Is't the time to say good bye to the Queen of England

Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:46 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Canadians were pussies and waited for our independance instead of fighting for it like the USA did.

Not hardly. Canadians in WW1 and WW2 made practical independence from the UK inevitable and they accomplished their independence without the bloodshed that ravaged the USA during our war of independence. The American Revolution was a failure by Parliament to recognize British subjects as equals no matter where they lived. Had King George and Parliament simply given the colonies the seats in Parliament that they'd asked for then US history and Canadian history would be very similar.

That we had to spill blood to attain our rights is not something that makes us better than Canadians. Not at all.

And the comparison is simply not fair as Canadians never had to deal with the depradations of British forces occupying private homes and lands during peace time as we did. Canada did better than the USA mostly because the UK did not want to repeat the lessons they were taught at Saratoga, Ticonderoga, and Yorktown at various places in Canada.

It makes Canadians blessed that they never had these experiences. History, of course, makes it abundantly clear that Canadians are not pussies so I will not entertain nor debate that comment.

Our soldiers have never been pussies on the battlefield, but our politicians have been pussies in the political field. And we put up with those bastards, we always have.

damngrumpy @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:10 am

I think we have a hell of a lot more important concerns than getting rid of the Queen.
Besides it is one more sober thought process isn't it, I mean we have the House, the Senate, and the Govenor General and none of them do anything, why tip the balance of power and have someone do something that would be bad for Canada. I like the Pearson motto, just kick it around and we will always get by.

sandorski @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:18 am

Seemed appropriate

I don't care either way. Except that this is hardly an issue of urgency.

CommanderSock @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:54 am

Not a problem, I'm a bit off on the whole "oath" to the queen part though, not really fond of it, because I wouldnt lift a finger to help the british in any scenario.

WBenson @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:35 pm

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Not a problem, I'm a bit off on the whole "oath" to the queen part though, not really fond of it, because I wouldnt lift a finger to help the british in any scenario.

The oath to the Queen doesn't have anything to do with "helping the British," though.

What would it be replaced with, anyways?

I would never take an oath of loyalty to something so vague as "Canada" or "the people." "Canada" can't be defined (am I swearing an oath to the land, the concept, what?) and many of "the people" frighten me.

For instance, look at the Australian citizenship oath:

$1:

From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

I couldn't legitimately swear to pledge loyalty to a name of a country or all of the people in it. If I really wanted to be an Australian citizen, I probably would, but I would have serious reservations.

The US style of oath is a little better, but it's still a little lacking.

$1:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I don't the idea that I should give my allegiance to inanimate objects like Constitutions, but at least about 90% of that one is doable. All public officials (except the President, who has his own special oath) also have to promise to "bear true faith and allegiance" to a document. You can't be allied with a document.

$1:

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

No pretensions about being allied with something that, by it's nature, cannot be allied. It still obligates everyone who takes it to uphold the law, as one cannot bear allegiance to the Queen unless you follow her law.

Wally_Sconce @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:20 pm

kissing the queen ass costs us a few million dollars a year at best.

kissing the Liberals ass costed us a hundred million dollars, and another billion on a registry, and 20 billion gouged from the military budget, and another 52 billion for the EI fund when they were claiming that the budget was actually balanced which it wasn't.

CommanderSock @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:17 am

Like I said, not really a major issue. Most certainly not worth spending tax payer money on a referendum or something along those lines. I say let it be.

kenmore @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:12 am

The monarchy has become redundant... Canada does not need the connection anymore..the Queen should be removed from our currency and prominent Canadians should be on various denominations.. like some are now.. I for one would like Pierre Trudeau on the loonie and I would also like to see Louis Riel on some denomination....
oh ya and please dont ban me again for my opinion..... even if it isnt the same as yours.... I dont always agree with what some people on here say but I would defend to my death your right to say it....
Cheers

Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:18 am

kenmore kenmore:

But has the constitutional monarchy become redundant?

Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:48 am

fixer1 fixer1:

Does anyone here really give a hoot about the Queen as in her being the head of our Government? We do have a past that is very deep in the settling of Canada by the British and we still allow the French to be in our own history and culture. So even if we turfed al the refeences to the Queen in all our government papers and rules, it would not change the history of the past now would it?

It wouldn’t change the history, but it would alter the symbolic meaning? In fact, should all military regiments eschew their British symbolism? How about the RCMP? And while we’re at it, let’s go to Quebec and ask them to remove ALL cultural ties to New France. Tell me how that one goes.

$1:

“Myself I do not hold much with the line that we must still honour the Queen as she is the queen of Canada as well as the Queen of England. We are still a country of the British Common Wealth, and we do through treaties give support to the other countries of this same Common Wealth group. It has served us well. But as time goes by, things change and the Monarchy has been slipping in its own style, to become less of importance to the people. This is also happening in England as well. The royals have been dealt several blows to their standing and the whole Princess Di and other events have done more to diminish the royals, then any one act of declaration of independence ever could”

And how does this warrant a protracted and extremely expensive constitutional amendment that likely wouldn’t even pass? Where is the demonstrably justifiable reason to get rid of the constitutional monarch? So far, this is high on subjective prattle and low on objective reasoning.

$1:

“I would like to see Canada become totally seld sufficient in all things and that means its governing power should be for the people first and fore most. With that comes many things that we as a people must do. Our Military must be able to meet all tasks asked of it and be equipped to do these no matter when and where they are called to do so.”

How is Canada NOT sovereign? This is utter hogwash. The Queens is a titular position with no real practical influence on actual governing. You know that, right? When in the last 50 years has the Queen had any real threat to our basic democratic and political rights?

$1:

“We also must have policies in place to help our friends and neighbours who we have treaties signed, and trade agreements for these as well. All these things will need changes as once Canada is totally independent of the Monarchy, there will be many things that need to be renegoiated. All of this has a cost and within reason I would be willing to bear that cost. This is where many other will draw the line, as they did not figure the costs of such would be what they will be in the actual actions os such a move. But as I said my one vote would be to yes make Canada independent completely of the Monarchy, and do what we need to do, to make it so.”

Do you have a friggin’ clue about the mush you post? How on earth would foreign treaties need to be re-negotiated? Who do you think signed them in the first place? The Queen was responsible for say, NORAD? Have you ever heard of the Statue of Westminster or the Constitution Act? Look them up BEFORE you post next time as this ignorance at its finest. Instead of pushing your rather uneducated opinion, RESEARCH the issue FIRST and then offer an intelligent and informed solution.

Or, admit your lack of knowledge and ask questions to those that know a heck of lot more about the subject than you do.

EyeBrock @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:50 am

kenmore kenmore:

Louis Riel? Please! Why not Jacques Cossette-Trudel or Marc Carbonneau from the FLQ crisis? Or going a bit further back, that noted Canadian Joseph Wilcocks from the War of 1812?

What ever your feelings on Riel he is too controversial a figure to go on the notes.

PluggyRug @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:00 pm

kenmore kenmore:

Trudeau alongside Castro now thats a hoot.

kenmore @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:44 pm

too funny ...France did away with the monarchy hundreds of years ago as did alot of Europe.. but there is a difference between cultural ties and monetary ties..which is what we have supporting the Royal Family..... how about Terry Fox on some bill? all I am saying is Canada is an independant country.. the head of which should be the Prime Minister,,elected by the people.. I mean what is the point of the Governal General office? other than a financial burden?

WBenson @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:25 pm

kenmore kenmore:

Canada is an independent country, and the head of government is the Prime Minister, and he is more or less elected by the people already. Unless you want the PM and GG replaced with a combined Presidency, what more could you want?

Terry Fox could be on a bill now. The Queen is only on one now, and "monarchy" and "Queen on coins" aren't synonyms. Go lobby the mint and Bank of Canada if you want that.

How are we monetarily supporting the Royal Family? They gather no salary from Canada, nor do they regularly perform public duties here.

The office of GG wouldn't go away in a republic. It would be shined up and renamed "The President of Canada" or something unless we completely rewrite the entire system at the same time, including Parliament.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Next

Board index » Politics » Canadian Politics