Re: Falling throught the cracks as an Anti-Monarchist ?

[FredDaHead]

Stupor,

Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second is our Commander in Chief. As such, she stands at the top of our chain of command. As soldiers, our duty is to follow any and all legal orders issued by our superiors in the chain of command.

If anyone was to refuse Her Majesty's orders, it would in effect be insubordination, and possibly other charges as well, which I understand are quite important charges.

Now, your second question is interesting. You are basically saying "if we believe insubordination is acceptable under certain circumstances, what is the point of making new recruits take the oath?"

I don't quite understand the second part of that question. Could you reformulate it?

For the first part, though, you are basically arguing for insubordination and saying that since people will be insubordinate anyway, we might as well throw that part away. I don't think Her Majesty would issue orders contrary to that of the elected government (unless the government was going totally wacko) so the point is moot, but if it happened, I think it would be our duty to follow the legal orders issued by our Commander in Chief.

But that's just me--I'm probably brainwashed by now.

...Oh, and to the two previous posters (Kat Stevens and Screw), I totally agree.

 

[Deleted member 15361]

I have read up on this thread and it is interesting to say the least. And I do agree with one single thing that the original poster has said and that is pledging to the queen MAY not be everyones cup of tea(haahha like that). I myself was uncomfortable pledging to the queen when I signed up and in fact so were 2 others at my swearing in, and we swore the oath to Canada and not the queen. Unlike the thread starter I don't think swearing an oath to the queen should be abolished, it is good to have the choice.
I am not the least bit interested in polotics and did not choose to do this as an anti monarchist. I did it for the fact that if I had to go to war, in my own mind I would be fighting for Canada, my home and my family not for a billionaire in another country. However if others are fine with the queens pledge then that's fine. As long as you watch my back and I watch yours I don't really care if you pledge your oath to Tim Horton's.
Just a simple mans opinion though.
Cheers
Rob.

 

[R0B]

bullshit. Pure and simple.
Maybe you should do some research on that one.

As for your problem with the Monarchy, get a life, man!

Are you calling me a liar? Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?

Tell you what, bud.  March yourself down to the recruiting centre, join up, and then come find me- we will put your "they'll never convict me, the charter will protect me" theory to the test...

I’d test that law if I were a senior officer.

You've applied a label, you haven't explained how it will work. Significantly, you haven't explained what changes will be effected, other than your assumption that we can simply strike the positions of GG and LGs.

Not much would have to change. The governor general and the lieutenant governors serve only to offer the monarch’s assent and spend money frivolously. No replacement is necessary; their roles can be written out of government. The Prime Minister’s can sign bills into law.

So, no difference except for the cost of changing everything with a "monarchist" appearance.

Removing the monarchy would save money. There’s no need to take a chisel to history and erase the monarchy from past, I’m just talking about removing it from the future. As for the cost of changing currency, it would be minimal, and considering that Canada will have to change its currency when Charles becomes king, the cost is inevitable.

Then what's the problem, since you seem to think it's "only a formality."

The concept of monarchy is not compatible with the concept of equality.

How are we not now sovereign and independent?  What was the last bill that the Queen struck down?
Does not the PM lead the country?  What was the Queen's last act which changed something in Canada - I though you said it was just a formality.

Under the Westminster system, the queen has real and significant powers. It’s only a formality because should she choose to exercise those powers, the government would likely do what I suggest and finish off the monarchy for good. Regardless, Canada is not a truly sovereign and independent nation if any decision it makes can be quashed at the whim of the queen in England.
The Prime Minister may lead the country, but he is not the leader of the country.

What do you find so offensive about a hereditary monarch as a figurehead, are you saying you prefer the US presidential system?
Which symbols would you change and why?  How long does something have to be used before we consider it a Canadian symbol?
Please explain the difference between uniquely "Canadian culture" and "Commonwealth culture" and give clear examples of each.

Yes, I very much prefer the US Presidential System.
What I find so offensive about the concept of a hereditary monarch as a figurehead is that it runs contrary to the concept of equality. The queen was not elected; she was born into the British royal family and inherited her position. Her only apparent qualification is her supposed ordination by “god.” In spite of her lack of any real qualifications, she is more powerful than the elected Government of Canada.

I wouldn’t change many symbols; however I’d have Canada divorce itself of the British monarchy. The PPLCI would remain the PPLCI, and RMC would remain RMC. However, oaths would no longer be taken to the monarch, and she would no longer appear on currency. What is will remain, but future mintings and printings of coins, medals, documents, etc… will be devoid of any monarchist references, such as “for king and country” or images of the monarch.

Commonwealth culture sees Canada as a member of the Commonwealth and vassal of England. It encourages cultural development in the (largely historical) image of England, and gives British culture supremacy to domestically developed Canadian culture.
Canadian culture sees Canada as an independent and sovereign nation with its own customs and traditions. Cultural connections to the Commonwealth are seen as historic, and secondary in importance to domestic cultural developments.

And who will take over the responsibilities they do have to represent Canada?  Or will these duties be added to those of our politicians?

They have very few duties; they can be given to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

You still haven't presented a concise case to convince the average Canadian that this is worthwhile.

I think most Canadians are too much in tune with the idea of the queen as a gentle mother from the home country, and accept her as a noble fountain of honor, so I don’t believe anyone will ever convince them of otherwise. However, in two decades time, many of them will have died of old age, and demographically, the nation is shifting away from the Caucasian Protestants of British extraction who have traditionally been the greatest supports of the monarchy and towards groups much less fond of the queen, and let alone her most likely successor who lacks her motherly appeal.

It’s worthwhile because republicanism advocates placing Canada’s power in Canada, at the hands of Canadians, and is more in tune with our nation’s values as outline in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No individual should be conferred special treatment by virtue of their birth alone.

Capt. O’Leary, I would appreciate it if you could do the inverse and state what benefits you believe the monarchy offers Canada.

So at great expense, we should get rid of a system of democratic governance that has lasted over 1000 years, for merrily cosmetic reasons?

It would not be a great expense, and it would be a single expense, rather than the recurring expense of maintaining the current system.
Where did you come up with your figure of 1000 years? The Magna Carta is only dates back to 1215, and there’s no way you could consider that to be a democracy. The earliest good example of a democracy in the modern world is the United States. Do you know anything about the American Revolution and against whom it was fought? Even then, many have argued that democracy in America is a more recent development.
Many have argued that democracy and monarchy cannot coexist. I happen to agree with them; our democracy is limited in that we do not elect our head of state. Surely you agree we’d be more democratic if we did.

The monarch, remember, has a duty to all the citizens of a nation, whereas el presidente is beholden to those that supported him politically.

No.

As for your assertion about saving millions, don't bet on it.  The governor general would be replaced by el presidente and the lieutenants governor replaced by some other such office. 

No, I’d rather if their handful of duties were absorbed by other existing political positions. But, if we have to waste the money, I’d sooner waste it on an elected official than someone appointed for their patronage or born into political power.

El presidente in most republics use up just as much cash, if not more, in upkeep and ceremonial than most constitutional monarchs.  Most presidential palaces aren't what we would consider humble middle class homes.

You’re speculating, and let me point out that Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive already exist and don’t need to be rebuilt.
Don’t bother trying to tell me that the President of the United States spends more money than the Governor General of Canada, it doesn’t matter.

And your insistence on replacing the monarchy and it's symbols with something "Canadian"; I've got news for you.  The monarchy is Canadian, and has been since first colonised.  The monarchy is just as Canadian as it is British, as it is Australian.  If she wanted to, Her Majesty could move to Canada, kick out Jean the Pretender, and take up residence in Rideau Hall.  However, the UK being the oldest of her realms, she chooses to reside there.

Edited for punctuation.

Queen Elizabeth II is as Canadian as Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Serbian.

That was the show describing the "famous" patrol of Bravo two zero, it was British not US.

Can you at least try to get your Television research correct....I smell something funny..

dileas

tess

No, it wasn’t about the SAS.

I got the point.  The substance of your argument was based on stories and 'what ifs'.  It isn't acknowledgeable; nor does it contribute to debate.  Do you not see the humour when you're correcting somebody by saying your source is the Discovery Channel and not a different TV show?  In order for me to actually get a point out of your example I need something a little more concrete to work with. 

And lets not get into an academic pissing match.  Develop your argument a little more such as how Mr. O'Leary is leading you and this could be a great debate. 

Cal

Again, you miss the point and fail to contribute. My argument is based on stories and ‘what ifs,’ and that sounds bad unless you refer to them ‘case studies’ and ‘hypothetical’ scenarios, but leave the euphemisms and emotional language at the door.

Do you realize that you’ve in no way contributed to any sort of debate? I fail to see the humor in noting that the scenario I mentioned is more than likely factual, being part of a  documentary shown on the Discovery Channel, and not part of a fictional JAG storyline. How’s that funny?

Because 100000 soldiers that died for Canada thought it was damn well good enough and I believe in tradition.Thats why I swear allegiance. What does it take away to have a figure head?

Did those 100,000 die for Canada or its monarch? Did they sign up because they loved their families and wanted to do what’s right because they believed in the concepts of justice, equality and freedom? Or did they sign up because they wanted to stop Hitler’s U-boats from sinking King George’s caviar shipments?
If you believe that they died for Canada, then let’s honor them by taking an oath to Canada.

My utmost respect goes out to the men and women who risked or scarified everything to combat and defeat one of the greatest evils history has ever seen. Men and women who left the comfort of their homes, families and towns; many of whom suffered great agony before dying in a muddy hole somewhere thousands of miles away from their loved ones. I couldn’t care less for the king who appeased Hitler, who wore a dandy uniform adorned with ranks and medals he didn’t earn, and lived out the war in unimaginable luxury at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, waited on by dozens of servants, feasting on blue lobster and truffles as other Britons were forced to ration.

I don’t have much respect for any German soldier who died for Hitler, but I do for those who died for Germany (even if they were wrong) because there’s a difference in the service one provides to their nation and the service one provides to an overlord. I would risk my life for Canada, but never would I die for the queen, her heirs or successors. In fact, I wouldn’t so much as incur as scratch for any of them.

 

[redleafjumper]

You might find Part II of the Criminal Code interesting Rob, there's lots there to make a republican quake.
 
You need to work on the logic of some of your suggestions, the term "Royal" is granted by the monarch.  No monarch, no Royal anything.  You might consider that this country was built by many who were very much opposed to the republicanism that you so push so proudly.  They were called United Empire Loyalists and they maintained a long tradition of loyalty to our Royals.  Those roots run quite deep in this country.  Like it or not, this country is neither a republic nor a democracy - it is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.  A parliamentary system includes some democratic processes, such as elections and referendum, but make no mistake, the Queen's representative must sign off on laws passed in the Canadian parliament.  That is our little "check and balance" if you like.  Not signing off is very rarely used, but if necessary it could be. 

Not to say that our system is perfect, some senate reform (such as an elected senate) has some merit in my mind.  The resistance to senate reform is the old one of representation by population versus representation by region.  The Commons are supposed to be the representation by population house and the Senate (House of Lords in Britain) is intended to provide that strong regional voice.  When the Senate is elected then the regional voice starts to have the same force and effect as the population's house - Commons.  If you are in a populous province then you tend not to want an elected senate, as it would give a stronger voice to regions.  But I digress. 

Rob, how would you propose to make such a radical change from a constitutional monarchy to an American-style republic?  It doesn't seem possible in a quick read of the Constitution Acts of 1867 (formerly BNA Act) and 1992.  Section 41 is quite clear, as is the rest of Part V.

I would suggest that you would be better advised to work on a project that is more winnable.

 

[redleafjumper]

One other point, a great deal of the arguments raised are available at length at this site:

http://www.interlog.com/~rakhshan/parg.html


This site is also of interest:

http://www.monarchist.ca/

Cheers,

God Save the Queen.

 

[R0B]

You might find Part II of the Criminal Code interesting Rob, there's lots there to make a republican quake.
 
You need to work on the logic of some of your suggestions, the term "Royal" is granted by the monarch.  No monarch, no Royal anything.  You might consider that this country was built by many who were very much opposed to the republicanism that you so push so proudly.  They were called United Empire Loyalists and they maintained a long tradition of loyalty to our Royals.  Those roots run quite deep in this country.  Like it or not, this country is neither a republic nor a democracy - it is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.  A parliamentary system includes some democratic processes, such as elections and referendum, but make no mistake, the Queen's representative must sign off on laws passed in the Canadian parliament.  That is our little "check and balance" if you like.  Not signing off is very rarely used, but if necessary it could be. 

Not to say that our system is perfect, some senate reform (such as an elected senate) has some merit in my mind.  The resistance to senate reform is the old one of representation by population versus representation by region.  The Commons are supposed to be the representation by population house and the Senate (House of Lords in Britain) is intended to provide that strong regional voice.  When the Senate is elected then the regional voice starts to have the same force and effect as the population's house - Commons.  If you are in a populous province then you tend not to want an elected senate, as it would give a stronger voice to regions.  But I digress. 

Rob, how would you propose to make such a radical change from a constitutional monarchy to an American-style republic?  It doesn't seem possible in a quick read of the Constitution Acts of 1867 (formerly BNA Act) and 1992.  Section 41 is quite clear, as is the rest of Part V.

These obstacles exist only on paper; a promethean government can effect all the necessary changes.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't presume to be any sort of expert on the Monarchy, but I do feel that they serve an important role in Canada. 
Rob, how are we harmed by the Queen?  Are you so offended by the concept of potential legislative interference that you would abolish years of tradition for the sake of...what? 
If you had ever served, you would be familiar to terms like "regimental family".  Soldiers are not just a bunch of plugs thrown together to grease the killbot machine and roll over the land the Queen sends us after.  Once you have dedicated yourself to a life of service, your brothers in arms are your family in a real way.  Any family has a head, and in our case a Matriarch.  There are values that are intrinsic to the Royal Family that we cherish and uphold.  We belong to the Commonwealth.  Break that down:  Common Wealth.  We all are in a big family that is mutually supportive. 
You think the Americans have an ideal system?  They have an advantage in some areas, but IMO when you have nothing to believe in, you have nothing to hold you back either.  Lobbyists and special interests, big business and pork barrelling are rampant there (yes, it is here too).  But ultimately, there is a parental type influence that [you are going to hate this] lords over us.  It is unfortunate that you appear to be one of these types that would tear down all governing influences in the name of civil liberties and self determination. 
Maybe it is just enough that people like having a monarch.  Maybe no one on your dark campus, but by and large, Canadians still love their Queen.  As to I.  God bless Her and keep Her safe.
I certainly hope you have no intentions of taking a day off on May 22.

 

[R0B]

I don't presume to be any sort of expert on the Monarchy, but I do feel that they serve an important role in Canada. 
Rob, how are we harmed by the Queen?  Are you so offended by the concept of potential legislative interference that you would abolish years of tradition for the sake of...what?

According to the Monarchist League of Canada, the monarchy costs Canadians $49 million dollars a year (2004 statistic). That’s crazy. And yes, I would be willing to abolish years of tradition for the sake of modern Canadian values such as democracy and equality because I believe they’re more important than a relationship founded in feudalism and subordination.
What’s the queen done for Canada recently? Other than add more seats to the Senate so that Mulroney could pass the GST, nothing.

If you had ever served, you would be familiar to terms like "regimental family".  Soldiers are not just a bunch of plugs thrown together to grease the killbot machine and roll over the land the Queen sends us after.  Once you have dedicated yourself to a life of service, your brothers in arms are your family in a real way.  Any family has a head, and in our case a Matriarch.  There are values that are intrinsic to the Royal Family that we cherish and uphold.  We belong to the Commonwealth.  Break that down:  Common Wealth.  We all are in a big family that is mutually supportive. 

We belong to the Commonwealth but the queen has all the wealth and what do you get? Why not choose an elected official as the head of your family? A lot of foreign militaries have no Royal connections but seem to be doing just fine. What values are intrinsic to the monarchy? I'm sure you'll find they're similar to the values people tend to associate with any high office.

You think the Americans have an ideal system?  They have an advantage in some areas, but IMO when you have nothing to believe in, you have nothing to hold you back either.  Lobbyists and special interests, big business and pork barrelling are rampant there (yes, it is here too).  But ultimately, there is a parental type influence that [you are going to hate this] lords over us.  It is unfortunate that you appear to be one of these types that would tear down all governing influences in the name of civil liberties and self determination.

The American system is much closer to ideal than our own. Lobbyists and special interest groups are, as you noted, strong in Canada as well, but their strength in the United States is related more closely to its power than its political system.
The queen’s supposed parental influence is insulting. Canada is not a juvenile nation in need of guidance, and we’re no longer British or Protestant. Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.
We simply do not need a monarch. We’re not the province of a greater nation, Canada should assert its absolute independence.

Maybe it is just enough that people like having a monarch.  Maybe no one on your dark campus, but by and large, Canadians still love their Queen.  As to I.  God bless Her and keep Her safe.
I certainly hope you have no intentions of taking a day off on May 22.

I wouldn’t say by and large. Some polls favor the queen, others favor republicanism. The only thing that’s absolutely clear is that the majority of Canadians simply don’t care.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from ROB,
Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.

MOD INTERVENTION
Once last warning......you are skirting the troll line here, and with the brushes with the system you have already had, its getting close to bye-bye time.
Bruce

 

[R0B]

Quote from ROB,
Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.

MOD INTERVENTION
Once last warning......you are skirting the troll line here, and with the brushes with the system you have already had, its getting close to bye-bye time.
Bruce

I suppose you could replace "daddy" with "patriach," but that would fail to convey the idea in a jovial fashion.

--

Do you mean to tell me that you've read through these five pages and that comment alone was the most objectionable thing you've seen?
What, are you just looking for a reason to ban me?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No, most of your argument is objectionable to me personally....however that's separate from the warning above.

What I object to as a Moderator is your use of flippant one liners thrown in just to raise the ire of those whom oppose you.    .....as per your M.O.

 

[Michael OLeary]

These obstacles exist only on paper; a promethean government can effect all the necessary changes.

So this, in effect, is your solution?  You personally object to the Monarchy so we will simply wipe it away, and hope that something better replaces it.

Please keep in mind that hope is not a sound method for improvement of complex systems.

 

[R0B]

So this, in effect, is your solution?  You personally object to the Monarchy so we will simply wipe it away, and hope that something better replaces it.

Please keep in mind that hope is not a sound method for improvement of complex systems.

There's no need to hope that something better will replace it, because it doesn’t need to be replaced, it needs to be removed.
This is not a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because the monarchy is "broke," and has been since its inception.
I lack multiple law degrees and experience as a legislator as well as the time it would take to go over all the relevant documents and suggest what changes need to be made, but it is not an impossible task.

Public support may or may not be in favor of republicanism. That’s ok, because this isn’t a matter of public support; this is a matter of principle. In the United States just previous to the Civil War, public opinion was also divided over the issue of slavery, but as with our situation, most people simply didn’t care; abolitionism too, as a matter of principle. The concept of monarchy runs contrary to the ideals of freedom and equality, and must be abolished for that reason.

 

[FredDaHead]

There's no need to hope that something better will replace it, because it doesn’t need to be replaced, it needs to be removed.
This is not a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because the monarchy is "broke," and has been since its inception.
I lack multiple law degrees and experience as a legislator as well as the time it would take to go over all the relevant documents and suggest what changes need to be made, but it is not an impossible task.

Public support may or may not be in favor of republicanism. That’s ok, because this isn’t a matter of public support; this is a matter of principle. In the United States just previous to the Civil War, public opinion was also divided over the issue of slavery, but as with our situation, most people simply didn’t care; abolitionism too, as a matter of principle. The concept of monarchy runs contrary to the ideals of freedom and equality, and must be abolished for that reason.

So on the one hand you whine about the ideals of freedom and equality, and then you put forward the idea that we should force Canadians to accept the removal of the Monarchy, despite what they might desire? How is that increasing the freedom of Canadians? I thought forcing someone to do something meant, in effect, the opposite of letting them be "free." But maybe I should have taken that How to redefine words course...

If you wanted democracy, freedom and equality so badly, then you wouldn't say we'll abolish Monarchy "just because" and despite what Canadians want. As it stands, you're proposing that your ideas are more important than anyone else's, and just because you, in some corner of some campus, decided the Monarchy is a bad thing, it should be removed. That's contrary to any definition of democracy, freedom and equality and smells like hypocrisy to me.

You have not yet made any kind of demonstration of what exactly you want as a system, how it would be accomplished, and how it would be better than the status quo. And just like you're ignoring everyone's points and saying "it doesn't matter" to anything that would damage your fragile reality, I'll just ignore your points because it really "doesn't matter."

 

[zipperhead_cop]

According to the Monarchist League of Canada, the monarchy costs Canadians $49 million dollars a year (2004 statistic). That’s crazy. And yes, I would be willing to abolish years of tradition for the sake of modern Canadian values such as democracy and equality because I believe they’re more important than a relationship founded in feudalism and subordination.

How?  Nice to throw out numbers, but how?  And as a nation, we tend to spend a lot of money.  There are lots of money wasting projects:
BC Ferries boss Tom Ward resigns as pricetag for first fast ferry balloons to $113m
http://www.nsnews.com/issues99/w012599/01209901.html
Bet the Queen never even got to ride on it.

What’s the queen done for Canada recently? Other than add more seats to the Senate so that Mulroney could pass the GST, nothing.

I'm not even touching that, other than to ease my bullshit-o-meter out of the red.  If you have to trot out MULRONEY as the last government outrage...

We belong to the Commonwealth but the queen has all the wealth and what do you get? Why not choose an elected official as the head of your family? A lot of foreign militaries have no Royal connections but seem to be doing just fine. What values are intrinsic to the monarchy? I'm sure you'll find they're similar to the values people tend to associate with any high office.

The money the Royal family has is centuries old!  Let it go!  Certainly there is a heap of money in real estate and national treasures, but it isn't like they are going to turn Buckingham Palace into a time share resort.  And can you come up with a figure of how much money goes out of the Royal House in charity?
And we are just fine the way we are.  Thanks for your concern.  Values like truth, duty, honour, sacrifice are to what I refer.  People who are elected tend to range towards me, I, career, money, retirement, buddies.

The queen’s supposed parental influence is insulting. Canada is not a juvenile nation in need of guidance, and we’re no longer British or Protestant. Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.
We simply do not need a monarch. We’re not the province of a greater nation, Canada should assert its absolute independence.

Spoken like a petulant child.  Did you get to elect your parents?  How about instead of being insulted, show respect to an institution that has provided leadership to this nation for centuries.  When has the Crown ever made an overt motion to derail the natural course of modern Canadian development?  If they could or would do that, we wouldn't have to take so much crap from Quebec. 

I wouldn’t say by and large. Some polls favor the queen, others favor republicanism. The only thing that’s absolutely clear is that the majority of Canadians simply don’t care.

Don't agree.  I would agree that most Canadians are apathetic about a lot of things, but I would hazard that if someone made a genuine attempt to strip out the Monarchy, you would see a very polarizing effect and that crap would get shut down pretty quick.

 

[paracowboy]

Are you calling me a liar? Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?

a liar or an idiot. Having just a teensy-tiny bit more experience and knowledge in this area than a Been-Nowhere, Done-Nothing College Boy, I can say that you are either spouting lies or believing lies.

 

[Bograt]

ROB,

Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?

Kids these days, they can not prioritize.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

ROB,

Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?

Kids these days, they can not prioritize.

Somebody is making some BIIIG assumptions about peoples choices........ :-*

 

[R0B]

So on the one hand you whine about the ideals of freedom and equality, and then you put forward the idea that we should force Canadians to accept the removal of the Monarchy, despite what they might desire? How is that increasing the freedom of Canadians? I thought forcing someone to do something meant, in effect, the opposite of letting them be "free." But maybe I should have taken that How to redefine words course...

If you wanted democracy, freedom and equality so badly, then you wouldn't say we'll abolish Monarchy "just because" and despite what Canadians want. As it stands, you're proposing that your ideas are more important than anyone else's, and just because you, in some corner of some campus, decided the Monarchy is a bad thing, it should be removed. That's contrary to any definition of democracy, freedom and equality and smells like hypocrisy to me.

No, Frederik. Democracies can at times be “anti-democratic.” As much as democracy is important, equality, freedom, liberty and justice are more important, because the perpetuation of democracy is based on their existence. If democracy were more important than equality, freedom, liberty and justice, we wouldn’t have trials, we’d just vote on what to do with the accused.

How is it increasing the freedom of Canadians even if they don’t want it? Because supporters of the monarchy reject their own freedom.

You know, a great many Canadians are in favor of draconian firearms regulation, but that doesn’t make them right.

Freedom precludes the ability to restrict the freedom of others.

You have not yet made any kind of demonstration of what exactly you want as a system, how it would be accomplished, and how it would be better than the status quo. And just like you're ignoring everyone's points and saying "it doesn't matter" to anything that would damage your fragile reality, I'll just ignore your points because it really "doesn't matter."

It’s very, very complicated, and I have enough respected for attorneys and doctors of political science to not attempt it on my own.
Why would it be better? Because it won’t be worse. Why is it better that we’ve abolished slavery? It makes no difference in my life, in fact I’d probably be better off if slavery were legal, being quite fortunate and all. It is a matter of right and wrong, informed by the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, and all those other good things, etc…

If you’re just looking for something to debate, I’ll just go ahead and say we should adopt the American system. We spend about $50 million dollars a year on the monarchy, so if it would cost a billion dollars to overhaul the system and erase the queen, we’ll break even in two decades.

How?  Nice to throw out numbers, but how?  And as a nation, we tend to spend a lot of money.  There are lots of money wasting projects:
BC Ferries boss Tom Ward resigns as pricetag for first fast ferry balloons to $113m
http://www.nsnews.com/issues99/w012599/01209901.html
Bet the Queen never even got to ride on it.

I hope she didn’t. I don’t know the details behind those statistics, but as I said, it’s from the Monarchist League of Canada. They’re more or less the premier monarchist lobby group in Canada, so I can’t imagine them inflating their numbers.

I'm not even touching that, other than to ease my bullshit-o-meter out of the red.  If you have to trot out MULRONEY as the last government outrage...

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1773-12071-10/on_this_day/politics_economy/twt

The queen doesn’t do much beyond touring the world on billionaire’s welfare, but yes, the Mulroney situation is probably the most recent example of the queen making any sort of important political move.

The money the Royal family has is centuries old!  Let it go!  Certainly there is a heap of money in real estate and national treasures, but it isn't like they are going to turn Buckingham Palace into a time share resort.  And can you come up with a figure of how much money goes out of the Royal House in charity?
And we are just fine the way we are.  Thanks for your concern.  Values like truth, duty, honour, sacrifice are to what I refer.  People who are elected tend to range towards me, I, career, money, retirement, buddies.

The money of the royal family was at one time greatly intertwined with the state, so it’s hard to say what is and what is not actually theirs. Regardless, their philanthropy is no less noble than the philanthropy of millionaires, and the “work” they do is laughable. Senior members of the British royal family are pay in excess of $250,000 to do “jobs” most people would pay to do. And that quarter-million doesn’t even include their entitlements.

Spoken like a petulant child.  Did you get to elect your parents?  How about instead of being insulted, show respect to an institution that has provided leadership to this nation for centuries.  When has the Crown ever made an overt motion to derail the natural course of modern Canadian development?  If they could or would do that, we wouldn't have to take so much crap from Quebec. 

Let’s not drag Quebec into this. I agree with you that the crown hasn’t done much in recent history, which is why we really don’t need them.
No, of course I could not elect my parents, but I actually have a relationship with my parents, and I would not do away with them because I love them. I glad you brought this up, because my mother and father may have functioned as “queen and king” to me when I was a child, but I’m an adult now. I live on my own and make my own money, so I’m a “republic.” If I decide I want to eat a BLT, I don’t have to call my mother in Israel and ask her permission – I just do it.
Is Canada a child? No, So why do we need a parent or guardian to sign our permission slips?

Don't agree.  I would agree that most Canadians are apathetic about a lot of things, but I would hazard that if someone made a genuine attempt to strip out the Monarchy, you would see a very polarizing effect and that crap would get shut down pretty quick.

Speculation.

a liar or an idiot. Having just a teensy-tiny bit more experience and knowledge in this area than a Been-Nowhere, Done-Nothing College Boy, I can say that you are either spouting lies or believing lies.

Great, because I was wondering if the moderators would do something about your overt display of malicious honest.

Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?

ROB,

Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?

Kids these days, they can not prioritize.

Unfortunately, I’m stuck at my desk because of exams, so I turn to my computer for a few moments to change pace and escape boredom.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Great, because I was wondering if the moderators would do something about your overt display of malicious honest
Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?

Thats it........

Lad, we are not here to listen to you spout kife because you're bored. You have been a stooge since day 1, and we have 3 pages on you in the Mod log for your BS.
The clock is ticking.......