 Prince William from two perspectives People say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What
they don't mention is that none of those words are necessarily the truth. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour
2 Comments
REPUBLICANISM WILL NOT HELP WITH RECONCILIATION Release July 3rd.
Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour All three policy proposals concerning the monarchy that were submitted to the NDP policy convention4/10/2021 The NDP is having a policy convention this weekend (so are the Liberals in what must have been a scheduling snafu). The NDP membership has once again put forward policies concerning the Canadian Monarchy to be debated. The following is a summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly. The Good And no, I don't know what 'Priority 0' means. I actually like this and would support it. The return of the vetting committee created during the premiership of Stephen Harper would be a welcome reform. The Bad Essentially this proposal would end, or greatly limit, the ceremonial role of the executive branch (unless the slack was taken up by the prime minister which is another concern) and give the constitutional parts of the job to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The obvious problem with this is that the chief justice is appointed by the governor general. Without a governor general the chief justice would be in charge of appointing their own replacement... and those of their fellow justices. Even if everything is above board it looks sketchy as all hell. The Ugly Did they stutter with their 'Wheras-es'? Putting aside the call to abolish the monarchy for a second I just want to note that the actions of former Governor General Julie Payette only confirm the dysfunctional nature of Julie Payette. How Likely Are These To Pass?The last time this issue came up it wasn't even debated by
the entire membership. This time the party has a lot of popular motions to debate (you will note each of these is only supported by one riding association). Jagmeet Singh has also been trying to walk back some of the more extreme proposals so it may be possible they will avoid committing to large constitutional reforms which would take the third proposal off the table. The second proposal above raises so many legal questions that it probably won't make it to a full membership vote. I can see the first one being debated and passed. This creates an interesting situation. Due to the limit placed on how many proposals will be debated (70) does the party allow a single issue to take up three slots? If you limit which ones go through does this favour the policy most likely to pass and be implemented? These policies, if they are to be debated, will come up on Sunday so we will find out then. Stay tuned. UPDATE: As predicted the motions did not even come up for debate. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour  There are some poll results that get funnier the longer you
look at them and consider the scenarios that could play out. A recent YouGov poll carried out in the UK is one such example. The idea of republicans actually getting rid of the monarchy only for the people to then elect Prince William is funny to me. And then there is the fourth place finish of 'Me' as the person those surveyed would like chosen. Finally, Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn make a match made in hell at 2% of support each. But seriously, there is some interesting information to be had. For starters there is no unifying choice among respondents. Even the Queen, who enjoys widespread support has uneven support when voting is brought into the picture. There is also an obvious disconnect between who people want and who would actually get to vote for. David Attenborough has had plenty of opportunity to run for public office, takes public positions on issues, and is obviously popular but has never stood for election. Which leaves Boris Johnson as the most credible candidate on this list to be president of a British republic. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour  Democracy Watch Logo Recently I learned that an organization called Democracy Watch was going to sue the New Brunswick government over its decision to call an early election back in September. Now, suing anyone is risky but more so when that organization has limitless funds to mount a defence. So if nothing else I commend their bravery. Sadly, the bravery has a truckload of foolishness mixed in. So what is the issue at hand? It comes down to reading New Brunswick's fixed-date election law (which sets the date the next election will fall on), and the constitution, the way you want it to read rather than how it is actually written. James Bowden over at Parliamentum has already made several excellent posts about the structural problems of Canada's fixed-date election laws so I will not get into them in depth here. The Democracy Watch press release announcing this legal action is an interesting read mostly because it aims to have the courts rule on two things they don't rule on: conventions and politics. They argue that because the last three elections have occurred on the fixed-date that a convention has been established. I won't even dispute this point; a convention of having elections on a set date may well have been established but this still doesn't make conventions something courts can rule on. The second aspect of their argument is that calling an early election was self-interested and contrary to previous political positions. Now, courts don't rule on conventions and they definitely don't rule on political positions. There is an amusing irony in that if Democracy Watch gets its way the unelected courts will become referees of government policy. Why is this an irony? Because they also want the current referees of government policy (the monarch and their representatives) to be elected. Although, either because of the many constitutional hurdles involved or a secret preference for oligarchy, they don't actually call for elected governor generals: "Democracy Watch recommends that the GG be chosen by creating a new federal I'm sure Democracy Watch would like to think this is a more democratic process but it is instead a very oligarchic one. At
every step the smallest elite has authority. Search committee? Selected by the party leaders. Convention to select the new governor general? Party leaders from across Canada. I also have doubts about their conclusion that the resulting pick would be non-partisan. Election is not a system that tends to select for non-partisanship. Those leaders doing the voting have every interest to have someone sympathetic to their interests get the nod. Finally, it diffuses responsibility for the appointment. At present, the prime minister has a vested interest in making sure their pick isn't an embarrassment. By spreading the blame for any poor choices of governor general around a wider group the prime minister loses any sense of personal responsibility in making sure the office of the governor general is functioning properly. The idea of having a select group choose candidates to recommend is not a bad idea in and of itself. I have mentioned the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments before and I feel it was an improvement. So Democracy Watch does have some good ideas, such as increasing the power of auditors general, but the good ideas are buried under layers of poorly-thought-out initiatives, of which messing with the Crown is only one. It can do better. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour  Elizabeth May The Green Party is holding the second leadership race this year. It is to choose a successor to Elizabeth May who has been a longtime champion of Canada's monarchy. This is also the first time since the party gained national status that a leadership race has been called. As such it is an important chance to see what the party's thinking is on Canada's monarchy. Questions & RepliesThe questions posed to each candidate: 1. What are your views on the monarchy? Below are links to each candidate's reply and a short look at any previous comments they may have made in regards to the monarchy. Candidates who failed to qualify or withdrew are included for historical reference. Qualified to appear on the ballot David Merner Amita Kuttner Annamie Paul Meryam Haddad Glen Murray Dimitri Lascaris Courtney Howard Andrew West No longer in the race Dylan Perceval-Maxwell Judy Green Crown & Cap ScoreboardHere I have ranked the candidates support for, or opposition to, the monarchy. Keep in mind this is only my assessment and your mileage may vary. Also, note that changes may occur as the campaign goes on. The crown score is out of five crowns with each candidate receiving one crown for stating support for the monarchy in their reply, one crown for having defended the monarchy in Parliament, two crowns for outlining how they would improve the monarchy's role in the future, and one crown for having spoken in support of the monarchy outside of Parliament. The cap score is likewise out of five caps with one cap given to a candidate for being opposed to the monarchy in their reply, one cap for desiring a referendum on the monarchy, one cap for opposing the monarchy in Parliament and two caps for making the establishment of a Canadian republic a part of their policy platform.
Loyal Quotes"I love Prince Charles he has been an environmentalist for at least 40 years. Bush won over Gore because the USA does not have a Royal head of state. It is important." ~Dylan Perceval-Maxwell I would like to thank all of the candidates for getting back to
me. While I might disagree at times with the replies I receive it is at least good to know that politicians still take the time to reply to ordinary Canadians. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour  Meryam Haddad The second reply I received today
was from Ms. Meryam Haddad. Ms. Haddad's response was very different from her opponent: "I personally do not believe in the monarchy and think that we should eventually get rid of it." No public statements were found. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour  Photo Credit: Aron Seal Hard to believe that it has been three years since I last surveyed the prospective leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada. As in 2017 there is a large number of candidates. Also, like 2017, there is a second race later in the year for a different federal party (this time it is the Greens). I am sending an expanded list of questions this time around: 1. What are your views on the monarchy? First up is Aron Seal who replied the same day the questions were sent. While I appreciate promptness in this instance it is because he didn't have to think the questions over very hard:  "Sir - I believe this tweet
should answer your questions. I am afraid we are at odds on this issue. Best wishes, Aron" As Mr. Seal has not held public office the Hansard cannot be checked for any additional comments. However, he has tweeted a similar sentiment at least once before. Overall, a disappointing start to this overview of the candidates as the last one found none of the contenders harbored any republican sentiments. Both the sentiments expressed (and factual errors in his tweets) do not leave me with much to commend. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour On December 1st the Toronto Star published an opinion piece by John Boyko, an author of seven books on Canadian history and politics. In this opinion piece John lays out his views on abolishing the monarchy (he is for it). I found myself angrier than I expected upon reading his take on the issue which required some reflection on my part. As someone who happens to like his biography of R.B. Bennett I was somewhat disappointed by his stance. In the same way you might be disappointed to find out that someone who's talents you admire has an unexpected character flaw. But reading the article there was a more basic reason for my anger: A historian should know better. And so as a bit of catharsis I am going to dissect what John wrote. And, in fact, the opinion piece nearly demands it be dissected due to the surprisingly low quality of the argument put forward.  Prince Andrew on 29 January 2013, Photo Credit: Titanic Belfast "Canadians should be grateful to Prince Andrew. His allegedly reprehensible behaviour and disastrous interview invite Canadians to consider our ties to the monarchy. It’s time to cut them." Mr. Boyko does not make it past the first paragraph before he stretches reason beyond its breaking point. Why should Prince Andrew's alleged acts (or barring that, his pretty questionable decisions regardless) invite Canadians to consider our ties to the monarchy? When it was revealed that Justin Trudeau had did blackface on more than one occasion I don't recall any hand wringing over the 'need' to abolish the prime minister's office. Likewise, when a federal judge (only an appointment away from the Supreme Court) made a disgusting comment during a rape trial the reaction was not op-eds on how it was time we put the Supreme Court to bed. In both of these cases we recognize that the institution is bigger than the temporary, fallible, person who occupies it (or could, maybe, occupy it if the stars aligned correctly). So, why is no such consideration given to the institution of the monarchy? Mr. Boyko does not say. His failure to address this question leaves the impression that Prince Andrew's alleged actions are mentioned solely to put his audience in the right mood to accept the rest of his argument. While this is great use of rhetoric it is hardly an argument. "The severance would not be a radical act but the final step in our long stroll to sovereignty. It began with Queen Victoria signing the British North America Act. It was a baby step with Britain still controlling all that mattered. But we kept walking." Amazing. Everything John wrote here is wrong. For starters it conflates Canada's ties to Britain with Canada's ties to the monarchy. It also manages to ignore that the political history of all of Canada's founding peoples is largely monarchical, be it the French ancien regime, English limited monarchy, or Aboriginal hereditary chief traditions. No part of Canada has ever been a republic. I think Mr. Boyko is downplaying just how radical this act would be. In an subtle way this section undermines his argument. Queen Victoria supported Confederation and helped get it across the finish line. When John A. Macdonald had his audience with the Queen it is recorded he declared,"We have desired in this measure to declare in the most solemn and emphatic manner our resolve to be under the sovereignty of Your Majesty and your family forever." John A. made no such declaration regarding Britain.  Queen Victoria, Mother of Confederation "The first steps involved saying no." Mr. Boyko then proceeds to go off on a tangent detailing about how Canada slowly moved away from British influence over its affairs. But I want to instead detail the history of Canada saying yes to the monarchy. We said yes when the details of Confederation were being worked out. Indeed, the monarchical character of Canada was agreed to more readily than any other measure. The main result of the King-Byng Affair was that the governor general would henceforth be the monarch's representative, not the representative of the British government. Once again we said yes. When the Statute of Westminster was passed in the 1930s we said yes again. The Canadian government began advising the monarch directly. King Edward VIII's dedication of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial was the first act advised and supported by his Canadian ministers alone. "Two years later, the prime minister appointed our first Canadian-born governor-general. Our head of state would never again be another left-over lord." Our head of state is the monarch, not the governor general. A wizard, er, historian should know better! "That step would have us confess that titular power is a sham; that we and not the Crown owns our public land, and that in a mature democracy, it has no place in our courts or on our money." As someone currently in the process of trying to get the property of an old railway line currently owned by the Crown transferred to my family I can assure you we do not own the Crown lands and I highly doubt becoming a republic is going to change that. Indeed, certain research suggests republics are less respectful of property rights than would otherwise be the case. The appeal to democracy is amusing. Many monarchies are also mature democracies. There is no inherent contradiction between the two. And arguably, having a monarchy is better for democracy. But more disturbing is that Mr. Boyko doesn't touch on what happens to the Crown's reserve powers if he actually gets his wish. Better to ignore such a difficult question, I suppose. "In a nod to fiscal responsibility, we could end the Governor General’s $289,000 salary and all the other attendant costs that exceed $50 million a year." This is brought up repeatedly by republicans while ignoring that presidencies have tended to be more expensive and that we would likely have a president. But since Mr. Boyko doesn't mention establishing a presidency we are again left with the nagging question of the reserve powers. But a bigger issue is... Quick! What is the size of the Canadian federal budget? If you said $355.6 billion then congratulations on looking that figure up on Google. I don't think Mr. Boyko did. $50 million is the tiniest nod to 'fiscal responsibility' the government could possibly make (assuming no presidency is established).  Rideau Hall, Photo Credit: Concierge.2C "We could sell or re-purpose the Royal housing across Canada, beginning with bulldozing the shamble on Sussex and moving the prime minister into Rideau Hall." Let's start by pointing out that the reason 24 Sussex Drive is in such bad repair is that successive prime ministers have balked at the idea of fixing it. Not popular with the people, you know. Even in the Trudeau family's temporary home at the Rideau Cottage the kitchen needs work. I see no indication that giving Rideau Hall over to the tender mercies of an endless stream of prime ministers uninterested in upkeep will do Rideau Hall any favours. "Our new democracy could dispense with most of the Governor General’s ceremonial duties and leave the rest to a deputy prime minister; a person elected and not selected." Our newly degraded democracy is looking shabbier all the time. Joyless and dull. Many of the governor general's ceremonial duties have to do with helping the people know the government gives a damn or encouraging Canadians to aim higher. But perhaps some of those duties will be saved for the deputy prime minister. A person whose name does not immediately come to mind. But you see, them being elected is the problem. Mr. Boyko started off his article wanted to drop the monarchy because of the alleged actions of one man. Here he supposes that an elected official will behave better than a selected or hereditary one? We have too many contemporary examples proving this to be false. Or perhaps Mr. Boyko believes that as long as they are elected it doesn't matter of what quality the person is carrying out these duties? "Our last step to independence would necessitate a
constitutional conference. Embrace it. Let’s ape our founders and ensure that delegates are the leaders of our federal, provincial, and territorial governments and their opposition leaders. Indigenous representatives must be at the table. Let the conference begin by declaring a republic and then addressing the claims of Quebec’s Bloc and the prairie’s Wexit." This is the point where I question whether Mr. Boyko's entire exercise has been a clever satire. Not only will a constitutional conference have all the provincial governments, the federal government, territorial governments attending but also indigenous representatives and opposition representatives from each legislature. How will such a group come to any sort of agreement? The original conferences were a success because there was some agreement to build on (starting with a shared sovereign). And even then not every colony got on board with Confederation right away. And it will solve regional grievances too! And everyone gets a pony! "Let us welcome Prince Andrew’s invitation, seize the moment, and engage in a serious national conversation." Serious national conversations start with a serious voice to set the tone. Let me know when such a person appears because it certainly was not the writer of the Toronto Star article. Loyally Yours, A Kisaragi Colour 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 |
AboutThis website is intended to be a resource for those arguing in favour of Canada's monarchy, researching Canada's royal past, or wondering what the various vice-regal representatives of the Canadian Crown are up to currently. As well, articles about other monarchies may appear from time to time. Archives
January 2022
Categories
All
Proud Supporter of the Monarchist League of Canada
Proud Supporter of Connecting Albert County
Elsie Wayne 1932-2016
|
RSS Feed
