paracowboy said:
bullshit. Pure and simple.
Maybe you should do some research on that one.
As for your problem with the Monarchy, get a life, man!
Are you calling me a liar? Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?
SeaKingTacco said:
Tell you what, bud. March yourself down to the recruiting centre, join up, and then come find me- we will put your "they'll never convict me, the charter will protect me" theory to the test...
I’d test that law if I were a senior officer.
Michael O'Leary said:
You've applied a label, you haven't explained how it will work. Significantly, you haven't explained what changes will be effected, other than your assumption that we can simply strike the positions of GG and LGs.
Not much would have to change. The governor general and the lieutenant governors serve only to offer the monarch’s assent and spend money frivolously. No replacement is necessary; their roles can be written out of government. The Prime Minister’s can sign bills into law.
Michael O'Leary said:
So, no difference except for the cost of changing everything with a "monarchist" appearance.
Removing the monarchy would save money. There’s no need to take a chisel to history and erase the monarchy from past, I’m just talking about removing it from the future. As for the cost of changing currency, it would be minimal, and considering that Canada will have to change its currency when Charles becomes king, the cost is inevitable.
Michael O'Leary said:
Then what's the problem, since you seem to think it's "only a formality."
The concept of monarchy is not compatible with the concept of equality.
Michael O'Leary said:
How are we not now sovereign and independent? What was the last bill that the Queen struck down?
Does not the PM lead the country? What was the Queen's last act which changed something in Canada - I though you said it was just a formality.
Under the Westminster system, the queen has real and significant powers. It’s only a formality because should she choose to exercise those powers, the government would likely do what I suggest and finish off the monarchy for good. Regardless, Canada is not a truly sovereign and independent nation if any decision it makes can be quashed at the whim of the queen in England.
The Prime Minister may lead the country, but he is not the leader of the country.
Michael O'Leary said:
What do you find so offensive about a hereditary monarch as a figurehead, are you saying you prefer the US presidential system?
Which symbols would you change and why? How long does something have to be used before we consider it a Canadian symbol?
Please explain the difference between uniquely "Canadian culture" and "Commonwealth culture" and give clear examples of each.
Yes, I very much prefer the US Presidential System.
What I find so offensive about the concept of a hereditary monarch as a figurehead is that it runs contrary to the concept of equality. The queen was not elected; she was born into the British royal family and inherited her position. Her only apparent qualification is her supposed ordination by “god.” In spite of her lack of any real qualifications, she is more powerful than the elected Government of Canada.
I wouldn’t change many symbols; however I’d have Canada divorce itself of the British monarchy. The PPLCI would remain the PPLCI, and RMC would remain RMC. However, oaths would no longer be taken to the monarch, and she would no longer appear on currency. What is will remain, but future mintings and printings of coins, medals, documents, etc… will be devoid of any monarchist references, such as “for king and country” or images of the monarch.
Commonwealth culture sees Canada as a member of the Commonwealth and vassal of England. It encourages cultural development in the (largely historical) image of England, and gives British culture supremacy to domestically developed Canadian culture.
Canadian culture sees Canada as an independent and sovereign nation with its own customs and traditions. Cultural connections to the Commonwealth are seen as historic, and secondary in importance to domestic cultural developments.
Michael O'Leary said:
And who will take over the responsibilities they do have to represent Canada? Or will these duties be added to those of our politicians?
They have very few duties; they can be given to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Michael O'Leary said:
You still haven't presented a concise case to convince the average Canadian that this is worthwhile.
I think most Canadians are too much in tune with the idea of the queen as a gentle mother from the home country, and accept her as a noble fountain of honor, so I don’t believe anyone will ever convince them of otherwise. However, in two decades time, many of them will have died of old age, and demographically, the nation is shifting away from the Caucasian Protestants of British extraction who have traditionally been the greatest supports of the monarchy and towards groups much less fond of the queen, and let alone her most likely successor who lacks her motherly appeal.
It’s worthwhile because republicanism advocates placing Canada’s power in Canada, at the hands of Canadians, and is more in tune with our nation’s values as outline in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No individual should be conferred special treatment by virtue of their birth alone.
Capt. O’Leary, I would appreciate it if you could do the inverse and state what benefits you believe the monarchy offers Canada.
RangerRay said:
So at great expense, we should get rid of a system of democratic governance that has lasted over 1000 years, for merrily cosmetic reasons?
It would not be a great expense, and it would be a single expense, rather than the recurring expense of maintaining the current system.
Where did you come up with your figure of 1000 years? The Magna Carta is only dates back to 1215, and there’s no way you could consider that to be a democracy. The earliest good example of a democracy in the modern world is the United States. Do you know anything about the American Revolution and against whom it was fought? Even then, many have argued that democracy in America is a more recent development.
Many have argued that democracy and monarchy cannot coexist. I happen to agree with them; our democracy is limited in that we do not elect our head of state. Surely you agree we’d be more democratic if we did.
RangerRay said:
The monarch, remember, has a duty to all the citizens of a nation, whereas el presidente is beholden to those that supported him politically.
No.
RangerRay said:
As for your assertion about saving millions, don't bet on it. The governor general would be replaced by el presidente and the lieutenants governor replaced by some other such office.
No, I’d rather if their handful of duties were absorbed by other existing political positions. But, if we have to waste the money, I’d sooner waste it on an elected official than someone appointed for their patronage or born into political power.
RangerRay said:
El presidente in most republics use up just as much cash, if not more, in upkeep and ceremonial than most constitutional monarchs. Most presidential palaces aren't what we would consider humble middle class homes.
You’re speculating, and let me point out that Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive already exist and don’t need to be rebuilt.
Don’t bother trying to tell me that the President of the United States spends more money than the Governor General of Canada, it doesn’t matter.
RangerRay said:
And your insistence on replacing the monarchy and it's symbols with something "Canadian"; I've got news for you. The monarchy is Canadian, and has been since first colonised. The monarchy is just as Canadian as it is British, as it is Australian. If she wanted to, Her Majesty could move to Canada, kick out Jean the Pretender, and take up residence in Rideau Hall. However, the UK being the oldest of her realms, she chooses to reside there.
Edited for punctuation.
Queen Elizabeth II is as Canadian as Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Serbian.
John Tescione said:
That was the show describing the "famous" patrol of Bravo two zero, it was British not US.
Can you at least try to get your Television research correct....I smell something funny..
dileas
tess
No, it wasn’t about the SAS.
Calvin said:
I got the point. The substance of your argument was based on stories and 'what ifs'. It isn't acknowledgeable; nor does it contribute to debate. Do you not see the humour when you're correcting somebody by saying your source is the Discovery Channel and not a different TV show? In order for me to actually get a point out of your example I need something a little more concrete to work with.
And lets not get into an academic pissing match. Develop your argument a little more such as how Mr. O'Leary is leading you and this could be a great debate.
Cal
Again, you miss the point and fail to contribute. My argument is based on stories and ‘what ifs,’ and that sounds bad unless you refer to them ‘case studies’ and ‘hypothetical’ scenarios, but leave the euphemisms and emotional language at the door.
Do you realize that you’ve in no way contributed to any sort of debate? I fail to see the humor in noting that the scenario I mentioned is more than likely factual, being part of a documentary shown on the Discovery Channel, and not part of a fictional JAG storyline. How’s that funny?
Screw said:
Because 100000 soldiers that died for Canada thought it was damn well good enough and I believe in tradition.Thats why I swear allegiance. What does it take away to have a figure head?
Did those 100,000 die for Canada or its monarch? Did they sign up because they loved their families and wanted to do what’s right because they believed in the concepts of justice, equality and freedom? Or did they sign up because they wanted to stop Hitler’s U-boats from sinking King George’s caviar shipments?
If you believe that they died for Canada, then let’s honor them by taking an oath to Canada.
My utmost respect goes out to the men and women who risked or scarified everything to combat and defeat one of the greatest evils history has ever seen. Men and women who left the comfort of their homes, families and towns; many of whom suffered great agony before dying in a muddy hole somewhere thousands of miles away from their loved ones. I couldn’t care less for the king who appeased Hitler, who wore a dandy uniform adorned with ranks and medals he didn’t earn, and lived out the war in unimaginable luxury at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, waited on by dozens of servants, feasting on blue lobster and truffles as other Britons were forced to ration.
I don’t have much respect for any German soldier who died for Hitler, but I do for those who died for Germany (even if they were wrong) because there’s a difference in the service one provides to their nation and the service one provides to an overlord. I would risk my life for Canada, but never would I die for the queen, her heirs or successors. In fact, I wouldn’t so much as incur as scratch for any of them.