Jump to content

Off topic: Do we Canadians care about the Monarchy


argh1

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it is clearly a slow day in Canadian soccer.

A couple of quick notes:

1) Yes, it seems to me that the effort and money and time that it would cost to abolish the monarchy in Canada compared to the 'damage' cause by keeping the monarchy suggests there is little point in fixing something that ain't broke (even if it appears rather annoying and pointless). However, if the reason we choose to keep the monarchy is because we feel we need Mother England to give us credibility or identity or some sort of self-esteem, then I say "lop off the heads of all the royalists and loyalists in OUR country". (Okay, maybe not literally, but you get the point. Time to build our own country based on who we are now. The past plays a role, sure, but the past also includes some pretty nasty stuff, and we are all old enough to know that we can do much better in many areas. No need to give the aboriginal peoples Bay blankets laced with small-pox, eh?)

2. What sort of poncy country are we if we cannot elect officials who will rule with honesty, integrity etc? I mean, what is the GG doing about the sponsorship scandal? Let's be real: the GG and the monarchy do not hold any of the levers of power in this country. If you don't want Martin or Harper or Bush (who is an American, so cannot really "rule" our country) to be head of state, then get your ass off the couch and get involved in civil matters and do your damnedest to elect a good leader and a good government. I can't understand this passive concept that we need the GG in order to have an objective head of state. How silly. When people complain about our (canadians') bad habits of blaming the government for all the crap, this is what they are talking about. We determine the governments that lead the country. And if we don't, then we are to blame, ultimately. We need to stop being so damned passive and start taking proper action. (In all areas--especially soccer, which is the single most important thing on earth. ;))

3. I think Camilla will make a great Queen. Camilla, Queen of Canada. And Scott Thompson thought that he'd be Queen of Canada forever. (Silly rabbit.)

4. If we were not part of the commonwealth four years ago--or six--would Owen Hargreaves have the opportunity to play for England (or Wales)?

5. If we were invaded by the US of A, would the Brits come to our defense? I mean, they owe us, don't they?

6. We need some good soccer news fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I strongly dispute Ted's claims that we are not a natural nation. We are as natural as any other nation. Every nation has cultural and regional differences and many have distinct ethnic and language groups. I have been to every province and lived in every region and everywhere I go there are many characteristics that are Canadian and different than those of other countries. My way of thinking has far more in common with people in Vancouver than it does with those 200 km from me over the US border. (Interesting that Ted uses the Northern California-Oregon region as his example as this is the region whose population has an outlook more similar to a Canadian one than any other American region). Whenever I have been overseas and met other Canadians there is always a bond or commonality that exists regardless of the region they are from that does not exist when I meet an American from nearby New York State nor someone from Scotland which is my ancestry. Regardless of one's view on the monarchy I find it very offensive any suggestion we are not a real or natural country that needs to depend on a foreign institution to keep us united and maintain our identity.

My personal opinion on the monarchy is that it should be abolished in Canada with the death of Elisabeth (I actually think it should be abolished now but it would cause a lot of dispute so I am willing to wait). Any country is free to change parts of their political system that are no longer current or useful without this being seen as a denial of their history, losing their character or inferiority complex. If our existence as a country and culture is dependent on the British monarchy then we are in a pretty sorry state. I strongly believe that the British monarchy contributes almost nothing to our current identity and national unity. In fact, if anything it is damaging to our sense of national identity. At the moment probably the majority of english Canadians do not value the monarchy and a very large majority of french Canadians oppose the British monachy's position in Canada so how does this help our unity. I think getting rid of this archaic tie to England would do a lot to strengthen our identity as an independant nation with a unique mix of cultures. I find it humiliating when I am in Germany or Russia for example and show people our money and they ask why the British queen is on it. One sees as one is explaining how she is our monarch as well that it gives the impression of being from a second rate country, i.e. one not independent enough to have its own head of state. I am against the idea of a monarchy but if we had to have one at least it should be a Canadian one. What we should have is a head of state reflecting the political and cultural realities of Canada today not the political and cultural realities of 150 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we do indeed have our own head of state, Queen Elizabeth II.

She also happens to be queen of England.

I feel not shame but intense pride that as Canadians we treasure and have pride in our history, origins and traditions.

We originated mostly as British colonies and evolved as an important Commonwealth country, all our traditions of government and law (excluding Quebec) devolve from Britain. This is what has made us the country we are today and the magnet for immigrants and refugees from all over the world who come here BECAUSE of what we are and where we've come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I strongly dispute Ted's claims that we are not a natural nation. We are as natural as any other nation. Every nation has cultural and regional differences and many have distinct ethnic and language groups. I have been to every province and lived in every region and everywhere I go there are many characteristics that are Canadian and different than those of other countries. My way of thinking has far more in common with people in Vancouver than it does with those 200 km from me over the US border. (Interesting that Ted uses the Northern California-Oregon region as his example as this is the region whose population has an outlook more similar to a Canadian one than any other American region). Whenever I have been overseas and met other Canadians there is always a bond or commonality that exists regardless of the region they are from that does not exist when I meet an American from nearby New York State nor someone from Scotland which is my ancestry. Regardless of one's view on the monarchy I find it very offensive any suggestion we are not a real or natural country that needs to depend on a foreign institution to keep us united and maintain our identity.

My personal opinion on the monarchy is that it should be abolished in Canada with the death of Elisabeth (I actually think it should be abolished now but it would cause a lot of dispute so I am willing to wait). Any country is free to change parts of their political system that are no longer current or useful without this being seen as a denial of their history, losing their character or inferiority complex. If our existence as a country and culture is dependent on the British monarchy then we are in a pretty sorry state. I strongly believe that the British monarchy contributes almost nothing to our current identity and national unity. In fact, if anything it is damaging to our sense of national identity. At the moment probably the majority of english Canadians do not value the monarchy and a very large majority of french Canadians oppose the British monachy's position in Canada so how does this help our unity. I think getting rid of this archaic tie to England would do a lot to strengthen our identity as an independant nation with a unique mix of cultures. I find it humiliating when I am in Germany or Russia for example and show people our money and they ask why the British queen is on it. One sees as one is explaining how she is our monarch as well that it gives the impression of being from a second rate country, i.e. one not independent enough to have its own head of state. I am against the idea of a monarchy but if we had to have one at least it should be a Canadian one. What we should have is a head of state reflecting the political and cultural realities of Canada today not the political and cultural realities of 150 years ago.

Well in, lad. More or less, this is what I was trying to get at. You put it more succinctly (and now I am ashamed for not having been more clear or articulate). "Me fail English? That's unpossible."

Richard, with all due respect, the history you cling to and the values it upholds DOES not reflect our current reality. How does an obsolete foreign monarchy have any meaning for a country of such diverse and robust immigration. Yes, we were an English colony, but we were also a French colony. Now, though we are no longer a colony, we still cling to the mind-set of a colony, with a strange reverance for our colonizers that has no currency and no relevance for our very diverse population. I do not encourage us to forget or deny where we came from; history has a role to play even now, but we would use it best if we learned from history while we deal with current realities. Our relationship with the UK is an important one, in so much as they are a progressive nation more or less trying to do good in the world. There is no reason why we cannot remain friends and trading partners and allies. We do it with other countries; we can do it with the UK. Our shared history will remain with or without the monarchy.

Massive prediction: After the pseudo-Tories win a minority government in the Spring federal election, Mr Martin will step down and the Liberals will start to really clean house (because they will have no choice.) As soon as Canadians realize that the Tories in fact do not even know who they really are and what they really want to do (aside from blindly adopting US policy on everything), the Liberals will elect John Manley as their leader, and Manley will raise the issue of abolishing the monarchy, which he has intimated he'd love to do some day. (Actually, Manley will likely not bother. If he wants to raise the Liberals from the ashes, he'll have to focus on more pressing issues. But I toss it out there as one of my predictions. It goes along nicely with my stab that China will be ranked in the top 25 soccer nations in 10 to 15 years).

Vive le Canada!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the constitutional peasant sums this debate up nicely:

ARTHUR: Old woman!

DENNIS: Man!

ARTHUR: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?

DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.

ARTHUR: What?

DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!

ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.

DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.

ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'

DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?

ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the

behind you looked--

DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an

inferior!

ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...

DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By

exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to our outdated imperialist

dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our

society! If there's ever going to be any progress--

WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how

d'you do?

ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the

Britons. Who's castle is that?

WOMAN: King of the who?

ARTHUR: The Britons.

WOMAN: Who are the Britons?

ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.

WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an

autonomous collective.

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.

A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.

DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives

in that castle?

WOMAN: No one live there.

ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?

WOMAN: We don't have a lord.

ARTHUR: What?

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We

take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the

week.

ARTHUR: Yes.

DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified

at a special biweekly meeting.

ARTHUR: Yes, I see.

DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal

affairs,--

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the

purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of

the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to

carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing

swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive

power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some

farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power

just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just

because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd

put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you hear

that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing

me, you saw it didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Canada remains a monarchy or becomes a republic the lives of everybody who participates in this forum will not change one jot no matter how much some of you go on about being repressed by the privileged aristocracy. You're already repressed, manipulated and exploited more than you ever were before but now by the corporate sector and its associated aristocracy.

There are far more pressing and important matters to be concerned with than the monarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

There are far more pressing and important matters to be concerned with than the monarchy.

That's true, but what bugs me the most is that the media does not realize this. If they must report on Charles' wedding then, please, push it down the list and cover the real news first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...I didn't realize there was such interest in this.

Personally I don't care one way or another. If we replace our current Governor-General/ Lt. Governor's it'll be with the same old hacks nominated by the PM or Premiers. So they'll be the same with different titles. No Legislative Assembly/House of Assembly/Provincial Parliament/ National Assembly (what ever term is used in your province) or House of Commons will give up real power willingly. So it's all in semantics.

I'm surprised though in the level of debate on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems more that the media rather covered the wedding in such a way as a departure from the death, rememberance, and funeral of Pope John Paul. The media seems not to have had a problem switching back quickly to the news issues of the day following the wedding.

Seems more that the people who were not happy with the wedding seemed divided into two groups:

1) Those who didn't like the idea of two people who commited adultery getiing married. Notable that Camilla's ex-husband came to the wedding to give support.

2) People who still loved Princess Diana and blamed Charles for his death.

The problem people have with the British monarchy is the feeling that it's a backwards institution. Charles marrying a commoner would seem far more in touch with monarchies of mainland Europe.

As for the sense of the monarchy in Canada, those of us who serve in the military or those who ahve served feel a different type of attachment. British monarchs gave the title names to the regiments that serve in Canada's Army. Canadians have fought and died in the service of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy. people aren't going to see that get tossed away that easily because someone has a hard-on against the monarchy.

As for doing soemthing to make Canada a Republic, how on earth would that be done? Australia voted against the proposal for a Republic because the President would've been choosen by parliament and not by the public. Some won't accept the idea of a president elected by popular vote since a lot of people consider the public too uneduated to make up their minds about such an issue.

Besides, does anyone want to revist the issue of a constitution again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Whether Canada remains a monarchy or becomes a republic the lives of everybody who participates in this forum will not change one jot no matter how much some of you go on about being repressed by the privileged aristocracy. You're already repressed, manipulated and exploited more than you ever were before but now by the corporate sector and its associated aristocracy.

There are far more pressing and important matters to be concerned with than the monarchy.

To me it isn't about being repressed, it is about how inane the royal family (royalty in general) really is. Keeping them for the sake of keeping them is not a reason. There has not been one point stated so far that validates their existence.

I am surprised that no one has raised the issue of our coins as an argument to keep the Royals. I mean what on earth will we do with the second side our coins if the royals go...leave it blank! We are obviously too unintelligent to come up with a replacement, right. Better keep them I guess. Makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Paddy

... There has not been one point stated so far that validates their existence....Makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro arguments.

:D And I have yet to see a single "anti" arguament that is not based on some sort of nation-state inferiority complex and/or personal animosity towards Charles and Camilla/Royalty in general.

BTW I never said we NEEDED the monarchy to bind us together as a nation. I simply pointed out that if we are willing to discuss the change of system of governance we should also be willing to discuss the boundaries as well.

I have often proposed (usually after a few drinks) that Vancouver Island secede, import some minor royal branch family like in Monaco as puppets for tourist atmosphere, and set ourselves up as the Dominion of Vancouver Island (or whatever name we choose since "Vancouver Island" is too colonial [:P] ). Just imagine an economy based on tourism, banking, and marijuana. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I strongly dispute Ted's claims that we are not a natural nation.

Sorry, but we have no natural geographical or ethnic territory and our history is a blip on the radar that is (as I tried to indicate before) as closely tied to other nations as it is between regions of this country.

Use your imagination and look at a map of North America. Now imagine carving it up into "countries" based on geography and culture. You would get nothing like what we have today. Sorry, but Tim Hortons does not equal culture. :D

"Canada" is an artifical construct (as are indeed many other modern nation states) although I have to say that on balance I much prefer the Canadian multi-cutural nation to the United States melting-pot nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ted

:D And I have yet to see a single "anti" arguament that is not based on some sort of nation-state inferiority complex and/or personal animosity towards Charles and Camilla/Royalty in general.

BTW I never said we NEEDED the monarchy to bind us together as a nation. I simply pointed out that if we are willing to discuss the change of system of governance we should also be willing to discuss the boundaries as well.

I have often proposed (usually after a few drinks) that Vancouver Island secede, import some minor royal branch family like in Monaco as puppets for tourist atmosphere, and set ourselves up as the Dominion of Vancouver Island (or whatever name we choose since "Vancouver Island" is too colonial [:P] ). Just imagine an economy based on tourism, banking, and marijuana. :D

I am totally in favor of imprisoning members of the royal family in some sort of tourist trap. Good idea.

Also, I think enough has been stated that is not based on personal animosity. There is enough information out there about their financial dealings (or miss-dealings) that goes beyond subjective (no pun intended) feeling. Just because there are other ills in world does not justify their existence as a lesser ill (which is the logic I often seem to come across from the Royal apologists).

I will never be convinced that they are needed or are to anyone's benefit (except in the aforementioned tourist trap).

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ted

[br

Use your imagination and look at a map of North America. Now imagine carving it up into "countries" based on geography and culture. You would get nothing like what we have today. Sorry, but Tim Hortons does not equal culture. :D

"Canada" is an artifical construct (as are indeed many other modern nation states) although I have to say that on balance I much prefer the Canadian multi-cutural nation to the United States melting-pot nation.

On your first paragraph: Yes, you are right, but so what? This is the case in pretty well every country in the world. Even the very small and very old. The Netherlands could be divided into a couple of regions, Germany into 4 or 5, the US into a dozen etc etc.

Which leads to your second paragraph: Yes, you are right again, but so what? The concept of the "natural nation" is so preposterous (and very dangerous if taken to its full extreme) that I don't even know why you brought it up. It is difficult to find any existing country who'd fit this definition. Like I said, we are very odd experiment that has been working very well despite all the odds. Unless of course you are the sort that believes a great country is one who has the largest military and the most gold medals and the largest economy. If that is the case, then we truly suck as a country. But I suspect this is NOT how you operate at all. We ain't perfect, but this is a pretty damned fine country to live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaver, this time you wrote exactly what I was going to say about Ted's natural nation concept. We would have thousands of nations in the world under his idea, the Confederate South would rise again, there would be more Germanies than during the Cold War and Russia would be divided into more nations than are currently in Europe. Geographical and ethnic boundaries are not and have never been the sole determinant of nationhood.

As far as Ted's claims that the anti-monarchists are motivated by dislike of the royals and an inferiority complex that is as absurd as his natural nation concept. I have never met any member of the royal family and choose not to judge them on the tabloid media coverage we see on television. Maybe they are nice people and maybe not just like my neighbour may be great or not but even if he is a great guy I don't think he should be entitled to rule over me.

I am opposed to the British monarchy for two reasons, I oppose the monarchial system and I think Canada should have a Canadian head of state. I oppose the monarchial system because it is undemocratic and a leader is chosen not based on merit but on lineage. Even a dictator to some extent has earned his position far more than a member of the royal family. The system of lineage opens the possibility of a monarch that could be a Hitler-like character or a Gandhi-like character and everything in between without distinguishing between the merits or demerits of each.

In contrast to what you claim is an inferiority complex, I neither have an inferiority nor superiority complex rather an equality complex. Canada while formerly a colony is now an independent nation state and equal to other nation states such as England, USA, Germany, etc. who have their own head of state. Our head of state was not born in Canada, has no Canadian parentage, does not speak like a Canadian, has spent very little time here and if not in her current position would not be entitled to Canadian citizenship. If asked what nationality she is she would most certainly say English long before saying Canadian (which she would only claim for formality reasons). Basically, at best she is equivalent to a tourist who visits Canada every 5 to 10 years. Whether you like Clarkson or not she is at least Canadian and was not chosen by the queen. I don't see how removing the queen from this equation would change anything as far as our system of government. Admittedly this is not the most important issue facing Canada but it is strongly symbolic. I for one am glad we have our own flag and not a colonial flag like we previously had and which several Commonwealth nations still possess. I don't think it would be much fun waving this old flag at our national team matches, the Maple Leaf is 100 times better. Just like we no longer have a flag with the Union Jack on it I would like to have money without the British monarch. Like having our own flag, it is time to remove the other colonial tieover that has long outlived its usefullness and appropriateness to a sovereign nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ted

I am a Trudeau-era son of a Naval officer who has lived and enjoyed living in Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto and Victoria. All nice places, but I see no point in continuing to pretend that we are any some sort of natural nation. If we abolish the monarchy I see no reason not to abolish the country and start over. Here in BC we have more in common with Washington, Oregon and Northern California than Ontario or Quebec if we take away constitutional monarchy.

I agree with you that Canada, at its core, is basically an idea, not a natural construct. However, do you really think that the monarchy is the glue holding this "idea" together?

Maybe from an historical view it is. But if you go onto the streets and talk to actual Canadians, especially more recent generations (where the Canadian identity is strongest), you'll find that their connection to this country and their belief in has little to do with the monarchy. I know few people who really care about it and who consider it an integral part of their identity as a Canadian.

Now-a-days, people who consider themselves Canadian consider themselves such because this is where they were born (or where they grew up) and to them its the only home they truly know. Or because, despite its rather artificial beginnings, this country has managed to develop binding traits and culture that are slowly (but surely) paving over its ambigious roots as a confederation and laying down a more concrete notion of nation-hood and unity

I think the opposite of what you say is true. Instead of needing the monarchy to keep us together, the fact that we don't need it is proof that this country has developed in terms of unity and one-ness and doesn't need such training wheels to keep us up-right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice stuff from JayWay and Grizz!! Maybe this is a generational thing: maybe those of us who feel that abolishing the monarchy would be a postive, though smallish and mostly symbolic, step forward for Canada and its sense of self, tend to be part of the "younger generation."

Whatever the case, I appreciate the debate, especially because the damned Beast probably finds these sorts of discussions "below" him, and ain't it nice to have an adult discussion without having to deal with him?

Beers for everybody!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Seems more that the media rather covered the wedding in such a way as a departure from the death, rememberance, and funeral of Pope John Paul. The media seems not to have had a problem switching back quickly to the news issues of the day following the wedding.

Seems more that the people who were not happy with the wedding seemed divided into two groups:

1) Those who didn't like the idea of two people who commited adultery getiing married. Notable that Camilla's ex-husband came to the wedding to give support.

2) People who still loved Princess Diana and blamed Charles for his death.

The problem people have with the British monarchy is the feeling that it's a backwards institution. Charles marrying a commoner would seem far more in touch with monarchies of mainland Europe.

As for the sense of the monarchy in Canada, those of us who serve in the military or those who ahve served feel a different type of attachment. British monarchs gave the title names to the regiments that serve in Canada's Army. Canadians have fought and died in the service of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy. people aren't going to see that get tossed away that easily because someone has a hard-on against the monarchy.

As for doing soemthing to make Canada a Republic, how on earth would that be done? Australia voted against the proposal for a Republic because the President would've been choosen by parliament and not by the public. Some won't accept the idea of a president elected by popular vote since a lot of people consider the public too uneduated to make up their minds about such an issue.

Besides, does anyone want to revist the issue of a constitution again?

South Africa is a republic yet still part of the commonwealth. Perhaps we should look into how their system works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing to a Republic would require a constitutional change. Does anyone remeber what happened the last time we attempted to make a change to our consititution? It wasn't pretty.

Besides, Parliament isn't going to give up any of it's power to a President if we became a Republic. So what's the point replacing one powerless figurehead Head of State for another powerless figurehead Head of State. Especially since we don't even have to pay the current one.

Another point is that with our current system of a consitutional monarchy we a Governor General and 13 Lieutenant Governors. If Canada became a Republic, every province and territory would have to change it's political system.

It would be confusing, costly and any attempts to change the constitution could potentially rip the country apart. I see no benefits to becoming a Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Joe Concacaf

South Africa is a republic yet still part of the commonwealth. Perhaps we should look into how their system works.

South Africa became a republic in the first placec in order to avoid the Commonwealth on the apartheid issue. They basically would've had to beg to get back into the Commonwealth even after majority rule was established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I am opposed to the British monarchy for two reasons, I oppose the monarchial system and I think Canada should have a Canadian head of state. I oppose the monarchial system because it is undemocratic and a leader is chosen not based on merit but on lineage.

So are you seriously suggesting King George II of America earned his current position in a democratic contest based on merit without influence from his lineage? :D If so, we have bigger problem than I thought.

quote:

In contrast to what you claim is an inferiority complex, I neither have an inferiority nor superiority complex rather an equality complex.

OK, you have an equality complex: we are not the equal of other nations because our head of state is not elected and is not a native of this country? Hmmm, somehow I fail to see the subtle distinction between "not the equal" and "inferior". (Now why do I have a sudden an urge to rent Animal Farm?) [:P]

As for dislike or not, I never said you (or anyone else) had to be guilty of BOTH, but rather that all objections I have seen are based on one or the other. I have still seen no evidence of any more cogent argument like, "X system is functionally better." :)

And for the record, the American-style president is certainly IMO NOT functionally better than what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Yeah, it is clearly a slow day in Canadian soccer.

A couple of quick notes:

1) Yes, it seems to me that the effort and money and time that it would cost to abolish the monarchy in Canada compared to the 'damage' cause by keeping the monarchy suggests there is little point in fixing something that ain't broke (even if it appears rather annoying and pointless). However, if the reason we choose to keep the monarchy is because we feel we need Mother England to give us credibility or identity or some sort of self-esteem, then I say "lop off the heads of all the royalists and loyalists in OUR country". (Okay, maybe not literally, but you get the point. Time to build our own country based on who we are now. The past plays a role, sure, but the past also includes some pretty nasty stuff, and we are all old enough to know that we can do much better in many areas. No need to give the aboriginal peoples Bay blankets laced with small-pox, eh?)

2. What sort of poncy country are we if we cannot elect officials who will rule with honesty, integrity etc? I mean, what is the GG doing about the sponsorship scandal? Let's be real: the GG and the monarchy do not hold any of the levers of power in this country. If you don't want Martin or Harper or Bush (who is an American, so cannot really "rule" our country) to be head of state, then get your ass off the couch and get involved in civil matters and do your damnedest to elect a good leader and a good government. I can't understand this passive concept that we need the GG in order to have an objective head of state. How silly. When people complain about our (canadians') bad habits of blaming the government for all the crap, this is what they are talking about. We determine the governments that lead the country. And if we don't, then we are to blame, ultimately. We need to stop being so damned passive and start taking proper action. (In all areas--especially soccer, which is the single most important thing on earth. ;))

3. I think Camilla will make a great Queen. Camilla, Queen of Canada. And Scott Thompson thought that he'd be Queen of Canada forever. (Silly rabbit.)

4. If we were not part of the commonwealth four years ago--or six--would Owen Hargreaves have the opportunity to play for England (or Wales)?

5. If we were invaded by the US of A, would the Brits come to our defense? I mean, they owe us, don't they?

6. We need some good soccer news fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...