Why Canada should be become a republic...

[Blue and White Army]

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]

/--- 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 Martinâ€

[bambino]

/--- 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]

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]

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]

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]

/--- 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 “theyâ€

[Brenda]

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.