The Monarchy Effect?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel
I am simply saying that there must be compromise on both sides of the matter.

I just think that it should be abolished completely along the lines of apartheid, seppuku, slavery, etc. I don't think there can be much compromise because the very idea of a monarchy is discriminatory in nature.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
Fuuny you keep on bringing up apartheid because as I have pointed out the first stage of apartheid was to abolish the machinery of the Crown that posed a threat to the implementation of these laws!

(by the way: crime was higher due to the increased number of offences listed as crimes and guerilla actions by anti-apartheid groups.)

We've already talked about historical trends in this thread.

The point is that the machinery of Crown often serves to protect liberties against overzealous politicians.

What about overzealous monarchs?

Anyways, this has already been talked about in this thread.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
She does. And I feel that is quite proper for use in emergency situations to protect the constitution. I the consider apartheid matter to be a textbook example for when it is prudent and right for the Queen to exercise her powers in defence of her subjects.

Wow, so the position with so much power as you believe, is determined by a caste system. No requirements except for birth. Excellent.

One person does not constitute a caste system.

Damn straight let nature choose, it often does a better job than us!
Monarchy -> birth -> Queen Elizabeth II
Republic -> election -> George W Bush .... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
She does. And I feel that is quite proper for use in emergency situations to protect the constitution. I the consider apartheid matter to be a textbook example for when it is prudent and right for the Queen to exercise her powers in defence of her subjects.

Wow, so the position with so much power as you believe, is determined by a caste system. No requirements except for birth. Excellent.

One person does not constitute a caste system.

Damn straight let nature choose, it often does a better job than us!
Monarchy -> birth -> Queen Elizabeth II
Republic -> election -> George W Bush .... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hehe... Bush is bad

But I still believe that monarchies should be abolished since it's a barbaric custom. I consider it a caste system though.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
I am simply saying that there must be compromise on both sides of the matter.

I just think that it should be abolished completely along the lines of apartheid, seppuku, slavery, etc. I don't think there can be much compromise because the very idea of a monarchy is discriminatory in nature.

Than why nitpick at it and just say straight out that you don't like regardless of the rules of succession rather than attacking it by stealth.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
I am simply saying that there must be compromise on both sides of the matter.

I just think that it should be abolished completely along the lines of apartheid, seppuku, slavery, etc. I don't think there can be much compromise because the very idea of a monarchy is discriminatory in nature.

Than why nitpick at it and just say straight out that you don't like regardless of the rules of succession rather than attacking it by stealth.

Ummm... I was providing some of my beliefs on why I dislike monarchies?? I've stated it many times in this thread and many others. There are some points that I dislike more than others, the main one being that it is discriminatory in nature.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
Fuuny you keep on bringing up apartheid because as I have pointed out the first stage of apartheid was to abolish the machinery of the Crown that posed a threat to the implementation of these laws!

(by the way: crime was higher due to the increased number of offences listed as crimes and guerilla actions by anti-apartheid groups.)

We've already talked about historical trends in this thread.

The point is that the machinery of Crown often serves to protect liberties against overzealous politicians.

What about overzealous monarchs?

Anyways, this has already been talked about in this thread.

There is always a threat of overzealous leaders in any system. The monarchy has had a pretty good track record over the past three centuries. I don't care what you say of George III, he was implementing the will of Parliament on the American Colonies dispute.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
Fuuny you keep on bringing up apartheid because as I have pointed out the first stage of apartheid was to abolish the machinery of the Crown that posed a threat to the implementation of these laws!

(by the way: crime was higher due to the increased number of offences listed as crimes and guerilla actions by anti-apartheid groups.)

We've already talked about historical trends in this thread.

The point is that the machinery of Crown often serves to protect liberties against overzealous politicians.

What about overzealous monarchs?

Anyways, this has already been talked about in this thread.

There is always a threat of overzealous leaders in any system. The monarchy has had a pretty good track record over the past three centuries. I don't care what you say of George III, he was implementing the will of Parliament on the American Colonies dispute.

No it doesn't. This was even discussed in this thread.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
She does. And I feel that is quite proper for use in emergency situations to protect the constitution. I the consider apartheid matter to be a textbook example for when it is prudent and right for the Queen to exercise her powers in defence of her subjects.

Wow, so the position with so much power as you believe, is determined by a caste system. No requirements except for birth. Excellent.

One person does not constitute a caste system.

Damn straight let nature choose, it often does a better job than us!
Monarchy -> birth -> Queen Elizabeth II
Republic -> election -> George W Bush .... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hehe... Bush is bad

But I still believe that monarchies should be abolished since it's a barbaric custom. I consider it a caste system though.

Well we all pervert the language for the benefit of our agenda from time to time...

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.

Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.

Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.

Ah yes.. I plum forgot about the BC treaty dispute. Good call.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel
She does. And I feel that is quite proper for use in emergency situations to protect the constitution. I the consider apartheid matter to be a textbook example for when it is prudent and right for the Queen to exercise her powers in defence of her subjects.

Wow, so the position with so much power as you believe, is determined by a caste system. No requirements except for birth. Excellent.

One person does not constitute a caste system.

Damn straight let nature choose, it often does a better job than us!
Monarchy -> birth -> Queen Elizabeth II
Republic -> election -> George W Bush .... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hehe... Bush is bad

But I still believe that monarchies should be abolished since it's a barbaric custom. I consider it a caste system though.

Well we all pervert the language for the benefit of our agenda from time to time...

I guess. I'm just going by the anthropological definition of the word.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.

Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.

Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.

Oh, yes.. I forgot:
It just goes to show how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the legal system and constitution. Its not an appendage that can be simply cut off. Removing would indeed be a can o'worms!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.

Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.

Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.

Oh, yes.. I forgot:
It just goes to show how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the legal system and constitution. Its not an appendage that can be simply cut off. Removing would indeed be a can o'worms!

I'm sure there's a way around it and it would be well worth it to abandon a barbaric custom. Plenty of countries have removed their monarchies in favor of equality.

I'm just making this up, but perhaps the Queen can pass the same laws but replacing any reference to the crown or monarchy with the government. I'm sure there's a way. Even if it's hard work, it would be worth it to remove a barbaric and discriminatory custom. Look at India and their still continuing attempts at dismantling the caste system. May be a lot of hard work, but well worth it. They could have just said 'oh, too much work, we are too lazy to fix it and it works fine this way'

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
BTW, I can't believe I forgot this point: <BR><BR>13) Let's not forget what happened in Australia in the 70s (1975?). The Governor General dismissing the PM and appointing another PM? That's a bit crazy.

You should have because its not a very good one.

In 1976 (I believe) Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government and appointed the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister until new elctions were held several months later. Malcolm Fraser's Liberal party won the elections in a landslide victory. The dismissal was the result of Gough Whitlam's inability to move the suply bills (the budget) through the senate thus the risk that the government would run out of money and shutdown. This may be acceptable in the US where deadlock is the norm but it is totally unacceptable under the Westminster style constitution in Australia. The Governer General, who himself was nominated by Whitlam a couple of years earlier, attempted to push Whitlam to compramise so that the suply bills could be passed, Whitlam however, refused. Kerr, worried that Whitlam would recommend that the Queen sack the Governor-General, moved forthwith to dismiss him and established a caretaker government that was able to pass the supply bills several hours later. On the House of Representitives then dispatched the Speaker of the House to inform Her Majesty of the happenings and to ask her to dismiss Kerr and reappoint Whitlam as the Prime Minister. The Queen responded that she felt she could not intervene unless absolutely neccessary and informed the Speaker that would continue watching the situation closely. Kerr erred in his belief that he risked instant dismissal if he were to threaten Whitlam with the sack, as a result he acted hastily and clumsily. The Queen however was right not to intervene because the instutions were still functioning and the constitution was in no danger. This was indeed a controversial episode in Australian politics but so rash and biased as to call it crazy. A simular situation happened in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago when the President and PM were at loggerheads, but unfortunately the republican constitution that was substituted for the Monarchy by replacing her with a president had not the means to deal with the situation and as a result the crisis was far more nasty and protracted than the one in Australia. All systems systems have flaws but I believe the Monarchical system is far sturdier than the republican systems that replace it, and it is for that reason that the republican referendum in Australia was defeated, not because they liked having a Queen but they to not wish to sacrifice the stability of the system.

Yes, I already know the background of this situation. The GG couldn't even live in Australia since he was the most hated man in Australia. I brought it up because it is an example of the Monarch's minions using their power without the will of the people's government.

Kerr was appointed on Whitlam's advice, so in a way wouldn't that make him one of Gough's minions?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Kerr was appointed on Whitlam's advice, so in a way wouldn't that make him one of Gough's minions?

I like calling any monarch's representatives or employees their minions

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm sure there are positives to having a Monarchy, but it's still a barbaric custom that should be eliminated. The South African apartheid system probably had some positives such as less crime, but it was a barbaric custom that was thankfully eliminated.

Nobody is better than anyone else. There is no equality with a monarch. It's a horrible caste system that should have died out with seppuku.

I suggest first abolishing all powers that the monarchs have (like Japan).

Then you officially disassociate them with the government and country - just make them ordinary citizens with no government recognized titles. Give them like 5 years in advance so that they can be prepared. Then they move out of palaces and other buildings as they should belong to the country. Tourism won't be hurt too badly as these historical buildings will belong to the government now.

So, the now-deposed royalty are normal members of society, no better or worse than anyone else. They'll be equals. Discrimination will be out of the government with their departure. If they want to go around calling themselves royalty then that's fine, but the government won't officially recognize them as so. They'll just be like celebrities.

The Emporer is no ordinary person to the Japanese, he is regarded as a god. That is why the US did not move to abolish the monarchy there and did not prosecute Hirohito. (Although war veteran GHW Bush got his revenge by barfing on Hirohito at a state dinner in the '80s!)

That would open a can o'worms, seeing as how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the system.

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My main problem with your basic argument, although you have given a few good points in your more detailed discussions, is that you try to draw analogies between a system that in practical terms has very few drawbacks (we've ended up ok) with systems like apartheid that were designed to systematically exploit entire groups of people, denying them basic human rights.

You must admit that that is an overstatement.

Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.

It is an overstatement. I'm just saying that it's a barbaric custom that should be eliminated along the lines of things such as apartheid, caste systems, seppuku, etc. Constitutional monarchies themselves are against the very fundamental beliefs of many societies - that everyone is equal.

If it against the belief of the vast majority of a society (nation) they can abolish it!

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.

Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.

Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.

Oh, yes.. I forgot:
It just goes to show how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the legal system and constitution. Its not an appendage that can be simply cut off. Removing would indeed be a can o'worms!

I'm sure there's a way around it and it would be well worth it to abandon a barbaric custom. Plenty of countries have removed their monarchies in favor of equality.

I'm just making this up, but perhaps the Queen can pass the same laws but replacing any reference to the crown or monarchy with the government. I'm sure there's a way. Even if it's hard work, it would be worth it to remove a barbaric and discriminatory custom. Look at India and their still continuing attempts at dismantling the caste system. May be a lot of hard work, but well worth it. They could have just said 'oh, too much work, we are too lazy to fix it and it works fine this way'

No no no.. barbaric is the manner in which the US and the States treats its prisoners and its 'enemy combatants'.
The republican government in the US is far more barbaric than the monarchical government in Canada. Why should Canada make the same mistakes that the US did and does? Why should that GREAT risk be taken? So what you can feel better about.
Some things are not the way we may like them but that does not mean they should be done away with.
I distrust your slash and burn aproach to constitutional law. That's what the founding fathers in the US did and now they have an inferior government! (I am socially liberal and constitutionally conservative by the way.)

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm sure there are positives to having a Monarchy, but it's still a barbaric custom that should be eliminated. The South African apartheid system probably had some positives such as less crime, but it was a barbaric custom that was thankfully eliminated.

Nobody is better than anyone else. There is no equality with a monarch. It's a horrible caste system that should have died out with seppuku.

I suggest first abolishing all powers that the monarchs have (like Japan).

Then you officially disassociate them with the government and country - just make them ordinary citizens with no government recognized titles. Give them like 5 years in advance so that they can be prepared. Then they move out of palaces and other buildings as they should belong to the country. Tourism won't be hurt too badly as these historical buildings will belong to the government now.

So, the now-deposed royalty are normal members of society, no better or worse than anyone else. They'll be equals. Discrimination will be out of the government with their departure. If they want to go around calling themselves royalty then that's fine, but the government won't officially recognize them as so. They'll just be like celebrities.

The Emporer is no ordinary person to the Japanese, he is regarded as a god. That is why the US did not move to abolish the monarchy there and did not prosecute Hirohito. (Although war veteran GHW Bush got his revenge by barfing on Hirohito at a state dinner in the '80s!)

That would open a can o'worms, seeing as how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the system.

No, he is no longer regarded as a God. Hirohito had to give that up in order to retain his title. However, the Emperor role of Japan today has no power compared to other monarchs, purely ceremonial.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My main problem with your basic argument, although you have given a few good points in your more detailed discussions, is that you try to draw analogies between a system that in practical terms has very few drawbacks (we've ended up ok) with systems like apartheid that were designed to systematically exploit entire groups of people, denying them basic human rights.

You must admit that that is an overstatement.

Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.

It is an overstatement. I'm just saying that it's a barbaric custom that should be eliminated along the lines of things such as apartheid, caste systems, seppuku, etc. Constitutional monarchies themselves are against the very fundamental beliefs of many societies - that everyone is equal.

If it against the belief of the vast majority of a society (nation) they can abolish it!

When your argument runs down to mob rule, you know you're running out of ideas When you're dealing with a clear case of discrimination, mob rule shouldn't matter. 95% of Slovenia voted for making sure that certain minorities have no human rights whatsoever. They are not identified as humans by the government. Is that ok? Of course not!

 

[ejseidel]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My main problem with your basic argument, although you have given a few good points in your more detailed discussions, is that you try to draw analogies between a system that in practical terms has very few drawbacks (we've ended up ok) with systems like apartheid that were designed to systematically exploit entire groups of people, denying them basic human rights.

You must admit that that is an overstatement.

Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.

It is an overstatement. I'm just saying that it's a barbaric custom that should be eliminated along the lines of things such as apartheid, caste systems, seppuku, etc. Constitutional monarchies themselves are against the very fundamental beliefs of many societies - that everyone is equal.

If it against the belief of the vast majority of a society (nation) they can abolish it!

When your argument runs down to mob rule, you know you're running out of ideas When you're dealing with a clear case of discrimination, mob rule shouldn't matter. 95% of Slovenia voted for making sure that certain minorities have no human rights whatsoever. They are not identified as humans by the government. Is that ok? Of course not!

No. If enough people support abolition the constitutions of Canada, Australia and the other Commonwealth Realms could be ammended in a way as to abolish it. It just would not be wise to do so.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.

Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.

Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.

Oh, yes.. I forgot:
It just goes to show how deeply the monarchy is embedded in the legal system and constitution. Its not an appendage that can be simply cut off. Removing would indeed be a can o'worms!

I'm sure there's a way around it and it would be well worth it to abandon a barbaric custom. Plenty of countries have removed their monarchies in favor of equality.

I'm just making this up, but perhaps the Queen can pass the same laws but replacing any reference to the crown or monarchy with the government. I'm sure there's a way. Even if it's hard work, it would be worth it to remove a barbaric and discriminatory custom. Look at India and their still continuing attempts at dismantling the caste system. May be a lot of hard work, but well worth it. They could have just said 'oh, too much work, we are too lazy to fix it and it works fine this way'

No no no.. barbaric is the manner in which the US and the States treats its prisoners and its 'enemy combatants'.
The republican government in the US is far more barbaric than the monarchical government in Canada. Why should Canada make the same mistakes that the US did and does? Why should that GREAT risk be taken? So what you can feel better about.
Some things are not the way we may like them but that does not mean they should be done away with.
I distrust your slash and burn aproach to constitutional law. That's what the founding fathers in the US did and now they have an inferior government! (I am socially liberal and constitutionally conservative by the way.)

Ummm... why are you going on this random tangent? Abu Ghraib was barbaric. So was Canada's torture of Somalians.

The most powerful and largest democracies in the world stripped themselves of any monarch. Interesting. Any decent people in government should be interested in removing injustice and a clear case of discrimination, especially one that deals with such a powerful government figure as you believe.

Well since you've just run off track with your mob rule and completely irrelevant topics, I'm guessing you're out of things to say to support a monarchy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: ejseidel

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My main problem with your basic argument, although you have given a few good points in your more detailed discussions, is that you try to draw analogies between a system that in practical terms has very few drawbacks (we've ended up ok) with systems like apartheid that were designed to systematically exploit entire groups of people, denying them basic human rights.

You must admit that that is an overstatement.

Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.

It is an overstatement. I'm just saying that it's a barbaric custom that should be eliminated along the lines of things such as apartheid, caste systems, seppuku, etc. Constitutional monarchies themselves are against the very fundamental beliefs of many societies - that everyone is equal.

If it against the belief of the vast majority of a society (nation) they can abolish it!

When your argument runs down to mob rule, you know you're running out of ideas When you're dealing with a clear case of discrimination, mob rule shouldn't matter. 95% of Slovenia voted for making sure that certain minorities have no human rights whatsoever. They are not identified as humans by the government. Is that ok? Of course not!

No. If enough people support abolition the constitutions of Canada, Australia and the other Commonwealth Realms could be ammended in a way as to abolish it. It just would not be wise to do so.

So, are you ok with Slovenia not recognizing a certain group of minorities as humans? It would NOT be wise to let discrimination govern one of the most powerful and important offices of the government.

 

[ejseidel]

The monarchy is based upon the rejection of mob rule by placing ultimate authority in an office that is unelected and unappointed. An example of instiutionalising mob rule is electing judges as is done in much of the US!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: ejseidel
The monarchy is based upon the rejection of mob rule by placing ultimate authority in an office that is unelected and unappointed. An example of instiutionalising mob rule is electing judges as is done in much of the US!

When you're trying to approve discrimination by mob rule, you know you have a problem. So tell me, do you agree with Slovenia's decision? So, if people want slavery, they should have it? Of course not. There are some things which should not be governed by mob rule.