Answering the Royalists ~ Part Duh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob Ford & The Case for Impeachment

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

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

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

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

Rob Ford

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

Canada’s Queen Raids Coffers

Speaking of money, as the royalists cloak the eyes of an unsuspecting and apathetic public (too apathetic to care about the queen, yet too apathetic, cowardly and stupid to do anything about it), Canada’s Queen gets a pay raise … of $58 million.

In a report by Acence France Presse that’s been carried by the Huffington Post, the Old Slag herself is getting what royalists call a 5% raise from all the land she has loaned out to the British government, which in turn had decided to compromise democracy instead of seizing the loot, cash and lands and all.

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.

The Republican Party ≠ Republican

Like any decent human being, I completely despise conservatives and royalists. I also despise the GOP. So much so, that I refuse to call them by their formal name. Why so? Because they are in no way, shape or form, republican in the true sense. The concept of a republic, in fact, is actually a very liberal, very leftist concept of government, being that the executive and legislative branches are vested in the control and consent of the citizens. Because people in the English-speaking realms of the North American continent, who are easily confused thanks to their lack of attention span, memory and education, literally believe that the very word “republican” implies or means that you’re a member of the GOP or its mindset. Nevermind if you’re an American. I’m talking about Canadians who have been saturated with American TV, and who are either fellow haters of the GOP and conservatives, or who are conservatives that can’t seem to grasp that the GOP is republican in name only. Some Canadians are so stupid they confuse it with the far right, and have caused many Canadian leftists to take pride in what is essentially an non-egalitarian and non-democratic institution, the monarchy, as somehow the sole protector of our liberties . . . rather than something better, like the law. But alas, the republican left has been silenced by patriotic Canadians who are either too sad or too stupid to know the damn difference between republican and royalist. The GOP is in fact royalist, elitist, classist, and anything that hinders the liberty equality of all; it just uses liberal, leftist rhetoric to confuse people. That’s why I never use the word “Republican” when I speak of the GOP, and republicans of all political stripes in Canada (yes, even a small minority of conservatives despise monarchy as much as I do, though unlike myself, they see monarchy as an utter failure to stop the tides of democracy) should make it clear with their readers, listeners, and viewers.

I’m so sick of repeating myself over and over. After all, you have this blog to sift through to figure out where I stand when it comes to that most evil of institutions, with corporations, mob rule, and theocracies or the influence of religion in politics almost immediately before it. In a way I am damnwell elitist: I want the best and brightest, but who come from all walks of life, to govern, not just anyone. I mean, look at what happened with George Bush II when he continued the Bush dynasty. The more a person is intelligent yet hesitant or resistant to hold office, the more worthy they are to hold office, for they would be the most cautious to use any power given to them.

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.