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.

Advertisements

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.”

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”.

Reductio Ad Hitlerum

Royalists in person may be hard to come by, but whenever you cross one, royalist idiocy isn’t. Among the most stupid of arguments they use is the idea that a demagogue would be elected, he would become a dictator, and lead the country down into a dangerous path. While it may be true, it’s because there isn’t strong check enough checks and balances to ensure such a path isn’t reach. One of them being, of course, the legislature. They speak as if people are elected for life with no checks and balances on their power! The damage royalist lies have done to Canadians and their culture is insurmountable, but a worthy task to reverse and undo, and there’s always the next generation.

A true republic has to be democratic, for a republic cannot be a republic without democracy. There are nations that are not democratic, yet call themselves republics. Those are republics in name only. I for one do not simply accept any kind of republican government, but the right kind of republic. Not a parliamentary republic where a symbolic executive is the rubber-stamping puppet of an unstable and abusive legislature, nor a presidential republic where the president is both the head of government and of state and has powers that can even override that of the legislature. Not one where the president has both broad powers and unlimited terms of office like those of Zimbabwe, Egypt under Mubarak, and Syria under Assad, or one where the president is completely powerless and ineffective and serves one term. These are not true republics but a mockery of them. Same with so-called elected monarchies. And yet royalists, forever familiar only with the concept of the ignorant masses voting against their own interests and unable to tell the similarity between a monarchy and a dictatorship, use these as examples of real republican government.

Among the many arguments royalists use to justify hereditary government, they resort to one of the most stale fallacies imaginable.

Contrary to what royalists, Pharaoh’s Teutonic successor was never elected. True, he tried to use democracy, but only to destroy not just the republican form of government that rose in the aftermath of the First World War and the 1919 German Revolution, but democracy itself. Hitler, like all monarchists, hated democracy. He and his fascist party, the National Socialists, were supported by monarchists, who also hated democracy and wanted to extinguish it. Yet over and over again, royalists use this as an example of what would happen if a republican form of government in any of the commonwealth nations, while deliberately hiding historical fact from their readers. That a demagogue would take power through elections and would serve for life with absolute power … like a monarch. Truth is: Hitler assumed power not through elections or a coup or (according to some Canadian leftists) hate speech, but through political backroom dealings, violence and intimidation by his SS and SA thugs, the exploitation of the public’s resentment towards the punishing conditions of the First World War that crippled and humiliated Germany and of contempt towards the Weimar Republic that was standing on a very flawed constitution, and rumours of a military coup. It wasn’t intended to destroy democracy, but an attempt to keep Hitler under control. This is known historical fact. Not votes. Not a coup. Not hate speech. Royalists, however, tend to exploit the ignorance of the public by using only popular myths about the Austrian Pharaoh and reinforce already existing errors in public knowledge about historical events, to tell them what they want to hear rather than what actually is.

While it is true that demagogues to mislead the people before (Obama being the best case scenario, Napoleon III being the worst, since he was … a monarchist posing as a republican), history has shown that the most common remedy for such people would, when the person in question is revealed to have lied his way into office, simply vote them out in the next election, or wait til they completed their term of office (Bush II), or they would resign under even the threat of impeachment (Nixon) or out of shame. This is such a simple solution to a great fear royalists would use, to presume we have no other alternative. Royalists in general have a distorted, if not limited understanding, of how the democratic process even works, and would often lie to fill up the gaps in their knowledge. They presume republics are unstable simply because they’re republics, while ignoring certain factors that would undermine the very concept of a democratic republic, such as elections being arbitrarily called by the Executive or the Legislature whenever either feels like it, or that there is a weak executive that cannot counter the abuses of the legislature, or a weak legislature that cannot counter the abuses of the executive, complicated voting systems, illiteracy, etc., that can be changed, even if it would require serious effort. Undemocratic institutions would, at best, be abolished, or worst, be simply accepted. And the fear of violence, civil war, and international intervention? Well, these acts are in fact justifiable. Sometimes these are necessary as a last resort, when all other legal and non-violent courses of action either fail or is are available (elections, impeachment, enumerated powers, etc.), and that surrender and acceptance of the state of things is not an option. A person who abuses his office and its weaknesses is not a republican who respects the rule of law, the rights of the people, but a tyrant that aspires to be a monarch, for monarchy is always synonymous to absolute power.

Parliament Cancellation Cancelled

Well, okay, not really because he feels like it. More of he cancels suspension (or, if you want to be really uppity about it, cancels the prorogue) because of the crisis in Syria. And mind you, because he thinks the crisis in Syria is important. Not because MPs think so, or because Canadians like me think so, but because Herpes thinks so. Pretty soon, the Queen will only summon parliament on matters of warfare and taxes and nothing else, especially in improving the quality of life for all Canadians and in providing for the general welfare. Then afterwards, much to the delight of idiots across the country, and to the annoyance of people who will do nothing but bitch about it, Parliament will only be summoned for ceremonial purposes. And the Queen of England will do nothing. As usual.

Oh Fuck, Not This Shit Again!!!

For the third time, now, the most powerful non-existent political office in this pretend country has decided, on a mere whim, to again suspend Parliament and hold a throne speech in October of this year. The excuses from Herpes has been anything but existent, like his office.

What’s very interesting in the article, however, is a small note (I’m certain no-one will ever take notice) is made when mentioning that this wasn’t the first time Herpes suspended parliament to spare himself political embarassment:

“… prorogation, a standard parliamentary tool that has the effect of cancelling any legislation that’s still before the House.”

Is this true? Really? In order to stop a bill from becoming law in Canada, parliament should be suspended by the executive? As opposed to getting the bill vetoed by the chief executive? All that trouble for terminating a bill? Hell, the President of the United States and France respectively don’t terminate bills, but merely return them to Congress or the National Assembly for reconsideration! Reconsideration, where the legislature looks at the bill again, then by vote decides whether to terminate it or pass it again! Why do Canadians prefer to use rocket science for even the simplest of matters is far beyond me!

That said, this is blatantly abuse of power. Not just suspending parliament for any reason, but also dissolving it, especially for non-confidence motions, budget failures, and whenever elections are called whenever the executive feels like it! We may have health care, but that doesn’t justify conserving a shitty form of government, nor any more ties to the British crown!

And once again, the Queen will allow this to happen. And even if she did meddle against it, it’s still interference by someone that isn’t Canadian and wasn’t elected by Canadians. And Canadians won’t riot over this, either. But they should. Against this, and against the Crown as well.