VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:29:53 12/26/01 Wed
Author: shawn meades
Subject: Re: Comments on your site
In reply to: Cosmin Smeu 's message, "Comments on your site" on 03:59:38 08/18/01 Sat

>Hi I checked your site, and here are some comments:
>(I am reposting these from REPUBLI-CANADA)
>
>I checked the site and there are some good points, and
>many bad ones. First I do agree with him that
>removing the monarchy would fix many problems
>especially the Quebec separatism.

Personally, I think the situation in relation to Québec sovereignty is FAR more complex than just a dislike of the British monarchy, and while getting rid of QEII will soften things, separatism/sovereigntism wil still be far from dead.
>
>However even if we get a Canadian king, from some
>european royal family (like was the case of Greece,
>Romania, Spain, etc... even England in 1701), that
>will still leave us with a foreigner as a head of
>state. Just like England after 1701 was stuck with a
>German royal family (Victoria's first language was
>German, not English).
>
>Also just because some things don't work in a republic
>like the USA, doesn't mean the republican system is
>flawed. There are many types of republics starting
>with successful ones like Switzerland, France,
>Germany, Austria, Finland, etc... going to the worst
>republican dictatorships like Vietnam, Irak, Sudan,
>etc... The same goes for monarchies: there are
>successful ones like Sweden, Denmark, and complete
>failures like Nepal, or Botswana, etc...

First of all, I don't think Iraq or Sudan (despite their official names) are republics (I guess it depends on your definition of a republic), and Botswana hasn't been a monarchy for a LONG time, if ever (they're a constitutional monarchy, like us, commonwealth members, and their democratic system is also like ours, and it works quite like ours as well)
>
>However the monarchy is still something from the
>feudal ages, that might still go well with european,
>asian, and african nations, that have existed for
>thousands or years, and don't want to change for some
>strange conservative reasons. In countries like
>Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc... which are young
>countries in the "new world", this "old world" system
>seems out of place. Also it defies human rights,
>equality, etc... when one person, or family is placed
>above anyone else. Why should the military, courts,
>government belong do a king/queen (like they do in a
>monarchy), when these are the rightful belongings of
>the nation as a whole. If the courts belong to the
>queen, then can she be tried by her own courts, in
>the USA if the prezident screws up, he will be tried,
>because he doesn't own any gov. institution. Why
>should immigrants swear allegiance to the queen,
>instead of Canada when they become citizens; in the
>USA they swear allegiance to the country, and its
>republican beliefs, and not to George W. Bush.

I'm in relative agreement with you here. While I am opposed to the idea of a monarch as our head of state under any circumstances- be they representing the commonwealth, or only Canada- I do not want to adopt the American Republican model. The positions of head of state, and head of government, IMHO, should remain independent of one another, the Head of state SHOULD have the power to dissolve parliament, with some restrictions, and we should also invest a bit more power in the position so that it is relavent (and we should also remove some of the existing responsabilities, such as relating to declarations of war and capitulation). In a truly unique step, I think we should elect the Head of state through a method known as aproval voting- voters select all candidates on the ballot that they approve of, and as usual, the candidate with the most votes wins- This would at least make as many people as possible happy with the outcome. The head of state issue is really just a very minuscule part of the democratic reforms that this country needs, but that's not for this forum :)



>In Canada the prime minister can become a dictator if he
>wishes so. I don't think the parliament in Canada can
>even stop the prime minister if he chooses to abuse
>his power. True, this has never happened in Canada

Really? I know many people- myself included- that would argue to the contrary.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.