British Queen Visits Halifax Canada 2010

[August1991]

HALIFAX - Le guide préparé pour les médias à l'occasion du passage en Nouvelle-Ecosse de la reine Elisabeth II lors de sa visite au Canada, du 28 juin au 6 juillet, ne dit pas un mot sur la déportation des Acadiens.

Radio-Canada signale que les notes historiques du guide ont été rédigées par Patrimoine Canada de même que par les gouvernements provinciaux participants, dont celui de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. On y mentionne, en outre, l'arrivée de colons français à Port-Royal et que l'Empire britannique a étendu son emprise dans la région.

Metro

I have found no English language link to this subject, and this is the best French language link that I can find now.

We northern North Americans have a history and we should not deny it, nor should we celebrate it or use it for partisan purposes - as too many journalists at the CBC/Radio-Canada too often do. Our history is, for better or worse.

And yet, it is hard to find more strongly federalist Canadians than Acadians. Acadians deserve the respect of all fellow Canadians. Pélagie la charette is a saga - that is thankfully contrary to most of Canadian history. We learned our lesson.

----

I am opposed to having a British monarch as a Canadian head of state. But as long as we have one, the least she could do is admit, while here, what her ancestors did to people living here.

Edited June 21, 2010 by August1991

[g_bambino]

I am opposed to having a British monarch as a Canadian head of state.

Good thing there is no British monarch as a Canadian head of state, then.

[August1991]

Good thing there is no British monarch as a Canadian head of state, then.

Quibble if you will Bambino, but she lives in England and she doesn`t use a Canadian passport when she travels about the world. She's even less Canadian than Ignatieff.

But Bambino, you miss the point here - in astonishing fashion.

Edited June 21, 2010 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Quibble if you will Bambino, but she lives in England and she doesn`t use a Canadian passport when she travels about the world.

Quibble I will, especially with your anachronistic Quiet Revolution revisionism that survives to this day only on a thin gruel of willful ignorance, dreary imagination, and baseless argument. For example, you put forward the points that the Queen lives in England and doesn't use a Canadian passport when she travels. True. But your hope that these facts prove Elizabeth II to not be the Canadian queen is dashed when it's rationally considered that 1) The Queen uses no passport (does that make her not the British queen?); 2) passports don't define nationality; and 3) Many Canadians live in England.

Moving on...

But Bambino, you miss the point here - in astonishing fashion.

No, I just wanted to get the above out of the way first.

On the meat of the OP: what exactly did the Queen's ancestors do to people living here; the Acadians, especially? It was the Governor of Nova Scotia, without input from Whitehall, that ordered the deportation of the Acadians in 1755. Even if you want to argue that the governor was a part of the institution of the British Crown, predecessor to the present Canadian Crown, personified by the Queen of Canada, a royal proclamation was already issued in 2003:

Canada

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

To All To Whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may in any way concern,

Greeting:

MORRIS ROSENBERG

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

A Proclamation

Whereas the Acadian people, through the vitality of their community, have made a remarkable contribution to Canadian society for almost 400 years;

Whereas on July 28, 1755, the Crown, in the course of administering the affairs of the British colony of Nova Scotia, made the decision to deport the Acadian people;

Whereas the deportation of the Acadian people, commonly known as the Great Upheaval, continued until 1763 and had tragic consequences, including the deaths of many thousands of Acadians - from disease, in shipwrecks, in their places of refuge and in prison camps in Nova Scotia and England as well as in the British colonies in America;

Whereas We acknowledge these historical facts and the trials and suffering experienced by the Acadian people during the Great Upheaval;

Whereas We hope that the Acadian people can turn the page on this dark chapter of their history;

Whereas Canada is no longer a British colony but a sovereign state, by and under the Constitution of Canada;

Whereas when Canada became a sovereign state, with regard to Canada, the Crown in right of Canada and of the provinces succeeded to the powers and prerogatives of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom;

Whereas We, in Our role as Queen of Canada, exercise the executive power by and under the Constitution of Canada;

Whereas this Our present Proclamation does not, under any circumstances, constitute a recognition of legal or financial responsibility by the Crown in right of Canada and of the provinces and is not, under any circumstances, a recognition of, and does not have any effect upon, any right or obligation of any person or group of persons;

And Whereas, by Order in Council P.C. 2003-1967 of December 6, 2003, the Governor in Council has directed that a proclamation do issue designating July 28 of every year as "A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval", commencing on July 28, 2005;

Now Know You that We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, effective on September 5, 2004, designate July 28 of every year as "A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval", commencing on July 28, 2005.

Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.

In Testimony Whereof, We have caused this Our Proclamation to be published and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed.

Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Adrienne Clarkson, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of December in the year of Our Lord two thousand and three and in the fifty-second year of Our Reign.

By Command,

JEAN-CLAUDE VILLIARD

Deputy Registrar General of Canada

Canada Gazette

If you think that's not enough and there should be some mention of the Great Upheaval by the Queen when she's in Halifax this month, it's the Minister of Canadian Hertiage you should take it up with. Even the article you link to get's that much straight.

[link]

Edited June 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[August1991]

For example, you put forward the points that the Queen lives in England and doesn't use a Canadian passport when she travels. True.

I rest my case.

But your hope that these facts prove Elizabeth II to not be the Canadian queen is dashed when it's rationally considered that 1) The Queen uses no passport

What Canadian uses no passport? Even Stephen Harper and Barack Obama have passports. In Europe, they may believe in the nonsense that some people are above passports but we North Americans believe in everyone being equal.

And frankly, we North Americans are a far more civilized lot than you Europeans - if recent wars and killing are a measure.

On the meat of the OP: what exactly did the Queen's ancestors do to people living here; the Acadians, especially? It was the Governor of Nova Scotia, without input from Whitehall, that ordered the deportation of the Acadians in 1755. Even if you want to argue that the governor was a part of the institution of the British Crown, predecessor to the present Canadian Crown, personified by the Queen of Canada, a royal proclamation was already issued in 2003...

That link seems to have been signed by a bureaucrat.

Bambino, it was the British government that ordered the deportation in the 1750s - IOW, George III. No one else.

You're the guy who believes in symbolism, so I'm surprised that you now argue that symbols don't matter.

[g_bambino]

I rest my case. What Canadian uses no passport? Even Stephen Harper and Barack Obama have passports. In Europe, they may believe in the nonsense that some people are above passports but we North Americans believe in everyone being equal.

Nope, your case is still restless: 1) I'm a Canadian that uses no passport; mine expired two years ago. Elizabeth II is another. 2) The authority to issue passports isn't Stephen Harper's. 3) Heads of state don't require passports for international travel. 4) Everyone in North America isn't equal.

t was the British government that ordered the deportation in the 1750s - IOW, George III. No one else.

Prove it.

[August1991]

3) Heads of state don't require passports for international travel.

Barack Obama has one, even if Sarkozy and Queen Elizabeth don't.

4) Everyone in North America isn't equal.

Agreed. We North Americans are not all equal.

But in North America, our difference is not determined solely by birth - which is the single reason this Elizabeth can claim to be a head of state.

----

To return to the OP, we Canadians have a history that involves both Britain and France. As a minimum, I think a British head of state would make reference to the Acadian deportation while visiting Halifax. Why?

Some may view this comparison as inflammatory but I don't think so: What would a Japanese monarch/head of state have to say when visiting Nanking? Nothing?

Edited June 21, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

The Queen holds no citizenship. She can't have a passport.

[g_bambino]

Barack Obama has one, even if Sarkozy and Queen Elizabeth don't.

Obama has one from before he was president. I don't know whether or not the Queen had a passport when she was a princess; likely some kind of diplomatic one, if any at all. It really doesn't matter, though: nobody requires a Canadian passport to be Canadian.

In North America, our difference is not determined solely by birth - which is the single reason Queen Elizabeth is head of state.

Our differences are not determined solely by birth, no. But, despite your efforts to make it otherwise, the Queen is no different to us in that regard: Birth is not the singular reason for her present station, the accidents of history and Canadian constitutional law being the other two major factors in why she is who she is today.

As a minimum, I think a British head of state would make reference to the Acadian deportation while visiting Halifax.

Then take it up with the Queen's ministers; though, given how baffled you are by the delineation between Canadian and British jurisdiction, I think it'll take you some time to figure out which cabinet to petition. Have you even found the proof that George III personally ordered the expulsion yet?

[c/e]

Edited June 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The Queen holds no citizenship. She can't have a passport.

Such a concept is beyond August's comprehension; he views the world through the eyes of a constricted, grey bureaucrat: everyone must be identically ordered and categorised according to a number randomly generated by the state machinery. It's civilized.

Bleh.

[sp]

Edited June 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[Argus]

I am opposed to having a British monarch as a Canadian head of state. But as long as we have one, the least she could do is admit, while here, what her ancestors did to people living here.

Maybe my memory of history class is wrong, and no doubt you'll correct me if that is the case, but weren't the Acadians, ie, the French citizens then living in that part of the colonies, given the opportunity to swear allegiance to the British after they took the place over? And did they not give the British the finger and say "Never!"?

And were they not then told to get out then, shipped back to France or elsewhere?

[August1991]

The Queen holds no citizenship. She can't have a passport.

How European a concept.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Edited June 21, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

How European a concept.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

In other words, you had no idea, and now you have no idea how to respond.