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.

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.

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.

The Media & The Monarchy

Never in the history of any country has the media of Canada been such a whore to such a vile institution (except in Thailand, where even the slightest criticism of the monarchy is literally illegal). Any mainstream mention of the monarchy reads like something out of a celebrity gossip magazine, lauding people who are famous for no other reason other than because they were born “special”. It’s a sickening spectacle that only few had ever questioned, yet those who question are often ignored or put in the backpages of editorials, and at best have their education and intelligence either questioned or insulted, or at worst suffer accusations of treason and sedition, and suffer calls for their murder. Monarchists, of course, are more insulted than their precious monarch. Despite this, even if our media were to nakedly and openly criticize and question monarchy, while our media should do so, it’s not going to be enough in the struggle against aristocracy and colonialism.

Granted there are some pieces written about dumping the monarchy, but they are very few in number, and often written by people who say nice things about the Queen and don’t think she’s a bad person, some by people who are defeatist, soft republicans that no one either knew about nor cared about. Because of this horrible inequality in reporting, as well as the well-funded, all-powerful personality cult called the Monarchist League, Canadians young and old and in between have been brainwashed by their media, combined with a widespread lack of education and the absence of or discouraging the use of critical thought, into thinking that a benevolent dictatorship is a good dictatorship, often used in stark contrast to the more democratic United States. Security shouldn’t be a justification to conserve such an utterly evil institution, let alone any dictatorship. It may be necessary to have a strong-man in times of crisis or of war, but once that threat is removed, so should the strong-man to be replaced by someone who’d be willing enough and has the vision to deal with some lesser problems.

In any case, even if the majority of Canadians support the monarchy, it’s because they’re stupid and too infantile to handle any political discussion within this pretend country we’re living in. In Quebec, the politicians there have been devoted, for decades, towards an independent Quebec, while the Anglophones are comfortable with the sense of superiority they have over “lesser folk”. The media has pandered to the royalists, fascists, and Anglo-nationalists (like Canada’s other import from Britain, the terrorist organization called the Orange Order) alike (and this is coming from an Anglo!), who demonize and stereotype our French and Indigenous brethren, as though they’re trophies of conquest rather than human beings deserving of the same rights as anyone else. The newspapers of Canada, majority of which always pandered to the conservative, and encourage backward thought, are garbage. Why are they so conservative? Because they’re owned by royalists, and all royalists hate democracy, and hate the people, who are manipulated into being apathetic. Even the most mild of monarchists shouldn’t be trusted by any republican. Canada, which is literally a pretend country with an imported constitution written by the British parliament and an imperial colony with a British monarch as its head of state, wasn’t created because the people wanted freedom. It was only created to protect the interests of the provincial governments, regardless of the people, and to reaffirm the British Empire’s interests.

There’s been only three rebellions out of the entirety of Canadian history, all of them failures and took place in the 1800’s. Since then, we’ve been rather quiet, complicit with the way things are ever since because Canadians are in every way cowardly and stupid, and always find a way to excuse the abuses of the government, as manifest in the appalling little reaction we had towards the Ontario Privy Council imposing virtually martial law without consent of the provincial legislature. And I will keep insulting Canadians alike until Canadians wake up, until Canada becomes a real country, with a republican form of government, and until we become more energetic, more aware of the state of our newfound independence. Currently, we’re not independent. We never have been. Canada is a dominion, which is different than an independent state. It’s basically a supposedly self-governing part of a country, that country being the British Empire. But we’re not truly self-governing when we have someone elsewhere as our head of state, and a constitution that’s been imported from Britain. Canadians don’t want full independence because they’re also children, because apathy has been drilled into them because of the Canadian media, which panders these sort of things, to become instant tabloids gushing about the looks and styles of monarchs. Why do they have any political power anyway? It’s a repugnant practice that must come to an end. But only with extreme measures. The civility shit, the business-like mentality of the left, has to be dumped. We’ve got to stop purging or silencing anyone who says anything “offensive.” Offensive. What about something untrue? In fact, rather than silencing someone by, say, using the ban hammer as what the forum section of Rabble.ca frequently does, we should be able to handle and deal with the opinions of others that we don’t like, even find “offensive.” While the right merely crowds out public opinion through control of the medium, leftists simply banishes people to the nether-regions for even the mere tone of their writing, rather than trying to calm everyone down without resorting to threats or even outright banishment, as Rebecca West habitually does in the Rabble.ca forums. And this is a problem. A huge problem.

And whatever excuses the royalists have to protect or endorse monarchy (democracy is transient; power is only temporarily in a republic; all politicians, regardless of political affiliation; so-called “divine right” [nevermind the fact that there’s no god or gods or goddesses of any kind, or that humanity is one and equal with each other] and other unbelievably painful, stupid, vile and downright dangerous excuses to destroy or dismiss democracy), the lamestream media, which has been perpetually in the stranglehold of conservatives, waters such garbage down to make it more palatable to the unassuming masses to consume. Ironic how the royalists, perpetually deluded, hate democracy, yet at the same time rely on public opinion and want to appease the very masses they insult and yearn to keep enslaved, blind and obedient to their favourite demig0d or demigoddess. That job is done by Canada’s media, who are part of a well-organized conservative campaign to keep monarchy in power at all costs, even exploiting the fact that the medium is the message. And whenever they mention republican views, they have the nerve to merely mention the main reasons perpetuated by Tom Freda: fiscal necessity and chronological relevance.

In a truly free country, people should be able to speak freely about anything, however repugnant, as long as others get to freely criticize the other person’s opinion, argument, etc. Of course, royalists only believe in free speech as long as it’s not anything negative about their favourite celebrity. “We must respect her.” Why. “She’s our Queen.” So what if she’s our queen? Or king? Simply because something is, such as authority, it doesn’t automatically give them respect and immunity from any form of questioning or criticism. This is why monarchy is so evil: because someone’s in authority for no reason other than by bloodline, not by consent of the people, and answers to no one. Respect is the mantra, just as it is the mantra, the primary goal of gangsters and mafiosi. Why? Respect for what? Tradition? Power? Without question or condemnation? They have no answer.