Canadian Republicanism

[Moonlight_Graham]

Only Prime Ministers would be on the currency, people. And Wayne Gretzky's a joke.

and the Queen isn't a joke? And a large portion of our politicians aren't a joke?

 

Gretzky isn't just a "hockey player", he's arguably Canada's greatest ambassador. I'm not saying i'd want some entertaining-but-moron person like Don Cherry on our money. Just great Canadians.

 

Who says only politicians can only be on our currency? What about the scientists like Banting as others have mentioned, or David Suzuki? Also Alexander Graham Bell. Sorry, I'd rather these people on our bills than Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney.

[wonks]

so MacDonald doesn't deserve to be on a bill? chretien and mulroney weren't very good Prime Ministers in the first place.

[Kayriss]

So keep that in mind when you point out that we don't owe the UK anything, or that they have nothing to do with us. Which I'm sure you will anyway.

I was Dead on. Don't call our system antiquated. Its present in many countries in the world, and envied in many countries, despite its shortcomings.

 

Oh, and I agree that Prime Ministers don't need to be the only ones on the money, but I think that they should be people who actually made a difference to our country's face. While Gretzky and Suzuki are certainly great canadians (while we remember them now anyway), Hockey is a sporting event, and one thats really only craaaazy popular here. I'm not sure what kind of an ambassador he is. Not to say he's not important to us. And Suzuki would have to become a lot more effective than he is to be on the money, I think. I mean, Canada is still a huge polluter, right? We're still wasteful, and most people would gladly choose their personal comfort over the environment, I think.

 

I sound like i'm belittleing their worth, which I hope I'm not. Thats a seperate arguement that I'm not making now. On the money issue, I'd love to follow the New Zealand example, where they have Sir Edmund Hillary on a bill. Why not Louis Riel, Issac Brock, or General Sir Arthur Currie? He was responsible for Vimy Ridge, one of Canada's proudest moments, and I believe, that moment was more of a unifier than the combined efforts of every media figure combined.

[Kayriss]

I must say that i'm impressed at how close this poll has been. That might sound funny, considering how its my poll and my side is "losing". But I expected to be one of the only people who voted against republicanism, as I get the general impression that most of the people on here come from a liberal/left/young (pre-university) persuasion, catagories that tend not to recognize the importance of tradition, or the significance of history to a country like Canada. Even if it takes a serious dive against me now, I have to say you've proved me wrong.

[Moonlight_Graham]

so MacDonald doesn't deserve to be on a bill? chretien and mulroney weren't very good Prime Ministers in the first place.

whoa i never said that. Prime Ministers and politicians, the good ones at least, certainly deserve to be on our currency. I just don't think think politicians should be the only ones worthy of consideration, since their have been many Canadians who have made great contriubutions to this country. Oh, and i'm not 100% gung-ho with Gretzky on our money. I mean, it would look kinda weird with his big mug on our bills, but i don't see a problem with having a pic of him skating on the back of our quarter.

 

Oh, and my original point remains: any of these people would be better than the Queen. Kayriss, yes Canada would be part of the US if not for Britian and we owe them our respect, but does that mean we still have to be a colony? You make a good point, but do we need to be repaying this debt forever when the Royals have long outlived their relavancy and usefulness? Why don't we just have a "hooray for Britain Day" or something ;)

[Biggie]

So keep that in mind when you point out that we don't owe the UK anything, or that they have nothing to do with us. Which I'm sure you will anyway.

I was Dead on. Don't call our system antiquated. Its present in many countries in the world, and envied in many countries, despite its shortcomings.

Sorry, but the entire concept of Kings and Queens, no matter how powerless they may be, is antiquated.

 

A head of state should be elected of the people, by the people. Elizabeth II is neither.

[Dan #2]

Tradition does nothing but hold us back.

 

A head of state should be elected of the people, by the people. Elizabeth II is neither.

 

Tru dat homes'.(Plural Homes')

 

Why bother holding on? Cut the freaking umbilical cord. We've been standing for 130something years, The vast majority of that time on our own feet.

 

What does sticking around do for us? I think we should hang abolish Governer General as well, yall.

[Kayriss]

I wonder Biggie, do you consider Democracy antiquated? I mean, you must, since it's been around since greek times. Probably longer than the modern constitutional monarcic system? Surely by your logic, it's time for a change on those terms as well?

 

Or maybe you just didn't think about it. There are lots of people who DO think that our kind democracy is antiquated, and that a more modern system (socialist/communist, for the most popular example) is the way to fix it. I don't think that old systems are necessarrily bad ones, and there are a lot of Constitutional Monarchies that are doing just fine. Canada is one of them. As is Great Britain.

 

What I just can not understand is this. What is so bad about Canada's system that you guys want it changed? When people ask me if I'd support Canadian republicanism, I say no, and that I like Canada

 

J u s t T h e W a y I t I s.

 

Don't you?

Edited March 1, 2005 by Kayriss

[WinstonSmith357]

I remember being forced to sing "God Save the Queen" in elementary school.

 

Every single fucking day.

 

Our ties to the queen and the british crown are symbolic now. Which is fine. It reminds me that Canada was once nothing but a vast wilderness to be exploited by British and French colonial powers.

 

And that wasn't that long ago either.

 

God save the queen indeed.

[no yu begin wher i end]

"He said, 'Let's toast the Queen Mum.' I said to myself, 'now there's a good idea.'"

[Moonlight_Graham]

all i know is that the Queen doesn't do dick all for Canada and means next to nothing to most Canadians, so why should she some meaningless symbolic figure. dumb is all.

[Kayriss]

You had to sing "god save the queen?" Wow, I never had to do that. Even I think that's kind of dumb. What's funny is chances are many of your teachers probably found it as dumb as you did.

[ecnarf]

I remember being forced to sing "God Save the Queen" in elementary school.

 

Every single fucking day.

 

Our ties to the queen and the british crown are symbolic now. Which is fine. It reminds me that Canada was once nothing but a vast wilderness to be exploited by British and French colonial powers.

 

And that wasn't that long ago either.

 

God save the queen indeed.

Are you serious?

 

We had to sing Oh Canada (often times forced to sing, lest we have to write it out three times instead of having recess), but never god save the queen.

[Biggie]

I wonder Biggie, do you consider Democracy antiquated? I mean, you must, since it's been around since greek times. Probably longer than the modern constitutional monarcic system? Surely by your logic, it's time for a change on those terms as well?

 

Or maybe you just didn't think about it. There are lots of people who DO think that our kind democracy is antiquated, and that a more modern system (socialist/communist, for the most popular example) is the way to fix it. I don't think that old systems are necessarrily bad ones, and there are a lot of Constitutional Monarchies that are doing just fine. Canada is one of them. As is Great Britain.

 

What I just can not understand is this. What is so bad about Canada's system that you guys want it changed? When people ask me if I'd support Canadian republicanism, I say no, and that I like Canada

 

J u s t T h e W a y I t I s.

 

Don't you?

Clearly, I don't think democracy is antiquated. You can see that (I hope). My point is that monarchs are antithetical to democracy.

 

The Canadian parliamentary system isn't entirely flawed. Just the part where our Head of State is (one more time, with feeling) an un-elected, non-Canadian citizen, who comes to Canada only once in 5 years, and who is above the laws of Canada. I don't care if the Queen has no real power. It's the principle. Our 138 year quest for independence is not quite complete as long as the executive lives in London.

[Kayriss]

Did people know that John Manley was a Canadian Republican? That was kind of unexpected for me to find out, becasue he was the deputy Prime Minister, and a challenger to Paul Martin coronation (albiet a weak one). Imagine if he'd become PM? Could have been a very different country today...

[Moonlight_Graham]

John Manley sucks. I can't stand the guy.

[ecnarf]

I wonder Biggie, do you consider Democracy antiquated? I mean, you must, since it's been around since greek times. Probably longer than the modern constitutional monarcic system? Surely by your logic, it's time for a change on those terms as well?

 

Or maybe you just didn't think about it. There are lots of people who DO think that our kind democracy is antiquated, and that a more modern system (socialist/communist, for the most popular example) is the way to fix it. I don't think that old systems are necessarrily bad ones, and there are a lot of Constitutional Monarchies that are doing just fine. Canada is one of them. As is Great Britain.

 

What I just can not understand is this. What is so bad about Canada's system that you guys want it changed? When people ask me if I'd support Canadian republicanism, I say no, and that I like Canada

 

J u s t  T h e  W a y  I t  I s.

 

Don't you?

Clearly, I don't think democracy is antiquated. You can see that (I hope). My point is that monarchs are antithetical to democracy.

 

The Canadian parliamentary system isn't entirely flawed. Just the part where our Head of State is (one more time, with feeling) an un-elected, non-Canadian citizen, who comes to Canada only once in 5 years, and who is above the laws of Canada. I don't care if the Queen has no real power. It's the principle. Our 138 year quest for independence is not quite complete as long as the executive lives in London.

I think the larger problem lies in the Senate.

[Biggie]

That too.

[Matt]

I believe we should keep the crown. How can we have a Canadian culture without having a past? How can we have a Canadian identity without having a past? It does not hold us back, Canadians have continued to evolve over time anyways. There are benefits to being in the Commonwealth too, not so much with trade anymore. But, I do not think it is worth dropping out of.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Matt

[Kayriss]

Holee! I drop out of this for a few days and the Nos take the front! These polls are interesting things. I need to think of more interesting Poll topics like this one.

[ecnarf]

That too.

It's really disturbing when you think that the people who can reject and approve ridiculously important bills have no accountability. I remember a few years back, some female senators (relatives to the governor general, of course) were trying to change the lyrics to Oh Canada because of the "sexist" words. Yeah, right. Then, after realizing they didn't have a dream, they gave up for a while, and were up in arms again when Catriona Le May Doan (the speed skater) won the gold medal and had to sing those sexist words. And they're in until they're 75.

 

It really doesn't bother me the "head of state" isn't elected, or that they don't live in Canada. It's really irrelevant to me, as they hold no power or influence whatsoever, save for the Governor General who appoints senators - but that problem lies with the undemocratic senate.

[Biggie]

I believe we should keep the crown. How can we have a Canadian culture without having a past? How can we have a Canadian identity without having a past? It does not hold us back, Canadians have continued to evolve over time anyways. There are benefits to being in the Commonwealth too, not so much with trade anymore. But, I do not think it is worth dropping out of.

Matt, why do you link government with Canada's culture? Nobody is going to re-write Canadian history or destroy the past. It's simply taking the last step towards full independence.

 

Canada would probably stay in the Commonwealth, just as India and South Africa have despite being republics, because it does have advantages like you say.

 

It's inevitably going to happen, sooner or later. Canadians, especially immigrants, increasingly feel little or no connection with the Crown. Just look at recent polls from 2002.

 

-In a Leger Marketing poll 56 per cent of Canadians wanted the portrait of Queen Elizabeth II on the Canadian dollar replaced by people who have influenced Canadian history.

 

-Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV poll results in February determine that nearly half of Canadians (48%) would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state and two-thirds (65%) believe the royals are merely celebrities and should not have any formal role in Canada.

 

-In a May Ekos public opinion poll commissioned by CBC/SRC, Toronto Star and LaPress, 48% agree with the statement, "Instead of a British monarch we should have a Canadian citizen as our head of state."

 

Those results would be unthinkable a generation before. Our kids will probably be the ones to do it.

[Matt]

We already are a sovereign nation, we don't need to do away with tradition because that's what makes up Canadian culture. Had British soldiers, residing in Canada not created hockey we would not have hockey. The Scottish created Curling, another Canadian pasttime. Going on a tyraid to remove all things British is my destructive to the society and our culture than it is helpful. The Americans have tried to do away with as much Britishness as they possibly can, and they're behind Canada socially. How is that evolving?

 

The Governor General is a Prime Minister appointed position. If the Prime Minister disagrees with what the Governor General is doing or has done, the P.M. can remove them at any time. For example, if the Governor General doesn't pass a bill currently, the P.M. can decide to make them no longer be the Governor General. Although I agree our current G.G. should not spend as much as she does. I believe it would also be a collosal waste of tax payer dollars to elect them. Especially considering if let's say the "Liberal Party" wins the most seats in the House of Commons, but a member of the "Conservative Party" is elected Governor General, the G.G. then could reject all "Liberal" bills flat out without having any way of reversing their decision unless someone manages to convince them otherwise. To continue this example, let's say the "Liberals" decide they will take their chances and have another election in the hopes of having a G.G. this time be elected that is also a "Liberal". They have to go to the current Governor General and ask to have a new election, the Governor General refuses, for any number of reasons, to perhaps give the "Conservatives" more time to build up more support, etc. So for maybe four or five years until an election must be called, we're stuck with a government that cannot have anything completed, close to nothing, or even nothing on the "important" issues because of the difference in party philosphies. The U.S. system works currently mainly because the "Republicans" have more members in the senate and congress so they do not have to convince as many people to have bills pass.

 

Checks and balances can actually slow down democracy as much as they can be useful. I do not believe that the issues should be rushed into solving neccessarily, but they should not be halted indefinitely either. The issues need to be resolved as well, as they need to be thought about.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Matt

[Biggie]

You're only describing one form a republic could take, and it wouldn't necessariy work that way. The US system has worked for 220+ years, even when different parties control the Congress and White House.

[Matt]

The U.S. are still behind Canada socially. I would rather stick to the Canadian system which allows to democracy to happen without stalling or slowing it down. I believe that having something like an elected Governor General would slow that down. Our current system does the job quite well, and other forms of government don't work. Plus our current system is also tied into our past. Tradition is apart of a country's identity and culture.