Category: Republicans

Victoria Day Odds & Ends

5/21/2019

The Victoria Day long weekend was somewhat busier than
normal this year. There was also some news I wanted to touch
on that didn't warrant their own posts.

Cake from last year. This year's cake was eaten too quick!

As in previous years I
treated my coworkers
to cake on Saturday. I
also had the chance on
Friday to listen in on
some of the newer hires
talking positively about
the Royal Family.

Scott Morrison

On Saturday I learned that Australian
Prime Minister Scott Morrison, leader
of the right-leaning Liberal/National
Coalition, had won the election over
Bill Shorten of the Labor Party. Bill
Shorten has since resigned as leader.
From a strict monarchist perspective
the end of Mr. Shorten's leadership is
welcomed. He had proposed a binding
plebiscite on the future of the monarchy if he won (followed
by a referendum on the specific type of republic to be
adopted). His defeat makes this plan much less likely to
happen. Especially as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has
declared himself to be a monarchist. This would be a
good time for Australian monarchists in the Labor Party to
start encouraging a leadership candidate more friendly to the
Australian Monarchy to step forward.

Photo Credit: Booking.com

On Victoria Day I hosted a meeting
of the New Brunswick branch of the
Monarchist League of Canada in
Fredericton at the Maverick Room
(pictured). I had re-activated the
branch in October of last year
following a two year hiatus that
resulted from the previous chairman
stepping down. Despite the rainy weather we had ten people
show up. After a brief update on the branch's status and a
social time over dinner we discussed what initiatives we
should pursue as a branch going forward. One new member
was signed up at the meeting and a good time was had by all.

An interesting post showed up on the
Monarchists Facebook page stating that the
UK pressure group Republic no longer has a
functioning organization. The investigation
of this claim does provide some solid
evidence that something is wrong. This year
only three press releases have gone out. This
is paltry when compared to previous years. Their social media has likewise been much reduced in volume. This kind of
slowdown can often be attributed to a lack of volunteers
which stems from a demotivated base. However, the
slowdown does coincide with executive board elections held at
the start of the year so internal conflicts can't be ruled out.
The organization still exists but if it can't find a new strategy
beyond being snarky killjoys they are doomed.

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Victoria Day (whatever the
weather might have been).

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

2 Comments

My First Hate Mail!

1/22/2019

2 Comments

There are milestones in every bloggers life; the first post, first
like, first comment, first re-tweet, first 1000 daily views. All
have long-since been surpassed by this blog. But there is one
milestone that has remained stubbornly out of reach: hate
mail. If I sound disappointed, I am. One sign that my blog is
getting views outside of my typical audience would be an
increase in hostile messaging and posts. That has been absent,
until now.

We are quite amused.

There are a lot of ways to respond to hate
mail. I could ignore it but that is very low
effort, even for me. Or I can take an idea
from a certain YouTube channel and just
mock it. Sadly, the fine gentleman that
put in a great deal of effort to contact me
didn't give me a lot to work with. And I
am not nearly as clever or funny as the
Youtuber linked to above. Perhaps this
type of comedy actually requires having
a British accent. But enough delaying!

Bill Malcolm

Hello Bill.

Your Leave a Comment form doesn't work. Press submit and zilch. So here goes:

Poking it with your finger doesn't work either.

I don't know what to tell you.
People have managed to figure
out how to post comments
both before and after the last
time you told me about this
problem. I can only assume it
is a problem on your end. Did
you remember to fill out the
required boxes and hit the
Submit button (with your
cursor, not your head). I've
included a helpful diagram for
you. Hopefully this simple process will give you no trouble in
the future.

Another highly irrelevant post about something that matters not a twiddley-dum,
twiddley-dee in the scheme of things these days. The UK's falling to bits and all you
offer amounts to an explanation why Entertainment Tonight and all the gossip
rags treat this bunch of dough-heads as if they were important or something.
Celebrities, no more no less[,] and just as empty between their lugholes.

I, too, like to meddle.

Perhaps the title of the blog (at the top
of the page) is unclear. Brexit for all its
insanity isn't a topic for this blog. But
you might be happy to know I have
sent advice to MPs in Britain on how
they might get a better Brexit deal. It
would screw over the European Union
pretty hard so depending on your
stance on that organization maybe you
won't be happy after all. Perhaps I
should write some editorials on that
idea too. Hmm...

On a progressive blog, no less, where something a bit more enlightening than tired
old arguments dredged up for the 15th time justifying keeping this lot in clover
would be appreciated.

I provide a variety of arguments and for the most part avoid
the one's put forward by the Monarchist League. You can view
all of them on the Arguments For Monarchy page.

Listen, mate, I was born in the UK in the forties and nobody gave a damn then,
except for the brief period when the king died and Elizabeth was crowned Queen
the next year.

Forties? That would make you 50 or 60 years old! (EDIT: Bill
has pointed out he is in fact 72. The author regrets the error)
Perhaps a more respectful tone is required for someone who
has a solid 40 years on me. Mr. Malcolm, do you think I talk
monarchy with everyone I know? Not in the slightest. I have
about three people I know for which the Canadian Monarchy
is a topic of conversation. All of them younger than yourself.
Have you considered that your views are generational in
nature and not a good representation of wide public opinion?

My parents didn't and they were well-educated. We came to Canada in the late
fifties; I returned for five years from 1969. How much did the Brits natter on about
the monarchy while I was there? Zilch. Not my relatives, not my friends, not a soul.
At the end of movies at theatres while God Save The Queen was played, people still
moved to the exits. Standing up, chest out, stomach in, to honour the Queen was not
exactly top of anyone's list.

I don't exactly talk to my family about the monarchy either.
But with opinion polls consistently showing 75+% in favour of
retaining the monarchy it would seem there is a lot of silent
support.

I couldn't care less one way or the other about the monarchy. If the British
government want to keep them, fine. But to have some colonial stand up and natter
on about the wonderfulness of it all is a bit too much for me to bear.

Bear it you shall. For I have no intention of stopping.

Irrelevant to Canadians from beginning to end. Go and do something useful for a
change.

It is kind of you to be concerned how I spend my time. But
working full time, organizing a candidates debate in my
riding, running in an election, organizing a second trip to
Japan, and making a business plan still leaves me with the
free time to write this blog while also wasting hours on video
games. And my traffic stats contradict your 'irrelevancy'
charge so I think I'll continue doing what I've been doing.

Oh, if you have any influence, get that menace Prince Philip off the road. Him, his
new Landie, and the missing seatbelt.

He has already been talked to about the
seat belt. And we are talking about Prince
Philip here. I'm not sure anyone has
influence over Prince Philip. Maybe the
Queen but she trusts his judgement so I
guess the only one to tell Prince Philip to
get off the road is Prince Philip. I can just
imagine the response to such a request.
I'm sure it would be glorious.

Too pig-headed to apologize, so after two days when the PR types finally got the
Queen to wake up and not appear like she and her hubby actually didn't care about
the mere peon injured when they really didn't, it all seemed highly lame.

Standard legal advice in situations like this is not to apologize
since the courts can, and will, take it as an admission of guilt.
Blame the litigiousness of the Americans for it if you want but
its the world we live in.

As I say, do something profitable with your time. If you want to spend your money
flying to Blighty and standing in the crowd down the Mall to catch a glimpse of
these people while waving a 99p Union Jack, please feel free to do so. But don't
bother documenting it for a political crowd in Canada. WE DON'T CARE.

For someone who doesn't care you spent a fair deal of effort to
contact me and express that opinion. And it is my time, I will
use it on whatever profitable endeavor I wish. And strictly
speaking I have no interest in going to Britain (thank you
though for the invitation).

And I must give you my sincere thanks for providing me with
content for my blog. It was most kind of you. Have a great
day.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

2 Comments

Meme Monday #4

1/21/2019

0 Comments

"Prince Charles sunk the Titanic" lol!

Another meme from the Monarchists Facebook page. It
is a monarchist take on the NPC Wojak meme that flared
up a little while ago. While I don't approve of the meme's
implied dehumanizing of republicans it is a good collection of
arguments that republicans use (often in some combination)
to attack monarchy. So this might be a good chance to address
these arguments in detail.

Paying for royal weddings

Right off the bat unless you are a British subject you don't pay
anything for them and get free access to coverage of the event.
If you are a British subject the government only covers the
security costs of the event which for the last royal wedding
were less than half the estimated boost to the economy
from tourism.

Monarchy is an out-dated, colonialist, relic

As someone who likes rational debate this kind of argument
annoys me. Take three buzzwords and try to imply that
monarchy is inferior because of it, eh? Out-dated things are
bad after all and the colonial period is marked by a country
being under another power and not yet mature. Of the three
only 'relic' has primarily positive associations in the modern-
day world.

But the reason something becomes out-dated because it no
longer works. And republicans can't show that for monarchy.
The reference to colonialism is interesting in the Canadian
context because so many institutions would fall under the
heading of being inherited from colonialist times. As an
example; "Parliament is an out-dated, colonialist, relic" is
just as valid of an argument. Which is to say, it isn't one.

Why are there still poor among us?

A question that has bedeviled humanity ever since we started
living in settled societies. And one neither monarchies nor
republics have been able to fully address. That said, Canada
rates as having a fairly low rate of poverty. A monarch, no
matter how good, can't be expected to fully solve this but they
can help by shedding light on the problem and organizations
working to combat it. Which the Royal Family does.

Lets elect politicians as our head of state

The most basic desire of republicans. And you'd think that
since they want this so badly they would be able to show what
concrete benefit it would bring. But I'm still waiting.

Everyone hates Prince Charles

Prince Charles gets far less credit than is his due in my
estimation. And I've never been quite able to pinpoint why.
There is of course the tragedy of Princess Diana which he has
had to wear. And he has often come across as awkward in his
interests and behavior. Then there is his reputation for
'meddling' in government business.

The Monarchist League of Canada noted a while back that the
heirs to the throne have sometimes tended to be unpopular
but then went on to be popular during their reign. And it
could be that Prince Charles doesn't fit the popular culture
view of what a prince should be (young, martial, and
handsome). But none of this means he wouldn't make a good
king.

'Crown woman bad'

It is a great annoyance to republicans that the Queen has done
such a good job over the years. Such a good job that most
plots for removing the monarchy include the caveat 'after the
Queen's death'. It also means that republicans have tried to
magnify the few missteps the Queen has made. But at the end
of the day Her Majesty remains untouched by impropriety
and it must drive republicans mad.

Inequality

Monarchies are by definition hierarchical. And responding to
claims that they are bad because of it can take several forms.
1. All countries have hierarchies, including republics, so it is
at least positive that monarchies are honest about this fact.
2. Monarchy is a small inequality that prevents greater acts of
inequality.
3. Monarchy is not unequal at all. The monarch and people
have different roles to play but they are equally valuable.
4. Or maybe monarchy is more equatable than a republic. By
leaving the choice of head of state up to the one trait we all
share, being born, we affirm that anyone can be thrust into
an extraordinary position and be expected to do a good job.

Anyways, this has been my overly-detailed dissection of a
meme that likely took 5 minutes to make.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Jagmeet Singh's Reply to the Monarchist League of Canada

12/7/2018

1 Comment

Photo Credit: Yvonne Bambrick

Recently, while doing an interview on the topic of the spending of the
former Governor General Adrienne
Clarkson, Mr. Singh stated that he
did not see the relevancy of the
monarchy and that he was a
republican. Various members of the
Monarchist League of Canada
sought clarification (and probably to
try and convince him to change his
mind). Below is the response that
they received and which the League
shared with its members at noon
today:

Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your views on
the monarchy.
During a recent CTV interview, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed
the concern over the excessive expenses of a former Governor General.
When the discussion led to the role of the monarchy in Canada,
Jagmeet Singh spoke about its relevancy in the 21st century, adding,
that while it may not be a pressing issue for most Canadians, he’s open
to hearing the views of others. But, he clearly said that getting involved
with this issue is not a priority for him or our Party.
Specifically, he said, “We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our
democracy, and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that.”
Jagmeet and his NDP team are staying focused on what’s important to
the lives of everyday Canadians—like paying for groceries and heating
costs, their health issues and those of a family member, and having
enough money to retire. Jagmeet is hearing those concerns as he meets
with Canadians in communities across Canada, listening to what they
need to make life better for their families.
And, he’s inviting all progressives to come together, to help make a
real difference—for more people today, and for future generations.
Thanks again for writing. In the weeks and months ahead, we hope we
can find common ground on other concerns facing our country.
All the best,
Office of Jagmeet Singh
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

I am going to focus in on a couple small sections of this quote.
"We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our democracy,
and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that." Yes, we should. And a
study from 2008 might interest him. It came to several
interesting conclusions including that "direct election is
associated with increased voter fatigue and decreased
turnout in parliamentary elections by about seven
percentage points" and "because holding the presidency
provides parties with an electoral asset, direct and indirect
presidential elections can be equally contentious and
polarizing". Neither of which are improvements to Canadian
democracy.

Another study earlier this year found that,"We find strong
evidence that monarchies contribute to a greater protection
of property rights and higher standards of living through
each of the three theoretical mechanisms compared to all
republics. We also find that democratic-constitutional
monarchies perform better than non-democratic and
absolute monarchies when it comes to offsetting the negative
effects of the tenure and discretion of the executive branch."
So, yes, democracy makes a country function better but
monarchy makes a democracy function better.

The second section of Mr. Singh's reply I wanted to highlight
was his invitation to "all progressives to come together, to
help make a real difference—for more people today, and for
future generations." All well and good. His stance on the
monarchy is a hindrance to that goal. Because many potential
NDP voters see Canada's monarchy has being helpful to that
laudable goal.

For instance during the NDP Leadership Race Jonathan
Banks noted "I am not myself a member of the New
Democratic Party, but often find myself more sympathetic to
many of its policies than I am to those of the Liberals when
concerning the rights and concerns of the working classes,
and the little guy, generally. However, one reason I always
find myself cringing away from being able to actually
support the NDP is certain members’ stances on the
monarchy... I know that I and many people like me would
feel infinitely more comfortable with the NDP if it took a firm
public stance in favour of the Monarchy."

Darren Brierley likewise wrote to me stating "After reviewing
Jagmeet Singh's comments against the Monarchy I became
deeply concerned. As a Federal NDP supporter since Jack
Layton, I do not have confidence in a leader who does not
understand that the Canadian Crown is completely
independent and unique from the British Crown and of it's
powerful force for national unity and Canadian identity. I
certainly don't support someone who doesn't respect or even
understand the Canadian Crown."

There is a slight irony that while repeated political quizzes
over many years consistently place me in the same ideological
camp as the NDP, I have never come close to voting for them.
I find his views on the monarchy highly regrettable but that's
just my view. You know...since he's open to hearing the views
of others and all that.

I wanted to take a second to talk about Patreon. I
write this blog for the sheer joy of it and will
continue to do so even if it doesn't make me a
cent. However, the Monarchist League of
Canada does have a (rather neglected)
Patreon. They do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to
the defence of Canada's monarchy as this timeline and
various other examples can attest. If you are a regular
reader I would like to encourage you to donate to the League.
Every dollar donated helps educate Canadians about their
monarchy and dispel republican ignorance. And that is a
good thing.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

1 Comment

Myths Republicans Tell: Only Old People Support the Monarchy

12/4/2018

0 Comments

It has been my experience that republicans
like to tell themselves that it is "only a
matter of time" before the Canadian
Monarchy is abolished. The reasoning is
that young people just don't support the
institution. This is closely related to a
second argument about immigrants not
supporting the monarchy (a myth I have
partially dealt with before). But I'll
leave debunking that one for another day.
For now lets have a look at whether claims that the young
don't support the monarchy have any basis in fact.

I'll start with personal experience and work out from there. I
happen to be the admin of a monarchist Facebook page which
has a little over 1,200 likes. The combined result of all
teenagers and young adults compared to middle aged and
elderly produces a 40% to 60% split. Not exactly a 'horde' of
old folks.

Over on /r/CanadaPolitics their 60k membership survey
had many interesting results but the one that matters in this
instance is that 93% of the user base is under the age of 44.
The user base was also about 60% leftism of some sort. This
detail is important as the monarchy is one of the few subjects
that is supposedly conservative that doesn't experience large
amounts of down voting. Clearly there are monarchists who
are young. But enough of the touchy-feely assumptions. Are
there any hard numbers?

Back in 2011 the Monarchist League of Canada (which is led
by a chairman in his 30s) noted that 15% of its membership
were under the age of 25. A survey carried out by Forum
Research in 2017 found that those 18 to 34 were slightly more
supportive of the monarchy than opposed. The age group 35
to 54 were between 5% and 7% more opposed. Finally, the
age group 55 to 65+ were more supportive by more than 11%.
So while support for the monarchy is present across all age
groups there is a slump in support for many around the age of
40. If I had to theorize why that is I'd have to say it has a lot
to do with the death of Princess Diana who died 21 years ago.
Those who are in the 35 to 54 age range are the ones old
enough to remember clearly what occurred and have it colour
their outlook. But I'm getting off-topic.

So why does any of this matter? Well, in the broadest sense
republicans misunderestimate their opponents. That is to say,
they underestimate monarchists because they don't
understand them. Believing that monarchists are a bunch of
old fogeys who will eventually die off is both comforting to
them and tends to favour strategies that involve waiting. But
this is only effective if your own supporters don't make up a
large portion of the elderly. Since 2011 polls have continued
to consistently show an even split in support. This is an
improvement from the 1990s and early 2000s when support
for monarchy was in the mid-40% range and more favourable to a republic. It very well could be that the late 1990s were the
republicans' best chance and they missed it.

That is not to say that the increased visibility of the younger
members of the Royal Family haven't helped. Being able to
identify with a member of the Royal Family of a similar age
is an important factor in supporting it (although every age
group does agree that the Queen is awesome).

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

What Fallout Would There Be For Canada If Australia Became A Republic?

9/1/2018

1 Comment

For those watching Australian politics
August was an exciting month. After
two leadership votes in the governing
Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull has
been turfed.

Malcolm Turnbull

This is good news for all loyal subjects
of Her Majesty as Malcolm Turnbull
was a noted republican. He was
replaced by Scott Morrison who is seen
as being more monarchy-friendly. It
should be noted that I haven't found
any public statement to that effect but
potential monarchist is still better than
confirmed republican. But, as exciting
as all this is its not the point of this
article. A reader has asked for my
thoughts on what effect Australia
becoming a republic would have on Canada. So as that ugly
possibility slowly ebbs away once again lets play a little game
of 'what-if'.

"Some reflections from you on the position of the monarchy in
Australia and how it might affect the situation in Canada would be very
welcome. In particular, do you have views on the prospects for the
monarchy in Canada if Australia were to have another referendum and
vote to become a republic?" ~A.G.

So the referendum results are in and Australia is on its way to
becoming a republic. The first thing you will likely see are
interviews with individuals associated with the republican
movement in Canada. They have been handed a free soapbox
and they will make use of it I'm sure. The only saving grace
being that in the interest of balance representatives of the
Monarchist League of Canada would also likely be
interviewed as well.

The media would simultaneously want politicians to weigh in
on the future of the Canadian Monarchy. This is a little bit
harder to predict the outcomes of. True, no party has ever
made abolishing the monarchy part of their platform and
outspoken republicans have tended to spiral away from the
center of power within their own parties rather than nesting
there. The default position of most MPs is one of 'polite
regard' for the monarchy without much in the way of passion.
There are exceptions, of course, but they don't tend to end up
near the center of power either.

This strategic neutrality likely arose due to:
1. Its unclear if there are any votes to gain from advocating
for a republic, and
2. The process of becoming a republic, at best, consumes the
party's agenda for the term and gives them little to actually
run on other than having turned Canada into a republic. At
worst a great deal of political capital is spent, the effort fails,
and the party ends up like the Tories in 1993.

In short, party leaders don't, as a rule, see any good reason to
pick this issue as the one they will champion. But unlike other
events that prods the media into talking about the monarchy
this is a story that would be alive for months. At the very least
you have a spike in media interest just after the referendum
as well as when Australia officially becomes a republic. The
media will poll Canadians at least once (likely more) on their
thoughts on the Canadian Monarchy. These polls generally
show strong support at either end of the debate with a large
section of Canadians not caring either way. I would predict at
least one politician calling for a republic. We might even see
noted republican John Manley give some interviews on the
issue.

If I might be a bit mean for a second I have to point out that it
would be in Canada's interest for Australia's transition to a
republic to be as chaotic and divisive as possible. Both
because it would confirm the political belief in Canada that
the issue isn't worth the trouble (and constitutional reform is
in fact more difficult in Canada than it is in Australia) and the
negative effect it would have on public opinion about trying to
abolish the monarchy.

Even under a worst case scenario of wide public support for a
republic and political parties championing the issue it is still
likely to come to nothing. Changing Canada into a republic
requires the consent of every province. The provinces have
typically tried to get as much out of the federal government
as possible during these negotiations. Quebec in particular
as a list of demands it wants implemented. It would be
somewhat ironic but the Canadian monarchy might be saved
by Quebec nationalists trying to blackmail the federal
government.

Scott Morrison

But even if we somehow worked out
an agreement between all the provinces
there is an unofficial requirement (that
the government would ignore at its
peril) that the resulting agreement go to
a referendum. Referendums typically
favour the status quo and this one
would be no different.

So to sum up I think Australia becoming a republic would
create some chatter but would result in little success for
Canadian republicans.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

1 Comment

Book Review: Battle Royal

4/27/2018

0 Comments

Book Cover

It can sometimes be hard to review a book
where you are not the intended audience.
Either it will end up seeming too technical, too simple, or simply full of information
you already know. Battle Royal written by
David Johnson avoids the first two pitfalls
but toes the line on the third one for me.
It is nonetheless an interesting look at the
monarchist vs. republican debate in
Canada and the future of the Canadian
Crown. First, a look at the book's layout.

Author: David Johnson
Publisher: Dundurn Press
Published: January, 2018
Page Count: 288
Price: $26.99

The book begins with a brief look at
the history of the Crown from the
Royal Proclamation of 1763 to
Canadian Confederation in 1867. This
takes up the first two chapters and
gave me several interesting anecdotes.

The third chapter begins looking at what is meant by the
'Crown' and the various offices connected to the monarchy.
Chapters four and five return to recounting history to explain
why the monarch is largely limited to 'soft power' and the
remaining bits of 'hard power' that are still a prerogative of
Crown. This includes an examination of the Prorogation Crisis
of 2008. Throughout the chapters mentioned both republican
and monarchist arguments are given in what I would call an
even-handed manner (although, throughout I think the
author gave the republican arguments too much credit though
republicans would likely say the same for the monarchist
arguments).

Chapter six looks at the alternative to monarchy (republic). It
is a fair overview of the history of republicanism. It includes
a good run-down of the dangers the monarchy faced in the
1970s as well as more indirect challenges in the 80s and 90s.
It also includes a good overview of public opinion polls up to
the present day.

Chapters seven and eight deal with the debate between the
republicans and monarchists with chapter seven dealing with
the monarchy as an institution and chapter eight having
more to do with the Royal Family. This is not a comfortable
read for a monarchist but arguably a necessary one. It is
important to know what your enemy's arguments are after
all. By this point David Johnson has asked open ended
questions in every chapter (not a style choice I really liked but
whatever) and it is here they start to be answered.

Chapter nine is where republics would likely shed salty, salty
tears as it deals with the constitutional hurdles of reforming
the monarchy. Not only does it explain the hurdles it looks at
every argument and plan republicans have made to overcome
or by-pass them and reveals them to be pure folly built on
ignorance and desperation. It is a beautiful chapter.

Chapter ten looks at the beginning of the future King Charles
III's reign. One prediction has already come true: Charles will
be the next Head of the Commonwealth. But while the various
speculations are fun there is a serious question asked (and
one of the few really interesting ones in the book):

"Are we destined to have to live with some of the worst fears of both republicans
and monarchists? That is, are we stuck with an ineradicable monarchy that most
Canadians view as virtually useless, a meaningless yet embarrassing ornamental
bauble that we would and should discard if we could but we can't? Or can we
aspire to something better? If we know the monarchy will continue in this country,
can we have a better monarchy?"

This is the chapter where the author earns his self-proclaimed
title as a 'pragmatic monarchist' and dispelled my lingering
suspicion he might be a crypto-republican. The proposals are
ambitious, but doable if there is the political and royal will.

Overall, I found the last few chapters much more useful than
the entire rest of the book. But that is mostly because I was
aware of most of the information up to chapter eight. But it is
still nice to have the full set of facts and arguments in one
place. The book has an extensive bibliography and is scholarly
without being dry. Overall opinion: Its a decent little book.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Republican Resolution Submitted to the 2018 NDP Policy Convention

2/14/2018

0 Comments

The New Democratic Party of Canada is holding its policy
convention this weekend in Ottawa. The Monarchist
League of Canada was tipped off that a resolution has been
submitted for debate on ending the Canadian monarchy:

The League has been told that there is a good chance the
resolution will not even be considered (which is standard for
conventions with large numbers of policy suggestions).
However the League has suggested two courses of action to its
members. 1. Contact convention delegates to express concern
about the resolution and 2. Write a polite letter to the NDP's
leader Jagmeet Singh to state support for the crown and
opposition to the position in the above resolution.

Trouble-making during policy conventions is nothing new
(the Liberal Party had a similar motion come up at their
policy convention years ago which was voted down). However,
after an extremely disappointing result in the last election and
a growing feeling that the NDP has traded its principles for a
shot at power it is not inconceivable that this resolution could
pass as a sort of 'feel good gesture'. That is assuming it comes
up for a vote at all.

This motion comes on the heels of of Jagmeet Singh making
clear he is less than supportive of the monarchy. It is
possible some members proposed this motion in the hope
that Mr. Singh would be more inclined to support it than
previous leaders. It is a disappointing development which
may yet come to nothing. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Several members of the Monarchist League's
youth wing successfully blocked the resolution at the policy
panel stage. It will not be debated during the plenary sessions.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Threatening Tweet sent by Turgid Twits

2/1/2018

0 Comments

A student organization at the University of Liverpool is in a
bit of hot water over a tweet it made on January 29th (since
deleted). The University of Liverpool Labour Students
seemed to advocate in the tweet that Queen Elizabeth II be
beheaded:

They have since apologized and stated the tweet was 'tongue-
in-cheek'. Now, this is not the first time in recent memory that
an organization/person connected to the Labour Party has
said some stupid thing and then justified it by claiming it was
all a joke.

But let us take them at their word that this was a joke rather
than a serious proposal. What kind of people joke about the
execution of another person, let alone their head of state?
Especially, when actual beheadings are becoming much more
common with the rise of ISIS. But civility is declining
everywheres it seems. The president of the Philippines has
joked about rape multiple times and in one notable
instance about eating someone.

It is concerning when these 'jokes' are made because it shines
a light on what the person thinks are acceptable norms in
society. On the flip side it makes light of a terrible period in
English history. Had there been no outcry that tweet would
still be up and they would be fine with it.

To the credit of many Labour Party members on campus they
quickly distanced themselves from the comments made by
their student leadership. For my part I sent a quick email to
the Vice-Chancellor expressing my concerns about this
incident. This is important as the actions of a few students
reflects poorly on the University of Liverpool as a whole.

UPDATE: The Vice-Chancellor has replied to my email. The
full text of this reply is at the bottom of this post.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Dear [Name Redacted]

The Vice-Chancellor thanks you for your email.

Colleagues from the Liverpool Guild of Students have spoken to the society about
this inappropriate post and, as you will have seen, this was taken down and an
apology posted. We are now working with the Guild of Students to speak to student
societies about their use of social media.

Regards
Lindsey
Executive PA to the Vice-Chancellor

0 Comments

British MP Emma Dent Coad's Remarks: The Works of Violent Insecurity

9/28/2017

0 Comments

"Watch. My other foot will fit too"

On Tuesday British MP Emma
Dent Coad gave a rambling
speech to Labour Party activists
in which she attacked Prince
Harry's military service record,
Prince Philip's fidelity, and the
monarchy as an institution. Let
us take a look at what was said.

Claim #1 Prince Harry can't fly a helicopter and is unfit to
serve in the military.

Soak in the magnitude of what is being claimed here. She has
essentially claimed that the British military is unprofessional,
incompetent, and dishonest. It would have to be for both Ms.
Coad's comment to be true and for Prince Harry to have
served in the military in the capacities he did.

What is interesting is her statement that she believed her
claim was true but didn't have any proof.

Claim #2 “I am the royal family’s worst nightmare”

Ok, this is more funny due to its sheer hubris. Emma Coad,
rookie Opposition backbencher, is the Royal Family's worst
nightmare? Please, spare us. If she makes the top 100 she
should feel honoured.

Claim #3 Prince Philip has been an unfaithful husband.

Like claims that the Earth is actually flat this is one of
those untruths that just won't die. This despite pretty much
everyone denying it. Perhaps Prince Philip gave the best
defence when he was once asked about the rumours:

"Good God, woman! Have you ever stopped to think that for years I've not moved
anywhere without a policeman accompanying me? How the hell could I have got
away with anything like that?"

The Palace for its part refused to comment on the statements
by Ms. Coad. This is just as well. If the Royal Family
commented every time one of their MPs said something
stupid they would no longer be non-partisan. Plus, I think
they get what game Ms. Coad is playing. The life of a lowly
backbench MP is a boring one and not conductive to career
advancement. Saying enough inflammatory things until you
win has proved to be a viable strategy.

And I should probably also point out that the Labour Party
has pretty much disowned her comments.

Which brings us to today when Ms. Coad has stated she won't
apologize for what was obviously a joke. Never mind that she
defended the comment just the day before. But lets say Ms.
Coad is sincere (this time). What does it say about a person
when they find it humorous to tear down others? Well, for
starters it is one of the more annoying signs of entrenched
insecurity. A quick look at her profile reveals other parts of
her life that could be feeding this sad inferiority complex.
The Royal Couple's happy marriage in comparison to Ms.
Coad's two divorces is only the most obvious example.

Because no one remembers the first rule of getting out of a
hole you dug (stop digging), Ms. Coad released another
statement suggesting that she would not apologize because
she is busy dealing with the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower
fire. It takes a certain amount of gall to hide behind families
burned out of their homes. But it is humorous that she then
remarked "On Monday night I made a joke. It has been taken
the wrong way. Can we look at the real issues now?" Ms.
Coad has no one else to blame for people paying attention to
this issue but herself. I suspect she would never admit that.

Meanwhile, Prince Harry is in
Toronto helping former soldiers
overcome the trauma of war
through sport, speaking to youth
about making a difference in the world, and generally
being a likable human being.

Which is more than can be said for Emma Dent Coad and her
'humour'.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

<<Previous

Victoria Day Odds & Ends

My First Hate Mail!

Meme Monday #4

Jagmeet Singh's Reply to the Monarchist League of Canada

Myths Republicans Tell: Only Old People Support the Monarchy

What Fallout Would There Be For Canada If Australia Became A Republic?

Book Review: Battle Royal

Republican Resolution Submitted to the 2018 NDP Policy Convention

Threatening Tweet sent by Turgid Twits

British MP Emma Dent Coad's Remarks: The Works of Violent Insecurity

About

Archives

Categories