The Canadian Monarchy

[ToadBrother]

will harper chance that? the royal butt licker that he is harper wants no opportunity for the anti-monarchists to bring forth it's case, with every generation the number of non-british non-royalist population grows in canada, 70% and still growing...the moment the constituion needs to be opened to visit the issue of succession so will be the issue of abolishment...

the mess it would create is vastly over stated by the monarchist crowd in order to keep their kowtowing ways...

As I've said earlier on this thread, we can't even talk about more mundane matters like Senate term limits without two provinces threatening to go to the Supreme Court, and you think ripping open the heart of the constitution to abolish the Monarchy will be like tripping through the daisies.

I'll wager Harper is as mad as hell that Cameron has brought this up, but Cameron has to do a bit of a dog-and-pony show for the LibDems, and will likely be quite grateful to hear Harper say "We'll take it slow..."

[MWRS]

I feel there is a need for an important point of clarification with regards to Cameron's proposal:

There is some understandable consternation that the Canadian Parliament might be asked to pass a succession amendment that discriminates against Roman Catholics. But there is a misunderstaning based on the media misleadingly reporting that only Roman Catholics would continue to be barred from the throne. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, Cameron proposes to remove EVERY restriction from the succession law that specifically targets Roman Catholics. Under his proposal, heirs will be allowed to marry Roman Catholics (just as they can now marry Jews if they wish). Heirs will even be allowed to grow up as Roman Catholics (just as they can now grow up in the Jewish faith if they wish) without losing their place in the succession.

The religious restriction Cameron proposes to keep is not one that specifically targets Roman Catholicism. It wouldn't be that the monarch simply couldn't be a Roman Catholic, it would be that the monarch would (continue to) have to be an Anglican. Cameron's reason is that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can't be a Roman Catholic any more than (s)he can be a Mormon, a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.

The distinction is important because while some 40% of the population of our country is Roman Catholic, some 94% is non-Anglican, so the difference does matter. More importantly, it is imperative that any new succession amendment affirm and strengthen Canada's commitment to the separation of church and state. Requiring the Canadian monarch to be of a specific religious denomination is a clear violation of that principle, even if the monarch plays no further religious role.

Now that Cameron has opened up this can of worms, it will be hard to close it up again. Parliament should use the opportunity to unequivocally secularize the head of state once and for all.

[ToadBrother]

I feel there is a need for an important point of clarification with regards to Cameron's proposal:

There is some understandable consternation that the Canadian Parliament might be asked to pass a succession amendment that discriminates against Roman Catholics. But there is a misunderstaning based on the media misleadingly reporting that only Roman Catholics would continue to be barred from the throne. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, Cameron proposes to remove EVERY restriction from the succession law that specifically targets Roman Catholics. Under his proposal, heirs will be allowed to marry Roman Catholics (just as they can now marry Jews if they wish). Heirs will even be allowed to grow up as Roman Catholics (just as they can now grow up in the Jewish faith if they wish) without losing their place in the succession.

The religious restriction Cameron proposes to keep is not one that specifically targets Roman Catholicism. It wouldn't be that the monarch simply couldn't be a Roman Catholic, it would be that the monarch would (continue to) have to be an Anglican. Cameron's reason is that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can't be a Roman Catholic any more than (s)he can be a Mormon, a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.

The distinction is important because while some 40% of the population of our country is Roman Catholic, some 94% is non-Anglican, so the difference does matter. More importantly, it is imperative that any new succession amendment affirm and strengthen Canada's commitment to the separation of church and state. Requiring the Canadian monarch to be of a specific religious denomination is a clear violation of that principle, even if the monarch plays no further religious role.

Now that Cameron has opened up this can of worms, it will be hard to close it up again. Parliament should use the opportunity to unequivocally secularize the head of state once and for all.

I was unaware that Cameron was proposing to deal with the prohibition on Catholics in the Act of Settlement at all. His proposal is purely to do with male-line primogeniture. He has said it would be nice to deal with that other aspect of the Act of Settlement, but that does not seem to be what he is asking the other Realms to look at.

Ultimately, it's up to the Realms to discuss. It may very well be that there is insufficient consensus to move this forward. But, for the UK, at least, altering the religious prohibition is a very large kettle of fish.

[Shwa]

Get a clue Shwa.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/588854--caledonia-builder-s-attacker-convicted

Bloody nose indeed.

And the guy was convicted for his crime proving that the police and the law were working as they ought.

Get a clue Capricorn.

[Rupert S. Lander]

I feel there is a need for an important point of clarification with regards to Cameron's proposal:

There is some understandable consternation that the Canadian Parliament might be asked to pass a succession amendment that discriminates against Roman Catholics. But there is a misunderstaning based on the media misleadingly reporting that only Roman Catholics would continue to be barred from the throne. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, Cameron proposes to remove EVERY restriction from the succession law that specifically targets Roman Catholics. Under his proposal, heirs will be allowed to marry Roman Catholics (just as they can now marry Jews if they wish). Heirs will even be allowed to grow up as Roman Catholics (just as they can now grow up in the Jewish faith if they wish) without losing their place in the succession.

The religious restriction Cameron proposes to keep is not one that specifically targets Roman Catholicism. It wouldn't be that the monarch simply couldn't be a Roman Catholic, it would be that the monarch would (continue to) have to be an Anglican. Cameron's reason is that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can't be a Roman Catholic any more than (s)he can be a Mormon, a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.

The distinction is important because while some 40% of the population of our country is Roman Catholic, some 94% is non-Anglican, so the difference does matter. More importantly, it is imperative that any new succession amendment affirm and strengthen Canada's commitment to the separation of church and state. Requiring the Canadian monarch to be of a specific religious denomination is a clear violation of that principle, even if the monarch plays no further religious role.

Now that Cameron has opened up this can of worms, it will be hard to close it up again. Parliament should use the opportunity to unequivocally secularize the head of state once and for all.

As hard as trying to sell a succession amendment that bars Catholics in Parliament would be, selling a succession amendment that bars all non-Anglicans would be 1000 times harder still.

And yes making this whole issue primarily about separating church and state is better than looking like you're just trying to resolve the gripe of one particular denomination, especially if it's really not just their gripe anymore.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Rupert S. Lander

[Rupert S. Lander]

I was unaware that Cameron was proposing to deal with the prohibition on Catholics in the Act of Settlement at all. His proposal is purely to do with male-line primogeniture. He has said it would be nice to deal with that other aspect of the Act of Settlement, but that does not seem to be what he is asking the other Realms to look at.

Ultimately, it's up to the Realms to discuss. It may very well be that there is insufficient consensus to move this forward. But, for the UK, at least, altering the religious prohibition is a very large kettle of fish.

Cameron's letter to the other PM's explicitly deals with the prohibitions on heirs marrying Catholics and growing up as Catholics.

Because the British monarch is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he or she cannot as it stands be a Catholic (or any other denomination besides Anglican it would seem).

[Rupert S. Lander]

It would violate the tenets of the Statute of Westminster. This isn't a matter of custom (or more properly convention), but in our system of government, those customs deemed to be of a constitutional nature are as locked into amending formulas as those written down. There is no lesser class of constitutional precepts, the only difference being into which areas of Confederation they intrude; so that some require only Parliament, some require only Parliament and the provinces effects, some require the 7+50 formula (two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population) and some requiring Parliament and the legislatures.

Even "unwritten" conventions like the Royal Prerogatives still, if they were changed or revoked, would still require amendments based upon which domains to which they intruded.

If Canada, or any realm, wishes to break away from the others, they will have to repudiate the Statute of Westminster, which will mean constitutional amendments.

If the Charter's irrelevant then what does the Statute of Westminster have to do with this?

Basically, you're saying the Statute of Westminster is as toothless as the Charter of Rights in this matter.

I was discussing succession reform enacted a potential amendment of the constitution that had unanimous consent of the provinces.

Clearly, if a constitutional amendment can contravene the tenets of the Charter (and I never intended to say they couldn't) then it can just as easily contravene the tenets of the Statute of Westminster.

Besides, even if Parliament did infringe on repudiate the Statute of Westminster by means of a constitutional amendment, that wouldn't mean we were repudiating our independence since the Statute has been superseded by the Constitution Act, 1982.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Rupert S. Lander

[ToadBrother]

So basically, you're saying the Statute of Westminster is as toothless as the Charter of Rights in this matter.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I was discussing succession reform enacted a potential amendment of the constitution that had unanimous consent of the provinces.

Clearly, if a constitutional amendment can contravene the tenets of the Charter (and I never intended to say they couldn't) then it can just as easily contravene the tenets of the Statute of Westminster.

It's not an issue of contravention. The Charter does not apply to the Constitution itself. If it did, then the Act of Settlement would already be in contravention.

A provincial court at least, as you referenced (but didn't apparently read the whole ruling) has at least tested out the idea that the Act of Settlement violates the Charter and made it clear, the Act of Settlement by definition is not bound by charter. It stands that amendments to that Act, seeing as it is already a constitutional document, could not somehow be prohibited by the Charter any more than the original document.

That's not to say you couldn't have to constitutional statements that didn't blatantly violate each other, and then, I suppose, we'd enter a complex landscape, because I do not think the Supreme Court could presume to have the power to rule one constitutional precept over another. It's job is interpretation of the Constitution, it is not afforded the power to dismiss any constitutional precept.

But at any rate, the Charter was never intended to apply to the constitution itself, but rather to regular legislation, to the policies of executive, to the courts, and to their counterparts at the provincial level. For it to gain that kind of power over the constitution itself would require specific language being attached to the Charter stating that it overrode any other clause in the constitution.

Besides, even if Parliament did infringe on repudiate the Statute of Westminster by means of a constitutional amendment, that wouldn't mean we were repudiating our independence since the Statute has been superseded by the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Statute of Westminster has not be repudiated. Where on earth did you ever get that idea? The Constitution Act, 1982 only supersedes what it says it supersedes, nothing more and nothing less. Unless you can point me a specific article in the Constitution Act that repudiates the Statute, you're talking out of your arse. The Statute is a part of the constitution of all the Realms, a number of which have constitutions which antedate the Statute.

The whole point of the Statute of Westminster was to give the Commonwealth realms as they stood then full legislative independence, but to still create an instrument whereby matters of succession, as all the realms shared the same Monarch, could make those changes. The Constitution Act, 1982 did not supplant either the Act of Settlement or the Statute of Westminster.

The chief aspect of the repatriation of the Constitution, from the perspective of Canada's place within the Commonwealth, was to give Canada full powers to amend its own constitution without having to seek the permission of Great Britain. It's intention was never to eliminate previous constitutional documents, precepts or conventions, and, save where the Constitution Act, 1982 and its amendments do specifically revoke those, they remain in force. Substantial changes were debated at the time, but the majority of Premiers were clear in wanting to retain the Monarchy as it stood at that time, and so, it remains so today, unchanged since the last change in the succession, which was with the abdication of Edward VIII.

Wherever did you get this idea that the Statute of Westminster was repudiated?

Edited October 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Rupert S. Lander]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

It's not an issue of contravention. The Charter does not apply to the Constitution itself. If it did, then the Act of Settlement would already be in contravention.

The Statute of Westminster has not be repudiated. Where on earth did you ever get that idea? The Constitution Act, 1982 only supersedes what it says it supersedes, nothing more and nothing less. Unless you can point me a specific article in the Constitution Act that repudiates the Statute, you're talking out of your arse. The Statute is a part of the constitution of all the Realms, a number of which have constitutions which antedate the Statute.

The whole point of the Statute of Westminster was to give the Commonwealth realms as they stood then full legislative independence, but to still create an instrument whereby matters of succession, as all the realms shared the same Monarch, could make those changes. The Constitution Act, 1982 did not supplant either the Act of Settlement or the Statute of Westminster.

The chief aspect of the repatriation of the Constitution, from the perspective of Canada's place within the Commonwealth, was to give Canada full powers to amend its own constitution without having to seek the permission of Great Britain. It's intention was never to eliminate previous constitutional documents, precepts or conventions, and, save where the Constitution Act, 1982 and its amendments do specifically revoke those, they remain in force.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say the Statute of Westminster had been repealed, I noted that subsequent legislation, especially the Constitution Act, 1982, reaffirms Canadian independence.

The Statute of Westminster may be a part of the constitution. But I do think Parliament, in concert with the ten legislatures, can enact any amendment they please, notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster (or the Charter). They could enact an amendment to alter the succession, they could enact an amendment that replaced the whole constitution with a republican version.

Or does the Statute somehow bar that?

[Smallc]

Or does the Statute somehow bar that?

Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, does.

[ToadBrother]

You misunderstand me. I didn't say the Statute of Westminster had been repealed, I noted that subsequent legislation, especially the Constitution Act, 1982, reaffirms Canadian independence.

The Statute of Westminster may be a part of the constitution. But I do think Parliament, in concert with the ten legislatures, can enact any amendment they please, notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster (or the Charter). They could enact an amendment to alter the succession, they could enact an amendment that replaced the whole constitution with a republican version.

Or does the Statute somehow bar that?

The Statute does not bar it, but it does mean that if Canada were to break with the unity of the Crown, they would have to repudiate the Statute of Westminster along with the Act of Settlement. Section 41 clearly gives Parliament and the legislative assemblies that power.

My point is that even where one aspect of the constitution seems to contravene another aspect, it does not mean either part is invalid. The case you cited was a guy trying to claim that the Act of Settlement, 1701 violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the court's response was basically "Not it doesn't, because the Charter does not apply to the Act of Settlement".

Look, right now, if Federal Parliament could get the ten provinces to agree, we could shed the monarchy and become a republic, or anything in between. But to break the unity of the Crown does require specifically repudiating the Statute of Westminster, and not just these bizarre tricks that some legal experts seem to dream up whenever the issue of the monarchy is mentioned.

It could very well be that this whole issue is going to cause a big s---storm, but I more suspect that even Quebec will probably accede to it. If we're going to get torn up about the constitution, there are bigger fish to fry than a hypothetical heir to the throne who may probably won't be eligible (or ineligible as the case may be) for decades to come. Removing the Catholic prohibition would only have a pretty small effect at this point.

[Rupert S. Lander]

The Statute does not bar it, but it does mean that if Canada were to break with the unity of the Crown, they would have to repudiate the Statute of Westminster along with the Act of Settlement. Section 41 clearly gives Parliament and the legislative assemblies that power.

My point is that even where one aspect of the constitution seems to contravene another aspect, it does not mean either part is invalid. The case you cited was a guy trying to claim that the Act of Settlement, 1701 violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the court's response was basically "Not it doesn't, because the Charter does not apply to the Act of Settlement".

Look, right now, if Federal Parliament could get the ten provinces to agree, we could shed the monarchy and become a republic, or anything in between. But to break the unity of the Crown does require specifically repudiating the Statute of Westminster, and not just these bizarre tricks that some legal experts seem to dream up whenever the issue of the monarchy is mentioned.

It could very well be that this whole issue is going to cause a big s---storm, but I more suspect that even Quebec will probably accede to it. If we're going to get torn up about the constitution, there are bigger fish to fry than a hypothetical heir to the throne who may probably won't be eligible (or ineligible as the case may be) for decades to come. Removing the Catholic prohibition would only have a pretty small effect at this point.

Well, it appears that under Cameron's proposal it will be more of a non-Anglican prohibition since the British monarch is head of the Church of England.

I think as big if not the bigger issue is not the question of favouritism and/or discrimination between denominations - the succession issue challenges a core Canadian value - our belief in the separation of church and state.

England wants to maintain a Protestant succession because, while England today tolerates different religious faiths, it maintains an established church and the monarch heads that church. So, putting a Catholic or any non-Anglican on the British throne would be awkward to say the least.

The role of the Canadian Parliament in this debate isn't to tell the British what to do, it's to defend our values. To keep our succession perfectly symmetrical with the British proposal Parliament would need to enact a succession law that restricts the Canadian throne to Anglicans only. Not only does that endorse religious discrimination, it endorses the values of a foreign nation, specifically, their rejection of the separation of church and state.

In my view, this sort of disrespect for Canadian values is simply unacceptable.

[wyly]

No it isn't. You saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

and you saying it will over and over doesn't make it true ..polls show more canadians want it discussed than those who want to leave it alone...

May 26, 2010 - Angus Reid Public Opinion

Thinking about Canada’s constitution, which of these options would you prefer?

Canada having an elected head of state - 36%

Canada remaining a monarchy - 33%

It makes no difference to me - 21%

Don't know - 11%

Would you support or oppose reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state?

Support - 52%

Oppose - 32%

Not sure - 17%

Analysis - Consistent with November 2009's results, a majority of Canadians (52%) support reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state. Only one third (32%) are opposed. Again, the theory that Canadians fear opening the constitution to debate the monarchy is now proven to be completely false.

the number who want to avoid the change is a minority...

[Smallc]

That doesn't in any way prove that it would be more simple than every constitutional scholar I've ever read says.

Oh, and most people are idiots.

[jbg]

Anyone else who's a staunch monarchist care to share your ethnic descent with us? Just curious...

Jewish, of mixed Polish, Ukrainian and Czech/Hungarian descent.

[wyly]

Bullshit. Not one shred of evidence to support that inane claim. On a republican's best day, the poll shows somewhere around 50% looking for abolition; and, even then, the question put to the respondents is usually some misleading tripe about Canada "severing ties" (as if we were bound against our will) to the "British monarchy" (as though the Statute of Westminster and Constitution Act 1982 never happened), and not even a suggestion of what the alternative might be. Face it: most people just don't care enough to know anything about the Crown, let alone eliminate it.

[+]

the bullshit is all yours apparently...

This comes out of an exhaustive spring survey of 1,000 adult Canadians conducted by The Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV. It discovered some expected truths – Canadians consider their flag and the Mounties to be the country's most-distinctive symbols – but also uncovered some surprises, some might say shocks.

The monarchy is a bust with today's Canadians. When asked if they felt a stronger connection to the Queen or the Queen's representative, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, 20 per cent named the Queen, 10 per cent said the G-G – and a remarkable 70 per cent said “ neither .”

And when asked to look beyond the relatively popular Queen, 65 per cent of Canadians thought the ties to the Crown should be severed once she passes. Only 35 per cent care to think of Prince Charles, who will visit here this fall, as a future king of Canada.

“We were frankly surprised by the depth of the desire to cut ties with the monarchy,” Donolo says

"somewhere around 50%" :lol: :lol:... 65% reflects quite well against the 70% non british canadians

Edited October 15, 2011 by wyly

[capricorn]

"Only 35 per cent care to think of Prince Charles, who will visit here this fall, as a future king of Canada.".

Ugh. Even I as a Monarchist cringe at the thought of that dolt maybe becoming King of anywhere. Double the ick factor of seeing that cow Camilla at his side.

I'd like to see a new poll taken in the aftermath of the Kate and William visit. I have a feeling the popularity of individual members of the Royal family has a lot to do with people's perceptions and feelings about the Monarchy.

[Smallc]

Yep, pretty much. The thing is though, most people don't understand the system we have, so I don't really care what they think is a good idea.

[wyly]

prince william only got 30%... and I understand the system we got and I don't care that you don't care...

Edited October 15, 2011 by wyly

[cybercoma]

and you saying it will over and over doesn't make it true ..polls show more canadians want it discussed than those who want to leave it alone...

the number who want to avoid the change is a minority...

I don't know about that. The number that don't care is only somewhat smaller than those that do care. I think the point that many observers have made, I tend to agree, is that those who support the monarchy really support the monarchy. Those that want to abolish it are not as vocal about it. If you look at the numbers, you could roll the "who gives a crap" crowd into either number and see that the country is fairly evenly split about it. Granted, those that don't care might actually not really want a monarch, but don't think it's important enough to get make it an issue.

At the end of the day, I don't think Canadians give it too much thought because our system operates as a de facto republic. The Governor General (monarch) is the legal head of state, but only carry out his/her duties as a matter of ceremony. The PMO actually makes all of the appointments and ultimately all of the decisions of the government. It is the PM that is our head of state in practice. In fact, if you ask most Canadians who the head of state is, a very large portion of them will say the PM even though it's the Queen (or Governor General). Granted, Parliament has much more say in the affairs of the executive branch in our form of democracy than in the United States. In this way the PM's power is theoretically checked by the legislative branch of our government, of which he is a part. However, when they hold majority governments this check disappears.

In any case, I don't think anyone cares about the monarchy because the PM acts as the head of state and the Governor General is merely a ceremonial device. It's not worth pissing off those that want to keep the monarchy simply to change our parliamentary ceremonies.

Edited October 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't want the 'heirs succeeding'. I would rather want a person who gets selected by the Canadian people through some democratic means. The 'First Canadian' would be the Canadian Monarch for life. It will not gender biased, and does not get passed on through heredity.

[g_bambino]

I would rather want a person who gets selected by the Canadian people through some democratic means. The 'First Canadian' would be the Canadian Monarch for life. It will not gender biased, and does not get passed on through heredity.

You've said this, but not what the actual benefit is over what we have now. And, frankly, I see the addition of "monarchical elections" to actually be disadvantageous, divisive and easily taken over by political parties.

[g_bambino]

the bullshit is all yours apparently...

I'd ask for the link you failed to provide, but, on second thought, it doesn't really matter. One poll is meaningless; one can find polls showing the majority favouring the status quo as easily as one can find a poll result showing desire for change. It's the trends that matter, and the average over the past decade or so has been around the 50% mark. And, once again, can we really give credence to polls that ask skewed questions about "ties" and "British monarchy", implying lack of sovereignty, to a population that apparently has no correct idea about Canada's governmental system? Pretty clearly, the answer is: no.

[g_bambino]

Even I as a Monarchist cringe at the thought of that dolt maybe becoming King of anywhere. Double the ick factor of seeing that cow Camilla at his side.

Any actual reason for this vitriol? Or, is it merely what comes from consuming too much tabloid slander?

[g_bambino]

It's not worth pissing off those that want to keep the monarchy simply to change our parliamentary ceremonies.

It's a little more intricate than simply a matter of ceremony. There are systemic effects to changing the head of state from an apolitical figure selected according to constitutional law to a political figure selected by a plurality of either the populace or parliamentarians.