Governor General Visits Downtown Eastside

[maplesyrup]

Well, when you lose a war, usually to the vctor go the spoils, n'est pas?

[g_bambino]

Or we could give her task to someone else elected...

You could.

But proposing that change brings up a slew of difficult issues and questions.

How will this person be elected? If it is in a general election that makes the president political and their impartiality is impaired. If it is by the government then the president’s impartiality is impaired. No elected person can remain unbiased in a time where they must choose between one group and another.

The lack of impartiality leads to the issue of representation. As seen in the President of the United States, or even our prime minister, an elected official, whether directly or indirectly elected, cannot represent everyone. They will only represent those who voted for them. Thus, because of their political nature, when Bush or Martin travel abroad, they cannot, and do not, represent every Canadian or U.S. American. The apolitical Crown, including the Queen and governor general, can represent every Canadian because the Crown does not distinguish between political beliefs, financial status, language, race, or religion.

And the most important question would be—why? What benefit would Canadians have to wake up to the morning after Canada becoming a republic? Stronger unity? A stronger economy? A better place in the global community? I doubt it. Though its only my opinion, I think this would be an extremely divisive debate on a national and provincial level. And should, by some unfathomable feat, Canada become a republic, the division would continue with the added arguments and debates over who should be President of Canada every five years or so.

Look to the debates in Australia regarding their flirt with republicanism to see just how difficult this change is.

I never talked about constitutional monarchy you did.....

I just said earlyer that GG was a symbole of monarchy and i explained what a monarchy is. i never talked about constitutional monarchy.

And that's precisely the problem-- you didn't talk about constitutional monarchy.

You claimed that a monarch (which would include our Queen) is a dictator.

As Canada is a constitutional monarchy where the sovereign is bound by the Canadian constitution, the monarch is not a dictator.

The difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy is an important one which you failed to address.

You did not understand. Im talking about a king or a queen is not elected. It is "choosen", thats religious bullshit, at lest it was like that in french monarchy. I know that if elizabeth is queen of canada its because of law, but she was born a member of the royal family in england, else she would not be a queen.

I'm afraid, bakunin, that you are the one who is not understanding.

The French monarchy was an absolute one. The Canadian monarchy is a constitutional one. The two cannot be compared.

Where the Kings of France claimed that they were kings by the divine right of God, the Queen of Canada is not chosen by any religious means. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say our kings and queens are to be chosen by God.

The line of succession to the Canadian Throne is actually laid out in the Act of Settlement-- an act passed by British parliament in 1701, but which Canada inherited with the patriation of the constitution in 1982. This is currently the law which states who will be King or Queen of Canada.

However, it is also the law which shows that birth alone does not a monarch make. The Act of Settlement stipulates that any Catholics, or any member of the Royal Family who marry Catholics, cannot take the Throne of Canada. Thus, though Prince Charles is the heir to the throne by birth, if he were to marry a Catholic, or become Catholic himself, then he would be removed from the line of succession regardless of his 'royal blood'.

Yes, this is an extremely outdated, and an extremely biased law, and is one of the flaws of the system. But, it is only an unfortunate accident of history that we are stuck with it today. There has been much debate in Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. about changing this law, but, since there are other issues to worry about, and no person immediately in line for the throne is currently a Catholic, there isn’t a great push for change. There is also the fact that, by the Statute of Westminster, it would take the agreement of all 16 nations in the Queen’s Commonwealth to change it.

But, my point is that God, or the accident (or miracle, whichever way you want to see it) of birth alone does not say who will be our sovereign.

Its part of the english canada heritage, a war imposed it to french canadian. i think it make a difference and we can see it in the poll august posted.

Actually, though 245 years ago the French colony of Quebec fell to the British, most francophones in the Americas became subjects of the British Crown because the French gave the lands on which they lived to the British in the Treaty of Paris. An imposition of the British Crown on them maybe, but by the hands of their own French colonial masters!

Since then, however, francophone Canadians have had numerous opportunities to separate themselves from the British and then Canadian Crown.

There was the American Revolution. Francophone Canadians chose to remain where they were because the Crown protected their rights to maintain their French language, Catholic religion, and Civil laws. The U.S. Americans, though backed by the French (from France), did not offer those protections.

During Confederation Quebec was present at the discussions for creating the country of Canada. All agreed that the country should federate under the Crown of the United Kingdom.

Even during the discussions when Trudeau was working to patriate the Constitution from Britain, Lesveque's main issues were with Quebec's distinct society and language being protected within the Constitution. He never complained about Quebec being somehow oppressed by the Canadian Crown.

And during the Quebec sovereignty debates, there was no mention of the Crown as being a reason for separation.

So, nobody can complain about the Crown being a symbol of defeat thrust in the faces of francophones. To say that it is would be uttering nothing more than myths. It is, in fact, an institution which has grown and adapted as Canada has grown and adapted, and has done francophones no ill in the process.

As for the polls August1991 posted, I’ve already commented on how these results cannot be taken as anywhere near accurate, and so have no place in any debate about the Canadian monarchy.

[Slavik44]

There is no clarity Act when it comes to politicial surveys.....

1. Given the fact that the govenor general consumes Canadian tax payer dollars do you belive it would be better to have a democratically representive head of state, over an artificial mandated Head of state?

Yes or NO

1. Given Canada's tradition and good relations with the world, do you think we should risk angering the British and international critisizim to empower a new method of selecting a Govenor General?

Yes or No

It could even be as simple as having a question before the "Question" that asks:

1. Are you aware of the vast amounts of money the govenor General consumes?

.......

4. shoudl the Govenor General be elected by Canadians?

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. Are you aware of the many diplomatic efforts the Governor General undertakes?

2. Should we replace the Govenor General?

If I can do that in a few seconds, how much better do you think I could do if I was given $50,000 to write a question....a professional could make you a poll that returns the exact result you want, instead of posting the results, post the entire poll, and the question's asked, please.

[maplesyrup]

Oops.

[maplesyrup]

Clarkson to remain Governor General, says report

Well this hopefully will quiet the howling wolfpack of useless media hacks.

[Newfie Canadian]

I can see the logic in it.

With a minority government in the HoC, the last thing you need a new GG. I mean sure the staff and bureaucracy with Rideau Hall would be the same, but I still wouldn't want a new person there when, not if, the government falls. There could be some pretty dicy issues coming up.

[maplesyrup]

Gee whiz, golly guys, what are we going to do? Canada's Supreme Court almost has parity for women, our GG is a woman, and next year BC will have a woman, Carol James, for Premier.

Is it time for men to be put out to pasture?