|
Coylter posted:This is a shrieking sound to my hears. Trolling or not i almost started to bleed there. Ignore Raenir Salazar. I knew him in CEGEP and he's gone from everything to a right wing frothing maniac to a stalinist. There's also some less savory things less fit for this thread. But the guy has a serious hardon for authoritarians (hence the monarchy-love) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
But how can we have jobs and prosperity without pipelines?! Christy Clark what have you done with our glorious debt-free future 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Reactionary is stepping backwards, I believe the word you're looking for is actually conservative. Some inbred rich person born into a position of authority symbolizes equality and unity? Define Canadian culture because I don't know what you mean by that. If the monarchy were something we could easily freeze-dry and put on display in a glass case somewhere I'd be all for it. There are more pressing issues but I think in general, having kings and queens is something everybody should strive to put behind us. e: Ceciltron I'm sorry I'm so sorry
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:52
|
|
But you don't address the cultural and historical aspect.
|
As a Canadian of, ultimately, homo erectus ancestry, I find it offensive that Lucy is not on our money. She's the only historical figure we need. Or just throw more illustrations of hockey and oil derricks on there, whichever, nobody gives a gently caress *hops in a jacuzzi filled with crude oil, drinks gasoline from a flute made of Canadian diamonds, towels off with a Flames jersey*
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
I guess the kimber morgan twinning is a sure fire go, which sucks since it goes through my neighbourhood so they'll be ripping the poo poo out of everywhere. It will be kind of amusing to see what happens to the folks who built a really nice wall right over the pipeline though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
You know what we call Canadians who rebelled against the Crown? Americans. Its not too far, just go south till you see huge flags by the highways, and more than one highway going east to west. ~Thanks in advance~
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
JayMax posted:As a Québécois I feel a deep, seething revulsion for the Queen. To me she symbolizes imperial dominance, hegemony, disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation. I genuinely don't understand this sentiment. The way I see it, the Québécois got a pretty good deal following the Treaty of Paris, 1763. Granted, I don't know much about Canadian history between, say 1820 and 1990, but aside from Quebec being federated into a country with a bunch of people who speak English, I don't get the whole 'disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation' part. Particularly since after 250 years, Quebec still largely retains the most defining characteristics of New France: French and Catholicism. I know there's been a bunch of shady anti-Quebec stuff that has happened within the Confederation, but I don't know why you'd hold that against the Monarchy.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ceciltron posted:Ignore Raenir Salazar. I knew him in CEGEP and he's gone from everything to a right wing frothing maniac to a stalinist.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You know what we call Canadians who rebelled against the Crown? Americans. Its not too far, just go south till you see huge flags by the highways, and more than one highway going east to west. God bless the queen 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I genuinely don't understand this sentiment. The way I see it, the Québécois got a pretty good deal following the Treaty of Paris, 1763. Granted, I don't know much about Canadian history between, say 1820 and 1990, but aside from Quebec being federated into a country with a bunch of people who speak English, I don't get the whole 'disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation' part. Particularly since after 250 years, Quebec still largely retains the most defining characteristics of New France: French and Catholicism. Quebecois Catholics literally weren't permitted to participate in elected government or public official positions because they had to swear oaths of loyalty and renounce their catholicism. The deal the british cut with the church, that is, to keep us obeisant, weak and under-control, left us with a severely underdeveloped, non-industrial and stagnant society until, (miracle of miracles!) the silent revolution dragged us kicking and screaming into the 20th century midway through it. We retain our characteristics DESPITE the occupation and attempted extinction of our culture, not THANKS to it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
quote:Some inbred rich person born into a position of authority symbolizes equality and unity? Define Canadian culture because I don't know what you mean by that. This strikes me as progress for the sake of progress, even if the dubious notion can be established that we can objectively or with very convincing reason determine whether something is anachronistic that's still a far cry from establishing that anything anachronistic should be discarded. By analogy, I'm sure Roman style architecture could be argued as being anachronistic for our modern age sensibilities but it would be silly to call for tearing down any building that uses it. If the monarchy was consistently abusing whatever little power we allowed them to wield or were legitimately a blight on our history that's one thing, but the royals have been a part of our history, we owe much of our multiculturalism to our colonial legacy. Even if it all comes down to is just aesthetic sensibilities, "I like the Royal Family because royalty has a certain je ne sais quoi to it" this is still short of the conclusion of "They're useless and so discard them onto the ashheap of history." If there is no good reason for them there is no good reason to spare the expense against them. quote:So he never figured out how to finesse the two together like Fraternite? Socialist with Canadian Characteristics!  e: quote:Quebecois Catholics literally weren't permitted to participate in elected government or public official positions because they had to swear oaths of loyalty and renounce their catholicism. For a whole eleven years lets be honest here. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:17 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
It may surprise you to know that the quebeckers are whiners.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Is it possible for someone to start a new thread on Canadian pro/anti-monarchism? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts for and against, but I don't think they quite fit in this megathread. The question of whether Canada should keep the Queen in her current role, reduce it or abolish it altogether is certainly heavy enough for its own thread. For the record, I'm anti-monarchy. I tolerate the Queen in her current role because I don't seem to be paying very much in real cash monies for her privilege. The pro-monarchy arguments I've seen so far here today seem kind of baseless but I think it's possibly because they haven't been hashed out enough. The anti-monarchy arguments have some interesting seeds that I'd love to hear more about. Kenny Logins fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You know what we call Canadians who rebelled against the Crown? Americans. Its not too far, just go south till you see huge flags by the highways, and more than one highway going east to west. I have a friend from the states that got her citizenship up here a few years back. When she was saying her Oath, she didn't swear he allegiance to the Queen, which is understandable for an American. Long story short, someone apparently saw her go mute on that part and told the presiding judge, who then proceeded to have a one-on-one chat with her. She explained why she (understandably) couldn't swear allegiance to a Monarchy that her ancestors throw off. Apparently, the judge was understanding and granted her citizenship without making her say the words she refused to. Not sure how typical this situation is, but it does draw out the problem of dual citizenship between us and our southern siblings and the seemingly arbitrary historical differences between our nations' respective ethoi. I do, however, get the feeling that this was a whim of the judge and could have easily gone differently.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I genuinely don't understand this sentiment. The way I see it, the Québécois got a pretty good deal following the Treaty of Paris, 1763. Granted, I don't know much about Canadian history between, say 1820 and 1990, but aside from Quebec being federated into a country with a bunch of people who speak English, I don't get the whole 'disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation' part. Particularly since after 250 years, Quebec still largely retains the most defining characteristics of New France: French and Catholicism. Maybe you should read up on the History then. French Canadians were systematically excluded from power until very recently in our history (basically during the century and a half you are ignorant of). If it hadn't been for the Quiet Revolution, Quebec would still be an underindustrialized backwater under the thumb of the church, who basically accepted disenfranchisement as a way of keeping the Quebec population quiescent. E @Raenir Salazar: There's a difference between theoretically being eligible for holding power, and actually exercising power over your own fate. Quebec was dominated by rich Anglophones for generations. Also E;F;B As I've said, I feel that there are many more problems to address in Canadian society than engaging in a political struggle with monarchists to try to get rid of a purely symbolic position (in our system). But the affection people feel for the monarchy seems weird to me. It is a symbol of domination and control as an institution. Even if Elizabeth herself doesn't seem like a bad person, the institution itself is anachronistic at best, and insultingly colonial at worst. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Quebecois Catholics literally weren't permitted to participate in elected government or public official positions because they had to swear oaths of loyalty and renounce their catholicism. The deal the british cut with the church, that is, to keep us obeisant, weak and under-control, left us with a severely underdeveloped, non-industrial and stagnant society until, (miracle of miracles!) the silent revolution dragged us kicking and screaming into the 20th century midway through it. Well, I should have said after the Quebec Act, 1774, I suppose. That act established a new oath of loyalty that made no reference to Protestantism, or religions of any kind. Quoth the almighty wiki, from: Oath of Allegiance (Canada) "New Loyalty Oath for Roman Catholics posted:I [name] do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful, and bear true Allegiance to his Majesty King George, and him will defend to the utmost of my Power, against all traitorous Conspiracies, and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his Person. Crown. and Dignity; and I will do my utmost Endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons, and traitorous Conspiracies, and Attempts, which I shall know to be against him, or any of them; and all this I do swear without any Equivocation, mental Evasion, or secret Reservation, and renouncing all Pardons and Dispensations from any Power or Person whomsoever to the contrary. So help me God. It's kind of goofy to modern eyes to be swearing loyalty to your monarch, but this one seems pretty reasonable. Incidentally I don't think it's required any more (since the 2000s at some point). Cordyceps Headache posted:Maybe you should read up on the History then. French Canadians were systematically excluded from power until very recently in our history (basically during the century and a half you are ignorant of). If it hadn't been for the Quiet Revolution, Quebec would still be an underindustrialized backwater under the thumb of the church, who basically accepted disenfranchisement as a way of keeping the Quebec population quiescent. Yeah, I've been meaning to. Canadian history is a weird blindspot in my reading given my nationality, but its taken a while to get over how terribly it was taught in school. As it is my reading list (which is all history books) is so long it'll take me months to clear it. But while I'm vaguely aware of Canadian politicians being dicks to Francophones, I still don't know why that would colour your feelings of the monarchy in particular. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:Is it possible for someone to start a new thread on Canadian pro/anti-monarchism? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts for and against, but I don't think they quite fit in this megathread. The question of whether Canada should keep the Queen in her current role, reduce it or abolish it altogether is certainly heavy enough for its own thread.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:Is it possible for someone to start a new thread on Canadian pro/anti-monarchism? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts for and against, but I don't think they quite fit in this megathread. The question of whether Canada should keep the Queen in her current role, reduce it or abolish it altogether is certainly heavy enough for its own thread. I think a major obstacle is the myth of the cost of the Royal Family, something that is, practically, only a question for the Brits. The idea the costs of supporting the Royal Family outweighs the benefits associated with them is proven to be false (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw), but I think the myth persists and has somehow been applied to the Canadian context. As far as I know, we don't really shell out much in the way of cash for our Royal Rulers, but it is easy to see how an incorrect belief that these inbred silver spooners cost money can be shifted to cost Canadians money. Overall, I have to assume that there are some decent benefits to being in the commonwealth, and as long as they continue to stay the gently caress out of our business, I'm fine with the status quo (and I'd consider myself anti monarchy). Also, this: Cordyceps Headache posted:As I've said, I feel that there are many more problems to address in Canadian society than engaging in a political struggle with monarchists to try to get rid of a purely symbolic position (in our system).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
THC posted:I'm sure Aussies and other Commonweathers would have something to add as well. Yeah, it'd be interesting to gather other perspectives, especially from some of the lesser known parts of the Commonwealth.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:Is it possible for someone to start a new thread on Canadian pro/anti-monarchism? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts for and against, but I don't think they quite fit in this megathread. The question of whether Canada should keep the Queen in her current role, reduce it or abolish it altogether is certainly heavy enough for its own thread. There actually was a constitutional monarchy thread in D&D a month or two ago pretty much exactly along these lines, but I'm not sure what happened to it. edit: oh, here it is.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well, I should have said after the Quebec Act, 1774, I suppose. That act established a new oath of loyalty that made no reference to Protestantism, or religions of any kind. This of course, forgetting the fact that Catholics are not permitted to swear oaths of any kind, as a matter of religious doctrine.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I genuinely don't understand this sentiment. The way I see it, the Québécois got a pretty good deal following the Treaty of Paris, 1763. Granted, I don't know much about Canadian history between, say 1820 and 1990, but aside from Quebec being federated into a country with a bunch of people who speak English, I don't get the whole 'disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation' part. Particularly since after 250 years, Quebec still largely retains the most defining characteristics of New France: French and Catholicism. I don't hold it against the Queen. A symbol is all she is. I merely expressed what that symbol evoked in me. These feelings weren't really an invitation for debate. But hey, I still exist, so clearly I have nothing to cry about.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:This of course, forgetting the fact that Catholics are not permitted to swear oaths of any kind, as a matter of religious doctrine. As someone who is baptized catholic, whose family is largely catholic, who personally knows a catholic theologian in training this is a massive generalization, and is extremely pedantic any which way you slice it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:As someone who is baptized catholic, whose family is largely catholic, who personally knows a catholic theologian in training this is a massive generalization, and is extremely pedantic any which way you slice it. How is it pedantic? I'd rather not compromise my religious beliefs to serve in office, and I shouldn't have to.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Eh, at a certain point I really think you should compromise your personal religious beliefs if you want to serve in public office. If the socially recognized precedent is for office holders to take an oath then your personal religious beliefs shouldn't put you above that standard. I feel like a certain degree to reverence toward official offices of state is warranted and should trump local differences. Now if you want to make an argument why no one should have to swear an oath before taking office or if you have reason to believe that the oath was set up in a specific way to exclude Catholics then that'd be different. But I really don't think that by the mere fact of entertaining a certain esoteric belief system you should avoid certain responsibilities or gain certain privileges that aren't shared by your fellow citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Eh, at a certain point I really think you should compromise your personal religious beliefs if you want to serve in public office. If the socially recognized precedent is for office holders to take an oath then your personal religious beliefs shouldn't put you above that standard. I feel like a certain degree to reverence toward official offices of state is warranted and should trump local differences. What he says, plus it isn't against Catholic doctrine to swear "Oaths of any kind." Only that you be mindful of WHOM you are swearing them to and not swear false oaths.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:This of course, forgetting the fact that Catholics are not permitted to swear oaths of any kind, as a matter of religious doctrine. What? I'm a baptised, raised, and confirmed Catholic (turned atheist), and went to Catholic for 12 years, and I did not know this was a thing. JayMax posted:But hey, I still exist, so clearly I have nothing to cry about. I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure that, assuming the Queen is oppressive in some way, I, an English speaking Albertan, is oppressed to roughly the same extent as a French speaking Quebecker.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure that, assuming the Queen is oppressive in some way, I, an English speaking Albertan, is oppressed to roughly the same extent as a French speaking Quebecker. Now this statement is arguably true. Historically this has not been the case, as our francoposters have laid out rather concisely. I can understand them being ambivalent at best about the British monarchy because of that history, especially in response to arguments in favour of the monarchy based on tradition and links to history. (I'm a monarchist, if not a particularly fervent one as my reasons mostly boil down to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" and a burning dislike for the idea of turning what is effectively a patriotic symbol/figurehead and/or Nationalism Escape Valve into another football for partisan electoral politics.)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:(I'm a monarchist, if not a particularly fervent one as my reasons mostly boil down to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" and a burning dislike for the idea of turning what is effectively a patriotic symbol/figurehead and/or Nationalism Escape Valve into another football for partisan electoral politics.) I don't understand this argument at all. The monarch's duties are all entirely devolved to the GG already, and our governments have been remarkably adult and non-partisan (Ray Hnatyshyn aside) in their appointments. If we become a republic with the exact same institutions and wite-out applied to everywhere it says "her majesty's" in our laws, I don't see why suddenly PMs would start appointing Patrick Brazeaus to the GG spot rather than the David Johnstons and Michaëlle Jeans they've been appointing up to now. The actual political stakes of the position wouldn't be any higher than they are now, and I don't expect our GGs would go on the money.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't understand this argument at all. The monarch's duties are all entirely devolved to the GG already, and our governments have been remarkably adult and non-partisan (Ray Hnatyshyn aside) in their appointments. If we become a republic with the exact same institutions and wite-out applied to everywhere it says "her majesty's" in our laws, I don't see why suddenly PMs would start appointing Patrick Brazeaus to the GG spot rather than the David Johnstons and Michaëlle Jeans they've been appointing up to now. Still, if we wanted to do that, we'd have to (I imagine) modify big chunks of the Constitution, and that would be the pointlessly partisan process I don't look forward too. Once it's open for modification, everyone is going to want to stick something in there under the radar.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't understand this argument at all. The monarch's duties are all entirely devolved to the GG already, and our governments have been remarkably adult and non-partisan (Ray Hnatyshyn aside) in their appointments. If we become a republic with the exact same institutions and wite-out applied to everywhere it says "her majesty's" in our laws, I don't see why suddenly PMs would start appointing Patrick Brazeaus to the GG spot rather than the David Johnstons and Michaëlle Jeans they've been appointing up to now. Given the trend in our politics today I do not imagine that the GG-as-Queen's-representative would be replaced with another appointed figurehead. You're right that if they endeavoured to change as little as possible, then it wouldn't do anything practically to just erase the polite fiction that the Queen matters in our politics today. But Canada doesn't really do incremental constitutional change outside the courts. It's either sweeping panaceas or stasis, these days, and all the replacements for the current head of state mechanism are either identical in practice (as you point out) or, in my view, actively worse. So I tend to fall on the leave it alone side.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure that, assuming the Queen is oppressive in some way, I, an English speaking Albertan, is oppressed to roughly the same extent as a French speaking Quebecker. Maybe you are. It comes down to whether you have any desire for self-determination.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
As I said before I have a certain soft spot for nostalgic symbols of our commonwealth past, but how the heck do you run a society based on equality regardless of birth or background when one family is-by merit of birth alone-given so much reverence and title? I know immigrants from other parts question this, especially when we are compared against the United States and France. At least we don't have peers to worry about.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Just to be contentious, one could argue that almost all of France's former colonies turned into basket cases. Quebecers were clearly *lucky* to have been spared this fate by being taken over by the Crown. They are simply ungrateful. (Nb: I do *not* hold this opinion but I have heard it advanced unironically. )
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
JayMax posted:Maybe you are. It comes down to whether you have any desire for self-determination. Couldn't we self determine to be a part of a greater whole? This is an honest question in case you feel I'm trolling.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to monarchy, as much as I am opposed to a foreign monarchy, what we should really do is get the Queen to hand over the Queen/King of Canada title to either a decent relative willing to become Canadian, or whichever Canuck she deems good enough. Basically replace the GG with a distinctly Canadian monarchy, that way it's (somewhat) less connected to Imperial British heritage, while still satisfying all the Canadians that insist we need the monarchy because it makes us different than the Americans.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Couldn't we self determine to be a part of a greater whole? This is an honest question in case you feel I'm trolling. It's an interesting question which raises a few more: Can we self-determine to abdicate our self-determination? Can we self-determine to be somebody's subject? Maybe. That's not how it usually works, though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
JayMax posted:It's an interesting question which raises a few more: I think the obvious modern example is with the various nations de jure foregoing a bit of their sovereignty when they joined the United Nations. The European Union seems a more concrete example, there's some awesome Carribean islands who wanted in on our free healthcare.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
JayMax posted:It's an interesting question which raises a few more: That concept of 'we' is incredibly strange and fleeting.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the obvious modern example is with the various nations de jure foregoing a bit of their sovereignty when they joined the United Nations. The European Union seems a more concrete example, there's some awesome Carribean islands who wanted in on our free healthcare. Yes, but there's a big difference between joining a democratic enterprise and bending the knee to some monarch. JawKnee posted:That concept of 'we' is incredibly strange and fleeting. Must be the royal we.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:51
|
|