The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Sandy MacNab]

The monarchy haters in Canada will say the Crown isn't one of our traditions and symbols; it (and the monarch that heads it) is foreign and imposed upon us and, hence, needs to be sloughed off post haste. Only things that sprang fresh from the soil of Canada are Canadian; the national flag, hockey, voyageurs, Tim Horton's (sorry, Hortons)... Except, oddly, for quite a few traditions with roots that lie elsewhere, such as anything imported from France, the English language, the military, and, stragnest of all, the "royal" in Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In other words: the "the monarchy isn't Canadian" argument is a sham meant only to make it seem as though supporting the Crown is un-Canadian. But republicans will try, with a straight face, to have you believe it.

Yep, they hate the Brits. They also hate the Yanks. I sense they even hate themselves. They have adopted political correctness, multiculturalism and anything else that will destroy the Canadian (read anything particularly British)culture. Even a bastardized form of republicanism is preferable.

[Smallc]

You don't know what you're talking about. Multiculturalism and political correctness have turned Canada into a bland, colourless blob of cultural library paste. And No, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Well you're going to have to. Canada has always been multi cultural. It's simply that we've made it official, and it's something to be celebrated. What you consider political correctness, is simply a reflection of societal norms that have developed across the western world.

[Guest American Woman]

While it may be something within one's control (or their parents', depending on), the US president also can't be someone who's lived outside the US for more than 14 years.

Wrong. The president can't be someone who hasn't resided in the United States at least 14 years - which is quite different from what you are claiming. It's totally within their control and has nothing to do with their parents' control.

[Guest American Woman]

Clearly we'll never agree on the definition of discrimination, I would posit that anything you cannot control, ie. your place of birth is discrimination. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons for this discriminatation but let's call a spade a spade.

It's not a matter of us agreeing on the definition; it's a matter of what the definition actually is. In order for it to be discrimination, the exclusion has to be "unjust," and since there are valid reasons, it's not unjust. Therefore it's not discrimination. Furthermore, discrimination can be based on things that are within a person's control - religion would be one of them.

I have brought up the issues that I have for a reason - the requirement that government jobs often require the candidate to speak both English and French, for example, and that was explained as "reasonable" in a country that has both as official languages. Therefore it's not "unjust;" it's not discrimination even though it excludes a lot of people. Same with university degrees. We don't consider it "unjust" that some jobs require a degree, even though it excludes all of those who don't have one. The Prime minister of Canada must be a citizen; that's reasonable considering the position. Therefore it's not "unjust" to exclude all of the permanent residents who are not citizens. The founders of our constitution, when granting powers of commander in chief to the POTUS, didn't feel it was unreasonable to expect the POTUS to only have allegiance to the United States in times of war. That's not unreasonable, therefore it's not unjust.

Someone, I can't remember who, said that the exclusion of Catholics is based on the same reasoning. As I pointed out, allegiance to one's country and allegiance to a person, to a religion, are two different things. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if a nation chooses to be religious, as in the Arab states, so be it. They have that right. So if the UK wants to be an Anglican nation, so be it. That's their right. But then that's what they are, and by choosing to have the British monarchy as your head of state, Canada, by extension, is also an Anglican nation. OR a nation who accepts discrimination regarding who can be the head or state based on religion - who the head of state can even marry, based on religion. One religion. It's exclusive only of Catholics, and that's based on the religion of the state.

I find it odd that so many criticize the US for being a nation of Christians, which is quite different from being a Christian nation. There are no exclusions for POTUS based on religion. The founders of the constitution made it clear that there was to be separation of church and state. But as I said, so many Canadians pride themselves on not being "a nation of Christians" like the US, yet you are, in effect, a nation whose head of state is defined by religion.

This is one of the reasons I see a problem with a nation that prides itself on treating everyone alike condoning the exclusion of Catholics regarding their head of state. I'm not going to argue how much power the queen has, how much power the prime minister has, because it's irrelevant to this point. The queen IS your head of state and she's your head of state by virtue of being Britain's head of state. Unless you make changes, whoever becomes the next monarch will also be your head of state.

You have opinions about the Monarchy and I get that and you're more than entitled to them.

I appreciate your recognizing that.

But if you are trying to convince Canadians that they should get rid of the monarchy based on an American frame of reference you may as well give up now, it's not going to work. Not wanting to be Americans was precisely the reason our country was founded, we saw manifest destiny and didn't like it in the least.

I'm not trying to "convince" Canadians of anything. I'm stating my opinion and stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians are accepting of discrimination in their country regarding the head of state, government sanctioned, while being so quick to criticize "the US" for something one individual citizen did. I'm also stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians make a show of how their nation isn't a nation of Christians like the US defend the crown, which is your head of state, which excludes Catholics. I find it ironic, at best, that a nation that prides itself on multiculturalism and tolerance and fair treatment to all (isn't that what I'm always hearing regarding your health care?) would retain a system where their head of state is determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion.

I think "not wanting to be Americans" perhaps figures too prominently in too many Canadians' mindset. We have never done anything because "we don't want to be this or that" but rather because this is what we want to be.

Last but not least, many Canadians feel it's time to get rid of the monarchy. It's not just an "American thing."

Calling the monarchy discriminatory is a ridiculous argument, no one has ever claimed it has been otherwise.

Are you agreeing that it's discriminatory? And that you're ok with your head of state being discriminatory? Because if you are, you can't criticize anyone else for discrimination.

If we are to get rid of the Monarchy with what shall we replace it precisely? This is an earnest question.

Based on what a lot of Canadians on this board are telling me, you wouldn't have to replace it with anything because she doesn't do anything. It's all symbolic. She has no power. Why would someone who is only a symbol, who has no power, need to be replaced? That, too, is an earnest question.

Based on OUR system, not a presidential republic, what HONEST suggestions do YOU have given the role of our head of state? What would you be able to live with in head of state selection?

It's not a matter of me being able to live with it since I don't live in Canada. If you can live with discrimination, so be it, but I'm going to be critical of it, especially in light of the criticism doled out at others in that regard.

But if you need to replace the monarchy, why not eliminate it and just have a position such as your Governor General completely devoid of the crown? - Why do you need a tie to the crown? Why wouldn't you want YOUR GG-type position to be your head of state position instead of "representative of" the head of state - especially in light of what it is representative of?

Edited May 21, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

I like how she ignored every point everyone made, and just repeated what she's already said time and again.

[g_bambino]

Therefore it's not "unjust" to exclude all of the permanent residents who are not citizens. The founders of our constitution, when granting powers of commander in chief to the POTUS, didn't feel it was unreasonable to expect the POTUS to only have allegiance to the United States in times of war.

You're trying to shift the goalposts. It isn't a matter of excluding permanent residents without US citizenship. It's the excusion of US citizens who weren't born in the United States. By your argument, only birth on US soil makes one's allegiance to those pieces of paper and cloth true and unquestionable. Brought to America as a child, earned US citizenship, and lived there for fifty years? Sorry, still inferior to someone who has been a citizen less years than you but has the distinct advantage of being born within its borders.

And it isn't even as though this is about dual citizenship for you. You still, I assume, hold to the odd belief that dual citizenship doesn't in any way mean dual allegiance. Only place of birth seems to matter...

Because if you are, you can't criticize anyone else for discrimination.

I believe the point is that you refuse to accept that there are disciminatory restrictions on the office of the President of the United States.

But if you need to replace the monarchy, why not eliminate it and just have a position such as your Governor General completely devoid of the crown? - Why do you need a tie to the crown? Why wouldn't you want YOUR GG-type position to be your head of state position instead of "representative of" the head of state - especially in light of what it is representative of?

We don't want a politician as head of state.

[g_bambino]

I like how she ignored every point everyone made, and just repeated what she's already said time and again.

Cognitive dissonance.

[Tilter]

But if you are trying to convince Canadians that they should get rid of the monarchy based on an American frame of reference you may as well give up now, it's not going to work. Not wanting to be Americans was precisely the reason our country was founded, we saw manifest destiny and didn't like it in the least.

If a referendum was held on chucking the Monarchy for Canada--- Chucking would get the nod, likely by 60 to 70 %

After the last 40 years of "royalty" scandals, infidelities, divorces and the parading of that stupidity in our papers we need to get rid of the whole rotten mess.

[g_bambino]

If a referendum was held on chucking the Monarchy for Canada--- Chucking would get the nod, likely by 60 to 70 %

It likely wouldn't once voters saw the alternative they were to approve or reject.

[Guest American Woman]

If a referendum was held on chucking the Monarchy for Canada--- Chucking would get the nod, likely by 60 to 70 %

After the last 40 years of "royalty" scandals, infidelities, divorces and the parading of that stupidity in our papers we need to get rid of the whole rotten mess.

From what I've read, it seems the majority of Canadians want to chuck the monarchy once Elizabeth has served her term/died.

I was surprised to find out that new citizens of Canada have to swear loyalty to the queen...

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful

and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty

Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,

Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully

observe the laws of Canada

and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

[Smallc]

From what I've read, it seems the majority of Canadians want to chuck the monarchy once Elizabeth has served her term/died.

Because Charles is next. Ask them what they think about William.

[Guest American Woman]

Because Charles is next. Ask them what they think about William.

So according to you, they're not thrilled about being stuck with someone who was born into the role taking over. That pretty much confirms exactly what I've been saying.

Edited May 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

So according to you, they're not thrilled about being stuck with someone who was born into the role taking over. That pretty much confirms exactly what I've been saying.

What does that prove, exactly? Many politicians are unpopular too.

[Guest American Woman]

What does that prove, exactly? Many politicians are unpopular too.

It proves that the majority would rather get rid of the monarchy than have someone they don't like take over simply because they were born into the role. That supports what I've said about being given such a position based solely on bloodlines and birth order.

As for the unpopular politicians, would the majority of Canadians vote to get rid of their position? - Would they vote to get rid of the Senate, or the office of Prime Minister, et al just because they didn't like the person who was currently filling that role? You don't have to answer - we all know what the answer is.

Edited May 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

As for the unpopular politicians, would the majority of Canadians vote to get rid of their position? - Would they vote to get rid of the Senate, or the office of Prime Minister, et al just because they didn't like the person who was currently filling that role? You don't have to answer - we all know what the answer is.

So why don't Canadians want to get rid of the monarchy now, with Elizabeth II as monarch? Because they don't really want to get rid of the position. The sitting monarch can be removed and replaced if enough people want it, so I'm still not sure that your point has been made.

[Guest American Woman]

So why don't Canadians want to get rid of the monarchy now, with Elizabeth II as monarch? Because they don't really want to get rid of the position. The sitting monarch can be removed and replaced if enough people want it, so I'm still not sure that your point has been made.

They don't want to get rid of it now because they don't want to boot her out. They figure ending it at the end of her reign is a good time to do it.

But you're taking out of both ends now. On the one hand you say Canadians want to get rid of the monarchy because they don't like Charles, and then as soon as I point out that that proves my point you come back with the notion that they can simply get rid of Charles if they don't like him. So why would they want to end the monarchy just because they don't like Charles?

[Smallc]

But you're taking out of both ends now. On the one hand you say Canadians want to get rid of the monarchy because they don't like Charles, and then as soon as I point out that that proves my point you come back with the notion that they can simply get rid of Charles if they don't like him. So why would they want to end the monarchy just because they don't like Charles?

Because they don't know what they want. People generally don't, so I don't generally care what they think.

[Guest American Woman]

Because they don't know what they want. People generally don't, so I don't generally care what they think.

It's more like you don't know what they want; or more accurately, why they want it.

[ReeferMadness]

This never comes up in Federal elections because most people just don't care very much about it. Compared to health care or jobs or a hundred other issues, it just isn't very important. And as much as there are a few on one end who are passionate about getting rid of the monarchy, there are also some who are passionate about keeping it.

[Smallc]

It's more like you don't know what they want; or more accurately, why they want it.

Quite frankly, no, I don't know why they want what they want. That said, even the far more republican country of Australia couldn't get rid of the monarchy. It's extremely unlikely that such a thing will happen here.

I'm not sure why this interests you so much. You don't even seem to understand how parliamentary democracy works, since you've already stated that you don't understand why we'd need a prime minister and a president if we replaced the monarchy. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic before you go further with it.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Quite frankly, no, I don't know why they want what they want.

So why did you say it's because they don't like Charles if you don't know their reason? Seems rather odd, at best, that you would make such a claim as you now admit that you don't know.*

That said, even the far more republican country of Australia couldn't get rid of the monarchy. It's extremely unlikely that such a thing will happen here.

And you see that as a good thing, when the majority would like to get rid of it? Seems to me that would just reinforce my points too.

I'm not sure why this interests you so much. You don't even seem to understand how parliamentary democracy works, since you've already stated that you don't understand why we'd need a prime minister and a president if we replaced the monarchy. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic before you go further with it.

I understand just fine; my point was in regards to changing the system if you didn't have the monarchy. I have since understood that most Canadians would not want to do that, which you would realize if you actually read what I've posted since.*

*Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before responding.

[Smallc]

So why did you say it's because they don't like Charles if you don't know their reason? Seems rather odd, at best, that you would make such a claim as you now admit that you don't know.*

I

m not sure you're getting me. I said that was a stupid reason already. I don't see a reason to change current arrangement because it has worked well for at least 400 years and because nothing real would be gained by changing our system.

And you see that as a good thing, when the majority would like to get rid of it? Seems to me that would just reinforce my points too.

How exactly. The majority in Australia didn't vote to get rid of it, because they saw it as better than an unknown alternative.

I understand just fine; my point was in regards to changing the system if you didn't have the monarchy. I have since understood that most Canadians would not want to do that, which you would realize if you actually read what I've posted since.*

So you think that they would either want to give up parliamentary government...or follow the example of South Africa. Somehow I doubt that. Most Canadians would not want to follow the American model. Here's a piece if information for you - parliamentary government requires that there be ministers responsible to the lower house of government. It also requires that there be a head of state or representative to be a non or less political symbol and to sort out disputes when they occur. I know of only one country with a parliament that does it differently, and I don't think that they (South Africa) are the best of examples.

Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before responding.

That's rich.

[g_bambino]

And you see that as a good thing, when the majority would like to get rid of it?

Looking at a range of polls over the years, there's no consistent majority that wishes to see the monarchy gone. Poll results vary; and they can't be relied on, anyway, since the poll questions are biased and the people being asked generally don't know much about the subject of the survey. How seriously can one really take the result of one poll showing 36% don't want the Queen as head of state when another poll shows only 5% of Canadians know who the head of state is? And, I'll repeat: Many so-called supporters of the monarchy's elimination, and most of the undecideds, would change their minds once the alternative was put before them.

[sp]

Edited May 23, 2011 by g_bambino

[Dave_ON]

It's not a matter of us agreeing on the definition; it's a matter of what the definition actually is. In order for it to be discrimination, the exclusion has to be "unjust," and since there are valid reasons, it's not unjust. Therefore it's not discrimination. Furthermore, discrimination can be based on things that are within a person's control - religion would be one of them.

I don't want to belabor the definition of discrimination further. You have a very convenient definition that excludes the discrimination in your own head of state. If it makes you feel better, being born into a certain family and not being catholic is a job requirement also

There are very valid reasons, you could not have a Catholic Monarch as has been pointed out. A catholic monarch would have dual allegiances, they would owe allegiance to the Pope and the Vatican which is a sovereign nation. There is a reason Catholics are excluded from the Crown, the reasons could be argued as moot now, but at the time they were put in place they were seen as just as pragmatic a "job requirement" as you see the POTUS limitations as being. Time was allegiance was to the pope and the church first and one's country second. England threw off the shackles of Theocracy long ago, not unlike your ancestors threw off what they perceived as the shackles of the Monarchy. Would you ever take the monarchy back after fighting so hard to free yourself from it? Why then would you expect the British Monarchy to do the same? You see, you're not so very different from the British after all.

I have brought up the issues that I have for a reason - the requirement that government jobs often require the candidate to speak both English and French...

Actually I do feel these are discriminatory, as stipulated previously just because it is backed by legislation or even written into the constitution does not make it not discriminatory, it simply makes it legal. It's also not even very pragmatic, what it does do is allow someone who may be less qualified in every other respect to get a job over someone else simply because they are bilingual. It also creates delays in filling positions where bilingual applicants are not readily available, ie. most places West of Ontario. Even the federal government posts in London are filled by mostly uni-lingual anglophones. There are few francophones and even fewer bilingual folks in SW Ontario.

I'm not trying to "convince" Canadians of anything. I'm stating my opinion and stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians are accepting of discrimination in their country regarding the head of state, government sanctioned, while being so quick to criticize "the US" for something one individual citizen did. I'm also stating how ironic, at best, it is that so many Canadians make a show of how their nation isn't a nation of Christians like the US defend the crown, which is your head of state, which excludes Catholics. I find it ironic, at best, that a nation that prides itself on multiculturalism and tolerance and fair treatment to all (isn't that what I'm always hearing regarding your health care?) would retain a system where their head of state is determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion.

It's not discrimination, it's a "job requirement" just like the POTUS has. You don't like those rather stringent job requirements, but they are job requirements none-the-less. I could care less how you choose to elect/select your head of state, as at the end of the day I have no control over it. I do find it ironic however, that you are utterly in denial about the limits that are already placed on the office. The naturalized citizenship notwithstanding, as I mentioned earlier, a Muslim would never be elected POTUS, not because a law prevents him, but because, the majority of Americans would NEVER elect him/her. In fact are there any representatives on a federal scale that are of the Muslim faith? Keep in mind I'm not speaking of what "could be" I'm speaking of what is. The proof is in the pudding as it were.

I think "not wanting to be Americans" perhaps figures too prominently in too many Canadians' mindset. We have never done anything because "we don't want to be this or that" but rather because this is what we want to be.

I'm sorry to inform you my friend, but your country was founded on "we're not British" that's why you came up with a system that was vastly different.

Last but not least, many Canadians feel it's time to get rid of the monarchy. It's not just an "American thing."

Perhaps they do, I would have to see a valid study with the methodology spelled out. Besides getting rid of the monarchy is no easy task. If one thing can be said about Canadians we don't like to rock the boat. Getting rid of the monarchy, means re-writing the constitution almost in it's entirity, this is no small task. The provinces couldn't even agree on the relatively minor changes in Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. How would we ever agree on something so far reaching? I think you're quick to criticize our current system but slow on alternatives, you cannot simply copy and paste bits and pieces from one system into another. Their are many intricacies I think you fail to understand at this point. Our Confederation is not structured the same way your Union is, there are reason why things are setup the way they are. There are also reasons why are system has been the most successful of any other system of government currently employed.

Are you agreeing that it's discriminatory? And that you're ok with your head of state being discriminatory? Because if you are, you can't criticize anyone else for discrimination.

I'm agreeing it's as much a "job requirement" as the ones you've state above yes You can't criticize us for having "job requirements" if you're ok with the ones placed by your own HOS.

Based on what a lot of Canadians on this board are telling me, you wouldn't have to replace it with anything because she doesn't do anything. It's all symbolic. She has no power. Why would someone who is only a symbol, who has no power, need to be replaced? That, too, is an earnest question.

Ahh there it is. If you believe erroneously as many of these Canadians do, that the Crown is purely symbolic and useless, then you don't understand the role of the Crown. This does explain why we are having this discussion however. What people "say" or "think" about the Crown is rather immaterial, what is important is what the constitution "says" about the crown. That is reality, that is law, and that is the foundation of our democracy.

But if you need to replace the monarchy, why not eliminate it and just have a position such as your Governor General completely devoid of the crown? - Why do you need a tie to the crown? Why wouldn't you want YOUR GG-type position to be your head of state position instead of "representative of" the head of state - especially in light of what it is representative of?

We could in fact do this I suppose with some constitutional wrangling as mentioned above, but again to what benefit? As our system is, the position of head of state is not elected and with good reason. This would mean that the PM would still appoint the head of state, and we all know how this has worked out in terms of the senate. Because the GG, as the position stands is not beholden to the PM but rather the Crown whom he/she represents. However, we are well outside of my personal realm of knowledge on this particular aspect, this is something that GBAMBINO is far more suited to address than myself. I suppose it all comes back to the simple fact that if it is truly not broken why fix it?

If as many Canadians felt that strongly about the Monarchy as some on this board would have you believe I'm certain we would have made the appropriate changes already. It is my theory, that it is a non-issue for most Canadians and our Gracious and decidedly non-Catholic Queen shall be with us for many more years to come. Religion is truly not a big deal in Canada, many of us are "Christian" in name only, how many of us are "practicing" is entirely another matter. I think that the Religion of the Monarch is as big a deal to most Canadians as the Religion of our PM, most probably don't know or care to know it.

You are one of these people that do not like the Monarchy and think it should be scrapped simply because it is "archaic" however you give little thought to the ramifications of those actions. The imbalances in our system that would create, the ridiculous amount of power that would then be concentrated in the PMO not to mention the amount of autonomy that would be lost by the provinces. You cannot simply pull out a key check and balance in our system and "hope for the best". There are reason why things are setup the way they are, it's a tried and true method of government. Honestly, the onus, is not truly on me to prove why the Monarchy should stay, the stability and success of our nation speaks for itself. The onus is on you, and those Canadians of like mind, to prove to me why we should be rid of it and more importantly provide a comprehensive plan on how we shall proceed going forward, and what the new structure of government will be and how it will function. Because you don't like it is insufficient I'm afraid.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Dave_ON

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In fact are there any representatives on a federal scale that are of the Muslim faith? Keep in mind I'm not speaking of what "could be" I'm speaking of what is. The proof is in the pudding as it were.

Yes...Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota)

http://ellison.house.gov/