Republic of Canada Weekend Forum, Toronto, Ontario May 18 2009

[JAMCO97]

Your day will never come

[JAMCO97]

Thought we still had friends in Canada but your just turning into revolutionary Americans fuck all revolutionary scumbags GOD SAVE THE QUEEN from NIreland United Kingdom

[LiamUe]

@JAMCO97

dear sir.

don't listen to anything here.

Canadians love the Monarchy.

These folks are historically ignorant ponces.

know that Canada will never pull a tantrum like the 1774 Puritan F-cks

[PatchesRips]

@LiamUe "Canadians love the Monarchy."

Canadians are in fact, for the most part, ambivalent about the monarchy. It neither greatly distresses them, nor do they find it relevant to their lives. There's no great feeling about it one way or the other. On the other hand, it is broadly alienating to French Canadians, and for Canadians of other backgrounds, it makes a lie of true equality by making a fetish of the roots of British ethnicity. We ought to have something that's ours alone.

[LiamUe]

@PatchesRips

I'll write this assuming you are Canadian/Canadien because of your need to say 'we'

If you do not understand how it works, which it seems you do not, I feel sorry for you.

The Monarchy is what will continue to allow such other people groups to enter into Canada.

Do you actually think plurality exists in states where the Head of State and the Head of Government are the same person, and they are elected on a party-based, political platform?

cite your sources next time

[PatchesRips]

@JAMCO97 Tiocfaidh ár lá.

[LiamUe]

@PatchesRips

to be reunited with the United Kingdom!

Yes.

Your day will come.

And then the brothers of Ireland can again rejoice:

the lies of Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, De Valera and all the others will be revealed, and you'll see you were led into statehood by an insecure git.

[Whitbywatcher]

The democratic system in Canada ( or Britain ) is superior to that of the United States because no one in Canada ( or Britain ) ever swears an oath to a politician and we never owe alliegence to anyone representing a political party; The head of state is seperate to politics and above party politics, The Crown protects "The People" from corrupt politicians.

[sweiland75]

Why does an allegedly sovereign country need to consult with a monarchy, thousands of kilometres away, to do what it wants? Believing that the abolition of the monarchy, in Canada, will lead to Canada becoming the 51st state, is just so insane that it reaches paranoia.

[chufuss]

I love Canada and think there are many things we (United States) can learn from you, but I believe with all my heart we have a superior political system.

[sweiland75]

@chufuss so?

[Whitbywatcher]

Canada is not a colony of Britain any more, and tecnicaly has not been since 1982 when the constitution became a Canadian act of Parliament, but in reality Canada has been an independent nation since the 1860s - as stated previously the role of the CANADIAN monarchy is not for Britain or the British to determine, it is entirely a Canadian matter for Canadians to decide.

[sweiland75]

@Whitbywatcher WRONG! You better go back to school, because you are clearly uneducated.

[blacbraun]

@EMPIRE01233 Democracy and Monarchy are mutually exclusive concepts....you idiots think that if we become a repblic we'll be come American's. ignorant to the end.

[ivysandoval]

If you like being part of a monarchy, why don't you move to the UK?

[Conchobhar]

@ivysandoval The British don't like the monarchy, either.

[sweiland75]

@broadband01 Because we Canadian republicans do not want to lower our standards. That's why we want to improve our country, by abolishing this monarchy.

[Whitbywatcher]

The Canadian monarchy is obviously a question for Canadians, here in the UK every opinion poll ever conducted shows a clear majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, I cannot help but feel that Canada would gain nothing by becoming a republic, what would you have ? - a president in a grey suit that no one has ever heard of - a Liberal president, a Conservative president, what precisely would change.

[PatchesRips]

@Whitbywatcher "what would you have ? - a president in a grey suit that no one has ever heard of"

As opposed to what; a nice old lady in a pink hat who, whenever she goes abroad as the head of state of 16 countries, everyone goes "Oh, look! There's the Queen of ENGLAND!"? At least the guy "no one has ever heard of" would be OURS.

[blacbraun]

@Whitbywatcher We'd stop pretenting to be a colony of your country which we are not anymore...

[PatchesRips]

@EMPIRE01233 "down with republicanism. Parliamentary democracy for life!"

Lots of parliamentary democracies are republics; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[gobblinmeat]

It's a shame, and a little pathetic they don't TRY to learn more about any country, but at the same time, I don't entirely blame their ignorance given their celebrated constitutional perspective. But, yet another Ipsos Reid poll found that Americans know their civil history vastly better than Canadians do. So until we improve our own historical education, I don't expect them take a great interest in ours.

[gobblinmeat]

The US is our closest neighbour but whenever the Queen visits the US she isn't introduced as the Queen of Canada. She is the British Queen. It's amazing to watch some of the pandemonium and intense fascination with which Americans regard her. But when she comes here, her reception is luke warm at best. I'm not one of those knee-jerk reactionary Canadians who slams the US for not understanding Canada. I think most Canadians don't understand it either. ('Understand' in the objective sense.)

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat "but whenever the Queen visits the US she isn't introduced as the Queen of Canada."

That's not what I'm taking issue with. I don't really mind if Christopher Hitchens wants to buck Canadians up to institute our own head of state. What I care about is his lack of sensitivity to not just an entire nation's history, but its very existence. I suppose he'd consider it big yuks to tell a German audience they should really invade the Czechs and get it right this time.

[PatchesRips]

(cont'd) The principal difference between a constitutional monarchy and a republican presidential system is not that the people don't decide the nature and course of government in the former... quite clearly, in this country and ones like it, we do. The difference is simply that the person holding the titular executive office in a constitutional monarchy acquires it by heredity, and in a republic, acquires it either by direct election or appointment by another body. That's it.

[PatchesRips]

Frankly, I think Ed Press doesn't really understand government. He's taking subjective, arbitrarily-worded dictionary descriptions as absolutes and insisting monarchism and democracy are necessarily incompatible. That's patently and, for most Canadians, obvious false...

(cont'd)

[fixxxer2673]

The Monarchy should not be abolished because it seems irrelevant. That is a naive and ignorant assertion. I think it is best said in the American Declaration of Independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Monarchy should only be abolished if it harms our system, and for now at least, it doesn't. Abolition without cause would be illegitimate and irrational.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 I agree with everything you say, but I think you're overlooking the fact that having a foreigner, endeared mostly to other Canadians of her own ethnicity, as our head of state IS arguably harmful to our nation. Having the British monarch as the Canadian head of state has never sat well with French Canadians, for instance, and represents a permanent sore spot and eternal reminder of conquest. That's a real, genuine, ongoing threat to our country's future, it must be recognized.

[fixxxer2673]

@PatchesRips Certainly that argument could be made, however one must assess the magnitude of the harm conducted. Would retaining the monarchy be more harmful than abolishing it? In my opinion, no. Abolishing the monarchy is more trouble than it is worth. Pierre Trudeau came to the same conclusion back in the 1970s when there was extraordinary pressure from multiple sources for abolition.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 "Abolishing the monarchy is more trouble than it is worth."

That's contingent upon how the project is gone about. If we were to simply present to the Canadian people the prospect of a presidency that is in effect and scope essentially identical to the office of Governor-General, but without the ties to an official office of head of state to which no Canadian can actually aspire, I don't believe it would be hugely disruptive, and could go a long way to reconciling French Canada.

[fixxxer2673]

@PatchesRips Something tells me Quebecers would not be reconciled with a simple abolition of the monarchy. I would go as far as to say that many Quebecers are irreconcilable. I just think that in attempting to pacify Quebec we run the risk of alienating other more loyalist parts of our country (Maritimes, BC). There is no win-win situation here.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 "Quebecers would not be reconciled with a simple abolition of the monarchy."

I never meant to suggest it as a panacea. Of course there are Quebecois for whom an independent Quebec is their real goal, regardless of what the rest of Canada does or doesn't do. I imagine there always will be. But to suggest it's a matter of no consequence is demonstrably not the case. The last referendum failed by a margin of only about a single percent.

(cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 (cont'd)

It's obvious that many who voted in favour of separation were soft separatists; if the place were full of dyed-in-the-wool separatists, the country would have long ago disintegrated in an all-or-nothing civil war. Gestures make a difference. I'm entirely convinced Canada's timely adoption of official bilingualism at the end of the 60s and the acceptance of French Canadians and their language in the halls of federal power were key to forestalling the breakup of Canada.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 (cont'd)

Likewise, I'm convinced that the gesture of instituting a truly Canadian head of state would be a gesture that would be appreciated by Quebecois who sit on the fence between federal and sovereigntist inclinations, and would be a welcome signal to new Canadians from other backgrounds that they aren't second class citizens and the step children of the British Empire, but can aspire to head the country to which they've come, or born in in the first generation.

(cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 (cont'd)

And speaking as someone with a lot of regard for the monarchy myself, I do appreciate the feelings of others across the country. But I'm not inclined to believe that, say, Alberta would secede from Canada just so that Britain can continue to decide the person of their head of state. Royal visits to Canada are appreciated, but they're hardly met with the paroxysms of national joy that they once were. I believe Canadians, in general, are prepared to consider alternatives.

[fixxxer2673]

@PatchesRips My study of the Quebec sovereignists is that they are not that concerned with the institutions of our country (although I agree it is a major factor). But rather there is a social ideological divide in what Canada should be. English Canada believes that there is a distinct Canadian culture and we are all equal participants in that. However, French Canada believes that Canada is a contract between two peoples: the English and the French. I think this is the main source of contention.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 Well, a couple of things. First issue is you're overgeneralizing. People have their own ideas, and there are all different shades of them along a spectrum. That's why I feel conciliatory gestures matter. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Some people will be swayed and others won't, but everyone who accepts our goodwill is another person who'll work to keep moving Canada forward.

A lot of English Canadians really do believe there's a single Canadian culture: theirs.

(cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 (cont'd) That's an unfortunate attitude that negates, or at best subordinates, other ways of being Canadian. I'm an English Canadian (for the most part), and it's not my concept of Canada. I do see Canada more as a contract between founding peoples (including the First Nations), and those who've come since as well. Like it or not, it's evolving, and what bound people 150 years ago isn't necessarily binding on us.

(cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 (cont'd) I suppose that's why a British head of state seems increasingly strange and anachronistic to me. I don't hate the Queen, and I'm not clawing to get rid of the monarchy, willy-nilly. I'm just coming to the conclusion, along with a fair number of other Canadians, that she's really someone else's, and it's okay to let that go and create something that's ours alone. Not that Canada will instantly be Camelot or something: it's about the message it sends to non-British Canadians.

[gobblinmeat]

@fixxxer2673

There are formidable reasons that support cutting the strings, which cant be ignored forever. The monarchy and our dependence ambiguities affect everything from our art, unity, metaphysical landscape, national consciousness, posterity, authenticity claims, diversity, self-perception copesthetic with our reality, to entrusting THEM with our shared symbols that embody our so-called identity. Your over regard for Loyalists is alarming considering to whom and what they're Loyal.

[fixxxer2673]

@gobblinmeat You are confusing the difference between a monarch and the monarchy. A monarch is a person and monarchy is an institution. This institution is greater than any one man or woman. I will be the first to admit that the Windors are not the best family for the monarchy (although I have a great respect for HM). As an institution however, I think that the monarchy has had a positive impact on Canadian culture and over time the monarchy has become Canadian, even though the monarch hasn't.

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 "As an institution however, I think that the monarchy has had a positive impact on Canadian culture"

Well, I'm curious. I've always toed this line myself, but now that I come to think about it, I'm hard-pressed to come up with anything concrete. Setting aside the foreign aspect for the moment, can you think of specific instances where being a constitutional monarchy has served the interests of Canada in a way where being a republic would have been detrimental?

[fixxxer2673]

@PatchesRips Naturally the comment I made is highly subjective and depends on what your priorities are. But off the top of my head, I would say that the Crown's role of patronage and appointments of racial/ethnic/religious minorities goes a long way in balancing representation in our diverse country where it is needed. This could have potentially become highly politicized but it didn't due to the glow of reverence and impartiality that royal association still brings you (it cannot be denied).

[PatchesRips]

@fixxxer2673 To be honest, it's the sort of soft answer that's all I've been able to come up with too. I'm not persuaded that fairly spreading around sinecures represents an overawing defence of the monarchy as an indispensable institution, though. And I'm not convinced this couldn't be done just as equitably in republican system. We have parties in Canada, but they're kept remote from the process. I don't see why that need change just because our head of state is not longer born into the job.

[gobblinmeat]

"It is pretty outrageous that Her Majesty the Queen is still recognized as the Head of State anywhere on the North American Continent"

--Christopher Hitchens

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat Where did he actually say that? The only attributions I can find are actually quotes of yours...

[gobblinmeat]

@PatchesRips

In his filmed lecture at the Hauenstein Center found on YouTube @

"Christopher Hitchens on Jefferson & Bush (1 of 8)" starting at about 7:38

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat Ah, thanks.

In truth Hitchens's remarks seem gratuitous and facetious. In a larger sense I suppose they're not out of keeping with his apparent allegiance to military action as a cure for cultural differences.

I wouldn't shout this one too loud, BTW, because it smacks of quote mining. Taken in conjunction with the REST of what he says, Hitchens's remarks are exactly the sort of thing monarchists wave like a flag. Trust me: I was offended by his casual dismissal of our nationhood.

[gobblinmeat]

@PatchesRips

I disagree about him dismissing our nationhood. He is well aware of his audience [Americans] and their (lack of) knowledge about Canada. He is no doubt endearing himself to them to establish a bond; and what better way than to rekindle the old "Canadian Question." I found it funny. This quote is taken after a sincere pause, which he followed up by saying, "I leave the thought with you." It is provocative and direct, and I think Canadians should take heed.

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat "I found it funny."

I didn't. The man wasn't goading Canadians take responsibility for their own head of state, he was goading Americans to take responsibility for fulfilling the goals of manifest destiny by "conquering" another country... ours. I don't care if he was joking (and WAS he?); the remark was offensive.

(cont'd)

[gobblinmeat]

@PatchesRips

Those follow up comments were intended as separate thoughts, but anyways. So we can self-deprecate and take cheap shots at Americans, but rear up when they entertain themselves at our expense by comically? reasserting their old prophesy of continental annexation? This sentiment seems to betray your other comments I've read, but what does it say about your confidence in Canada if you think Manifest Destiny is both attainable and a growing priority for Americans?

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat You're consistently missing my point. I don't care that Hitchens said it only in jest. I'm not living in apprehension that the people in his audience went home, polished their rifles, and started drawing up plans to seize the Ambassador Bridge, annex Windsor and move on London. What I'm offended by is the underlying impression Hitchens clearly has that Canadian nationality is an abortive project that should rightly have been strangled in the cradle in eagle talons (cont'd)

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat (cont'd) and the suggestion that the constitutional choices we've made for ourselves over two centuries of separate development are illegitimate and risible. The overall impression one is left with is that Hitchens considers Canada a bastard child that makes foolish choices and ought to have been euthanized long ago anyway. Christopher Hitchens, and others, may consider Canada's history, legitimacy, and struggle to exist as a laughing stock. I'm not inclined to see it that way.

[gobblinmeat]

@PatchesRips

Does the fact that we remain 'unconquered' say something about ourselves, or them? Or neither. I'd bet CH has more respect and knowledge than he lets on here. Is poking fun not a form of flattery? I thought the crowd showed quite a lot of restraint--I didn't hear whistles and cheers. But if that's how you feel then, so be it.

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat "Is poking fun not a form of flattery?"

It can be, but I'm not hearing any flattery in what Hitchens is saying. What I'm hearing is "Jefferson would have been astounded that these idiots haven't given up the Queen yet and that you guys never made them". Boiled down to its essence, that's what he actually said to that audience. Now if you can find anything in that that suggests anything praiseworthy about Canadians, you have me beat. All I hear is jaw-dropping disrespect.

[PatchesRips]

@gobblinmeat (cont'd)

I don't take the casual dismissal of over two centuries of separate, sincere, and considerably successful political development in the hopes of sucking up to some ignorant foreign audience lightly. And I could hardly blame monarchists for making as much justifiable hay as possible out of Hitchens's breathtakingly insensitive remarks.

[gobblinmeat]

"It is pretty outrageous that Her Majesty the Queen is still recognized as the Head of State anywhere on the North American continent"

--Christopher Hitchens

[gbambino]

@gobblinmeat Outrageous! Wait... Why is that again?

[christophergawlik]

Je voterais sans aucunes hésitation pour la formation d'une république canadienne. I consider myself to be a ''real patriot''. I was thought in school that my country was the greatest, ''le plus meilleur'', a country of liberty and freedom, a country of peace and tolerence. How can WE, the people of Canada, pledge allegiance to some foreign head of state that do not share our values and do not represent a democratic state. Monarchy = non-democratic goverment.

[gbambino]

@christophergawlik I don't know how we can pledge allegiance to a foreign head of state that doesn't represent a democratic state. But, the question is moot: We don't do that.

[PatchesRips]

@gbambino Again, this is mere rhetorical hair-splitting, to tell the truth. The practical realities of the matter is that the head of state of Canada is someone who doesn't live in Canada, and doesn't even visit Canada very often. It's kind of sad and pathetic, the more I think about it, that we cling to something so tenuous as somehow central to our identity. It's like the Britons of the 5th Century, still proclaiming themselves loyal Romans long after the last legion quit the island in AD 410.

[LiamUe]

@PatchesRips

hmm...what's sad and pathetic is that you don't understand the Parliamentary Monarchy, or the Crowned Republic.

And your analogy is also pathetic

it doesn't stand.

and apparently neither do the 15 people who liked your statement:

all of you are unwaveringly ready for a republic.

good.

there's one south of the 49th.

jog on.

[KangaKucha]

I agree that canada should be a republic, but its not because of the queen, but the whole insitution of the monarchy is inconpatible with the modren view of liberal democracy. Yet, we shouldn't totally abaondon the GG and other insitutions, imho the GG, remaned the chasoller or s/t like it as long as it's not president, should be elected by the senate from a group of people selected by the PM. 

[KangaKucha]

@KangaKucha Most monarchi names and symbols should be replace or eliminated, but we should, like Bolivar, call ourseleves the victorian republic,

[PatchesRips]

@KangaKucha A president doesn't automatically have to wield the powers of the US President just because it shares the name (although given the proximity of the US to Canada, I admit there would be a powerful inclination among people to anticipate that parallel). The presidents of several republics have largely ceremonial roles and executive powers limited pretty much to what our GG has. I don't see why the role of GG as it exists couldn't simply be converted to a Canadian Presidency.

[KangaKucha]

@PatchesRips I think the term in general is over used, and I would rather prefer to use another term, being more independent and Canadian.

[chufuss]

As an American I simply don't understand on thing. Why would Canadians want a non Canadian, The Queen/King of England, to be your Head of State? Also do you elect your Prime Minister, or is like the Uk where you elect a local MP and they choose the PM?

.

[stormfront33]

@chufuss You are right........I don't understand this pathetic reality we have in Canada. It is a total embaressment that we can not elect our own head of state....some one who actually lives here. 2. No we do not directly vote for our Prime Minister. Morons like Chretien and slimeball leftists like Trudeau would never have been voted into power had we had a direct election.

[Libertyjack1]

@stormfront33 You really should take a course on politics and government. What does party politics have to do with this issue? The Tories have traditionally been the most pro-monarchist party in Canada, so don't expect Harper to give you an elected Head of State. It's because of Conservative premiers (most specifically, Dick Hadfield & Sterling Lyon) that we need the support of all 10 provinces to change the Constitution, thus making it virtually impossible to get rid of the monarchy.

[ryan84160]

@chufuss It is quite ridiculous. I have always been embarrassed by the fact that we still have a queen, although virtually no one thinks of her as our queen.

[chufuss]

@ryan84160 : I think you have a such a great progressive nation. I think the United States could learn from Canada, but I agree with your feelings about the queen. I'm also shocked that other Canadians see fellow citizens as unpatriotic if they don't support the monarchy. How do the French Canadians feel about having an English Queen?

[ryan84160]

@chufuss Yes, I agree that the U.S can learn from Canada especially on health care,bank regulations and budget deficits.We can also learn from your superiour political system and constitution.

Most French Canadians do not want the monarchy, but they, like most Canadians, do not really care about the issue at all as it has almost no impact on their day to day life. Given the chance I have no doubt that we would vote in favor of a republic.

[chufuss]

@ryan84160 :I'm with you brother..especially with the joke that is our healthcare system down here. it's an embarassment.

[ryan84160]

@chufuss I really don't understand those douche bags. The only explanation I can think of is that they must all be over 65 and from a time when the queen actually mattered.

[gbambino]

@chufuss There is no King or Queen of England to even be Canada's head of state. There hasn't been an English monarchy for three hundred years and Canada's had its own monarchy since 1931.

[PatchesRips]

@gbambino "Canada's had its own monarchy since 1931."

This looks good on paper and it's the official line, but every practical sense it's just tacking on a new label to an old, established product. It's as intellectually dishonest as insisting Fluffy has her own water dish when all you've actually done is paint "FLUFFY" on the other side of Fido's water dish. The contents are eternally the same.

[bobslay12]

All republicans go and die!!!

swearing alegiance to the queen is the greatest oath you can ever take!

[gbambino]

I... don't... believe... it. In response to Tomcat's mocking of republican predictability you blurted out exactly the typical republican drivel Tomcat just mocked! Hah!

[gnizleov]

Ed Press cites a stupid example where a grade- school child and a NDP candidate don't realize the Queen is head of state; Ed Press believes ignorance and stupidity are good reasons to ditch an institution.

Mr. Press is clearly a misfit who probably was incompetent in his profession and decided to be a rabble- rouser, thinking he could benefit financially from being an un-Canadian. Shame !

[slickrickdarula]

I am not swearing alliegance to no one because of their blood. Monarchy's are blood based fascism, pure and simple

[gbambino]

Norway, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Australia, the Netherlands, & etc. are fascist states? Are you for real?

[ryan84160]

@gnizleov If you disagree with the monarchy, you are un-Canadian?

[etznab10]

I'm confused and since you "know" soOo much i'll ask you.

Why would being able to vote for every position in power like a true democracy be wrong?

Why would we need to be under the British imperialist regime in 2010?

Why are you so afraid of change?

[saintfletcher]

Australia and Canada can learn much from each other. Canada has her own flag without the Jack, Australia has acts of Parliament defining the Crown as Australian, not British. We have a hybrid System here combining the Us System and the Westminster system. We have no House of Lords or Upper house federally, we have the House of Representatives and a Senate representing the States of Australia, similar to the US. Canada seems to be more British in its system.

[RepublicOfCanada]

definitely saintfletcher

[saintfletcher]

Or you can have a few acts of Canadian Parliament in a few steps before anything to dramatic. In Australia, we are similar to Canada as a Commonwealth country. We have to swear allegiance to the Australia, not a British Monarch. The Queen has not been recognised as a British Monarch over Australia since 1975. By the Royal Styles and Standards act, she is the "Queen of Australia". In Parliament in Australia, they swear to serve the Australian people, not the Queen.

[saintfletcher]

Yet Australia can learn from Canada as we have no written Charter or Bill of Rights here. I think these matters are more important for individual liberties and social justice than the risk of nationalism going wild.

[SarahLee1]

I hope you all know that the British succession laws are sexist, and discriminatory to anyone who's not a member of the Church of England. We need to get the Queen's old face off of our money and replace them with those of Canadians who've made an impact on Canadians. We're not British, we're Canadian. And getting rid of the Queen will just make us more Canadian!

[Pennyman21]

Mr. Press needs educated on our government too - the Oxford dictionary states: Democracy is a government by the whole people of a country, especially through representatives whom they elect. Just to clarify, Canada is a Parliamentary Democracy not a Constitutional Monarchy. A Constitutional Monarchy is ruled by the Monarchy and the Constitution protects the rights of the people under that rule, e.g. Denmark. The Queen has no say in how we govern ourselves.

[SarahLee1]

Sorry buddy but we are a constitutional monarchy. It says so on Canadian civics textbooks. Go check it out.

[ivysandoval]

You obviously have no confidence in being Canadian. What, do you think we'll just lay down and become American?

Sure, we'll just suddenly turn in our Maple Leaf and adopt the stars and stripes. Please, your argument is pathetic and n fact, anti-Canadian.

[goose1212343]

@ivysandoval

Be better than being under the heel of a goddamned brit.

[owen402005]

Do you want Canada to be the 74th state?(god knows how many they have now) because that is what will happen if we get rid of the Monarchy.

The monarchy is tradition and is the founding role it this countrys history. So what is you have to swear allegiance? Just get on with it and go about your day.

Or you can take the easy road and move to the US where you get a new stranger to be incharge every 4 years.

[africamarley]

I really can't understand this thinking. You would rather a foreign royal line be the head of state of this country instead of a Canadian? The royal family doesn't care about anyone but the elite. Prince Philip said he hopes to be reincarnated as a deadly disease to help reduce the human population! They are criminals. We need to change our constitution so that it guarantees our individual rights, self defence, and property rights. I'll swear allegiance to that! End the MONARCHY!

[owen402005]

Is the Monarchy hurting anyone? No it isn't so why change what works? This is one of the greatest countries in the world and we have the monarchy to thank for that. We have a great country and we get to keep out heritage, so I don't see why you republicans are so angry. The only major change that would take place if we lost the monarchy would be Canadians losing their identity hever more so then they are now.

[sweiland75]

@owen402005 We have no identity, without the existence of the British monarchy? Interesting. All this time, I thought that we Canadians had established our own country, our own culture, but, according to your "logic", we are exactly like the British.

[broadband01]

@sweiland75 how can you have established your own country and culture? your culture is mainly british,your traditions and institutions are founded on british ones,,you cant simply colonise a land on behalf of the crown,and then a few generations down the line,say we will change the flag and monarchy ,and that will make us something else,culture makes nations ,not flags and lands,you are the same as us,but occupy a different land,i look at canada,and see everything british in it

[sweiland75]

@broadband01 Oh go fuck yourself and go fuck your queen! Just because you are clueless about Canada, does not mean you can just make up your own image of Canada and that it would be right, no matter how wrong it, in fact, is.

[broadband01]

@sweiland75 fuck you too,i do know canada dim wit,half my family live there,if you dont like canadian heritage,why dont you fuck off to china or something?

[broadband01]

@sweiland75 i bet your one of those pc warrors,that thinks he can influence peoples minds and 400 years of fact,by preaching bullshit on here,are you quebec or irish decent by any chance,or some other knob who has a grudge about being owned by the old empire ,lol

[PatchesRips]

@broadband01 "you cant simply colonise a land on behalf of the crown,and then a few generations down the line,say we will change the flag and monarchy ,and that will make us something else"

Say, broadband; I don't suppose you've ever heard of the United States then, have you...? You should look them up... they essentially disprove everything you just said.