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, October 30, 2006
English-speaking nationalisms are not collectivist
I know I link to this Kipling blog a lot, but their writings on history, politics, economics and philosophy are deserving of weekly attention. Nationalism is not a good thing they argue most recently, because as a collectivist ideology it essentially promotes a closed and culturally insecure society that is not confidently based on the talents, energy and character of the individuals who make it up. The nationalisms of the English-speaking countries are different, however:
"Nationalism in the English speaking world is an ambiguous term. The American naval commander Stephen Decatur's quote "My country right or wrong," is one part. The other part is captured by G.K. Chesterton's observation that: "My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Quebec nationalists, like nationalists in most parts of the world, ascribe to the Decatur version of nationalism. The various English speaking nationalisms lean more toward the Chesterton approach. Certainly these nationalisms were guilty of bigotry, but that was not their overall tenor. These were cultures that welcomed, in time, immigrants from every nation and creed on earth. New York City, a century ago was more culturally diverse than any European city before or since. Toronto today is more so than any city in Asia, Africa or Latin America. At the heart of English nationalism is individualism, the belief that the character, talents and judgment of an individual override the accidents of birth and even upbringing. This is not the belief of Quebec nationalism, or of many of the groups that have come to settle Canada. Certainly they are atavistic in this, but their sin is not being out of step with an era dominated by the Anglo-Saxon spirit, it is in rejecting human nature and reason."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I know I link to this Kipling blog a lot, but their writings on history, politics, economics and philosophy are deserving of weekly attention. Nationalism is not a good thing they argue most recently, because as a collectivist ideology it essentially promotes a closed and culturally insecure society that is not confidently based on the talents, energy and character of the individuals who make it up. The nationalisms of the English-speaking countries are different, however:
"Nationalism in the English speaking world is an ambiguous term. The American naval commander Stephen Decatur's quote "My country right or wrong," is one part. The other part is captured by G.K. Chesterton's observation that: "My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Quebec nationalists, like nationalists in most parts of the world, ascribe to the Decatur version of nationalism. The various English speaking nationalisms lean more toward the Chesterton approach. Certainly these nationalisms were guilty of bigotry, but that was not their overall tenor. These were cultures that welcomed, in time, immigrants from every nation and creed on earth. New York City, a century ago was more culturally diverse than any European city before or since. Toronto today is more so than any city in Asia, Africa or Latin America. At the heart of English nationalism is individualism, the belief that the character, talents and judgment of an individual override the accidents of birth and even upbringing. This is not the belief of Quebec nationalism, or of many of the groups that have come to settle Canada. Certainly they are atavistic in this, but their sin is not being out of step with an era dominated by the Anglo-Saxon spirit, it is in rejecting human nature and reason."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
So long to a fair and middling monarchist. May God grant his witty soul eternal life.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, October 29, 2006
"Counter the Asian termites with a US-Nato free trade zone"
I'm currently getting through Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations and found this article in today’s Der Spiegel à propos. According to it, the US and Europe must join forces to combat Asia, specifically China and India. A US-Nato free trade zone will allow us to insist on fair and open trade policies. Even more importantly, European and US cultures will converge at a time when we seem to be drifting apart while stimulating both economies on either side of the Atlantic.
All the more need to encourage the development of the Anglosphere.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:08 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I'm currently getting through Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations and found this article in today’s Der Spiegel à propos. According to it, the US and Europe must join forces to combat Asia, specifically China and India. A US-Nato free trade zone will allow us to insist on fair and open trade policies. Even more importantly, European and US cultures will converge at a time when we seem to be drifting apart while stimulating both economies on either side of the Atlantic.
Even if no one is prepared to say it outright, there are signs of a similar indifference to Western values all across Asia. But it is precisely that unspoken that separates the two worlds. Free labour unions are neither vilified nor permitted. Lip service is paid to the environment as something that should be protected, but at the same time it is torn apart like a car in a wrecking yard. Child labour is condemned even as it is actively tolerated. And a whole range of laws exist to protect Western intellectual property, but those rules are seldom applied.
The Asian elite politely brush off everything that matters to us -- the social framework surrounding daily working life, the idea of individual achievement and state-guaranteed fair competition. What we see as essential characteristics of a civilised society, they see as nothing more than bourgeois niceties.
All the more need to encourage the development of the Anglosphere.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:08 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The British Empire, 50 years dead
50 years ago today, October 29, 1956, British and French-backed Israel invaded the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the Suez Canal. It was the beginning of the Suez Crisis, a response to Nasser's nationalization of the Canal against Western shipping interests. The disunited response - British, French, American and Canadian - turned into a collosal strategic error by the West that emboldened the Soviet Union; put the death knell into two imperial powers that gravely undermined the Nato alliance, of which France later left; fueled pan Arab hostility towards Israel in the Middle East that continues to this day; and gave the embryonic United Nations an active role in international affairs. Eisenhower later admitted, after retiring from office, that it was the biggest foreign policy mistake he made in office. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies, but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world.
This blog will of course observe sentimentally the passing of an empire, and sadly upon that day when Menzies of Australia and St. Laurent of Canada rebuked the mother country for Eden's presumption that the Commonwealth was automatically onside with Britain. But that is nothing compared to the embarrassing Canadian myth that considers this the highpoint of our historical national achievement; that we could be good honest brokers in the world with our Noble Prize winning invention, UN Peacekeeping. For what we began to lose after Korea was our country's soul, our values stemming from knowing what was right and wrong, instead of an independent and de facto neutral foreign policy that got us and the world nowheres. The British Empire, for all of its colonial paternalism, at least advanced a good chunk of the unsettled and uncivilized world in its own successful image.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:04 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
50 years ago today, October 29, 1956, British and French-backed Israel invaded the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the Suez Canal. It was the beginning of the Suez Crisis, a response to Nasser's nationalization of the Canal against Western shipping interests. The disunited response - British, French, American and Canadian - turned into a collosal strategic error by the West that emboldened the Soviet Union; put the death knell into two imperial powers that gravely undermined the Nato alliance, of which France later left; fueled pan Arab hostility towards Israel in the Middle East that continues to this day; and gave the embryonic United Nations an active role in international affairs. Eisenhower later admitted, after retiring from office, that it was the biggest foreign policy mistake he made in office. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies, but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world.This blog will of course observe sentimentally the passing of an empire, and sadly upon that day when Menzies of Australia and St. Laurent of Canada rebuked the mother country for Eden's presumption that the Commonwealth was automatically onside with Britain. But that is nothing compared to the embarrassing Canadian myth that considers this the highpoint of our historical national achievement; that we could be good honest brokers in the world with our Noble Prize winning invention, UN Peacekeeping. For what we began to lose after Korea was our country's soul, our values stemming from knowing what was right and wrong, instead of an independent and de facto neutral foreign policy that got us and the world nowheres. The British Empire, for all of its colonial paternalism, at least advanced a good chunk of the unsettled and uncivilized world in its own successful image.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:04 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Just back from holidays in Beautiful British Columbia. My blogging absence has also been a product of my being involved in something of a dispute in New Brunswick, on the other side of the country, which I hope to settle in the near future. I am tickled though that my splurge of hiring of a few more Lordships prior to my absence is finally beginning to pay off, so thank you gentlemen for filling the void. But we need more. If you are interested in scribbling for The Monarchist, kindly send an email to themonarchist@rogers.com
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Canada: Officer fights military over allegiance to Queen
An officer in the Canadian Forces is suing Canada’s top soldier over a “degrading” policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God Save the Queen.
Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (scroll down the faculty list to arrive at his email address), an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston... wants a court to overturn the requirement for Forces members to publicly display their loyalty to the British monarchy.
Canadian Monarchy. Not amused!
You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) . . . the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces."
What foreign Monarch?
The oath requires new members to swear they will be "be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada." The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The Governor General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.
Representing the Queen of Canada as Head of the Armed Forces does not make him/her actual Head of the Armed Forces.
The allegiance may be contrary to his belief, but it is a fact that the Queen is not a foreign monarch and has been and remains the head of state for Canada.
Look at it this way: say I am an officer in the military and I voted for the Liberal party, then the Conservative party won the election. Should I be able to refuse to serve the federal government because I do not like who is in charge of it?
As "An angry rant" said "If a Member of Parliament has a problem with respecting the traditions of Parliament and the very structure of the Canadian political system, do not run for office. If a new citizen does not want to swear an oath to the Queen, move somewhere else and if a soldier cannot force himself to toast the Queen over a pint in the Officers club send him to Afghanistan where he may find he has more pressing things to occupy his thoughts."
Postscript: Captain Chainnigh, Assistant Professor of Physics at RMC can be reached at: kenny-h@rmc.ca (just scroll down the faculty list).
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 6:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
An officer in the Canadian Forces is suing Canada’s top soldier over a “degrading” policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God Save the Queen.Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (scroll down the faculty list to arrive at his email address), an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston... wants a court to overturn the requirement for Forces members to publicly display their loyalty to the British monarchy.
Canadian Monarchy. Not amused!
You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) . . . the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces."
What foreign Monarch?
The oath requires new members to swear they will be "be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada." The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The Governor General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.
Representing the Queen of Canada as Head of the Armed Forces does not make him/her actual Head of the Armed Forces.
The allegiance may be contrary to his belief, but it is a fact that the Queen is not a foreign monarch and has been and remains the head of state for Canada.
Look at it this way: say I am an officer in the military and I voted for the Liberal party, then the Conservative party won the election. Should I be able to refuse to serve the federal government because I do not like who is in charge of it?
As "An angry rant" said "If a Member of Parliament has a problem with respecting the traditions of Parliament and the very structure of the Canadian political system, do not run for office. If a new citizen does not want to swear an oath to the Queen, move somewhere else and if a soldier cannot force himself to toast the Queen over a pint in the Officers club send him to Afghanistan where he may find he has more pressing things to occupy his thoughts."
Postscript: Captain Chainnigh, Assistant Professor of Physics at RMC can be reached at: kenny-h@rmc.ca (just scroll down the faculty list).
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 6:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, October 27, 2006
Prince Philip's surprise visit to Southern Iraq
His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Field Marshal of the British Army, made a surprise visit to British troops near the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Sunday.
The 85-year-old met soldiers from The Queen's Royal Hussars in his role as the regiment's colonel-in-chief.
Prince Philip told the troops he thought most people in Britain had "a great deal of sympathy for those of you at the sharp end who are trying to do your best to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals".
"And I'm quite sure that a great many locals do very much appreciate what you are trying to do for them…You have done a fantastic job, and I hope you all get home safely and have some well-earned leave."
The duke - sporting a desert combat uniform - spent six hours on the ground in Iraq, meeting troops and being briefed on the current situation by senior officers.
It was the prince's first visit to see British forces in Iraq and follows a trip by his daughter, the Princess Royal, to meet troops in Afghanistan.
The visit came just two days after he finished a whirlwind trip to the Baltics with the Queen.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "He wanted to visit the troops and show his support and praise their achievements."
One of the soldiers, L/ Cpl Dean Munn, 22, from Redditch, said: "It's good to see him out here in these hard conditions, taking the time to see us and how we're doing." During the visit the prince presented five promoted soldiers with new rank slides.
The Queen's Royal Hussars have been conducting anti-smuggling patrols along Maysan Province's isolated border with Iran.
They are set to finish their six-and-a-half month posting in a few weeks time.
Hat Tip: Holden Republic
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 2:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Field Marshal of the British Army, made a surprise visit to British troops near the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Sunday.The 85-year-old met soldiers from The Queen's Royal Hussars in his role as the regiment's colonel-in-chief.
Prince Philip told the troops he thought most people in Britain had "a great deal of sympathy for those of you at the sharp end who are trying to do your best to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals".
"And I'm quite sure that a great many locals do very much appreciate what you are trying to do for them…You have done a fantastic job, and I hope you all get home safely and have some well-earned leave."
The duke - sporting a desert combat uniform - spent six hours on the ground in Iraq, meeting troops and being briefed on the current situation by senior officers.
It was the prince's first visit to see British forces in Iraq and follows a trip by his daughter, the Princess Royal, to meet troops in Afghanistan.
The visit came just two days after he finished a whirlwind trip to the Baltics with the Queen.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "He wanted to visit the troops and show his support and praise their achievements."
One of the soldiers, L/ Cpl Dean Munn, 22, from Redditch, said: "It's good to see him out here in these hard conditions, taking the time to see us and how we're doing." During the visit the prince presented five promoted soldiers with new rank slides.
The Queen's Royal Hussars have been conducting anti-smuggling patrols along Maysan Province's isolated border with Iran.
They are set to finish their six-and-a-half month posting in a few weeks time.
Hat Tip: Holden Republic
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 2:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New flag for my room
Too overworked at the moment to write a proper article; I think the Chinese regime has blocked all sites with 'blog' in the title because the only way I could access this site was through an illegal proxy server. Just wanted to share my latest acquisition with you all- a 1943 Canadian Victory loan flag, the fourth of nine produced during WWII. Each one had a different badge and motto; this one's was 'Back the Attack.' Got it today from a Swedish (!) enthusiast of the Empire and her flags to remind me of a time when Canadians were fighting a war they entered from day one to fight aggression and evil while the Americans waited to be attacked...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Too overworked at the moment to write a proper article; I think the Chinese regime has blocked all sites with 'blog' in the title because the only way I could access this site was through an illegal proxy server. Just wanted to share my latest acquisition with you all- a 1943 Canadian Victory loan flag, the fourth of nine produced during WWII. Each one had a different badge and motto; this one's was 'Back the Attack.' Got it today from a Swedish (!) enthusiast of the Empire and her flags to remind me of a time when Canadians were fighting a war they entered from day one to fight aggression and evil while the Americans waited to be attacked...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, October 20, 2006
Lord Harris of High Cross (1924-2006)
The architect of Thatcherism and a founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs suddenly died yesterday (photo right of His Lordship in the House of Lords taken just the day before). Albion's Seedlings has the passing of a great man:
"Ralph Harris was one of the people responsible for the intellectual underpinning of the Thatcherite revolution. His colleague, Arthur Seldon, died last year. (And, by a strange coincidence, I attended yesterday the memorial meeting for Sir Alfred Sherman, a somewhat more controversial figure but one whose achievements must not be overlooked. Lady Thatcher was present, looking fragile but well.) Sadly, that generation is going and we shall all be the poorer for it.
I have known Ralph since my late teens (though he actually thought he had known me as a young child) as my father attended the IEA lunches in the late sixties and early seventies, when their ideas were generally considered to be a brand of harmless lunacy at best. Even in those days Ralph cultivated his persona of the Edwardian gentleman, hats, moustaches, waistcoats and walking sticks included.
What mattered above all was not his mannerism, not even his fantastically ebullient personality – nobody could ever forget Ralph even after a brief meeting – but his hard-headed approach to Britain’s problems. Neither he nor Arthur Seldon would have been welcomed in the wishy-washy, condescending tory-toff Conservative Party of David Cameron..."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Ralph Harris was one of the people responsible for the intellectual underpinning of the Thatcherite revolution. His colleague, Arthur Seldon, died last year. (And, by a strange coincidence, I attended yesterday the memorial meeting for Sir Alfred Sherman, a somewhat more controversial figure but one whose achievements must not be overlooked. Lady Thatcher was present, looking fragile but well.) Sadly, that generation is going and we shall all be the poorer for it.
I have known Ralph since my late teens (though he actually thought he had known me as a young child) as my father attended the IEA lunches in the late sixties and early seventies, when their ideas were generally considered to be a brand of harmless lunacy at best. Even in those days Ralph cultivated his persona of the Edwardian gentleman, hats, moustaches, waistcoats and walking sticks included.
What mattered above all was not his mannerism, not even his fantastically ebullient personality – nobody could ever forget Ralph even after a brief meeting – but his hard-headed approach to Britain’s problems. Neither he nor Arthur Seldon would have been welcomed in the wishy-washy, condescending tory-toff Conservative Party of David Cameron..."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Her Majesty The Queen, our collective Commander-in-Chief, has now lost over 200 Commonwealth soldiers in the 'War on Terror': 119 Britons in Iraq, 42 Canadians in Afstan, 40 Britons in Afstan, 2 Australians in Iraq, 1 Australian in Afstan and 1 Canadian serving in Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:53 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:53 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Another Lesson from the Gods
The Gods of the Copybook Headings continue to impress: (I find myself forced to copy much, given that the relevant chunks are lost within the span of a rather long permalink. My apologies to the Gods)
"One of the treads that binds the modern Right is a respect for tradition and history. The past, observed Edward Gibbon, is "little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." The modern Left's spin on this is that the register should be read along racial and class lines, a list of grievances to be used in mixed economy horse trading...
It's sometimes forgotten that Edmund Burke was a man of the Left, though the term would gain currency only after 1789. A staunch Whig, he was no admirer of George III, and walked very close to treason in backing the American rebels. Contrary to what some of his biographers, and devout enemies, would like us to believe he did not convert to conservatism, he was always the same. What changed were the times. The more radical Whigs, from perhaps the 1760s onward, adopted the fatal conceit of the continental Enlightenment, rationality without empiricism and its corollary materialism without spirituality. All the elements of the modern Left are present in that summation. A rationality that from first principles deduces elaborate theories of human behaviour, never descending to the level of data. Evidence of such an approach can be seen in the ruins of numerous "planned economies" and countless public housing projects.
More grimly we see a materialism without spirituality, a vision of man as a hunk of meat moved by instinct, bereft not only of free will, and necessarily freedom, but ultimately of humanity itself. Burke, in contrast, was a perfect representative of the 18th century English mind. Deeply suspicious of abstract theories, perhaps too much so, it functioned by a kind of rough empiricism and simplified Christianity. English intellectuals of the late 17th century had seen the Cartesian alternative that was developing to the Catholic Church. Going forward along this road they sensed something danger. Their strange little island had thrived as far as it had by chance. Their ancestors had made mistakes; the generations that had followed had striven to avoid repeating those mistakes. Even their faith was, by historical accident, pragmatic. The Anglican Church makes sense only as an English Church born of English circumstances. Its theology is otherwise inexplicable. This makes it no less worthy or effective a church, merely more historical than most.
This famous English pragmatism was not so much an eschewing of principles as prudent skepticism toward principles. Let's see what "works." What "works" is a loaded question however. What works depends on your values. Feudalism, Fascism and Communism "worked" too. Here the English, perhaps more so than other people, fell back, ironically, upon the greatest of Catholic Church Fathers, Aquinas. Here was a nexus of reason and faith that opposed both Platonic rationalism on the one hand and superstition on the other. The English were pragmatists within a Thomistic context. A good English compromise is only good and English when it presupposes certain values. Our Canadian aversion to extremes comes from this English belief in compromise. Like the English we sometimes forget that compromise "works" only within a context.
Those on the Right sometimes forget this, opposing all change, or opposing change on crude reactionary grounds. Compromise and change may be necessary within a context. In issues like marriage, if the vice of the Left is to drop context and denounce all values; the vice of the Right has been to focus on the Left's folly. That focus on the other guy's dumb ideas sometimes suckers the Right into opposing change outright. This is because the Right has conceded to the Left a monopoly on change, specifically the idea of positive change: progress. The Right needs to re-define progress on its terms; prudent, historically minded and pragmatic in the best sense of the word."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 5:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Gods of the Copybook Headings continue to impress: (I find myself forced to copy much, given that the relevant chunks are lost within the span of a rather long permalink. My apologies to the Gods)"One of the treads that binds the modern Right is a respect for tradition and history. The past, observed Edward Gibbon, is "little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." The modern Left's spin on this is that the register should be read along racial and class lines, a list of grievances to be used in mixed economy horse trading...
It's sometimes forgotten that Edmund Burke was a man of the Left, though the term would gain currency only after 1789. A staunch Whig, he was no admirer of George III, and walked very close to treason in backing the American rebels. Contrary to what some of his biographers, and devout enemies, would like us to believe he did not convert to conservatism, he was always the same. What changed were the times. The more radical Whigs, from perhaps the 1760s onward, adopted the fatal conceit of the continental Enlightenment, rationality without empiricism and its corollary materialism without spirituality. All the elements of the modern Left are present in that summation. A rationality that from first principles deduces elaborate theories of human behaviour, never descending to the level of data. Evidence of such an approach can be seen in the ruins of numerous "planned economies" and countless public housing projects.
More grimly we see a materialism without spirituality, a vision of man as a hunk of meat moved by instinct, bereft not only of free will, and necessarily freedom, but ultimately of humanity itself. Burke, in contrast, was a perfect representative of the 18th century English mind. Deeply suspicious of abstract theories, perhaps too much so, it functioned by a kind of rough empiricism and simplified Christianity. English intellectuals of the late 17th century had seen the Cartesian alternative that was developing to the Catholic Church. Going forward along this road they sensed something danger. Their strange little island had thrived as far as it had by chance. Their ancestors had made mistakes; the generations that had followed had striven to avoid repeating those mistakes. Even their faith was, by historical accident, pragmatic. The Anglican Church makes sense only as an English Church born of English circumstances. Its theology is otherwise inexplicable. This makes it no less worthy or effective a church, merely more historical than most.
This famous English pragmatism was not so much an eschewing of principles as prudent skepticism toward principles. Let's see what "works." What "works" is a loaded question however. What works depends on your values. Feudalism, Fascism and Communism "worked" too. Here the English, perhaps more so than other people, fell back, ironically, upon the greatest of Catholic Church Fathers, Aquinas. Here was a nexus of reason and faith that opposed both Platonic rationalism on the one hand and superstition on the other. The English were pragmatists within a Thomistic context. A good English compromise is only good and English when it presupposes certain values. Our Canadian aversion to extremes comes from this English belief in compromise. Like the English we sometimes forget that compromise "works" only within a context.
Those on the Right sometimes forget this, opposing all change, or opposing change on crude reactionary grounds. Compromise and change may be necessary within a context. In issues like marriage, if the vice of the Left is to drop context and denounce all values; the vice of the Right has been to focus on the Left's folly. That focus on the other guy's dumb ideas sometimes suckers the Right into opposing change outright. This is because the Right has conceded to the Left a monopoly on change, specifically the idea of positive change: progress. The Right needs to re-define progress on its terms; prudent, historically minded and pragmatic in the best sense of the word."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 5:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Andrew Cusack, who like me believes that American history started with the dawn of Hellas, and not with the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, or the 1867 British North America Act in the case of the upper half, is busy celebrating the birth of James II on his gorgeous blog, our hitherto Catholic King, the last such Catholic monarch in British history before it ended with the Whig-inspired "Glorious Revolution", that hatched for us a still continuing Jacobite heritage.
Let me just add that it is a rare thing to see (British) Americans reaching beyond the narcissism of our own relatively short continental history, and embracing the faint memories - if not altogether lost fact - of the older ties that once bound.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 3:05 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Prime Minister Howard cracking his whip on South Pacific nations Down Under. God, I admire that man.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, October 16, 2006
Postmodern man
David Warren's written summary of postmodern man easily wins comment of the day:
"Postmodern man -- who votes, and swings the opinion polls, in the constitutional democracies -- is remarkably unable to cope with the reality of evil in the world around him. He has an attention span too short to assimilate even a sustained challenge from a single source, let alone multiple challenges. He knows little history, and what he does know tends to be seriously wrong. More deeply, he lacks tradition -- the kind of wisdom that could operate on his instincts, even when his rational mind were neither well-trained nor well-informed. Yet he is also poorly informed about current events, and his native ability to reason is vitiated by cheap and disintegrative “relativist” ideas. He is personally a coward, and a voluptuary: he lives for the day, and for pleasure, even in the absence of satisfaction or joy. His role models in popular culture are all narcissists. He is the pure consumer of morally poisonous entertainment. He lives selfishly; yet in his own loveless, self-regarding world, he avoids thinking of his own death."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
David Warren's written summary of postmodern man easily wins comment of the day:
"Postmodern man -- who votes, and swings the opinion polls, in the constitutional democracies -- is remarkably unable to cope with the reality of evil in the world around him. He has an attention span too short to assimilate even a sustained challenge from a single source, let alone multiple challenges. He knows little history, and what he does know tends to be seriously wrong. More deeply, he lacks tradition -- the kind of wisdom that could operate on his instincts, even when his rational mind were neither well-trained nor well-informed. Yet he is also poorly informed about current events, and his native ability to reason is vitiated by cheap and disintegrative “relativist” ideas. He is personally a coward, and a voluptuary: he lives for the day, and for pleasure, even in the absence of satisfaction or joy. His role models in popular culture are all narcissists. He is the pure consumer of morally poisonous entertainment. He lives selfishly; yet in his own loveless, self-regarding world, he avoids thinking of his own death."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
For God's sake- Not the Trillium!
Have just read about attempts by Ontario's premier to change the 'trillium', apparently Ontario's main 'logo' for the past 30 years. I've just seen pictures of it, and I must say I don't recall ever having seen it before, so it can't have been that useful a symbol, and certainly doesn't inspire any enthusiasm from within my breast. But I do feel the passion rousing inside me when I hear of some non-entity recently (and no doubt briefly) in a position of influence deciding his ego demands tampering with the culture of generations of his fellow citizens. I know how angry I was to find out the coat of arms had been changed to the current hideous design.
At least there is one piece of good news. The premier has stated that he has no intention of altering Ontario's flag, admitting that "if you think the logo can create controversy," changing the traditional red ensign would spark widespread outrage."
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 11:40 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Have just read about attempts by Ontario's premier to change the 'trillium', apparently Ontario's main 'logo' for the past 30 years. I've just seen pictures of it, and I must say I don't recall ever having seen it before, so it can't have been that useful a symbol, and certainly doesn't inspire any enthusiasm from within my breast. But I do feel the passion rousing inside me when I hear of some non-entity recently (and no doubt briefly) in a position of influence deciding his ego demands tampering with the culture of generations of his fellow citizens. I know how angry I was to find out the coat of arms had been changed to the current hideous design.At least there is one piece of good news. The premier has stated that he has no intention of altering Ontario's flag, admitting that "if you think the logo can create controversy," changing the traditional red ensign would spark widespread outrage."
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 11:40 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, October 13, 2006
Lord Black's Empire Speech
Lord Black gives a keynote address at the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto yesterday, and 40 sneering salacious twits descend on the man like a pack of adolescent wolves. I haven't been able to locate the speech, but here are a few highlights:
- Canada's Tories have evolved from a "generally fissiparous group of malcontents", much to his satisfaction.
- "Canada today is more important to the world than Italy. I know (Canadian realist painter) Ken Danby isn't Leonardo Da Vinci, but that isn't geopolitics."
- "Europe is dyspeptic with collapsed birth rates and stagnant economies," he said. "The U.S. has little disposable influence in the world, the UN is a shambles, NATO is in disarray, and the coalition of the willing is a fraud. We must not let it go to our heads, but Canada is one of the world's [ten] great powers. We shouldn't let that go to our heads. We should get used to it."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:48 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Lord Black gives a keynote address at the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto yesterday, and 40 sneering salacious twits descend on the man like a pack of adolescent wolves. I haven't been able to locate the speech, but here are a few highlights:- Canada's Tories have evolved from a "generally fissiparous group of malcontents", much to his satisfaction.
- "Canada today is more important to the world than Italy. I know (Canadian realist painter) Ken Danby isn't Leonardo Da Vinci, but that isn't geopolitics."
- "Europe is dyspeptic with collapsed birth rates and stagnant economies," he said. "The U.S. has little disposable influence in the world, the UN is a shambles, NATO is in disarray, and the coalition of the willing is a fraud. We must not let it go to our heads, but Canada is one of the world's [ten] great powers. We shouldn't let that go to our heads. We should get used to it."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:48 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 12, 2006
England under the Manneken Pis
I meant to link to this before, but here is more of Albion's fame and glory lining up to obey the latest directive from the child of Brussels. What to do, what to do? Here's an idea: Turn the European Union into a European Commonwealth. Better a free association of nations, than being soaked in neverending directives under the Manneken Pis.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:39 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I meant to link to this before, but here is more of Albion's fame and glory lining up to obey the latest directive from the child of Brussels. What to do, what to do? Here's an idea: Turn the European Union into a European Commonwealth. Better a free association of nations, than being soaked in neverending directives under the Manneken Pis.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:39 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Britain's Commonwealth troops to become British
More positive noises coming from number 10 Downing:
Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated on Wednesday that his government could act within weeks to make it easier for personnel from the Commonwealth serving in the British armed forces to become citizens.
"There is another issue as well, which is a specific issue about soldiers who fight for our armed forces from Commonwealth countries and who face difficulties on naturalisation in respect of residents' requirements. This is, again, something we want to look at as a matter of urgency and I hope we can announce changes to this in the next few weeks."
There are around 7,000 Commonwealth personnel in the British armed forces, many of whom are Fijians serving in the army. Last year, Private Johnson Beharry, from the Commonwealth country of Grenada, became the first man since 1982 to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the British Commonwealth's highest military decoration for valour. He was honoured for twice saving members of his unit from ambushes in Iraq.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
More positive noises coming from number 10 Downing:
Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated on Wednesday that his government could act within weeks to make it easier for personnel from the Commonwealth serving in the British armed forces to become citizens."There is another issue as well, which is a specific issue about soldiers who fight for our armed forces from Commonwealth countries and who face difficulties on naturalisation in respect of residents' requirements. This is, again, something we want to look at as a matter of urgency and I hope we can announce changes to this in the next few weeks."
There are around 7,000 Commonwealth personnel in the British armed forces, many of whom are Fijians serving in the army. Last year, Private Johnson Beharry, from the Commonwealth country of Grenada, became the first man since 1982 to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the British Commonwealth's highest military decoration for valour. He was honoured for twice saving members of his unit from ambushes in Iraq.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
American Indicted For Treason
Adam Yehiye Gadahn was indicted by a California Grand Jury for having committed treason against the United States. He is the fellow who has been producing propoganda films for al-Qaida. This is especially interesting for all of us since the U.S. law of treason is based on the british. My full post on Anglosphere Union Now! is here.
POSTED BY: adams AT 9:11 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Adam Yehiye Gadahn was indicted by a California Grand Jury for having committed treason against the United States. He is the fellow who has been producing propoganda films for al-Qaida. This is especially interesting for all of us since the U.S. law of treason is based on the british. My full post on Anglosphere Union Now! is here.
POSTED BY: adams AT 9:11 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
So too the idea of a common British identity...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 5:57 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I found this news very disturbing for me and my ideas of 'Britishness'. I am proud of my heritage and culture, but it gets harder and harder as the state denies such an identity and ignores its own past.
An 83-year-old widow who was interned by the Japanese because she was British is now fighting the UK government to recognise her as such. The government claims that she has no 'ancestral connection' to the land of her passport and is therefore not eligible for compensation.
The issue here is whether to qualify as British an individual must have a 'blood link' through birth or ancestry. Diana Elias was born in the British Empire (HONG KONG) and has always held a British passport, but the fact that her parents were Indian and Iraqi made the Ministry of Defence claim that she did not qualify for any payment scheme for individuals held in Japanese prisoner camps because her parents did not come from Britain.
The court's verdict will reignite the debate on British citizenship, while raising fresh questions over Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth.
As Elias herself said, 'What this "blood link" means is that being British is not good enough. Being interred because you were British is not good enough. You only count if you were born here in the UK, or your family originates from here. If not, then you are another type of British. A type of British whose suffering and rights do not matter one bit. I was born British. I have always been British. My grandparents were British. My father was British and so was my mother. I can remember my father taking great pride in the fact he was British and so was his family. And I was proud to be British. I still am.'
'One of the things that makes me proud to be British and to make this country my home is that people of different races, origins and backgrounds have mixed here and made a success of that. There could not have been more of a mix at my 80th birthday party, but almost all of us were British.'
Our greatest strength are the ties that bind us with worldwide links and common ideals. The British government would deny this strength and its heritage because of short-term monetary considerations.
An 83-year-old widow who was interned by the Japanese because she was British is now fighting the UK government to recognise her as such. The government claims that she has no 'ancestral connection' to the land of her passport and is therefore not eligible for compensation.
The issue here is whether to qualify as British an individual must have a 'blood link' through birth or ancestry. Diana Elias was born in the British Empire (HONG KONG) and has always held a British passport, but the fact that her parents were Indian and Iraqi made the Ministry of Defence claim that she did not qualify for any payment scheme for individuals held in Japanese prisoner camps because her parents did not come from Britain.
The court's verdict will reignite the debate on British citizenship, while raising fresh questions over Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth.
As Elias herself said, 'What this "blood link" means is that being British is not good enough. Being interred because you were British is not good enough. You only count if you were born here in the UK, or your family originates from here. If not, then you are another type of British. A type of British whose suffering and rights do not matter one bit. I was born British. I have always been British. My grandparents were British. My father was British and so was my mother. I can remember my father taking great pride in the fact he was British and so was his family. And I was proud to be British. I still am.'
'One of the things that makes me proud to be British and to make this country my home is that people of different races, origins and backgrounds have mixed here and made a success of that. There could not have been more of a mix at my 80th birthday party, but almost all of us were British.'
Our greatest strength are the ties that bind us with worldwide links and common ideals. The British government would deny this strength and its heritage because of short-term monetary considerations.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 5:57 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Second Lieutenant Wales banned from combat
The royals are being mollycoddled for their own safety and the safety of their men. I don't know what to say about this, but it's a sad day for ancient patriotism on the battlefield. Prince Harry of Wales said he would quit if it ever came to this:
"Senior commanders said they reviewed several scenarios before concluding that the 21-year-old prince should not be deployed to the Afghan front with the Household Cavalry, the newspaper said. They feared for his safety and for the safety of the soldiers around him...
The Defense Ministry said Prince Harry would play "as full a part as he can during his Army career, including participating in operations and exercises," the Daily Mail said. The ministry said a final decision on the prince's status would be made when his unit is formally scheduled to be deployed."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 4:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The royals are being mollycoddled for their own safety and the safety of their men. I don't know what to say about this, but it's a sad day for ancient patriotism on the battlefield. Prince Harry of Wales said he would quit if it ever came to this:"Senior commanders said they reviewed several scenarios before concluding that the 21-year-old prince should not be deployed to the Afghan front with the Household Cavalry, the newspaper said. They feared for his safety and for the safety of the soldiers around him...
The Defense Ministry said Prince Harry would play "as full a part as he can during his Army career, including participating in operations and exercises," the Daily Mail said. The ministry said a final decision on the prince's status would be made when his unit is formally scheduled to be deployed."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 4:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Scotch, and proud of it
Didn't I say Canadians love their Scotch. It would seem the incorrigible traditionalist, David Warren, just can't get enough of it either:
"It has become dangerous to use the word “Scotch” in this country, as I’ve learnt to my cost. Every time I do it, I get a bunch of letters from smart people, telling me that, if not referring to whisky, my choice of adjectives is necessarily limited to “Scots”, “Scottish”, or at a stretch, “Caledonian”. This is because, I fear, the Scotch are a shrinking part of Canada’s social fabric. A diminishing number know that among the meanings of the word “Scotch” is, “deeply-rooted Scottish-Canadian”.
Were I referring to the current inmates of Scotland itself, or recent immigrants therefrom, I would call them Scottish. But in speaking of the “Scotch” I refer to my own race, on my mother’s side. We were once, and may by the grace of God still be, Canada’s third largest ethnic constituency, after English and French (counting original Highlanders, Lowlanders, and the Scotch-Irish together). But our assimilation is so far advanced, that the Gaelic language has almost disappeared."...
(My Scots ancestors also referred to themselves as Scotch. They themselves wrote their nationality as "Scotch" on all the official documents and migration papers I could find, so I don't buy this nonsense that it somehow doesn't meet the standards of political correctude. But I had no idea that "Scotch" was a particular Canadianism on the Scottishness developed here.)
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:18 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Didn't I say Canadians love their Scotch. It would seem the incorrigible traditionalist, David Warren, just can't get enough of it either:"It has become dangerous to use the word “Scotch” in this country, as I’ve learnt to my cost. Every time I do it, I get a bunch of letters from smart people, telling me that, if not referring to whisky, my choice of adjectives is necessarily limited to “Scots”, “Scottish”, or at a stretch, “Caledonian”. This is because, I fear, the Scotch are a shrinking part of Canada’s social fabric. A diminishing number know that among the meanings of the word “Scotch” is, “deeply-rooted Scottish-Canadian”.
Were I referring to the current inmates of Scotland itself, or recent immigrants therefrom, I would call them Scottish. But in speaking of the “Scotch” I refer to my own race, on my mother’s side. We were once, and may by the grace of God still be, Canada’s third largest ethnic constituency, after English and French (counting original Highlanders, Lowlanders, and the Scotch-Irish together). But our assimilation is so far advanced, that the Gaelic language has almost disappeared."...
(My Scots ancestors also referred to themselves as Scotch. They themselves wrote their nationality as "Scotch" on all the official documents and migration papers I could find, so I don't buy this nonsense that it somehow doesn't meet the standards of political correctude. But I had no idea that "Scotch" was a particular Canadianism on the Scottishness developed here.)
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:18 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, October 09, 2006
Monarchy is democratic, just not in an elected kind of way
The idea that some people have that monarchy is undemocratic and is based solely on hereditary principles conveniently ignores the three-hundred year old supremacy of Parliament on both those scores. Absolute hereditary power based on devine theory first died with Magna Carta way back in 1215, and although it experienced a later resurgence, particularly with the Stuart kings, who sought to re-establish the doctrine by importing it from Scotland during the 17th century, the beheading of Charles I by the Rump Parliament in 1649; the parliamentary coup d’etat that forcibly deposed James II in 1688; the English Bill of Rights the year after; and the Act of Settlement governing succession law since 1701; British sovereigns have served at the pleasure of the people more than themselves, a fact that was most recently reinforced in practice by all Westminster parliaments during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII in 1936.
Yes yes, the Queen is not elected, but technically neither is anyone else under our model of government. It is not a contradiction of principle to understand that virtually no position of authority is directly elected in the British parliamentary system of democracy. The queen's representatives certainly are not, nor are her advisors in the Privy Council; our judges are not elected, not the officers of parliament, not the house speakers, nor even the cabinet and the prime minister who heads it. We do not vote for ministers of the crown; we do not choose which members will be assigned the tasks of government. The prime minister is not a president - we do not directly elect him or her into office; rather, he owes his position to the confidence of Cabinet, of the House of Commons and of the Queen-in-Parliament. All we elect are MPs, that body of men and women whose collective wisdom and judgment it is to determine all of the above on our behalf.
And yes, that even goes for the Queen herself. Her Majesty’s accession to the throne may have been automatic, but only because of an Act of Parliament that permitted it, and subsequently only because she was democratically confirmed on other legislative occasions, such as when Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing her as sovereign, or when Australia held a referendum in 1999, in which the people overwhelmingly endorsed her in a national plebiscite. The old dictum that “the Queen reigns but doesn’t rule” is technically incorrect – the Queen reigns and rules, but only with the advice and consent of Parliament.
So to Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson's proposal that Parliament, and not the PM, should choose the Governor General, I find myself in complete agreement. It is absurd that the GG should be de facto appointed by a lower constitutional authority. The GG is for Parliament to decide, just as we entrust Parliament to decide everything else. But it would be heretical to the whole fabric of our political culture if the GG were elected, just as it would if any other position of power independently stood for election. That would be perfidious to the whole parliamentary system.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The idea that some people have that monarchy is undemocratic and is based solely on hereditary principles conveniently ignores the three-hundred year old supremacy of Parliament on both those scores. Absolute hereditary power based on devine theory first died with Magna Carta way back in 1215, and although it experienced a later resurgence, particularly with the Stuart kings, who sought to re-establish the doctrine by importing it from Scotland during the 17th century, the beheading of Charles I by the Rump Parliament in 1649; the parliamentary coup d’etat that forcibly deposed James II in 1688; the English Bill of Rights the year after; and the Act of Settlement governing succession law since 1701; British sovereigns have served at the pleasure of the people more than themselves, a fact that was most recently reinforced in practice by all Westminster parliaments during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII in 1936. Yes yes, the Queen is not elected, but technically neither is anyone else under our model of government. It is not a contradiction of principle to understand that virtually no position of authority is directly elected in the British parliamentary system of democracy. The queen's representatives certainly are not, nor are her advisors in the Privy Council; our judges are not elected, not the officers of parliament, not the house speakers, nor even the cabinet and the prime minister who heads it. We do not vote for ministers of the crown; we do not choose which members will be assigned the tasks of government. The prime minister is not a president - we do not directly elect him or her into office; rather, he owes his position to the confidence of Cabinet, of the House of Commons and of the Queen-in-Parliament. All we elect are MPs, that body of men and women whose collective wisdom and judgment it is to determine all of the above on our behalf.
And yes, that even goes for the Queen herself. Her Majesty’s accession to the throne may have been automatic, but only because of an Act of Parliament that permitted it, and subsequently only because she was democratically confirmed on other legislative occasions, such as when Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizing her as sovereign, or when Australia held a referendum in 1999, in which the people overwhelmingly endorsed her in a national plebiscite. The old dictum that “the Queen reigns but doesn’t rule” is technically incorrect – the Queen reigns and rules, but only with the advice and consent of Parliament.
So to Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson's proposal that Parliament, and not the PM, should choose the Governor General, I find myself in complete agreement. It is absurd that the GG should be de facto appointed by a lower constitutional authority. The GG is for Parliament to decide, just as we entrust Parliament to decide everything else. But it would be heretical to the whole fabric of our political culture if the GG were elected, just as it would if any other position of power independently stood for election. That would be perfidious to the whole parliamentary system.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Dr Ameer Ali: Australia is a Muslim nation. Prince Charles: The British Monarchy is a soap opera.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 10:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 10:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Fifth anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion today, sadly marked by the 40th Canadian soldier to be killed, and over 200 casualties since the war began. God bless our soldiers and their sacrifice on this Canadian Thanksgiving weekend!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Watch Tony Cameron turn into David Blair. Look. Listen. Learn. Which one of these looks, listens and learns like the other?
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:19 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:19 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Monarchist Diaspora
The Lord High Moderator over at the Monarchist League of Canada has apparently banished me from their message board. He or she has blocked my IP address from leaving comments, and even when I do gain access through another route, my comments are invariably erased - without fail - regardless of their intrinsic merit and civility. I have a theory about this - I'm too embarrassingly pro-Britannic inheritance for their tastes, and therefore, in their eyes at least, more a hindrance to the cause than a help.
Okay gentlemen, I give up. If a division of the Crown is what you desire, instead of celebrating and focussing on its shared aspects, here is what I propose: Modern proponents of the Maple Crown can stay with you; traditional defenders of the British Crown can join up with us. And in the words of Kipling's grand old "Ballad of East and West", "never the twain shall meet".
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Lord High Moderator over at the Monarchist League of Canada has apparently banished me from their message board. He or she has blocked my IP address from leaving comments, and even when I do gain access through another route, my comments are invariably erased - without fail - regardless of their intrinsic merit and civility. I have a theory about this - I'm too embarrassingly pro-Britannic inheritance for their tastes, and therefore, in their eyes at least, more a hindrance to the cause than a help.Okay gentlemen, I give up. If a division of the Crown is what you desire, instead of celebrating and focussing on its shared aspects, here is what I propose: Modern proponents of the Maple Crown can stay with you; traditional defenders of the British Crown can join up with us. And in the words of Kipling's grand old "Ballad of East and West", "never the twain shall meet".
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
"Monarchy fans" take on "Queen Adrienne"
The modern media is so incorrigibly shallow. The high schoolers overpaid to write this stuff, are so deprived of pietas, they can't help but instinctively reduce everything to celebrity talking points. So we're all "monarchy fans" or "royal watchers" or other such cheerleaders of royalty. On an institution that is bedrock to our heritage and whole system of government and society, they are simply incapable of attaching any constitutional value and dignity to their gliberal prose. I suppose we shouldn't be shocked that a member of this cast, celebrity wannabe Adrienne Clarkson no less, would have the gall to criticise the Queen's manners, and sully the very office she was supposed to serve and represent. But that's what you do nowadays, even if you're a recent Governor-General. Dig up a deliberately contrived shilling of gossip, and stir up some tidbit of regal controvery in your tell-all book - and watch the money pore in. Discretion and virtue, we never knew your name.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 5:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The modern media is so incorrigibly shallow. The high schoolers overpaid to write this stuff, are so deprived of pietas, they can't help but instinctively reduce everything to celebrity talking points. So we're all "monarchy fans" or "royal watchers" or other such cheerleaders of royalty. On an institution that is bedrock to our heritage and whole system of government and society, they are simply incapable of attaching any constitutional value and dignity to their gliberal prose. I suppose we shouldn't be shocked that a member of this cast, celebrity wannabe Adrienne Clarkson no less, would have the gall to criticise the Queen's manners, and sully the very office she was supposed to serve and represent. But that's what you do nowadays, even if you're a recent Governor-General. Dig up a deliberately contrived shilling of gossip, and stir up some tidbit of regal controvery in your tell-all book - and watch the money pore in. Discretion and virtue, we never knew your name.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 5:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Prime Minister John Howard gives us his three towering heroes of the late 20th century.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 3:25 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 3:25 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Return our British Lord his Canadian citizenship
The following unlinkable article by former newspaper baron Conrad Black, appeared in today's National Post in response to a swipe by Canadian comedian Rick Mercer. (A quite inferior swipe I might add, compared to the intelligence of the return broadside below). The issue raises a number of points: Can a Canadian also be British; can a Canadian receive a British titular honour from Her Majesty; can a Canadian even receive a Canadian honour from Her Majesty anymore; can a Canadian be honoured in another country without political interference; can a Canadian sit in the House of Lords without renouncing his citizenship; did former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien act the part of a sniveling, petulant tyrant, when he decided to retaliate without proper precedent against a private citizen who dared criticize him?
I suppose I should be grateful to Rick Mercer for his attempt at humour on my behalf. As a public service, I can set his mind at ease on several points.
I am not actually doing much about my citizenship right now, but confirmed to someone who asked me on television (TV Ontario’s Steve Paikin) that I would eventually do as I said I would when I renounced the citizenship: seek to take it back. I never uttered one word of disparagement of Canada, was proud to be a dual citizen of Canada and the U.K. and look forward to regaining that status again. I seek no treatment different to anyone else’s. When the time eventually comes, I believe I can clear the hurdle all candidates must meet as a law-abiding, economically productive person. I care and know about the country, and my wife and sons and daughter are Canadians, and will sponsor me.
I understand the temptation to portray me as a medieval poltroon in satin breeches, a powdered wig and an ermine collar. But the House of Lords is the most distinguished legislative chamber in the world in terms of the achievements of its members and quality of its debates. Jean Chrétien, who was approved by two thirds of Canadians at the time according to polls, created a second class of citizenship in a foreign country, consisting of one person, me, ineligible to receive an honour in that country, for services rendered in that country, because of being a dual citizen, although there are more than a dozen joint citizens in the House of Lords, and because he did not like what we wrote about him in this newspaper.
The Canadian courts, which had the right and duty to revoke him, claimed not to have jurisdiction. Chrétien, with whom I had had cordial relations for 25 years, made it clear that his motive in intervening as he did, contrary to the advice he received from his own officials, was that the National Post, of which I was then the publisher, was questioning the financial probity of his government. We seem not to have been mistaken.
He boasted to friends of mine that he would win in court because he appointed the judges. I made it clear that I found it painful to surrender my citizenship and intended to take it back when current Canadian conditions had evolved. They have evolved. Canada was made to appear petty in the eyes of other countries, especially the British, who did not suggest that I cease to be a member of the Privy Council of Canada or Officer of the Order of Canada because I was a U.K. citizen. Canada, one of the world’s great countries despite Chrétien, was made to appear a land of yokels, and not by me. Mr. Mercer’s antics don’t completely banish that impression, but events have.
My legal travails in the United States, abetted by some Canadians, have nothing to do with citizenship, but I appreciate Mr. Mercer’s support. The poverty of the case against the defendants will be exposed in the proper place and time. I agree that it must all seem to have its comical aspects, and I don’t think I can be accused of taking the recent fluctuations of my circumstances too seriously.
Not everyone facing the onslaught I have would be rolling around on the floor laughing about it. Those who have endured such a thing may judge. I am fighting for my freedom, and will eventually, if I must, fight for my freedom to be a Canadian as well as a British citizen. I will send Mr. Mercer a “Free Conrad” T-shirt (now available in some stores) in the hope that it broadens his appreciation that the caprices of government, in one country and another, like the hackneyed parodies of a comedian, are not always hilarious.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:06 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The following unlinkable article by former newspaper baron Conrad Black, appeared in today's National Post in response to a swipe by Canadian comedian Rick Mercer. (A quite inferior swipe I might add, compared to the intelligence of the return broadside below). The issue raises a number of points: Can a Canadian also be British; can a Canadian receive a British titular honour from Her Majesty; can a Canadian even receive a Canadian honour from Her Majesty anymore; can a Canadian be honoured in another country without political interference; can a Canadian sit in the House of Lords without renouncing his citizenship; did former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien act the part of a sniveling, petulant tyrant, when he decided to retaliate without proper precedent against a private citizen who dared criticize him?
I suppose I should be grateful to Rick Mercer for his attempt at humour on my behalf. As a public service, I can set his mind at ease on several points.I am not actually doing much about my citizenship right now, but confirmed to someone who asked me on television (TV Ontario’s Steve Paikin) that I would eventually do as I said I would when I renounced the citizenship: seek to take it back. I never uttered one word of disparagement of Canada, was proud to be a dual citizen of Canada and the U.K. and look forward to regaining that status again. I seek no treatment different to anyone else’s. When the time eventually comes, I believe I can clear the hurdle all candidates must meet as a law-abiding, economically productive person. I care and know about the country, and my wife and sons and daughter are Canadians, and will sponsor me.
I understand the temptation to portray me as a medieval poltroon in satin breeches, a powdered wig and an ermine collar. But the House of Lords is the most distinguished legislative chamber in the world in terms of the achievements of its members and quality of its debates. Jean Chrétien, who was approved by two thirds of Canadians at the time according to polls, created a second class of citizenship in a foreign country, consisting of one person, me, ineligible to receive an honour in that country, for services rendered in that country, because of being a dual citizen, although there are more than a dozen joint citizens in the House of Lords, and because he did not like what we wrote about him in this newspaper.
The Canadian courts, which had the right and duty to revoke him, claimed not to have jurisdiction. Chrétien, with whom I had had cordial relations for 25 years, made it clear that his motive in intervening as he did, contrary to the advice he received from his own officials, was that the National Post, of which I was then the publisher, was questioning the financial probity of his government. We seem not to have been mistaken.
He boasted to friends of mine that he would win in court because he appointed the judges. I made it clear that I found it painful to surrender my citizenship and intended to take it back when current Canadian conditions had evolved. They have evolved. Canada was made to appear petty in the eyes of other countries, especially the British, who did not suggest that I cease to be a member of the Privy Council of Canada or Officer of the Order of Canada because I was a U.K. citizen. Canada, one of the world’s great countries despite Chrétien, was made to appear a land of yokels, and not by me. Mr. Mercer’s antics don’t completely banish that impression, but events have.
My legal travails in the United States, abetted by some Canadians, have nothing to do with citizenship, but I appreciate Mr. Mercer’s support. The poverty of the case against the defendants will be exposed in the proper place and time. I agree that it must all seem to have its comical aspects, and I don’t think I can be accused of taking the recent fluctuations of my circumstances too seriously.
Not everyone facing the onslaught I have would be rolling around on the floor laughing about it. Those who have endured such a thing may judge. I am fighting for my freedom, and will eventually, if I must, fight for my freedom to be a Canadian as well as a British citizen. I will send Mr. Mercer a “Free Conrad” T-shirt (now available in some stores) in the hope that it broadens his appreciation that the caprices of government, in one country and another, like the hackneyed parodies of a comedian, are not always hilarious.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:06 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, October 01, 2006
The British Bulldog is not dead
Canada's most popular political blog, Small Dead Animals, thinks the British Bulldog is dead. As proof they cite this, this, this and this. They may have a point when it comes to the British media, but they're not the Bulldog. The Bulldog is on the fighting streets of Afghanistan and Iraq, not on the Fleet Street of defeatist manufactured opinion.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 8:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Canada's most popular political blog, Small Dead Animals, thinks the British Bulldog is dead. As proof they cite this, this, this and this. They may have a point when it comes to the British media, but they're not the Bulldog. The Bulldog is on the fighting streets of Afghanistan and Iraq, not on the Fleet Street of defeatist manufactured opinion.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 8:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
So much for English Common Law...
In Britain this week comes the news of Mohammed Ilyas Khan, a 60-year-old immigration judge involved in an affair with an illegal immigrant once married to a Serbian mobster. This woman is now in Holloway jail accused of blackmailing Khan's former partner, ANOTHER JUDGE known only as 'Judge J' using two homemade sex videos she stole from Khan.
This story has an additional moral- with all the talk lately about the rights of immigrants to enter our countries and expect to make no sacrifices or respect any of our values comes another case where a senior immigration official has been accused himself of blackmailing an 18-year-old Zimbabwean rape victim in exchange for helping her win her asylum claim.
Neither immigration officials mentioned above were British but themselves immigrants.
Makes you all the more impressed with Australia's recent stance...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 6:28 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In Britain this week comes the news of Mohammed Ilyas Khan, a 60-year-old immigration judge involved in an affair with an illegal immigrant once married to a Serbian mobster. This woman is now in Holloway jail accused of blackmailing Khan's former partner, ANOTHER JUDGE known only as 'Judge J' using two homemade sex videos she stole from Khan.
This story has an additional moral- with all the talk lately about the rights of immigrants to enter our countries and expect to make no sacrifices or respect any of our values comes another case where a senior immigration official has been accused himself of blackmailing an 18-year-old Zimbabwean rape victim in exchange for helping her win her asylum claim.
Neither immigration officials mentioned above were British but themselves immigrants.
Makes you all the more impressed with Australia's recent stance...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 6:28 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
