Wither the Crown?

[g_bambino]

There's presently a conference on the Canadian monarchy going on in Ottawa, called "The Crown in Canada: Present Realities and Future Options."

In relation, a piece by Senator Serge Joyal (an organizer of the conference) appeared in today's Globe and Mail:

An institution that is continually depreciated either by design or ignorance, like the Canadian Crown, will eventually wither and die, and with it an integral part of our Constitution... For more than 40 years, Canadian prime ministers have undermined the Crown's legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public and the political class.

One has to wonder, then, at the motivations behind such calculations, especially when it's considered that

As the late Eugene Forsey wrote, "Only the Queen can stop irresponsible government."

Joyal states:

It has become urgent to consider the values represented by the Crown as a means to strengthen the democratic nature of our parliamentary system.

and I'm inclined to agree.

Canadians really must become more knowledgeable on their country's constitutional history and present status so that they might more clearly understand their own system of governance and thus be better equipped to hold politicians in check. Successive federal governments since Trudeau (aided by a litany of self-interested MPs) have played down the role and importance of the Crown in order to elevate their own stature in the eyes of the uneducated, and it appears to have been working. This amounts to constitutional change through optics only - if nobody sees the Crown for what it is, it will disappear and the politicians can do as they please.

The reaction in the provinces to such moves is telling: ever since Sauvé started playing the "governor general is head of state" game with the lieutenant governors in the 1970s, the provincial governments have been wary of the feds' attempts to undermine the institution of the monarchy; the provincial governments know that it is the Crown which allows them to stand on an equal footing with Ottawa, and not sit subordinate to it. All the premiers - even Quebec's - in the 1970s said to Trudeau at the constitutional conferences then ongoing that they wouldn't abide by any "constitutional changes that substitute for the Queen as ultimate authority a Governor General whose appointment and dismissal would be solely the pleasure of the federal cabinet." What the feds couldn't get away with openly then they seem to have been achieving slowly and surreptitiously over a longer period of time.

If they want to go for constitutional change, make it public and do it properly.

[eyeball]

As the late Eugene Forsey wrote, "Only the Queen can stop irresponsible government."

Perhaps if the Queen did her damn job now and then us peasants would be more protective of Her rightful place in the scheme of things.

Nothing we do seems to make a bit of difference.

Edited June 10, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps if the Queen did her damn job now and then us peasants would be more protective of Her rightful place in the scheme of things.

Nothing we do seems to make a bit of difference.

And what job is it that the Queen is supposed to do? She's a constitutional monarch, not an absolute one. It's not her job to fix our problems, but rather to protect the core institutions. If we want to fix the problems, we do that ourselves. Do you actually want to advocate a monarch that directly intervenes?

[William Ashley]

The answer is very simple, but not to stifle intellectual thought on the subject:

Well how can you use it to support your mission.

The Queen or her representative is actually 'the head of state', this means that they are representative of the country.

The Queen also is suppose to insure that public officials of high level offices are "suitable".

The Queen also is suppose to provide mercy on those individuals not deserving of the impossitions of the courts, if other forms of appeal have been exhausted.

The Queen also is suppose to provide oversight of the military, and police forces, and provide them with the lawful

rights they possess as executive officers of state.

This in mind though the Queen takes council in determination of how to perform her duties. There are consellors of state, and privy counsellors, and queens counsellors, and her royal agents that may sit in council in some role.

IN Britian the Queen of England, actually does look over documents and meet with the PM of the UK. In the past befor the Canada Act in Britain (Constitution 1982) and Statute of Westminster, Canada was facilitated through the commonwealth / British Empire system, and was processed via the Imperial Parliament - however Canada removed itself from this process at first by motion of Britain, and later at its own request.

Canada has a "govenor general" whom in the Queens absence facilitates those things mentioned above - ex. public officials etc..

The ISSUE that really exists is whom we send to the Queen to act as council and who the queen selects as council.

Unfortunate for us Canada has allowed the alienation of our individual rights of access, such as the right to petitition the courts, or the monarch for redress on issues. We have made a system that only allows rights via payment. This is a highly unfortunate turn, where only professionals and sociopaths are given access to petitition the state or courts.

We have no need to change the monarchy, on the contrary we ought to bring back the a system that provides for the monarch as defender of the people's rights, and champion of their wishes.

If we are in support of ourselves, then loyalty should not only be assured but it should be a benefit for us to cooperate with our state.

Now the logical issue is, does she honestly represent the state, and how does she represent it any more than I?

We'll can you do it better? Organize. I'm not purporting a violent overthrow because you are better suited to be Monarch, but I am purporting that doing what you can do is a good first start, and if it integrates with others so much more the capacity of our societies. Cooperation exists between individuals and organizations - the role of the monarchy is in providing an institution so as to capacitate the mission of that institution. There is a lot of background on the monarchy, some good, some not so good. Our institutions do do things though, we have the capacity to be involved and support those institutions how we can integrate with them, and we have the capacity to pick and choose how.

Cults such as royalty are scary things, especially historical due to attrocities performed in the name of religion, or a cause, or a persons wishes, or personal situation of a family, or families. It could easily be represented in the Trojan war, or the papacy, or even heros such as Charlemagne and pagans. Not all things need to be destructive or inhumane, but can be proactive beneficial social forces. As long as we keep mindset that we are all serving society, and that we do so for its benefit, we can recognize that like ourselves, the Canadian Monarchy is another mechanism to organize and uphold a memory of traditions and purposes that held society together and allowed its survival.

Edited June 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[eyeball]

And what job is it that the Queen is supposed to do? She's a constitutional monarch, not an absolute one. It's not her job to fix our problems, but rather to protect the core institutions. If we want to fix the problems, we do that ourselves. Do you actually want to advocate a monarch that directly intervenes?

No I'd like her to consult, encourage and warn us that when our government usurps Her authority it expands it's own over us. What do you think is the best answer to the question that preceded the comment on Eugene Forsey?

How can we protect the principles of responsible government, which is at the heart of our democratic system?

For starters I think we can listen to our Queen (assuming She speaks up), ask her advice and vote accordingly.

[ToadBrother]

No I'd like her to consult, encourage and warn us that when our government usurps Her authority it expands it's own over us. What do you think is the[ best answer to the question that preceded the comment on Eugene Forsey?

Her authority, save in very rare circumstances, is exercised by Her Ministers. That power was usurped, if you want to put it that way, in 1688 when James II was tossed out and his daughter Mary and her husband William IV of the Orange were offered the throne. I'd love to get into a debate about the legality of that. Certainly there were a number of Stuarts living in exile on the Continent who thought of it as a usurpation.

For starters I think we can listen to our Queen (assuming She speaks up), ask her advice and vote accordingly.

You want to ask the Queen's advice? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[eyeball]

Her authority, save in very rare circumstances, is exercised by Her Ministers. That power was usurped, if you want to put it that way, in 1688 when James II was tossed out and his daughter Mary and her husband William IV of the Orange were offered the throne. I'd love to get into a debate about the legality of that. Certainly there were a number of Stuarts living in exile on the Continent who thought of it as a usurpation.

I'd rather see a debate on the things that are wrong with our governance now in the present.

You want to ask the Queen's advice? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Who does She think we should vote for? Who would best serve all of our interests in the context of protecting our core institutions? Who does She think is the greatest threat to these institutions or put another way, who wouldn't She vote for?

[Natchuck]

Perhaps if the Queen did her damn job now and then us peasants would be more protective of Her rightful place in the scheme of things.

Nothing we do seems to make a bit of difference.

Can you imagine the queen actually interfering in the government OF Canada in any meaningful way? It would be the first step to a republic

[Bonam]

Who does She think we should vote for? Who would best serve all of our interests in the context of protecting our core institutions? Who does She think is the greatest threat to these institutions or put another way, who wouldn't She vote for?

Why should we care? Make up your own damned mind about who to vote for. If you can't, or have no opinion of your own, and need some old lady to tell you, how about you just don't bother voting?

[ToadBrother]

I'd rather see a debate on the things that are wrong with our governance now in the present.

Who does She think we should vote for? Who would best serve all of our interests in the context of protecting our core institutions? Who does She think is the greatest threat to these institutions or put another way, who wouldn't She vote for?

Sometimes I don't know whether you're joking or serious.

[Pliny]

As long as we keep mindset that we are all serving society, and that we do so for its benefit, we can recognize that like ourselves, the Canadian Monarchy is another mechanism to organize and uphold a memory of traditions and purposes that held society together and allowed its survival.

We, Canadians, have always been living under a Constitutional Monarchy, which hasn't proven as yet to be such a bad thing. The Americans have a Constitutional Republic.

If we keep the mindset that "we are all serving society, and that we do so for it's benefit", then how do we determine what is not for it's benefit and does not serve society? I believe that some who feel they are serving society and acting in it's benefit are incorrect in their view.

It requires a little more understanding. I think the missing link is Economics. In order for people to maintain power over their governments they must prevent them from taking over control of the money supply.

[Pliny]

Why should we care? Make up your own damned mind about who to vote for. If you can't, or have no opinion of your own, and need some old lady to tell you, how about you just don't bother voting?

That old Lady is more important than you think. Because of her we are not a communist country.

[Bonam]

That old Lady is more important than you think. Because of her we are not a communist country.

I don't deny the role of the monarch or Queen Elizabeth II's historical role. I do however find it odd that "eyeball" seems to be needing guidance in how to vote from her.

[eyeball]

That old Lady is more important than you think. Because of her we are not a communist country.

Say what?

[eyeball]

C'mon guys it shouldn't be this hard to get your head around this.

The Crown is whithering because it doesn't have the support of the people. One reason it doesn't have the support of the people is that it's not doing it's job. It's job is to provide oversight to the government so it can stop it from abusing it's authority.

In the Crown warns the government and the government chooses to ignore Her warning who else is there to rectify the situation other than the electorate? The question then is how does the electorate to know the abuse of authority is taking place unless somebody, in this case the Queen should speak up and warn/advise the public.

Forsey also wrote;

The only good government is self-government. [it is] our business …to govern ourselves. [it’s] the Queen's [or the Governor General's] business to see that our power to govern ourselves is preserved, and that her servants, our servants, do not become our masters.

Edited June 14, 2010 by eyeball

[Uncle 3 dogs]

That old Lady is more important than you think. Because of her we are not a communist country.

I thought we are not a communist country because we chose not to vote communist when we had the opportunity to.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps if the Queen did her damn job now and then us peasants would be more protective of Her rightful place in the scheme of things.

But the Queen does do her job, every day: hold our sovereign power ultimately out of the control of politicians; "the strength of the monarchy lies not in the power it gives the Sovereign but in the power that it denies to anyone else." The problem is: because, by centuries-old convention, the monarch lends her power to democratically elected politicians for the day-to-day governance of the country and must abide by her minister's guidance (so long as it remains lawful), to the average Canadian, ignorant as they are of the very system they live under and/or being brainwashed by 1960s Liberal revisionism (August1991), it appears as though the Queen is a useless anachronism.

It's that popular, but ill-informed, opinion I suspect politicians have been hijacking, even fostering, to their advantage. We're all here generally aware of the presidentialisation of the prime minister over the last 40 years or so; it can't be mere coincidence that education on and awareness of the role of the Crown in Canada's governance has simultaneously decreased over the same period. We've recently had prime ministers fail to do their basic job, in that regard: Chrétien, completely without precedent, abandoned Adrienne Clarkson to defend herself against criticism for a trip requested by Cabinet, planned by Foreign Affairs, and paid for out of a budget approved by parliament, leaving alone the misconception that the Governor General was a reckless abuser of public funds; Harper went on television in late 2008 and told the population that he had been popularly elected, rendering the Crown (and parliament, for that matter) useless in the selection of governments. Would either have so easily got away with what they did had the citizenry been more knowledgeable of how things actually work?

Misinformation from republicans is bad enough, but expected; people typically trust their government officials to know what they're talking about, so there must be grossly negative consequences to official Ottawa telling us the monarchy is a pointless institution.

[c/e]

Edited June 16, 2010 by g_bambino