Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Republican Ignorance. (Norman R. Gall) writes:
 >This is factually incorrect.  The lastest polls ask about Canada sharing
 >the person sitting as Monarch (i.e. the current Monarchy), not Monarchy
 >itself. As such these 'facts' are irrelevent.
 As the type of monarchy that we now have is practically the only type 
 that most Canadians have ever known, and that the idea of replacing the 
 absentee Elizabeth II with a monarch living at Rideau Hall hardly seems 
 serious, it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that most Canadians 
 see the choice as being between keeping a monarchical system with 
 Elizabeth II and eventually Charles III at the helm, and having no 
 monarchical system whatsoever.  Their understanding is that, if we chose 
 to disavow the House of Windsor, we'd be replacing the monarchy with a 
 republic, not the monarchy with a monarchy.
 >I didn;t say that we should be unclear.  I said exactly that we would need
 >a clear majority.  Your point above doesn't spake to my point at all.
 Tell me, what would a clear majority be in a future Quebec referendum on 
 >However, this is not one of the original objections.  Further to that
 >point, then, you'd have to argue that *anyone* who was a naturalised
 >Canadian should be ineligible for such a positon. If ou want to argue
 The national loyalties of a head of state should be free from doubts and 
 ambiguities in the eyes of the public, in both a republic and a 
 monarchy.  A naturalized Canadian, who has lived in Canada for a good 
 number of years and has made a substantial contribution in that time to 
 the strengthening of the nation should normally be free from such 
 doubts.  On the other hand, an overseas royal who is asked to come here 
 and assume the position of head of state without ever having lived in 
 Canada as a permanent resident or having made a substantial contribution 
 to the country, would still face questions about one's loyalties, even if 
 this new King or Queen went through all the motions.
 >I'd have to challenge you here on this 'egalitarian' spirit.  In a country
 >where the gap between the rich and the poor expands daily and the
 >populations o provinces that hold nearly half the population elect
 >governments dedicated to policies that enforce the status quo and promote
 >policies that would at best widen the gap, I'd say that you have little
 >grounds for the claim.
 On the contrary, I think we are seeing an emerging egalitarianism based 
 on equality of opportunity.  We are seeing a revival of the merit 
 principle, a reexamination of various things regarded in the past as 
 entitlements, and demands that all Canadians be regarded as equals under 
 the law regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, and so on.  This is a 
 perfectly legitimate form of egalitarianism, even if it does give the 
 socialists indigestion. :-)
 >means) Head of State could only adjudicate based upon some sort of appeal
 >to the *will* of the peope -- not the good of the Kingdom, to which all
 >good egalitarians would have to acceed.
 I see no reason that would prevent a good Governor-General under a 
 republic from acting with the good of the nation as a motivation, just as 
 I see no reason that would prevent a bad monarch from acting out of more 
 selfish considerations.
 >I don't have haven't advocated a Canadian Civil List.  You are attacking a
 If there were a monarchy here, there would have to be a considerable cost 
 carried by taxpayers not only for housing and transportation, as well as 
 the courtiers, servants, and bodyguards who would not only surround the 
 monarch and his/her consort, but other members of the family as well.  
 Expenditures for coronations, royal weddings, and the like would add to 
 the cost.  That is, unless we had some sort of a privatized royal family 
 paying its own way by doing commercial endorsements or something like 
 that - which would be a radical experiment to say the least.
 >Like the children of the people who stand on the priviledged side of the