• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.       
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 
 
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."

 
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
 
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 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....
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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...
 
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.
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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..

poo.gif

dileas

tess
 
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

 
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?"
 
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?
 
"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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top