Is Quebec's 61% anti-monarchy justified?

[blackbird]

I would say every country in the world was settled by people migrating from somewhere else.  

Natives settled in north America possibly a few thousand years ago, reportedly after migrating across the Bering Sea from Asia.

Then Europeans migrated and settled in north America five hundred years ago.

First the French migrated and settled in the area along the Saint Lawrence River in what later came to be known as Quebec.

Then in 1759 the British conquered them and began settling in surrounding regions.  Quebec became part of British North America.

The American conquered the north American natives and took control of all lands.  

The Spanish invaded central and south America and settled there.  The people were forced to learn to speak Spanish.

That is how the world was settled.   I think if we look back we will find Europe was settled in the same way.

So what is the big fuss now and claims of the monarchy being a remnant of colonialism?

The monarchy is a basis of our democratic system.  It is a Constitutional Monarchy, meaning the power resides with the elected Parliament and elected government, not the monarch.  The function of the monarchy is simply to ensure that the democratic system continues to function the way it is supposed to.  It provides a kind of insurance that no political leader suddenly declares himself as the new totalitarian ruler.  The King has the power to dissolve Parliament and call an election if the government loses the confidence of the elected Parliament.  That is a good thing.  It helps to protect democracy.  It is wise to keep the head of state separate from the elected political leadership.  This helps prevent an abuse of power.  It is also wise to have a head of state who is unelected and has the support of a majority of the population.

Canadians in general need to be taught about the real world in school and through the media, and not brainwashed by anarchists, separatists and Socialist/progressives.  Progressivism is not a good thing.  The word is misleading.  It implies change is good when it is in fact often bad.  Why are not our political leaders educating the population about our system?  What are the education ministries teaching our young people in the schools?  We need less woke, less sexual orientation curriculums and more on our systems of government and the Constitutional Monarchy.

So what are these anti-monarchists in Quebec thinking?  There is no perfect system.  They should be thankful for all that they have now.  They are one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world.  They not only govern themselves to a very large extent, but they receive much financial support from the rest of Canada.   All they need to do is open their eyes and look around the world to see how bad things are in many other places and they will see how well of they are.  The truth is they are in many respects a sovereign country of Quebec while receiving the same benefits as all the other provinces in a Confederation we call Canada.

Edited May 12 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

I understand and believe it is OK for them to be anti monarch. Their moto is "Je me souviens"  which is "I remember"  (referring to New France and its loss to the British in 1763). So of course they are anti monarch.

Canada as a whole is more than half anti monarchy. "A 2023 survey by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that 24 per cent of those questioned in Canada considered the institution of the monarchy to be favourable, with 41 per cent finding it unfavourable and 34 per cent neutral."

I personally am anti monarchy. I believe that since our constitution we are no longer beholding, morally, to Britain.

[blackbird]

I suspect a large percentage of the anti-monarchists in Canada are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from the third world.  Liberals are largely controlled from Quebec and they brought in millions of immigrants from third world countries, most of whom are probably uneducated about our Constitutional Monarchy system of government.  So they come in and become anti-monarchists right away.  I thought a condition of Canadian citizenship was to swear allegiance to the monarchy.   All they need to do is take a look at the mess in the third world countries.  Is that what they want to create here?

[herbie]

Justified by WHOM?
And do you count those who just think it's an obsolete relic and don't care about it as ANTI?
Or those who don't actively support it because we (looking South) see Republicanism as far worse among the ANTI?

[Benz]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

So what is the big fuss now and claims of the monarchy being a remnant of colonialism?...

What do they teacgh you in school? What have you learned about the genocides the british did to the french and natives? Acadians deportation, Louis Riel's revolt, process of skrinking native territories down to small reserves...

Quote

The monarchy is a basis of our democratic system... This helps prevent an abuse of power.

How can you seriously say that? The aristocratic system that makes the royal family getting among the biggest subsides in the world.

 

Quote

It is also wise to have a head of state who is unelected and has the support of a majority of the population.

Less than 40% of the people support the monarchy in Canada.

 

Quote

So what are these anti-monarchists in Quebec thinking?  There is no perfect system.

The monarchy missed an incredible opportunity to win the respect of Québec in 1982 when they allowed the federal and the 9 other provinces to kick out Québec from the constitutional team.

Have you ever heard the concept of Republic? Like USA or France? 

 

Edited May 13 by Benz

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, Benz said:

What do they teacgh you in school? What have you learned about the genocides the british did to the french and natives? Acadians deportation, Louis Riel's revolt, process of skrinking native territories down to small reserves...

Quote

I doubt there is any truth in those claims.  We live in a world where people invent lies for their own agenda you know.   You should know we live in an imperfect world and things happened in history that nobody would agree with today.  But those things don't prove anything about the situation today.

British North America and Canada from 1867 on were far more peaceful than the Indian wars in the U.S.  You probably know something about that.

I strongly dispute there was a genocide against the French or natives in Canada.   Although the area of Quebec which was a small area hundreds of years ago, it was taken from the rule of France by the British.  However, Quebec was given pretty well everything and governs itself by and large.  

I would have to spend some time digging into some of your claims, but they sound wild.

Louis Riel executed someone they should not have for one thing.  

The natives in Canada have received a lot and there have been very few violent conflicts.  In recent years in fact, Canada has paid billions of dollars to FNs.  I don't know where the money went or if it even reached the common folk.  Canada has bent over backwards to help Quebec and FN.

Quebec receives billions of dollars in equalization payments.   Let's look at recent history too and not try to skew the discussion with frivolous events that might have happened in the distant past.  

9 hours ago, Benz said:

The monarchy missed an incredible opportunity to win the respect of Québec in 1982 when they allowed the federal and the 9 other provinces to kick out Québec from the constitutional team.

It does sound like you are twisting history.,   I never heard anything on the media about Quebec being "kicked out".    What we know is Quebec refused to sign onto the 1982 Constitution repatriation.  I am not sure why or what they were asking for.  Maybe you can tell me what they wanted.

 

9 hours ago, Benz said:

Have you ever heard the concept of Republic? Like USA or France? 

Of course I am aware of it.  But I don't think Canada would benefit from something like that.

We have a good system now with the Constitutional Monarchy.  

I wouldn't worry too much about what wealth or property the monarchy owns.  It is in the UK.  Canada probably contributes something annually as it should.  But a King or Queen basically can only eat the same as anyone else.  Money spent on staff for various purposes creates jobs.  I think we get good value with the Monarchy.  We can discuss what functions it serves, but that is another long discussion.

A republic means the elected leader, such as a President, is the head of state.  That doesn't give as much security as our system.  He could simply declare himself as the dictator and abolish elections and Parliament.   Our system prevents that from happening because the armed forces and RCMP swear allegiance to the King.

There is no evidence or proof that a Republican system is any better than the Constitutional Monarchy that we have now.  No system is perfect because human nature is not perfect.  Why try to change a system that is working fairly well?  It doesn't make sense.

Edited May 13 by blackbird

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, Benz said:

Acadians deportation,  etc.   etc.

Yes, that was a sad event.  However, that occurred 250 years ago around 1755 in a certain situation and is certainly no guide or factor on how anyone should behave today.  Many bad, unjust things happened in history in many countries in the world.  We cannot dig up the past and rectify all the injustices that happened long ago.  Neither can we use historic wrongs for political arguments today.  It only leads to endless, unsolvable debates.

Don't forget the French Revolution took place 35 years after that in France in 1789.  That was nothing to be proud of either.

There have been wars between countries and civil wars all through history.  That is the story of mankind.

Mankind has a corrupt, fallen heart and is in enmity with God.  The Bible says every person must be born again to enter into eternal life.  Rome does not teach the truth from the Bible.  Better start reading the King James Bible, which is based on the majority text and Received Text.  The only way out of this mess the world is in is for each individual to be reconciled to God by the new birth described in the gospel of John.  There is no other solution and life in this world will never be perfect.  There will always be problems.  One needs to become a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ and his perfect sacrifice that atoned for our sins and the sins of mankind.

"10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13  From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. "  Hebrews 10:10-13  KJV

Edited May 13 by blackbird

[Benz]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

I doubt there is any truth in those claims.

It is called FACTS. In PEI, when few acadians came back after the deportation, all the lands they once owned, belong to british owners. So they lived and worked on their former lands and paid an enormous rent to their new owners. Read about those things. Dig and find out.
 

Quote

I strongly dispute there was a genocide against the French or natives in Canada.

The Thornton Bill in Manitoba. Making public french schools illegal. That province passes from a 50-50 french-english speaking to only 3% of french today. That bill has been judged illegal by the supreme court circa 1989.

 

Quote

I would have to spend some time digging into some of your claims, but they sound wild.

There are a lot of documentation about that. Here is one: https://ericmessier.net/pdf/genocide_quebec_canada.pdf

Quote

Quebec receives billions of dollars in equalization payments.   Let's look at recent history too and not try to skew the discussion with frivolous events that might have happened in the distant past. 

B.S. Québec has been milked all the time through history. They merge upper canada and lower canada, become uppar had a big debt and lower did not. Out of sudden, we had to share their debt. While Ontario's nuclear and Alberta's oil has been largely subsided by Ottawa for decades, Québec's Hydro never received a penny. There are many federal programs where Quebec does not get its share. So bottom line, the equalization is not that great. It is rather a counter balance of the other programs. I remember when Newfoundland was getting the most per capita from equalization. The other provinces were blaming them for being bad at developping their province. But NF was not getting its royalties from its oil like Alberta. All of it was going directly to the pockets of Ottawa. So NF rejected the canadian flag, they started to talk about seperation and then bang! Ottawa gave them the same conditions of Alberta. As of today, Ontario and Alberta are still receiving funds from Ottawa for Nuclear, Automobile, Oil and so on. What is left for Quebec, equalization.

Quote

I never heard anything on the media about Quebec being "kicked out".    What we know is Quebec refused to sign onto the 1982 Constitution repatriation.  I am not sure why or what they were asking for.  Maybe you can tell me what they wanted.

In 1981, Québec and 7 other provinces team up together and they were called, the group of 8. They wanted an opt out with full compensation of a federal program. In the night of november 4th to 5th, they all back stab both Quebec and their own provinces and they give up that condition. I guess Alberta regrets today.

 

Quote

A republic means the elected leader, such as a President, is the head of state.  That doesn't give as much security as our system.  He could simply declare himself as the dictator and abolish elections and Parliament.

Even Palpatine cannot do that. He had to foul everyone and have the senate to vote the change of the constitution. So he did. If the Canadian parliement vote for the same thing, the king will become the dictator.

Quote

There is no evidence or proof that a Republican system is any better than the Constitutional Monarchy that we have now.  No system is perfect because human nature is not perfect.  Why try to change a system that is working fairly well?  It doesn't make sense.

Because it doesn't. At least the president is someone we choose and can get rid of 4 years later. We are stuck with the king and he doesn't look like he appreciates his job. I do not want to waste energy convincing you that the monarchy isn't good. It is your choice and it is ok for you. It will never be for me. Neverthenless, the monarchists in the english Canada is losing supporters every year.

 

 

[TreeBeard]

On 5/12/2025 at 8:54 AM, blackbird said:

I would say every country in the world was settled by people migrating from somewhere else.  

Africa is where the human species began.  So some some parts of Africa are the only parts of the world where this wouldn’t apply 

 

On 5/12/2025 at 8:54 AM, blackbird said:

The monarchy is a basis of our democratic system.

No, the British parliamentary system is the basis for our democracy.  That was brought about because people were tired of being ruled by people who were supposedly chosen by God to rule over us. 

 

On 5/12/2025 at 8:54 AM, blackbird said:

So what are these anti-monarchists in Quebec thinking? 

They’re probably thinking that no one should claim to be able to rule over another by birthright and being chosen by God. 
 

Don’t you agree?

Edited May 14 by TreeBeard

[August1991]

On 5/12/2025 at 11:54 AM, blackbird said:

I would say every country in the world was settled by people migrating from somewhere else.  

Natives settled in north America possibly a few thousand years ago, reportedly after migrating across the Bering Sea from Asia.

Then Europeans migrated and settled in north America five hundred years ago.

First the French migrated and settled in the area along the Saint Lawrence River in what later came to be known as Quebec.

Then in 1759 the British conquered them and began settling in surrounding regions.  Quebec became part of British North America.

The American conquered the north American natives and took control of all lands.  

The Spanish invaded central and south America and settled there.  The people were forced to learn to speak Spanish.

That is how the world was settled.   I think if we look back we will find Europe was settled in the same way.

....

I tend to agree.

====

1759? Disagree.

In 1763, there were two treaties:

The Treaty of Hubertusburg - far more important at the time - it decided Saxony.

The Treaty of Fontainebleau - important now to us in Canada.

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:58 AM by August1991

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Benz said:

It is called FACTS. In PEI, when few acadians came back after the deportation, all the lands they once owned, belong to british owners. So they lived and worked on their former lands and paid an enormous rent to their new owners. Read about those things. Dig and find out.

As I said, the Acadian matter happened about 250 years ago.   That is ancient history.  It sounds like it was a very unfair deportations and seizure of lands, but as I said, many bad things happened in the past.  That was a very long time ago and things are not done like that now and won't be.  Don't forget we have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights, and all kinds of laws that must be followed in Canada.  Nothing is done the way it was several hundred years ago. 

It looks like you are looking for an excuse to be unhappy with being associated with Canada.  It is pointless to debate ancient history.  As I said, many things happened in history that were unfair.  But we can't govern the country and make decisions based on historic scenarios that no longer happen.  We can't change history.  People today would not agree with many things that happened centuries ago.  So why dwell on them and try to use them for an excuse to demand something different today?  It is not a legitimate argument today.  The country has already changed drastically from the way things were long ago.  Everyone has rights that never existed back in history.  We also have various government services, pensions, etc. that never existed even 70 years ago.  In fact, some people think we now have far too much government at various levels with increasing taxes and control.

Canada was created long after the Acadian events.  Nobody today would agree with what happened at that time.

But if you are so convinced Quebec would be better off separate, I guess there is not much I can say.  If enough of you vote to separate, then I assume it would be negotiated and done.  I don't believe in forcing a majority of people in a province to remain part of Canada if they don't wish to be in it.   Just remember cutting yourself off from a large country could have serious consequences in your own smaller country.  You would have less influence in the world and possibly a serious affect on the standard of living, health care, and the level of law and order and other things.   There are many small countries in central and south America that are real messes with lots of poverty and crime.    

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:42 AM by blackbird

[Benz]

On 5/14/2025 at 4:26 AM, blackbird said:

Don't forget we have a Constitution and a Charter of Rights, and all kinds of laws that must be followed in Canada.  Nothing is done the way it was several hundred years ago. 

Of course I do not forget that constitution made without us. There are some points in it that are unacceptable. But as René Lévesque said, Canda is not the goulag either. I talked about very recent events as well. When the french outside Québec want to send their kids to school, they often have to fight up to the supreme court to have them in public schools. Or the federal programs in the provincial competencies that we do not agree on. Both are happening in the 21st century.

 

Quote

We can't change history.

Of course. At least you can fix the errors of the past by fixing the present. What was unacceptable back is still unacceptable today. Very easy today but, Ottawa is a bad faith. Recognition of Québec nation. Quebec can choose its own senators. Opt out with full compensation. Choose our own judges. Select immigrants ourselves. Those are actual issues.

 

Quote

Canada was created long after the Acadian events.  Nobody today would agree with what happened at that time.

Then why do they still have to fight so hard to have the same rights and services as other canadians?

 

Quote

You would have less influence in the world

On the contrary, we will have much better influence. How many times the Canada took a position different than we would. Trudeau literally sacrificed Québec in the first Trump mandate when he broke the NAFTA. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer that we stay united but, not at this price.

 

Quote

and possibly a serious affect on the standard of living, health care, and the level of law and order and other things.   There are many small countries in central and south America that are real messes with lots of poverty and crime. 

No worries about that. Québec did good despite the actions of Ottawa against us. We will do good without Ottawa. However, some provinces will realise that they can do like Québec as well and they will figure out that Quebec was right. Ottawa has too much power. Québec does not want to leave because of the past. It wants to leave because Canada can't adapt for the future.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Benz said:

Of course I do not forget that constitution made without us.

In a Confederation, one province does not get to dictate how everything will be for the whole country.

There are ten provinces and each one has one vote out of ten or possibly twelve if you count the territories.

You seem to think everything in the Constitution must be approved by one province, Quebec.   That's not how democracy works.  Of course democracy is not perfect.  Eight million people in Canada voted for the Conservatives in the last election, yet they lost and the party that won the most seats gets to form the government and implement their policies.  Millions of Canadians disagree with many of the Liberals policies and ideas, but that is how democracy works.  It's not perfect.  There is no perfect system in the world.

I understand Quebec did not sign on to accept the Constitution as a whole because there were some things in it they disagreed with.  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  As I said, Quebec is only one province out of ten.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Quebec was given jurisdiction over many departments that other provinces do not have.  So it seems Quebec governs itself in more ways than other provinces do.

So your claim that the constitution was made without Quebec is false.   They had the same input as every other province.  Just that the general consensus was not always agreeable to Quebec.  One province doesn't get to dictate things that the majority of provinces do not agree with.  They likely agreed on most things.  That's what a Confederation means.  Some provinces in western Canada do not agree with how the Federal government is interpreting the Constitution and imposing laws on them that they feel is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.  I am speaking particularly about the oil and gas industry.  The feds are interfering with that and they should not be.

6 hours ago, Benz said:

When the french outside Québec want to send their kids to school, they often have to fight up to the supreme court to have them in public schools.

I am not an expert on French schools outside Quebec, but we know Quebec has language laws within Quebec than restrict when or where English is used in Quebec.  

I would think generally, one cannot expect a French school in some other province unless there is a sufficient number of French speaking students to attend it.  If the number is too small, then why would you expect a French school should be provided?  It all depends on the numbers.

Canada has spent a fortune and it seems to me unreasonable to demand that there be services in English and French everywhere in Canada when many areas hardly have anybody whose mother tongue is French.  If people are going to places with little or no French, they should learn to speak English.  Same situation exists in Quebec.  People who move to French areas must learn to speak French.  I am not a fan of forcing people to speak a language that very few people speak in a certain area or city.  I understand Quebec is trying to protect the use of French in Quebec,  but that should not be something forced on everyone in the rest of the country, unless a particular area speaks French.  Then accommodations should be made.  Each case must be looked at on its own.

6 hours ago, Benz said:

Recognition of Québec nation. Quebec can choose its own senators. Opt out with full compensation. Choose our own judges. Select immigrants ourselves. Those are actual issues.

I don't know anything about those issues.  But if you want to be totally independent, you would have to convince enough people in your province to vote to be independent.  I don't think you can expect the Confederation to give your province complete independence while your province is still part of a Confederation and you have representatives in a federal government.   You can't have it both ways.  You seem to think you can and demand you be treated as totally independent and still be part of the federal Parliament and Confederation and making decisions on how every other province is governed.  

 

6 hours ago, Benz said:

Then why do they still have to fight so hard to have the same rights and services as other canadians?

That is false.  I believe you have the same rights as every other Canadian.  Just don't expect to impose French on people in other provinces or areas where they do not speak it.  That would be unreasonable.  Other than that, I am not sure what you are referring to.

 

6 hours ago, Benz said:

It wants to leave because Canada can't adapt for the future.

I think you mean a minority in Quebec want to separate, not a significant number.  Such a step should require more than 50% plus 1 vote because many people are fickle and do not understand the ramifications of things sometimes.  Separating in a serious way should require a large proportion of the population understanding the implications when making such a decision.

You dismiss the consequences, but I don't think you really understand.  Quebec is largely a Roman Catholic province.  Look at central and south America.  Those are largely RC countries and are among the poorest and most crime-ridden countries in the world.  Spain has had a very tumultuous history as well with civil wars and dictatorships.  France had a lot troubles in its history as well.  Germany has been a disaster with the Nazis and the Papacy signing a Concordat with the Nazis around 1933.  But if enough people feel like you in Quebec at some point, Quebec could separate completely.  That is how the world seems to go.  It would not necessarily be a good thing for Quebec people, but that is their choice.  I don't think Quebec is poorly treated now.  That is your narrative but it is false in my opinion.

Being part of a larger Confederation definitely has its advantages.  Things like national security is greater, sharing in helping each other when needs arise, sharing intelligence and technology, interprovincial trade, easy movement of manpower between provinces, and just providing help to each other when various needs arise.  Being independent so that one can say they are sovereign is not necessarily a good thing.  

Edited Thursday at 10:09 PM by blackbird