Answering the Royalists ~ Part Duh!

Before the Tea Party, before Ford Nation, there was the Monarchist League, a collection of sad authoritarian fetishists who wanted to exterminate any further efforts to render Canada free from the British Crown. They were as rabid, vicious, pernicious and determined as the Ayn Rand followers of today that have crystallized into the Tea Party of the United States, and the Ford Nation of Toronto. Their degenerate influence still lingers, and have since the 1970’s gained prominence and control in our nation’s schools, governments and civil services, spreading their anti-democratic slobber far and wide across Upper North America.

What is disappointing is the incredible lack of strong Canadian republican voices in the political and information arena who are loud and proud about their ideas and willing to fight for them. The only republicans who have managed to say anything about the monarchy or monarchists are insufferable modest home rule advocates who are only interested in debate and not real change, and treat monarchy the same way some folks treat evolution: as a controversy. First of all, there’s no controversy. Monarchy doesn’t represent the people. A republic with an elected head of state and legislature does. A country with a “constitutional monarchy” is only half-democratic. Representatives are supposed to get the consent of someone they supposedly represent in order to represent them. When it comes to representing a body of people, they choose or “elect” that representative. How in the holy fuck royalists consider any form of royalty to represent the people should be beyond the reasonable thinking of any decent human being on the face of the earth. Sometimes it takes a revolution to initiate real change and a republican revolution of independence must be initiated. Monarchy is not democratic, and must be totally destroyed.

So I’ve read a rather disgusting article about the monarchy, called The Monarchy Debate Is Missing A Piece Of The Puzzle, in the Huffington Post by a South African emigre named Johanu Botha. And by disgusting I mean it’s centrist moderate monarchist garbage. It claims that the debate is missing something, and that something turns out to be one of the stupidest questions imaginable.

During a Montreal citizenship ceremony in the autumn of 2011, an American friend of mine surreptitiously snuck up the aisle to snap pictures as — hand over heart — I became a citizen of the country I had lived in since 2002. A bright history major, he had no problem paying tribute to a ritual not his own. Until, that is, it was time to pledge allegiance to the Queen, Canada’s constitutional monarch and head of state.

It begins with an autobiographical story, the kind Obama would use in his speeches to galvanize the gullible before screwing them with a big thick knife in the ass because he’s just so nice to the GOP, in order to have the audience gain some emotional attachment to what he’s about to say.

My American friend loved the themes of multiculturalism, immigrant success stories, and general tolerance not always found so generously in his own country. Yet swearing loyalty to an unelected elderly lady was too much for even his open mind. And until a year before my ceremony, it might’ve been too much for me as well.

So he’s one of those folks who thinks that an “open mind” means to accept whatever one’s told without that important filter of rational thought, reason, or logic. To have an open mind, to this guy, is to accept “knowledge” in any form, however irrational, ignorant, misleading or false, without questioning.

I grew up a very Afrikaans kid in a South African town that was very Afrikaans. This meant being raised on the horrors of British dominance over Afrikaners, with Boer War concentration camps described in vivid detail (the horrors of Afrikaner dominance over Africans were conveniently glossed over). Despite the more moderate and politically tentative English friends at school, my young perspective on the British Crown was remarkably similar to that still etched into the American political consciousness — the Crown was something to be constantly rejected and thrown off in order to maintain a sense of freedom.

Because the idea that you can’t either choose your leaders or become chosen as leader is something to embrace and only Americans are in favour of choosing your government. And apparently Boethe seems to ignore the fact that Aparteid had existed. His town was very Afrikaans because blacks and “coloureds” wouldn’t be allowed to live in their town. The black people had their place, coloureds had their place, and all whites had their place, which were put on top, while the rest were left the crumbs.

What happened to my perspective in Canada after my family moved here was something that has happened in this country since the Fathers of Confederation themselves came to it as a mere colony: I moved from a republic to a monarchy and found more real freedom in the latter. In the early 19th century Irish nationalist Thomas D’arcy McGee fled his homeland to trumpet expansive republicanism in the young United States. Indeed, this founder to be of Canadian confederation declared that “either by purchase, conquest, or stipulation, Canada must be yielded by Great Britain to this Republic [the United States].”

Apparently, there’s no real explanation as to how exactly there was real freedom in the latter. He just suddenly cuts to a rambling piece about McGee. Did he immigrate to Canada during or after Apartied? Is putting Afrikaaners in concentration camps the only thing that made him hate the British? Where are the black people, Botha? They’re not mythical creatures.

The best kind of political fervour, however, requires tangible improvement in peoples’ lives, and he therefore quickly grew disheartened by Boston and New York. Richard Gwyn writes that:

“McGee grew restive in [the United States]. Its practice of slavery disgusted him, as did, more personally, the anti-Irish bigotry of the anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement. McGee came north to Montreal in 1857 and to his astonishment found there, after all his years fighting the English, ‘far more liberty and tolerance enjoyed by those in Canada than in the U.S.’”

Then, four years later, the American Civil War broke out, which rightfully proved that sometimes a little bloodshed is necessary for radical change. In the end, slavery was abolished and the United States stood triumphant in the end reunified and remained as a republic. Jim Crow laws indeed had replaced the slave laws, but it took dedicated people, men and women, of all colours who even lost their lives, to abolish those, and ensure that the Bill of Rights applied equally to everyone at every single corner of the United States. Meanwhile, we didn’t officially have a Bill of Rights until the 1950’s, and even still there are elements of the Charter of Rights that are questionable, such as the Not Withstanding Clause. So there is a difference between cultural attitudes and government policy.

Similarly, I found in 21st century Canada a political arrangement with an incredible capacity to accommodate differences. It paradoxically accepted separatist elected representatives in the national House of Commons, its immigration policy actively supported the identity with which immigrants arrived, its social policies were decidedly more progressive than its freedom-trumpeting southern neighbour, and its relationship with First Nations — while fraught with elements of dysfunction — had a history of treaty negotiations that provided glimmers of hope for the future.

Yet the Crown itself had no influence at all considering any these developments. It’s a blind rubber-stamping puppet of Parliament, regardless of whatever party was in power. Botha is blind to the fact that a recent bill restricting voting was passed and, without any input by our unelected absentee head of state, will become law next month. Treaty negotiations have also been fraught with corruption, and their ratification have been fraught with voting irregularities.

What role, if any, does the monarchy play in all of this? First, a head of state not directly elected by ‘the people’ tends to avoid the sort of populist impulses that can so heavily flirt with xenophobic nationalism. Second, a non-partisan head of state embodies the hopes, dreams, and security of person for every citizen, and is not just representative of the group that votes for him or her (a Presidential Office may in the abstract represent all, but it is always occupied by a partisan politician).

The first “role” that Botha spews out may not spell it out, but he does tease Godwin’s law, this myth that Adolf Hitler, who hated democracy and was supported by the German monarchists, was elected. Let’s be clear: Hitler was never elected (and no royalist ever specifies exactly what was he supposedly elected to) but was appointed Chancellor of Germany thanks to an aging yet firm monarchist named Hindenburg and another monarchist named von Papen in an attempt to control someone who would inevitably become the Teutonic reincarnation of Pharaoh. In other words, the monarchists in Germany helped summon the Third Reich, just as the monarchists in Italy backed Mussolini. Also, Botha is echoing an age-old anti-democratic mantra, that the people are too stupid to govern themselves, that they’re incredibly impulsive. This would be true … under a direct democracy, where people themselves govern directly rather than representatives that they elect to govern for them, to make decisions for them provided that the rights of the individual is protected by law. Also, a democracy, especially a representative one, cannot function without a sound education system that would be mandatory for all citizens to enrol. Freedom isn’t free, especially of obligations are to be properly and soundly educated. People are unwilling to educate themselves, and those who try without proper guidance often become conspiracy theorists or conservatives or worse, which is why the state should be obligated to educate the people. Further, populist impulses don’t flirt with xenophobic nationalism (unless your culture is xenophobic and racially “aware”), and Botha never explains how it does. In fact, populist impulses leans against xenophobic nationalism and toward economic and social needs. People want good jobs, good wages, time with their family, and to have their lives, liberty and property protected by good laws. While the qualifications for President can be changed for the better, the qualifications for monarchy can’t. Nevermind this having to do with the sex of the first-born. Changing that doesn’t make monarchy any better. It’s a way to ensure only whites are heads of state, regardless of who their puppet is in Canada, such as Michelle Jean.

Third, the steady distancing between the monarch and policy-making (versus revolution) has produced a political culture quite comfortable using the tools of government should it yield better policy outcomes. The United States, in contrast, has a curiously adversarial relationship with its democratic government, as if it constantly needs to be fought rather than instrumentalized. This has led to some of the most ineffective policies — see health care and gun control — among developed countries, and — ironically — it hasn’t led to a lean, efficient bureaucracy.

People are going to disagree with each other all the time. There will always be partisanship about one idea or another. Economics, religion, politics, philosophy—like an asshole, everyone has an opinion about them. People are always going to fight each other one way or another. The reason that we have what remains of our healthcare system and effective gun control, while the Americans don’t, is not because of monarchy, but because of ordinary citizens from all walks of life were fighting tooth and nail to get those things established in Canada. The monarch had no part in it whatsoever. In fact, by doing nothing and saying nothing, she’s condoning it, and considering the elitist and reactionary and imperialistic nature of monarchs, she probably would’ve preferred the total opposite, to ensure her peasant subjects paid for their own healthcare and bought their own guns lest they were used to oppose her royal police or soldiers. She probably would’ve preferred if there were no politicians to represent any of the ignorant, unwashed peasantry, or wouldn’t have minded limiting the vote to the highborn few. This demonstrated by her doing nothing.

And fourth, the relationship between First Nations and the Crown has often been healthier than that between First Nations and the Canadian state. Indeed, when I contacted a PhD student studying Canadian-Indigenous relations to get his thoughts on this blog he noted that one of the concerns of a Canadian republic is that it will handle treaties in the historical manner of the federal government and not the Crown, the latter being perceived as more just.

Yet Botha never provides examples or explains how the latter is perceived as “more just.” He ignores the fact that the actions of the Canadian Government are done not in the name of the Canadian state but in the name of the Canadian Crown. Furthermore, let’s explain something here: the British monarch represents imperialism, of colonialism. The natives in this pretend country have been colonized, and have been subjected to the brunt of imperialism. The treaties not only have done little to their benefit, but have also prevented us from moving forward as a country.

The question Canadians should ask as they continue to debate the monarchy in this country is: how to square the institutional benefits of a non-partisan Head of State with the monarchy’s obvious democratic deficit? The discourse often focuses on the value of taxpayer’s money versus the historical importance of the Queen or old school affection for the individual royal personalities versus grassroots democrats. While these are important debates to have, the institutional contribution of non-partisan governmental machinery should be carefully assessed when contemplating the monarchy’s abolishment.

You can’t fit a square peg in a round hole because monarchy isn’t democratic. To try to make the monarchy democratic would be to try and teach both creationism and evolution in a fucking science class! “Intelligent design” or whatever its name is the wolf of creationism disguised as science. If we want real democracy, sever the ties to the British Crown, and absolve ourselves of all and any allegiances to it, and stamp out all other versions of it at the lower levels of government. The discourse that places the value of taxpayer’s money over democracy has the echoes of Ayn Rand, who hated democracy simply because of a childhood trauma she suffered in Russia when she saw mobs running rampant through the streets when it transitioned from one form of dictatorship to another. These sort of people place more value on money, on their on wallets, than in any form of human dignity or public service. And on this whole idea that the head of state should be non-partisan couldn’t be any more stupid. Non-partisanship should only be reserved for the courts. The monarchy isn’t non-partisan because that it allows only family members to inherit the crown, and denies Canadian citizens to either access it or have a say in who should be head of state. As the office of President is owned by the people where anyone can access it, the “office” of monarch isn’t an office at all but private property that is owned by one person and their family, no matter how many times royalists attempt to rehash or rebrand it or “reinvent it.” The head of state isn’t a supreme court justice and doesn’t preside over any court proceedings. Nor should it. Monarchy also doesn’t embody the hopes and dreams of every citizen because it doesn’t allow citizens to become head of state, nor should even an elected head of state embody the hopes and dreams of everyone considering that no one would elect any fascist, racist, intellectually infirm or psychologically unstable person to office considering the hopes and dreams of such deviants are the stuff of nightmares.

In Contempt of City Council

As part of the requirement to govern, government is obligated to protect the innocent, the law abiding, the citizen from crime and corruption, to act swiftly upon it wherever it is found and to ensure there are no circumstances that would cause it to rise again. In light of the recent events in Kiev, when Ukraine’s version of Rob Ford at its national level was removed from power after months of protest that ended in violence and bloodshed, one wonders why on earth no such thing has been happening in the streets of Ottawa or the District of Colombia. There has been a lull for a number of weeks over the halls of power in the City Council. If anyone is at fault for keeping our dear mayor in power despite the series of scandals he’s been embroiled in, it’s City Council. They didn’t go far enough when they decided to merely remove his powers and transfer them to the office of the Deputy Mayor. They didn’t go far enough in light of the fact that he not only repeatedly lied to the public about his drug habit, which does affect his performance and demonstrates his irresponsibility as our chief magistrate, but his attempt to cover up the existence of a video smoking crack cocaine. If this had happened in the United States, the majority of councillors would’ve lost their seats either within a few days via recall, or after the next election, surrounding a media frenzy, for merely removing the mayor’s powers. Why would they want to keep a crackhead in office? Some of them say it’s democracy. I say it’s not democracy, but mob rule.

We the Canadians, who absurdly place more value on civility than on justice, along with a shabby education system, rely heavily, if not solely, on the honour system that we’ve adapted from our British masters, where we must blindly trust people in power to do the right thing, to rehabilitate the corrupt rather than punish them and remove them from office, in exchange for forfeiting our right to criticize them, even insult and abuse them.

As the fiasco at the City Hall of Hogtown enters another quiet period, and the police continue to investigate our chief executive, with some locals speculating that he might be behind the murder of one of the members of organized crime that was with him when the chilling photo of them in front of the crack house was taken, one must ask the question why the hell is this man still in office? Any decent country or town would’ve ousted their chief executive faster than one would exhale, ongoing police investigation or not. While people in the same province that never raised a fit over a “secret law” that was imposed on the province in 2010, without the consent, debate, or even oversight of the Ontario’s Legislature, city council had at least stripped Ford of his powers and delegated them to the Deputy Mayor, yet turned our rotund chief magistrate into a living irony by making him a figurehead that does nothing but collects his paycheque, much to the disappointment of Ford and his band of degenerate lapdogs that make up “Ford Nation”.

The problem is, of course, our council’s weakness and inability to go further than

City Council has been lukewarm and half-hearted in their actions to make the chief executive of our fair city more accountable by merely removing his powers yet for some reason want to keep him in office.

Rob Ford & The Case for Impeachment

Rob Ford, along with London mayor Joe Fontana, is the reason why we need impeachment across the land. To do nothing but simply wait and let the public decide in the next election, despite his criminal activity, his compulsive lying, and his flimsy attempts to cover-up the existence of the notorious crack video that lead to the arrest of his driver, is a surrender to mob rule. Of course, it’s less mob rule and more of a hijacking of our democracy by our own version of the Tea Party. So in essence, City Council has surrendered to the rule of a few, an oligarchy, composed of the worst and most ignorant of human beings this city has living within. This City Council has failed to go far enough.

Now some naysayers will say that it’s against the law to remove the mayor. First of all, what law? Where? Federal law? Provincial law? No such law has ever been cited even once by any government official or the press. And no law exists that prevents City Council from doing so exists anyways. Just as there was no law preventing City Council from removing the mayor’s powers, there is no law preventing City Council from removing the incumbent, and Rob Ford, forever the corrupt and pathologically lying frat boy people seem to enjoy at the expense of others, is a great reason why we there should be no such law preventing City Council from removing them. People like Ford, Fontana and Chris Christie are examples of why we need impeachment, especially when we have a republic in the hopefully near future. I’ve talked with few people (online), demanding what law is there that prevents City Council from doing so, and I’d get no answer, or I’d get some random law that they never explain how it’s related to the removal of the incumbent, or why or where in that law does it say or why the media or City Council has referred to this law as being the law that prevents them, or they don’t know. Typically Canadian to not know the laws you live under.

Another stupid excuse floating around is that it’s no big deal that Rob Ford smoked crack. Why? Why is it not a big deal that the mayor drinks and does drugs while on duty, but a huge deal for some people who are poor or non-white to have their lives destroyed and thrown away when they’re caught? When you’re caught smoking crack or doing any drugs while on the job, you get fired. While I do favour marijuana legalization, this has to do with power, and how we need intelligent, ethically sound, reasonable and sober people to run the city, or the province, or even the “country”. Some people are advocating for a figurehead, and I don’t want that. Malarkists, perpetually repugnant as Ford himself, are gloating at this, saying “See? Would you want Rob Ford to be president? City council can’t even remove him from office.” No. I wouldn’t, nor any decent human being in this country who are often outnumbered by the ignorant, the lazy and the insane that imagine that the media, forever left-wing in the minds of theirs despite being as conservative as they can legally get, has somehow fabricated this, that the “lamestream media” is making stuff up, and that Ford only tells the truth simply because he’s the mayor. Idiots. No. Fuck no. That’s why there’s two things necessary for an elected executive: election and impeachment.

Remember earlier how the Royalists, in their list of excuses for defending the monarchy, whined and complained about how we’d have to remove politicians from office through impeachment. Why is it a bad idea? Look at Ford! You think we shouldn’t remove the corrupt and criminal from power, elected or not? That we should allow them to commit crimes while in office with impunity and behave as they see fit, and we only need to wait til the next election? Or just as bad, just leave him as a figurehead, and do absolutely nothing except take our money to do nothing. Want a symbol? Look at our flag, our CN Tower. Why a person, you fucking idiot? If you’re not going to do anything except mooch off our tax dollars, then get the fuck out and never serve again. Our monarch, for example, is not only an unelected absentee head of state who rules for life, is at best utterly useless and at worst a tyrant, and is succeeded by blood regardless of popular opinion, but also does absolutely nothing, and benefits no one but herself who rakes in millions of our money every year despite allegedly having no power. You know what you call someone who has a government job who does nothing but reaps in a salary with benefits? Government waste. Get Ford out, City Council. Stop dithering, and stop wasting our money by keeping Ford as a figurehead. It’s also time we need to stop this idea of honour, where the incumbent has only the option to leave office.

Rob Ford

is the reason why we need more democracy in this country. And NO … that’s not putting it sarcastically.
LO ford01.JPG
Thanks to the diseased system of government called constitutional monarchy, the way governments at every level of this God-forsaken portion of the earth is crafted in such a way, that we cannot hold any level of government accountable. In Ford’s case, we can’t oust him from power … just like we can’t oust the monarchy, under our current system. Corrupt politicians, especially in a republic, aspire to be a monarch. Rob Ford and his equally scummy, equally corrupt brother Doug, are mad with power. Their arrogance and ignorance are astronomical. Now some royalists babble on about “Well, politicians last for only a short time, but monarchs last forever.” That is not just the mantra of fascism, the mantra of a crazed nut calling for a dictatorship, to chain others to their favourite celebrity. This demonstrates the failure of royalists to grasp the reason why a republican head of state is elected, why he should be impeached, why he should serve only a few years, and why he should only serve an extremely small number of terms. You have a corrupt politician like Rob Ford in power? In a decent country he’d be already impeached and arrested thereafter for the great number of abuses he’s used his office for, and for the criminal acts he’s committed, including drug possession and assaulting a democratically elected representative. This is the behaviour of a tyrant, a monster, an aspiring monarch who cares not about the people that he rules by their consent, but by power at all costs, even at the expense of the people of this city, while galvanising the “Ford Nation” who are composed of idiots who blame the media because they don’t like “negative news.”

Democracy in Crisis in North America

There has been a coup in the United States. Or rather, to put it grammatically correct, there was a coup that has helped the shutdown of the American government. This cause was made by a simple change in the rules of the House of Representatives where, instead of allowing any member to forward a motion to resume the government, only the leader of the party majority may put forward such motion. This was made in the dead of night without any debate or oversight. In other words, the GOP of the United States has seized power, and is trying to transform their congress into Canada’s parliament, where parliament is not controlled equally by all members of the legislature, but by party leaders with MPs serving as mere puppets under threat of expulsion from the party if they fail to toe the line.

Canadians, perpetually arrogant and self-blind (the very reason why we live under monarchy and a half-formed yet misshapen constitution), fail to understand that our own government has been shut down, that democracy in its current fragmented state has been suspended, in the name of the whim of an executive who has shown us an example why term limits are important to a democracy. While a House Majority Leader is different from a Prime Minister, it nonetheless is an attempt to inch America away from a congressional legislature to a parliamentary one. And while parliaments may be entertaining when the business of a legislature is to govern, they are not as democratic as a congressional legislature, which is what a proper republic wound need in order to function.

Finally, in Ontario, lest we forget, the Privy Council under the unrepentant Dalton McGimpy did something similar by imposing a secret law on the province, without any debate or oversight by the provincial legislature, that expanded police powers dramatically, and that Canadians in Ontario are still living under.

Sometimes, it’s the small things that can have huge consequences.

Mediocrity is the Mantra or Fuck You, Tom Freda

Canadians are mediocre people with mediocre ambitions who put mediocre efforts into mediocre causes. Take, for example, Tom Freda’s supposed fight against merely an oath to the Queen … for newcomers to Canada.

Today, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that forcing immigrants to Canada to swear an oath to the Queen is constitutional, even if it violated their free speech rights.

Nevermind, you know, actually severing ties with Britain and establishing a republican form of government that works. Nevermind pummelling royalists at every corner of every street and every building. Nevermind radicalizing Canadians against such an evil institution. Nevermind trying to propagate why monarchy is evil and should be destroyed as swiftly as possible. Nevermind trying to explain why a republic (specifically of a constitutional democratic secular form) is the greatest form of government human beings has ever conceived. And as lame as it is, nevermind changing the oath for ALL Canadians who enter into any public office. No. Tom Freda and Roach decided to dedicate years and money to engage in a selfish, mediocre endeavour designed solely to appease only new Canadians who don’t like the monarchy.

I’m sorry, but I’m a natural-born citizen of this country who himself is non-white, who grew up in two provinces, and I absolutely hate the monarchy, because it is an absolutely evil institution that must be destroyed. Yet my ambitions are far higher than Freda’s, or his CCR organization. The ambitions of them are so utterly weak that it would’ve been defeated by a fly between the two in a boxing match. So much time and money wasted on a useless endeavour that was doomed to fail to begin with. We should be better than this. Your ambitions should be far higher, and should be inclusive of all Canadians. But it wasn’t. Instead, the CCR, which has an official position of what kind of republic Canada they want, has colluded with royalists, and has a history of outing or purging “radicals”, decided to pretend to represent only republicans from other countries who come here. Not challenge the status quo. Not try to challenge Canadian’s who fear the concept of an executive that has real power and is able to counter the abuses of the legislature and the judiciary, and vice versa. Not to wage total war against the monarchy and the monarchists, to try and drive some away and others to convert to republicanism. Not to continuously insult and piss off the monarchy and monarchists, both of whom are evil and stupid and irrational.

We’ve got to do better than this, people! Enough! Our country cannot remain as a weak, divided, poor country that stands on fake pride and a dead, diseased system that has been nothing but problems. The idea that a constitutional monarchy is best is wrong. We don’t control nor own the head of state. We’re not a colony and we shouldn’t be colony. Instead, we the Canadians must, as quickly as possible, sever all political ties to Great Britain and the British crown, absolve ourselves of our allegiances to the Crown, and establish for a time a provisional constituent assembly composed of the brightest minds of the country that are not affiliated with any political party to draft a new constitution that would establish Canada as a democratic secular republic with the intent of government being to act in the name and interests of the people, to protect their rights and to provide for their security and welfare. We can’t rely on Parliament to do that. The elected elites in this country now, federally and provincially, in every political party, are not interested in representing the people, in exerting their will and catering to their interests, but in self-preservation. They would also want to keep a system of government where the executive doesn’t wield any power that would counter an abusive legislature. Nor should we use parliament as a legislature in our future republic, because it is unstable, undemocratic and unreliable in a republican system.

In the last fifteen years, we’ve witnessed a great example of the errors of having both a presidential system, where the president is both head of state and of government, and a parliamentary system, where the president is neither, in one of the most powerful and culturally significant nations on earth since Rome: the United States. The former was helmed by the manifestly incompetent George Bush, who ravaged the Bill of Rights, ruined the economy, committed various war crimes, and other heinous acts that have, since 9-11, utterly ruined the country and the world, acting like an elected monarchy. The latter is helmed by the manifestly weak and incompetent Obama, who lied his way into office, only to continue the actions of his predecessor, on top of constantly capitulating to the right-wing who hate him because he’s black, and allowed the restoration of neo-Jim Crow Laws in the states and of the replacement of a republican form of government with a puppet show run by the corporations at the expense of the worker. Obama has, to quote the documentary Class War by Class War Films, “singlehandedly destroyed belief in our political system than any previous combination of the hustlers and phoneys who were his immediate predecessors.” He acts like a rubber-stamping puppet, with the occasional veto but on minor issues. These are the dangers of having a presidential system of republic or a parliamentary system of republic.

For Canada, it should be something balanced. A congressional legislature and a divided executive of moderate power. Strong enough to be able to counter the abuses of the legislature and to act quickly, efficiently and effectively in times of emergency, but weak enough to ensure the legislature is able to counter its abuses.

There will be, without doubt, times when we’ve elected the wrong guy, who is either an aspiring monarch or an unprincipled non-entity. The point of a democracy, and of term limits, is not only to be able to choose our governments but also to change them, so that in the face of blunders, errors or catastrophes by one face, the ability of people to elect a new face gives us the opportunity, the chance to do things better, to change things, to undo and reverse the damage done by their predecessor, to change our leaders for the better. Even after Obama, who is serving his second and final term, there is that opportunity.

But for the Americans, not for us. We, the Canadians, are forced to accept whoever assumes the throne, without our consent, while we indirectly elect our prime minister by giving a political party a majority in the legislature. There are no term limits, even for party leaders. Elections are called whenever Parliament feels like it, and some MPs have unfair influence in the executive branch by becoming Premier or Prime Minister.

Yet the royalists, forever in their drive to destroy the right of the people to govern themselves, will always use the myth of a demagogue with absolute power (completely ignoring the point of democracy … and of a legislature … and a constitution) and the myth of Hitler getting elected (when he in fact wasn’t elected President of Germany but appointed Chancellor … which happens to be … a Prime Minister) to dismiss and discredit democracy and the concept of a republican form of government. There do exists countries that are only republics in name only. Pol Pot wasn’t head of state … but Prime Minister.

Hmmmmmm … Mussolini was Prime Minister. Hitler was Prime Minister. Pol Pot was Prime Minister. Is it just me … or is there a pattern here?

Hitler Suspends Parliament for the 3rd Time

PARLIAMENT1-e1372280283224

A little belated in the news, yes. But … what is there to write here? For the third time, as promised, the little bastard Harper shuts down parliament for a third time, and will begin a new session next month.

I’m beginning to doubt that we should ever have a parliament as a legislature, especially for the coming republic. In fact, parliamentary legislatures may be partially responsible for the majority of the world’s problems. In fact, parliament is the worst concept of a legislature in the history of humanity. I think I’m going to write about the evils of a parliamentary legislature soon. I’ve had enough. Not only should we abolish ties to the British monarchy, we should also depose of this British style of government that we’re living under, provincially and nationally! As if Harper getting re-elected despite his sins and losing a motion of non-confidence was what proved the concept of a parliament to be a farce.

And no one is rioting in the streets because of how divided we are as a so-called “country”.