You say āif the king overstepsā and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping. Lawyers donāt usually protect us from tyranny, lawyers usually enforce tyranny; itās just the kind of tyranny that is commonly accepted. And that acceptance mattersā¦because people think it does, sure.
I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these daysā¦if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization? You think Canadians have stronger political convictions than folks in the US? I dontā¦Canadians seem to love to not care about Canadian politicsā¦disinterest in politics seems to be a point of pride to differentiate themselves from those annoying Americans. And itās way worse than 60/40 there and just look at the place. Itās a mess.
You say you think the king should have no power and everyone knows it but the commander in chief of your military is a direct personal appointee who serves at their pleasure.
A crisis doesnāt occur without a contextā¦it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisisā¦weād just all be on-side and do the right thingā¦I think that is extraordinarily naive!
You say āif the king overstepsā and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping.
You mentioned before that most people donāt even know about these things. Why is that? Because the norm is the King does as the Parliament wants.
I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these daysā¦if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization?
This is what I mean about the people having a strong will. If they do, then yes. If the donāt then we lose democracy.
Again I go back to the example of the US. Them being a republic makes no difference. If the people donāt have the will to stand up to a tyrant, then there will be tyranny.
A crisis doesnāt occur without a contextā¦it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisisā¦weād just all be on-side and do the right thingā¦I think that is extraordinarily naive!
Sure, but what does the existence of the monarchy have to do with any of that? Trump is a continuous constitutional crisis, doesnāt seem like eliminating the monarchy prevents any of that happening. If anything having a monarch makes it more obvious when thereās an abuse of power. Americans donāt understand that Trump is undermining their precious constitution, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans know the President should have some power they just donāt know which powers he shouldnāt have. We know our head of state is supposed to only be a figurehead. Itās more obvious when someone is taking some power when theyāre supposed to have none than someone showās supposed to have some power taking more than they should.
Thanks for the interesting chat; i hope itās nice for you. I am tearing my hair a little, but in a fun way.
By this logic, why have laws at all? Why not just have an absolute monarch and trust āthe people will stand upā if power is misused? Laws arenāt magic, theyāre often used to perpetuate awful things, but they do shape what people see as overreach. The reason cops who kill donāt get lynched is because people believe the legal system will eventually punish them.
I also donāt think the US being a republic makes no difference. Trump isnāt a king, and has struggled to get this far. Heās faced injunctions that actually stopped some harms. In Canada, it would be 100x easier. Parliament can just say ānotwithstanding the Charterā and ignore all rights, and courts could not stop it (unlike in the US, where they could, but SCOTUS wonāt because itās been packed with lunatics).
One interesting proposal related to your ideas from constitutional scholars about how to do away with the relationship to the british royal family (looters, genociders, and pedophiles that they are) is to simply deem the King of Canada to be an individualā¦effectively making the King a fictional entity. That would actually make sure he has no power, eh?
I see your point that āif we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problemā ā¦ except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You wonāt know why the GG makes her choices. The monarchy has vast āreserveā powers (which as the name implies, are generally kept in reserveā¦like a Chekovās gun). Australiaās governor-general dismissed their PM in 1975 using those powers. In Canada, the last clear example of undemocratic BS was 1961 when the LG of Saskatchewan refused consent to a passed law. But we have a perfect example in 2008: do you think the GG didnāt check with her boss about proroguing to save a minority PM from a no-confidence vote? That was a real exercise of real power by an appointee of the crown.
Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say āget this moving.ā If the LG (or GG) went public, sheād lose her job. So sheād quietly do it. And if it leaked? Conservatives would say āwe must stay connected to the crownā¦tradition!.. and who wants these human rights laws anyway?ā Plenty of Liberals would fold too, saying āwell, technically, the king actually does have the right to pick whoever he wants, and we shouldnāt shake things up too muchā¦maybe we could just get the king to agree to take it back and appoint her again? no? maybe another ladyā¦an indigenous one? no? how about a white lesbian, would that do? okay, perfect, weāll call that a win!ā
Laws are needed for a civilized society. but civilization is a safe area weāve created for ourselves in a dangerous jungle. When we step outside of our civilization weāre in a lawless place and weāre just surviving based on or abilities and judgement. Thereās no legal way to eliminate the jungle, it will always be there. But that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt bother to have nice things when living in our civilized society.
A lot of these hypotheticals and real world scenarios are just people going out from civilized behaviour to the edge of the jungle. Whether itās a King making commands or a President ignoring the court, these are things that shouldnāt be done based on the norms and laws of our civilization. So weāre in jungle rules, we have to figure out how to deal with the problem based on just our abilities and out judgement.
I see your point that āif we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problemā ā¦ except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You wonāt know why the GG makes her choices.
Parliament would know. Their job is to represent the will of the people. If the GG or King werenāt doing as they were told by Parliament, the PM has able opportunity to say to the country āthatās not what I wanted them to say.ā
Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say āget this moving.ā If the LG (or GG) went public, sheād lose her job. So sheād quietly do it.
There were 50 MLAs that voted against that. How would the LG be able to do this quietly without the 50 people that voted against it knowing about it? When legislation gets royal assent, itās done so publicly. Someone reads it out in Parliament and the Governor gives it a nod. Itās all a formality really, but who would be the person in parliament reading out legislation that didnāt pass to a Governor in the first place? Youād have to have the Parliamentās Clerks in on the scheme and not have them leak it to the the representatives, And they would be fired if caught doing any of this. Laws obviously have to be published so people like your self can use them in court. How would a GG, LG, or the King himself be able to do something without the elected representatives who voted against it knowing about it?
And I think you have it backwards. If something like this were to happen, there would be no more King. Even if the King were to force laws to come into being somehow (donāt know how it would happen, so it wouldnāt be the normal process, therefore very obvious) people would know and either the King would have to undo the action and abdicate or weād just cease to be a monarchy. Weād be in the jungle and weād be acting on our abilities and judgement.
Iām not sure I like this jungle analogy, but in the analogy, I guess my point is that some laws āexpandā civilization and āshrinkā the jungle. They reduce the accessibility of ālawlessnessā on the part of the government. Youāre right, they can always still get there, but they make the jungle further away, make it harder to get there.
Itās simply not true that weād know if the GG was being influenced by the monarch. If the GG decided to use reserve powers (or consider using them and decide not to, like they did in 2008) we would have no way of knowing whether the King of England was behind it or not. And if your thought is āit doesnāt matter weād remove any GG or LG that tries to use any power at allā youāre obviously incorrect about that :P
Iām not saying a law, like the proposed one to abolish the HRT, would be passed in secret. Iām saying the political pressure would be secret. Of course the law must be passed publicly, and youād have all kinds of yelling on both sides about it. In the alternative, if parliament passed something and the GG refused to give royal assent, likewise that would be very public. The influence on the GG, however, would not be!
I would love to imagine that any constitutional crisis would be resolved immediately in favor of democracy and not on the basis of the underlying issue but I think thatās very hopeful. Iām not sure how to make it more clearā¦I could come up with more hypothetical situations to demonstrate where the king could exercise undemocratic influence, but I donāt know why that would help! Iāll try one more and then Iāll leave it if this doesnāt help explain what Iām talking about:
Letās imagine a parliament with a thin liberal majority, but itās expected to flip soon due to some unpopular decisions. Parliament narrowly passes a law that the residence at the Citadel of Quebec is going to become a public museum operated by the federal government. The Conservatives hate this because they consider it a waste of taxpayer dollars. The King privately opposes it because he quite likes having a vacation home in Quebec (and the GG actually uses it, so maybe she feels the same way). The GG doesnāt give royal assent, but says itās for some technical deficiency, expecting an election to remove the issueā¦or alternatively simply says outright that the Conservatives are correct and the government canāt afford itā¦or somesuch mildly-plausible excuse that the milquetoast canadian middle class will accept (I only suppose the thin liberal majority in order to make this plausible excuse, but you could certainly imagine others if the liberal hold on parliament was strong). If the GG does not give royal assentā¦you think weād go into a constitutional crisis? I donāt think anyone would think itās worthwhile (which, of course, means that such a law wouldnāt passā¦which is its own kind of influence being exercised passively by the Crown!).
Youāre overestimating the value of laws. Laws donāt create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. Itās far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.
Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and itās the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.
And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?
So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me itās more obvious when someone doesnāt give royal ascent, and itās very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems youāre imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but youāre not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time theyāre in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.
As I said, I think the ājungle vs civilizationā analogy is a little weird. I donāt think laws create civilization. But I do think laws matter for fascists. If they didnāt they wouldnāt need to pack the supreme court. Project 2025 wouldnāt be so focused on laws and the judiciary. Theyāre not meaninglessā¦at the edge of the jungle? I guess? in this analogy?
So, when you talk about people being weak willed, youāre saying that a fascist coming to power is a kind of personal moral failing of the individuals in a society. I think thatās pretty absurd, and takes all responsibility away from the systems that shape peopleās āwillpower,ā as well as their understanding of what is and is not overreach. If thatās true then thereās just nothing to be done? Just let the fascists have all the places with people who have weak wills? lol
Okay, so I donāt know why you will not engage with a hypothetical as a means of seeing the problem Iām talking about. Obviously the king isnāt going to upset the balance of power in the Commonwealth for his vacation home in quebecā¦if you canāt generalize that to something more important (such as, in Australia, the cold war), then thereās no point in talking about hypothetical situationsā¦the point is to generalize from them. But thatās fine, it doesnāt really matter.
And for what itās worth, his cushy life isnāt going anywhere whether the commonwealth crumbles or not. The king of england could cease to be the king of canada and it wouldnāt cost him anything (except, I guess, a vacation home in quebec he never uses). Iād be thrilled if the UK decides to guillotine them, but they wonāt and I guess I have to make peace with that.
Iām not proposing replacing the king, Iām proposing kicking the king out. Just donāt have a king. If we must have a king, I would prefer to have a Canadian monarch and to stop legitimizing the genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles in the house of windsorā¦but I donāt see that we need a king. We could still just have a governor general appointed by the PMā¦make the system actually and definitely work the way you say it works (and I agree it works 99% of the timeā¦but why the fuck are we leaving 1% on the table just to glorify those assholes? Likeā¦we know it doesnāt work that way 100% of the time given the handful of examples Iāve shared).
Honestly though, why? Likeā¦I havenāt seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?
Likeā¦I havenāt seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?
I have but you havenāt been paying attention. If you donāt have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesnāt have a King, but theyāve created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You donāt seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And thatās the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.
You label the King as a āgenocidiers, looters, and pedophilesā even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and heās being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.
And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carneyās ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?
The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how āPresidentialā they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but youāll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.
Americans feel like theyāre supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they wonāt remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it wonāt seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King whoās apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.
There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldnāt really change anything. Why bother removing the King?
The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that thereās something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which isā¦ hmmmm.
Youāre arguing the king is a non-entity, but a king is inevitable? Most people in most places throughout history have lived without one. If you want to look at ācivilizations,ā the Roman Republic and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy come to mind immediately.
And come on, are you serious? The King endorses genocide and imperialist looting by wearing āhisā regalia. All the royal symbols are stolen from the people slaughtered by the monarchy. He could return all the symbols and keep all the wealthā¦would cost him nothingā¦good PR even! (Iād still say all of the wealth is stolen and should be given away to help people in the places his ancestors colonizedā¦but luckily heās saved me the trouble by showing he doesnāt care enough to even give up the symbols)
Mark Carney isnāt the right comparison. The office of Prime Minister is the right comparison to the monarchy, and itās (at least theoretically) representative.
Itās not the family I care about, itās the institution. This is like arguing that the KKK hasnāt lynched anyone latelyā¦so can we really hold the institution responsible for the crimes of the people in its past? Likeā¦itās an institution. OF COURSE we can hold it responsible for the things it does. Every Windsor has the right and ability (and obligation) to abdicate. Children of KKK members also have the right and ability and obligation to leave the organization. I donāt think thatās really an appropriate comparison, the scale of the monarchyās atrocities is beyond compare. I assume we donāt need to get into ennumerating the crimes of the monarchy, but if you donāt know that weāre talking about a 9-figure scale, we can talk about that more.
If the king abdicated I would applaud him. If he gave away every penny of the royal familyās wealth and then abdicated Iād bow before him, kiss his feet, beg the honor to host him in my home, if he was deprived Iād do my best to feed and house and clothe him myself. Iād be so proud of him, proud that a fellow human being should have that moral fortitude and courage. Itās not him or his bloodline that counts (except to the institution), itās the institution thatās the problem. FWIW Iād gladly have Harry over for dinner, even though heās done some half-assed-in-between thing. Good enough for me, given that heās not the monarch. I donāt hate him because of his Windsor blood. Anyway the king would never do that, so whatever.
Iām not totally clearā¦youāre acting as if the king does have power, and provides some kind of a-political stabilityā¦but earlier you were saying he has no power? If you want him to have no powerā¦why leave him with power? Just take it away. Make the Prime Minister a truly elected position, and have the prime minister actually appoint the Governor Generalā¦itāll work the same as always, but we escape relying on norms, leaving a constitutional crisis sitting there like a chekovās gun. I still really donāt understand how you donāt see that latent crisis as a problem. You seem to be saying it couldnāt possibly happen (it happened in australia, and again I donāt think weād ever know the crown was involved if not for the palace letters) and if itās not impossible itās easy to handle (it wasnāt easy in australia - they literally just let the monarch dissolve their democratically elected parliament and appoint someone she liked as prime minister. There were massive protests but in the end everyone moved onā¦youād say they were weak-willed I guess? Are we weak willed for not immediately pulling the plug upon seeing that?). PLUS we get to separate ourselves from one of the most horrifically murderous institutions in human history? PLUS 64% of Canadians want to abolish the monarchy so itās inherently desirable? Whatās not to love?
It would not take any work to remove the Kingā¦at least a lot less work than declaring a GST holiday or whatever. That takes real work. I can write the law right now: āthe Queen of Canada is deemed to be a natural person that is not any existing natural person, and is deemed to exercise authority granted to her under statutes of Canada in accordance with a written request of the Prime Minister, published in the Canada Gazetteā Boom, done! This would let all other laws in Canada work precisely as they already do, without amendment. The only thing that would change is who the prime minister addresses his āsuggestionsā to. I wouldnāt mind doing the same thing to the governor general, but that might be a bit more complicated in the handoff between prime ministers, so maybe we just leave it as-is. There is an existing proposal before the HOC thatās a bit more complicated, but whatever.
And look, Iām obviously not saying America is any better, the U.S. is a fascist hellscape despite not having a king, and despite having a relatively robust constitution (things are better here but I donāt think itās because we donāt have a robust constitution). Iām not sure if you think Iām saying America is any betterā¦
All Iām saying is, Canada would be better than it is.
I think I must not be making my point clearly.
You say āif the king overstepsā and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping. Lawyers donāt usually protect us from tyranny, lawyers usually enforce tyranny; itās just the kind of tyranny that is commonly accepted. And that acceptance mattersā¦because people think it does, sure.
I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these daysā¦if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization? You think Canadians have stronger political convictions than folks in the US? I dontā¦Canadians seem to love to not care about Canadian politicsā¦disinterest in politics seems to be a point of pride to differentiate themselves from those annoying Americans. And itās way worse than 60/40 there and just look at the place. Itās a mess.
You say you think the king should have no power and everyone knows it but the commander in chief of your military is a direct personal appointee who serves at their pleasure.
A crisis doesnāt occur without a contextā¦it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisisā¦weād just all be on-side and do the right thingā¦I think that is extraordinarily naive!
You mentioned before that most people donāt even know about these things. Why is that? Because the norm is the King does as the Parliament wants.
This is what I mean about the people having a strong will. If they do, then yes. If the donāt then we lose democracy.
Again I go back to the example of the US. Them being a republic makes no difference. If the people donāt have the will to stand up to a tyrant, then there will be tyranny.
Sure, but what does the existence of the monarchy have to do with any of that? Trump is a continuous constitutional crisis, doesnāt seem like eliminating the monarchy prevents any of that happening. If anything having a monarch makes it more obvious when thereās an abuse of power. Americans donāt understand that Trump is undermining their precious constitution, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans know the President should have some power they just donāt know which powers he shouldnāt have. We know our head of state is supposed to only be a figurehead. Itās more obvious when someone is taking some power when theyāre supposed to have none than someone showās supposed to have some power taking more than they should.
Thanks for the interesting chat; i hope itās nice for you. I am tearing my hair a little, but in a fun way.
By this logic, why have laws at all? Why not just have an absolute monarch and trust āthe people will stand upā if power is misused? Laws arenāt magic, theyāre often used to perpetuate awful things, but they do shape what people see as overreach. The reason cops who kill donāt get lynched is because people believe the legal system will eventually punish them.
I also donāt think the US being a republic makes no difference. Trump isnāt a king, and has struggled to get this far. Heās faced injunctions that actually stopped some harms. In Canada, it would be 100x easier. Parliament can just say ānotwithstanding the Charterā and ignore all rights, and courts could not stop it (unlike in the US, where they could, but SCOTUS wonāt because itās been packed with lunatics).
One interesting proposal related to your ideas from constitutional scholars about how to do away with the relationship to the british royal family (looters, genociders, and pedophiles that they are) is to simply deem the King of Canada to be an individualā¦effectively making the King a fictional entity. That would actually make sure he has no power, eh?
I see your point that āif we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problemā ā¦ except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You wonāt know why the GG makes her choices. The monarchy has vast āreserveā powers (which as the name implies, are generally kept in reserveā¦like a Chekovās gun). Australiaās governor-general dismissed their PM in 1975 using those powers. In Canada, the last clear example of undemocratic BS was 1961 when the LG of Saskatchewan refused consent to a passed law. But we have a perfect example in 2008: do you think the GG didnāt check with her boss about proroguing to save a minority PM from a no-confidence vote? That was a real exercise of real power by an appointee of the crown.
Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say āget this moving.ā If the LG (or GG) went public, sheād lose her job. So sheād quietly do it. And if it leaked? Conservatives would say āwe must stay connected to the crownā¦tradition!.. and who wants these human rights laws anyway?ā Plenty of Liberals would fold too, saying āwell, technically, the king actually does have the right to pick whoever he wants, and we shouldnāt shake things up too muchā¦maybe we could just get the king to agree to take it back and appoint her again? no? maybe another ladyā¦an indigenous one? no? how about a white lesbian, would that do? okay, perfect, weāll call that a win!ā
Laws are needed for a civilized society. but civilization is a safe area weāve created for ourselves in a dangerous jungle. When we step outside of our civilization weāre in a lawless place and weāre just surviving based on or abilities and judgement. Thereās no legal way to eliminate the jungle, it will always be there. But that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt bother to have nice things when living in our civilized society.
A lot of these hypotheticals and real world scenarios are just people going out from civilized behaviour to the edge of the jungle. Whether itās a King making commands or a President ignoring the court, these are things that shouldnāt be done based on the norms and laws of our civilization. So weāre in jungle rules, we have to figure out how to deal with the problem based on just our abilities and out judgement.
Parliament would know. Their job is to represent the will of the people. If the GG or King werenāt doing as they were told by Parliament, the PM has able opportunity to say to the country āthatās not what I wanted them to say.ā
There were 50 MLAs that voted against that. How would the LG be able to do this quietly without the 50 people that voted against it knowing about it? When legislation gets royal assent, itās done so publicly. Someone reads it out in Parliament and the Governor gives it a nod. Itās all a formality really, but who would be the person in parliament reading out legislation that didnāt pass to a Governor in the first place? Youād have to have the Parliamentās Clerks in on the scheme and not have them leak it to the the representatives, And they would be fired if caught doing any of this. Laws obviously have to be published so people like your self can use them in court. How would a GG, LG, or the King himself be able to do something without the elected representatives who voted against it knowing about it?
Thereās a lot of process and ceremony involved in this: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/LegislativeProcess/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.html How would you slip some secret laws through all of that process?
And I think you have it backwards. If something like this were to happen, there would be no more King. Even if the King were to force laws to come into being somehow (donāt know how it would happen, so it wouldnāt be the normal process, therefore very obvious) people would know and either the King would have to undo the action and abdicate or weād just cease to be a monarchy. Weād be in the jungle and weād be acting on our abilities and judgement.
Iām not sure I like this jungle analogy, but in the analogy, I guess my point is that some laws āexpandā civilization and āshrinkā the jungle. They reduce the accessibility of ālawlessnessā on the part of the government. Youāre right, they can always still get there, but they make the jungle further away, make it harder to get there.
Itās simply not true that weād know if the GG was being influenced by the monarch. If the GG decided to use reserve powers (or consider using them and decide not to, like they did in 2008) we would have no way of knowing whether the King of England was behind it or not. And if your thought is āit doesnāt matter weād remove any GG or LG that tries to use any power at allā youāre obviously incorrect about that :P
Iām not saying a law, like the proposed one to abolish the HRT, would be passed in secret. Iām saying the political pressure would be secret. Of course the law must be passed publicly, and youād have all kinds of yelling on both sides about it. In the alternative, if parliament passed something and the GG refused to give royal assent, likewise that would be very public. The influence on the GG, however, would not be!
I would love to imagine that any constitutional crisis would be resolved immediately in favor of democracy and not on the basis of the underlying issue but I think thatās very hopeful. Iām not sure how to make it more clearā¦I could come up with more hypothetical situations to demonstrate where the king could exercise undemocratic influence, but I donāt know why that would help! Iāll try one more and then Iāll leave it if this doesnāt help explain what Iām talking about:
Letās imagine a parliament with a thin liberal majority, but itās expected to flip soon due to some unpopular decisions. Parliament narrowly passes a law that the residence at the Citadel of Quebec is going to become a public museum operated by the federal government. The Conservatives hate this because they consider it a waste of taxpayer dollars. The King privately opposes it because he quite likes having a vacation home in Quebec (and the GG actually uses it, so maybe she feels the same way). The GG doesnāt give royal assent, but says itās for some technical deficiency, expecting an election to remove the issueā¦or alternatively simply says outright that the Conservatives are correct and the government canāt afford itā¦or somesuch mildly-plausible excuse that the milquetoast canadian middle class will accept (I only suppose the thin liberal majority in order to make this plausible excuse, but you could certainly imagine others if the liberal hold on parliament was strong). If the GG does not give royal assentā¦you think weād go into a constitutional crisis? I donāt think anyone would think itās worthwhile (which, of course, means that such a law wouldnāt passā¦which is its own kind of influence being exercised passively by the Crown!).
Youāre overestimating the value of laws. Laws donāt create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. Itās far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.
Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and itās the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.
And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?
So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me itās more obvious when someone doesnāt give royal ascent, and itās very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems youāre imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but youāre not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time theyāre in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.
As I said, I think the ājungle vs civilizationā analogy is a little weird. I donāt think laws create civilization. But I do think laws matter for fascists. If they didnāt they wouldnāt need to pack the supreme court. Project 2025 wouldnāt be so focused on laws and the judiciary. Theyāre not meaninglessā¦at the edge of the jungle? I guess? in this analogy?
So, when you talk about people being weak willed, youāre saying that a fascist coming to power is a kind of personal moral failing of the individuals in a society. I think thatās pretty absurd, and takes all responsibility away from the systems that shape peopleās āwillpower,ā as well as their understanding of what is and is not overreach. If thatās true then thereās just nothing to be done? Just let the fascists have all the places with people who have weak wills? lol
Okay, so I donāt know why you will not engage with a hypothetical as a means of seeing the problem Iām talking about. Obviously the king isnāt going to upset the balance of power in the Commonwealth for his vacation home in quebecā¦if you canāt generalize that to something more important (such as, in Australia, the cold war), then thereās no point in talking about hypothetical situationsā¦the point is to generalize from them. But thatās fine, it doesnāt really matter.
And for what itās worth, his cushy life isnāt going anywhere whether the commonwealth crumbles or not. The king of england could cease to be the king of canada and it wouldnāt cost him anything (except, I guess, a vacation home in quebec he never uses). Iād be thrilled if the UK decides to guillotine them, but they wonāt and I guess I have to make peace with that.
Iām not proposing replacing the king, Iām proposing kicking the king out. Just donāt have a king. If we must have a king, I would prefer to have a Canadian monarch and to stop legitimizing the genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles in the house of windsorā¦but I donāt see that we need a king. We could still just have a governor general appointed by the PMā¦make the system actually and definitely work the way you say it works (and I agree it works 99% of the timeā¦but why the fuck are we leaving 1% on the table just to glorify those assholes? Likeā¦we know it doesnāt work that way 100% of the time given the handful of examples Iāve shared).
Honestly though, why? Likeā¦I havenāt seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?
I have but you havenāt been paying attention. If you donāt have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesnāt have a King, but theyāve created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You donāt seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And thatās the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.
You label the King as a āgenocidiers, looters, and pedophilesā even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and heās being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.
And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carneyās ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?
The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how āPresidentialā they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but youāll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.
Americans feel like theyāre supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they wonāt remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it wonāt seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King whoās apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.
There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldnāt really change anything. Why bother removing the King?
The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that thereās something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which isā¦ hmmmm.
Youāre arguing the king is a non-entity, but a king is inevitable? Most people in most places throughout history have lived without one. If you want to look at ācivilizations,ā the Roman Republic and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy come to mind immediately.
And come on, are you serious? The King endorses genocide and imperialist looting by wearing āhisā regalia. All the royal symbols are stolen from the people slaughtered by the monarchy. He could return all the symbols and keep all the wealthā¦would cost him nothingā¦good PR even! (Iād still say all of the wealth is stolen and should be given away to help people in the places his ancestors colonizedā¦but luckily heās saved me the trouble by showing he doesnāt care enough to even give up the symbols)
Mark Carney isnāt the right comparison. The office of Prime Minister is the right comparison to the monarchy, and itās (at least theoretically) representative.
Itās not the family I care about, itās the institution. This is like arguing that the KKK hasnāt lynched anyone latelyā¦so can we really hold the institution responsible for the crimes of the people in its past? Likeā¦itās an institution. OF COURSE we can hold it responsible for the things it does. Every Windsor has the right and ability (and obligation) to abdicate. Children of KKK members also have the right and ability and obligation to leave the organization. I donāt think thatās really an appropriate comparison, the scale of the monarchyās atrocities is beyond compare. I assume we donāt need to get into ennumerating the crimes of the monarchy, but if you donāt know that weāre talking about a 9-figure scale, we can talk about that more.
If the king abdicated I would applaud him. If he gave away every penny of the royal familyās wealth and then abdicated Iād bow before him, kiss his feet, beg the honor to host him in my home, if he was deprived Iād do my best to feed and house and clothe him myself. Iād be so proud of him, proud that a fellow human being should have that moral fortitude and courage. Itās not him or his bloodline that counts (except to the institution), itās the institution thatās the problem. FWIW Iād gladly have Harry over for dinner, even though heās done some half-assed-in-between thing. Good enough for me, given that heās not the monarch. I donāt hate him because of his Windsor blood. Anyway the king would never do that, so whatever.
Iām not totally clearā¦youāre acting as if the king does have power, and provides some kind of a-political stabilityā¦but earlier you were saying he has no power? If you want him to have no powerā¦why leave him with power? Just take it away. Make the Prime Minister a truly elected position, and have the prime minister actually appoint the Governor Generalā¦itāll work the same as always, but we escape relying on norms, leaving a constitutional crisis sitting there like a chekovās gun. I still really donāt understand how you donāt see that latent crisis as a problem. You seem to be saying it couldnāt possibly happen (it happened in australia, and again I donāt think weād ever know the crown was involved if not for the palace letters) and if itās not impossible itās easy to handle (it wasnāt easy in australia - they literally just let the monarch dissolve their democratically elected parliament and appoint someone she liked as prime minister. There were massive protests but in the end everyone moved onā¦youād say they were weak-willed I guess? Are we weak willed for not immediately pulling the plug upon seeing that?). PLUS we get to separate ourselves from one of the most horrifically murderous institutions in human history? PLUS 64% of Canadians want to abolish the monarchy so itās inherently desirable? Whatās not to love?
It would not take any work to remove the Kingā¦at least a lot less work than declaring a GST holiday or whatever. That takes real work. I can write the law right now: āthe Queen of Canada is deemed to be a natural person that is not any existing natural person, and is deemed to exercise authority granted to her under statutes of Canada in accordance with a written request of the Prime Minister, published in the Canada Gazetteā Boom, done! This would let all other laws in Canada work precisely as they already do, without amendment. The only thing that would change is who the prime minister addresses his āsuggestionsā to. I wouldnāt mind doing the same thing to the governor general, but that might be a bit more complicated in the handoff between prime ministers, so maybe we just leave it as-is. There is an existing proposal before the HOC thatās a bit more complicated, but whatever.
And look, Iām obviously not saying America is any better, the U.S. is a fascist hellscape despite not having a king, and despite having a relatively robust constitution (things are better here but I donāt think itās because we donāt have a robust constitution). Iām not sure if you think Iām saying America is any betterā¦
All Iām saying is, Canada would be better than it is.