[Hydrogen]

Who would be this new head of state??

Creating a president type role is stupid as most people in India don't care or know who their president is.

Whether you like it or not Harper is elected, the Queen is not. That makes a difference to some people.

There has been no decision who the actual head of state would be if/when there is no monarch. Needless to say, I'd prefer a head of state that is elected or at least represents Canadians, and that such a person would be chosen from the population of Canada. I don't buy into hereditary traditionalism for the sake of hereditary traditionalism.

As for the experiences of India, so what; we are not India. Then again, are you suggesting that Indians are somehow stupid for not knowing who their head of state is and, as a result, should be headed once again by the Queen? If what you say is actually accurate, that does not say all that much about the position of president in India, but more of the people and their interest in politics presently. It does not negate the position of president, nor does it suggest that the head of state for India should be the Queen once again.

 

[theowne]

Actually, Indians are rather political. The reason Indians don't care about the president is because the president is meaningless in India. Theoretically they have power, but in real life its the Prime Minister and the council who gets everything done. It's similar in Singapore - the president is largely ceremonial. But then, in America or Sri Lanka, the president holds a lot of power. Never really understood it myself, I'm not much of a politics whiz.

 

[lordmandeep]

That is what I meant ^^^.

They know who he is but he is useless.

 

[CDL.TO]

No, our head of state should be someone who represents all the people... someone we we all can believe in, trust and cherish... someone who would never lead us astray, who will always make life better for us.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/yourmajesty.jpg

My, that outfit he's wearing is certainly adorned with pippypoos. And I was expecting a rule defined by clean design. Shocking!

 

[ShonTron]

Ganjavih,

Thank you for that! Twice in a row now.

 

[Tewder]

You have stated that the monarch is relevant, but you have failed to state how it is relevant today.

I'm not sure how you're defining 'relevancy'. You feel that history, heritage and tradition have no importance to Canada today, but I have argued that we are the Canada we are today because of those very things... how is that not relevant?

 

[Hydrogen]

If you don't like relevance, how about pointless or useless?

Concerning my feelings, history, heritage and traditions are always used selectively when people want to imbue the monarchy with traditional value. The institution is nothing more than elderly form of a tribal chieftanism gone wild, and one where power was essentially restricted to one family. The fact that it exists in such a neutered form simply underscores how empty that tradition is today.

We conveniently neglect or forget the unseemly or negative aspects or history that so often come packaged with the attempts to preserve such traditions and history. I see no reason to keep a monarch simply on the basis of history or heritage. To preserve this institution on the basis of such a facile rationale (that it is historical and traditional) could be an avenue to arguing for the retention of virtually any outmoded cultural practice. I don't think society should proceed in such a manner.

 

[Accident]

I am from Northern Ontario Born and bred, and if the monarchy goes........
I am a separatist, better yet the biggest Separatist, all my actions is getting Ottawa out of power, supporting union with the USA or getting Quebec to seperate (and they will probably rejoined with France, afterwards.)
Sound's pretty hard lined?

 

[doug]

sounds stupid and poorly thought out.

 

[NIL OMNI]

Shocked at the results of this thread. When will Canada grow up and come fully into its own (yes of course, while still respecting its past etc...)? *Sigh*

 

[GenerationW]

I'm shocked that over 200 people care about this issue!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Shocked at the results of this thread. When will Canada grow up and come fully into its own (yes of course, while still respecting its past etc...)? *Sigh*

I don't agree that the fifteen nations outside of the UK and have the monarch as symbolic head of state (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis) have not fully come into their own. Surely Australian, for example, see their country as a fully independent nation, yet with historic ties to its Imperial past. I see no issue with this.

 

[doug]

You forgot Bermuda

 

[Admiral Beez]

You forgot Bermuda

Bermuda, like the BVI, Falklands, Tristan da Cunha, etc. are British Overseas Territories and are therefore considered British property. The Queen is the boss in these territories not of their choosing, so this is a different situation than Canada, or any of the now independent ex-Imperial territories keeping the monarchy as head of state.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Not much eye candy at the Royal Wedding today, I thought. Randy Andy's daughters looked particularly ridiculous in their headgear - Beatrice resembling Landseer's The Monarch of the Glen with that Philip Treacy stucture perched on top of her head.