U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,460,020 times
Reputation: 4409

Advertisements

Call me crazy, but I actually agree with these immigrants then. What is the point of a monarchy now? It's completely unnecessary. The queen can kiss my butt, and I don't care how much a part of history she/England is-it's old baggage.

We're a sovereign nation and that fat needs to be trimmed. Absolutely it is insulting to have to swear an oath to some "queen". Canada is an immigrant nation. Should they kiss her feet too?

I don't think it's fair to say it doesn't matter because she doesn't affect you personally. It affects otherwise would-be immigrants, and I think it's lazy to just sort of dismiss that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:45 PM
 
1,482 posts, read 1,861,753 times
Reputation: 854
It is amusing to see Americans ranting on about which they have no knowledge of, the Queen is a unelected head of state of Australia, nope you are wrong on that we had republican referendum here in Aus in 1999 in which the Queen won easily. Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia True some of we Monarchists types fought rather dirty, suggesting that they would be dumping the Queen to bring in a USA type president worked out well. Interesting that some immigrants to Canada are stating they would not take a bullet for Canada. So why should you become a Canadian immigrant if you are not prepared to fight for Canada ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:52 PM
 
558 posts, read 548,649 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Brother; you take the pale! You presume to lecture one of your own countrymen who has asked you pointedly WTF Canada's monarchy has to do with you when there are far more compelling problems facing your country.

Cripes! Spend your efforts where they'll be appreciated and burnish your own tarnished image in the world before attempting to polish the already shining beacon to your north.

When it comes to democracy you should look to Canada as an example of how it's supposed to work as opposed to........
You're delusional. It seems that the policy you've adopted in regards to Canada and monarchy is deny deny deny, deny deny, etc

Unfortunately for you, your personal denial won't change the facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:06 PM
 
1,482 posts, read 1,861,753 times
Reputation: 854
It was amusing to hear people who criticised Bush/Obama as being unpatriotic, in the UK and other realms it is seen as being patriotic to criticise the PM and other ministers. For they are just the hired help . The Crown persists in the UK (and 15 other Commonwealth Realms that have voluntarily kept the shared monarch) for several reasons. 1. The Crown separates patriotism from politics. No British politician has ever been accused of being unpatriotic when they criticise a Prime Minister. Something that often happens in the US. 2. The Prime Minister may be master of the political landscape and have the power to fire nuclear weapons, but authority for that power is vested in the Crown and the Constitution, not in him. He may issue orders but it is still considered “advice” that the Crown is bound to act on. He must address the Queen and senior members of the royal family as Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Ma’am, or Sir. He gets’ a townhouse and a small country retreat, while the Royal Family has multiple palaces. And while the Queen is first in precedence at all state occasions, the Prime Minister comes in 19th. It teaches humility to politicians, who are not noted for their humility. 3. The Crown makes Prime Ministers and cabinet members disposable. Because a President is both Head of State (symbolic leader of the nation) and Head of Government (in charge of running the government). They are very difficult to get rid of when scandal hits. Had Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton been Prime Ministers they would have been dumped in a matter of weeks instead of dragging the issue out for months. And while a King is difficult to force out, when push comes to shove an unsuitable King has been forced out, twice, in 1688 and 1936. 4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:07 PM
 
558 posts, read 548,649 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Considering the numbers of posts from people who have said our monarchy is NOT a problem for us I think you've got your answer and you can stop waiting for people to say what you want them to say.

It's just a problem for you, not for us. Get over it, okay?
Would-be Canadian citizens set to fight oath to Queen - The Globe and Mail

This article shows that it's not just a problem for me. It's sad that Canadians like yourself choose to defend monarchy over democracy, but I'm an optimist and believe you Canadians will eventually see the light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:13 PM
 
558 posts, read 548,649 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
People can read those two posts very easily now that you've linked them together so we'll just have to leave it them to decide who is deflecting from addressing pertinent questions and lacking in either focus or maturity.

And while you accuse me of random, off topic stuff you then (maturely) insert "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" into the discussion.......er, all right; we'll take 'em, if they swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
Unsurprisingly, the turtle lover is confused by sarcasm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:18 PM
 
35,108 posts, read 40,388,234 times
Reputation: 62072
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
I never knew that Canadian immigrants who are seeking citizenship have to swear an oath to an unelected monarch of a foreign country. Why have you Canadians allowed for your country to contradict itself with such a undemocratic, primitive, and shameful practice? Anyone who supports that ridiculous monarchy is basically saying they're against equality, justice, secularism, democracy, freedom, and plain ol' common sense.

The immigrants who are fighting this oath in court are taking a righteous stand. Are you Canadians going to support them by rising up and protesting to ultimately rid your country of this undemocratic and barbaric monarchy institution once and for all?

Would-be Canadian citizens set to fight oath to Queen - The Globe and Mail

Are you Canadian? Are you hoping to become Canadian? Why do you care what Canada does or does not do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:25 PM
 
558 posts, read 548,649 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610 View Post
Are you Canadian? Are you hoping to become Canadian? Why do you care what Canada does or does not do?
No, American.
No.
I care because the principles of monarchy are against equality, freedom and democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,699 posts, read 8,513,984 times
Reputation: 4898
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
No, American.
No.
I care because the principles of monarchy are against equality, freedom and democracy.
The world isn't so black and white as that. I understand where you're coming from on this, I too was a Republican when I was a young man, it came naturally from my background, but the Monarchy serves us well as a check against politicians. I don't really care that it isn't democratic because that's what it's for, it's a useful counterbalance against the negative aspects of democracy, which despite the ideology we've been fed all our lives is not a perfect form of government to be held up on a pedestal. Pure democracy can lead to senseless and selfish decision making, like voting in tons of benefits while cutting taxes in a way that is not in the longterm interests of the society. That kind of chaotic, disjointed and unplanned legislation is what seems to have happened in California and it doesn't seem to be working out well there. That's where representative government comes in, but that leads to the evil quagmire of party politcs and even worse, those politicians becoming the symbols of the whole civilization or society. We need something above it all, and I feel the monarchy with its broad view of matters, symbolism, and limited but important jurisdiction is a vital part of that equation when it comes to creating a governance model that helps us be a successful state. As for equality, it's a single exception and it's fine, because the truth is we all are coming from special places and are not the same. I am born as a citizen with certain rights and responsibilities that a Nigerian doesn't have, likewise the royals are born with a different set of rights and responsibilities as they do not have the same status as I at birth. Freedom is important but I already am being governed by a government no matter what and need that to live in a civilized society. They are not despots, and when they do act they do so on behalf of the people`s interests. Democracy, as I said, I do not see absolute democracy as a good system, and neither did others which is why we live in representative democracies rather then direct ones, because somebody has to take the longview. The monarch keeps those representatives from getting too uppity, and I`m fine with someone who hasn`t too much power doing that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 12:38 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 12,334,522 times
Reputation: 10018
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I have read both your recent posts and wish to extend an apology to you sir.

These threads bring out the absolute worst in me and I forget that when piling on the vitriole to respond to nonsense; I'm painting with a very broad brush indeed. It should never be my intent to insult reasonable people and if I've done so I'm heartily sorry for that. Idiots on the other hand, will get no such quarter.

Do not give up your pistols. There is a home for them in Canada although confined to range and your home with strict guidlines. Carry permits are the thing of fantasy here but ownership is not outright forbidden.
No apologies necessary. We do have a lot of people who don't think, and some of them need a lesson. You've never offended me one bit that I can recall, no worries.

I have been told that about the weapons (have good friends in BC who are as close to Canada has to gun nuts), but probably, honestly, the handguns would just be more trouble than they were worth. More than anything, it was a point made symbolically: if you go to make a new home in a new land, you have chosen that, and those things not really suitable for that life, need to pass on from your old life.

Veering back on topic, I don't think a country that doesn't even elect its chief executive democratically, but elects 'electors' who are apportioned on a winner-take-all basis--thus making many votes functionally irrelevant to the outcome--has any room to call a constitutional monarchy with strictly limited Royal powers 'barbarism.' Barbarism is having the election come down to a state whose residents can't even vote correctly, and having it decided by whichever party's judicial appointees currently form a majority. Barbarism is having results released to the media early enough that by the time the West gets off work, they're already learning that the election was decided without any relevance for them.

Much of Europe is composed of constitutional monarchies, and that doesn't seem to lead to descent into barbarism. They live longer, with higher standards of living, and are happier than people in my country. All of the above would also describe Canadians. Just because something is perceived to hew an iota closer to this phantom of 'democracy' does not make it automatically a better way to go. Different peoples prefer to be governed differently, and far as I'm concerned, the war was over in about 1814, so long live the Queen. She is, after all, head of state of most of our English-speaking allies, and all of our closest ones. You'd think we would show her a little respect considering that.

Last edited by j_k_k; 07-14-2013 at 12:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top