Why Canada should be become a republic...

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Location: West Sussex, UK

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:53 pm

 

---

A republican referendum would fail. Easily.

Such a vote failed in Australia, a country that feels much more pro-republic than we in Canada do.

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:10 pm

 

---

/--- Unity:
FINALLY Canadians will have a head of state to call our own. As a Germanic Canadian I personally dislike the head of my country being British then being told it is "my herritage." ---/

Unity? Really? Well what do you say then to the fact that elections in Canada are always very divisive affairs? How do you tell the Canadian who 'voted for the other guy' that the new president really represents them too?

The truth is that no elected leader ever truly represents everyone. Do Canadians feel united under our prime minister, who is 'chosen' by our representatives? Do all U.S. citizens feel united under President Bush? I think you know the answer is no.

While elected political representatives are important for running a country in a democratic fashion, when it comes to a head of state this is not preferred. Elected politicians will ONLY represent those who cast a vote for them, and the donors (corporate and personal) that funded their campaign. Everyone else can be damned. In a time of crisis, where someone must be an arbitrary mediator or must make an important decision, having a politician with a bias is not who you want to be doing this job. Like I said before—would you want a hockey player to also be the referee of his own game?

I've said this over and over again, and it seems you choose to ignore it.

You also ignore my comments that the Queen is not just British. You've called her British probably a hundred times, but have failed to convince me why it is she is not also Canadian. Yes, there have be vague words of where she feels most at home, where she was born, etc. But, the fact remains, as someone written into OUR constitution, she can't NOT be a Canadian.

And besides, republican, it seems you share more heritage with the Queen than you think. You should know that the House of Windsor was once the House of Hanover—making our queen of German descent. Britons could accept a monarch from Germany sitting on their British throne-- and they were never doubted as being both British and German. Why, again, can't the Queen be British and Canadian?

It is true that saying Elizabeth II should remain Queen of Canada simply because it is part of our British heritage really is a stupid thing to say. Those types of Anglophile monarchists do more damage than good to the Canadian Crown’s image.

/--- Demmocratic accountability:
Canadians will have a head of state that we can choose and is accountable to us. After the Queen dies Charles will become our next King-and we get no say in it! I promise if we were a third world country people would think us a colony. ---/

I told you already, Canadians, through their elected representatives, chose that a monarch would hold executive power in Canada. It is ONLY because of our democratic constitution that Charles will become King of Canada.

I've also told you already that the Queen and governor general ARE accountable to us. Canadians are not happy with the governor general? We tell our sovereign to remove him (as happened in Australia). Canadians are not happy with the Queen? We tell our governments to remove her. Done.

If you don't like Charles becoming King of Canada, then tell the government. If enough people don't want Charles to be king, and they tell the government, then the government must listen. Canada does have the right to say who sits on our throne-- it actually doesn't HAVE to be the same sovereign as in Great Britain. But, I think you'll find that Charles has done nothing to offend Canadians to the point where they don't see him fit to be king.

And if, because we have a constitutional monarchy, people think Canada is a colony, then that is due to nothing more than severe ignorance. I don't believe any country should be forced to change its constitutional structure simply because some stupid people just don't get it.

/--- "A president wouldn’t “deal with Martin” either—so this issue is irrelevant to your call for a republic."

No but Parliament would! It should be up to Parliament and not the Queen. I personally find it scary that someone living thousands of miles away in a whole other country without citizenship (which I'm sorry does make her a foreigner) is the one in control. ---/

This is taken out of context.

You asked why the Queen hadn't come to her "troubled" land to deal with Martin and the sponsorship scandal. I said it was irrelevant to use this as an argument for a republic because a president would not have stepped into this matter either.

You are correct, though, in saying that parliament should deal with it. And that's what I said-- its a political affair to be handled by the politicians.

/--- Well, the truth is I have nothing against the Queen's job rather that the Queen herself is the one doing it. If the GG was demmocraticaly and seperatly electected she could do the same job satisfying both Monarchists who fear the PM having too much power and republicans who want a democratic head of state. ---/

Actually, what you said was "I propose making the GG elected but separate from the government". Am I to understand you meant the ELECTIONS should be held separate to government elections? Or that the POSITION of governor general should be separate from the government?

The governor general cannot be elected for all the reasons I stated above. It is a position where the person must remain UNBIASED, APOLITICAL and IMPARTIAL. Anyone elected CANNOT be considered to hold any of those criteria.

Plus, even if the GG were elected, the powers he or she holds are still there only because of the personal permission of the sovereign. So, I fail to see how an elected governor general representing an un-elected monarch will make republicans or monarchists happy.

/--- And of course every MP does what their constituents tell them to do. A referendum would be the fairest way to go. If we can give Quebec a referendum on sovereignty, can't we do the same for Canada? ---/

Every MP will do what their constituents tell them to do if they want to keep their job. Just like the governor general must do what Canadians ask of her or she'll lose her job. Just like the Queen must do what Canadians ask of her, or she'll lose her job.

But, you're absolutely right-- a referendum would be one way to go. Or, a large number of Canadians writing into their MP would be, in effect, the same thing.

In the end, though, we're still just describing a process of democracy-- something you claim the Queen contradicts. Strange how republicans are allowed to live freely under the Crown, discuss openly removing that very Crown, and there is even a mechanism in our constitution by which that Crown CAN be removed! Yet- somehow, the Crown is un-democratic.

Well, I just don't see it.

What I do see is a queen who is accountable to her people. So where is the tyranny? Where is the dictatorship? Where is the crushing of democratic freedom?

Nowhere. And that's because the Crown PROTECTS us from those things. Politicians and governments can never become the ultimate power-- leading to dictators and militant regimes. The Crown is the embodiment of the STATE, which consists of ALL the PEOPLE, who have spelled out in their constitution what powers the Crown will hold. And thus, when the government is subject to the authority of the Crown, they are in effect, subject to the authority of the people.

Sounds pretty goddamn safe and democratic to me.

And Iceland sounds like a cool trip (and I don’t mean that just literally).

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:31 pm

 

---

/--- A republican referendum would fail. Easily.

Such a vote failed in Australia, a country that feels much more pro-republic than we in Canada do. ---/

Blue and White Army, I couldn't agree with you more.

The Australian flirt with republicanism, which sadly still continues, was nothing more than an immense waste of tax dollars.

It did, however, show just how 'democratic' republicans can be. The call for an Australian republic came not from the people but only from a select few politicians in the Australian government. These politicians were not elected on a platform of republicanism, were not asked by their constituents to push for a republic, but only brought the proposal for change out of their own personal goals and ideals. Thus, it was an elite minority speaking not for the people they represented, but for themselves only.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

They then took a populace uneducated in their constitutional reality and filled their heads with republican spun propaganda of the "British Queen", "democracy" and the need for an "Australian head of state", and then asked them to vote. They never really educated the public about their current system, or made it a real option for them to choose. It was all, and continues to be, very one sided and biased towards republicanism.

Again, not very democratic.

In the end it made republicans look like what they were—schemeing, manipulative, and lying politicians. Nothing was for the benefit of Australians, but only for the benefit of politicians.

At the time of their referendum a slim majority of Australians realised that the republicans really didn't know what they were doing. They could not agree on a model of republic which would be better than their constitutional monarchy, fought amongst themselves, and then, rather like the Bloc Quebecois after their failed referendum on sovereignty, blamed everybody but themselves for the collapse of their dream.

They try still for a republic, but more and more Australians are realising that this is not for the benefit of them, the people, but for the political elite only.

Hopefully Canadians can learn a lesson from that.

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:15 am

 

---

I'm afraid Bambino you have yet to really outline how the monarchy is democratic.
To say she has the consent of the Canadian people through our representatives is simply untrue for the following reasons:
A: No one has ever asked our MPs AND Sennators
B:It is their opinion, they cannot possibly represent every view of their people because most likely they have different views.

A referendum will allow every Canadian to have a say, why do monarchists fear this so much?
As for Austrailia, the problem was no one could decide which model of republicanism to go on, the reason why republicanism is still strong is becausemost Austrailians want the Queen out.

I'm glad you agree that the Queen does not represent all heritages, neother does the PM come to that, however the Cabinet and Parliament does, surely they should have the power.

The GG would become the head of state after an independent election. The GG would be seprate from the government but accountable to the people and most importantly not above the law like the Queen. Take the Burral incedent-the Queen withheald vital evidence, if she was any other person that would have been a trial but the Queen as sovereign is above the law. To use your metephore not only is she the hockey player and the referee-shes the NHL Commisioner as well!


I never said Canada is undemocratic, rather the head of state lacks democratic accountibility.I am glad that in Canada we have free speach-more so then many republics and monarchies. That said I still fail to see how the Queen can claim she is our head of state.

BTW Iceland was nice but not cool-very very hot!

---

Blue and White Army
Senior Member


Back to Vancouver in March!

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
Location: West Sussex, UK

Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:05 am

 

---

If Canadians cared enough about this, there would be large outcries for a referendum, and we'd become a republic.

But the fact is that we don't care.

If Canada today was a republic, that would be fine. I wouldn't be campaigning to bring back the monarchy.

But just the same way, I'm not about to campaign for a change to republicanism, either.

The queen is a figurehead. That's it. She rules on paper, but not in practice. Do you really find it that insulting that the queen is the soverign of our state, despite not having any real power?

If the queen ever did try to dictate to us against our will how to run our own affairs, we would just tell her [i]en masse[/i] to piss off. But I doubt it would ever get to that.

The system ain't broke, in my opinion, so don't bother tinkering with it.

Perhaps it's because I'm of English heritage that I actually kind of like the queen being atop our official state structure. If I was French, aboriginal or Madagascarian, I might feel a little less enthralled about her presence.

But it is nice having a bit of tradition. Perhaps a better, more "Canadian" alternative would be to have the head of the national aborignal council as our official head of state?

---

republican
Super Member



Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 193
Location: England

Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:34 am

 

---

If Canadians cared enough about this, there would be large outcries for a referendum, and we'd become a republic.
There are many new groups on this issue, as it is CCR is the largest. Oyr numbers are growing everyday to the extent that we even have 3 international chapters. Canadians are beginging to care.

The queen is a figurehead. That's it. She rules on paper, but not in practice. Do you really find it that insulting that the queen is the soverign of our state, despite not having any real power?
Firstly, as Bambino rightfully pointed out the Queen DOES infact have power...too much power for that matter. As for weather I find it insulting, I do. Canada is meant to be a progressive nation yet we rely on a figurehead leader? That is an insult to me.


Perhaps it's because I'm of English heritage that I actually kind of like the queen being atop our official state structure. If I was French, aboriginal or Madagascarian, I might feel a little less enthralled about her presence.

I am a citizen of Britain with some British herritage (my Canadian family is German though) so I see both points, however I do not wish to keep the Queen no matter British I am. That said, I thank you for conceding how unfair it is to those Canadians without an English herritage.



As for if it aint broke don't tinker with it, I think we can both agree all great ideas and inventions began with a little "tinkering"
republican

---

bambino
Junior Member



Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:52 am

 

---

/--- To say she has the consent of the Canadian people through our representatives is simply untrue for the following reasons:
A: No one has ever asked our MPs AND Sennators
B:It is their opinion, they cannot possibly represent every view of their people because most likely they have different views. ---/

A. The MPs AND senators were indeed all asked in 1982 to give approval to the Canadian constitution, along with every member of every provincial legislature.

The Constitution being brought to Canada, with the addition of an amending formula and a Charter, was done merely by an Act of Parliament- called the Constitution Act. Though the Supreme Court said it was custom that all the provinces be asked for approval (and they were), in reality all that was necessary was an Act passed by the Federal Parliament. To pass an Act takes the approval of the majority of the House of Commons, AND the majority of the Senate, and then Royal Assent.

So, every MP and every Senator were asked.

B. Who is the “they” you talk about?

Do you mean the Constitution was partiated because of the personal “opinion” of the MPs and Senators? But then, according to you they were never asked for any opinion on the matter in the first place.

Do you mean only Trudeau’s Cabinet? But then, I just explained that it most certainly wasn’t just a coup by Trudeau’s cabinet to bring the Constitution to Canada and add an amending formula and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First off, Trudeau was elected to a strong majority in 1980 on a platform which included a promise to bring the Constitution to Canada.

Then, after years of debate, all MPs and all Senators cast a vote on a document which had already received the approval of nine of the ten provinces.

That to me says that Canadians elected a party to power at least partly because they wanted the Constitution brought to Canada. It also says to me that 90% of the provinces agreed to the Constitution and Charter as written, a majority of the Members of the House (your diverse representatives) agreed to the Constitution and Charter as written, and a majority of the Senators agreed to the Constitution and Charter as written.

Thus, the MAJORITY of provincial governments and the MAJORITY of the federal government, the majority of the representatives of Canada’s diverse communities, the majority of people from the Conservative, Liberal and NDP camps, had no problem with Canada remaining a constitutional monarchy.

And in actual fact, when Trudeau asked the public, community groups, organizations, etc., for their opinions, there came a strong backlash against his original republican proposals.

So, the People spoke through their representatives, and the People voiced their own opinions as well.

Therefore our Queen was given her position by democratic process—the holds her powers because the majority of the People say so.

/--- I'm afraid Bambino you have yet to really outline how the monarchy is democratic. ---/

I will say it again-- the Crown is democratic because it protects us from dictatorship. Politicians and governments can never become the ultimate power-- leading to dictators and militant regimes. The Crown is the embodiment of the STATE, which consists of ALL the PEOPLE, who have spelled out in their constitution what powers the Crown will hold. And thus, when the government is subject to the authority of the Crown, they are in effect, subject to the authority of the People.

/--- A referendum will allow every Canadian to have a say, why do monarchists fear this so much? ---/

Who fears it? Which monarchists are you talking about? Certainly not me, I hope.

I said in my last post: “you're absolutely right-- a referendum would be one way to go. Or, a large number of Canadians writing into their MP would be, in effect, the same thing.”

There is nothing wrong with a referendum where Canadians will vote on the structure of their constitution.

However, firstly, there must be a REASON for that referendum. There must be a driving force coming from a substantially large group of the population pushing for the changes they wish to see. A referendum should NOT come about by a select few republican politicians pushing their beliefs back on the People, as happened in Australia. Government works from the People up, not from the top down.

If Canadians elected to a majority a party which included a Canadian republic in their platform, then certainly, the majority of the People would have spoken. However, currently Canadians have no problem with the constitutional monarchy they live under. There has been no call by the People for a change, because, most likely, there’s no NEED for change. As Blue and White Army said, “if Canadians cared enough about this, there would be large outcries for a referendum.”

Secondly, Canadians must be educated on BOTH sides of the story before casting a vote. There can be no one sided propaganda, no bias towards one side of the choice.

That majority pushing for change cannot be brainwashed by republican stories and twisted truths. Its apparent to me when looking at the CCR website and other republican information (even Australian, British and New Zealand republican sites) that the same mantra is chanted over and over—the People will be happier in a republic with more democracy. Yet, NONE of them ever say WHY or HOW! It’s all just pictures of happy multicultural people with their happy children and words about a “Canadian head of state” and “Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom” (though, even your leader, the great Tom Freda, recently admitted that any poll on the monarchy should call Elizabeth II simply the Canadian head of state). Nowhere is there an explanation of just what form of republic would be better—just ANY republic at ANY cost. Nor is it explained how indeed life would be better. Again, republican, even YOU said “becoming a republic will not change everyday life.”

However, nor can Canadians be brainwashed by any monarchist stories and twisted truths. They cannot be told we must hold onto the monarchy because it is part of our British heritage, or because we are still loyal to Britain and the Empire. They must not be told we will be kicked out of the Commonwealth, or any such other falsity.

To call for a referendum Canadians need to know all the FACTS, from which they can base their opinions. If the majority still decide against sharing a monarch, or decide against monarchy all together, and are given a sound and clear plan for change to a republic, and believe it will be an improvement, then by all means—let Canadians choose for themselves.

/--- As for Austrailia, the problem was no one could decide which model of republicanism to go on, the reason why republicanism is still strong is becausemost Austrailians want the Queen out. ---/

The inability to decide on a model was only one of their problems.

Throughout the months leading up to the referendum it became more and more obvious that republicans, despite their cries that Australia would become a better place to live as a republic, did not have a real knowledge of where they were actually taking the country. If they could not find a republican model better than the constitutional monarchy, then why would any Australian want to change to a lesser, or worse, an unknown system?

It also became obvious after the referendum that there had been a lot of that propaganda I spoke of, put out by the republicans to ‘sell’ the idea of a republic; rather like a dodgy used car salesman who will pitch you anything to make the sale.

Republicanism is certainly stronger in Australia than Canada, but this is only because so many Australians have been fed the lies about the “British Queen” and the lack of democracy in a constitutional monarchy. Exactly the things I said should NOT happen if a Canadian referendum were to come about.

However, contrary to your words, feelings of republicanism have actually declined in Australia since the referendum failed and republican leaders were exposed as the unorganized and deceitful people they were. They tried, they failed, and in the process it was shown that the system they have now works perfectly well for them.

/--- I'm glad you agree that the Queen does not represent all heritages, neother does the PM come to that, however the Cabinet and Parliament does, surely they should have the power. ---/

You are putting words in my mouth.

How did I say the Queen does not represent all heritages?

What I DID say was that the Queen shares a German ancestry with you. She has French, Spanish, Dutch, and Arab ancestry as well. I ALSO said that Britons accepted the German Hanovers as monarchs, and nobody doubted their British-ness as sovereigns of Britons. Also, Hanoverians accepted sharing their monarch and having that monarch sit in Britain rather than Hanover.

But her ancestry is beside the point; it is not important. As the sovereign of the Canadian Crown she represents ALL Canadians, regardless of THEIR ancestry.

Your obsession with ancestry, heritage and nationality is exposing a little bit of xenophobia in your push for a “Canadian” head of state. There is some kind of Canadian purity you’re looking for, and I’m really just not sure where you’ll find it. I think the whole issue is irrelevant to the debate.

As for parliament and the Cabinet, they do hold certain powers, republican. Nobody has ever doubted that. They just do not hold ULTIMATE power, as that would give MPs or Ministers the ability to form coups or become dictators.

Besides, I don’t know what power and heritage have to do with each other.

/-- The GG would become the head of state after an independent election. --/

Ok, understood now. But I’ll ask you AGAIN: how will this person represent the Canadians who did NOT vote for them? How, in a time of crisis, will this person be trusted to remain unbiased and not favour those who voted for them or those who paid them? How will a politician remain APOLITICAL??

/-- The GG would be seprate from the government ---/

Then why bother having a governor general (president) at all?

Who would hold executive power with which to keep the prime minister in check?

/--- but accountable to the people and most importantly not above the law like the Queen. ---/

The governor general is already accountable to Canadians, because the position is indeed a governmental one.

The governor general is not above the law as he or she is only the Queen’s representative (just look to Australia’s last governor general who was removed from office due to pending charges).

And, if the governor general (president) were separate to the government, just what would they be accountable for?

/--- Take the Burral incedent-the Queen withheald vital evidence, if she was any other person that would have been a trial but the Queen as sovereign is above the law. ---/

I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t want to get into the details of that silly affair, but if new evidence comes forward that leads the Crown to believe the trial is no longer worth pursuing, then the trial is called off. That’s all that happened in the example you brought up.

/--- To use your metephore not only is she the hockey player and the referee-shes the NHL Commisioner as well!---/

No. You’ve completely misinterprated my metaphor.

The Queen is not a player AND the referee. The Members of Parliament, the Senators, the prime minister, etc. are the players facing off against each other in parliament. The provinces and the federal government are also players, facing off against each other in all matters of government. The Queen is the referee of both games. And the People are the Commissioner.

/--- I never said Canada is undemocratic ---/

You said Canada lacked a democratic government: “If we had an elected Canadian government that the people would choose, people might take more pride in it. Canadians might be unified more and, if for no other reason, at least our government will not be an unelected person.”

You also said the government does not speak for the People, but only expresses their own personal opinions: “It is their opinion, they cannot possibly represent every view of their people because most likely they have different views.”

But, aside from that, if Canada is indeed a democratic nation, then how can you claim that the Queen does not hold her position democratically!? You are contradicting yourself here, republican.

/--- The head of state lacks democratic accountability. ---/

One more time— Canada is a democracy because we have a constitution which gives the People the ultimate power to control their own destinies. Those you keep claiming “hold” all the power, ie. the prime minister and the Queen, only hold any power because the constitution says so. That is, because the People say so!

If a majority of Canadians wish to see the constitution changed, then it must be done. Nobody can limit or control that power the People hold. Thus, if Canadians wish to see the Queen removed as their sovereign, it MUST BE DONE, thereby making the Queen ACCOUNTABLE to the People!

Canadians have given the Queen a job. We ask her and her successors to hold executive power, making her and her family, in essence, public servants. A president would also be a public servant that is asked to hold executive power. Therefore, the ONLY difference between a president and a sovereign the fact that a sovereign is chosen apolitically and a president chosen politically. The choice of a sovereign is mostly left to the accident of birth rather than political elections. But, this does not mean that because Charles is next in the line of succession he MUST become King of Canada. If the People say so, another in the line can be placed on the Canadian Throne. If the People say so the Canadian Throne can be abolished (you know that full well). If the People don’t say anything then the laws remain as they are and Charles will become king. This apolitical process (meaning elections are not necessary) ensures that the head of state will always be impartial and non-partisan. EXACTLY what you want a head of state to be.

/--- I am glad that in Canada we have free speach-more so then many republics and monarchies. ---/

Yes. The Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee our right to free speech. Our Crown ensures these laws and rules are always followed by the government.

/--- That said I still fail to see how the Queen can claim she is our head of state. ---/

I don’t even have to make any comment on that one. Just read the Constitution, would you, please?

Overall, republican, you seem to look at things in an overly simplified manner. But this way of looking at things is not uncommon amongst other republicans I have spoken to.

You feel we need a republic because our monarch is not democratic, and refuse to dilute that belief by listening to the fact that there are different types of democracy in the world. Yet, the basic principal common amongst them all is that the People hold ultimate power to control their government, their country, and their destiny. Canada, even with the monarchy, HAS this criterion. Canada is democratic. Our sovereign is democratic; accountable to us, and there only because we allow her to be.

But, I suppose, once realizing that the Canadian sovereign is democratic, you will be less one argument for a republic.

You claim we need a Canadian head of state. Yet you then give the most convoluted attempts to explain just what exactly a pure Canadian is. They must be born in Canada, they must be a citizen, they must ‘feel Canadian’. You refuse to even address the fact that the Queen, written into the Canadian Constitution, the sovereign of the Crown which is the foundation of our government, legal system, military and honours, is, BY LAW, a Canadian.

You then try to argue that her ‘British heritage’ makes her a representative only of Canadians of British descent. You ignore the fact that the Queen really is not of purely ‘British’ lines, but of British, German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Greek, and Arabic descent. And even more importantly, you ignore the point that a head of state’s heritage has NOTHING to do with their abilities to be a head of state. To argue that their heritage is important borders very closely on racism.

But, not being able to claim the Queen is purely British and represents only Britons, leaves you with one less argument for a republic.

You also seem to feel a Canadian republic will come about when we all happily, and apparently almost unanimously, vote in favour of one. Canada will become a magically unified country where every little boy and girl can now dream of becoming president—the American dream comes to Canada (too bad that American dream is tainted with the omitted point that every little boy and girl needs to come from an immensely wealthy family to become president).

But, to keep this republican utopia alive you eliminate from your mind the problems that always come out of constitutional debate in Canada. You ignore the fact that since the Constitution was brought home to Canada in 1982 the country has never been more divided. There has been round after round of constitutional wrangling since then, including the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, culminating in the latest sovereignty referendum in Quebec. You can’t see the reality that opening the constitution to remove the Crown will most certainly NOT be a task which will be completed simply by every Canadian dropping their pro-republic ballot into the referendum box with a smile and a wink. It will become a divisive debate, which will go on for decades more, in which Canada’s bonds will be further weakened. Simply saying a president will create unity does not make it so.

In reality, if we look at Canada’s short history with its own constitution, trying to form a new executive office will not only pit republican against monarchist, but more complexly will put region against region, province against province, language against language, and heritage against heritage. First Nations, Francophones, Anglophones, Ontarians, Quebecois, New Foundlanders, Albertans, New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, urbanites, rural people, every minority group—all will fight each other over the divisions of power, the divisions of votes, the structure of the federal presidency, how that president is represented in the provinces, which cultures will be given higher importance in the presidential office, how the president will be chosen, and on and on and on. And in the end there will STILL be sovereigntists in Quebec, Manitoba and B.C., because separation has NEVER been about the Crown.

But, without unity, you’re again down one argument for a republic.

What is most important in the end, to both monarchists and republicans, is that democracy is protected. But, so far, I have not heard of a republican proposal which will guarantee the safety of democracy in this country in a fashion better than the one we already have now. Even if there is an equally good republican system, WHY change to something that is just the same? As you said, “becoming a republic will not change everyday life.”

Change will certainly come about; it is unavoidable. But the key thing to remember here is that proper change comes out of necessity. Republicans try to INVENT a need for a republic, this is what all the calls of “British Queen”, “lack of democracy”, and “colonialism” are trying to do. But, when we look below these pretences, we find they are not true. Canada by law has a Canadian Queen, who does not place importance on her ‘heritage’ over others, and so we do not have a British Queen who represents only those of British descent. Canada has a constitution which gives Canadians freedoms and rights, thus there is no lack of democracy. Canada has its own constitution, its own courts, its own laws, and so is not a colony.

And, without a NEED you have NO argument for a republic.

Republicanism in Canada is nothing more than a dream. Those who belong to the CCR (which, despite your clams, is actually a very small organization with less than 300 members, and only three “international branches” which consist of one or two people each) may believe that dream, but it is a deluded one based on false stories, lack of knowledge, twisted facts, spin-doctoring, and propaganda. It will never benefit all Canadians, the People, but only those politicians wishing to seek the ultimate office of president.

---

Brenda
Super Member



Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 178
Location: Stirling

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:57 am

 

---

Some random thoughts on the previous posting...

It’s misleading to state that 90% of the provinces agreed to one thing or another as this neglects to take into account their differences in population.

Although asking the provinces for their approval of the Constitution Act may have only been customary, the fact that the federal government is still tinkering with the constitution indicates that asking the provinces was more than customary; to some degree, it was a necessity. If it wasn’t, they would just leave things as they are.

Interpreting a party who creates the majority and forms the government as having support of a majority of Canadians is a simplistic interpretation of our first past the post electoral system. Going so far as to say Canadians supported a particular aspect of their platform is unbelievable.

The Queen was not given her position through a democratic process, she retains her position as head of state through constitutional inertia, more than anything. As for the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, serving as a means to protect us from a dictatorship – how exactly?

The Queen, as far as I know, has never opposed things that were greatly unpopular in Canada. The Governor General is appointed by the party in power and rubber stamps government legislation. If the Governor General was elected by Canadians and was not affliated with a party, then you would have something approaching the protection Bambino asserts exists presently.

Government works from the people up? When did this start? Canadian senators are unelected, Canada’s prime ministers are picked from their party members and MPs are not allowed to be truly representative of their constituents. Canada has a Party system of government, not a people focussed system.

Regarding unbiased referendums. Be sure to direct that instruction to the government itself. I remember the pleading cheesy commercials in 92 to vote “Yes” for the Charlottetown Accord – don’t destroy Canada.

As for the Queen representing all Canadians, I have a separatist friend and a First Nations friend who would more than beg to differ.

But constitutional change is called a quagmire for good reason. I think most people are content enough with the situation to let it be, for now. I anticipate another stab at the constitution when the separatists move to hold another vote.

---