[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

The "Queen of Canada" is different than the "Queen of England" even though they are the same physical person.

That's one concept the anti-Monarchists have a hard time grasping. She is not a 'foreign' Queen.

Yes, she is. The fact is, there will never be a Canadian born queen or king. She is foreign, she resides in a foreign palace, protected by a foreign security service, in a nation that is not Canada.

Calling her the "Queen of Canada" is like calling "The Simpsons" Canadian television. A crock of shit. The fact you can watch it on Global does not make it not American

[commanderkai]

lily lily:

Doesn't change the fact that she IS the Queen of Canada.

And you don't see this as a problem? Maybe I was born in post "God save the Queen" Canada, or maybe being exposed to the US political system gave me a different insight on the matter. As much as she's the leader of Canada, she's not Canadian, she's British. She doesn't represent me with my French or Italian heritage, nor does she represent me as a Canadian. The Queen, to me, is the last thing we must remove to become a full fledged Canada, and not some colonial remnant.

[commanderkai]

lily lily:

"Insight" is irrelevant. Your French and Italian heritage is also irrelevant.

She's the Queen of Canada. You don't have to like it, but you do have to swear an oath of allegiance to her if required.,

But for how long? The fact is, the Queen of England is probably going to die sooner or later. So then what? Should we have King Harry, the same one who wore a Neo-Nazi uniform for Halloween? Mm, there's an oath of allegiance I'm not willing to take.

As much as my insight and heritage is irrelevant to you, they are to me. The fact is, post 1982 Canadians are growing up knowing Canada, and not the "glorious British Empire". So once the new generation takes the helm, why shouldn't Canadians be loyal to Canada, and not a foreign monarch who's only in that position due to generations of divine right bullshit?

[DrCaleb]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

The "Queen of Canada" is different than the "Queen of England" even though they are the same physical person.

That's one concept the anti-Monarchists have a hard time grasping. She is not a 'foreign' Queen.

Yes, she is. The fact is, there will never be a Canadian born queen or king. She is foreign, she resides in a foreign palace, protected by a foreign security service, in a nation that is not Canada.

Why do Monarchs get to refer to themselves as 'we' ?

When Queen Elizabeth II dies, does the "Queen of Canada" die? What about the symbol of the State of Canada, the "Crown of Canada". What becomes of it? Does Canada die too?

My point exactly. You can't seem to think of the "Queen of Canada", "The Queen of Great Britain" and "Queen Elizabeth II" as different entities. And you have no idea the role she plays in Canadian law, nor the role of the GG.

The Queen of Canada has very little to do anymore with Canadian law. She appoints Governor Generals, as directed by a single name put foreward by the Prime Minister of Canada. She reserves the right to veto legislation as signed by the GG, to speak before Parliment, and some ceremonial duties but has very little else as far as rights and responsibilities.

If Canada wanted to, I'll bet we could swap out the British Monarch for some other head of State - but why? What would be the cost of such a change, vs what we spend yearly now?

The other thing anti-Monarchists shy away from - what to replace it with.

[Yogi]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The other thing anti-Monarchists shy away from - what to replace it with.

Not an issue at all! No need to replace her 'with anything'. Canada's leader shall be the PM of the time; ala U.S.A.

[Tman1]

One thing to look on is the coalition crisis that was beheld some time ago. It was revealed that not many people knew much about this country's constitution and election procedure not to mention who our head of state is which left many people scratching their heads as to the Governor Generals role in that crisis.

It is this point I make in reference to Mr. Robert Finch who claims that Canadians tend to be monarchists (which is vague and presents no number) but not interested in debating the subject. When 'many' Canadians do not know who their head of state or the powers that be are, he is indeed correct that nobody is interested in debating the issue but fails to realize that nobody knows anything about the issue.

Yes, many Canadians are ignorant on the procedure but with respect, Canada is a very double-faced country with semantics and double-meanings in terms of who can do what, who has more power, the proper procedure with the PM calling on the GG and basically telling her what to do, appointing a GG, and what is written on a piece of paper during a time when nobody knew that they wouldn't be a part of an 'empire' anymore.

I think things should stay the same but with some changes. One would be to give the person the option of swearing loyalty to the crown or to the country or both. It wouldn't change the foundation of our government to simply get rid of the loyalty to the Queen but choice is choice. Another would be the face on our money as I don't want Charlies mug on my money when the time comes. I don't want to be a republic but I want significant changes to compensate the needs of many to evolve on their own while still knowing about the foundations in which they find themselves living in this wonderful country.

[MacDonaill]

If Canada ever became a republic with a president and everything, I think life would eventually go on, but I must admit a small part of me would die. I have a high knowledge and respect of this country's history and institutions and I think it would be a sad and unnecessary thing to form a republic. It's more than that even. It rubs me as very uncanadian. Loyalty to the Crown is the central theme in this country's history and raison d'être. Today of course, it's just a symbol and a formality, but so are most State traditions in any country.

Before we decide to get rid of the Crown, we'll first have to decide what we're going to put in its place and what for. Having a monarchy doesn't harm us in any way. Republicans have never put forth any real reason as to why a republic would serve us any better. They only speak about vague notions of 'democracy'. Well, many if not most of the world's greatest democracies are also constitutional monarchies (Canada, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, New Zealand, Japan). Having a Queen doesn't make us slaves to a class system or any damn thing like it. It's just something that reflects where we came from, and we're no better OR worse off for it. I find it only natural.

In the world today, there are far more corrupt and/or totalitarian republics than monarchies.

[DrCaleb]

Yogi Yogi:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The other thing anti-Monarchists shy away from - what to replace it with.

Not an issue at all! No need to replace her 'with anything'. Canada's leader shall be the PM of the time; ala U.S.A.

The USA is a Republic. So, class, why is it a bad idea to have the head of Government and the Head of State as the same person in a Parliamentary Democracy?

For example, who then vetoes bad bills, say one that the ruling party pushed through to abolish the constitution and make the Prime Minister dictator for life?

[Tman1]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Having a Queen doesn't make us slaves to a class system or any damn thing like it. It's just something that reflects where we came from, and we're no better OR worse off for it. I find it only natural.

Not having a Queen doesn't make us slaves to a class system either. In fact, the whole concept of 'class system' comes from the monarchy.

[Tman1]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yogi Yogi:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The other thing anti-Monarchists shy away from - what to replace it with.

Not an issue at all! No need to replace her 'with anything'. Canada's leader shall be the PM of the time; ala U.S.A.

The USA is a Republic. So, class, why is it a bad idea to have the head of Government and the Head of State as the same person in a Parliamentary Democracy?

For example, who then vetoes bad bills, say one that the ruling party pushed through to abolish the constitution and make the Prime Minister dictator for life?

The opposition parties and the senate of Canada, not the queen veto bad bills do they not? In that case, if the PM of Canada was the head of state, (which he is de facto anyways) what's the change? Nothing.

The queen does not make law in Canada.

[Thanos]

Except for the United States most of the nations that've thrown out a central part of their founding identity invariably suffer some sort of revolutionary political catastrophe. Not that I'd expect Canadians to smash open each others heads and start feasting on the goo inside over a discussion of the relative worth of the monarchy, but I'd see the whole thing as an unneccessary and pointless exercise. Ties to England cause us no harm and provide us with a stable tradition. Adoption of republicanism is bound to generate bad blood all on it's own. I see no valid reason to do so, unless one inexplicably considers further placating the separatist filth in Quebec as a valid reason for more destructive constitutional shenanigans.

[DrCaleb]

Tman1 Tman1:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The USA is a Republic. So, class, why is it a bad idea to have the head of Government and the Head of State as the same person in a Parliamentary Democracy?

For example, who then vetoes bad bills, say one that the ruling party pushed through to abolish the constitution and make the Prime Minister dictator for life?

The opposition parties and the senate of Canada, not the queen veto bad bills do they not? In that case, if the PM of Canada was the head of state, (which he is de facto anyways) what's the change? Nothing.

The queen does not make law in Canada.

Incorrect. If the bill passes both houses, it is signed into law by the Representative of the Crown of Canada, the Governor General. Assuming the bill gets to them, they both hold the power to not pass a bill into law. Veto. The Queens right is kept, in case the GG is yet another party shill.

If the head of state (GG/Crown) is replaced by the PM, there is nothing from stopping the PM from putting forth a bill making the the Prime Minister defacto Dictator and having it pass Parliament and the Senate and being signed into law ... by him.

The PM is not defacto head of state, as we saw with the latest 'crisis'. The GG still fills an important role. They do what is best for Canada, not what is best for any one Party. You did remember that Parties control both upper and lower house, didn't you?

[Tman1]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If the head of state (GG/Crown) is replaced by the PM, there is nothing from stopping the PM from putting forth a bill making the the Prime Minister defacto Dictator and having it pass Parliament and the Senate and being signed into law ... by him.

The PM is not defacto head of state, as we saw with the latest 'crisis'. The GG still fills an important role. They do what is best for Canada, not what is best for any one Party. You did remember that Parties control both upper and lower house, didn't you?

I may have missed a few points but I am far from 'incorrect'.

The bills pass royal assent after it has been read several times, passed through motions and voted on. I doubt anything would be passed in the house of commons making the PM a 'defacto' dictator. Example being the President of the United States. He is the head of state but can't simply 'pass bills' unless it goes through congress. It's the same thing. Poor example of giving the queen her 'veto' rarely used power but you are certainly right about the semantics of power towards the queen or the GG.

Lester B Pearson made a state visit as a Canadian Prime Minister. When the PM travels to another country on a matter of 'state business' (it may or may not be called state visit in name) he is awarded an honour guard or given permission to give addresses to another governing body. Your definition of 'de facto' may differ for some reason but that is what it is. The GG flies to other countries supposedly promoting Canadian culture and that is it.

The latest 'crisis' was made because of governmental issues concerning a non-confidence vote or the potential of one due to lack of confidence in the government. The GG does have the power to implement certain actions but face it, the PM does the talking and she does the doing because she is told to do it or the Candian people will do it for her.

You're making it sound like the PM can simply bypass the process of legislation simply because the GG isn't there. Ceremony and procedure.

[Goober_McGee]

No one has mentioned the option of having an elected president doing the job of the governor general. Just a suggestion but maybe something to consider.

Also for the monarchists who say the republican side hasn't put forth an idea for a republican system, it's because they're are too many to choose from, and too many new ways to implement a government. Hell, we don't have to change the current system if we don't want to, the head of state would just be Canadian. The point is that potential styles of government should be discussed amongst Canadians before adoption of a republic.

[MacDonaill]

Tman1 Tman1:

Not having a Queen doesn't make us slaves to a class system either. In fact, the whole concept of 'class system' comes from the monarchy.

The monarchy did not create the concept of a 'class system', nor is it the origin. It is only a feature of a certain type of class structure. However, even in republics, class systems exist and always will. Therefore, if getting rid of the monarchy does nothing to change or improve the class structure of this country, if it doesn't improve our lives or the efficiency of our government in any way, then why go to all the trouble?

There is no point in asking why we should keep it if it is already there, harms nothing. The onus is on those who would drag us through all the expense and constitutional battles in order to change it, to show us reasonably why we ought to. Thus far from the republicans, I have only heard meaningless rhetoric about democracy, colonialism etc. Yet none of those arguments hold their ground when put up against the reality of the situation, which is that we are not a colony of Great Britain (we are an entirely independent Dominion) and that we are one of the greatest democracies on earth and we are freer than most (I would say any) of the world's republics.

When the republicans are able to demonstrate that Canada would be freer, healthier and more prosperous as a result of becoming a republic, that it is something that is actually necessary and not just something they think would be cool, then I will seriously consider supporting their cause. Until then, they're just another special interest group looking to force their ideology on the rest of us.