Prince Harry

[Bonam]

I've yet to ever hear any real argument against the Monarchy except for certain people just not liking it. Some just say "democracy" as if that is an answer, but Canada is a well functioning democracy as it is. Personally I believe in the diversification of power. In our society, people can gain power through being elected, but also through being appointed, and also through being promoted, and also through making money, and also through gaining fame, and also by birthright. I see no particular reason to shorten that list.

[eyeball]

Canada is a well functioning democracy as it is.

[cybercoma]

say it slowly ...IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!...if we want it, it will change...if the people say "we want it to change, get it done" it will be done...all the gloom and doom foot dragging comes from monarchists claiming it's impossible so they can kowtow endlessly to a foreign anachronism...

Nobody said it was impossible. Maybe you need to read through the thread again until you understand what's being said. There isn't the political will for it because nobody has come up with something better to replace it. You want to fix something that's not broken.

[Wilber]

Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. Whether you like the monarchy or not, no case has been made that it would function better without it.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. Whether you like the monarchy or not, no case has been made that it would function better without it.

Would it function worse without it? That's the question you should be asking.

[bleeding heart]

Would it function worse without it? That's the question you should be asking.

That has been covered fairly well in this very thread.

[Smallc]

Would it function worse without it? That's the question you should be asking.

Why is that the question you should be asking? The system works as is. You'd better prove that the difficult change would be worth it.

[Guest American Woman]

Why is that the question you should be asking? The system works as is. You'd better prove that the difficult change would be worth it.

I would think that in this day and age, a democracy having a head of state that's earned the position rather than being born into it, without religious restrictions, would be worth the "difficult" change for that reason alone.

[Smallc]

I would think that in this day and age, a democracy having a head of state that's earned the position rather than being born into it, without religious restrictions, would be worth the "difficult" change for that reason alone.

I'm not sure, quite frankly, why you would think that. There are many, many, successful, stable, prosperous constitutional monarchies in this day and age. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

[eyeball]

Why is that the question you should be asking? The system works as is. You'd better prove that the difficult change would be worth it.

There'd be no need to change anything at all if the monarch would simply do their jobs - which includes protecting not just our democracy and it's system of government from us, but also to protect us from our governments.

I've been given to understand our Queen actually does do this on occasion and in a similar recent thread was assured she'd take Harper out behind the woodshed to have a few words about his abuses of power of late but I've yet to see any reason to believe it's had any effect.

I mean, now we're openly reaching out to torturers for Christ's sake. Our system of governance is getting even more FUBAR not less.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure, quite frankly, why you would think that.

Really? You're not sure why I think someone who's earned the position might be better criteria than simply going with someone, preferably a male and definitely not Catholic or married to a Catholic, simply born into the family? I can't begin to understand your mindset.

There are many, many, successful, stable, prosperous constitutional monarchies in this day and age. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

If that's the attitude everyone had, there would be no progress, because something that isn't broken can still be replaced by something better. Getting rid of the archaic notion that one is suited for the job of head of state simply by virtue of birth, religion, and gender would be one of those times.

[Wilber]

Would it function worse without it? That's the question you should be asking.

Why should I? Do you continually ask whether you need to change your form of government? Whether there is something better than your present system which of late has been able to accomplish very little because of rampant partisanship?

I would think that in this day and age, a democracy having a head of state that's earned the position rather than being born into it, without religious restrictions, would be worth the "difficult" change for that reason alone.

I tend to be a pragmatist first, more interested in what works than appearances. The more I see of politics, the more I like the idea of a head of state that is not elected and who's responsibilities are constitutional, not political. Ours happens to be a monarch. Archaic possibly but it has served us not too badly.

You seem to get very hung up on the monarch's religion. Perhaps that is because religion plays such a big part in your political system. That is one of the things that make our countries different. It plays next to none in ours. Flaunting your religious beliefs in an election here is far more likely to lose you votes than gain them. Proudly proclaiming your Christianity seems to be mandatory in your presidential elections. That is frowned upon here. The fact the monarch cannot be Catholic has no bearing on the way we are governed, we have had many Catholic prime ministers and governor generals. I daresay the chances of a non Christian becoming prime minister or governor general are far greater than ever becoming president, so who has real religious freedom in their political system.

[Guest American Woman]

Why should I? Do you continually ask whether you need to change your form of government? Whether there is something better than your present system which of late has been able to accomplish very little because of rampant partisanship?

If my form of government included a head of state 'selected' by virtue of birth, religion, and gender, I wouldn't have to ask myself whether or not we need to change it; I'd know that yes, we do.

I tend to be a pragmatist first, more interested in what works than appearances. The more I see of politics, the more I like the idea of a head of state that is not elected and who's responsibilities are constitutional, not political. Ours happens to be a monarch. Archaic possibly but it has served us not too badly.

It's not the idea of a head of state who's not elected and who's responsibilities are constitutional that I am critical of; it's the criteria that the person getting the position is based on - birth, religion, gender.

You seem to get very hung up on the monarch's religion.

I'm "hung up" on it all, which is why I mention it all. Again. The criteria is birth, gender, and religion. Birth, gender, and religion are hardly what I deem appropriate "criteria" for such a position.

Perhaps that is because religion plays such a big part in your political system.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it's because I disagree with such a position being denying to one specific religion.

That is one of the things that make our countries different. It plays next to none in ours.

It's front and center regarding your head of state.

[Wilber]

If my form of government included a head of state 'selected' by virtue of birth, religion, and gender, I wouldn't have to ask myself whether or not we need to change it; I'd know that yes, we do.

It's not your form of government and just because something isn't American doesn't automaticaly make it inferior.

You said we should ask ourselves whether it would work better without it. You would change it just because you don't like the idea.

It's not the idea of a head of state who's not elected and who's responsibilities are constitutional that I am critical of; it's the criteria that the person getting the position is based on - birth, religion, gender.

See above.

I'm "hung up" on it all, which is why I mention it all. Again. The criteria is birth, gender, and religion. Birth, gender, and religion are hardly what I deem appropriate "criteria" for such a position.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it's because I disagree with such a position being denying to one specific religion.

It's front and center regarding your head of state.

See above again.

Your system effectively excludes non Christians.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not your form of government and just because something isn't American doesn't automaticaly make it inferior.

Was that the reason for my criticism? - that it's not American, therefore it is inferior?? I never even said it was inferior.

Good God. Get over your complex about America and Americans and try to respond with at least an ounce of relevance. I CLEARLY said, and I quote, "It's not the idea of a head of state who's not elected and who's responsibilities are constitutional that I am critical of" - so CLEARLY my criticism has nothing to do with the idea that it "isn't American." In fact, YOU were the one who brought my government into the discussion, not me.

Again. My criticism is for the CRITERIA regarding who automatically becomes your head of state - and that criteria is birth, gender, and religion. What about that criteria makes you think that person is up for the job; is better suited than someone else?

You said we should ask ourselves whether it would work better without it. You would change it just because you don't like the idea.

No, I did not say you should ask yourselves that. What I did say, and I quote, is "Would it function worse without it? That's the question you should be asking."

I would change it because I don't believe in such a position going to someone based simply, only, on their birth, gender, and religion.

Your system effectively excludes non Christians.

My system does nothing of the sort. That is outright false.

Edited September 1, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

There'd be no need to change anything at all if the monarch would simply do their jobs - which includes protecting not just our democracy and it's system of government from us, but also to protect us from our governments.

That would be partisan interference. That's not what a monarchy is supposed to be about, especially a constitutional monarchy.

[cybercoma]

Really? You're not sure why I think someone who's earned the position

Earned the position? Do you think that the US president earns that position?

[Guest American Woman]

Earned the position? Do you think that the US president earns that position?

A helluva lot more than someone simply born into it, of the preferred gender, and of the required religion. It's not handed to them, nor is it a privilege afforded them simply based on birth, gender, and religion. Do you truly not see that??

[cybercoma]

A helluva lot more than someone simply born into it, of the preferred gender, and of the required religion. It's not handed to them, nor is it a privilege afforded them simply based on birth, gender, and religion. Do you truly not see that??

No I don't see it, considering there has never been a female president. Not even close. So for you to complain about gender constraints of the Canadian monarch is a bit laughable. Also, you don't think it makes a significant difference what family you're born into? I'm pretty sure those born into wealth are at a serious advantage to becoming or even running for president in the US. Moreover, family names carry a lot of leverage in politics. It helps if your last name is Kennedy or Bush, don't you think? You may not have any formal restrictions on the presidency in the United States, but in practice it's just as restricted.

[Guest American Woman]

No I don't see it, considering there has never been a female president. Not even close. So for you to complain about gender constraints of the Canadian monarch is a bit laughable.

Since no woman has been passed over by another by virtue of their gender by law, the only thing a bit laughable is your inability to see the difference between election results and being 'the chosen one' by virtue of the criteria I've repeated ad nauseam. As for "not even close," you're a wee bit wrong about that.

Also, you don't think it makes a significant difference what family you're born into? I'm pretty sure those born into wealth are at a serious advantage to becoming or even running for president in the US.

I can name a few presidents who were not born into wealth, but if you really can't see the difference between "having an advantage" and "being disqualified," you are seriously not seeing the reality.

Moreover, family names carry a lot of leverage in politics. It helps if your last name is Kennedy or Bush, don't you think? You may not have any formal restrictions on the presidency in the United States, but in practice it's just as restricted.

That is so blatantly false as to be preposterous.

You would see no difference, have no criticism, if the U.S. Constitution were amended to give males the legal advantage, while forbidding by law a Catholic from becoming POTUS or the POTUS having a Catholic spouse, stating that one must be born into a particular family?

Let's say the constitution is amended to state that the U.S. head of state will be the first born male of the Bush family, or a female if no male is produced, and he must not become Catholic or marry a Catholic.

That would be no different from the way things stand now, eh? And you wouldn't be critical of that. You think that would be suitable criteria.

:rolleyes: a thousand times over

[Wilber]

It seems the only people who care about the religion of our monarch are Americans. Interesting. We don't.

[Smallc]

The reality is, our system of government works, arguably better than the presidential republic model. Why then, would we try to change it, even if it doesn't feel right to some people?

[Guest American Woman]

It seems the only people who care about the religion of our monarch are Americans. Interesting. We don't.

And the fact that you don't....speaks volumes. As I said, if it were the U.S. prohibiting one religion from being POTUS, y'all would be all over us - and rightfully so, IMO. But since it's 'tolerant Canada,' no big deal, eh?

[Guest American Woman]

The reality is, our system of government works, arguably better than the presidential republic model. Why then, would we try to change it, even if it doesn't feel right to some people?

"Arguably" being the key word. Seriously.

But since our government has worked without a Muslim POTUS, I think perhaps we should amend the constitution to prohibit a Muslim from ever becoming POTUS. Sounds reasonable, eh? Why not, even if it doesn't feel right to some people?

[Smallc]

"Arguably" being the key word.

Yes, the key word...as in, by many metrics, it works better than the theoretically better system.