ry

 

 

 

© Opinions

the other press

Kerry Evans =e

opinionsubmit@hotmail.com

flugust 2003

 

Right Hook 2

J.J. McCullough
Op Columnist

A few weeks ago there was an interest-
ing story that received little press in the
Canadian media. Apparently, an
Ontario court has ruled that there is, in
fact no such thing as a “distinct”
Canadian monarchy, and Canada’s head
of state is thus, still the Queen of
England.

This may prompt a confused “huh?”
from many readers. The fact that
Canada remains a constitutional
monarchy is a fact most Canadians
would like to ignore. But alas, it is true.
Much like Belgium, Tonga, and Saudi
Arabia, Canada’s Head of State is a
hereditary monarch. “Her most
Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second, the Queen of Canada.” Or at
least that’s what she used to be known
as.

This recent debacle over the status of
the “Canadian Monarchy” all started
when a fellow named Tony O’Donohue
decided to sue the Canadian
Government on the grounds that the
“Act of Settlement” which dictates who
can become the King or Queen of
England, (and thus Canada’s monarch)
violates Canada’s constitution.

The Act of Settlement announces
that only “members of the Church of
England” (Anglicans) can become
monarch, which Mr. O’Donohue states
violates Canada’s Charter of Rights,
which clearly states:

“Every individual is equal before and
under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of
the law without discrimination and, in
particular, without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or
physical disability.”

So, he argues, if Canada’s Head of
State is only allowed to be an Anglican,
this blatantly contradicts Canada’s legal
notions of equality for all.

After all, we have no rules saying the
Prime Minister is only allowed to be
Anglican, so why should the office of
Canada’s Head of State be any differ-
ent?

Ah, says the judge, that is where you
are wrong.

Though the Canadian Parliament
proclaimed Queen Elizabeth IT “Queen
of Canada” in 1952, and thus a “dis-
tinct” monarch from that of Queen
Elizabeth II, Queen of England, this
court ruling has effectively stricken that
down

The judge points to the preamble to
Canada’s constitution:

“WHEREAS the Provinces of
Canada, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick have expressed their Desire
to be federally united into One
Dominion under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, with a Constitution similar in
Principle to that of the United

Kingdom.”

She says that this sentence in the con-
stitution clearly indicates that there is
no legal “Queen of Canada” or
“Canadian Monarchy,” and thus only
the British Queen and Monarchy.

And since the institution of the
British monarchy does not belong to
Canada, we are not allowed to change
its rules.

So, in other words, Canada is still
trapped in a neo-colonial relationship
with Britain, in which we are not even
permitted to tamper with the office of
our Head of State, as it does not belong
to us.

This is more significant that it seems.

Though the Queen is often dismissed
as an irrelevant figurehead, her consti-
tutional powers are quite sweeping.

She has the power to dissolve our par-
liament, appoint our judges, senators,
and Prime Minister, and declare
war.The British monarchs can legally
do just about anything they want to.

Of course, they never do, but I find it
disturbing that in today’s modern day
and age, the so-called independent
nation of Canada continues to bestow
such sweeping constitutional authority
to a foreign monarchy that we have no
control over.

Regardless, the fact that our Head of
State “never does anything” should also
be a source of concern, not comfort.

In the parliamentary system, the
Head of State is an important part of
the political process. His or her job is to
be involved in the government, not
simply sit around and cut the ribbon at
the new Wal Mart.

The Head of State’s job is to be polit-
ically aware, and be sophisticated
enough to know when to exercise his
emergency powers to dissolve
Parliament, fire the Prime Minister, etc.

The presidents of Italy, or India, or
Israel, or Germany or wherever, are all
politically aware, important political
figures in their respective nations’ par-
liamentary governments. They take
their role seriously, and when they exer-
cise their powers, there is not mass out-
rage, because they have a public man-
date.

It is very unhealthy, in a parliamen-
tary system for the Head of State to be
such a non-participant. It is part of the
reason why our Prime Minister has
evolved into such a dictator over the
years.

If Canada is truly an independent
country, and a country of laws, then we
deserve the right to decide the terms of
our Head of State.

If the courts say we do not have the
right to do so, than they have admitted
that there is still a higher authority in
Canada then our own constitution
Britain.

How did we get into this constitu-

tional mess in the first place? Well, like
most of Canada’s political history, it was
a long and convoluted process.

Our nation, as you may recall, was
founded in opposition to the revolu-
tionary republic of the United States.
Their ideas of egalitarianism, democra-
cy, and republicanism were deemed
unacceptable by the Loyalist refugees of
North America. To them, and their
colonial English backers, the ideas of a
rigid class-based society, state religion,
and of course monarchial government
were clearly superior principles. Thus,
nine decades after the American revolu-
tion, when the British finally granted
the Canadian peoples some semblance
of a democratic-self government, the
British-born “Fathers of
Confederation” overwhelmingly decid-
ed to keep the new “Dominion of
Canada” under the authority of the
British crown. It’s not like they really
had any choice in this matter, as Britain
would have never agreed to approve
anything else. By keeping the crown,
Britain was able to continue to exert
political influences on the Dominion,
even long after the famous date of July
1, 1867- a day many Canadians wrong-
ly believe to be our “independence
day.”

Until the 1931 signing of the Statute
of Westminster (a political treaty
Britain drew up as a concession for
drafting them into World War I) the
United Kingdom continued to make
laws for Canada, acting through the
prerogative of the crown, which had
long been delegated to British politi-
cians.

It was not until after the Second
World War and the death of King
George VI that Canada began to start
drifting away from the colonial mind-
set. And a changing a mindset required
a change in government.

Canada had always observed the
British monarch as the titular “head” of
the nation since its modern founding,
but ideas of who is Canada’s “Head of
State” are much more recent develop-
ments.

Prior to 1947, there was legally no
such thing as a “Canadian.” We were all
British Subjects, legally interchangeable
with citizens from the UK. But then
post war patriotism began to swell, and
Britain allowed us to form our own dis-
tinct citizenship. It should come as no
surprise that one of the terms of
Canadian citizenship involved—and
still does—taking an oath of allegiance
to the British monarch.

Since we were no longer British
Subjects, our office of Head of State
would have to be updated. This was
really the first time in history Canada
began to think of the British crown as a
distinct organ of the Canadian govern-
ment, as opposed to the grand Imperial

http://www.otherpress.ca

Country, colony, or historical anachronism
What exactly IS Canada?

government of the British Empire.
When King George died in 1953,
and Princess Elizabeth became queen,
the Canadian parliament hurriedly
decided that she would henceforth be
known as the “Queen of Canada.” She
was supposed to be a distinct and sepa-
rate monarch from the Queen of
England, reflecting the fact that
Canadians were no longer subject to the
authority of the British government.
This idea is clearly ridiculous. The
Queen of England can no more be the
Queen of Canada than the President of
Peru can be Emperor of Japan. But the
Canadian government pressed on, with
the time-honoured Canadian spirit that
logic should not stand in the way of
constitutional decisions.
Thanks to Canada’s less

admirable historical rejection of repub-

than

licanism, modern-day Canada remains
saddled with a foreign monarchy.

Canadians, mired in apathy, have
refused to do anything about this
bizarre anachronism. Even debating its
existence has been deemed pointless. As
I mentioned, the argument that “she
does nothing” seems to be the primary
justification for keeping the Queen,
from most Canadians I talk to on the
subject. And it’s true, other than under-
mining our national sovereignty and
democratic principles she does in fact,
do nothing.

For a country of people who do noth-
ing but hem and haw over how the evil
United States is infringing on our “sov-
ereignty” with their sinister “foreign
influences” we certainly don’t seem to
have that much of a problem with liv-
ing under a foreign monarchy, and the
various foreign trappings it imposes on
our sovereignty.

In a nation that prides itself on toler-
ance and equality, we apparently see no
problem in keeping a super-exclusive
whites-only, Anglicans-only, wealthy
inbred family at the political epicenter
of our constitution.

This recent court case has highlighted
what a bizarre historical anachronism
Canada continues to be, largely due to
our own apathy, fear of change, and
lack of ambition for anything higher
than the status quo.

Though the Queen is supposed to
serve as a symbol of our government,
she appears to be having an increasing-
ly hard time maintaining that facade.
Her website only mentions Canada in
passing, as part of a long “laundry list”
of Her Majesty’s “other realms and ter-
ritories,” and her recent actions have
done little to affirm that the opinions of
Canada are important to her.

On the eve of Britain’s deployment of
troops to the Persian Gulf to fight
Saddam Hussein, Queen Elizabeth
delivered a stirring speech commemo-
rating the bravery and strength of the

continued on page 10

Page 9