Pages

Friday, December 6, 2013

Arguing with Canadian Republicans

In June 2013, I wrote an article entitled “Arguing with Australian Republicans” and with only two words of alteration, the same opening lines can be used for this article. Republicans are quite a nonsensical bunch no matter where in the world you find them and those infecting the great country of Canada are certainly no different. Their arguments are so full of holes and lack any credibility to such a great extent that they have so far been unsuccessful in their treasonous efforts in spite of having virtually the entire mainstream media, political establishment and university system all helping them push their agenda. Of course, the traitor crowd in Canada has not even managed to get as far as their fellow traitors in Australia but, because of all the powerful institutions mentioned, they continue to get far more attention than they deserve and so their ridiculous carping is a near constant irritant. Now, I am sure some may dispute me that all of these elite bodies are pushing republicanism but they are, they are just not always overt about it.

For example, not all professors in Canadian universities are actively trying to convert their students into being good, little republicans but they are certainly not teaching them about the Canadian constitutional monarchy or instilling in them a proper understanding of and loyalty to the Canadian Crown. As for the media, despite the fact that none of the major Canadian political parties embrace the cause of republicanism, despite the fact that no poll has ever shown a majority of Canadians to favor republicanism and in spite of the fact that sufficient public support for a republic has never been gained to even hold a referendum on the subject, the CBC continues to give air-time to Canadian republicans virtually every time a royal event is covered. And this bias reaches across the political spectrum. For example, one of the most famous (or infamous) “right-wing” Canadian media personalities, Ezra Levant, on October 29, 2013, told an American guest that one of the things he most admired about the United States was that Americans are “revolutionary in spirit”. This was on a segment discussing merging the USA and Canada into one country and never once did Levant say that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that was preferable to being a republic with America. The CBC to Levant basically covers the left/right divide in the Canadian media. As for the political establishment, the instances of outspoken loyalty to the Crown have been relatively few.

Yet, Canadian republicans are, thankfully, a rather inept bunch and were it not for the woefully inadequate public education concerning the monarchy, they would almost certainly have no support at all. Their own arguments frequently contradict each other. They claim, for example, that none of the royal safeguards, royal titles, royal treaties or anything at all would be changed if Canada became a republic because Canada is a republic already in all but name yet, they still say it is vital that Canada become a republic in name as well. So they are at the same time arguing that the Canadian monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with Canada these days but that it is somehow still damaging enough to need to be abolished. Have they never stopped to ask themselves how an institution can be doing a disservice to Canada when they are the ones claiming it does not serve at all? A close look at their arguments shows almost nothing but a long list of everything that would NOT change if Canada became a republic and yet they still try to persuade that changing Canada into a republic is absolutely vital. It is truly astonishing that absolutely anyone with their faculties in order could ever be taken in by such a cause. However, again, as with republicans everywhere, when common sense fails they do not hesitate to resort to outright lies.

To demonstrate this, I shall respond to some of the posted “Frequently Asked Questions” on the website of the most prominent Canadian republican organization. Their very first “question” is a lie itself. “If Canada ends its constitutional connection to the British monarchy, doesn’t that mean we’d become a republic?” Their answer is “yes” but that this would only accomplish in name what already exists in fact, so, again, one would be tempted to ask, “then what’s the point?” right out of the gate -and this is only the first question mind you. However, the lie is in the question itself as technically (and they do like to get technical, so I will as well) Canada already ended its constitutional connection to the British monarchy. There is now a Canadian monarchy that is legally a totally separate entity from the British monarchy. First question, first lie.

Second question, “Wouldn’t we end up being a republic like the United States?” to which the Canadian republicans reply “no”, basically saying that they would probably be a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential republic like the United States. However, if Canada became a republic it would be a republic “like the United States” in that both would be republics. In fact, Canada would be more like the USA than any other republic because both Canada and the United States started out the same way, only becoming separate countries because the American revolutionary forces were defeated during the American War for Independence when they invaded Canada. The American “Founding Fathers” originally intended their new country to include all of the British Empire in North America, Canada included, but Canada resisted and when peace was secured the current division between Canada and the United States was first drawn. The fundamental difference between the USA and Canada is the monarchy. Other than that, most Americans and Canadians wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, speak the same language, listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows and movies, drive the same cars, have many of the same political arguments from environmental protection to abortion. Both countries sprang from the same root and both now have an equally diverse population representing various ethnicities and religions and so on. The only reason Canada and the USA are not the same country already is because colonial America rebelled against the King while colonial Canada remained loyal.

The third question asks, “Is it true that if we end the monarchy we’d have to rename the Mounties and lose all our other royal patronages?” to which the republicans answer, “Absolutely not. The criteria for the title “Royal” includes no reference to removing it if a country transitions from monarchy to republic. Ireland has been a republic for over sixty years and has many institutions with royal patronages.” Which is true, but this is not a case of republican honesty so much as an illustration of how republicans want to turn the whole of Canada into a lie. It is true, they would not have to rename the “Royal Canadian Mounted Police” if Canada became a republic just as it is true that they could choose to rename them the “Imperial Canadian Mounted Police” even though there is no “Emperor of Canada” which would make about as much sense as calling them “Royal” when Canada has no Royal Family. Do you see how absurd these people are? Are you starting to see a pattern here? The very next question & answer assures people that Canada would not have to leave the Commonwealth if they became a republic. That is true, though I wish it were not, but do you see the common theme here? So they want Canada to be a republic but not a republic like the United States, they want to keep their royal titles and royal patronages and they want to stay in the Commonwealth of which HM the Queen is the “head”. Do they have any idea how ridiculous they sound?

Another question asks about the monarchy providing stability. These oh-so “honest” republicans respond by pointing to revolts, plots and revolutions Britain has had over the centuries, the Irish problem and the upcoming vote on “independence” for Scotland. They also point out that Canada almost broke up as a monarchy, referring, I assume, to the secession vote in Quebec. Well, yes, congratulations republicans, no country is immune from treason and internal conflict as your very presence demonstrates that every barrel has some bad apples. However, perhaps a little perspective might be in order. Monarchies may not be free from internal conflict, but history has proven that republics are better at setting people to killing each other by far. The American Civil War remains the bloodiest war ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world -and that was in the republic that has worked better and survived longer than most any other in history. Russia had internal strife as an empire but nothing so bloody and brutal as the civil war following the downfall of the monarchy. France had civil wars as a kingdom but nothing close to the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution, to say nothing of the massacres that followed it in royalist parts of the country.

There are a number of questions trying to explain away the lack of public outcry over the monarchy but it is the answer to the last question, basically, “why bother?” that displays yet another republican contradiction. They say, “Admittedly, for as long as there’s been monarchy, there have been those who oppose it for its inegalitarian and undemocratic nature. But now, Canadians are increasingly realizing that a country that has rejected titles and aristocracy many decades ago, and which triumphs merit over bloodline, deserves to have the same values mirrored in the highest office of the land.” Yet, in their own second question about becoming “like the United States” they themselves say about a Canadian President that, “Contrary to popular belief, the position need not be political or popularly elected.” So it seems they cannot even make up their own mind whether a democratically elected head of state is a good thing or not. They do not want an unelected monarch as head of state because they value democracy but at the same time they do want an unelected president as head of state because democracy makes things political.

Aside from all of that though, when you hear these traitors being interviewed or debated, they invariably fall back on the old whine that the monarchy is a hold-over from the colonial past, from the days of the British Empire and it prevents Canada from being viewed as a “real” country. As if the foundational institution of a country should be determined based on what the neighbors will think. Frankly, the only thing I see detrimental to Canada being considered a “real” country is dimwits like these republicans and the influence they have already had on the Canadian public. Even as it stands now, the Canadian monarchy is one of the few things that makes it clear Canada is a different country from the United States. However, when I am tempted to take Canadian nationhood less than seriously it is because of things like scrapping the national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, in favor of a new, more “inclusive” model. Real countries are proud of their history, heritage and symbols and do not discard them for being ‘behind the times’. I am tempted to take Canada less than seriously when celebrated journalists like Diane Francis write books about why Canada should merge with the United States. Real countries do not want to become another country. I am tempted to take Canada less seriously when a Canadian says what they are most proud of about Canada is their respect for human rights and multiculturalism, in other words, the value of having no values. Ask an American, even when the party they oppose is in power, what they are most proud of about their country, and they will usually say “our form of government” which they think is the best in the world. If Canadians would say the same it would do more for their “image” than becoming just another republic.

10 comments:

  1. Great article! The polls that come out at every royal milestone are the worst of manufactured lazy journalism. I spent a fair amount of time on a Canadian republican Facebook page debating them on the value of having a monarchy. You could get them to admit an idea was flawed only to have it come up in the very next post by the same person! Plus, the entire movement seems built on mean-spiritedness.

    Of the organizations you mentioned that oppose the Canadian Monarchy a group you possibly left out is advocacy groups for greater democracy. For instance a group called Democracy Watch ran a satirical campaign to make American comedian Stephen Colbert king as a means of pointing out the need for an elected Head of State. Do you think they would engage in debate? Nope, just restate the purpose of the campaign.

    In the political sphere things aren't much better. While the governing Conservatives apparently have some vocal monarchists they don't generally comment publically. Among the Opposition NDP there has been a proposal to examine ending the monarchy by a leadership contender (he didn't win but he did well so he's likely to be well placed in the party for a while which is an annoyance). As for the Liberals they recently rejected a policy motion to end the monarchy by a convincing amount (the motion was actually put forward under very shady circumstances by some members of the youth wing). However, every Liberal politician I've talked to has pretty much said "I think it should end at some point" so....yah. This has made my voting life rather difficult as I can't vote for the Conservatives for other reasons.

    I eventually gave up on them altogether and joined a smaller party (the Pirate Party if you want to know). I expected it to be absolutely full of republicans but was pleasantly surprised. Attitudes range from ambivalent to positive with me running into maybe three who were republicans. Also, three of the party's past leaders have supported the monarchy to varying degrees when I asked them about it and the current one is a strong supporter of the monarchy which I know because...

    James Wilson
    Interim Leader
    Pirate Party of Canada

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article. However, as I am a Canadian, and familiar with what happens in this country, I know Ezra Levant is actually a monarchist. He likes the US, certainly, but he's an open monarchist. Here's a video of him saying it: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/924440725001

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing that. I see him fairly often and that was "news" to me. I've never heard of him talking about the monarchy before or holding up the monarchy as a distinction that Canada has and should be proud of. Good to see -would like to see more of it.

      Delete
  3. As an American, I completely agree that having a democratically elected head of state only makes the position political. The American Presidency was designed to wield executive power but it was never meant to be a bastion of party politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true but I don't think most Americans today could even comprehend the notion. It is SO political now, I doubt anyone in the U.S. could wrap their mind around the idea that it was originally intended to be an office that was above political partisanship.

      Delete
  4. I would suggest that Canada invites a different member of the British Royal Family to come and live in Canada and take the Canadian throne, at least that way Canada can remain a monarchy and have its own unique head of state who is a Canadian citizen and who lives in Canada. I would suggest something similar for Australia and New Zealand as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is often suggested but I cannot foresee such a thing ever becoming a possibility. I would prefer it to a republic of course but the republicans would be just as opposed to it and monarchists would be divided by it.

      Delete
  5. It's worth noting that in fact the American Civil War was only the /second/ bloodiest war in the Western Hemisphere. The bloodiest was, by far, the Mexican Civil War, which happened for similar reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no such thing as "the Mexican Civil War" so that hardly counts. Even what is known as "the" Mexican Revolution was not the first, nor was it one, continuous conflict but a succession of intermittent rebellions and coups.

      Delete
  6. All the whining about how the monarchy keeps Canada tied to Britain's apron strings seems very adolescent to me. No one speaks or thinks of Canada as a British colony except Canadian republicans!

    ReplyDelete