The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Monday, September 25, 2006
The 'Canadianization' of British tradition and precedent
Given the talk of Adrienne Clarkson's new book, Heart Matters, I was reminded of the many controversies that encircled her time in office, and how when we look back, those five or six years will probably stand out as the greatest period of unconsultative change in the history of the Maple Crown. I was also reminded of a comment by Walsingham, who touched brilliantly on the perils of Canadianization, specifically on the dictatorial manner in which this has been carried out by successive Liberal regimes throughout our modern history.
-----
It is interesting to note that the GG's staffer's answer, on being asked by Premier Klein whether or not Her Majesty could sign Royal Assent to Alberta Legislation, was not: "that would not be in accord with statute"; it was: "that would not be consistent with 'Canadianization' of our governance institutions" - or something very close to that.
Ignoring that "Canadianization" is a quite puerile descriptor, for which I'd like to see the GG have the honesty to attach a definition and a declared policy - and then tell me where in the hell she got the mandate to undertake and enforce it - it is altogether obvious that had the same question been asked in relation to federal legislation (yeah, right), the answer given would have been the same - now quite illegally, and in direct contravention of statute.
Let's not forget, however, that all this is in the tradition of the declarations by earlier Liberal regimes that, first peerages, and later knighthoods, would no longer be conferred on Canadians, because that would be inconsistent with "Canadian values". In both of those cases, the decision was undertaken with complete disregard for tradition, and without the slightest effort to consult anybody. "Canadian values", it seems, are justifiably decreed from the PMO - provided that a Liberal sits there.
One could extend the relative economy of the Royal governance institution in Canada, to an analogous one pertaining to peerages and knighthoods. There used to be a time when most men of character would have crawled on their knees for a K, as a reward, from a grateful sovereign and, by extension, from a grateful nation; for a lifetime of service and distinction. A K cost the taxpayer nothing, and character counted in the eligibility: the quest for a K served the useful purpose of keeping in check the kind of behaviour [that was] litanized daily by Gomery, among a large part of the governance class, the civil service and the senior ranks of the private sector.
But my real point here is to underscore that the smug and dictatorial fashion by which the Liberals and their kith and kin proceed[ed] to these kinds of decisions and actions, is really but further illustration of the depth of their contempt for the very idea of consulting the electorate, or even of submitting and binding themselves to the arbitration of Parliament. Contravention of the law, and of tradition and precedent - by decree, and unrestrained by consultation of any kind of the population or the House of Commons - is conveniently justified by pointing to "Canadian values".
I do not claim that most Canadians would support these particular things if, in fact, they did go to a referendum. I do not really know. But given that, in these cases, one is talking at least about a substantial departure from tradition, and at most about violating or "changing" the law of the land - would it be too much to ask to consult Parliament at least?
The hypocrisy of a GG strutting around, enjoying the perks of a viceregal position while transparently despising the very idea of being a viceroy - as though, were we not a monarchy, we would somehow have just proclaimed her "eminence in chief" on her own merits - is too striking for words. That she is a card-carrying member of a caste that believes whole-heartedly in an elitist apostasy of democracy gives it away. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised. There is a lot of contempt for democratic due process floating around. To quote Mandos: "I'm not ready to get upset if surreptitious transfer of the fundamentals of the role to the GG is going on."
WALSINGHAM
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:29 p.m. | LINKS |
Given the talk of Adrienne Clarkson's new book, Heart Matters, I was reminded of the many controversies that encircled her time in office, and how when we look back, those five or six years will probably stand out as the greatest period of unconsultative change in the history of the Maple Crown. I was also reminded of a comment by Walsingham, who touched brilliantly on the perils of Canadianization, specifically on the dictatorial manner in which this has been carried out by successive Liberal regimes throughout our modern history. -----
It is interesting to note that the GG's staffer's answer, on being asked by Premier Klein whether or not Her Majesty could sign Royal Assent to Alberta Legislation, was not: "that would not be in accord with statute"; it was: "that would not be consistent with 'Canadianization' of our governance institutions" - or something very close to that.
Ignoring that "Canadianization" is a quite puerile descriptor, for which I'd like to see the GG have the honesty to attach a definition and a declared policy - and then tell me where in the hell she got the mandate to undertake and enforce it - it is altogether obvious that had the same question been asked in relation to federal legislation (yeah, right), the answer given would have been the same - now quite illegally, and in direct contravention of statute.
Let's not forget, however, that all this is in the tradition of the declarations by earlier Liberal regimes that, first peerages, and later knighthoods, would no longer be conferred on Canadians, because that would be inconsistent with "Canadian values". In both of those cases, the decision was undertaken with complete disregard for tradition, and without the slightest effort to consult anybody. "Canadian values", it seems, are justifiably decreed from the PMO - provided that a Liberal sits there.
One could extend the relative economy of the Royal governance institution in Canada, to an analogous one pertaining to peerages and knighthoods. There used to be a time when most men of character would have crawled on their knees for a K, as a reward, from a grateful sovereign and, by extension, from a grateful nation; for a lifetime of service and distinction. A K cost the taxpayer nothing, and character counted in the eligibility: the quest for a K served the useful purpose of keeping in check the kind of behaviour [that was] litanized daily by Gomery, among a large part of the governance class, the civil service and the senior ranks of the private sector.
But my real point here is to underscore that the smug and dictatorial fashion by which the Liberals and their kith and kin proceed[ed] to these kinds of decisions and actions, is really but further illustration of the depth of their contempt for the very idea of consulting the electorate, or even of submitting and binding themselves to the arbitration of Parliament. Contravention of the law, and of tradition and precedent - by decree, and unrestrained by consultation of any kind of the population or the House of Commons - is conveniently justified by pointing to "Canadian values".
I do not claim that most Canadians would support these particular things if, in fact, they did go to a referendum. I do not really know. But given that, in these cases, one is talking at least about a substantial departure from tradition, and at most about violating or "changing" the law of the land - would it be too much to ask to consult Parliament at least?
The hypocrisy of a GG strutting around, enjoying the perks of a viceregal position while transparently despising the very idea of being a viceroy - as though, were we not a monarchy, we would somehow have just proclaimed her "eminence in chief" on her own merits - is too striking for words. That she is a card-carrying member of a caste that believes whole-heartedly in an elitist apostasy of democracy gives it away. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised. There is a lot of contempt for democratic due process floating around. To quote Mandos: "I'm not ready to get upset if surreptitious transfer of the fundamentals of the role to the GG is going on."
WALSINGHAM
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:29 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
