Radical group may disrupt Prince William's visit

[aesop081]

But you try to prevent me from expressing my point of view ?

No, he's pointing out the flaw in your point of view. There's a difference there.

 

[Neill McKay]

You're right that it exists formally, but in reality, they don't exercise that power. If the Queen or the Governor-General don't like some aspects of the omnibus crime bill, they won't veto it. As you noted in your original post, the PM of a majority government can effectively act as a dictator in legislative matters, if he can maintain his party's following, and as long as the laws he chooses to pass are constitutional according to the courts.

The key role of the monarch is to ensure that there is a legitimate government in office, and that it continues to act legitimately.  Were the PM to use his majority to  colour outside of the constitutional lines, the monarch would have the responsibility to step in and take appropriate, constitutional, steps.

It happens very rarely in Canada.  But it also happens rarely that we have to abandon a warship, so we still have lifeboats and sea survival training.

You can still have a Governor General, but instead of being a representative of the Queen, he could be elected by some combination of the House of Commons, the Senate or even in a popular election.

The problem with any kind of election is that you end up with the incumbent beholden to those who voted for him or her, or provided other support in the election.  As an example, we have what is perhaps one of the cleanest democracies in the world here but try to find a premier or prime minister who has never appointed anyone from his or her party organization to public office after winning an election.

An unelected monarch is free of the pressures of politics, owes no favours, and isn't looking to the next election to keep his or her job.

 

[john10]

The key role of the monarch is to ensure that there is a legitimate government in office, and that it continues to act legitimately.  Were the PM to use his majority to  colour outside of the constitutional lines, the monarch would have the responsibility to step in and take appropriate, constitutional, steps.

It happens very rarely in Canada.  But it also happens rarely that we have to abandon a warship, so we still have lifeboats and sea survival training.

The problem with any kind of election is that you end up with the incumbent beholden to those who voted for him or her, or provided other support in the election.  As an example, we have what is perhaps one of the cleanest democracies in the world here but try to find a premier or prime minister who has never appointed anyone from his or her party organization to public office after winning an election.

An unelected monarch is free of the pressures of politics, owes no favours, and isn't looking to the next election to keep his or her job.

Hi N. McKay. You raise a point which is fair, but to me, ultimately inconsequential. The current system is that the PM nominates whomever he chooses, and that this person represent the will of the Queen. The qualification for being Queen/King is, of course, that you be descended from Princess Sophia of Hanover and that you not be Catholic. Could there be a more arbitrary set of qualifications for being the one who holds a legislative check against the PM? Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?

 

[57Chevy]

No, he's pointing out the flaw in your point of view. There's a difference there.

No flaw there

I agree with the gathering of persons protesting a specific cause in a peacefull manner within the law.

I disagree with any form of violence that always seems to be associated with it.

 

[john10]

No flaw there

I agree with the gathering of persons protesting a specific cause in a peacefull manner within the law.

I disagree with any form of violence that always seems to be associated with it.

No disagreement from me on that. 

 

[Neill McKay]

Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?

No, but it's unnecessary.  We have a system that works well, and has been doing so for several hundred years.  As institutions go, it's got a pretty enviable track record.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Is it really impossible to design a system that makes more sense for 21st century Canada?

So where are the proposed alternatives? The ones that will dissatisfy fewer (or at least not more) Canadians that the status quo and which can be guaranteed that they will not be open to political manipulation. The arguments against the Monarchy seldom reach the point of laying out the possible alternatives in detail. It's had to accept the dissolution of one option when no credible alternative has been tabled for consideration and debate.

 

[Nemo888]

Their trip is an expression of a silly and wasteful institution.

Actually the Royals are a HUGE money maker for the UK. 160 million pounds annually not including the billions in tourist dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey#p/u/3/bhyYgnhhKFw

 

[Michael OLeary]

A good point, it would be interesting to see numbers on benefits to local economies in the visit cities during those periods.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/06/28/visit-creates-royally-huge-rewards

Calgary’s tourism boss laughs at the scattered criticism heard across Canada, from curmudgeons who argue the money spent on royal tours is money wasted.

Similar royal visits to Canada have cost in the $3-million range: An 11-day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla in 2009 added up to $2.57 million for Canadian taxpayers.

This tour has been forecast to cost roughly $2 million, but as Williams says, the expenditure is a drop in the bucket compared to the reward.

“Without a doubt — there’s no hesitation in suggesting we’ll get a much bigger return on the investment when the numbers are in,” said Williams.

 

[john10]

No, but it's unnecessary.  We have a system that works well, and has been doing so for several hundred years.  As institutions go, it's got a pretty enviable track record.

No doubt there's no pressing need to change the system, but that shouldn't stop people from discussing what an ideal would look like, one in which our head of state doesn't have to descend from Princess Sophia of Hanover.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Hi,

The Royal visit to your country is big news here in the US.

Fox news, ET and even the ABC news tonight had it covered, but noting about this radical group.

They did say security is going to be intense, and your Mounties have that covered, even interviewed one on a horse.

I wonder who pays for this security? The Queen, the English government, our does Canada get stuck with the bill??

 

[john10]

So where are the proposed alternatives? The ones that will dissatisfy fewer (or at least not more) Canadians that the status quo and which can be guaranteed that they will not be open to political manipulation. The arguments against the Monarchy seldom reach the point of laying out the possible alternatives in detail. It's had to accept the dissolution of one option when no credible alternative has been tabled for consideration and debate.

I don't think the concern that an alternative to a Queen-representing GG be completely insulated from others politicians is that important. All our GGs of recent times have been appointed by ruling PMs. If we want a GG who steps in a puts the brake on the potential abuse of a majority PM like Harper or Chrétien, then shouldn't that GG in part reflect the will of the people, whether that is through the House of Commons or a popular election?

 

[HavokFour]

I honestly don't get what the big deal is. Having a Queen/Monarchy is what makes us Canada, our country earned Sovereignty through loyal service to said family. We could have gone the US route, but we didn't. Why? We're Canada.

Not to mention we also pay when heads of state visit, the cost of this Royal visit is nothing compared to those, so why don't they go protest that?

I'll take a Monarchy over Hollywood any day.

 

[aesop081]

I'll take a Monarchy over Hollywood any day.

With Will and Kate, you are close to having both.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'll take a Monarchy over Hollywood any day.

I quite agree old boy!! Some of the "stuff" coming out of Hollywood makes me gag......except Mila Jojovic

 

[Nauticus]

And I also believe in freedom of expression and rights and so on.
But rights and freedoms should not be demented or unrightous causing
strife only for the sake of causing strife, or causing harm to innocent bystanders
who are in effect exercising their own lawfull rights of giving praise where praise warrants.

Come on now. This visit to Canada is just a PR move by the future monarchs of Britain, so yes, it's political. And yes, people do have the right to protest that, and rightfully so.

I understand your point, but I completely disagree with it. Who is going to decide what protests are "demented"? Because clearly you and I disagree on this being demented or not.

It appears to me that you're more interested in rights and freedoms that benefit you, as opposed to actual rights and freedoms.

 

[toyotatundra]

Sure they have. By assuming their role in the monarchy, they have chosen to perpetuate this silly, wasteful institution.

People who are against the monarchy have every right to protest their trip.

The article is not about a radical group protesting events. The article is about a radical group with a history of disrupting events.

 

[Nauticus]

Come on now. This visit to Canada is just a PR move by the future monarchs of Britain, so yes, it's political. And yes, people do have the right to protest that, and rightfully so.

I understand your point, but I completely disagree with it. Who is going to decide what protests are "demented"? Because clearly you and I disagree on this being demented or not.

It appears to me that you're more interested in rights and freedoms that benefit you, as opposed to actual rights and freedoms.

Disregard this. I see that this discussion was actually clarified, and I can't go back to edit my post.

 

[toyotatundra]

That all depends on what activities one considers as acceptable methods to protest. Radical groups often demonstrate a difficulty in managing their people to do so in a manner that shows respect for law and authority.

One of my biggest dislikes about political radicals is their tendency to be hypocrites.

The far Left demands the right to march through downtown cores, disrupting traffic. They expect the right to close down businesses with strikes, and occupy university administration offices during sit-ins. Yet these same radicals feel entitled to censor and intimidate everyone else. To prevent royalty from moving freely. To shut down international meetings of elected politicians. And to censor and ban events like the Plains of Abraham re-enactment.

 

[GeorgeD]

In Canada everyone has the right to protest peacefully, the question is not weather or not they can protest, the question is wether or not a small group can disrupt an event and ruin the experience of the majority. Some people seem to believe and I do not think it is limited to left wing or right wing political beliefs, that their opinion trumps everyone else even if they are minority trying to force their beliefs on to the majority.

If this group wants to protest its fine by me, but from the article posted above, they seem to protest anything that reminds them that Quebec is PART of Canada and NOT an independent nation. And those protests are not meant to voice their opinion but cause disruptions to the events in question and in turn force their opinion on everyone who is there, most of the people obviously in support of the event.