|
Those advocating an end to Canada's constitutional monarchy (republicans) base
their arguments on several weak arguments. This page provides counter - arguments against these
republican myths.
-
A British foreigner
- Not multicultural
- Not democratic
- Partisan politics
- Not modern or part of our future
- Promotes colonialism
- Appease Quebec
- Waste of tax-dollars
- Charles not an ideal future king
- Canadians don't support the monarchy
- Follow other Commonwealth countries
MYTH #1
Our
head of state is a British foreigner, who does not reside in Canada.
This is the most common republican myth. While its true that Queen Elizabeth does not live in Canada, she cannot be labelled as a 'foreigner'.
Historically, traditionally, and by law Elizabeth II is the Canadian Queen of
Canada. She knows and takes great measures to know everything about
her Canadian realm and citizens. Citizenship
in Canada flows from the Crown. If the Crown grants citizenship, than
surely the person wearing the Crown is herself a citizen.
The Queen is not a foreigner, but rather a non-resident
-- a professional, globe-trotting head of state for a society which
enjoys its existence in a border-less world.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #2
The Queen represents
only Canadians of British descent. Or the Canadian Head of State can never
be an Irish, French, Arab etc....
This happens to be one of the weakest republican arguments, and also one of the most
widely used.
Elizabeth II is the Queen of countless different nations (i.e. Jamaica,
the Bahamas, New Zealand etc....) and hundreds of different peoples and cultures.
Also due to the
Queen's bloodlines, Elizabeth II is quite "multicultural". Among the strains that can
be identified in the backgrounds of the Queen are: Arab, Armenian, Croatian,
French, German, Greek, Italian, Persian etc... As such, the Queen is very
capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #3
By having a
monarch
as head of state, democracy can never truly exist.
A weak argument! When was the last time the nations
of the world identified Canada as non-democratic? Never!
By having a non-partisan
monarch, democracy flourishes. By representing the people, the Queen has the authority to dismiss a government that abuses its
power or acts
illegally. By using her emergency powers, she can act if there is a vacuum of political power. Republicans
label all this as constitutional fiction. They are wrong! Just because
these powers are rarely used, it does not render them useless. These powers
provide a safety guard, or Constitutional Fire Extinguisher
which safeguards democracy.
Other republicans argue that a president can be non-partisan,
or won't have any allegiance/ties to a political party. However, how could
an elected or appointed President not be partisan, when he/she got their job
with the backing of a political party?
In any event, most republics
that have abolished their monarchies, have created simulated constitutional monarchies. These republics
have
abolished their royal government, yet have given their new republican
governments the exact powers of the previous royal government. This begs the
question of why change something to something exactly the same?
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #4
The appointment of both
the Governor General, Lieutenant Governor is partisan.
Similar to the previous republican argument, this is the republican counter-argument to the monarchist's argument that presidents are partisan.
Republicans point
out that most of the Governors-General over the past 15 years have been veteran politicians. While this is true, the Governor-General is not the Head of
State. This position is held by the Queen.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #5
History and tradition
are just that, history! The monarchy is a part of Canada's history, not it's
future.
Republicans use this argument to point out that history and tradition are
not important as a nation's identity.
The Crown represents
500 years of tradition in Canada. Considering that tradition and
history are the two factors making up a nation's identity, arguing with republicans in this issue is
rather pointless!
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #6
The monarchy promotes
a lack of Canadian identity. Or, the monarchy promotes colonialism.
Not true! The monarchy is an important aspect of the
Canadian identity. It is part of Canada's history and tradition.
The monarchy also
helps Canada distinguish itself from the United States of America. Republicans
argue that this is nonsense. With careful consideration however, one realizes that Canada is
already bombarded by American values, culture and media. The monarchy is one important difference between the two nations.
The monarchy does
not promote British colonialism in any way. Canadians have shed their colonialist
past by changing the national anthem, the flag, and by the Canadian way
of doing business in a global community. Canada shares a Queen with the United
Kingdom, New Zealand and many more nations. What better way to be
global than by sharing a monarchy with the many countries?
Finally, as most
Canadians can attest, when a Canadian
travels to another nation, they are more likely to be thought of as an American
rather than a British citizen.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #7
Abolishing the monarchy would appease Québéc.
The separatists in Québéc do not want
independence
because of the monarchy. Any lack
of respect for the monarchy arises from the fact that the Queen represents
'the rest' of Canada, and thus does not represent 'them'.
The citizens of Québéc
have not always been so republican in their nature. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
said it best on a trip to France:
"French-Canadians have not forgotten
France [and their culture]... Here in France, people are surprised at the
attachment French Canadians feel for the Queen [of Canada], and we are
faithful to the great nation which has given us liberty."
Even
former Québéc premier Jacques Parizeau has mused publicly on whether an
independent Québéc would retain the Queen, or at the very least remain
in the Commonwealth.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #8
The monarchy costs
Canadians millions of dollars a year. Or, "Why should my taxes line the pockets
of the Queen?"
This is generally a fairly weak republican argument.
For the record:
Canadians do not, and have NEVER paid the Queen for her
services.
While the Governor-General and the Lieutenant-Governor's expenses
do rack-up a modest bill (less than one dollar/tax payer/year), having a President would cost even more!
As a comparison, in the United Kingdom the cost of the Queen's expenses are much less
than that of the presidents of Germany, the United States and France.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #9
Abolishing the monarchy
is essential since Prince Charles is not an ideal future King.
A favourite myth amongst republicans, especially with the old scandals in the
media.
One must always seem to remind republicans that their beloved republics
are not always immune from scandal. Let us not forget about John F. Kennedy's
many romantic interludes (sans Jackie), Richard Nixon and Watergate, Francois Mitterand
(his connections with Nazis, and his many mistresses), and Mao-Zedong and
his lust for young girls, but to name a few.
Prince Charles has been born
into duty, and has been raised to serve his people. He is an able father, and
devoted to serve the people.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #10
Canadians no longer
support the monarchy.
During the past several years, opinion polls have shifted in both directions.
The last opinion poll shows that most Canadians favour the monarchy. For now,
it's safe to say that a change to a republic
is not on the minds of most Canadians.
[ back
to menu ]
MYTH #11
Other Commonwealth
nations are dumping the Queen, why shouldn't Canada do the same?
Republicans point out that Australia is on its way to becoming a republic. Republicanism
became fever-pitch in Australia recently as it was the pet-project of a previous prime-minister. After a divisive debate, the Australians voted against a republic in November 1999.
The only other Commonwealth nations contemplating republics are Jamaica and Barbados. However, there is no real evidence that the majority of these nations' population favour such a move.
In any case, the old saying:
"Would you jump off the building if your friends do the same?" really
applies well to this myth.
[ back
to menu ]
|