Is't the time to say good bye to the Queen of England
ka3bour @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:31 am
In 1776 USA got its independency from England, since a big and powerful republic grows.
In the Canadian constitution Canada is a monarchy, has Elizabeth II as a sovereign.
We knew that in the early stages of the history of Canada, Canada was compounded by loyalists whom fled USA and some subjugated French.
Nowadays, Canada is compounded by people coming from all over the world & not only British loyalists.
Furthermore, we r wondering about the right place for the queen of England, isn’t the Louvre museum?
So is't the right time to get rid of the queen of England & to pursue the US model & built the true north strong & free, free from all the monarch's kinds.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:35 am
Please demonstrate how a constitutional monarchy is demonstrably bad for Canada? Surely you have some persuasive examples as to why we should initiate constitutional changes...
QBC @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:47 am
Well, the monarchy is part of the history and heritage of this nation. If people coming to this nation can't embrace the heritage and history of Canada as now part of their own, maybe they shouldn't be coming here. Leave this particular aspect of our constitution alone, there are actually important issues in our constitution that need attention. As for following the US model, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want to have a "made in Canada' constitutional solution? I personally wouldn't want the US model here in Canada.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:59 am
QBC QBC:
Well, the monarchy is part of the history and heritage of this nation. If people coming to this nation can't embrace the heritage and history of Canada as now part of their own, maybe they shouldn't be coming here. Leave this particular aspect of our constitution alone, there are actually important issues in our constitution that need attention. As for following the US model, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want to have a "made in Canada' constitutional solution? I personally wouldn't want the US model here in Canada.
It is an integral part of our history and culture and i'm always interested in how this republicanphiles arrive at the notion that it desperately needs replacing.
sasquatch2 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:03 am
I have often noted the irony that the same element that is anti-monarchist is also the anti-american element as well.........if they hate the US so much why would they seek to discard the Queen and emulate the US form of government? The obvious answer is that these elements are only interesting in attacking the existing social order----they are nihilists.
Brenda @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:12 am
I have no idea what "people coming to this nation" have to do with anything...
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:12 am
[quote="sasquatch2"]I have often noted the irony that the same element that is anti-monarchist is also the anti-american element as well........
Firstly, how is that ironic? Secondly, how did you arrive at anti-monarchism is equated with anti-Americanism?
danikyvor @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:14 am
It's incorrect to refer to the Queen as the Queen of England, when she's the Queen of the United Kingdom and Islands.
I also don't see why we should change the Constitutional Monarchy. It's not as if it's doing anything BAD for Canada.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:16 am
Brenda Brenda:
I have no idea what "people coming to this nation" have to do with anything...
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The Queen doesn't technically "lead" insomuch as she's a titular figurehead. And so far, nothing monumental has happened in the last 50 years to suggest that the Queen supersedes legitimate democratic decisions. The Prime Minister (and Premiers) are still the "real" political leaders and i'd suggest that if the crown actually invoked its constitutional powers, that would be the end of it in Canada
It's a component of Canadian heritage and it represents our historical British ties.
Brenda @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:22 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Brenda Brenda:
I have no idea what "people coming to this nation" have to do with anything...
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The Queen doesn't technically "lead" insomuch as she's a titular figurehead. And so far, nothing monumental has happened in the last 50 years to suggest that the Queen supersedes legitimate democratic decisions. The Prime Minister (and Premiers) are still the "real" political leaders and i'd suggest that if the crown actually invoked its constitutional powers, that would be the end of it in Canada
It's a component of Canadian heritage and it represents our historical British ties.
Oh of course. I never said that Canada should undo itself of the the Monarchy, but I have a problem with monarchies in itself. And since their was said "people who come to this nation should embrace it" or words like that, I tried to point out that you can be not a fan of an institute that is only there for historic reasons, having leadership that may not "do anything" just by birthright, and still love the country in itself.
ka3bour @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:42 am
QBC QBC:
Well, the monarchy is part of the history and heritage of this nation. If people coming to this nation can't embrace the heritage and history of Canada as now part of their own, maybe they shouldn't be coming here. Leave this particular aspect of our constitution alone, there are actually important issues in our constitution that need attention. As for following the US model, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want to have a "made in Canada' constitutional solution? I personally wouldn't want the US model here in Canada.
Of course, people who r coming to Canada have to respect the heritage and the history of Canada, but they r working for a better future for Canada, too.
I don’t mean that the US model is the perfect one, but an example to take in mind & try to avoid its failures.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:46 am
Brenda Brenda:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Brenda Brenda:
I have no idea what "people coming to this nation" have to do with anything...
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The Queen doesn't technically "lead" insomuch as she's a titular figurehead. And so far, nothing monumental has happened in the last 50 years to suggest that the Queen supersedes legitimate democratic decisions. The Prime Minister (and Premiers) are still the "real" political leaders and i'd suggest that if the crown actually invoked its constitutional powers, that would be the end of it in Canada
It's a component of Canadian heritage and it represents our historical British ties.
Oh of course. I never said that Canada should undo itself of the the Monarchy, but I have a problem with monarchies in itself. And since their was said "people who come to this nation should embrace it" or words like that, I tried to point out that you can be not a fan of an institute that is only there for historic reasons, having leadership that may not "do anything" just by birthright, and still love the country in itself.
I agree with you entirely - i'm not a massive fan of hereditary power either, but it's palatable as long as the hereditary part doesn't overstep the power part
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:47 am
ka3bour ka3bour:
QBC QBC:
Well, the monarchy is part of the history and heritage of this nation. If people coming to this nation can't embrace the heritage and history of Canada as now part of their own, maybe they shouldn't be coming here. Leave this particular aspect of our constitution alone, there are actually important issues in our constitution that need attention. As for following the US model, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want to have a "made in Canada' constitutional solution? I personally wouldn't want the US model here in Canada.
Of course, people who r coming to Canada have to respect the heritage and the history of Canada, but they r working for a better future for Canada, too.
I don’t mean that the US model is the perfect one, but an example to take in mind & try to avoid its failures.
Please demonstrate how a constitutional monarchy is demonstrably bad for Canada? Surely you have some persuasive examples as to why we should initiate constitutional changes...
Still waiting...
PluggyRug @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:57 am
ka3bour ka3bour:
QBC QBC:
Well, the monarchy is part of the history and heritage of this nation. If people coming to this nation can't embrace the heritage and history of Canada as now part of their own, maybe they shouldn't be coming here. Leave this particular aspect of our constitution alone, there are actually important issues in our constitution that need attention. As for following the US model, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want to have a "made in Canada' constitutional solution? I personally wouldn't want the US model here in Canada.
Of course, people who r coming to Canada have to respect the heritage and the history of Canada, but they r working for a better future for Canada, too.
I don’t mean that the US model is the perfect one, but an example to take in mind & try to avoid its failures.
So which model would you choose, that is, if you can find one which supercedes our current model in all aspects.
Methinks you're going to be hard pressed.
ka3bour @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:02 am
Brenda Brenda:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Brenda Brenda:
I have no idea what "people coming to this nation" have to do with anything...
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The country I come from is a monarchy, and I don't see why anybody that is born in that particular family, will become the "leader" of that country, whether he is suitable or not. Leading a country in a democracy, imo, should not be a birthright, but earned by election, and the people should have the capability to say no.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with the country in itself, but with the institute Monarchy.
The Queen doesn't technically "lead" insomuch as she's a titular figurehead. And so far, nothing monumental has happened in the last 50 years to suggest that the Queen supersedes legitimate democratic decisions. The Prime Minister (and Premiers) are still the "real" political leaders and i'd suggest that if the crown actually invoked its constitutional powers, that would be the end of it in Canada
It's a component of Canadian heritage and it represents our historical British ties.
Oh of course. I never said that Canada should undo itself of the the Monarchy, but I have a problem with monarchies in itself. And since their was said "people who come to this nation should embrace it" or words like that, I tried to point out that you can be not a fan of an institute that is only there for historic reasons, having leadership that may not "do anything" just by birthright, and still love the country in itself.
If a section in the constitution is not effective, why should we maintain it?
A monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch, usually single person, is the head of the state. Furthermore it’s always a symbol for non democracy and oppression.
If we have to focus on the historical issues, we have to mention the dark sides of the British Monarchy, too, which not part of our canadian values.