Sir Bandelot Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Posted November 12, 2009 How about it? It's just one of the vehicles they used as an excuse to act like jackasses; don't forget their other slogans: "Majesty go home!", "We will never be defeated!", "Quebec a country!", and "Ottawa out of Quebec!". Or, did you not notice those? Thats right, but what if it's true, what if Quebecers are against the war. Because I believe statistics show it to be the case. Canwest News Service Monday, Oct. 26, 2009 Residents in Quebec voiced the most opposition to the Canadian mission in the war-torn country, with 68% of those polled in the online survey saying they were against sending troops to Afghanistan. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2143861 Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Posted November 12, 2009 Does anyone realize how difficult it would be to get rid of the monarchy? That would probably tear the country apart faster than any separatists. What if it would be good for the country- the French would accept Canada more if it got rid of the Monarchy. Such Heresy, I know... but just for example Quote
wyly Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Does anyone realize how difficult it would be to get rid of the monarchy? yes, very difficultThat would probably tear the country apart faster than any separatists.we'll continue on as before, this isn't big deal and wouldn't have a lasting effect...lot's of noise from the monarchists but not a lot of real political support the majority don't care... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Thats right, but what if it's true, what if Quebecers are against the war. It's not of any relevance to this discussion. The remonstrators weren't there to protest war; they were there just to protest anything they could think of that related - even on the most distant fringes - to Quebec independence. Hence, their demonstration lacked clarity and came close to being merely anarchism. As Rosie DiManno noted in the Toronto Star, though, if the monarchy can still act as a lightning rod for such protest shows that the institution must still have relevance. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 the majority don't care... They would once they relised they now had to elect a president every five years or so. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 What if it would be good for the country- the French would accept Canada more if it got rid of the Monarchy. They wouldn't. The sovereigntists object to federal intrusions into the province; a president in place of the Queen would make no difference to their opinions on that matter. Further, they'd object to a president elected by a majority Anglophone populace. It appears to me that many Quebecers - and sovereigntists in particular - dislike the monarchy because of how much the historical revisionism of the Quiet Revolution has come to permeate their society. Forget the Treaty of Paris, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and Confederation; Quebec was invaded and subjugated by British colonial marauders. Quote
wyly Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 They would once they relised they now had to elect a president every five years or so. where is that enshrined?... we need change nothing other the than the Queen, we could elect or appoint a GG and give him/her the same powers as we give the position now... why does everyone assume our society/government will end up on it's head if we eliminate a position that in reality does nothing now? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 we could elect or appoint a GG and give him/her the same powers as we give the position now...why does everyone assume our society/government will end up on it's head if we eliminate a position that in reality does nothing now? You seem to be approaching this from a point of confusion: keep and eliminate a position that has powers but does nothing. Please clarify. Quote
Army Guy Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought our entire government and the way we did bussiness was based on the British system, to change that to a republic would mean changing our entire governmental process,...or are you saying that we just back fill the Queen and GG with a blank postion...and keep things the way they are now.... Just one question in regards to this whole process, perhaps i'm wrong but did not Quebec vote on becoming a province and to join Canada and our current form of government...would changing our governmental status, change that process...IE such as the US has now where no referundum can be issued in order to form thier own country...etc etc once commited then it takes everyone involved across the republic to change it.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
wyly Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 You seem to be approaching this from a point of confusion: keep and eliminate a position that has powers but does nothing. Please clarify. the power of GG is limited keep the limited power as an arbitrator as it is now and cut off the connection to the British crown, the GG can be our mostly ceremonial head of state...other than the Senate pigs our government works fine as it is, the royal connection is a stupid anachronism... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought our entire government and the way we did bussiness was based on the British system, to change that to a republic would mean changing our entire governmental process,...or are you saying that we just back fill the Queen and GG with a blank postion...and keep things the way they are now.... Just one question in regards to this whole process, perhaps i'm wrong but did not Quebec vote on becoming a province and to join Canada and our current form of government...would changing our governmental status, change that process...IE such as the US has now where no referundum can be issued in order to form thier own country...etc etc once commited then it takes everyone involved across the republic to change it.... where is it written that we must become a republic like the USA? how would removing the queen from our system automatically change everything else? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 the power of GG is limited keep the limited power as an arbitrator as it is now and cut off the connection to the British crown, the GG can be our mostly ceremonial head of state... other than the Senate pigs our government works fine as it is, the royal connection is a stupid anachronism... You're an immigrant right? Did you become a citizen? Who did you swear allegiance to? Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 You're an immigrant right? Did you become a citizen? Who did you swear allegiance to? So we can change the oath, so what. Thats the easy part. Whats the hard part? Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 I have no problem with protests, or getting off the couch, and yes i've preached just that in the past... But this protest exceeds those rights and freedoms granted to each of us...Once things get thrown you've crossed the line, and if that is the limit to your protesting abilities then stay home..All your doing is using violence in order to make a piont... The eggs where thrown to get a reaction for authorities, and more media coverage....And we handed that to them on a platter....if we continue to hand it out like candy it will become the norm for fringe groups trying to make a statement... They wanted a violent response, and preferably on camera. You're right, they got what they wanted. Thats the way the media works- whatever is sensational gets the attention. And they used the media for their advantage. They threw eggs, which is not dangerous but still illegal. ANd they attacked the police, protesters punching, pushing and shoving. This was not intended to be a peaceful protest. The past few decades have shown that peaceful protest is increasingly ineffective, the system has learned to ignore it. It even puts it in a nice box (such as, the designated protest zones at the olympics). Quote
charter.rights Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Civil disobedience is not new....and it is an effective impetus to change, sadly because democracy does work in Canada - it is woefully broken..... Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
g_bambino Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) the power of GG is limited keep the limited power as an arbitrator as it is now and cut off the connection to the British crown, the GG can be our mostly ceremonial head of state... other than the Senate pigs our government works fine as it is, the royal connection is a stupid anachronism... 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] Edited November 13, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Shady Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 These protesters are an embarassement to Canada. But what else would anyone expect from a Province filled with WWII German sympathizers? I'm sick of Quebec and everyone who calls it their home. On a side note, I'd also like to see Canada break away from the Monarchy. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 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: nobody appoints the Governor General. Ergo, the country's sovereignty and all executive, legislative, and judicial power ends up nowhere. What's your solution to that? That is sheer fantasy, to believe that the process is invalid without their approval. WHat should Canada do if they ever decide to exercise their "Authority"? Is that how this democracy works? No, of course not. Their authority is merely figurative, ceremonial at best. To drop the Monarhcy we just need to remove the ceremonial part. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 perhaps i'm wrong but did not Quebec vote on becoming a province and to join Canada and our current form of government...would changing our governmental status, change that process...IE such as the US has now where no referundum can be issued in order to form thier own country...etc etc once commited then it takes everyone involved across the republic to change it.... Quebec did indeed elect to join Confederation in 1867. To leave, though, I do believe it's constitutionally required that at least a majority of the other provinces approve. That formula could be changed, but becoming a republic wouldn't necessarily do so. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 That is sheer fantasy, to believe that the process is invalid without their approval. WHat should Canada do if they ever decide to exercise their "Authority"? Is that how this democracy works?No, of course not. Their authority is merely figurative, ceremonial at best. To drop the Monarhcy we just need to remove the ceremonial part. You must be joking. Really, do familiarise yourself with the topic you're discussing before you make any more such ridiculous claims. As though the system operated with authority floating around for anyone to grab and do with what they please. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Quebec did indeed elect to join Confederation in 1867. To leave, though, I do believe it's constitutionally required that at least a majority of the other provinces approve. That formula could be changed, but becoming a republic wouldn't necessarily do so. It's possible to have a parliamentary democracy, without a Monarch... One can have both President and Prime Minister, and still have the same system of governance in every other respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democracy Edited November 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote
charter.rights Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 These protesters are an embarassement to Canada. But what else would anyone expect from a Province filled with WWII German sympathizers? I'm sick of Quebec and everyone who calls it their home. On a side note, I'd also like to see Canada break away from the Monarchy. Certainly they may be an embarrassment to YOU but they do not shame Canada in any way. Democracy includes the right to protest and disagree publicly with anything that goes on here. Even civil disobedience is a guaranteed right, given the the courts must prove that protesters acted outside of their guaranteed rights in order to gain a conviction. And lastly, the use of the Court is an act of protest in itself in that rights that are being infringed upon are taken there and protested to various levels (including the Supreme Court of Canada) in order to make attempts at getting police, business and others to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without protest, and civil disobedience we would devolve to a police state, or worse to a fascist state. So while you may be unwarrantably and personally upset with media coverage that focused on the egg throwing at this particular protest, the protest itself is well within the protections of democracy. I believe that protest needs to be encouraged more so that we eventually evolve to a participatory democracy, where the will of the people is truly represented in government. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
g_bambino Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 It's possible to have a parliamentary democracy, without a Monarch... Supposedly. But not necessarily better. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Supposedly. But not necessarily better. In Parliamentary Democracy, the President and the PM are both elected, not selected. That gives a greater balance of power than just one person with the GG in his pocket. Edited November 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote
g_bambino Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) In Parlimaentary Democracy, the President and the PM are both elected, not selected. That gives a greater balance of power than just one person with the GG in his pocket. 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. [+] Edited November 13, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Recommended Posts
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.