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.


Appeal To Money

One of the stupidest arguments royalists use to condemn and damn democracy is that elections are so expensive. They use numbers drawn from elections in the United States, the compares them to that of maintaining the monarchy. This is an abhorrent attempt to trick the people into thinking with their wallets at the expense of their fundamental right to choose their governments, that we should sacrifice a fundamental democratic right that so many fight and die for because it would squeeze our wallets. They deliberately skewer figures and numbers, to confuse the reception and spending of money by political parties and candidates with that of the money spent on the electoral process itself. And being conservatives, they will cheat and lie about the numbers and the sources from whence it came.

First of all, Canadian royalists will always attack the United States, in an attempt to discredit it and its experiment with a republican form of government, which may be less than perfect (indirect election of the President vie electoral collage, for example) but far better than the stale, overused mockup of Westminster we have in Ottawa. The monarchists are still bitter over the loss of their colonies, and will always whitewash the British Empire’s own legacy of colonial terrorism and slavery, so that in Canada’s history books, Britain’s Empire was founded on peace and love.

Why do they resort to this? Rather simply: to appeal to the people’s wallets, especially of those who don’t vote, and don’t care about the effects of politics that happen in their lives. Yet suppose we get rid of all our representatives, and just have direct rule by the monarchy. Then the monarchy decides to impose taxes that are excessive and unnecessary, to spend on only personal expenses at the expense of the public well being and security. Who can appeal to her, then? Who can influence her? Only the most insane, unworthy of influencing anyone or holding any power, would blindly trust and defend a deified person, rivaled only by the Pharaohs of Egypt who were literally, in the eyes and minds of virtually all Egyptians, a god in human form. Why should an unelected, undemocratic head of state with powers unenumerated and inherited by blood, regardless of public opinion, have any right or say in how the state should spend its money, or in reverse and better yet, why should it even care about the people she rules over, or rely on any approval of the very people royalists dismiss as unable to govern themselves?

And speaking of money, what has our monarchy done about the Senate scandals with Mike Duffy, or the SUNTV fiasco with the CRTC? What has she said or done about the fraudulent elections that the Conservatives engaged in? Of course she doesn’t care about elections or democracy! She’s a fucking monarch. She relies on the concept of divine choice, without solid evidence or consent of the people, to govern a people that she not only looks down upon for their supposed ignorance, or lack of “class”, but also wants to deny them their inherent right a sound and solid education.

If the masses are so grossly ignorant as claimed by the royalists, then why deny them sound education, to teach them as children the ability to use logic, reason, and critical thinking? They want to rob the people blind of quality education in the name of money the same way they want to rob and deny people the right to vote, to elect their representatives, to choose their governments, in the name of money. Granted, democracy should be affordable, economical, financially beneficial. Yet it is a dangerous folly to think that the cheapest government is the government you can’t choose or change.

Monarchists Are Idiots

Monarchists, like fascists and every other branch of conservatism and centrism, are complete and utter idiots and crazy people. They literally believe in the idea that monarchs are free from corruption simply on the propagandistic garbage they’re fed by the very institution willing to manipulate public opinion to support it. Anyone who adores, admires or loves monarchy is either blind, stupid, crazy, or evil. They hate the idea of the people governing themselves, because they themselves have this slave-master mentality. They not only want to be blindingly obedient to the most frivilous, pettiest, or irrational whims of their rulers, but also want to chain others.

Monarchists are naturally secluded from the rest of the world save for the internet, where they can spread their poison. They’re members of a personality cult, far worse than a celebrity fan club, who deify their ruler, one imposed on them by a deity, without consent of the governed. They want to kill democracy, yet ironically, they are trying to gain public support so that they can kill it with thunderous applause.

Monarchists have blind and total distrust in the election process to such a degree, that anyone elected is an enemy, regardless of their talents, gifts, ideas, merit or contribution. They cling to this myth about such things can be hereditary, that the people should not only have a say in who should govern them, but be forced to accept their rulers blindingly, even in the face of glaring mistakes that politicians make. When a politician makes a mistake, it’s a crime, and they’re thrown out of office or lose the next election. They don’t like that. They don’t like it when the people have a say in who their representatives are, and they don’t like it when authority figures can be thrown out, or shown “disrespect.” Monarchists literally want to murder, torture, intimidate, harass and abuse anyone who has any differences of opinion, or who shows disrespect towards their favorite celebrity, or to anyone authority, or to “traditional values,” which rob the people blind of their right to govern themselves, even at the executive level. “Traditional values” are not reasonable, rational, or logical values.

Monarchists are, to borrow Gore Vidal’s description of Ayn Rand’s followers, simple folk who are easily puzzled by organized society, who hate taxes, who hate the idea of a welfare state. They don’t want their money to be given to an elected government that is obligated to use it for public purposes, but to an unelected government to use as it pleases regardless of the welfare of the people.

Monarchists are a vicious cancer, and should be rooted out, gutted out, cut out and cast out from the national body, so that they don’t molest a free people, nor seek to enslave them. However moderate, they should never be trusted by even the most moderate of republicans.

As for Canadian monarchists, they think that there’s no French people when they talk about “history” or “heritage.” They think that we should sacrifice true independence, and the right of the people to choose their head of state, in the name of “tradition” or “heritage” or “history”, that democracy is merely an American invention. They’re angry at the Americans not because of 1812, which was over the occupation by American forces that wanted to redress grievances with the British, but because the Americans fought and won their independence from the British Crown; monarchists in Canada are angry at them because a people, once private property of the Crown, rebelled and won their independence. Their excuses are, while numerous, baseless, absurd and ridiculous. They don’t realize that under the British monarchy, this pretend state called Canada has in fact been heavily Americanized, yet they revere an object like the British Crown as some idol of worship, and falsely claims it keeps us Canadian. They see French and Native people as mere trophies of conquest, and are only angry at them because, apart from their differences in ethnicity and language, stand up for themselves and are fiercely independent, while the Canadian monarchist disguises his servitude with fake patriotism and empty lip service to democracy and freedom, yet not equality. Finally, the Canadian monarchist literally believes that the British Empire was founded through peace and love.

Reason Why Canada Should Abolish the Monarchy #6748

I am so tired of the pathetic excuses conjured by the royalist filth to preserve this vile institution. Among these, of course, is the concept that the monarchy is non-partisan, since we’re somehow too inferior to tolerate or overcome or even take advantage of politics for the better good. There is no possibility that any human being would be remotely politically non-partisan. The best example, of course, is the awarding of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals to a couple of verminous scumbags who are against the women’s right to choose life or abortion. CBC comments on the article have been rather vitriolic, yet only few have ever addressed the rancid reality of monarchy to a hoard of idiots that infect the website of the government-owned broadcasting company.

Monarchy in a Nutshell

If Canadians wanted their own version of this photo, they’d replace the indigenous Africans with the indigenous North Americans.

I can’t believe Canadians, especially the young and foolish, went gaga over the royal wedding of this bastard. The media, government and Fascist Monarchist League all are responsible for that, of course, as well as Tom Freda’s ever failing gentle push against something that actually requires a truckload of C4 to remove.

No matter who’s on the throne, no matter how young he is, no matter if he rides a bike or wanted to invite the poor to his wedding . . . this is it. This is monarchy in a nutshell. The masses on the bottom serving those in power. This is also what Canadian monarchy is: an unelected whites-only position, with everyone else under their feet. This is what the enemies of democracy masturbate to, of the sight and act of domination and racial domination, and of yearning to not just be dominated, not just to have someone to rule over them for life, but to dominate and chain others.

This is what a monarchy is like, where the people are naked servants underneath those who think that it is their right to rule over others without their consent.

William’s racist romp looks very similar to this, doesn’t it:

Seriously, motherfucker, those two things attached to your pelvis down to the bone are called legs. Use them, you lazy spoiled little shit.

Freedom from Freda

How Tom Freda Failed the Republican Movement

Tom Freda established Citizens for a Canadian Republic in 2002, thirty-two-years too late after the Monarchist League of Canada was founded in 1970. From the start, Freda was attempting to reach out to republicans, but he was also trying to concentrate power into his own hands, perhaps due to harassment by members of the ML, as well as the Orange Order and other royalist, anti-democracy groups that have gained a stranglehold. So far, his accomplishments have been allowing the Canadian government to strengthen the monarchy since he’s mainly focused on the oath of citizenship, and because he is so intolerant to other voices and stronger fighters that he would even help the royalists by “purging” them from his group, exposing them who they are, and even labelled them as “extremists” and even “royalists.”

The Monarchist League, of course, has become one of the most influential political organizations in Canada, and its members include MPs and Senators and other holders of government office, provincially and nationally. The League was founded by Irish-born pedophile John Aimers, who wasn’t even born in Canada (yet likes to meddle in the affairs of other foreign powers as much as he does young boys) as an overreaction to Pierre Trudeau’s attempts to hide the monarchy very slowly (While some say Trudeau was a closeted republican, I say that he was muddled, and did a shitty job trying to establish Canada as a republic, if he was even actually trying). While there were only allegations of pedophilia made against Aimers during his tenure at Selwyn House School, he was never investigated, perhaps because of some meddling by his beloved League. Bribes? Intimidation? Influence peddling? No one knows, but then again, Canada has a history of letting pedophiles in power, alleged and real, get away with their crimes. Aimers is both a citizen of Canada and the United States, the latter of which happens to be a republic.

Yet despite Aimers’ colourful history and the control of the government from the local to provincial level, the republican movement has been dragging its ass due to the uncharismatic dictatorship leadership of Mr. Freda, whose lack of charisma may be due to his 30-year profession as a stock photographer and ten years as a technical writer, as he explains in his unfunny biography. Mr. Freda’s group has also held only few protests, yet stopped out of fear of attracting extremists and offending people, and has gone out of his way to emerge only when the monarchy comes into the view of the media. It seems that Mr. Freeda is more concerned about trying not to offend people than about being right. He is the self-appointed representative of all republicans, and denounces those who question, challenge or damn his leadership as a disgrace to the entire movement.

While there have been successful attempts at creating other groups, they suffered from the same stagnation and lack of motivation of its members and leadership as Freda’s organization, usually without a set goal.

You’re a disgrace, Freda. How far have we come? Harper restored the prefix of Royal to the Canadian army, navy and air force, and ordered the Queen’s portrait to be put up in all embassies of Canada, while you’re wasting time on a fucking oath. You’re so ashamed of your concept that you mush your words to hide your views.

Norwegian Terrorist is a Royalist

Far-right Non-Muslim terrorist of Norway admits he’s a royalist

Here is a classic example of what a royalist really is: a murderous, violent, cold-blooded reactionary that has contempt for democracy, liberty and equality.

“Most nationalists and cultural conservatives are supporters of the monarchy, including myself.” ~ Anders Breivik, Norweigian terrorist, mass murderer of children, royalist pig

Well, from experience, let me say that all conservatives, false nationalists, and both centrist and “liberal” or pseudo-lefties support monarchy.

Answering the Royalists

The cyber universe is vast like the human psyche, diverse as the elements and the combinations they can make. They range from ordinary citizens and politicians to nerds and outcasts, furries and perverts to fanatical loons and blowhards, creationists and birthers to truthers and conspiracy theorists. All share this universe, and within it, to each their own realm.

One people have their own corner on the internet. An obscure lot, hidden from view, beneath the cloth of regular garb and silent elitist glares. They are the self-appointed upholders of that evil form of government known as monarchy in Canada. The Monarchist League, formed in the 1970s to allegedly combat a growing sense of independence in Canadians, is an elaborate joke of an organization with incredible power and lunatics working among the ranks, willing to kill to prevent the abolition of the monarchy. Royalists are either members of a celebrity fan-club or the followers of a personality cult.
Anyway, in their elaborate closet of “proof” is a list of excuses for Canada to keep the monarchy. Let us examine each part carefully.


More like forced to be a cowardly, weak and divided artificial state that pretends to have a “national” identity considering we don’t have one. Canadians should decide the kind of country theirs should be, not rely on someone else imposed on them or traditions. Because of an ancient institution with a long history of imperialism, inequality, tyranny, ignorance, insanity and a fanatical lust for power that rivals that of Robert Mugabe, we are a “kinder” and “gentler” nation. Doesn’t anyone remember why then are we lackeys to the Americans (Afghanistan), or the Somalia Affair back in 1993 if we’re so kind and gentle? What did our fair monarch had to say?

“A central reality of Canadian life is the inevitably overwhelming influence of our friendly neighbour, the United States of America. Free Trade. Continental defence and secure borders in a post- 9/11 environment. A porous frontier ranging from television and the Internet to pop music and culture. These and other factors often tend to overwhelm Canada’s national identity.”

This is a classic of blind fear-mongering, using the America card. It’s absurd to breed fear of another nation’s influence on our “identity” (whatever the hell that is) yet assume that our national identity lies in another nation’s head of state, and arrogantly implies that Canadians are incapable of creating their own identity and nation from nothing and governing it for themselves. Who are the monarchy to tell us what our country should be?

They’re also blaming petty small things as some sort of cause of national decay, just as American conservatives blame homosexuality, rock and roll and girls for their country’s moral decay … as if no other nation has any vices.

“Every nation needs to understand and foster the existence of distinct images and institutions; thus for Canada, the Constitutional Monarchy is of particular import.”

Canadians never voted to have a monarch, nor are Canadians aware of it, nor did we import it, nor did we develop a monarchy over time, because classically monarchies were established by sword and intrigue. For the royalists, “import” is a euphemism for colonizing other lands and taking the land of another people.

“It makes Canada unique in the Hemisphere. Its focus of loyalty and allegiance to a respected monarch rather than to a politician, an ideology or a symbol underlies the notably tolerant, mature society of which Canadians feel proud.”

The citizens of a republic would owe their allegiance to their country, not a human being. To have one’s allegiance and loyalty to any human being, politician or not, is absurd and idolatrous, and the idea that in a republic people would pledge their allegiance to an elected official is totally stupid, and shows the complete idiocy of royalists, whose claims of patriotism are false and shoddy because they have no allegiance or loyalty to the “country” they live in and supposedly defend.
Any piece of land that is owned by a foreign human being and has other human beings loyal to them is called a colony. And the monarchy a symbol of nothing.


Our French and native brethren detest her with good reason, and monarchy is among the many major roots of ethnic tension and regional nationalism in this colony. In France and Finland, the head of state is the president, and the head of government is the Prime Minister. A parliamentary republic has a symbolic president and a powerful legislature. A presidential republic has the president as both head of state and head of government. It is also unifying depending on who you elect. Further still, a president is chosen by the majority of everyone.

“In a democracy, day–to-day decisions are made by those whom we have elected. Not surprisingly, this partisan political process reflects the things that divide Canadians. It encourages striving for partisan goals and personal success. This is inevitable.”

A democracy (in the modern sense), especially a democratic republic, is a government ruled by the people represented through a body of people from the people chosen by the people for the purpose of serving, protecting, representing and exerting the will of the people and sovereignty of the nation for a limited term bound to the law they establish with consent of the people; not by one person, constitutional or not, cushioned on a high throne, unwilling to concede to public opinion, however reasonable, unelected by anyone other than the alleged God and succeeded through bloodline by murder, civil war or death. Furthermore, it allows and shows the diversity of people’s opinions, and that the purpose of free speech is to exchange and argue ideas, to analyse through different viewpoints, and to compromise and agree. Furthermore it protects the people from the rule of one or a few and it protects one from the rule of a few or majority. Diversity is necessary for the people to rule, since we all have different opinions and it must be shared, known, debated and decided in order to govern. There’s the diversity of plants and animals, and animals live together as a community. A “queen” ant or bee cannot live without her workers or drones.
The royalist thinks that diversity in opinion is bad government. Bad policy, bad infrastructure, bad ideas and bad politicians make bad government. Difference of opinion, conflict and exchange of ideas, debate and argument are natural and divine because it is the expression of free will and speech, yet the royalists want to cling to this utopian fantasy that without free will and free opinion there would be peace. To achieve that they would have to rain upon the populace a terror campaign of psychological conquest. Further, debate and argument are necessary for restraint and reflection when a government is making a decision. It also gives the opportunity for unique ideas to be shared and debated.

“However, Canada’s Constitution separates politics from service, and transient popularity from institutional stability. So the Prime Minister is our head of government and leader of a political party. As such, his actions are often controversial.”

To call the people “transient” is callously aristocratic, elitist and to the core, inherently antidemocratic, and shows a disdain for the people as a whole by the elite, suggesting that people, no matter what their talents, can’t govern themselves. Yet since human beings are born and created free and equal, and possess certain talents and deficits, who are they alone to decide that they have a skill or talent that would make them fit to rule over others for life? Furthermore, the second and third sentences mislead the reader to assume that the prime minister has absolute power when in reality his office does not even exist in the Constitution. We elect other people in parliament to voice their concerns if they are allowed to break the mould. And what about other constitutions? How does ours “separate politics from service?” Haven’t they read the damned thing?

Short-term popularity does not equal instability. In fact, temporary rule (if scheduled regularly) provides stability, in which those elected have don’t gain too much power, and that the will of the people themselves decides who should represent the nation itself. The longer someone stays in office, regardless of power, the more corrupt they become as either a pawn or a catalyst.

A lifetime of one governing all does not equate stability, and even if so it depends on your monarch. There could be a great philosopher king who would enrich their nation and people, yet is succeeded through death by a tyrant who destroys everything that had been built up and created for decades by his predecessor, taking the people and nation down in flames with him. Indeed there have been good and even great kings, yet how many ordinary folk were there who would have been great rulers had they been chosen to be, say, ruler for a year? After the death of Alexander the Great, for example, his empire collapsed amidst sparring factions within fighting for power. Same thing in China, when civil war erupted after the death of its first emperor, and several times in England. Is it not better and far more bloodless if heads of state were chosen by their people rather than fight for power, even if the entire nation is torn apart through a torturous and bloody civil war of attrition over a stuffed chair and a metal hat? Would it not be an insult and a disgrace to have the governance of a nation be reduced to an inheritance dispute between people who would deserve neither? Better to have a philosopher king serve briefly than let a madman rule for life. While a republic remains since it is in the hands of the people through representatives they choose, monarchs can treat their nation however they wish, regardless of the will or consent of the people.

“The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State. The Monarchy protects and exemplifies the things Canadians agree about, and do not wish to see changed regardless of an election: community, tolerance, nationhood, the rule of law. And by presiding at events such as the Montreal Olympics and Canada 125, The Queen emphasizes the non-partisan, unifying nature of great national events.”

This is the essence of dictatorship, to not wish to see change or make changes regardless of the will of the people, let alone heed the will of the people. This is also nothing else but false unity. Simply because she pays visits and wears nice hats, she unifies the country. She does not embody all of Canada and all of Canadians because again, she’s based in Britain, she’s British, she’s not Canadian and not chosen by Canadians. The monarch is a farce of unity, has no force and only embodies a part of Canada, which are the English, keeping Canadians at odds with other Canadians. She represents only the English Canadians, excluding the French and Aboriginals. An elected head of state would be chosen by the majority of all Canadians. In a republic, on the other hand, nothing is more unifying than the people coming together to regularly elect one person out of all others to serve as head of state for a period of time. Also, who gives a shit about the Montreal Olympics or Canada 125? The Monarchy is only unifying to royalists. As for the rule of law, what has she done about Harper breaking his own law about fixed election dates?

The idea of monarchy being unwilling to allow change or change “regardless of an election” is dangerous and tyrannical because it’s unyielding to the needs and will of the people, and contradicts its alleged idea of being a “guarantor of freedom.” In reality, it’s either God or nature that is a guarantor of freedom, not people. To have the monarchy rather than the people pick and choose what to change and what not to change is not democracy.


No, it isn’t. This is an oxymoron, a title that perhaps only tyrants like George Bush or Robert Mugabe would call themselves, and one of the most frightening claims that can be made for an unelected institution. Nowhere in this does it say anything about civil and human rights and liberties, and that the idea of one sole person granting freedom or denying it to whoever it wants is the virtue of a tyrant.

“Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures are composed of The Queen and the members elected to serve – along with the Senate in the case of the federal government. However, none of the bills they pass, no formal government regulations (‘orders-in-council’) and no spending s authorized without the agreement of The Queen or one of her representatives.”

This is misleading. Parliament and provincial legislatures are supposed to be composed members chosen by the people. And to serve whom? Aren’t members supposed to serve the people that chose them? The monarchy is what Canada’s politicians serve, not the people. The senate is appointed by the Prime Minister, not elected, yet this statement implies that she has a hand in such affairs. Never in the history of Canada has one piece of legislation been denied “royal assent”, even if it is unconstitutional, and has grown insignificant to the rise of the PMO.

“In a similar way, Parliament is summoned and dissolved in The Queen’s name. In her name also public officials and our representatives abroad are appointed, treaties concluded, and cabinets named and dismissed. Normally, this is a formality. Canadians entrust the nuts and bolts of governing to those whom we have elected, as is appropriate in a democracy.”

Why should Parliaments be dissolved to begin with? As for doing things in the name of a person in a monarchy instead of a country in a republic, replace the monarch with God and you have a theocracy.

“However, the Crown’s role (‘the Royal Prerogative’) remains part of our Constitution to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard – ‘a constitutional fire extinguisher’ as columnist Michael Valpy has put it – should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down. For example, even a popular government cannot simply dispense with holding an election. Nor can a government spend public money without parliamentary approval.”

The idea of the monarchy being a safeguard for democracy is laughable. No unelected head of state, however powerful or powerless, cannot be the safeguard of any democracy. Ours has no real power at best, anyway, and even in that there is danger, and complicity in corruption and tyranny by doing or saying nothing about it. Despite his own shortcomings, the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, condemned an Arizona immigration law that was unconstitutional and undermined the civil rights of Americans. In Canada, when police viciously harassed and assaulted peaceful protesters, journalists and ordinary people while leaving the downtown to anarchists, who destroyed the property of both big, international businesses and small, local shops, and harassed and attacked journalists and photographers for two hours during the G20, the monarch of Britain, who is also supposed to be our head of state, said nothing. When the prairies were suffering from floods, she said nothing, not even visited the site. When a bomb blew up an Ottawa recruiting centre of our army, whose members had sworn an oath to “well and truly serve” Her Majesty and her heirs and successors, the Old Hen said nothing. As an ironic gesture, she had the nerve to call Canada “an example of the world,” despite evidence of the contrary, after laying the cornerstone to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights not long after the G20 madness in Toronto. So much for being the fire-extinguisher claimed by those utilitarians called monarchists, who assume monarchy is too superior to be bound to the realities of the earth, or accountable to reasonable moral or ethical standards. But even if she did or said anything, it would be the interference of someone that wasn’t and can’t be elected by the people (and, in our case, not chosen by Canadians and from another country into our business should it tamper with our politics, economy, society or military) to represent them. Monarchy itself isn’t democratic, and can’t be democratic. Why then keep such a disgusting institution founded on blood, whether shed or shared?

It’s questionable as to how a publicly elected head of state, with limited power and serving the people for a limited term, would be violent as compared to the monarchy, whose system of government has a long history of violence, with civil wars of succession, conquests of other nations for booty, land and slaves from other people that are completely alien to them, all in the name of God and crown.


Wasn’t it said earlier that the monarchy was a stabilizing force? Why then need a referee? This sounds like competition between the crowns or something. Why need a referee for provincial chief executives instead of Parliament?

“Canada is a federal state. In brief, this means that our Constitution gives law-making power in certain areas to the national government (such as the Criminal Code and banking). Other powers (such as education and municipal affairs) it assigns to each province. Each level of government exercises this authority on behalf of its citizens in the name of The Queen. So in this way it is possible to see the existence of ‘11 Crowns’ in Canada – the national Crown and the 10 provincial Crowns – each usually referred to in legal terms as ‘the Crown in right of Canada’ or ‘in right of Manitoba.’”

Why are the territories excluded? How is this national unity when only part of Canada is included? Apart from that, Canada is a weak, restrictive and poor colony internally divided on regional and ethnic lines. Our army is stretched beyond its limits, fighting in foreign wars while our borders and coasts are left naked for smugglers, and foreign commercial and military vessels. Our economy if any is in the gutter and we have rendered ourselves into an economic doormat of international trade. By the way the current system has been established, it creates a sense of entitled superiority, and with it they govern with impunity. This is especially existent in the PMO. And since there’s separate crowns, how is Canada united?

“The Premiers, including the separatist Rene Levesque, underlined the importance of the Crown in their 1978 statement, above, since the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance. It also guarantees that the rule of law will be followed in dealing with any of the many disputes that arise between Ottawa and the provinces.”

Where is Levesque’s quote? Its source? Newspaper? Magazine? Time? Day? What exactly did he say? Who did he say it to? Why? It’s found nowhere on the website.

As for the statement by the premiers, the quote used on the website does not specify what was the “ultimate authority” they were referring to, and the statement is not available to the public.
The constitution of a true republic gives its authority to the governed to govern the governed, not the governing. Because of the monarchy, separatist movements in Alberta, the West, Newfoundland and Quebec are alive and thriving, and the North remains neglected still, despite negligence and empty promises by one government after another to develop it, and left it for the international community to freely exploit.

“These facts explain the strong support by the provinces for the institution of Monarchy, which reconciles regional authority with national unity.”

Yet the provinces don’t represent the people. Nor does our parliament, considering that we have because of the current system an elected ruling elite rather than a body of chosen representatives. And it’s doubled with the provinces twice over.


An allegiance to one’s nation can also be personal. Personal allegiance to another human being is idolatrous and elitist, deifying an ordinary human being that entered their office without consent or choice of the people, inherited from their parents or relatives who all live and lived in the same house.

“Oaths taken by our new fellow Canadians, by members of Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures, by judges, by members of the Canadian Forces and by many other public officials are all oaths to The Queen.”

Just because they do so, it doesn’t mean it can or should be. Just because something is a tradition, it doesn’t mean it’s right. What is so wrong about being loyal to the country? In a republic, all oaths taken by officials, including the elected head of state, are to the country or its constitution.

“By making this promise to the Sovereign rather than a politician, those who serve and live in the land show their ultimate loyalty is not to the elected figures who lead us day-to-day, but to all Canadians and to the laws which make up the fabric of any civilized society. In this way process – following the rule of law – triumphs over partisanship – acting to promote the well-being of a narrow segment of society.”

Again, this shows that Canadians are pledging allegiance and loyalty to a person rather than their country, and displays the false patriotism of the royalists. Canadians should serve no one. Also, the very assumption that people in a republic would swear allegiance to an elected head of state is completely stupid, and that only the insane and wilfully ignorant would believe such trash. Personal allegiances to heads of state, instead of the country, also happen in dictatorships and religious cults.


Monarchism cannot be equal and never guarantees equality. You can’t choose your leaders nor can you be chosen as leader or when you can’t be the owner of your own country, nor is being the “servant” of another person in power, willingly or not. Those with no power who serve those with power are slaves, those with power who serve those with no power are public servants. The latter applies to those who are chosen by the people to serve and represent them, their voice and will. The former applies to the subjects of kings, tyrants, bosses and parents. Subjects. There is no equality in monarchy, because one has to be the firstborn of the Royal family, rather than being fairly chosen by the people to lead the nation and represent her in and out of the nation.

“The deepest loyalties of men and women are to their fellow human beings. Government carried on in the name of The Queen reflects Canada’s emphasis on the importance of the person, and of the dignity and equality of each individual who is either born here or who becomes part of our national family. In the same way, the moment new citizens take the Oath of Citizenship they become full and equal members of the Canadian family. Each of us gives Allegiance to The Queen, so reciprocating her decades of service to us.”

Wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.
They always forget God or country, and pledges to their fellow human beings are to become the servants of a person, not the owners and caretakers of a nation. Why should we be the servant of our leaders when the leaders should serve us?


Sounds like a Bush wet dream. Ours has no real power nor any influence and rightfully so. In any case, the Russian newspaper Pravda put it correctly in a February 19, 2010 article when it described Canada as being “a colonial outpost of the United Kingdom, whose Queen smiles happily from Canadian postage stamps.”

“Canadians are fortunate to have as our Monarch an instantly-recognizable world figure. The Queen and members of the Royal Family make frequent homecomings to Canada. In their absence, the Governor General (for the national government) and the Lieutenant Governors (one for each provincial government) represent The Queen and perform the constitutional functions of the Sovereign in her name. This arrangements allows our country to share in the prestige of an ancient monarchy stemming out of Canada’s history, while at the same time we enjoy the services of distinguished fellow citizens who serve Crown and country with great distinction.”

This is among the many obstacles Canada has in its path to eradicate the monarchy. Apart from unanimous provincial approval, the monarchy has appointed Lieutenant Governors as heads of state in all the provinces rather than have the people choose their head of state. We also have treaties that are between the Crown and the aboriginals. The monarchy of England isn’t even that ancient. It’s 1500-years-old, emerging from the so-called Dark Ages.

When people think of the monarch, they think of Britain, not Canada! Nor is it revered or has any importance, and if any, Canada wouldn’t want any. The British Empire was scorned and hated by those they conquered and ruled over. The Americans had it right when they rose up in arms and founded a new nation. We’re still half-submerged in the excesses, complex hell of British rule.


Much of Canada’s history is really part of bloody British colonialism, one of racial domination over the Aboriginals by the British. It is sickening to glorify colonialism and imperialism in any sense.

“Today’s Monarchy stems from our history. Many of Canada’s First Nations chose tribal chieftains whose role was much like that of the local kings and queens of ancient Europe, Africa, South America and Asia. European explorers and subsequent settlement by our French and British founding peoples brought to Canada their own experience of monarchy, symbolized by the Fleur de Lys and the Royal Union Flag. Many subsequent immigrants – be they from Russia or Japan, from Italy to Thailand – also knew the monarchical system of government.”

Exactly. “Many of Canada’s First Nations chose tribal chieftains …” They were elected heads of state, not hereditary ones. Even the Anglo-Saxon tribes had chieftains who were elected and held limited power, especially in times of war. Such is similar to a republican head of state and what English historian David Starkey calls the idea of “government by consent, in which the leader is chosen by the people,” a concept Canadians know nothing of. And yet the Monarchist League doesn’t specify who chose the leader or chief. The band council? Members of the band? And since when did Canadians choose to have a monarchy, especially Britain’s? How would Britons feel if we Canadians decided for them who their head of state would be? What right would we have? We are denied the right to choose our leaders, the essence of monarchy, thus also denying us the right to have say in who should be our head of state and what he does, and essentially any control or power by the people over all parts of the country. Elected monarchs do not count.
 There have also been tribes and federations of tribes in the form of a republic. And we were all aware of the cruel absolutism that ravaged France by its monarch, with its entire treasures drained after the Seven Years War and the extravagance of its monarchy and aristocrats at the expense of the heavily taxed masses. The excesses of the French revolution? Mobs of starved human beings.

Furthermore, there were also tribes whose members debated and decided together, one of the most basic forms of democracy. There’s not much this section says about the aboriginals, who equally have as much use for the monarchy, trying to paint a rosy relationship between the free natives and British and French crowns, suggesting that they desired to be ruled by a foreign power. It fails to mention that the colour of that delusion of harmonious coexistence is drawn from the royalists’ deification of a ruler to cloak the crown’s history with the natives, which is marred and seeped with blood and tears, where the natives to this day suffer still in a slow, crawling genocide. Getting five dollars and a handshake is among the most grievous of many humiliations next to jail, the morgue and the streets.

Residential schools were created by the crown through the federal government, in collaboration with the churches, to “civilize” and “assimilate” the “savages”. Children were kidnapped from their tribes, their homes, and imprisoned behind school doors where they were tortured, sexually abused into submission … even murdered.

And what do they mean exactly by the monarchy stemming from “our” history? They make colonialism and imperialism sound like a good thing. Plus Italy and Russia don’t have monarchies anymore. Italy abolished its monarchy in 1946 because of its contribution to the rise of Fascism, and Russia had its own monarchy abolished because of the grievous horrors it inflicted on the Russian people and retarded progress and modernization.

“In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation unanimously chose constitutional monarchy as Canada’s form of government. In 1982, Canada’s new Constitution reaffirmed and entrenched the Crown so that only unanimous federal-provincial agreement could ever alter it. In 2002, throngs hailed The Queen as she crossed Canada from Iqaluit to Fredericton, from Victoria to Toronto, in celebration of the 50th year of her service to this nation.”

The Fathers of Confederation were a cock party of loyalists chosen by Queen Victoria, who never visited Canada in her life in spite of the number of places named after her and idols erected in her “honour,” to create an artificial state not founded on freedom but preservation of British dominion in North America. This was made evident and affirmed by one of the fathers, Sir John A. MacDonald, in a famous election address of his on February 3, 1891, when he said: “As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born—a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the ‘veiled treason’ which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance.” (bold type mine) Allegiance to whom? Certainly not to Canada! Does the means include deception, encouragement of apathy, dumbing down the populace? What is this “veiled treason?” Canada was created by Britain to affirm their rule and control of the last remnants of upper north America compared to the United States, which was a completely new and independent nation. Britain had a tendency of creating artificial states out its own convenience, such as Iraq and, perhaps as a last gesture of contempt, the partitioning of the Sub-Continent in 1947. Mind you that the two Pakistans (now Pakistan and Bangladesh) and India were, in fact, dominions before they became republics later on, with India becoming a republic in 1950 and Pakistan becoming a republic in 1956. Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act, Charter and Canada Act were all part of a long series of legal documents dating back to the British North America Act, which established Canada some autonomy, yet the public had no input or say about it or the crown, nor were they aware of the crown being entrenched. Again, it shows the political elite’s disdain for public input and opinion and their right to self-determination and to define themselves, their land and their future.

In most republics around the world, depending on the nation itself, any new constitution would be subject to a national referendum to determine if the nation would adopt it. In Venezuela, president Hugo Chavez once proposed a new constitution where the president would be given the power to make laws on decree, much like an absolute monarch. The people rejected this, however, and Chavez gracefully acknowledged and accepted the vote. In other words, he asked his people permission, and when they declined, he accepted (of course, later on, Chavez tried again, this time to eliminate presidential term limits, and won; a true republican, regardless of politics, should hold contempt for such a move, for an unlimited number of terms is the first step to tyranny and monarchy). The way our system has been set up is where citizens can only vote their representatives, who aren’t really representing anything other than the status quo of their party and its leader. Essentially, we don’t have any representation because they are controlled by their leaders, who concentrate representation to a smaller government.


The French, anyone? Or the natives? They’re not English. And neither is the rest of us. We’re Canadian, not British. Catholics are not allowed to be monarchs or marry them. And a link from what? The Commonwealth is really the watered down, skeletal remnants of the British Empire. As for diversity, there is none. God forbid if there was ever a gay monarch, plus it’s a whites only institution, so to the royalists Canada is safe from Aboriginal infestation at the highest office or worse, being the head of the Church of England, the Jews or worse still, being it English and a British monarch, the French, the ancient enemy of Britain, whose animosity we adopted. Unlike a president, monarchy gives no choice of who should be Canada’s head of state. Worse, it has to come from a bloodline, worse yet it has to be the first born and even worse it has to be of legitimate birth. On the other hand, in a republic, anyone can be president. Even illegitimate children who are the youngest in their family. In the United States, for example, the only qualifications you have to have is that you’re a natural-born citizen, thirty-five years of age and has lived in the United States for fourteen years (United States Constitution Article II, §1, paragraph 5).

“Not only Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also Head of The Commonwealth of Nations. This is a 51-state international body is unique as it is based not on a military alliance nor a trade bloc but on a free association amongst countries of the former British Empire, who now cooperate in a variety of educational, development and social justice initiatives throughout the world. The diversity of these nations’ populations – from New Guinea to Belize, from New Zealand to India – mirrors the rich strains of population which typify Canada today.”

India is an independent republic within the Commonwealth, and had fought long and hard for its independence, with and without Gandhi. Again royalists warp facts, whitewashing the long and blood-infested history of British and European imperialism and colonial rule forced upon the native peoples they shamelessly conquered and exploited. What the Canadian government is to Canada is what the British Raj was to India, which is never mentioned, treated as though it had never existed, while the Indians knew and know very well of their former master’s iron hand. A true nationalist would never share of their head of state with any other country unless they’re colonies or part of an empire, and a true republic has not interest in empire but in freedom and equality and the welfare of its citizens.

The fact that the Monarchy is the head of state of sixteen realms, and is the head of an “international body” composed of fifty-four other countries that include these realms (so much for royalist delusions of Canada becoming the 51st state of the USA if we had rid ourselves of the monarchy for good) compromises the idea that we’re sovereign, let alone a nation to begin with, and puts us in competition with other countries who may want the crown should England decide to dump it. This would even lead to possible international tensions that would escalate warfare and relations strained or murdered over one person if the royalists of each “country” were ambitious enough. And they are.

Why are we still in the Commonwealth anyway? Why should we be part of it when we can be the free agent of our own fate? They make it sound like we’ve never been part of any military alliance and trade bloc before when we’re part of NATO, WTO, IMF, NAFTA, FTA, SPP and the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, Britain is becoming a colony of the European Union, with fears of losing the Pound Sterling, its currency. But if we were to leave the Commonwealth, let’s get rid of the monarchy first.


Society evolved on its own by the people themselves, not through a single person sitting in a faraway land on a throne. We haven’t evolved because we’re still keeping an old institution. That’s how useless it is. And since it’s useless, how can it ever contribute to society other than do nothing in times of crisis?

“Canadians have lived for over 135 years in a tranquil, prosperous society. Unlike most countries, change has been incremental, and not achieved by violence. Much of the credit for this achievement is due to the men and women who have worked together to create a modern, progressive nation, respected around the world.”

Canada has a long history of turbulence, instability and discord even before confederation. Civil and human rights were and are still limited, ignored, neglected or held in contempt, even with a rag like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows provinces to pick and choose what rights their citizens can and cannot have. Again, we already had two Quebec referendums that were saved by public vote, and there have been rumblings of separatism in Alberta, British Colombia, Newfoundland and Ontario over equalization payments, though BC was over a different matter (specifically fishes).
We have a Canadian Criminal Code which predates the current constitution and the Charter, and has hardly changed if not been made more constraining, and has not been reformed to conform to either the Charter or the Constitution. The Criminal Code is outdated, poorly organized, intrusive, complicated, illogical and incomprehensible based on superstition, classism, feudalism, and above all, unconstitutional. It criminalizes drugs, “blasphemous libel,” “sedition,” any criticism of the government (“defamatory libel”), hate speech, and yes, even witchcraft (§365).

Our economy and industries are disappearing thanks to NAFTA, FTA, WTO, IMF, the World Bank, foreign interference and control of national companies and businesses, outsourcing, and the appearance of foreign company chains on our soil. We have no gold reserve, meaning that our dollar value relies solely on the American dollar, and we have no independent national car company to claim as our own.

For the record, when this pamphlet you’re reading was written, Canadians had lived under the monarchy for 143 years, so the paltry and petty arguments of royalists have not changed since 2002. I suppose royalists imagined such words would be timeless as they imagine the monarchy.

“However, no country can achieve greatness without stable governance. Constitutional monarchy – the Canadian way – continues to provide that stability. This is confirmed each year in the United Nations’ Social Development Index, which regularly ranks Canada in the top 5 countries in the world.”

The monarchy is not Canadian and has never been Canadian from the start, and does not contribute to the stability of the nation. The United Nations Social Development Index has nothing to do with a nation’s form of government, nor are we any of the top five countries. This assumption coming from a secretive group, who mysteriously won’t provide any other contact information other than an email address, yet somehow has a monopoly on the information of the expenses and income of what is supposed to be a government institution, even though they can’t count the number of member countries in the Commonwealth.
The Athenians of Ancient Greece flourished in culture, science, technology, economics and politics under democracy (in the original sense) with no kings but a body of people elected by their fellow citizens to govern Athens. In fact, Athens, though a city-state, exhibited one of the purest forms of a republic, though the size was manageable. However, in the modern age and as demonstrated by history, no republic would survive or be stable without a head of state elected by the majority of the people.


It has taken part of that unstable world and has contributed to that instability. Her country’s troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at her approval. Why should we have a head of state that does this? And doesn’t the law provide stability and not individuals, especially monarchs?

“Change is inevitable, and much if it good: cell phones, jet travel, computers. But in this dizzying march to progress, constant change leaves many uncertain or confused. In the same way, political leaders come and go – Kim Campbell and John Turner served as Prime Minister for but a few months. Canadians voted in 18 federal elections during The Queen’s reign ! It is a good thing that the Crown provides constancy amidst so much change. The Sovereign has the experience of decades, without the taint of a personal agenda. Such continuity constitutes an important anchor in our society.”

The myth of age equals wisdom is dangerous, wrong and absurd. Most of us who care have all read King Lear, which proves that disease and death are democratic—they have no care for titles, age, land, people, status or wealth. When a person declines in health and mental stability, Lord knows what could happen to them or what they would do.

Change is necessary and inevitable. If it’s useless, get rid of it. If it’s bad, change it. If it’s broke, fix it. The benefit of a constantly changing government chosen by the people is that people elected won’t become too powerful, is subject to and adaptable the times and is necessary. We cannot travel anywhere in the march of time except forward, thus progress is inevitable and necessary. The only ones who find any change dizzying are traditionalists who are afraid of new things. The only ones who get confused or uncertain by constant change are idiots and cowards. These kind of people are skeptical of evolution despite its evidence.
The way our country has been established is that the prime minister can call an election at any time, or if the government fails a confidence motion or if a budget doesn’t pass. Wretched ground a colony is founded on, without foundations.

Furthermore, what has the monarchy or our elected aristocracy done about the food crisis? Or the economy? And how could a monarch have experience in anything when she’s allegedly powerless? The idea of instability without a monarch is as absurd and stupid as the idea of someone being immoral without a deity to worship. And how in the hell could nineteen elections, called by the Prime Minister whenever he felt like it, be a sign of stability under a dictator?
This colony is descending the same path Rome, Italy and Germany walked, and when Rome fell it was already weak, unstable and divided, dying with a monarch at its head. The idea of monarchy being a stable institution is a farce and a delusion that cannot not be trusted.


Um … what? Isn’t a republic also a sense of community, since you’ve been chosen by the people to either lead the country or represent a portion of it, chosen because they like your ideas? Or that the people collectively govern the nation?

“In their constant round of travels, The Queen, members of the Royal Family and her Canadian representatives bring enormous encouragement to the communities and volunteer sectors which constitute so vital a part of our national existence. They inspire many to volunteer service. They create and award non-political honours to our outstanding fellow citizens.“

Encouragement? Didn’t they say earlier that we prospered under the monarchy? And can’t the people themselves inspire communities and volunteers? What about ideas and virtues rather than people? As for our national existence, we’re still a colony. No, monarchy doesn’t inspire volunteerism. Ideas do.

“These Royal and vice-regal activities do not often feature on national news programmes. Opening a new library, visiting a Legion Hall, speaking to a school civics class or lunching with a local service club are not on the media’s radar. But they constitute the basis of any civil society, and bring enormous pride and assistance to Canada’s communities.”

Well… this is what any head of state would do. I don’t see what’s so special about being only the monarch doing so. Mayors, provincial or state and federal leaders can do the same thing.


What a laughable and blatantly false accusation.
 Monarchy itself is elitist, as is calling the people “transient”! In fact, it’s the peak of elitism! You can’t choose your leaders or be chosen to lead! Keeping the monarchy and the constitutional dictatorship is a victory for the elite and a blow to nationhood and the rights of the common people to choose their own leaders, proving that Canada is a British colony pretending to be a country. The idea that a republic encourages elitism is laughable to begin with since anyone can become president while in a monarchy you have to be born into it… like lords and vassals of feudalistic times. And diversion from what?

“No one has yet proposed an alternative system of government for Canada which would in the same way reflect our nation’s history and be superior to the constitutional monarchy in terms of the day-to-day functioning of the Canadian state.”

A republican form of government has always been the alternative to monarchy. What kind of republic should it be is up to Canadians, proposed by a governing body on their behalf. Canadians must first have a temporary form of republic first before Canadians can decide in what way the republic can be structured later. The benefit of this is that all can have a share and a say in the way the nation and government is run and can be changed if it doesn’t work, within the framework of a republic.

“Canadians remember the wrenching constitutional debates which consumed enormous political energy from the mid-1960’s through the early 1990’s. Chiefly of interest to politicians, these arguments did nothing to effect solutions to the real concerns of our citizens such as crowded classrooms and emergency rooms, access to health care, personal and national security in an era of terrorism and crime, support for single-parent and low-income families.”

Blind contempt for government is just as bad as blind faith in government. The use of collective disdain for politicians is no excuse to exempt the people from running their own country and is nothing short of demagoguery. Our constitution isn’t one document but of several, passed by both our parliament and the British Parliament of the United Kingdom, the first ever being the British North America Act which had an implied bill of rights designed to be privileges for the politicians the royalists whine about, and contains the phrase “peace, order and good government” which rings of authoritarianism and is used as an excuse to infringe upon the most basic of civil rights. We don’t have a single constitution that our land, our laws and our legislative assemblies bind to. It also has a sharply anti-democratic, aristocratic and condescending tone where the people are discouraged from keeping their government in check, to govern right, and encourages people to rely on authority alone to do everything for them, reducing them to a lazy, apathetic, defeatist, servile, desensitized populace high on tradition and familiarity and fixated autistically on our own version of bread and circuses—beer and hockey. This has shown and has become the prominent Canadian attitude. Yet how will apathy change the country? How can change happen if we simply wait for it or do nothing, instead of just doing it?

What has the monarchy done about crime lately? In spite of the ever strangulating Criminal Code and a centralized PMO and the British monarch as our head of state, we have the highest number of crime syndicates on earth! What did or would the monarchy in all her glorious luxury do about single-parents and low income families? We still have rampant child poverty and yet neither our elected aristocracy—which thanks to this current form of government has become so detestable, so morbidly warped in every part of themselves that less and less Canadians are voting, and who detest an election every time it’s mentioned in the name of political posturing—nor our unelected (and foreign) absentee aristocratic elite has nor can nor will do anything to destroy it. And what does the monarchy know about crowded classrooms and emergency rooms? Where was she during the October Crisis, a historical event that most Canadians now have forgotten? Are the royalists that crazy enough to assume she can cure the sick and make the blind see? I have a feeling they’ll discover she can talk to spirits, open wormholes and raise the dead with her wave. Deifying human beings is not new, and has proven its fatality in history.

“A presidential system would make Canada more closely resemble the USA. It could combine the role of head of state with head of government. As our American friends discovered during impeachment processes in the Nixon and Clinton administrations, this proves an unhappy combination. Alternatively, election of a president or governor-general would create simply another politician, offer another level of personal ambition, necessitate another set of elections and make the holder of that office beholden to the interests of the different factions and groups to which his election was owed.”

Again, the Royalists are using anti-Americanism and xenophobia to scare Canadians out of choosing a head of state of their own, and are trying to confuse the presidency with a presidential republic. What the United States have to do with their argument against a republic is up in the air, other than to serve as a basis for xenophobic conspiracy theories, creating this wild panic of fear, and make us afraid of different opinions from different places. Ironically enough, there has been complaints of anti-Americanism in Canada, some of that even going as far as getting a member of parliament thrown out of her political party, by the same people. Furthermore, Nixon was never impeached, though there were impeachment hearings, which were a different matter, and Clinton was impeached over a private matter that was none of the public’s business and was later acquitted. But isn’t impeachment a safeguard against the abuses such an office, as is voting, time limits and so on? We have we got? Against the Queen, nothing. Against the Prime Minister… what? Time? Do we have to wait til an election is called whenever he feels like it, or loses a confidence motion or even a bad budget? Confidence motions don’t count and only make government unstable, issuing writs of election whenever they please. What unhappy combination? Unhappy combination of what? Isn’t there an unhappy combination between Anglos, Francophones and Aboriginals in Canada forced to live together under an unelected person representing only one group? And ambitions for what? To become like a king? Or dictator, which is essentially the same thing in all but name? What logic does this run on? And yes it creates another set of elections because presidents get elected! Because it’s democratic! And who are they to complain about factions when the monarchy of Canada is a British queen that would protect this British protectorate from her French or Aboriginals or Catholic trophies? It gives Anglophones an excuse to repress and ridicule and belittle anyone who doesn’t speak English or is non-white, and yet call themselves Canadian by being loyal to a foreign head of state? We call ourselves multicultural yet don’t see that repressing, murdering, impoverishing, belittling our Aboriginal brethren is wrong or contradicts our claim of “multiculturalism” because Canadians don’t see them as human.
    Monarchy, as was parliament, was imposed on Canadians by a foreign imperial power and we have never participated in any national debate or referendum on the head of state. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were proposed changes to the constitution, yet none of them were related to the head of state.

There are basically three major forms of republican government: a presidential republic, a parliamentary republic and a semi-presidential republic. The presidential system has executive power where the president is both head of state and head of government. The parliamentary system has legislative and executive power vested in parliament, usually in the hands of the prime minister, and has the president as merely a symbolic, ceremonial  office or figurehead with no real power. The semi-presidential system has the president as the head of state and the prime minister the head of government, separating powers with the president usually dealing with foreign and trade affairs and the prime minister usually dealing with domestic affairs.

The presidential system is imperialistic, dangerous and potentially autocratic, and is no more than an elected monarchy. Yet in the United States, at least the head of state can be removed if he or she abuses their power while they are in power. There’s no such system in Canada, however, nor is there one for the Monarchy and we Canadians can’t do anything without petitioning British Parliament, which controls the monarchy to a degree because it’s British. It’s also pretty weak for monarchists to use the American model as the only form of republican government as an example to condemn, despite the fact the presidential system has worked so well for our southern cousins.

We don’t need a powerful head of state if there are such fears, and we can have a head of state that is Canadian and chosen by the people themselves to represent Canada. If we despise him or her, there’s always the next election, or the instrument of impeachment if things get worse.

Indeed there are choices, but choices are better than having no choice at all. The current system of government is a failure, because Steven Harper has concentrated more and more power into the PMO, the most powerful non-existent “public” office in the colony. Senators and governor generals are appointed by the PMO, with no input from parliamentarians or the people. How has the monarchy tried to stop this, if not parliament, if not the people? The only way Canada would become American would be if we adopted the American President as our head of state, where we wouldn’t elect him nor can using the same setup as we do with our monarchy, like Andorra with the President of France as its vice-regent… or if we become the 51st state, which would not be possible anyways, considering our size and the fact that we are divided into provinces, and the last thing Canada needs would be allowing any of its provinces to join the United States.

Yet just because we’d have our own president, it doesn’t mean we’re American. Plus if what they say was true, we would only more closely resemble America, not be part of it. Yet resemble it how? Politically? Culturally? Economically? The last two already happened … under the monarchy!

Canada doesn’t need a British monarch as our head of state, or an American president as head of state, or any monarch … but a Canadian presidency, one that is home-based, elected by the people for a limited term with some power bound by law.

By the way the nation has been set up and where it’s going, with a foreign dictator as our head of state, elected aristocrats that care not for their electors, unemployment, a disappearing economy, free trade, unfair taxation, overstretched armed forces, et al have all shown how much of a failure the constitutional monarchy really was, is and will be. And even though there are many models to choose from, we Canadians must either pick one or create one of our own.

A republic is based on one simple principal: the ownership and governance of a nation by its people through representatives chosen by them and who govern according to the laws of the land. There are many different systems to choose from but it’s a great idea for a people to choose their system. The more people have power, the better. It’s best to have a directly elected head of state than having more powerful people choose for us. It’s essential that a nation, which is its people, choose their leaders to represent them. A republic, by the way it must be set up, should be one for the people, of the people, by the people. With a democracy and with a home-based elected head of state serving for a limited time with limited powers it shows that members of a republican parliament can’t indulge the privileges of an elite but are to represent the interests of those who chose him or her, bound by responsibility and duty to serve the people.

Over the past 143 years we have lost many opportunities, chances and so forth to create a truly sovereign and great nation because we cannot elect our head of state. We never reached the moon or made broad strides in culture, politics or science. Tradition is not always good. Sometimes it’s wrong or useless or dangerous. Here, this tradition that rules over Canada is undemocratic and anti-democratic, elitist and classist, imperialistic and colonialist. With such traditions, we must dispose of them, and render this British colonial outpost into an independent republic. The politicians have become a privileged elite because of the Crown is based in another land, our governor general rarely exercises power and our representatives are under the thumb of their leaders.

The people must be engaged in a national radical change. It doesn’t have to be bloody but if they fight us with sword we will fight with sword as well. Isn’t freedom worth fighting for? Because of monarchy, he live with a diseased form of government, with our leaders govern however they wish with no real solid constitution and bill of rights to put them and keep them in line with the law and in check. Canadians can only “speak” through a vote, and when they vote, they’re voting only for their representatives to elect their leaders. The royalists use this as an excuse for the ever destructive, bloody and irrational preservation of a foreign head of state who is never elected by the people, rules for life and succeeded by blood. The royalists are discouraging the people from engage in the business of the nation, creating more and more despotism, apathy and decay in our political establishment and in our nation abroad. We need a solid and firm foundation established to set up a republic, where all leaders and representatives, politician or not, are held accountable for their acts and represent the governed at their consent. A republican democracy does not stop at the ballot. If we’re a diverse nation, why are the royalists whining about “division” among representatives? Are these representatives not expressing different points of view from across the nation? Isn’t that what people do? Diverse in opinion and ideas that aught to be shared freely, even if they offend and provoke?

The purpose of an elected head of state, be it a president or grand chief or whatever, is among other things, to lead and represent the nation and the people as a whole, the nation in one person chosen by them, and to manage the nation day-to-day, among many other powers dictated in a constitution and held accountable by law and ballot. Yet this person doesn’t have to have real power. The royalists don’t discuss much about that, nor have any real credible arguments against it. Our governor general is really representing the monarchy. To put it simply, we have an absentee head of state that we don’t need nor care for, represented by someone else we didn’t elect, cannot remove and is allegedly from all politics, however questionable or unethical.

Going back to the website, there are, among the spelling and grammatical errors, the lack of sources cited. For example, they mention René Levesque, yet a quote from him is found nowhere on the site, nor any footnotes, nor any links to it. This is outright and deliberate deception by the royalists to the viewer. They also deliberately attempt to appeal to authority by using quotations from national celebrities no one cares about, as if to trick Canadians into believing what the celebrity said is true because the celebrity said is true… like Brittany Spears in a Coke commercial, or Michael Jordan selling shoes, or Justin Bieber selling condoms. Canadians are sadly stupid enough to buy anything celebrities sell them, even if it’s junk that kills people, like Mario Lamieux (who?) selling heroin. In this case, they “quoted” a damned separatist?! How can royalists be trusted or taken seriously? Who gives a shit about Wayne Gretzky anymore? Or reads Farley Mowat, who thinks Canada existed in 1812, like almost all Canadians, who also fail at history?

They simply can’t. After all, they once said that no system is perfect, but anyone who supports the monarchy while talking about democracy should make the rational person reach for his shotgun because it is the complete opposite of perfect. Royalists are clearly stupid or crazed or both and yet only few notice it. They’re not bright enough, but they sure as hell know how to manipulate an ignorant, obnoxious, self-absorbed, undereducated, smug, prejudiced, divided, weak, poor and apathetic people like Canadians. Thus is said because this is what they are, but not what they should be. Royalists, on the other hand, so liberally exploit such evils and weaknesses that slavery is confused with sovereignty. They are even able to convince Canadians that if American TV talks about Republicans (meaning members of the GOP) they’re talking about supporters of a republic, compared to democrats who are, to royalists, supporters of enlightened despotism. Canadians would buy that, because they’re that stupid and arrogant. For years, we bought the concept of peacekeeping and nationbuilding in that war of opportunity called Afghanistan. Yet Canadians are so stupid, and so accepting, so open, so used to this kind of deception and abuse of power that there is no serious outcry or threat to the power of the government. Thus the benefits of monarchy: an unelected elite to protect the elite.

The Royalist League’s arguments for monarchy are malarkey and, like their arguments against a republican form of government, non-existent, and instead have posted nothing more than groundless, atrociously simplistic, contradictory, fear-mongering, ignorant, irrational and amateurish propaganda, lies, misconceptions, delusional trash and smug bullshit that is inherently undemocratic, anti-democratic, pro-fascist, aristocratic, feudalistic, classist, and elitist. They know nothing about how the current system works or of history, and use creationist logic to assume that monarchy is the perfect form of government when in reality, according to history, evidence and reason, it’s nothing more than the ugliest, most heinous, worst and evil form of government ever to be conceived, the kind all dictators, despots, tyrants and the corrupt aspire to become, and just as bad as a government of the mob, a government of the few or a government of big money. It is power concentrated in one person rather than shared between and among the people and those the people elect to represent them.

Politics will always exist. Divisions and factions will always exist. Everyone has bad ideas. Government will always cost money. It costs us money for royalty to travel here and spend a few minutes merely visiting, showing off their hats, receiving flowers, and ignoring critical events around them. Yet to have a nation truly owned by its people, it must discard all kings, and reject monarchy. A nation is not free if its head of state is also the head of state of a foreign power from across the sea, one completely different from ours culturally and historically. A nation is not ruled by its people if its leader wears a crown. Imagine Harper or Bush as king instead of president. Because America is a republic, at least Bush is no longer in office.

A last note, as a question to the Canadians, and especially monarchists: if monarchy such a great thing, why was Gandhi, as well as countless others generations before him and during his time, struggling for the independence of India… from Britain? Why, after India became a dominion in 1947, did it become a republic three years later? Why was Ireland struggling for independence, and after attaining it, take tremendous pride in “Beating the Brits” despite being partially-free? How come there are more commonwealth republics, the most recent one established in 1992? Wasn’t our confederation in 1867? And yet sadly, we still cling to mother, live in her basement, and eat her food!

Ever since the first version of Answering the Royalists was first published, it seemed that after a while and some modifications the royalists took note and, in a pathetic attempt to modernize, made some spiffy changes to the appearance of their website and made some modifications to their excuses, along with adding more lists, including a section called “Myths About the Monarchy,” where they attempt to answer some plausible and reasonable reasons of why monarchy is stupid with stupider answers, in their attempts to preserve a disgusting, idiosyncratic institution occupied by someone we didn’t and can’t elect. Republicans shouldn’t care who’s the throne or when they die. The point is they weren’t elected, and malarkists, since they support the monarchy, obviously don’t want their head of state elected, thus they are antidemocratic. Naturally monarchies would oppose their abolition. Inevitably, all their arguments fall flat, and even some of their arguments raise serious questions. They’re still off by three years when referencing the number of years Canada lived allegedly in “peace and tranquility.” They even list a number of Monarchs of Canada dating back all the way to the fifteenth century, which is as monstrously stupid and historically inaccurate as the idea of Canada existing during the War of 1812, which was a war between the Americans and the British, not between Americans and Canadians. But because Canadians are stupid, enough to believe their country existed in 1812, they’re likely to believe in the idea that Canada had monarchs before 1867 or whatever they’re told that appeals to tradition, moderation, symbolism, imperialism, colonialism and greed. Monarchy and monarchists should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, because not only are they wrong, but the institution they support is evil, an extreme that only the corrupt desire to become, and that the monarchists, being just as evil, extreme, insane and stupid as monarchy, advocate evil.

Help! We’re Being Oppressed!

Among the many heads of the dreaded royalist-fascist hydra, a new fear-based organization has quietly reared its ugly head. The English-Canadian Coalition is yet another far-right group of paranoid lunatics with a persecutory complex, and the delusion that somehow, for whatever reason, the English language is under attack. To make things worse, they tend to confuse an independent country with a colony, if you take notice of the crown in their logo, and the old Confederation flag. They even have a modified picture of Canada with Quebec and Nunavut are missing. These people clearly exist to advance the anti-democracy, anti-equality agenda of the Old Colonialists, who still believe in empire, obedience to authority, and the absence of democracy and civil rights. They’re probably American conservatives who want English as an official language of the United States trying to influence Canada, too, for whatever reason. But who knows.

Like Hitler, these bigots are deliberately appealing to the most basic of human instincts, impulses and prejudices; and in this new hate group’s case, they are appealing to the most bizarre and uniquely Canadian prejudices: language. Of course, like our anti-Americanism, this kind of bigotry is something we’ve inherited from our British masters.