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.
You'll pardon me if I have a fraternal neighborly chuckle here? You know a Yank has really begun to irritate the Canadians when you go from the relaxed conversational 'eh' to the defiant, stuff-it 'EH!!!'
I don't blame you, though. What set this off was the condescension of 'ours is better than yours because of this' and comments like 'undemocratic,' 'shameful,' 'primitive,' 'ridiculous' and 'barbaric.' All those words were in the OP. That would offend anyone, and it's magnified by the backdrop of relative sizes, the fact that Canadians get a lot of this and it gets old, and the fact that we're in the Canada forum where disparaging references are that much less appropriate from outsiders.
In your eyes, telling the truth for a good cause is condescending.
Monarchy will always be undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric. Unless you know something I don't.
And fyi, I never compared Canada and USA in my OP, so I recommend you end your revisionist history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
It's exacerbated further because, while there aren't any lese majeste laws and anyone (even a visitor) who wants may call the Queen naughty names under the law, that doesn't mean it won't offend people who respect what she stands for. In some countries, putting your money in your back pocket (sitting on the royal image) is a serious offense, and openly disparaging the monarch is such a crime that they'll get you for it even if you did it offshore years ago, should you dare go to that country. The Canadian response strikes me as pretty restrained by comparison.
And that further supports my point that monarchy will always be undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
The original question could have been worded: "If Canadian citizenship and presumably military, etc. oaths require swearing allegiance to an unelected hereditary monarch--however lacking in actual authority--how do you resolve the undemocratic nature of hereditary monarchy vs. the desired reality of a democratic society? Is there not an inescapable deviation from democratic fundamentals when anyone is asked to swear anything to an unelected individual, however benign and generally esteemed?" That would have asked the same sort of question without disparaging prejudice.
Authority, means having the power to enforce laws. The unelected Queen has the legal authority to use the executive powers granted to her via the Canadian Constitution. Therefore, the premise for your after the fact question is wrong.
And how was I prejudice for encouraging Canadians to support Canadian immigrants who are fighting against monarchy? Not to mention the fact that monarchy is the ultimate prejudice against human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
That would also have a variety of natural rejoinders, some a bit curt, some thoughtful and some comic, depending how people felt, perhaps including the following that spring to mind:
"Because the majority do not want it changed. I'm in the minority who do, but I respect our democracy's ongoing decision not to change it."
"Because we like it this way, because it is a generally unifying part of our heritage, and because it annoys some of your more obnoxious countrypeople."
"Because, since the monarchy has a bare sliver of political power and would lose even that on the spot were it ever abused, we feel our democracy is safe retaining this bit of tradition."
"Because pure unilateral independence in all forms is not necessarily every people's cultural way. We value our long, close, often-reinforced ties with the United Kingdom and do not desire to sever this aspect of them."
"Because it makes figuring out who to put on the money quite a bit easier. You used to put Lady Liberty on all your coins in some form, until you started putting First Nations on them, then transitioned to political figures. It's worth it to keep our powerful RCNA lobby happy eh."
"Because swearing an oath to a BNA Act just lacks panache. Look on the bright side--we almost had to swear an oath to a lake in Quebec. Except in Quebec. You can add those three words to almost any statement about Canada, you know. Even in Quebec."
And all of those responses would've been nothing but sad and bogus excuses.
Your analogy makes no sense. Slavery has been abolished, and therefore cannot legally take place. While, the Queen, who symbolizes monarchy, and has the legal right to use her executive powers.
Your whole topic makes no sense but just for fun lay out some scenarios you think the Queen could perpetrate on the Canadian people.
Here's another counter-argument: "Probably for the same reason you put 'In God We Trust" on your money in absolute defiance (since money is pretty fundamentally authorized by Congress) of your Constitution, which says Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion: because a majority of you like it that way. Why do you persist in this theocratic, barbaric, undemocratic, unconstitutional, shameful, superstitious practice that offends any American or immigrant who doesn't trust, let alone worship, this god? What, now I'm throwing Christians to the lions all over again? You mean all my disparaging remarks offended you? You're just touchy; I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion, and I usually start those with a volley of insults."
Quote:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I personally would like to have "In God We Trust" removed, but how is that unconstitutional? That phrase is only a slogan and has nothing to do with the establishment of a nationwide religion, therefore it does not violate the 1st Amendment, unless you can show me how a national slogan means a religion was established. Does that same thinking apply to our National Bird (Bald Eagle), Flower (Rose), or Tree (Oak)? Oh No! What if all of our national symbols are some how vaguely related to some religion? God forbid.
I personally would like to have "In God We Trust" removed, but how is that unconstitutional? That phrase is only a slogan and has nothing to do with the establishment of a nationwide religion, therefore it does not violate the 1st Amendment, unless you can show me how a national slogan means a religion was established. Does that same thinking apply to our National Bird (Bald Eagle), Flower (Rose), or Tree (Oak)? Oh No! What if all of our national symbols are some how vaguely related to some religion? God forbid.
Bingo. You've just mentioned national symbols.
Well, let me suggest this to you: the Queen is a symbol.
As a symbol, she stands for our continuity. She stands for Canada. From her, and her line, we connect to 900 years of parliamentary history. Kind of puts paid to your measly 200+ years, doesn't it?
I don't expect you to understand this; as an American raised under the American system, you have been raised to believe that the Westminster parliamentary system is somehow inferior. But it is not. It has lasted for over 900 years, so there must be something to it. That continuity extends to us Canadians today.
Who is unlucky? I would suggest that Americans are. They really don't know what a representative democracy is, as long as "special interests" intercept their "representatives" in Congress. The House, the Senate, they are both in thrall to special interests that we do not have here in Canada.
Never mind that. My question is this:
Quote:
Tell me, do you stir up this stuff in the Australian forum? The New Zealand forum? The Indian or Pakistani forum? The South African forum? The others all have a Westminster system, just as Canada does; what is it about Canada in particular and its system of government that bugs you?
In your eyes, telling the truth for a good cause is condescending.
Not everyone's truth is the same, so don't try the assumptive close. Your cause isn't good, either. Condescending is looking down upon people, as you did, denigrating their institution as if yours must fundamentally be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
Monarchy will always be undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric. Unless you know something I don't.
Evidently I know a lot that you don't, beginning with knowing that you're wrong. Just saying those things won't make it so, no matter how often you repeat them. I've been to Canada a lot, and known a lot of Canadians and done some reading of Canadian history. None of those adjectives describe Canada, and your stance is childish and dogmatic. It deteriorates utterly when exposed to one simple fact: Canadians democratically accept the constitutional monarchy. They could democratically reject it. They do not. One could call it a national decision, but only by default; really it's a national non-decision, as in a majority do not see a problem and thus seek no solution. Democracy at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
And fyi, I never compared Canada and USA in my OP, so I recommend you end your revisionist history.
You did not articulate the direct comparison, but you didn't need to. Your evasive maneuvers won't work. You spoke from an American perspective putting down constitutional monarchy in a Canadian forum. Trying to pretend that no comparison is implied is disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
And that further supports my point that monarchy will always be undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric.
I suggest you visit Canada for a time. Your attitude suggests that you have not--or that perhaps you have gone there and behaved thus, and felt rejected. I can see how that could happen. You've been very insulting to an institution many Canadians respect. If you went up there and did the same, well, you probably didn't learn as much as you otherwise could have. None of the insults you generated toward the monarchy are valid descriptions of the Canadian form of democracy I've followed and studied.
Want to know what's shameful, primitive, ridiculous and barbaric? Coming in here and behaving as you have, using words like that. It's shameful because it embarrasses your country and its people. It's primitive because it's dogmatic and closed to learning, the brute force approach. It's ridiculous because it has no chance to get any traction for your anti-monarchical crusade, and it's barbaric because civilized newcomers tend to show respect for differences even when they don't agree. You might want to find new words that can't more easily be applied to you than to Queen Elizabeth II of Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
Authority, means having the power to enforce laws. The unelected Queen has the legal authority to use the executive powers granted to her via the Canadian Constitution. Therefore, the premise for your after the fact question is wrong.
What little authority the Queen has rests absolutely upon Canadian sufferance. In short, were it abused, it would be rejected and renounced in a democratic way. It is not abused, thus it is not rejected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
And how was I prejudice for encouraging Canadians to support Canadian immigrants who are fighting against monarchy? Not to mention the fact that monarchy is the ultimate prejudice against human rights.
Own a dictionary and use it. Prejudice means the prejudgment of something. You have prejudged this institution without ever living under it, just because you happen to believe monarchy is fundamentally and essentially undemocratic. The most charitable interpretation is that you came to preach and evangelize for your position, which you begin by assuming is fundamentally superior. A simpler explanation is 'troll.'
You could do a lot more good for democracy if you stayed home and spoke out against the corporate ownership and operation of so much of our own leadership. We might even agree that there's a lot of work there for both of us, getting our own national house in order so that rich interests can't just keep buying Congressional favors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
And all of those responses would've been nothing but sad and bogus excuses.
You need to learn that your definition of viewpoints is valid only to you. Your pronouncements do not make something truth. There's a lot else you need to learn, but I'd start with that. You have embarrassed yourself, fellow Americans such as me, and your country with your behavior here. You have lived up to some of our most lamentable stereotypes. Articulate ignorance and dismissiveness is still ignorance and dismissiveness; it's just easier to read. You had the opportunity to come here and open a thoughtful discussion, but your denigrating language at start made it clear you had only come to lecture and insult, treating your opponents as inferiors. They have been quite restrained by my lights.
I was sixteen once, as I gather you must be. I thought I knew everything useful, and that anyone who disagreed was just wrong. I held ignorant, dogmatic views and was sometimes abrasive and even unbearable toward people who saw the world differently. I thought that I could just make pronouncements as if they were fact, and that they had to be treated as if credible. That's pretty normal at that age.
Then a number of people who knew better, and knew how to question my blithe and simpleminded assumptions, rhetorically kicked my butt up around my ears until I realized the error of my ways, and learned to think critically. I stopped doing what you've done here.
Try engaging people like a respectable, advanced, sensible, civilized adult. Take my word that it works better.
With all that supposed power you seem to think the queen has it might not be in your best interest Dknoble to p iss her off.. at this point ya might want to keep one eye over your shoulder ..
You must be mistaken because her power can't beat freedom. Plus, America already beat her family twice before, It'd be too mean to do it 3 times in a row.
Excellent posts, j.k.k. I don't drink but hubby has a stash of single malt and Cuban cigars should you ever come this way. However, every country has its nutcases, and I can't imagine anyone judging Americans based on Dr. Knoble.
Well, which is it? You want me to post my papers (or cites to my papers) on the US Constitution? In a thread that you yourself admit has nothing to do with the United States of America? Really? Perhaps you should reread and rethink what you want in a thread that you started on the Canadian monarchy.
Admittedly, my own studies and papers on the US constitution have never dealt with the Articles of Confederation. I've been more interested in researching and authoring papers on the US constitutional law in regards to its effect through the Northwest Ordinance 1787, the Missouri Compromise 1820, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854; and how they all coalesced to create a state of anarchy in the Kansas Territory in 1856: the sack of Lawrence, John Brown and his sword-wielding assassins, and the beating of Massachusetts' senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber by Preston Brooks of South Carolina.
As you can see, it is obvious that I've studied Canadian constitutional law. It should be equally obvious that having studied that rather thoroughly, I branched out and studied that of our close friend and neighbour. Perhaps not as thoroughly as I could, but I study that which interests me. Still, as you said, this is not a thread about America. So we'll leave it at that.
And if most Canadians either don't feel that it's important enough to care about, and don't support these immigrants, then ... ?
Of course it's not about America but you guys keep bringing it up, so I've responded in kind.
But you haven't studied the Articles of Confederation, so how can you truly understand the US Constitution? Get to it and let's see that essay!
If some don't care about this issue, it's our job to encourage them. Let's do it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons
One overwhelming question that has not come up before in this or previous threads in which you have participated: why do you care? You're obviously not Canadian, you are not resident in Canada, you seem to have no political connections to Canada at all. Why does it matter to you how Canadians are governed, as opposed to (say) the French, the Chinese, the Spanish, the Moroccans? What is it about Canada as a constitutional monarchy that puts a bee up your butt?
Someone has already asked that question and I've already answered it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
I care because the principles of monarchy are against equality, freedom and democracy.
You have embarrassed yourself, fellow Americans such as me, and your country with your behavior here. You have lived up to some of our most lamentable stereotypes.
Thank you, JKK; and as a result of your response, I will continue to hold Americans in high regard. I will admit that the OP caused me to think otherwise, but your remarks tell me that not all Americans are as ignorant as he is.
I will look forward to buying you a beer, should our paths cross.
CS
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.
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.
should you ever come this way. However, every country has its nutcases, and I can't imagine anyone judging Americans based on Dr. Knoble.
