The British Monarchy in Canada: a criticism

In regard to the clear bias of the author of the article “Who Will Wear the Crown of Canada” (Macleans, July 5th, 2010), allow me to say, I am one Canadian who doesn’t care for the British Monarchy to remain in Canada.

The author, who’s clearly a Monarchist, insists on dismissing the fact that 2/3s of Canadians want Canada to cut its ties from the Monarchy.

Here are three VERY good reasons why:

1. The Monarchy is archaic and expensive to maintain.
2. It’s a symbol of feudalism, elitism, colonialism and racism.
3. It’s NOT democratic (that which Canada claims to be).

The author tries, and fails, to show the problems with ridding Canada of such an ineffective and unnecessary baggage by relying on anti-American sentiments. He/she mentions Richard Nixon as exemplary of power grab in a presidential system–really? Why not mention France as an example of a presidential system that works well when head of state and head of government are combined? And if he/she insisted on using Americans, then why not mention Bill Clinton or Barack Obama who Canadians love?

He/she mentions Richard Nixon no doubt to scare Canadians about power grabs that can occur under a presidential system, but why not use Stephen Harper as an example of power grab under a parliamentary system? Furthermore, voting for a Governor General, as opposed to selecting one (current method) won’t result in a politician as the author insists. If the power of the GG is clearly defined through constitution reform, no such thing will occur.

The author insists that reforming the Constitution is too problematic and too much work; in other words: he/she is playing into the indifference Canadians feel toward an impersonal system they know nothing about. The real issue is that Canadian politicians lack guts. They don’t have the backbone to stand up for what the Canadian people want: the reform of an old, ineffective and irrelevant system. Constitution reform would make the current system more people-friendly, and by default, more democratic.

Lastly, it’s disturbing how the author insists on telling Canadians (whom he/she views as children, no doubt) to count their blessings for having a head of state born and bred for the position. He/she fails to realize that such a head of state is foreign born/raised and lives in a foreign country.There is nothing wrong with wanting a head of state that is Canadian–it’s called Canadian pride, and also, self-respect. The Canadian people waste $50 million a year on an archaic system that is not relevant to their lives; one that fewer and fewer of them feel any connection to.The Monarchy is empty glamor and glitz and nothing else.

It’s the 21st century, and it’s time for Canada to stop being a “child”; and moreover, stop being hypocritical. Canada calls itself a democracy and yet the most powerful political figure is non-democratically elected. It insists it’s a ethnically/racially diverse country, and yet, every time the British Monarchy comes around waving its flag of imperialism, racism, wealth/privilege and subjugation, the non-white, non-Anglo, working class, non-protestant and colonized peoples of Canada are reminded that they’re not really Canadian, and are only visitors at best, or colonized children at worse.

About TCDH

Blogger with an opinion.
This entry was posted in Canada, Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s