Buckdog

Live with it.

We'll never be rid of the monarchy for one simple reason: a lot of the early treaties with First Nations were not signed with Canada. They were signed with the King of England.

Remember, that's what the First Nations in Quebec said when separatism was all the rage: You leave Canada, we leave you. Our treaties are with the Crown, not with Quebec.

The prospect of renegotiating all those agreements is something that would have any federal bureaucrat wake up screaming at night. Though I'm sure that some at least of the First Nations would like the chance to revise the agreements.

No. You're being as bad as Harper here. A formal tie to the British Crown means little, positive or negative. I don't feel either more or less of a "national person" because of it. Obsessing over it is beside the point.

Besides, you know and I know that Harper is just doing this to piss off Quebec since it's turned into an NDP stronghold. The proper response is a collective yawn. Getting excited over it plays right into his hands by making the monarchy seem like a significant institution rather than a quaint relic of the past. Picture, schmitcture. No one ever asked me to bow to it, after all.

You say we swear oaths to the Queen as symbol of the state? So what? Who even remembers the words ten minutes afterward? We could be swearing our oaths to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Be thankful that at least all this idiocy is built around an old lady in another country who scarcely registers on our collective consciousness, instead of being an active and malignant fetishism like the American Pledge of Allegiance.

And last but not least, digging up a frumpy picture of the Queen as illustration is more than a bit puerile. The Left is supposed to be above that sort of thing. Even the most ardent supporter of the monarchy doesn't think it's a beauty contest, so what's the point? If the Queen looked like a Playboy centerfold, the monarchy would be neither more nor less acceptable. You rightly object to global warming denialists who meet scientific proof with the sneer that Al Gore is fat; is what you are doing here any different? It reminds me of those scenes in Koyaanisqatsi where they thought it was so clever and cute to critique modern life by speeding up the film. Trouble is, put it through the same treatment and a First Nations sacred dance looks like a pack of electrified monkeys on speed. In both cases -- in all cases -- it's a consciously dishonest technique.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This comment has been removed by the author.

"Live with it." No.

"We'll never be rid of the monarchy for one simple reason: a lot of the early treaties with First Nations were not signed with Canada. They were signed with the King of England."
Simply change the other party from monarch to Canada. But that won't happen because of defeatist lowlifes like yourself.

"Remember, that's what the First Nations in Quebec said when separatism was all the rage: You leave Canada, we leave you. Our treaties are with the Crown, not with Quebec."
They would've done the same thing.

"The prospect of renegotiating all those agreements is something that would have any federal bureaucrat wake up screaming at night. Though I'm sure that some at least of the First Nations would like the chance to revise the agreements."
Renegotiating all those agreements would be necessary. And yes some of them should be revised, to make them compatible, more fair and reasonable, and to make the other party from monarch to Canada. Why not? Are you inexplicably terrified of Aboriginals?

"No. You're being as bad as Harper here. A formal tie to the British Crown means little, positive or negative. I don't feel either more or less of a 'national person' because of it. Obsessing over it is beside the point."
On the contrary, you're being as bad as Harper, but stupider. However little, it has to be severed. And if you don't feel more or less of a "national person" because of it, then GTFO.

"Besides, you know and I know that Harper is just doing this to piss off Quebec since it's turned into an NDP stronghold. The proper response is a collective yawn. Getting excited over it plays right into his hands by making the monarchy seem like a significant institution rather than a quaint relic of the past. Picture, schmitcture. No one ever asked me to bow to it, after all."
No. He's doing this because he's a royalist pig. As for proper responses, fighting this is far better than sitting on our collective asses and merely yawning. That's what he wants, and that's what we usually do whenever something awful happens, then use someone like Gandhi as an excuse the same way people generally use Hitler as a comparison when making accusations. Remember this quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmond Burke)

"You say we swear oaths to the Queen as symbol of the state? So what? Who even remembers the words ten minutes afterward? We could be swearing our oaths to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Be thankful that at least all this idiocy is built around an old lady in another country who scarcely registers on our collective consciousness, instead of being an active and malignant fetishism like the American Pledge of Allegiance."
For one thing, you fail to understand the concept of monarchy itself. Second, if it's something that people would forget, why then keep it? If it's useless, why keep it?

"And last but not least, digging up a frumpy picture of the Queen as illustration is more than a bit puerile. The Left is supposed to be above that sort of thing. Even the most ardent supporter of the monarchy doesn't think it's a beauty contest, so what's the point? If the Queen looked like a Playboy centerfold, the monarchy would be neither more nor less acceptable. You rightly object to global warming denialists who meet scientific proof with the sneer that Al Gore is fat; is what you are doing here any different? It reminds me of those scenes in Koyaanisqatsi where they thought it was so clever and cute to critique modern life by speeding up the film. Trouble is, put it through the same treatment and a First Nations sacred dance looks like a pack of electrified monkeys on speed. In both cases -- in all cases -- it's a consciously dishonest technique."
Being above something usually entails that it doesn't fight back or have any power, does it? Especially in this pretend country. You're either a royalist or a defeatist coward. You don't represent the left, and even if you did, you'd still be wrong. So do us all a favour and either shut up or go back to England.

And speaking of treaties, since they kept being broken, how come the Queen has done nothing about them? Does she even care? Would she? And if so, what merit does someone unelected have in a situation like this?