# Re: Falling throught the cracks as an Anti-Monarchist ?



## truth_be_told (29 Apr 2006)

> I received my commission by the grace of God and Her Majesty, Elizabeth II not too long ago



What the @*%$# ??? What is wrong with people on this forum? I will be enrolling shortly and am looking forward to a long and productive career with the Canadian Forces. But I definately am not willing to pledge alegiance to the so-called queen (note small letters). I love Canada with all my heart and am willing to lay down my life protecting my country. I could go on and on about how patriotic I am and not recognizing the queen as the head of my country doesnt make me less Canadian. But i'll leave my justifications for later.

Are there any anti-monarchists in the Canadian Forces? I sure hope and pray there are. Please let me know because I sure do not want to be amongst a bunch of people who pledge alegiance to a monarch of another country. I am aware there are quite a few Quebecors who will definately share my views. But on the whole I am hoping that there is a majority of english speaking anti-monarchists. I am hoping the numbers are representative of the general Canadian population like 60-40 (60 against monarchy).

But its really annoying when CF members on this forum keep saying things like "god save the queen" and all that BS. There is no need for BS like this in a modern democratic system like we have in Canada. Respect for history is all fine and good and we do that in history classes, what more do monarchists want. Dont push it down our throat because that is what democracy is all about. 

I hope the referendum to declare Canada a republic is held soon, coz its killing me.

Show of hands for all anti-monarchists (is republicans the correct term)


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2006)

As a flaming anti-monarchist, your rant deserves its' own little piece of real estate.  I don't know where you come from or what you were taught growing up, but you are outright rude and crude in your initial presentation to a new crowd.  We have been waiting patiently for your first post.  If you keep up this line of posting, you will be introduced to the Warning System, which you should read before posting, and perhaps every mention of your existence will be removed.  You definitely are not off to a good start, but we shall see how this develops.  Perhaps there is room for some creative and civil discusion on your emotional rant.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Apr 2006)

truth_be_told said:
			
		

> I am hoping the numbers are representative of the general Canadian population like 60-40 (60 against monarchy).



Source?

And _*God Save the Queen*_ to you as well.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Apr 2006)

> I definately am not willing to pledge alegiance to the so-called queen



Then you won't be joining, will you?



> But its really annoying when CF members on this forum keep saying things like "god save the queen" and all that BS. There is no need for BS like this in a modern democratic system like we have in Canada. Respect for history is all fine and good and we do that in history classes, what more do monarchists want. Dont push it down our throat because that is what democracy is all about.



You really seem to have an axe to grind, don't you?  An opinion is one thing, being offensive is another...  You'll have a fine time in a military with plenty of royal connections, where the crown is actually used as a rank badge and which legally works directly for the Crown... Whatever one thinks of the Monarchy, it is part of our system of government and will be for the foreseeable future.

Best of luck.. :


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Apr 2006)

truth_be_told said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Are there any anti-monarchists in the Canadian Forces?
> 
> ...



Not honest ones.

The oath you'll take will be to "Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her lawful heirs and successors".  If you can't take that oath seriously then I suggest you look elsewhere for employment/excitement/self-gratification, or whatever it is you are looking for in joining HER MAJESTY'S Canadian Forces!!

If you DO take the oath and serve, then you are someone who cannot be taken at his oath - hardly a credit to ANY organization to which you may aspire - you will be discovered as a liar and dishonest individual by your men and superiors, and whatever dreams of leadership you may have will be dashed.

If you CAN'T take the oath - then don't.

I have no problem with your point of view (although I disagree with it)  - I simply disagree with anyone who can swear an oath to something and then disregard that oath.  Hopefully, I have not described you.

Good day, Sir.


Edit:  God Save The Queen.


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

> And God Save the Queen to you as well.



That is the first time I can recall seeing that statement made on this site.


Go away troll.


----------



## Screw (29 Apr 2006)

There are those who dont like the queen in the military but they are quiet about it. RESPECT.Is the word I believe they use.Thay know that even if they arent fond of the queen they understand that many are- and the whole institution is built around the crown.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Apr 2006)

I just toasted her Majesty with a glass of  :-[Irish Cream......hmmm, is that ok?


----------



## Nemo888 (29 Apr 2006)

I took the Queens shilling. I am now a commonwealth soldier.

*Dei Gratia Regina* , stop using all Canadian coins as well weiner :crybaby:


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Apr 2006)

> Respect for history is all fine and good and we do that in history classes, what more do monarchists want. Dont push it down our throat because that is what democracy is all about.



Ahhhhh ..... in the event that you succeed in the military, you will discover that respect for history, heritage, and tradition is very important.

Methinks you have a bit of growing up to do in the meantime.

It's not so much what you are saying, it's how you are saying it.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Apr 2006)

God save The Queen.

The entire CF is built around the Monarchy. The *Royal* Canadian Regiment. *Princess* Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Two units I've belonged to, alone. Do some actual reading on Canada, Great Britain, their political systems, and the Royal family. All you've managed to do is display your complete and utter ignorance, as well as your total lack of manners. I am actually embarrassed for you. (More so for your parents, mind you.)


----------



## truth_be_told (29 Apr 2006)

I will have to take the oath and pledge alegaince to the queen FOR NOW. even though I dont mean it. This is my country as well and my countries army. I just have to wait till the moanrchy is abolished is all.

Ok i exaggerated the numbers but its not that far off: almost 50/50(read below from source)

Got this from a relaible site.

http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/youth/world/rshaw.htm

"Their efforts on public opinion so far have been, at best, divided.  An Ipsos-Reid poll commissioned by CTV and the Globe and Mail on Oct.4, 2002, split Canadians right down the centre on the future of the monarchy with 51 per cent opting to keep a royal presence in Canada after the Queen's reign ends, and 48 per cent saying good riddance to royal rubbish."


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Apr 2006)

> will have to take the oath and pledge alegaince to the queen FOR NOW



So, you intend to lie?


----------



## paracowboy (29 Apr 2006)

truth_be_told said:
			
		

> I will have to take the oath and pledge alegaince to the queen FOR NOW. even though I dont mean it.


so you intend to lie? Under oath? Congratulations. You are making yourself eligible for punishment. You intend to commit the gravest sin any soldier can: he's going to lie to his comrades. Don't bother. We don't want you. 

Liars and thieves need not apply.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Apr 2006)

http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/youth/world/rshaw.htm

Perhaps the following paragraphs helps with context:



> Their efforts on public opinion so far have been, at best, divided.  An Ipsos-Reid poll commissioned by CTV and the Globe and Mail on Oct.4, 2002, split Canadians right down the centre on the future of the monarchy with 51 per cent opting to keep a royal presence in Canada after the Queen's reign ends, and 48 per cent saying good riddance to royal rubbish.
> 
> It could be considered ironic that it takes the split of the Canadian population on an issue to bring the leaders of the two diametrically opposed groups together. But both Freda and Aimers insist *you can't put too much faith in public polling*, because the questions are vague and *Canadians don't understand the core issues involved*.  *"Canadians are profoundly ignorant*," says Aimers in attempting to explain the poll numbers.  *"Not just of the monarchy, but of the political system in general.*"  Freda agrees, saying, "*it gives you insight into just how little people know.*"


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

truth_be_told,

I am giving you exactly 30 minutes from the time my post is made to PM me with an explanation as to why you have two accounts here. I am baffled by your behavior. In your one account you ask questions and receive good advice that will most likely help in your application. In the other account you seem to be off your meds. What's the matter? Not brave enough to tell people how you really feel before asking for advice? Or were you just using the people who took the time to answer you?

Take paracowboy's advice, do not bother - we do not want you.

Time is ticking, troll.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Apr 2006)

truth_be_told said:
			
		

> I will have to take the oath and pledge alegaince to the queen FOR NOW. even though I dont mean it
> ..."



Read what I said again - if you CAN'T take the oath, then DON'T.

You disgust me, and you will no doubt disgust your peers, subordinates, and superiors with your cavalier attitude to swearing an oath.  You cannot be trusted to live by your word - and my friend, that's ALL you've got to live by.

Please emigrate somewhere - if there's any place on earth duplicitous enough to accept you.


----------



## winchable (29 Apr 2006)

Long live the Queen! God save the Queen!

But for the grace of God and the Queen my family is what it is today.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Apr 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> truth_be_told,
> 
> I am giving you exactly 30 minutes from the time my post is made to PM me with an explanation as to why you have two accounts here.
> 
> ...



Tick ...  Tick ... Tick ... Tick ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2006)

Rule Brittannia,

We mean it man....

dileas

tess

Death to trolls . . . Death to trolls . . . Death to trolls . . . Death to trolls . . . nananah  na nananah  hey yeh good bye.....


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Apr 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Tick ...  Tick ... Tick ... Tick ...



Tick .. Tick ... Tick ...

Times up - is he banned yet, or does he [edit] have [/edit] an interesting explanation?

Edit:  For a forgotten word.


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

No worries Roy, he's gone now. He tried to lie to me by saying he was at an internet cafe - I replied that it was not likely based on the facts that I had gathered. Another more resourceful Staff member found out, without a shadow of doubt, that he was lying to me. He then sent me another PM saying I was limiting his free speech on this private website. So I told him he'd either have fun in DB or get the snot kicked out of him for being a liar and a blade.

Fair?

He had multiple accounts and was banned, that is the endgame here.

Now, I am off to watch the hockey game.

God Save the Queen and Scott Ban the Trolls.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Apr 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> God Save the Queen and Scott Ban the Trolls.



Well done - I'll raise a glass to "Scott the Troll Banner" later this evening, right after I raise one to Her Majesty.


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Well that was interesting. I'm surprised this site only attracts such a small number of trolls and idiots, although they do provide excellent entertainment when they start posting.



Oh boy if you only knew.

Regardless, we do have good posters here and, of our 10,000 +/- membership, we have very few idiots. Usually we are notified fairly quick of the idiots by you guys or just by picking up on them through our viewing of the board. We rely on the members to help this site as, after all, it is yours as much as it is mine. I feel that it is your responsibility as much as mine to ensure that the site, and its content, fall into line with what we all want to see. And having said that I am glad to have the support and say thanks to you for showing it. It's not often the DS have good things said about them - more often we are called fascists or are accused of infringing on someones right of free speech (On a private site no less :) but whatever.

So thanks to you who make me keep coming back here and having fun. Though I must admit that having a chew toy like our friend the troll is fun on a Saturday evening!!

God Save the Queen, bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada where it belongs and someone ring the bell, school is in session, sucka!


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

Why exactly does anyone here feel that having a monarch is anything but a horrible idea?

As for the oath, I hope none of you would honor it beyond your better judgement.


----------



## Torlyn (30 Apr 2006)

Speaking of Trolls...   :

T


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Speaking of Trolls...   :
> 
> T



Being an officer and 27-years-old, you should know better than to jump to conclusions.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Apr 2006)

> As for the oath, I hope none of you would honor it beyond your better judgement.



Clarify?


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Clarify?



I mean that the oath should not be taken too literally. I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order even if it came straight from the mouth of the queen and the governor general.

I may have declared that I bare “true allegiance to her majesty,” but in fact I do not because my loyalty to Canada and the queen is by no means unlimited and exists only in good faith.


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2006)

Well Rob, rather than accusing Torlyn of "jumping to conclusions" you might consider studying some history and political science with a bit of philosophy to go along with your BSc, which by the way, is not an MOC.  In my opinion, your comment makes you a very real candidate as a troll.  

The comment itself is quite insulting to anyone who has ever taken the oath to enroll or enlist in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed forces, or for that matter, any oath.  If an oath was against my better judgement, I wouldn't take it.  Some of us take our oaths seriously, and that in turn means that our "word" is worth something.

As for an illegal order, that has very little to do with your oath.  As at least one respected poster once wrote, "...the Queen made you an officer, so that you know when to disobey orders."

Your comment is particularly rude to those of us who hold the queen's commission or a queen's warrant.  Have a little respect please, you will find it gets you further here.  And by the way, to the DS, I think that you are doing a very good job moderating this site and this thread in particular.

God Save the Queen!


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Apr 2006)

> I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order



As is the perogative (no, duty) of any Canadian soldier.. that's nothing compelling   :

Methinks you are just trying to sound outrageous (troll), or you really have no clue what you are talking about...


----------



## RangerRay (30 Apr 2006)

God save the Queen!


----------



## Torlyn (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Being an officer and 27-years-old, you should know better than to jump to conclusions.



You took a jab at my Supreme Commander, and given that she's 80 years old, and a little pre-occupied at the moment, I responded on her behalf.   :

If you insult my men, anyone in my CoC, or my commision, I haven't jumped to conclusions.  You've led me there.

I'm assuming you're not in the military (given your empty profile) and have never had to take the oath.  So, what gives you the right to question my belief in the oath I took?


----------



## Roy Harding (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> I mean that the oath should not be taken too literally. I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order even if it came straight from the mouth of the queen and the governor general.
> 
> I may have declared that I bare “true allegiance to her majesty,” but in fact I do not because my loyalty to Canada and the queen is by no means unlimited and exists only in good faith.



Tell you what, Rob - if you reply to this I'll give you a million dollars (but don't take that too literally).  Guess I can't be trusted, huh?

Good for you that you would refuse an illegal order - the Queen rules through the rule of law - that's the way it works, glad to see that you figured that out.  If you have, indeed, taken the oath then your liability is, indeed, "unlimited".  Just ask any of the thousands who have given their all for their loyalty to Canada and the Queen.

You're missing the point, bub - if you CAN'T take the oath, then DON'T.  

I have no problem with folks who have "republican" leanings and say so, regardless I disagree with them.  I have one HELL of a problem with those who take an oath under false pretenses - they are pretenders and cannot be trusted.

I note that your profile says nothing about military experience or hope for such in the future - great - you wouldn't fit in well with that great organization known as Her Majesty's Canadian Forces - where a man means what he says.


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Well Rob, rather than accusing Torlyn of "jumping to conclusions" you might consider studying some history and political science with a bit of philosophy to go along with your BSc, which by the way, is not an MOC.  In my opinion, your comment makes you a very real candidate as a troll.



I’m enrolled in a double major. One of my majors is international relations, which will yield a B.A, but my other major qualifies me for a B.Sc, so I’ve chosen to go with the science degree instead. It’s nothing more than technicality. 
Thanks for jumping to conclusions and assuming that I don’t study history, political science and philosophy because I have B.Sc written under MOC. As for why I’d put it there, I was told to do so by a senior member a while back because my profile was otherwise empty. 



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> The comment itself is quite insulting to anyone who has ever taken the oath to enroll or enlist in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed forces, or for that matter, any oath.  If an oath was against my better judgement, I wouldn't take it.  Some of us take our oaths seriously, and that in turn means that our "word" is worth something.



Captain, don’t tell me you’ve never gone back on your word. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who never gone back on their word, and if you could I’m sure it’s only because they’ve never been given ample reason to do so.

The preponderance of marriage ceremonies constitute some form of oath, but we should not fault people for seeking a divorce and in doing so, breaking the oath they’ve taken. 
In 1934, the German Army was forced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and at the time, that might not have seemed so repulsive an idea. 
Those who took the Soldier’s Oath of the Weimar Republic had also sworn their loyalty to Hitler by way of his supreme office.
The fact of the matter is that things change, and as a result, I would never swear or declare an oath of fealty to anything other than an ideal or abstract concept.



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> As for an illegal order, that has very little to do with your oath.  As at least one respected poster once wrote, "...the Queen made you an officer, so that you know when to disobey orders."



That’s just another way of saying what I’ve put bluntly.
If you’ve taken the oath, then disobeying an order from the queen or one of her heirs or successors constitutes breaking the oath.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> As is the perogative (no, duty) of any Canadian soldier.. that's nothing compelling   :
> 
> Methinks you are just trying to sound outrageous (troll), or you really have no clue what you are talking about...



An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally. This nation and the British monarch are not infallible entities.



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> You took a jab at my Supreme Commander, and given that she's 80 years old, and a little pre-occupied at the moment, I responded on her behalf.   :
> 
> If you insult my men, anyone in my CoC, or my commision, I haven't jumped to conclusions.  You've led me there.



No, you jumped to conclusions because you concluded that I was a troll. Does having a moral disagreement with the concept of a monarchy which runs perpendicular to the idea of equality among all people constitute trolling? Consult a dictionary. 



			
				Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Tell you what, Rob - if you reply to this I'll give you a million dollars (but don't take that too literally).  Guess I can't be trusted, huh?
> 
> Good for you that you would refuse an illegal order - the Queen rules through the rule of law - that's the way it works, glad to see that you figured that out.  If you have, indeed, taken the oath then your liability is, indeed, "unlimited".  Just ask any of the thousands who have given their all for their loyalty to Canada and the Queen.
> 
> ...



No person of government deserves unlimited loyalty.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Apr 2006)

> An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally.



This is where you are lost. Individual values vary from person to person. The definition of an illegal order does not. I suggest that you stop speaking about something of which you have no clue - the oath a soldier takes on enrollment.

You're against government, monarchy, etc.... great. We get it.


----------



## DJ (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order



Yes I can.  You're underestimating soldiers.   (Muskrat beat me to it)



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> No person of government deserves unlimited loyalty.



Perhaps not.  However, the Queen is head of state, not the head of the government.  Brush up on the IR.  

Edit: not meant to sound as cranky as it reads.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Apr 2006)

> An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally. This nation and the British monarch are not infallible entities.



You're wrong.  The legalese here is very clear.  A soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry out an order that is _manifestly_ illegal.  "Manifestly" means, in this case, obvious to a reasonable person operating under similar circumstances.  If an order does not been the test of being _manifestly_ illegal, the soldier is obligated to carry it out.

As for the rest of your rather dubious argument, since the Queen is rather unlikely to order us to commit a war crime, the point is moot, isn't it?


----------



## old medic (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Captain, don’t tell me you’ve never gone back on your word. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who never gone back on their word, and if you could I’m sure it’s only because they’ve never been given ample reason to do so.



So your saying, don't bother being loyal to anything. You may wish to change your mind.



> In 1934, the German Army was forced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and at the time, that might not have seemed so repulsive an idea.



Comparing Canadians to Nazi Germany, how insightful.



> The fact of the matter is that things change, and as a result, I would never swear or declare an oath of fealty to anything other than an ideal or abstract concept.



Do not do it then.  Better include citizenship oaths in there, nationalism is a concept.



> No, you jumped to conclusions because you concluded that I was a troll.



No, he was right. Your a complete troll.






<edit: fixed grammar>


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Apr 2006)

"That’s just another way of saying what I’ve put bluntly.
If you’ve taken the oath, then disobeying an order from the queen or one of her heirs or successors constitutes breaking the oath."


I've said it elsewhere, and I see I have to say it again:  Educated and smart are not the same thing.  If an ILLEGAL order comes down from the burning bush on Mt Sinai itself, you are duty bound as a soldier to refuse it.  As long as we're tossing about NAZI reference, " I was only following orders" was not a legal defence in Nurnberg, and it isn't today.


----------



## Torlyn (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Captain, don’t tell me you’ve never gone back on your word. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who never gone back on their word, and if you could I’m sure it’s only because they’ve never been given ample reason to do so.



Just because YOU have a problem sticking with the truth, stop "jumping to conclusions" and believe that the Captain isn't an honest person.  So you lie.  Fine.  Just because you do, doesn't mean he does.



> No, you jumped to conclusions because you concluded that I was a troll. Does having a moral disagreement with the concept of a monarchy which runs perpendicular to the idea of equality among all people constitute trolling? Consult a dictionary.



You never stated a moral disagreement.  You stated something contrary and insulting, without offering any sort of evidence/coherent thought to back it up.  Had you done so, I would have been more than happy to engage you on a rational debate on the subject.  A thought, perhaps instead of spending so much time clarifying the qualifications your degree *MAY* grant you when you graduate, you could do a little research first?  Legality of disobeying an illegal order...  3 seconds on google and you would have saved yourself from looking like an ass.

While you are consulting that dictionary you seem so fond of, check it for "rational" and "debate".  You will see that you have failed miserably on both.  For the record, you've proven that you've earned the title, Troll.

T


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2006)

Rob, you are displaying some remarkably rigid views for one so young.  Try to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks in your arguments.  You will find that when you do, you will obtain better grades, both in your papers and on this forum.


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> This is where you are lost. Individual values vary from person to person. The definition of an illegal order does not. I suggest that you stop speaking about something of which you have no clue - the oath a soldier takes on enrollment.
> 
> You're against government, monarchy, etc.... great. We get it.





			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> Yes I can.  You're underestimating soldiers.   (Muskrat beat me to it)



Surely you agree that there are certain situations when it is not extremely clear whether or not an order is legal. 
Also, I'm sure you agree that most individuals do not have a perfect understanding of the law. 
Many orders are only deemed to have been wrong in retrospect, such as the arbitrary detention of individuals of certain ethnicities during times of war.
Furthermore, obedient and well disciplined soldiers may find it difficult to disobey the orders of a superior officer. 

I'm not against government.



			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> Perhaps not.  However, the Queen is head of state, not the head of the government.  Brush up on the IR.
> 
> Edit: not meant to sound as cranky as it reads.



I didn't refer to the queen as either, I said simply that "no person of government deserves unlimited loyalty."



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  The legalese here is very clear.  A soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry out an order that is _manifestly_ illegal.  "Manifestly" means, in this case, obvious to a reasonable person operating under similar circumstances.  If an order does not been the test of being _manifestly_ illegal, the soldier is obligated to carry it out.



That might cover rape and genocide, but there are certainly cases when it's not quite so clear. Certain military units routinely carry out illegal orders. My understanding is that it is standard operating procedure among certain American Special Forces units to “neutralize” any individual that could blow their cover when they’re working behind enemy lines, including civilian children. That’s clearly illegal. My point in mentioning that is not to criticize the Americans or members of the Special Forces for doing what they must do, but just to suggest that desperate times often call for desperate measures. The combat environment can often serve to obscure what is right and what is wrong, making it easier for illegal orders to be carried out with less scrutiny than they would normally be given. The Milgram Experiment demonstrated this quite clearly. 



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As for the rest of your rather dubious argument, since the Queen is rather unlikely to order us to commit a war crime, the point is moot, isn't it?



It’s very unlikely, but surely that doesn’t justify swearing an oath to her. We can only speculate on the state of the world in ten years. I don’t suspect German officers swearing the Soldier’s Oath in 1929 could have expected what would come a decade later. It may be beyond unlikely that anything remotely similar will ever happen to Canada, but it’s not impossible.

Regardless, why should members of the armed forces of Canada, a sovereign nation, declare their allegiance to a foreign monarch?



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> So your saying, don't bother being loyal to anything. You may wish to change your mind.



No, I’m saying that we should not be loyal to things that aren’t set in stone. There’s a difference between swearing to protect and uphold ideals such as freedom, justice and liberty and swearing to serve at the whim of the queen, especially when her only credential is that she was supposedly ordained by an entity whose existence is improvable.



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> Comparing Canadians to Nazi Germany, how insightful.



Do you think the men and women of today’s Canadian Forces are that much different from those of the Germany armed forces in 1934? Newsflash: Germans aren’t evil people. Their officers and NCMs were also just citizens who wanted to serve their country, and were forced to take an oath Hitler to have the privilege of doing so. 



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> Do not do it then.  Better include citizenship oaths in there, nationalism is a concept.



That’s not really an option. Do you honestly believe that someone should have to swear an oath to the queen of England to serve Canada?



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> No, he was right. *Your* a complete troll.
> 
> <edit: fixed grammar>


No, I’m not a troll. 
No, you ain't fixed the grammar.



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> Just because YOU have a problem sticking with the truth, stop "jumping to conclusions" and believe that the Captain isn't an honest person.  So you lie.  Fine.  Just because you do, doesn't mean he does.



I'm a very honest person. In fact, I'm so honest that I actual tell people when I'm being dishonest.
There’s a limit to honesty. For example, let’s say you get married, and you pledge to remain married and faithful to your wife (I’m assuming you’re male) for better or for worse. Now, heaven forbid, she gets some sort of head injury, becomes a crazy nymphomaniac, cheats on you twice a day and has contracted every STI known to man. By divorcing her, you’d be breaking an oath, are you telling me you wouldn’t do it?
My apologizes for such a ridiculous scenario, but I’m just trying to point out that oaths have limits.
I’d really prefer they didn’t, but I really don’t have an option when serving my country requires me to declare my allegiance to a foreign monarch. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the queen or anything like that, in fact, I’m distantly related to her through the Erbach-Schonberg family. But I’m really left with no other option if I want to serve my Country. For that reason, I’d prefer an oath where one would swear to uphold abstract concepts, such as in the American Pledge of Allegiance.  



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> You never stated a moral disagreement.  You stated something contrary and insulting, without offering any sort of evidence/coherent thought to back it up.  Had you done so, I would have been more than happy to engage you on a rational debate on the subject.  A thought, perhaps instead of spending so much time clarifying the qualifications your degree *MAY* grant you when you graduate, you could do a little research first?  Legality of disobeying an illegal order...  3 seconds on google and you would have saved yourself from looking like an ***.
> 
> While you are consulting that dictionary you seem so fond of, check it for "rational" and "debate".  You will see that you have failed miserably on both.  For the record, you've proven that you've earned the title, Troll.
> 
> T



No, I asked why having a monarch isn’t a horrible idea. I formulated the question in such a way as to convey to the reader my opposition to it. All you’ve done so far is jump to conclusions.
What’s this about rational debate? You’re an officer, albeit a newly minted one, but maybe you should lead by example. All you’ve done so far is try to criticize statements I’ve made that have very little to do with the question I’ve actually posed. If you intend to participate in a debate, maybe you should do something more than try to look for hairline cracks and break them open. That's all well and good if all you're trying to do is assassinate my character, but I sincerely hope you haven't been trying to do that because if you have you've been doing a piss-poor job.
Try “getting on track.”



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Rob, you are displaying some remarkably rigid views for one so young.  Try to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks in your arguments.  You will find that when you do, you will obtain better grades, both in your papers and on this forum.



I've often been advised as such. I assure you that my vehement support of republicanism stems directly from my love for Canada.


----------



## Screw (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> That might cover rape and genocide, but there are certainly cases when it's not quite so clear. Certain military units routinely carry out illegal orders. My understanding is that it is standard operating procedure among certain American Special Forces units to “neutralize” any individual that could blow their cover when they’re working behind enemy lines, including civilian children. That’s clearly illegal. My point in mentioning that is not to criticize the Americans or members of the Special Forces for doing what they must do, but just to suggest that desperate times often call for desperate measures. The combat environment can often serve to obscure what is right and what is wrong, making it easier for illegal orders to be carried out with less scrutiny than they would normally be given. The Milgram Experiment demonstrated this quite clearly.



A child bent on informing the enemy of your presence isnt he becoming a combatant? I saw the episode of JAG you are refering too but cant remember the outcome.


----------



## DJ (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Surely you agree that there are certain situations when it is not extremely clear whether or not an order is legal.
> Also, I'm sure you agree that most individuals do not have a perfect understanding of the law.
> Many orders are only deemed to have been wrong in retrospect, such as the arbitrary detention of individuals of certain ethnicities during times of war.
> Furthermore, obedient and well disciplined soldiers may find it difficult to disobey the orders of a superior officer.


  
I will agree that you have no idea as to how soldiers are trained.  Your belittlement is insulting.   



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I didn't refer to the queen as either, I said simply that "no person of government deserves unlimited loyalty."


  
I guess I just jumped to a conclusion considering that the entire argument has been about the monarchy so far....  



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> That might cover rape and genocide, but there are certainly cases when it's not quite so clear. Certain military units routinely carry out illegal orders. My understanding is that it is standard operating procedure among certain American Special Forces units to “neutralize” any individual that could blow their cover when they’re working behind enemy lines, including civilian children. That’s clearly illegal. My point in mentioning that is not to criticize the Americans or members of the Special Forces for doing what they must do, but just to suggest that desperate times often call for desperate measures. The combat environment can often serve to obscure what is right and what is wrong, making it easier for illegal orders to be carried out with less scrutiny than they would normally be given. The Milgram Experiment demonstrated this quite clearly.


  

"My understanding????"  This type of (inflammatory) speculation will not get you anywhere in any argument, (a hint for your future papers).  Besides the uncredited 'information' that you profess, I would reconsider your use of American examples, (as speculative as they are), when talking about the Canadian military.     



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Regardless, why should members of the armed forces of Canada, a sovereign nation, declare their allegiance to a foreign monarch?





			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe that someone should have to swear an oath to the queen of England to serve Canada?





			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I’d really prefer they didn’t, but I really don’t have an option when serving my country requires me to declare my allegiance to a foreign monarch.


Why do you keep referring the the Queen as a foreign monarch?  Her official Canadian title: 
_Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.  _
She may spend the majority of her time in the UK but she is still the Queen of Canada.  She's not foreign.    



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> You’re an officer, albeit a newly minted one, but maybe you should lead by example.


What the hell is that?  Your entire piece has been inflammatory but this is utterly uncalled for.  It's this writing style that has you labelled 'Troll.'    
More critical substance, cutting-down significantly on the generalizations, and stopping with the pitiful attacks on the character of others will do wonders for your ability to engage in meaningful debate on this board, and in the classroom.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

R0B,

Leaving off your persistence at decrying the current system and assuming the theoretical worst of service members in support of the Monarchy, I'd like to see you conclusively prove a better alternative.  If you are resistant to being convinced otherwise, then perhaps your effort should be directed towards rationally convincing others of your alternative.

Please explain how the life of an average Canadian will be instantly improved if Canada were to declare itself a republic and chisel the crown off every government edifice.

Please explain what moral controls will be then placed on national governments (in which we see the public placing so much trust) once they literally become the 'highest' power in the country.

What material advantage do you see accruing to Canadians, otherwise; what moral argument will you offer to the average Canadian to convince him/her that this is a "better" alternative?

With what, exactly, since the Monarch herself does little in the daily life of government, do you replace those Vice-regal aspects of our system?

Please keep in mind this should not be the "argument" for a left-wing university student; this is for "Joe Canadian" who doesn't have a particular problem with that part of government, and does remember his grandfather/grandfather telling stories of fighting for "King and Country."


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2006)

And to add to Captain O'Leary's post, can you make such a case without descending into personal attacks, logical and factual flaws, and radicalism designed to inflame?  That would be a departure from what you have been posting already.  Anyway, back to marking papers...



edited to correct typo


----------



## Aislinn (30 Apr 2006)

It's amazing how little people understand monarchy in Canada. The entire country is built around the Monarchy. She is our head of state. Our laws, our court systems, federal and provincial governments, police, military, coinage, stamps, even our flag bear evidence of this. (Yes, our official flag is still the Union Jack). As for the oath of allegiance, similar forms of it are used for not just the military and citizenship, but also for introduction into the Police Forces, the Judiciary, the Senate, and by the PM when elected into office. The are a few interesting things about our oath. When we say it, we understand that our allegiance is to our government and its laws as embodied by the Monarch. Also, the oath is reciprocal. Just as the oath taker now has responsibilities to the Monarch (and therefore the government), the Monarch has responsibilities to the oath taker. During coronation, Queen Elizabeth had to swear to govern all the various countries that she is Monarch of according to their respective laws and customs. She also swears to use her power for law and justice, in mercy, and this in turn means supporting the governments that take care of its citizens. It is a complex balance of power, and one that I'm proud of. 

Cheers


----------



## Screw (30 Apr 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> A child bent on informing the enemy of your presence isnt he becoming a combatant? I saw the episode of JAG you are refering too but cant remember the outcome.



I looked it up- actually killing the child in that episode was determined to be an illegal order. Looks like even American TV space ninjas follow the law....


----------



## Shamrock (30 Apr 2006)

This certainly is a dynamic conversation.  To go back to its original concern, the CF does hold in very high esteem on a professional as well the witnessed personal levels.  National Defence Act, Part III: Code of Service Discipline, Division 2: Service Offences and Punishments, §92 (Disgraceful Conduct) states:

_Every person who uses traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment._​
So, in conclusion, anti-monarchists may have a difficult time in the CF.  Those willing to swallow their personal ethics and keep their mouths shut would still find it difficult as they'd probably end up surrounded by pro-monarchists.

Kenny out


----------



## R0B (30 Apr 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> A child bent on informing the enemy of your presence isnt he becoming a combatant? I saw the episode of JAG you are refering too but cant remember the outcome.



No, the child is not a combatant, and in many cases you may not even know if his or her intentions. I'm not referring to a JAG episode; I'm referring to a show I saw on the Discovery Channel when a US Special Forces team somewhere in the Middle East, behind enemy lines had a few children run right up to the hole in which they had concealed themselves. One of the men was ordered to kill the kids but couldn't go through with it.



			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> I will agree that you have no idea as to how soldiers are trained.  Your belittlement is insulting.



It’s not belittlement, I’m being realistic. Some situations are so confusing that legal experts wouldn’t be able to give you a clear answer in a reasonable time frame.
  


			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> I guess I just jumped to a conclusion considering that the entire argument has been about the monarchy so far....


  
You did jump to conclusions.



			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> "My understanding????"  This type of (inflammatory) speculation will not get you anywhere in any argument, (a hint for your future papers).  Besides the uncredited 'information' that you profess, I would reconsider your use of American examples, (as speculative as they are), when talking about the Canadian military.



Calvin… You’re missing the point. Not only have you chosen to attack my choice of words, which in no way contributes to debate, you’ve chosen to assume what meaning I’ve tried to convey with those words. You’re wrong, and I’m not going to bother to try explaining it to you. Read a few books about writing before you consider yourself an expert worthy of bestowing advice upon others.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> R0B,
> 
> Leaving off your persistence at decrying the current system and assuming the theoretical worst of service members in support of the Monarchy, I'd like to see you conclusively prove a better alternative.  If you are resistant to being convinced otherwise, then perhaps your effort should be directed towards rationally convincing others of your alternative.



I think the better alternative would be become a truly sovereign nation, let the governor general and all the lieutenant governors go and become constitutional republic.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please explain how the life of an average Canadian will be instantly improved if Canada were to declare itself a republic and chisel the crown off every government edifice.



The biggest difference the average Canadian will experience is a new face on their money. That’s about it.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please explain what moral controls will be then placed on national governments (in which we see the public placing so much trust) once they literally become the 'highest' power in the country.



No major changes would be needed, given that the current system exists only as a formality.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What material advantage do you see accruing to Canadians, otherwise; what moral argument will you offer to the average Canadian to convince him/her that this is a "better" alternative?



The advantages are as follows:

That Canada will be truly sovereign and independent.
That an elected Canadian will lead Canada.
The concept of a hereditary monarch, which is fundamentally opposed to the concept of equality, will be removed from Canada.
Some symbols of the monarchy will be replaced by Canadian symbols.
Canadian culture will be given greater weight over Commonwealth culture.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> With what, exactly, since the Monarch herself does little in the daily life of government, do you replace those Vice-regal aspects of our system?



A replacement is unnecessary; the political role is just a waste of money. Removing monarch, the governor general and all the lieutenant governors will save millions.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please keep in mind this should not be the "argument" for a left-wing university student; this is for "Joe Canadian" who doesn't have a particular problem with that part of government, and does remember his grandfather/grandfather telling stories of fighting for "King and Country."



I’m not left-wing. I voted for the Conservative party and I’d consider myself to be a libertarian.



			
				Callsign Kenny said:
			
		

> This certainly is a dynamic conversation.  To go back to its original concern, the CF does hold in very high esteem on a professional as well the witnessed personal levels.  National Defence Act, Part III: Code of Service Discipline, Division 2: Service Offences and Punishments, §92 (Disgraceful Conduct) states:
> 
> _Every person who uses traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment._​



That’s a crime for which you could never be convicted because of the Charter. It’s horrible that such a ridiculous crime has yet to be officially stricken down.


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> One of the men was ordered to kill the kids but couldn't go through with it.


bullshit. Pure and simple. 
Maybe you should do some research on that one.

As for your problem with the Monarchy, get a life, man!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2006)

> That’s a crime for which you could never be convicted because of the Charter. It’s horrible that such a ridiculous crime has yet to be officially stricken down.


Tell you what, bud.  March yourself down to the recruiting centre, join up, and then come find me- we will put your "they'll never convict me, the charter will protect me" theory to the test...


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> I think the better alternative would be become a truly sovereign nation, let the governor general and all the lieutenant governors go and become constitutional republic.



You've applied a label, you haven't explained how it will work. Significantly, you haven't explained what changes will be effected, other than your assumption that we can simply strike the positions of GG and LGs.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> The biggest difference the average Canadian will experience is a new face on their money. That’s about it.



So, no difference except for the cost of changing everything with a "monarchist" appearance.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> No major changes would be needed, given that the current system exists only as a formality.



Then what's the problem, since you seem to think it's "only a formality."



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> The advantages are as follows:
> 
> That Canada will be truly sovereign and independent.
> That an elected Canadian will lead Canada.
> ...



How are we not now sovereign and independent?  What was the last bill that the Queen struck down?
Does not the PM lead the country?  What was the Queen's last act which changed something in Canada - I though you said it was just a formality.
What do you find so offensive about a hereditary monarch as a figurehead, are you saying you prefer the US presidential system?
Which symbols would you change and why?  How long does something have to be used before we consider it a Canadian symbol?
Please explain the difference between uniquely "Canadian culture" and "Commonwealth culture" and give clear examples of each.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> A replacement is unnecessary; the political role is just a waste of money. Removing monarch, the governor general and all the lieutenant governors will save millions.



And who will take over the responsibilities they do have to represent Canada?  Or will these duties be added to those of our politicians?



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I’m not left-wing. I voted for the Conservative party and I’d consider myself to be a libertarian.



You still haven't presented a concise case to convince the average Canadian that this is worthwhile.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Apr 2006)

So at great expense, we should get rid of a system of democratic governance that has lasted over 1000 years, for merrily cosmetic reasons?

The monarch, remember, has a duty to all the citizens of a nation, whereas _el presidente _ is beholden to those that supported him politically.

As for your assertion about saving millions, don't bet on it.  The governor general would be replaced by _el presidente _ and the lieutenants governor replaced by some other such office.  _El presidente _ in most republics use up just as much cash, if not more, in upkeep and ceremonial than most _constitutional_ monarchs.  Most presidential palaces aren't what we would consider humble middle class homes.

And your insistence on replacing the monarchy and it's symbols with something "Canadian"; I've got news for you.  The monarchy _is_ Canadian, and has been since first colonised.  The monarchy is just as Canadian as it is British, as it is Australian.  If she wanted to, Her Majesty could move to Canada, kick out Jean the Pretender, and take up residence in Rideau Hall.  However, the UK being the oldest of her realms, she chooses to reside there.

Edited for punctuation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Apr 2006)

> I'm referring to a show I saw on the Discovery Channel when a US Special Forces team somewhere in the Middle East, behind enemy lines had a few children run right up to the hole in which they had concealed themselves. One of the men was ordered to kill the kids but couldn't go through with it.



That was the show describing the "famous" patrol of Bravo two zero, it was British not US.

Can you at least try to get your Television research correct....I smell something funny..






dileas

tess


----------



## DJ (30 Apr 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Calvin… You’re missing the point. Not only have you chosen to attack my choice of words, which in no way contributes to debate, you’ve chosen to assume what meaning I’ve tried to convey with those words. You’re wrong, and I’m not going to bother to try explaining it to you. Read a few books about writing before you consider yourself an expert worthy of bestowing advice upon others.


I got the point.  The substance of your argument was based on stories and 'what ifs'.  It isn't acknowledgeable; nor does it contribute to debate.  Do you not see the humour when you're correcting somebody by saying your source is the Discovery Channel and not a different TV show?  In order for me to actually get a point out of your example I need something a little more concrete to work with.  

And lets not get into an academic pissing match.  Develop your argument a little more such as how Mr. O'Leary is leading you and this could be a great debate.  

Cal


----------



## Stupor (1 May 2006)

As a private in the reserves, I took the oath. I understand that the legal authority of the Canadian military come from the Queen, and I would not have a problem following an order from her majesty. However, that is only the legal aspect of the oath. I took the oath because I wanted to join the Canadian Forces, not because I felt a particular allegiance to the Queen; while I intend to uphold my oath (only because I keep the promises I make), I still share the sentiment of truth_be_told and R0B insofar that I feel it is odd and perhaps outdated to force new recruits to pledge allegiance to the Queen when what they feel true alleigance to is Canada.

Again, I know that Canada is legally a subject of the Queen, but that does not change the fact that Canada is a de facto sovereign nation and that most Canadians have patriotism for Canada, not the Queen (of course, Canadian patriotism tends to be ambiguous and mild as a result of PC-multiculturalism and American influences, but the point still stands that the Queen is only remotely connected to Canada as a modern nation). It can be even be argued that the Queen only has significance as a symbolic authority to the modern commonwealth nations precisely because her majesty chose not to wield any real, significant power. The Queen does not rule the UK, Canada or Australia. Tony Blair, Stephen Harper(as best as he can with a minority anyway) and John Howard do, respectively. If the Queen tried to exercise real power and issue orders contrary to those of the elected governments, orders which we are bound to follow as Candian soldiers, would we? These orders would not have to be criminal or even tactically ill-advised, only against the wishes of the democratically elected governments. I suspect there would be few resounding affirmations to this question.

I guess the real question that follows is then: "If you would not follow such orders, what is the purpose of making new recruits swear/affirm the oath? Or, if you would, how do you justify valuing a traditional oath that has little to do with the modern world more than the democratic traditions of Canada?"


----------



## Screw (1 May 2006)

Because 100000 soldiers that died for Canada thought it was damn well good enough and I believe in tradition.Thats why I swear allegiance. What does it take away to have a figure head?


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 May 2006)

"The Queen does not rule the UK, Canada or Australia. Tony Blair, Stephen Harper(as best as he can with a minority anyway) and John Howard do, respectively."

Yes, she does.  No they do not. To rule is a function of royalty.  They govern


----------



## FredDaHead (1 May 2006)

Stupor,

Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second is our Commander in Chief. As such, she stands at the top of our chain of command. As soldiers, our duty is to follow any and all legal orders issued by our superiors in the chain of command.

If anyone was to refuse Her Majesty's orders, it would in effect be insubordination, and possibly other charges as well, which I understand are quite important charges.

Now, your second question is interesting. You are basically saying "if we believe insubordination is acceptable under certain circumstances, what is the point of making new recruits take the oath?"

I don't quite understand the second part of that question. Could you reformulate it?

For the first part, though, you are basically arguing for insubordination and saying that since people will be insubordinate anyway, we might as well throw that part away. I don't think Her Majesty would issue orders contrary to that of the elected government (unless the government was going totally wacko) so the point is moot, but if it happened, I think it would be our duty to follow the legal orders issued by our Commander in Chief.

But that's just me--I'm probably brainwashed by now.

...Oh, and to the two previous posters (Kat Stevens and Screw), I totally agree.


----------



## Former291er (1 May 2006)

I have read up on this thread and it is interesting to say the least. And I do agree with one single thing that the original poster has said and that is pledging to the queen MAY not be everyones cup of tea(haahha like that). I myself was uncomfortable pledging to the queen when I signed up and in fact so were 2 others at my swearing in, and we swore the oath to Canada and not the queen. Unlike the thread starter I don't think swearing an oath to the queen should be abolished, it is good to have the choice. 
I am not the least bit interested in polotics and did not choose to do this as an anti monarchist. I did it for the fact that if I had to go to war, in my own mind I would be fighting for Canada, my home and my family not for a billionaire in another country. However if others are fine with the queens pledge then that's fine. As long as you watch my back and I watch yours I don't really care if you pledge your oath to Tim Horton's.
Just a simple mans opinion though.
Cheers 
Rob.


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> bullshit. Pure and simple.
> Maybe you should do some research on that one.
> 
> As for your problem with the Monarchy, get a life, man!



Are you calling me a liar? Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tell you what, bud.  March yourself down to the recruiting centre, join up, and then come find me- we will put your "they'll never convict me, the charter will protect me" theory to the test...



I’d test that law if I were a senior officer.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You've applied a label, you haven't explained how it will work. Significantly, you haven't explained what changes will be effected, other than your assumption that we can simply strike the positions of GG and LGs.



Not much would have to change. The governor general and the lieutenant governors serve only to offer the monarch’s assent and spend money frivolously. No replacement is necessary; their roles can be written out of government. The Prime Minister’s can sign bills into law.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, no difference except for the cost of changing everything with a "monarchist" appearance.



Removing the monarchy would save money. There’s no need to take a chisel to history and erase the monarchy from past, I’m just talking about removing it from the future. As for the cost of changing currency, it would be minimal, and considering that Canada will have to change its currency when Charles becomes king, the cost is inevitable.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then what's the problem, since you seem to think it's "only a formality."



The concept of monarchy is not compatible with the concept of equality. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How are we not now sovereign and independent?  What was the last bill that the Queen struck down?
> Does not the PM lead the country?  What was the Queen's last act which changed something in Canada - I though you said it was just a formality.



Under the Westminster system, the queen has real and significant powers. It’s only a formality because should she choose to exercise those powers, the government would likely do what I suggest and finish off the monarchy for good. Regardless, Canada is not a truly sovereign and independent nation if any decision it makes can be quashed at the whim of the queen in England.
The Prime Minister may lead the country, but he is not the leader of the country.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What do you find so offensive about a hereditary monarch as a figurehead, are you saying you prefer the US presidential system?
> Which symbols would you change and why?  How long does something have to be used before we consider it a Canadian symbol?
> Please explain the difference between uniquely "Canadian culture" and "Commonwealth culture" and give clear examples of each.



Yes, I very much prefer the US Presidential System.
What I find so offensive about the concept of a hereditary monarch as a figurehead is that it runs contrary to the concept of equality. The queen was not elected; she was born into the British royal family and inherited her position. Her only apparent qualification is her supposed ordination by “god.” In spite of her lack of any real qualifications, she is more powerful than the elected Government of Canada.

I wouldn’t change many symbols; however I’d have Canada divorce itself of the British monarchy. The PPLCI would remain the PPLCI, and RMC would remain RMC. However, oaths would no longer be taken to the monarch, and she would no longer appear on currency. What is will remain, but future mintings and printings of coins, medals, documents, etc… will be devoid of any monarchist references, such as “for king and country” or images of the monarch.

Commonwealth culture sees Canada as a member of the Commonwealth and vassal of England. It encourages cultural development in the (largely historical) image of England, and gives British culture supremacy to domestically developed Canadian culture.
Canadian culture sees Canada as an independent and sovereign nation with its own customs and traditions. Cultural connections to the Commonwealth are seen as historic, and secondary in importance to domestic cultural developments.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And who will take over the responsibilities they do have to represent Canada?  Or will these duties be added to those of our politicians?



They have very few duties; they can be given to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You still haven't presented a concise case to convince the average Canadian that this is worthwhile.



I think most Canadians are too much in tune with the idea of the queen as a gentle mother from the home country, and accept her as a noble fountain of honor, so I don’t believe anyone will ever convince them of otherwise. However, in two decades time, many of them will have died of old age, and demographically, the nation is shifting away from the Caucasian Protestants of British extraction who have traditionally been the greatest supports of the monarchy and towards groups much less fond of the queen, and let alone her most likely successor who lacks her motherly appeal.

It’s worthwhile because republicanism advocates placing Canada’s power in Canada, at the hands of Canadians, and is more in tune with our nation’s values as outline in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No individual should be conferred special treatment by virtue of their birth alone.

Capt. O’Leary, I would appreciate it if you could do the inverse and state what benefits you believe the monarchy offers Canada. 



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> So at great expense, we should get rid of a system of democratic governance that has lasted over 1000 years, for merrily cosmetic reasons?



It would not be a great expense, and it would be a single expense, rather than the recurring expense of maintaining the current system.
Where did you come up with your figure of 1000 years? The Magna Carta is only dates back to 1215, and there’s no way you could consider that to be a democracy. The earliest good example of a democracy in the modern world is the United States. Do you know anything about the American Revolution and against whom it was fought? Even then, many have argued that democracy in America is a more recent development. 
Many have argued that democracy and monarchy cannot coexist. I happen to agree with them; our democracy is limited in that we do not elect our head of state. Surely you agree we’d be more democratic if we did.



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> The monarch, remember, has a duty to all the citizens of a nation, whereas _el presidente _ is beholden to those that supported him politically.



No.



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> As for your assertion about saving millions, don't bet on it.  The governor general would be replaced by _el presidente _ and the lieutenants governor replaced by some other such office.



No, I’d rather if their handful of duties were absorbed by other existing political positions. But, if we have to waste the money, I’d sooner waste it on an elected official than someone appointed for their patronage or born into political power.



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> _El presidente _ in most republics use up just as much cash, if not more, in upkeep and ceremonial than most _constitutional_ monarchs.  Most presidential palaces aren't what we would consider humble middle class homes.



You’re speculating, and let me point out that Rideau Hall and 24 Sussex Drive already exist and don’t need to be rebuilt.
Don’t bother trying to tell me that the President of the United States spends more money than the Governor General of Canada, it doesn’t matter.



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> And your insistence on replacing the monarchy and it's symbols with something "Canadian"; I've got news for you.  The monarchy _is_ Canadian, and has been since first colonised.  The monarchy is just as Canadian as it is British, as it is Australian.  If she wanted to, Her Majesty could move to Canada, kick out Jean the Pretender, and take up residence in Rideau Hall.  However, the UK being the oldest of her realms, she chooses to reside there.
> 
> Edited for punctuation.



Queen Elizabeth II is as Canadian as Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Serbian.



			
				John Tescione said:
			
		

> That was the show describing the "famous" patrol of Bravo two zero, it was British not US.
> 
> Can you at least try to get your Television research correct....I smell something funny..
> 
> ...



No, it wasn’t about the SAS.



			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> I got the point.  The substance of your argument was based on stories and 'what ifs'.  It isn't acknowledgeable; nor does it contribute to debate.  Do you not see the humour when you're correcting somebody by saying your source is the Discovery Channel and not a different TV show?  In order for me to actually get a point out of your example I need something a little more concrete to work with.
> 
> And lets not get into an academic pissing match.  Develop your argument a little more such as how Mr. O'Leary is leading you and this could be a great debate.
> 
> Cal



Again, you miss the point and fail to contribute. My argument is based on stories and ‘what ifs,’ and that sounds bad unless you refer to them ‘case studies’ and ‘hypothetical’ scenarios, but leave the euphemisms and emotional language at the door.

Do you realize that you’ve in no way contributed to any sort of debate? I fail to see the humor in noting that the scenario I mentioned is more than likely factual, being part of a  documentary shown on the Discovery Channel, and not part of a fictional JAG storyline. How’s that funny?



			
				Screw said:
			
		

> Because 100000 soldiers that died for Canada thought it was damn well good enough and I believe in tradition.Thats why I swear allegiance. What does it take away to have a figure head?



Did those 100,000 die for Canada or its monarch? Did they sign up because they loved their families and wanted to do what’s right because they believed in the concepts of justice, equality and freedom? Or did they sign up because they wanted to stop Hitler’s U-boats from sinking King George’s caviar shipments?
If you believe that they died for Canada, then let’s honor them by taking an oath to Canada.

My utmost respect goes out to the men and women who risked or scarified everything to combat and defeat one of the greatest evils history has ever seen. Men and women who left the comfort of their homes, families and towns; many of whom suffered great agony before dying in a muddy hole somewhere thousands of miles away from their loved ones. I couldn’t care less for the king who appeased Hitler, who wore a dandy uniform adorned with ranks and medals he didn’t earn, and lived out the war in unimaginable luxury at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, waited on by dozens of servants, feasting on blue lobster and truffles as other Britons were forced to ration.

I don’t have much respect for any German soldier who died for Hitler, but I do for those who died for Germany (even if they were wrong) because there’s a difference in the service one provides to their nation and the service one provides to an overlord. I would risk my life for Canada, but never would I die for the queen, her heirs or successors. In fact, I wouldn’t so much as incur as scratch for any of them.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2006)

You might find Part II of the Criminal Code interesting Rob, there's lots there to make a republican quake.
  
You need to work on the logic of some of your suggestions, the term "Royal" is granted by the monarch.  No monarch, no Royal anything.  You might consider that this country was built by many who were very much opposed to the republicanism that you so push so proudly.  They were called United Empire Loyalists and they maintained a long tradition of loyalty to our Royals.   Those roots run quite deep in this country.  Like it or not, this country is neither a republic nor a democracy - it is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.  A parliamentary system includes some democratic processes, such as elections and referendum, but make no mistake, the Queen's representative must sign off on laws passed in the Canadian parliament.  That is our little "check and balance" if you like.  Not signing off is very rarely used, but if necessary it could be.  

Not to say that our system is perfect, some senate reform (such as an elected senate) has some merit in my mind.  The resistance to senate reform is the old one of representation by population versus representation by region.  The Commons are supposed to be the representation by population house and the Senate (House of Lords in Britain) is intended to provide that strong regional voice.  When the Senate is elected then the regional voice starts to have the same force and effect as the population's house - Commons.  If you are in a populous province then you tend not to want an elected senate, as it would give a stronger voice to regions.  But I digress.  

Rob, how would you propose to make such a radical change from a constitutional monarchy to an American-style republic?  It doesn't seem possible in a quick read of the Constitution Acts of 1867 (formerly BNA Act) and 1992.  Section 41 is quite clear, as is the rest of Part V.

I would suggest that you would be better advised to work on a project that is more winnable.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2006)

One other point, a great deal of the arguments raised are available at length at this site:

http://www.interlog.com/~rakhshan/parg.html


This site is also of interest:

http://www.monarchist.ca/

Cheers,

God Save the Queen.


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> You might find Part II of the Criminal Code interesting Rob, there's lots there to make a republican quake.
> 
> You need to work on the logic of some of your suggestions, the term "Royal" is granted by the monarch.  No monarch, no Royal anything.  You might consider that this country was built by many who were very much opposed to the republicanism that you so push so proudly.  They were called United Empire Loyalists and they maintained a long tradition of loyalty to our Royals.   Those roots run quite deep in this country.  Like it or not, this country is neither a republic nor a democracy - it is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.  A parliamentary system includes some democratic processes, such as elections and referendum, but make no mistake, the Queen's representative must sign off on laws passed in the Canadian parliament.  That is our little "check and balance" if you like.  Not signing off is very rarely used, but if necessary it could be.
> 
> ...



These obstacles exist only on paper; a promethean government can effect all the necessary changes.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

I don't presume to be any sort of expert on the Monarchy, but I do feel that they serve an important role in Canada.  
Rob, how are we harmed by the Queen?  Are you so offended by the concept of potential legislative interference that you would abolish years of tradition for the sake of...what?  
If you had ever served, you would be familiar to terms like "regimental family".  Soldiers are not just a bunch of plugs thrown together to grease the killbot machine and roll over the land the Queen sends us after.  Once you have dedicated yourself to a life of service, your brothers in arms are your family in a real way.  Any family has a head, and in our case a Matriarch.  There are values that are intrinsic to the Royal Family that we cherish and uphold.  We belong to the Commonwealth.  Break that down:  Common Wealth.  We all are in a big family that is mutually supportive.  
You think the Americans have an ideal system?  They have an advantage in some areas, but IMO when you have nothing to believe in, you have nothing to hold you back either.  Lobbyists and special interests, big business and pork barrelling are rampant there (yes, it is here too).  But ultimately, there is a parental type influence that [you are going to hate this] lords over us.  It is unfortunate that you appear to be one of these types that would tear down all governing influences in the name of civil liberties and self determination.  
Maybe it is just enough that people like having a monarch.  Maybe no one on your dark campus, but by and large, Canadians still love their Queen.  As to I.  God bless Her and keep Her safe.
I certainly hope you have no intentions of taking a day off on May 22.


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't presume to be any sort of expert on the Monarchy, but I do feel that they serve an important role in Canada.
> Rob, how are we harmed by the Queen?  Are you so offended by the concept of potential legislative interference that you would abolish years of tradition for the sake of...what?



According to the Monarchist League of Canada, the monarchy costs Canadians $49 million dollars a year (2004 statistic). That’s crazy. And yes, I would be willing to abolish years of tradition for the sake of modern Canadian values such as democracy and equality because I believe they’re more important than a relationship founded in feudalism and subordination.
What’s the queen done for Canada recently? Other than add more seats to the Senate so that Mulroney could pass the GST, nothing. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If you had ever served, you would be familiar to terms like "regimental family".  Soldiers are not just a bunch of plugs thrown together to grease the killbot machine and roll over the land the Queen sends us after.  Once you have dedicated yourself to a life of service, your brothers in arms are your family in a real way.  Any family has a head, and in our case a Matriarch.  There are values that are intrinsic to the Royal Family that we cherish and uphold.  We belong to the Commonwealth.  Break that down:  Common Wealth.  We all are in a big family that is mutually supportive.



We belong to the Commonwealth but the queen has all the wealth and what do you get? Why not choose an elected official as the head of your family? A lot of foreign militaries have no Royal connections but seem to be doing just fine. What values are intrinsic to the monarchy? I'm sure you'll find they're similar to the values people tend to associate with any high office.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You think the Americans have an ideal system?  They have an advantage in some areas, but IMO when you have nothing to believe in, you have nothing to hold you back either.  Lobbyists and special interests, big business and pork barrelling are rampant there (yes, it is here too).  But ultimately, there is a parental type influence that [you are going to hate this] lords over us.  It is unfortunate that you appear to be one of these types that would tear down all governing influences in the name of civil liberties and self determination.



The American system is much closer to ideal than our own. Lobbyists and special interest groups are, as you noted, strong in Canada as well, but their strength in the United States is related more closely to its power than its political system.
The queen’s supposed parental influence is insulting. Canada is not a juvenile nation in need of guidance, and we’re no longer British or Protestant. Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.
We simply do not need a monarch. We’re not the province of a greater nation, Canada should assert its absolute independence. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Maybe it is just enough that people like having a monarch.  Maybe no one on your dark campus, but by and large, Canadians still love their Queen.  As to I.  God bless Her and keep Her safe.
> I certainly hope you have no intentions of taking a day off on May 22.



I wouldn’t say by and large. Some polls favor the queen, others favor republicanism. The only thing that’s absolutely clear is that the majority of Canadians simply don’t care.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

Quote from ROB,
Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.

MOD INTERVENTION
Once last warning......you are skirting the troll line here, and with the brushes with the system you have already had, its getting close to bye-bye time.
Bruce


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from ROB,
> Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.
> 
> MOD INTERVENTION
> ...



I suppose you could replace "daddy" with "patriach," but that would fail to convey the idea in a jovial fashion. 

--

Do you mean to tell me that you've read through these five pages and that comment alone was the most objectionable thing you've seen? 
What, are you just looking for a reason to ban me?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

No, most of your argument is objectionable to me personally....however that's separate from the warning above.

What I object to as a Moderator is your use of flippant one liners thrown in just to raise the ire of those whom oppose you.    .....as per your M.O.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 May 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> These obstacles exist only on paper; a promethean government can effect all the necessary changes.



So this, in effect, is your solution?  You personally object to the Monarchy so we will simply wipe it away, and hope that something better replaces it.

Please keep in mind that hope is not a sound method for improvement of complex systems.


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So this, in effect, is your solution?  You personally object to the Monarchy so we will simply wipe it away, and hope that something better replaces it.
> 
> Please keep in mind that hope is not a sound method for improvement of complex systems.



There's no need to hope that something better will replace it, because it doesn’t need to be replaced, it needs to be removed. 
This is not a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because the monarchy is "broke," and has been since its inception.
I lack multiple law degrees and experience as a legislator as well as the time it would take to go over all the relevant documents and suggest what changes need to be made, but it is not an impossible task.

Public support may or may not be in favor of republicanism. That’s ok, because this isn’t a matter of public support; this is a matter of principle. In the United States just previous to the Civil War, public opinion was also divided over the issue of slavery, but as with our situation, most people simply didn’t care; abolitionism too, as a matter of principle. The concept of monarchy runs contrary to the ideals of freedom and equality, and must be abolished for that reason.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 May 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> There's no need to hope that something better will replace it, because it doesn’t need to be replaced, it needs to be removed.
> This is not a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because the monarchy is "broke," and has been since its inception.
> I lack multiple law degrees and experience as a legislator as well as the time it would take to go over all the relevant documents and suggest what changes need to be made, but it is not an impossible task.
> 
> Public support may or may not be in favor of republicanism. That’s ok, because this isn’t a matter of public support; this is a matter of principle. In the United States just previous to the Civil War, public opinion was also divided over the issue of slavery, but as with our situation, most people simply didn’t care; abolitionism too, as a matter of principle. The concept of monarchy runs contrary to the ideals of freedom and equality, and must be abolished for that reason.



So on the one hand you whine about the ideals of freedom and equality, and then you put forward the idea that we should _force_ Canadians to accept the removal of the Monarchy, despite what they might desire? How is that increasing the freedom of Canadians? I thought forcing someone to do something meant, in effect, the opposite of letting them be "free." But maybe I should have taken that _How to redefine words_ course...

If you wanted democracy, freedom and equality so badly, then you wouldn't say we'll abolish Monarchy "just because" and despite what Canadians want. As it stands, you're proposing that your ideas are more important than anyone else's, and just because you, in some corner of some campus, decided the Monarchy is a bad thing, it should be removed. That's contrary to any definition of democracy, freedom and equality and smells like hypocrisy to me.

You have not yet made any kind of demonstration of what exactly you want as a system, how it would be accomplished, and how it would be better than the status quo. And just like you're ignoring everyone's points and saying "it doesn't matter" to anything that would damage your fragile reality, I'll just ignore your points because it really "doesn't matter."


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> According to the Monarchist League of Canada, the monarchy costs Canadians $49 million dollars a year (2004 statistic). That’s crazy. And yes, I would be willing to abolish years of tradition for the sake of modern Canadian values such as democracy and equality because I believe they’re more important than a relationship founded in feudalism and subordination.



How?  Nice to throw out numbers, but how?  And as a nation, we tend to spend a lot of money.  There are lots of money wasting projects:
*BC Ferries boss Tom Ward resigns as pricetag for first fast ferry balloons to $113m*
http://www.nsnews.com/issues99/w012599/01209901.html
Bet the Queen never even got to ride on it.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> What’s the queen done for Canada recently? Other than add more seats to the Senate so that Mulroney could pass the GST, nothing.


I'm not even touching that, other than to ease my bullshit-o-meter out of the red.  If you have to trot out MULRONEY as the last government outrage...



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> We belong to the Commonwealth but the queen has all the wealth and what do you get? Why not choose an elected official as the head of your family? A lot of foreign militaries have no Royal connections but seem to be doing just fine. What values are intrinsic to the monarchy? I'm sure you'll find they're similar to the values people tend to associate with any high office.



The money the Royal family has is centuries old!  Let it go!  Certainly there is a heap of money in real estate and national treasures, but it isn't like they are going to turn Buckingham Palace into a time share resort.  And can you come up with a figure of how much money goes out of the Royal House in charity?
And we are just fine the way we are.  Thanks for your concern.  Values like truth, duty, honour, sacrifice are to what I refer.  People who are elected tend to range towards me, I, career, money, retirement, buddies.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> The queen’s supposed parental influence is insulting. Canada is not a juvenile nation in need of guidance, and we’re no longer British or Protestant. Historically, (at least in more recent history) the President of the United States has had more influence over Canada than the British monarch. Why not make him the daddy? He’s at least partially democratically elected.
> We simply do not need a monarch. We’re not the province of a greater nation, Canada should assert its absolute independence.


Spoken like a petulant child.  Did you get to elect your parents?  How about instead of being insulted, show respect to an institution that has provided leadership to this nation for centuries.  When has the Crown ever made an overt motion to derail the natural course of modern Canadian development?  If they could or would do that, we wouldn't have to take so much crap from Quebec.  



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I wouldn’t say by and large. Some polls favor the queen, others favor republicanism. The only thing that’s absolutely clear is that the majority of Canadians simply don’t care.



Don't agree.  I would agree that most Canadians are apathetic about a lot of things, but I would hazard that if someone made a genuine attempt to strip out the Monarchy, you would see a very polarizing effect and that crap would get shut down pretty quick.


----------



## paracowboy (1 May 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Are you calling me a liar? Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?


a liar or an idiot. Having just a teensy-tiny bit more experience and knowledge in this area than a Been-Nowhere, Done-Nothing College Boy, I can say that you are either spouting lies or believing lies.


----------



## Bograt (1 May 2006)

ROB,

Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?

Kids these days, they can not prioritize.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

Bograt said:
			
		

> ROB,
> 
> Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?
> 
> Kids these days, they can not prioritize.



Somebody is making some BIIIG assumptions about peoples choices........ :-*


----------



## R0B (1 May 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So on the one hand you whine about the ideals of freedom and equality, and then you put forward the idea that we should _force_ Canadians to accept the removal of the Monarchy, despite what they might desire? How is that increasing the freedom of Canadians? I thought forcing someone to do something meant, in effect, the opposite of letting them be "free." But maybe I should have taken that _How to redefine words_ course...
> 
> If you wanted democracy, freedom and equality so badly, then you wouldn't say we'll abolish Monarchy "just because" and despite what Canadians want. As it stands, you're proposing that your ideas are more important than anyone else's, and just because you, in some corner of some campus, decided the Monarchy is a bad thing, it should be removed. That's contrary to any definition of democracy, freedom and equality and smells like hypocrisy to me.



No, Frederik. Democracies can at times be “anti-democratic.” As much as democracy is important, equality, freedom, liberty and justice are more important, because the perpetuation of democracy is based on their existence. If democracy were more important than equality, freedom, liberty and justice, we wouldn’t have trials, we’d just vote on what to do with the accused.

How is it increasing the freedom of Canadians even if they don’t want it? Because supporters of the monarchy reject their own freedom.

You know, a great many Canadians are in favor of draconian firearms regulation, but that doesn’t make them right.

Freedom precludes the ability to restrict the freedom of others. 



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> You have not yet made any kind of demonstration of what exactly you want as a system, how it would be accomplished, and how it would be better than the status quo. And just like you're ignoring everyone's points and saying "it doesn't matter" to anything that would damage your fragile reality, I'll just ignore your points because it really "doesn't matter."



It’s very, very complicated, and I have enough respected for attorneys and doctors of political science to not attempt it on my own. 
Why would it be better? Because it won’t be worse. Why is it better that we’ve abolished slavery? It makes no difference in my life, in fact I’d probably be better off if slavery were legal, being quite fortunate and all. It is a matter of right and wrong, informed by the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, and all those other good things, etc…

If you’re just looking for something to debate, I’ll just go ahead and say we should adopt the American system. We spend about $50 million dollars a year on the monarchy, so if it would cost a billion dollars to overhaul the system and erase the queen, we’ll break even in two decades. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> How?  Nice to throw out numbers, but how?  And as a nation, we tend to spend a lot of money.  There are lots of money wasting projects:
> *BC Ferries boss Tom Ward resigns as pricetag for first fast ferry balloons to $113m*
> http://www.nsnews.com/issues99/w012599/01209901.html
> Bet the Queen never even got to ride on it.



I hope she didn’t. I don’t know the details behind those statistics, but as I said, it’s from the Monarchist League of Canada. They’re more or less the premier monarchist lobby group in Canada, so I can’t imagine them inflating their numbers.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm not even touching that, other than to ease my bullshit-o-meter out of the red.  If you have to trot out MULRONEY as the last government outrage...



http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1773-12071-10/on_this_day/politics_economy/twt

The queen doesn’t do much beyond touring the world on billionaire’s welfare, but yes, the Mulroney situation is probably the most recent example of the queen making any sort of important political move. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The money the Royal family has is centuries old!  Let it go!  Certainly there is a heap of money in real estate and national treasures, but it isn't like they are going to turn Buckingham Palace into a time share resort.  And can you come up with a figure of how much money goes out of the Royal House in charity?
> And we are just fine the way we are.  Thanks for your concern.  Values like truth, duty, honour, sacrifice are to what I refer.  People who are elected tend to range towards me, I, career, money, retirement, buddies.



The money of the royal family was at one time greatly intertwined with the state, so it’s hard to say what is and what is not actually theirs. Regardless, their philanthropy is no less noble than the philanthropy of millionaires, and the “work” they do is laughable. Senior members of the British royal family are pay in excess of $250,000 to do “jobs” most people would pay to do. And that quarter-million doesn’t even include their entitlements. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Spoken like a petulant child.  Did you get to elect your parents?  How about instead of being insulted, show respect to an institution that has provided leadership to this nation for centuries.  When has the Crown ever made an overt motion to derail the natural course of modern Canadian development?  If they could or would do that, we wouldn't have to take so much crap from Quebec.



Let’s not drag Quebec into this. I agree with you that the crown hasn’t done much in recent history, which is why we really don’t need them. 
No, of course I could not elect my parents, but I actually have a relationship with my parents, and I would not do away with them because I love them. I glad you brought this up, because my mother and father may have functioned as “queen and king” to me when I was a child, but I’m an adult now. I live on my own and make my own money, so I’m a “republic.” If I decide I want to eat a BLT, I don’t have to call my mother in Israel and ask her permission – I just do it. 
Is Canada a child? No, So why do we need a parent or guardian to sign our permission slips?



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Don't agree.  I would agree that most Canadians are apathetic about a lot of things, but I would hazard that if someone made a genuine attempt to strip out the Monarchy, you would see a very polarizing effect and that crap would get shut down pretty quick.



Speculation. 



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> a liar or an idiot. Having just a teensy-tiny bit more experience and knowledge in this area than a Been-Nowhere, Done-Nothing College Boy, I can say that you are either spouting lies or believing lies.



Great, because I was wondering if the moderators would do something about your overt display of malicious honest.

Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> ROB,
> 
> Silly question: It is spring time now on university campuses. Young ladies are now wearing short shirts and belly tops. Vibrant and curious, they are always eager to try new things. The campus bar's patio is now open, and selling buck a beers. Don't you have something else you can do rather than insulting the institution that the members here swore an oath to serve?
> 
> Kids these days, they can not prioritize.



Unfortunately, I’m stuck at my desk because of exams, so I turn to my computer for a few moments to change pace and escape boredom.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

R0B said:
			
		

> Great, because I was wondering if the moderators would do something about your overt display of malicious honest
> Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?



Thats it........

Lad, we are not here to listen to you spout kife because you're bored. You have been a stooge since day 1, and we have 3 pages on you in the Mod log for your BS.
The clock is ticking.......


----------



## old medic (1 May 2006)

Your trolling ROB, and your time here is quickly drawing to a close.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 May 2006)

"Do you honestly believe that elite military units and government agencies do not routinely and knowingly issue and carry out illegal orders?"

You've asked this three times now, and I believe that paracowboys answer as to what he believes is quite self evident in his replies, wouldn't you?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 May 2006)

ROB wont be answering for 7 more days at least......just reading.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2006)

Rob has certainly gone much further than many towards C & P.  I found his comment about Promethean government to be most revealing, besides merely dismissive.  It is not so easy to just "blow off" the Criminal Code and the Constitution.  This is an instance where reality collides with abstract theory.  There is also a site devoted to the Promethean philosophy argument that may be of interest (or not): 

http://www.prometheanmovement.org/info/Prometheanism-onissues.html

It is most surprising to me that someone who professes to hold such views would vote conservative and consider himself to be a libertarian.  I think that "anarchist" might be a more accurate, if incomplete, label.



edited to add the last sentence and to fix a typo.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 May 2006)

Interesting to note that these alleged illegal order incidents ROB refers to were committed by US forces.  Waaait a sec, isn't the US a republic?  I'm just saying..... >


----------



## rowe_man (1 May 2006)

I'll start out by admitting flatly that I'm not a member of the Armed Forces - however, this thread was drawn to my attention, and after reading through all six pages I can say that my heart was gladdened to see that so many in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces have such profound respect for the Canadian Crown.  It worries me that so many Canadians remain unaware of our constitutional structure, and how, because it vests the Crown with all executive authority in this land, it makes the Crown the embodiment of the Canadian State, with the Sovereign who wears that crown the physical, living representation of Canada.

This makes the bitterness of republicans all the more sad - they're so angry and slobber so much over perceived injustices and offences against Canadian "values" (as though their values mattered more, or were morally superior to all others), but the ignorance it's all based on makes their rantings so completely hollow.  They become the cries of petulant children, as someone here so aptly put it.

If they'd at least acknowledge that, whether they like it or not, the Crown is the source of all authority in Canada, apart from and above the political machinations of government, and that allegiance is given to the Queen as the person who exercises that power under a reciprocal oath taken during her coronation, not as a wealthy individual, as well as being to her as the legally distinct Queen of Canada, not as Queen of the UK (as though Canada were still some kind of colony instead of a sovereign kingdom), then their criticisms might actually hold some weight.  But instead they'd rather imagine problems that don't exist, and then tell us all how we should solve them!

It might also give more credibility to their position on taking the oath required to enter into the Services - they'd at least recognise what is legally true, and promise to obey the authority of the Crown in a legal manner, whether they personally agreed with the constitutional system, which we have democratically achieved, or not.

None-the-less, you all certainly took those various trolls' bulls**t and rubbed it right back in their faces!

I should also forewarn that there may be other republicans here soon - this thread came to my attention because someone from here appealed for help on the Citizens for a Canadian Republic message board (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccr_ccrc/), stating: "A bunch of monarchists in the military are hounding a few anti-
monarchist soldiers at this forum. I am suggesting a show of support," signed "Soldier."  So, just a heads-up.

Keep up the good work all, and thanks for serving Her Canadian Majesty so well.

God Save the Queen/Dieu garde la Reine!

www.monarchist.ca


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2006)

Perhaps it is time to shut this thread down.  Certainly the basic arguments are noted at the web sites provided for those who are interested in exploring the issue further.


----------



## Scott (1 May 2006)

Since ROB is the only one who will be returning to argue more I have to agree with redleaf. I'll shut this one for now and _if_ ROB returns from his stint on read only he can PM the Staff and have this opened - *IF* he has something meaningful to add.

Locked.


----------



## beach_bum (1 May 2006)

Former291er said:
			
		

> II myself was uncomfortable pledging to the queen when I signed up and in fact so were 2 others at my swearing in, and we swore the oath to Canada and not the queen. Unlike the thread starter I don't think swearing an oath to the queen should be abolished, it is good to have the choice.
> Just a simple mans opinion though.
> Cheers
> Rob.



There are not two oaths.  You do NOT get the choice of pledging to the Queen or to Canada.  Just wanted to clear that up.


----------

