Jump to content

Conservatives To restore The Royal Canadians...


Recommended Posts

Hellyer said that every army in the world will follow, what followed was bunch of snickering going on behind the backs of our people in (bus) uniforms. This was a shot by trudeau who hated and did not understand the military, to bring them down a notch, and for some strange reason.

That's it in a nutshell, I guess. Some folks are just totally incapable of understanding the military and the people in it.

They'd never be so impolitic to say it but secretly they believe that soldiers are rather on the dumb side and just like to fight! So they signed up for the great pay!

I mean , if they were really intelligent they would have gone to university and taken Arts courses, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are people who look down their noses at others, and there are people who look down on such behavior.

You're a strange breed, in that it seems from your post that you do both ?

Sometimes! I've been learning from Oleg! :)

Actually, I was implying how some of my fellow citizens appear to think and also what part of the social and political spectrum they often appear to come from.

In my youth I worked on a lot of construction sites and later with engineers and other technical persons. I can't recall even ONE who would have had a disparaging thought about our soldiers or would have begrudged them decent pay and equipment!

However, when I went to McMaster I heard such talk on campus so often it was considered mainstream thought, like the sun rising in the morning! Granted, those were the Viet Nam war times and there was a lot of spillover from American culture but still, I've been back to that campus and that of other universities over the years, along with what I catch in the media and it seems that school of thought is still alive in many places today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, when I went to McMaster I heard such talk on campus so often it was considered mainstream thought, like the sun rising in the morning!

Do you think that there's anything wrong with making such generalizations ? Either morally or logically ?

Examples: "Soldiers are stupid." "Arts students are stupid."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be correct.

Thanks, you are right my mistake, but trudeau did push it and never tried to stop it. The thing is from the day it started it has been slowing coming back, just the ranks for the airforce needs to be changed back. Why do people hate out history and want to cover it up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stayed out of this discussion in real life and on here because I wanted to give this whole idea some thought. I haven't read this thread, so I don't know what the arguments are here. For me it boils down to this.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, represented by the Governor General. Our armed forces are royal armed forces without question.

The real controversy is over whether or not we ought to still be considered a monarchy. Technically we are, but I've argued before that we are a republic in practice. Any intervention by the monarch in Canadian affairs would lead to a constitutional crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real controversy is over whether or not we ought to still be considered a monarchy. Technically we are, but I've argued before that we are a republic in practice. Any intervention by the monarch in Canadian affairs would lead to a constitutional crisis.

Oh my goodness, I'm forced to take a month long vacation only to come back to the same discussion? We're a constitutional monarchy. We operate like a constitutional monarchy. It's that simple. As for the name change, it doesn't mean much to me, although I think it signals a commitment on the part of the government to the Department of National Defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're a constitutional monarchy. We operate like a constitutional monarchy. It's that simple.

I didn't say we weren't. I'm sorry that you really struggle with the idea of the constitution making the monarch moot, which makes Canada in practice a republic. That's my opinion, however and you've yet to convince me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that there's anything wrong with making such generalizations ? Either morally or logically ?

Examples: "Soldiers are stupid." "Arts students are stupid."

Michael, if we were sharing a quiet beer I would likely say that both generalizations are wrong. Certainly, making such generalizations is not positive at all.

However, sometimes I feel I am so overwhelmed by the anti-soldier generalizations, along with those against pretty well anybody or anything that is not "progressive", which is code these days for 'leftwing' that I am prompted to strike back, out of anger and frustration.

I know you prefer to believe that the world is more balanced, that the CBC is not biased, that universities are still bastions of free speech and are NOT anti-semitic in their beliefs and so on. However, my personal experience and observations disagree with you. I see patronizing examples of "progressive" arrogance almost every day! I can only stomach so much. If I enjoyed it I would simply debate with Shwa all day long!

Usually I let it roll off my back but sometimes it pisses me off just a bit too much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real controversy is over whether or not we ought to still be considered a monarchy. Technically we are, but I've argued before that we are a republic in practice. Any intervention by the monarch in Canadian affairs would lead to a constitutional crisis.

There's no controversy. In Canada, all governmental power is vested in a hereditary monarch; that fact is illustrated constantly: orders-in-council require the governor general's signature, bills require Royal Assent to become law, police enforce the Queen's laws (and have crowns on their badges to symbolise from where they draw their authority), the prime minister cannot prorogue or dissolve parlaiment, appoint a senator, a Supreme Court justice, other ministers, and so on, without the governor general's agreement, etc., etc. You might think this is mere formality, but it is not, it is the law. Of course, those laws were written and/or supported by our elected representatives in parliament, including the laws that state who may hold the Crown (governmental power) and what he or she may or may not do with it. That's called constitutional monarchy, which is also sometimes referred to as a "crowned republic".

Your last claim is also wrong: The aforementioned laws and customs do allow the monarch (or, for us, her representative) to intervene without or against ministerial or parliamentary advice, but only in certain, extraordinary circumstances. If the monarch intervened when her intervention wasn't called for, she would cause a constitutional crisis, yes. However, if there were a constitutional crisis already, it could well be right (depending on the specifics of the scenario) for the monarch to invtervene to end it.

[link]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no point in going around in circles about this again. My opinion is that the monarchy is nothing more than a symbolic gesture to our heritage and we are in practice a republic. You and Smallc disagree. I get it. I hadn't heard the term "Crowned Republic", which is a great way of describing it.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the monarchy is nothing more than a symbolic gesture to our heritage and we are in practice a republic.

Don't you find it a little odd that you cling so strongly to that opinion even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary? The system - the "crowned republic" - doesn't work without the Crown. The Queen is not some ornament, as you seem to believe she is. The whole point is that there exists someone in the system - a non-partisan individual outside the political arena - who holds all the power, lending it to the politicians but denying them absolute possession of it and enabling her to say "no" when (and only when) the politicians don't play by the rules or when there is some other threat to the continuity and stability of government.

[+]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most would say yours is the funny one. Over time, many of the changes made in 1968 have since been undone: the ranks, the uniforms, the decals; the moves were never popular with the people serving in the forces. To you, though, those fixes - a return to what was before a change nobody wanted was made - was regression, since this return to the original naming is in the same vein and you think it's backwards.

Besides that, this country is - right now, today - a constitutional monarchy. It doesn't seem at all incongruous for branches of the military to have a 'royal' prefix before their names; it's a badge of honour marking distinguished service to the non-partisan Canadian Crown, the embodiment of the state. The same is done in Norway, the UK, Sweden, Morocco, Thailand, Australia, Denmark. Nothing backwards about it.

As usual I defer to all your posts and agree with you. When it comes to the constitution it is always a pleasure to read your well written and stated opinions.

For some they can not understand that these traditions such as the Royal prefix have much history to them which in the military has much to do with pride and the sense of knowing where one is headed because of where they come from.

Tradition is not something I always embrace but I understand from my father both an army officer and air force officer that such traditions are something that kept and keeps men sane in a world of insanity. It gives them a sense of perspective when all around them seems to make no sense.

Again I am no traditionalist in many things but when it comes to the armed forces, I am glad to see their pride has been restored and their link to their past is now reconnected to their present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the constitution it is always a pleasure to read your well written and stated opinions.

Thank you.

Again I am no traditionalist in many things but when it comes to the armed forces, I am glad to see their pride has been restored and their link to their past is now reconnected to their present.

I find tradition is important; but, I can't think of when it's ever been the sole grounds on which I've built an opinion; tradition alone isn't reason enough to keep a tradition in place as is. Conversely, though, change for the sake of change isn't something I appreciate either and, generally, traditions should be allowed to either morph or die out on their own, as time passes, rather than deliberately and suddenly ended by an authority.

So, it's good to see the clunky "command" names of the branches gone and the traditional designations returned, complete with the 'royal' prefixes, both granted by King George V; I know tradition and continuity is something important to the military. However, I see it as more important that there be plenty of symbolic indications throughout the armed forces of the fact that it's an apolitical monarch, who personifies the nation, to whom the members owe their allegiance, not parliament or the Cabinet or the prime minister. Also, Canadian personnel should feel equal to their serving brethren in the forces of other constitutional monarchies, the navies and air forces of which, as I said, have the 'royal' marker in their names. If I were an airman in Holland, I'd feel somewhat embarrassed and snubbed by my own government having to say to a member of the Royal Netherlands Air Force that I belonged to the Canadian Forces Air Command.

[+]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you polled all the young pups in the military right now i'm sure you'd see that the vast majority of them don't give a poop about the monarchy, or "royal" this and that.

Their commitment to serve should be called into question if they don't give a poop about the monarchy, seeing as it would put the sincerity of their recitation of the oath into question.

This is going to cost a bunch of money to change the names so IMO it's a bad idea.

"A bunch of money". $200? $20,000,000? Could you be a little more specific?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Their commitment to serve should be called into question if they don't give a poop about the monarchy, seeing as it would put the sincerity of their recitation of the oath into question.

To add to that, to some extent, extreme “negative talk” about the monarch well by a serving member can be punishable under military law......

"A bunch of money". $200? $20,000,000? Could you be a little more specific?

The website was changed in a mater of hours the day of the announcement, the folks that did it, are on salary anyways…………As for the rest, things like sign painting, letter head, business cards etc will be changed through attrition………..DND returned ~ billion dollars in unspent funds last year, this won’t cost a fraction of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that, to some extent, extreme “negative talk” about the monarch well by a serving member can be punishable under military law......

It would have to be bordering on treason before any punnishment was metted out, I think. There was, a few years ago, an officer and teacher at the Royal Military College in Kingston who refused to sing the Royal Anthem and toast the Queen at mess dinners, saying it offended his Irish republican beliefs (a neo-Fenian in Her Majesty's Forces). His case went before the CF grievance board, then the Chief of the Defence Staff, and finally a court. He railed against the "foreign" "English" queen, but was never punnished; he was only essentially told to put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bad about what quebec and the immigrants say, I for one don't care anymore. I have seen this country change way to fast, trying to erase everything english about it,including our history. It all started with trudeau's plan to make quebec dominate and most powerful in this country and so many foolish english canadians fell for it.He was laughing at how english canada gave him the power to do what ever he felt like, while englsih canada was losing everything it had built up while building this country.Why do you think he brought in the metric system, nothing to do with business, but another form of kicking english canada in the nuts. We are back and the country better get use to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong, and I would suspect that even this government knows it. This country is far more than its British heritage. This country is everyone who lives here, and so much more. Yes, our British heritage is a part of who we are, and our identity as a constitutional monarchy is an extremely important part of who we are, but that isn't all that we are.

What I'm saying, is that you should care what Quebec and the immigrants say, because they're as much a part of this as anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong, and I would suspect that even this government knows it. This country is far more than its British heritage. This country is everyone who lives here, and so much more. Yes, our British heritage is a part of who we are, and our identity as a constitutional monarchy is an extremely important part of who we are, but that isn't all that we are.

What I'm saying, is that you should care what Quebec and the immigrants say, because they're as much a part of this as anyone else.

The MAIN reason this country is so great is because of out british heritage, and I for one do like what is happening. You are wrong with your statement that this country is everyone that lives here, what bunch of PC crap that is. This country was doing just fine before trudeau showed up, all he did was rip the heart out of english canada, the man had no respect for the people that actually built this country or it's history. But hey who cares, harper is running the show. So I am going to called a racist or bigot now ,because I am a white english male canadian,that does not agree with the way this country was run. Our citizenship should be respected and earned, not given out in crackerjack boxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,743
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...