]

[Army Guy]

"Residents in Quebec voiced the most opposition to the Canadian mission in the war-torn country, with 68 per cent of those polled in the online survey saying they were against sending troops to Afghanistan"

68% of those "polled" where against sending troops...i had a survey done here in the halls of 2 RCR, 100 % agreed that polls should not be used be themselfs to prove any piont....as they are not accurate to any degree....

100 % of those polled also believe that those polled are pussies, and outside of thier vast knowledge of "poutin" proably could not find Afghanistan on a map let alone spell it....

[PocketRocket]

Not quite. How about-

"Quebec is against the war in Afghanistan," said Bourgeois, a member of the pro-independence Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois.

"And now it's our chance to pass that message to Prince Charles and many people across Canada."

And thats what they did. For that they got media attention, and a beating.

Opinions can be expressed without tossing eggs, and would likely be taken more seriously if expressed in a less juvenile fashion. However, the protesters wanted attention, which they seem to have gotten, so now I guess everyone's happy, except for those who find such actions by their countrymen embarrassing.

[g_bambino]

Question: Do you support or opposed sending troops to Afghanistan?

Response for those "opposed":

• Countrywide -- 50%

• B.C. -- 43%

• Alberta -- 51%

• Prairies -- 44%

• Ontario -- 42%

• Quebec -- 68%

• Atlantic -- 51%

Uuuhhh... what?

[wyly]

As I said, but you perhaps missed: remove the monarchy and the Governor General has no authority. Remove the monarchy and give the Governor General the Queen's authority: the Governor General appoints him or herself. Ergo, the country's sovereignty and all executive, legislative, and judicial power ends up with a person unaccountable to anyone, ever, who can retain the position for as long as they please. What's your solution to that?

[correct]

make it an elected position then...this isn't difficult...I recall a university student revolt 20 years back when a segment of the student body was annoyed with their elected student council, they asserted their democratic power by changing the title of the President of the student body to the "Big Enchilada" as warning to where the real power lay, it was only a title change nothing changed actually changed in how the council was run...eliminating the Queen and position of GG and even calling it the "Big Enchilada" and electing rather than appointing him/her need change nothing else...

[wyly]

Probably not ours. I don't know if you watched the National last night, but it was quite interesting, as Andrew Coyne echoed something that I had earlier said. Most things in this country are given legitimacy because they are done in the name of the Crown. Take away that legitimacy, and none of it legally exists anymore. That includes the laws and treaties of Canada. That includes almost everything provincial and federal in Canada. There are Constitutional scholars that believe that we can NEVER get rid of the Crown, because Canada would cease to exist as a reult....in fact, it will probably be harder to change it in Canada (because of many factors) than in the United Kingdom. I can make a prediction - The United Kingdom will become a republic before Canada ever does.

ya and Andrew Coyne also said he wants Canada to have it's own King!...with that he's made his opinions on the matter irrelevant...

Remove the Title GG and replace it with President, insert President anywhere "Crown" appears in our laws and treaties and nothing else needs to change

[Smallc]

What Andrew Coyne said wasn't opinion (and he was wrong with his king suggestion - that would be a new Crown and would still require constitutional change).

Have you read the Constitutional Amending Formula? Do you know what it takes to make changes affection the Office of Governor General, or the Office of the Queen. It takes the consent of every legislative body in the country save the Senate (and the Senate can delay it by 6 months). You aren't going to get that consent for a useless change.

[g_bambino]

make it an elected position then...this isn't difficult...

Yea, sure it isn't. How are you going to elect the president? How will you ensure it's not going to always be someone representing the non-Quebec majority? How will you ensure the president won't have a political agenda? Where will sovereignty rest and how will it be available to the provinces? What will happen to the Lieutenant Governors? Etc., etc. To say it would be easy betrays that you know little about the subject; I mean, comparing it to a student council... Are you for real?

[+]

Edited November 13, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Remove the Title GG and replace it with President, insert President anywhere "Crown" appears in our laws and treaties and nothing else needs to change

Have yourself a little look-see at what happened in Australia prior to their referendum on the monarchy in 1999; your idea was put forward by the republicans to attract to their cause the skeptical voters amongst the populace. When reality hit, though, the proposal went down in a glorious ball of flame. Splat! It never made it to the ballot; the deligates at the constitutionail conventions - including the republicans amongst them - tossed the notion once it was realised just how far the Crown permeates the Australian system of governance. Canada is no different.

[+]

Edited November 13, 2009 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

Well, I would actually say that Canada is different in that it becomes even more difficult to make change here given the dynamics and the Constitution of this country.

[Dave_ON]

Well, I would actually say that Canada is different in that it becomes even more difficult to make change here given the dynamics and the Constitution of this country.

Agreed and anyone who doubts this needs to research the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. You could also call up former PM Mulroney and ask him how "easy" it is to make a change to the constitution.

[wyly]

What Andrew Coyne said wasn't opinion (and he was wrong with his king suggestion - that would be a new Crown and would still require constitutional change).

Have you read the Constitutional Amending Formula? Do you know what it takes to make changes affection the Office of Governor General, or the Office of the Queen. It takes the consent of every legislative body in the country save the Senate (and the Senate can delay it by 6 months). You aren't going to get that consent for a useless change.

ya i know all about the amending formula and I knew at the time it was stupid idea, it makes change nearly impossible until every butt in the country is kissed...the change itself should be a minor issue, making the change is what is difficult especially when we have delusional people wanting a separate royal family actually in Canada, I actually respected Coyne's opinion until I heard that gem...

[wyly]

Yea, sure it isn't. How are you going to elect the president? How will you ensure it's not going to always be someone representing the non-Quebec majority? How will you ensure the president won't have a political agenda? Where will sovereignty rest and how will it be available to the provinces? What will happen to the Lieutenant Governors? Etc., etc. To say it would be easy betrays that you know little about the subject; I mean, comparing it to a student council... Are you for real?

[+]

apparently this is all too difficult for you to comprehend...

[Smallc]

Fundamentally changing our system of government should be a minor issue? Really?