gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (07/18/86)
I am interested to hear other people's opininions on the Commonwealth. Do you think it has any merit as an organization, and if so what? Does Canada gain anything from belonging to the Commonwealth? The reason I am asking is because of all the talk about the Commonwealth breaking up over sanctions etc. against South Africa. Suppose Mrs. Thatcher does not budge and it's bye-bye Commonwealth (not that that would necessary be the result of Mrs. Thatcher's actions), what then? Does it matter?
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/21/86)
In article <8091@watrose.UUCP> gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) writes: >I am interested to hear other people's opininions on the Commonwealth. >Do you think it has any merit as an organization, and if so what? Does >Canada gain anything from belonging to the Commonwealth? When I think of the Commonwealth I think of the monarchy, and when I think of the monarchy I think of an archaic institution that has about as much relevance to the 20th century as does the buggy whip. I find it truly amazing that not only do the citizens of this *democratic* country owe allegiance to a queen, but to a foreign queen to boot. Shades of colonialism! If we are so bent on living in the Dark Ages the very least we could do is grow our own. So, as can be easily inferred from the above I would lose not a microsecond of sleep if the Commonwealth were to break up. J.B. Robinson PS As I understand it the Queen is getting upset because Thatcher won't impose sanctions on South Africa. Personally, I wouldn't mind her (the queen's) position if she would show a bit of consistency and call for sanctions against *any* Commonwealth country that has not enfranchised its citizenry.
sahayman@watmath.UUCP (Steve Hayman) (07/21/86)
Jim Robinson writes: >I find it truly amazing that not only do the citizens of this *democratic* >country owe allegiance to a queen, but to a foreign queen to boot. Well, for starters, the Queen is "Queen of Canada", and that's good enough for me. Be that as it may, I think the Commonwealth is not only a very valuable link with our history, but a useful forum for communication between developed and developing nations, current problems notwithstanding. We have little enough history or national identity in this country as it is. Let's not start severing our ties with one of the few things we have that keeps us from being just another faceless nation. Steve Hayman
ken@hcrvax.UUCP (07/21/86)
I think any group that gets nations talking is A Good Thing. In general, the more communication going on about world problems the better. Ninety percent is hot air, but the rest may actually do some good, and is unlikely to do any harm. I even think the Warsaw Pact is a good thing, since the other advantage of shared-interest groups is that moderation tends to prevail. It is a lot easier to commit your own nation to war than it is to commit a whole big buncha nations to a war, even when the other nations are fairly puppetish satellite states. -- - Ken Scott [decvax,inhn4]!utzoo!hcr!ken "You say I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."
mclase@watdaisy.UUCP (Michael Clase) (07/21/86)
In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >PS As I understand it the Queen is getting upset because Thatcher won't > impose sanctions on South Africa. Personally, I wouldn't mind her > (the queen's) position if she would show a bit of consistency and > call for sanctions against *any* Commonwealth country that has not > enfranchised its citizenry. Two points: (1) I don't think South Africa is a member of the commonwealth, (I'm not sure about this, does anyone Know for sure?) so the Queen is not being inconsistent by criticising one commonwealth country and not others. (2) The reason the Queen was getting upset with Thatcher was that she felt that Thatcher's position was leading to a break up of the commonwealth. The Queen felt that it was her duty to speak out on behalf of the commonwealth as a whole, and not let Thatcher continue in a policy which was purely in Britain's self-interest. (It is interesting to note that during her reign, the Queen has only felt it necessary to criticise the government of Britain four times, and all four have been during Thatcher's reign. I can't remember what the previous occasions were -- one was the miner's strike, I think.) mclase@watdaisy
shindman@utcs.UUCP (07/21/86)
In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > >When I think of the Commonwealth I think of the monarchy, and when I >think of the monarchy I think of an archaic institution that has >about as much relevance to the 20th century as does the buggy whip. > Au contraire....the Commonwealth always amazed me as a collection of former colonies who found it worthwhile to maintain their ties instead of severing them. Instead of a few dozen colonies having their local wealth and health robbed and raped by the imperialists, today the nations that have replaced them find it better to keep their colonial friends around (as well as old imperialist England). Each time the Commonwealth gets together, a whole bunch of very diverse people get together to find some more common ground to work on. I find this very worthwhile. Looking at the problem of South Africa, if there were no Commonwealth there would be much *less* pressure on England to do something about it. I kind of like the attitude expressed by one of the Commonwealth Games organizers last week: instead of everybody boycotting the games because of England, the Commonwealth should just ban England from the games. -- ----------------- Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878 USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoft
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (07/21/86)
In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > ... If we are so bent on living in the Dark Ages the very >least we could do is grow our own [Queen]. I vote for Sheila Copps >PS As I understand it the Queen is getting upset because Thatcher won't > impose sanctions on South Africa.... Joolz, the British radical comedian/poet, claims the Queen was upset because Margaret Thatcher came to Vancouver to see Expo... and we sent her back! > ... Personally, I wouldn't mind her > (the queen's) position if she would show a bit of consistency and > call for sanctions against *any* Commonwealth country that has not > enfranchised its citizenry. Um, JBR, would you mind telling us what other Commonwealth countries you have in mind, or are you referring to those countries which just don't have an entirely Canadian- or British-style democracy? --Jamie. ...!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "If you see a punk rocker in the street, smile at it; it might spit at you, but it might smile back" --Joolz
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (07/22/86)
In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > >When I think of the Commonwealth I think of the monarchy, and when I >think of the monarchy I think of an archaic institution that has >about as much relevance to the 20th century as does the buggy whip. > >I find it truly amazing that not only do the citizens of this *democratic* >country owe allegiance to a queen, but to a foreign queen to boot. Shades >of colonialism! If we are so bent on living in the Dark Ages the very >least we could do is grow our own. > >So, as can be easily inferred from the above I would lose not a >microsecond of sleep if the Commonwealth were to break up. You may associate these two issues in your own mind, but they're really separate. ======================================================================= I agree that we should have our own monarch. I've felt for a long time that Prince Andrew should become King Andrew I. I realize that this view is not widely held; in particular there are a large number of people out there (I suppose this includes you, Jim) whom I vaguely categorize as "damn republicans". You may have your own opinions, but our head of state is a non-political professional who has done an excellent job over her entire life of being a dignified yet human head of state. The closest republic to us has for a head of state an actor who is totally inarticulate when his teleprompter shuts down, reflecting his utter lack of understanding of concepts more complex than a large club. He has had more intelligent predecessors, for instance the one who was impeached for being a crook. You're welcome to your republic; just please put it in some other country. By the way, the Americans feel this lack of a leader whom they can look up to, and manifest this in a strange rag fixation. Do you know that it is normal practice for American schoolchildren to swear allegience to their flag each morning? I find the Queen to be a far more human symbol, and I am quite capable of understanding the difference between a monarch as a symbol and as a despot. This may be why I don't seem to find her as threatening as republicans appear to. ======================================================================== The question of the Commonwealth is something else again. The Queen comes into it as a visible sign of our common heritage, but she is not central to the matter. If the United Kingdom became the United People's Republic, the Commonwealth could still remain. This world is presently divided in far too many ways, and from the world viewpoint we need far more communication and cooperation. British intransigence notwithstanding, the Commonwealth is playing a very important role right now in the South African situation. Forty-eight countries represent a strong voice urging the abolishment of apartheid, and the views of the forty-ninth do nothing to diminish this. From the Canadian perspective, we live next to the proverbial elephant. Trudeau's "third option" (do you remember what that was?) seems to have sunk utterly, but we should strive to maintain and strengthen as many different ties as we can with other countries and economic blocks. We have in place a large network of good relationships which can help us not just economically but politically. If you wish to throw these away, you should state what is to take their place. "Insularity" is not a valid reply. Today's world doesn't work that way. "Monarchy is the best policy" -- John Hogg ...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) (07/22/86)
In article <321@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >> ... If we are so bent on living in the Dark Ages the very >>least we could do is grow our own [Queen]. > > I vote for Sheila Copps > Voting for Sheila Copps as Queen would definitely be a step back to the dark ages. Donald Acton
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/24/86)
In article <321@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >> ... Personally, I wouldn't mind her >> (the queen's) position if she would show a bit of consistency and >> call for sanctions against *any* Commonwealth country that has not >> enfranchised its citizenry. > > Um, JBR, would you mind telling us what other Commonwealth countries >you have in mind, or are you referring to those countries which just don't >have an entirely Canadian- or British-style democracy? I am referring to any country, Commonwealth or not, that has not enfranchised its citizens. An example is Tanzania, which is, I believe a member of the Commonwealth. This country is one of those wonderful one party socialist states that dot the African continent. When the former leader stepped down a while back his hand picked successor ran in an election. The only problem was that he was the only contender. Doesn't seem like a reasonable way to run a democracy to me, yet, this same country will criticize South Africa every chance it gets for doing almost the same thing that it does - refusing to grant majority rule. My own personal belief is that the right of a people to boot out of office those who are leading them is just an important a right as the right to not be hungry, the right to education, and the right to medical treatment. Would China have had its Cultural Revolution if its leaders could have been shown the door? Would Stalin have been able to kill 20 million peasants if a true democracy had existed in Russia? Perhaps, but in a democratic and free society countervailing forces are at work which usually tend to mitigate the maximum damage a government can do its people. Thus I find it somewhat hypocritical that the Queen can quite merrily preside over an organization that includes dictators and the odd butcher without feeling the need to say so much as boo, yet when it comes to South Africa she suddenly takes a hard line. The impression I get is that the only thing that is important to her is that there remain a Commonwealth for her to head; and if it so happens that some of its members are a bit, shall we say, unsavoury, well so be it. J.B. Robinson
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/24/86)
In article <1883@watmath.UUCP> sahayman@watmath.UUCP (Steve Hayman) writes: >Well, for starters, the Queen is "Queen of Canada", and that's good >enough for me. I'm curious. Is the Queen of *Canada* Canadian because she was born in this country, or is she Canadian by way of naturalization? J.B. Robinson
sahayman@watmath.UUCP (Steve Hayman) (07/25/86)
Jim Robinson writes: >I'm curious. Is the Queen of *Canada* Canadian because she was born >in this country, or is she Canadian by way of naturalization? Clearly the Queen is not a native-born Canadian. But so what? Since the Dawn of Time (i.e. 1867) Canada has had a foreign-born monarch. It's part of the definition of this country. I'm sure she considers herself to be Canadian (and Australian, Kenyan etc.) I wonder what the legal status of her citizenship is? What I would like to see is our *own* monarchy, maybe derived from the current monarchy. Perhaps we could have a branch monarchy, headed by Prince Andrew. Have him move over here, have some Canadian kids, maybe make the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. into "Palace Canada". This would let us retain the connection with the past that the current monarchy provides, while appeasing the many people who object to having a "foreign" head of state. I think a Canadian monarchy would be a great addition to our national identity, provided there's some way we can keep the Commonwealth link. Of course if Prince Andrew isn't available, I'd have to cast my vote for Phil Esposito. Steve Hayman
brkirby@watmum.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (07/25/86)
In article <2357@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <1883@watmath.UUCP> sahayman@watmath.UUCP (Steve Hayman) writes: >>Well, for starters, the Queen is "Queen of Canada", and that's good >>enough for me. > >I'm curious. Is the Queen of *Canada* Canadian because she was born >in this country, or is she Canadian by way of naturalization? > >J.B. Robinson She is Canadian through birth. Her father, as King of Canada, was Canadian, so she is.
jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP (John M Sellens) (07/26/86)
As an aside, even though the Queen is a Canadian citizen, note that she is not required to pay Canadian taxes, as she is not a Canadian resident. However, if she does have Canadian Source income, she may be subject to non-resident tax. This of course would not be the case if she decided to "party down" here for more than 183 days one year, or if she belonged to a lot of Canadian clubs or something. Just thought you might want to know.
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (07/29/86)
In article <2357@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <1883@watmath.UUCP> sahayman@watmath.UUCP (Steve Hayman) writes: >>Well, for starters, the Queen is "Queen of Canada", and that's good >>enough for me. > >I'm curious. Is the Queen of *Canada* Canadian because she was born >in this country, or is she Canadian by way of naturalization? > As far as I know, in the monarchial form of government (which is what we have in this country, tempered by by both constitution and democracy) the Head of State (in this case, the Queen) does not have to be either a citizen nor a resident of the country they rule. This, by the way, does not bother me, personally, in the least. -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) (Go pick on a mechanism your own size) ---"For the Eternal Space" --- (Lieut. Amuro Ray) ---"Beliving in a sign of Zeta Beyond the hard times from now."