Cutting the last colonial tie

[cacruden]

Cutting the last colonial tie
ANTHONY WESTELL

Special to Globe and Mail Update

September 6, 2007 at 12:30 AM EDT

The curious case of the prince and the Catholic, as Dr. Watson might have called it, has aroused little attention — but it should, because it reveals that we are still a semi-colonial country. It prompts the question of whether the time has come to thank the Queen and end the monarchy in Canada — it could be just the dominating issue the Liberals are looking for as they prepare for the next election.

Prior to 1981, our Constitution was simply an act of the British Parliament, and when we wanted to make a change, we had to send a polite request to Westminster. The British were always happy to oblige, so there was no practical problem. But symbolically — and symbols count — it made us a colony. Then, prime minister Pierre Trudeau "patriated" the Constitution (it couldn't be "repatriated" because it had never been here), springing it from Westminster and bringing it under the control of Ottawa and the provinces. He emphasized our new independence by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is more in the U.S. or French tradition than the British.

With our new Constitution proclaimed in Ottawa, we were able to cry, "Free, free, free at last from colonial rule," except that we now discover that we weren't free, as Norman Spector explained in The Globe and Mail last week. After centuries of often bloody struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants for the British throne, Westminster settled the matter in 1701 by declaring that in future, no Catholic could be king or queen, or even be married to one.

Now, Princess Anne's son Peter, 10th in the line of succession, wants to marry a Montreal Catholic girl with the delightful name of Autumn Kelly. But first, he must renounce his claim to the Crown. "Who cares?" you might well ask. Peter is so far down the line that he would never become king. ...........(continued at Globe and mail)

 

[cacruden]

It is interesting, by supporting the continuation of the monarchy in Canada -- people are supporting institutionalized discrimination.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I guess a Catholic monarch would be more likely to have children, so that'd be a bonus.

If we ditch the monarchy after 400 years because some dolts are worried that we're a semi-colonial country under the influence and control of evil Brits, the rest of the country will now think we're even more of a semi-colony of our neighbour to the south.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

An editorial so ill informed that the Globe declined to print it.

 

[cacruden]

I would expect a well informed person like yourself would actually take the time to be more specific.

 

[Lone Primate]

I know a few fine points on the matter that he probably overlooked. The first is the idea that the Act of Settlement conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the surface of it, yes; legally, no, it doesn’t. In fact, there was a court case not long ago on the matter (O'Donohue v. Canada, in 2002), and the courts ruled that since the Act of Settlement also forms part of our Constitution (it governs who the head of state is), there is no contradiction and the Charter has no authority over the Act. Various parts of a constitution can be at odds with one another and still operate notwithstanding each other. Another example of this, this time in the Catholics’ favour, is the institution of the separate school system for them alone. This forms part of our Constitution, even though it seems to contradict the Charter, and could be said to be discriminatory to non-Catholics.

Another aspect of the issue is the ease with which the writer seems to feel the monarchy can be altered or even dispensed with as an institution. There are a number of impediments to each. First of all, the monarchy as it exists today is a personal union of the heads of state of sixteen Commonwealth Realms (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc., etc.), and by convention, the rules for it must remain universal for all. No change in the institution can, or would be, made without their unanimous consent. It’s not impossible, but obviously the reasons would have to be compelling. Strictly speaking, it's also possible for the UK, or any of these countries, to institute its own rules and practices concerning the monarchy, but they would be breaking the unity of the Crown in doing so, and there’s little need among any of them to do so. Maintaining it provides a number of benefits; Canadians moving to, working in, and living in the UK automatically enjoy several benefits that do not accrue to our neighbours to the south when they do so, for instance. Secondly, changes to the status of the monarchy in Canada are one of the few matters touched on in the amendment provisions that require the unanimous consent of the federal parliament and all ten provincial legislatures. If even one declines, the change is not ratified.

In every likely practical consideration, there’s no reason Princess Anne’s son Peter can’t, shouldn’t, or won’t marry the young woman from Montreal if he so chooses. It simply means he’s ineligible to be king. Mind you, there’s nothing stopping her from becoming Anglican, for that matter, if it’s really that important.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Wendell is compelled more by personal republican sentiments than any real concern for the future happiness of the young couple with regard to a constitutional tempest in a teapot.

 

[Urban Shocker]

One of the titles of Canada's head of state is Fidei defensor - Defender of the Faith, though we don't define it in the same way as they do in the U.K. where it means head of the Church of England. Here, the Queen defends all faiths, I believe, including the Catholic one. So, if an asteroid hit Buckingham Palace and wiped out the entire brood except for Peter Phillips he could still become our king - though the Brits would probably have to search for a Romanov, or a Bourbon, or a Hapsburg, or someone of that ilk to form a new line.

 

[Urban Shocker]

And if all else fails, I'm waiting in the wings to begin my reign of terror.

 

[cacruden]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Wendell is compelled more by personal republican sentiments than any real concern for the future happiness of the young couple with regard to a constitutional tempest in a teapot.

That is obvious from the tag line "Anthony Westell is an admirer of the Queen in Britain, but not in Canada."

I know a few fine points on the matter that he probably overlooked. The first is the idea that the Act of Settlement conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the surface of it, yes; legally, no, it doesn’t. In fact, there was a court case not long ago on the matter (O'Donohue v. Canada, in 2002), and the courts ruled that since the Act of Settlement also forms part of our Constitution (it governs who the head of state is), there is no contradiction and the Charter has no authority over the Act.

Of course if it is "part of the constitution" then it is by it's very nature not "unconstitutional" (I don't believe in making things up), but by the fact that it is enshrined it in the constitution -- it is institutionalized discrimination.

The fact that we have a religious requirement in the constitution as for it's head of state - by it's very nature - means that separation of church and state is a fallacy. [our charter of rights has reference to god -- so god is part of our constitution -- meaning that we are not a godless country]. And of course our head of state is also head of a church as well.

 

[Lone Primate]

One of the titles of Canada's head of state is Fidei defensor - Defender of the Faith, though we don't define it in the same way as they do in the U.K. where it means head of the Church of England. Here, the Queen defends all faiths, I believe, including the Catholic one. So, if an asteroid hit Buckingham Palace and wiped out the entire brood except for Peter Phillips he could still become our king - though the Brits would probably have to search for a Romanov, or a Bourbon, or a Hapsburg, or someone of that ilk to form a new line.

It's true that the style "Defender of the Faith" means something different in Canada and New Zealand than in the UK; Louis St. Laurent defined it essentially as you put it. But the style of the monarch isn't the Constitution, and the Act of Settlement is. An asteroid strike that spared Peter Phillips, married to a Catholic, would still not render him legally King of Canada. Mind you, in that event, we'd probably have bigger things on our minds.

 

[Lone Primate]

That is obvious from the tag line "Anthony Westell is an admirer of the Queen in Britain, but not in Canada."

What I mean is, if he's proposing a republic for us, he should just come out and say it. Appeals to emotion like this are a sneaky back way. It's kind of a snake oil operation where you first evoke someone's little aches and pains and then ascribe them to something you happen to happily have the cure for. I would imagine there are practical arguments for a republic, but worrying over someone who could hardly conceivably ever be put in the position to be the monarch is petty one; I mean, if he wants a republic, what possible difference could it honestly make to him who is, or is not, the monarch? His concern seems disingenuous. I'd be more comfortable with his argument if he were hoping to remedy the situation, rather than revolutionize it and overhaul our entire government over such small beer.

Of course if it is "part of the constitution" then it is by it's very nature not "unconstitutional" (I don't believe in making things up), but by the fact that it is enshrined it in the constitution -- it is institutionalized discrimination.

I do agree that such things can be seen as objectionable to some people; I don't dispute that. I'm not pleased with it myself. I'm just saying it's not as easy to change that aspect of the monarchy, or to eliminate it altogether, as Mr. Wendell seems to suggest. Frankly, I'm not sure many people would feel the need to do either over the case he makes.

 

[cacruden]

What I mean is, if he's proposing a republic for us, he should just come out and say it. Appeals to emotion like this are a sneaky back way. It's kind of a snake oil operation where you first evoke someone's little aches and pains and then ascribe them to something you happen to happily have the cure for. I would imagine there are practical arguments for a republic, but worrying over someone who could hardly conceivably ever be put in the position to be the monarch is petty one; I mean, if he wants a republic, what possible difference could it honestly make to him who is, or is not, the monarch? His concern seems disingenuous. I'd be more comfortable with his argument if he were hoping to remedy the situation, rather than revolutionize it and overhaul our entire government over such small beer.

By stating that he is for ending the monarch -- he is making it very clear that he supports the creation of a republic (assuming he believes in a democratic state). The majority of republic's (real public) have presidents, I am sure you can create a head of state by another name (weak or strong executive). Problem is - it is easier to get consensus on a yes/no question, than a more complex question such as what you want to replace the monarchy (multiple choice). It of course becomes even more complicated in the case of Canada where some people want to hang onto any small thing that they think makes Canada distinct from the elephant in the room south of us. (Monarchy, Quebec).

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

the united states aren't the only republic in this world.

if americans insert food into their mouths, does that mean we should insert food into our asses?

 

[Lone Primate]

Problem is - it is easier to get consensus on a yes/no question, than a more complex question such as what you want to replace the monarchy (multiple choice). It of course becomes even more complicated in the case of Canada where some people want to hang onto any small thing that they think makes Canada distinct from the elephant in the room south of us. (Monarchy, Quebec).

It's essentially a non-issue here. I can't really see people getting exorcised over the point he's making. All things being equal, I imagine most of us would prefer there were no such limitation on the institution, but I don't think it upsets many people much that there is. It's not an office just anyone can aspire to; if it were, more people would probably consider it an issue. If it were an office of real consequence in the formation of policy, I think people would care too. Realistically, the power to make, enact, and enforce policy in the in hands of MPs; people know it, and it's there that they concentrate their values. The monarchy serves a few gentle functions that a constitutional niceties: some pomp and ceremony that republics essentially lack, and a neutral storehouse for executive powers that the monarch cannot exercise, but delegates to a Prime Minister in whom those powers do not automatically reside. That might come in handy someday if we wind up with our own GW Bush who thinks the laws don't apply to him.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

That is obvious from the tag line "Anthony Westell is an admirer of the Queen in Britain, but not in Canada."



Of course if it is "part of the constitution" then it is by it's very nature not "unconstitutional" (I don't believe in making things up), but by the fact that it is enshrined it in the constitution -- it is institutionalized discrimination.

The fact that we have a religious requirement in the constitution as for it's head of state - by it's very nature - means that separation of church and state is a fallacy. [our charter of rights has reference to god -- so god is part of our constitution -- meaning that we are not a godless country]. And of course our head of state is also head of a church as well.

Almost right. HM is head of a Church, but only in one part of one of her realms - England. HM is head of the Church of England. And then only temporal, HM has no religious authority, even in England. So there is no connection between any church and the government in Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or Canada. I suspect the same is true in Australia, New Zealand and all the other realms, but I'm not certain.