Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.
My understanding is that in Canada, we recognize the monarch as sovereign, but we do not, unlike the UK, have an aristocracy, and therefore Harry and Meghan, if they do reside in this country, are not any more important than any other person living here who come from abroad.
I love how unbothered Canadians are about the monarchy.
Watch rural Canada assimilate them into the local book club and put them on the serving line at the annual beef bbq and community fundraiser for a hospice unit at the local hospital.
That same rural Canada will defend their right to live unbothered, as the rest of us do. Already we hear reports of seaplane charters refusing to carry paparazzi over to the island.
The sooner we can assimilate them into rural Canadian life the better it will be for everyone concerned.
AFF
But they don't want to be assimilated into rural Canadian life.
How do you know? Sounds like quite an attractive option to me!
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.
My understanding is that in Canada, we recognize the monarch as sovereign, but we do not, unlike the UK, have an aristocracy, and therefore Harry and Meghan, if they do reside in this country, are not any more important than any other person living here who come from abroad.
I love how unbothered Canadians are about the monarchy.
Watch rural Canada assimilate them into the local book club and put them on the serving line at the annual beef bbq and community fundraiser for a hospice unit at the local hospital.
That same rural Canada will defend their right to live unbothered, as the rest of us do. Already we hear reports of seaplane charters refusing to carry paparazzi over to the island.
The sooner we can assimilate them into rural Canadian life the better it will be for everyone concerned.
AFF
But they don't want to be assimilated into rural Canadian life.
How do you know? Sounds like quite an attractive option to me!
Ehh, the reality doesn't always quite match the myth.
Granted, with a few zillion pounds in the bank, you could probably make it work.
I see that Lisa Nandy took Piers Morgan to task over Meghan. He has been prating for weeks, that there has been no racism or misogyny shown to her, to which Nandy had the obvious reply, how do you know? How does a white privileged overfed male like Morgan know what she feels like?
It must have helped her candidacy for Labour leader, well, maybe.
Apparently British intrusive photographers do not understand Canadian privacy laws, nor the culture. Voyeurism and stalking are being discussed on radio news about some idiot with a long lens camera in some bushes wanting to hump one or more of this family with it.
Reminds us we're not Americans. As long as it looks good on stamps, bank notes and proclamations.
Even some Canadian republicans, such as they are, have promised that, in the event of aboliiton, Canada would certainly never stoop to anything so yankee-vulgar as a president, and have proposed that we maintain the title "governor-general" for our head of state.
I've also heard it suggested that, instead of a direct-vote, the Order Of Canada should elect one of its members as head of state. (Sort of like those high-school votes for valedictorian, where the students get a choice, but the only candidates allowed are the ones who got above an 85% average.)
So, all the elitism of a Queen, with none of the romance. I can kinda see why the movement has never really caught fire.
Even better is when the globe and mail, etc. push for the GG in such a case to be from the Order of Canada. The entire editorial board are members of the Order of Canada, so they'd all be shoo-ins. Credit to Augustine the aleut for pointing this out.
Reminds us we're not Americans. As long as it looks good on stamps, bank notes and proclamations.
Even some Canadian republicans, such as they are, have promised that, in the event of aboliiton, Canada would certainly never stoop to anything so yankee-vulgar as a president, and have proposed that we maintain the title "governor-general" for our head of state.
I've also heard it suggested that, instead of a direct-vote, the Order Of Canada should elect one of its members as head of state. (Sort of like those high-school votes for valedictorian, where the students get a choice, but the only candidates allowed are the ones who got above an 85% average.)
So, all the elitism of a Queen, with none of the romance. I can kinda see why the movement has never really caught fire.
Even better is when the globe and mail, etc. push for the GG in such a case to be from the Order of Canada. The entire editorial board are members of the Order of Canada, so they'd all be shoo-ins. Credit to Augustine the aleut for pointing this out.
The Globe goes on some weird editorial tangents sometimes. Back in the 90s, they were pushing for Canada Day to be called Dominion Day again, and gave as one of their arguments that "dominion" is a fine old word, known far and wide through its usage in the Bible.
Their Quebec columnist responded with a column pointing out that the Bible as a literary work does not enjoy quite the same esteem in Quebec, or indeed Catholic cultures generally, as it does in English Canada.
Even less sense than the EC, because the College does occassionally make a difference in how elections turn out, as compared to a system of direct vote.
Whereas the monarchy, while it does perform a needed function, doesn't do anything more than what could be done by a president in a figurehead-presidential system, and makes no difference to who gets elected and what laws get passed.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Having the President being chosen another way, say by the members of the Order of Canada for example, would defeat the purpose of abolition of the monarchy. If the reason for discarding the monarchy is because it is fundamentally undemocratic, then it seems backwards to then change the system to one that is almost equally undemocratic (why, should for example, Order of Canada recipients be given a greater vote than anyone else).
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
Sorry, I'm not parsing this argument. Could you go through it a bit more thoroughly? It seems like you're arguing that either:
A monarch has no political legitimacy. Monarchs without political legitimacy are usually referred to as "pretenders", meaning that there is actually no such thing as a monarch.
- or -
If a monarch/monarchy is politically legitimate they cannot "be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead", which contradicts your claimed advantage of a monarch over an elected official.
These seem at odds with the rest of your post, leading to my current state of confusion.
Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.
My understanding is that in Canada, we recognize the monarch as sovereign, but we do not, unlike the UK, have an aristocracy, and therefore Harry and Meghan, if they do reside in this country, are not any more important than any other person living here who come from abroad.
I love how unbothered Canadians are about the monarchy.
Watch rural Canada assimilate them into the local book club and put them on the serving line at the annual beef bbq and community fundraiser for a hospice unit at the local hospital.
That same rural Canada will defend their right to live unbothered, as the rest of us do. Already we hear reports of seaplane charters refusing to carry paparazzi over to the island.
The sooner we can assimilate them into rural Canadian life the better it will be for everyone concerned.
AFF
But they don't want to be assimilated into rural Canadian life.
How do you know? Sounds like quite an attractive option to me!
Ehh, the reality doesn't always quite match the myth.
Granted, with a few zillion pounds in the bank, you could probably make it work.
O well - I was going by what others have said, but point taken...
It should be noted that there are modern examples of elected monarchs (though not popularly elected monarchs, AFAIK). The most famous example is the Pope. In addition to being the head of the Roman Catholic Church the Pope is also the King of Vatican City, a recognized state. Of course the Pope is neither "neutral" nor a "ceremonial figurehead" (aside from the fact that he frequently leads ceremonies), but this does not seem to be considered a disadvantage by advocates of the Papacy.
The other example that comes to mind is the restored Cambodian monarchy. The monarch is elected by the nine member Royal Council of the Throne of Cambodia which picks the new monarch from any member of the Norodom or Sisowath bloodlines who is over thirty years old at the time of succession. The Cambodian monarch seems a lot more like the desired "neutral and ceremonial figurehead" than the Pope, at least from my limited knowledge of the position.
Even less sense than the EC, because the College does occassionally make a difference in how elections turn out, as compared to a system of direct vote.
Whereas the monarchy, while it does perform a needed function, doesn't do anything more than what could be done by a president in a figurehead-presidential system, and makes no difference to who gets elected and what laws get passed.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Do places with figurehead presidents often run into problems with the president trying to throw his weight around based on supposedly having more legitimacy than the PM and the parliament? I can't say I recall that being much of an issue in Ireland, Italy, Israel etc. Usually from what I read, their presidents just behave the same way as Governors-General do in the Commonwealth Realms.
I cannot pretend to have been following this threat at all closely, so if my remarks have already been expressed, I apologise for my laziness.
ISTM that what the Sussexes have done is in conformity with the policy decided by the Queen and the Prince of Wales following the embarrassment caused by the Duke of York, namely, that the Royal Family should be concentrated around those in the line of succession. The photo of the Queen, Charles, William and his sprog was designed to say just that. It is, surely, undesirable that those increasingly remote from the succession should be condemned to exist only to reflect the glory of the monarch. Harry and Megan may have jumped the gun, but it is the logical consequence of the new policy. I'm just sorry they didn't opt for Botswana!
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
[tangent]
Why the fuck was he pardoned ?
[/tangent]
I cannot pretend to have been following this threat at all closely, so if my remarks have already been expressed, I apologise for my laziness.
ISTM that what the Sussexes have done is in conformity with the policy decided by the Queen and the Prince of Wales following the embarrassment caused by the Duke of York, namely, that the Royal Family should be concentrated around those in the line of succession. The photo of the Queen, Charles, William and his sprog was designed to say just that. It is, surely, undesirable that those increasingly remote from the succession should be condemned to exist only to reflect the glory of the monarch. Harry and Megan may have jumped the gun, but it is the logical consequence of the new policy. I'm just sorry they didn't opt for Botswana!
That's my take on it too. The Sussexes may have got the cart before the horse in terms of announcing intentions and putting the Royal Back up for a bit. But things were surely tending that way for a long time? In due course, this'll probably be considered one of those pivotal moments which helped to ensure the longevity of the UK Royal family.
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
[tangent]
Why the fuck was he pardoned ?
[/tangent]
It appears that we'd have to ask Jimmy Carter, who like all such leaders and presidents, has questionable morals. I'm on the page of permanent no-pardon, and lifetime supervision of sex offenders. I had no knowledge of this man before reading this today.
I haven't heard Puff the Magic Dragon for many years. We assumed it was about drugs smoking.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
[tangent]
Why the fuck was he pardoned ?
[/tangent]
It appears that we'd have to ask Jimmy Carter, who like all such leaders presidents, has questionable morals. I'm on the page of permanent no-pardon, and lifetime supervision of sex offenders.
I don't have any insight as to why Yarrow specifically was granted a pardon, but the dates involved from the link give a little implicit context. Yarrow was pardoned in 1981, which means it was a lame duck pardon. (i.e. Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, had been elected but not inaugurated yet.) Presidents often issue a lot of last minute pardons before leaving office and, as you can imagine, the controversial ones tend to end up being signed immediately after elections. It's also notable that Yarrow had, according to Wikipedia, already served his sentence by the time the pardon was issued.
I thought the point of pardons was to correct miscarriages of justice or the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders.
Unjust laws, yes. They can be used for miscarriages of justice, and especially for cases where the penalty is disproportionate, but the trouble is, to receive a pardon is to admit guilt. So if there's an innocent in prison, he/she is going to be in a tough spot over accepting a pardon--which makes it not a great way of dealing with such cases. Though no doubt it's been used that way.
I thought the point of pardons was to correct miscarriages of justice or the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
I thought the point of pardons was to correct miscarriages of justice or the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
I thought the point of pardons was to correct miscarriages of justice or the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
Note my comment on “unjust laws”
I did. I'm just a little unclear as to whether your standards for "acknowledged offenders" takes precedence over your claim about "unjust laws". The way you phrased it, " . . . the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders", made it sound like these were two mutually exclusive things. If you were an "acknowledged offender" you couldn't have been convicted under an "unjust law" and if you were guilty of violating an "unjust law" you weren't an "acknowledged offender". Be careful throwing around your nots.
Even less sense than the EC, because the College does occassionally make a difference in how elections turn out, as compared to a system of direct vote.
Whereas the monarchy, while it does perform a needed function, doesn't do anything more than what could be done by a president in a figurehead-presidential system, and makes no difference to who gets elected and what laws get passed.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Do places with figurehead presidents often run into problems with the president trying to throw his weight around based on supposedly having more legitimacy than the PM and the parliament? I can't say I recall that being much of an issue in Ireland, Italy, Israel etc. Usually from what I read, their presidents just behave the same way as Governors-General do in the Commonwealth Realms.
Well, there was the case of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh's resignation in 1976, but perhaps more germane to @stetson 's point was the low-volume but tough tussle between President Mary Robinson and Taoiseach Charles Haughey, where the point was frequently made by her supporters that she was elected by the citizens of the Republic, where he was not. President MacAleese had her own way of being outspoken, generally through informal avenues, given that the president's public statements must be counter-signed by a minister, and the point of her national constituency was discussed in the press.
What might interest some shipmates (well, 2 or 3, at any rate) is that the Irish presidency was designed on the model of the governor-generalship as was manifested in Canada in the interwar period; and should somehow we get 10 provinces to agree to move to a republican model (ha!) some of the details of Irish law on this might be of use.
Do places with figurehead presidents often run into problems with the president trying to throw his weight around based on supposedly having more legitimacy than the PM and the parliament? I can't say I recall that being much of an issue in Ireland, Italy, Israel etc. Usually from what I read, their presidents just behave the same way as Governors-General do in the Commonwealth Realms.
Well, there was the case of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh's resignation in 1976, but perhaps more germane to @stetson 's point was the low-volume but tough tussle between President Mary Robinson and Taoiseach Charles Haughey, where the point was frequently made by her supporters that she was elected by the citizens of the Republic, where he was not. President MacAleese had her own way of being outspoken, generally through informal avenues, given that the president's public statements must be counter-signed by a minister, and the point of her national constituency was discussed in the press.
If the problem is that an elected figurehead president might say or do something the obvious solution is to designate the most recently deceased prime minister to be president and have them stuffed and mounted. Then they can 'preside' over state occasions without worrying about what they might do or say. Plus it provides something for retired prime ministers to look forward to; a return to politics. Just a modest proposal.
Or if you prefer a much less macabre solution to the 'problem' of presidents with opinions some sort of mannequin might work. It might also work for monarchs as well.
Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.
My understanding is that in Canada, we recognize the monarch as sovereign, but we do not, unlike the UK, have an aristocracy, and therefore Harry and Meghan, if they do reside in this country, are not any more important than any other person living here who come from abroad.
I love how unbothered Canadians are about the monarchy.
Watch rural Canada assimilate them into the local book club and put them on the serving line at the annual beef bbq and community fundraiser for a hospice unit at the local hospital.
That same rural Canada will defend their right to live unbothered, as the rest of us do. Already we hear reports of seaplane charters refusing to carry paparazzi over to the island.
The sooner we can assimilate them into rural Canadian life the better it will be for everyone concerned.
AFF
But they don't want to be assimilated into rural Canadian life.
How do you know? Sounds like quite an attractive option to me!
I know this because they want to be world wide celebrities who earn their own millions
Even less sense than the EC, because the College does occassionally make a difference in how elections turn out, as compared to a system of direct vote.
Whereas the monarchy, while it does perform a needed function, doesn't do anything more than what could be done by a president in a figurehead-presidential system, and makes no difference to who gets elected and what laws get passed.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Do places with figurehead presidents often run into problems with the president trying to throw his weight around based on supposedly having more legitimacy than the PM and the parliament? I can't say I recall that being much of an issue in Ireland, Italy, Israel etc. Usually from what I read, their presidents just behave the same way as Governors-General do in the Commonwealth Realms.
Well, there was the case of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh's resignation in 1976, but perhaps more germane to @stetson 's point was the low-volume but tough tussle between President Mary Robinson and Taoiseach Charles Haughey, where the point was frequently made by her supporters that she was elected by the citizens of the Republic, where he was not. President MacAleese had her own way of being outspoken, generally through informal avenues, given that the president's public statements must be counter-signed by a minister, and the point of her national constituency was discussed in the press.
What might interest some shipmates (well, 2 or 3, at any rate) is that the Irish presidency was designed on the model of the governor-generalship as was manifested in Canada in the interwar period; and should somehow we get 10 provinces to agree to move to a republican model (ha!) some of the details of Irish law on this might be of use.
I consider republicanism to be an un-Canadian heresy. Luckily so long as we have cute pictures of young George and Charlotte, the monarchy has little to fear. Send young George for French lessons (his Great Grandma approves) and that's another generation secure.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Having the President being chosen another way, say by the members of the Order of Canada for example, would defeat the purpose of abolition of the monarchy. If the reason for discarding the monarchy is because it is fundamentally undemocratic, then it seems backwards to then change the system to one that is almost equally undemocratic (why, should for example, Order of Canada recipients be given a greater vote than anyone else).
That's the sort of proposition that killed the pro-republic vote in our referendum a couple of decades ago. Many republicans wanted the President elected indirectly - something along the lines of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Federal Parliament in a joint sitting. A Labor MP from Melbourne argued strongly and loudly for a directly elected President, paying no attention to conflicts of legitimacy. This split between republicans gave then PM John Howard the opportunity to get the vote he wanted.
An aside - the Aust States each has a Governor, also appointed by the monarch but on the advice of the State premier. There is no input from the G-G or the federal government. So far, almost no attention has been paid to their appointment should we become a republic.
I thought the point of pardons was to correct miscarriages of justice or the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
An offender against things such as a racist law is very different than sexual assault of a human being. If Wikipedia has the detail correct, Yarrow went after a 14 year old who was in the company of her 17 year old sister. This is not the same as racism that's been cast into law. It's entirely different types of offence.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Having the President being chosen another way, say by the members of the Order of Canada for example, would defeat the purpose of abolition of the monarchy. If the reason for discarding the monarchy is because it is fundamentally undemocratic, then it seems backwards to then change the system to one that is almost equally undemocratic (why, should for example, Order of Canada recipients be given a greater vote than anyone else).
That's the sort of proposition that killed the pro-republic vote in our referendum a couple of decades ago. Many republicans wanted the President elected indirectly - something along the lines of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Federal Parliament in a joint sitting. A Labor MP from Melbourne argued strongly and loudly for a directly elected President, paying no attention to conflicts of legitimacy. This split between republicans gave then PM John Howard the opportunity to get the vote he wanted.
An aside - the Aust States each has a Governor, also appointed by the monarch but on the advice of the State premier. There is no input from the G-G or the federal government. So far, almost no attention has been paid to their appointment should we become a republic.
One of the reasons why Canadian republicanism (although @Sober Preacher's Kid's suggestion that sentiment and an aversion to constitutional discussions are likely key) never got beyond beer-among-graduate-students is that the practicalities of a president in a parliamentary structure suggests indirection election, but that people in general would rather not delegate such matters, and would like a direct voice.
Meanwhile, Harry is on Vancouver Island, and the PM, when pressed on the question/non-question of funding security, repeats that he and the Queen haven't talked about it yet. The time difference is such a challenge.
As far as the Australian states go, I suppose that the Governor of Tasmania can always, on behalf of Her Majesty, welcome the President of Australia to Hobart.
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
In Canadian Polisci 101, my professor mused that because the UK doesn't really have a standard way to amend the constitution, it is easier for the UK to get rid of their monarch than it is for Canada.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
An offender against things such as a racist law is very different than sexual assault of a human being. If Wikipedia has the detail correct, Yarrow went after a 14 year old who was in the company of her 17 year old sister. This is not the same as racism that's been cast into law. It's entirely different types of offence.
That was more or less my point. Saying that anyone who is an "acknowledged offender" is unworthy of a pardon obscures a lot, particularly what they're acknowledged as offending against.
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
[tangent]
Why the fuck was he pardoned ?
[/tangent]
It appears that we'd have to ask Jimmy Carter, who like all such leaders and presidents, has questionable morals. I'm on the page of permanent no-pardon, and lifetime supervision of sex offenders. I had no knowledge of this man before reading this today.
I'm always amazed at how low-profile Yarrow's case managed to remain. The only reason I knew about it at the time was because I happened to randomly look at a newspaper shortly after the pardon was granted. I remember some time later, asking my junior-high music teacher(a baby boomer) if he knew about the case, and he replied no.
Had I not seen the paper that day, I think I could have gone decades without knowing about that. Even for my post on this thread, I had to look up the performer's name.
As for the reason behind his pardon, I'm pretty sure Peter, Paul, and Mary had played Democratic fundraisers over the years, and Carter probably got lobbied by party bigshots. Something in that general vicinity, anyway.
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
In Canadian Polisci 101, my professor mused that because the UK doesn't really have a standard way to amend the constitution, it is easier for the UK to get rid of their monarch than it is for Canada.
Your prof is quite correct, and in the mid-80s some peon at the Privy Council Office was sentenced to write an analysis of Canada's situation should that happened. His supervisor said that if we didn't want to have the Queen in such a circumstance, all we had to do was to figure out what we wanted in her place, and then get ten provinces to agree, at least two provinces requiring referenda.
So shattered was he by his constitutional dossiers, he ended up moving to near Memphremagog where he lives in a most unconventional domestic situation, and raises heritage fowl for epicureans.
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
I think Pierre Trudeau had the right idea back when he was lambasting Mulroney for re-opening the constitution with Meech and Charlottetown: just forget about the constitution. Quebec's signature is just a formality, they still have to follow court rulings the same as everybody else, and having to do so doesn't seem to have pushed them away from Canada. (Caveat: I don't subscribe to the theory that the 1995 referendum was a near-miss, or anything close to that.)
(For non-Canadians: when Pierre Trudeau repatriated the Constitution from the UK and added a Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, Quebec was the one province no to sign the attendant agreement. Mulroney later tried to get special provisions for Quebec added to the Constitution, in exchange for their signature, but his two attempts both ended in failure. When Quebec narrowly voted to remain in Canada in '95, some people attributed the closeness of the vote to anger over the constitutional failures.)
As far as the Australian states go, I suppose that the Governor of Tasmania can always, on behalf of Her Majesty, welcome the President of Australia to Hobart.
That's a naughty thought and you should stand in the corner with your back to the room for a good half hour. So far no-one has paid any attention to the position of State Governors
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
In Canadian Polisci 101, my professor mused that because the UK doesn't really have a standard way to amend the constitution, it is easier for the UK to get rid of their monarch than it is for Canada.
Precedent implies two methods - "we prefer this Dutch bloke", and "just put your neck there please".
Given the choice between constitutional discussions and a root canal, I'd take the root canal. All that happens us that Quebec gets angry and all the other provinces get passive aggressive. Nothing ever gets done.
In Canadian Polisci 101, my professor mused that because the UK doesn't really have a standard way to amend the constitution, it is easier for the UK to get rid of their monarch than it is for Canada.
Precedent implies two methods - "we prefer this Dutch bloke", and "just put your neck there please".
Not long after followed by 'we will get a king who can't speak a word of English, just so we don't have a Catholic'.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
Your prof is quite correct, and in the mid-80s some peon at the Privy Council Office was sentenced to write an analysis of Canada's situation should that happened. His supervisor said that if we didn't want to have the Queen in such a circumstance, all we had to do was to figure out what we wanted in her place, and then get ten provinces to agree, at least two provinces requiring referenda.
It always seems surreal to me the way these supposedly pro-monarchical ideas are never examined together. On the one hand there's the assertion that the monarchy should be a sinecure, doing nothing and not even expressing ideas or opinions ("completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead"). The other is the assertion that there's no possible way to do without this unthinking, do-nothing position.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
Your prof is quite correct, and in the mid-80s some peon at the Privy Council Office was sentenced to write an analysis of Canada's situation should that happened. His supervisor said that if we didn't want to have the Queen in such a circumstance, all we had to do was to figure out what we wanted in her place, and then get ten provinces to agree, at least two provinces requiring referenda.
It always seems surreal to me the way these supposedly pro-monarchical ideas are never examined together. On the one hand there's the assertion that the monarchy should be a sinecure, doing nothing and not even expressing ideas or opinions ("completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead"). The other is the assertion that there's no possible way to do without this unthinking, do-nothing position.
@Crœsos is almost correct in noting that the ideas are never examined together. Nothing about this topic is coherently examined by anybody, especially those who are tenured professors.
For this reason, I made reference to the Irish constitution's provisions for the presidency, and referred to instances where the president of that republic was not a dead fish, but had on account of their having been voted into that position by the state's electorate, a wielder of real power. While the Irish can be rightly blamed for a cavalcade of octogenarians, nonentities, and partisan figures (some hacks, some eminences) until the most recent three occupants (Robinson, MacAleese, and O'Higgins), de Valera can be credited for writing out the details of how this might be made to work. So if we want a replacement for the Crown in Canada, we need to figure out what that person(s) are to do, and perhaps then how to choose them.
Those 6 people on the planet who find this an interesting topic might also want to note how, in Canada's parliamentary crisis of 2015, Michaëlle Jean extended the GG's powers greatly by indicating that her decision to grant prorogation was on her estimation of the political situation, not on advice. So it might seem that circumstances and personality can extend the office's reach beyond that of a simple figurehead. In the aftermath, Mr Harper (of whom I cannot be found saying good very frequently) having finally realized that Canada was not a presidential republic with a monarchical carbuncle attached, took the appointment of her successor very seriously and tried to institute a mechanism to take it out of the prime ministerial whim category.
As a tangent, perhaps someone can do research on the frequency of Canadians posting on this topic in comparison with the weather.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
Your prof is quite correct, and in the mid-80s some peon at the Privy Council Office was sentenced to write an analysis of Canada's situation should that happened. His supervisor said that if we didn't want to have the Queen in such a circumstance, all we had to do was to figure out what we wanted in her place, and then get ten provinces to agree, at least two provinces requiring referenda.
It always seems surreal to me the way these supposedly pro-monarchical ideas are never examined together. On the one hand there's the assertion that the monarchy should be a sinecure, doing nothing and not even expressing ideas or opinions ("completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead"). The other is the assertion that there's no possible way to do without this unthinking, do-nothing position.
The UK might be a constitutional accident in which parliamentary sovereignty strangely balances with a formal monarchy, what Walter Bagehot argued was the genius of the British system, the mythos, the glamour, the religiosity of the state is invested in the Monarch, while the actual dirt on the ground politics is invested in the elected politicians. It is also where I think the concept of the loyal opposition arises, in which case, my loyalty to the State, manifest in Her Majesty, is not questioned, while I can question and attack and criticize every decision that the Prime Minister makes.
The furor was over an episode involving two teenage sisters, one 14 and the other 17, visiting his hotel room in 1969 to seek an autograph. Mr. Yarrow answered the door naked. Other than indecent exposure, there was no sex crime involved. This is classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony.
Mr. Yarrow was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. President Jimmy Carter pardoned him in 1981.
He has continued to express contrition and regret over an incident that happened 51 years ago.
There are no other reports of inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Yarrow.
At what point is a person absolved a a past indiscretion? He has a presidential pardon. Seems like people need to move on.
Reaching back to A Feminine Force's extolling the virtues of life on bucolic Vancouver Island, she forced me to perform the mind experiment of Prince Harry's joining the Royal Canadian Legion (of which I'm a member), for which he'd be eligible, visualising him, leaning against the bar at Branch #65 in Tofino, signing up for the darts night (Thursday evenings at my local hall). I look forward to running into him at a hall, though I don't hold out much realistic hope.
Someone above (Stetson?) mentioned the Globe and Mail's editorial policy regarding Dominion vs Canada Day. There must have been a bit of civil strife in the boardroom, because I distinctly recall editorials in past defending the Canada Day designation (despite the fact that it's illegal as there wasn't quorum in the Commons when it passed). Confusion on the name reigned as I was still attending the Dominion Day Regatta up to around 1990 (it may have continued as the DDR beyond that), and today the Canada Day Regatta is administered by the Dominion Day Regatta Association. Very Canadian.
As to having the members of the Order of Canada elect a Governor General, or President, or whatever Poobah, I think the only place that I've seen that proposed is, again, in the editorials of the Globe and Mail. The G&M brain trust also advocated passage of the Charlottetown Accord in the 1992 referendum, threatening the collapse of the arc of heaven were the Accord not passed. They're not to be trusted with sharp objects.
Comments
How do you know? Sounds like quite an attractive option to me!
Had no idea about any of that over here in the UK- and to think I first heard it (and continue to do so) on a Kid-Friendly radio station my children listen to.
Well, I'm assuming a lot of kid-friendly stations continue to play Puff The Magic Dragon, even though Peter Yarrow was charged with crimes at least as serious as Ghomeshi's, and, unlike Ghomeshi, found guilty.
Ehh, the reality doesn't always quite match the myth.
Granted, with a few zillion pounds in the bank, you could probably make it work.
It must have helped her candidacy for Labour leader, well, maybe.
Even better is when the globe and mail, etc. push for the GG in such a case to be from the Order of Canada. The entire editorial board are members of the Order of Canada, so they'd all be shoo-ins. Credit to Augustine the aleut for pointing this out.
The Globe goes on some weird editorial tangents sometimes. Back in the 90s, they were pushing for Canada Day to be called Dominion Day again, and gave as one of their arguments that "dominion" is a fine old word, known far and wide through its usage in the Bible.
Their Quebec columnist responded with a column pointing out that the Bible as a literary work does not enjoy quite the same esteem in Quebec, or indeed Catholic cultures generally, as it does in English Canada.
The best constitutional argument for hereditary monarchy is that if you have an elected President, you give that person political legitimacy so you cannot expect the president to be completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead.
In Canada's system, if we ever move towards a republican system, we would have to figure out the checks and balances between an elected President and a Prime Minister. A directly elected President could conceivably claim h/she is more legitimate than the PM, since the office of PM is not one directly elected by the populace.
Having the President being chosen another way, say by the members of the Order of Canada for example, would defeat the purpose of abolition of the monarchy. If the reason for discarding the monarchy is because it is fundamentally undemocratic, then it seems backwards to then change the system to one that is almost equally undemocratic (why, should for example, Order of Canada recipients be given a greater vote than anyone else).
Sorry, I'm not parsing this argument. Could you go through it a bit more thoroughly? It seems like you're arguing that either:
- or -
These seem at odds with the rest of your post, leading to my current state of confusion.
O well - I was going by what others have said, but point taken...
The other example that comes to mind is the restored Cambodian monarchy. The monarch is elected by the nine member Royal Council of the Throne of Cambodia which picks the new monarch from any member of the Norodom or Sisowath bloodlines who is over thirty years old at the time of succession. The Cambodian monarch seems a lot more like the desired "neutral and ceremonial figurehead" than the Pope, at least from my limited knowledge of the position.
Do places with figurehead presidents often run into problems with the president trying to throw his weight around based on supposedly having more legitimacy than the PM and the parliament? I can't say I recall that being much of an issue in Ireland, Italy, Israel etc. Usually from what I read, their presidents just behave the same way as Governors-General do in the Commonwealth Realms.
ISTM that what the Sussexes have done is in conformity with the policy decided by the Queen and the Prince of Wales following the embarrassment caused by the Duke of York, namely, that the Royal Family should be concentrated around those in the line of succession. The photo of the Queen, Charles, William and his sprog was designed to say just that. It is, surely, undesirable that those increasingly remote from the succession should be condemned to exist only to reflect the glory of the monarch. Harry and Megan may have jumped the gun, but it is the logical consequence of the new policy. I'm just sorry they didn't opt for Botswana!
[tangent]
Why the fuck was he pardoned ?
[/tangent]
That's my take on it too. The Sussexes may have got the cart before the horse in terms of announcing intentions and putting the Royal Back up for a bit. But things were surely tending that way for a long time? In due course, this'll probably be considered one of those pivotal moments which helped to ensure the longevity of the UK Royal family.
It appears that we'd have to ask Jimmy Carter, who like all such leaders and presidents, has questionable morals. I'm on the page of permanent no-pardon, and lifetime supervision of sex offenders. I had no knowledge of this man before reading this today.
I haven't heard Puff the Magic Dragon for many years. We assumed it was about drugs smoking.
I don't have any insight as to why Yarrow specifically was granted a pardon, but the dates involved from the link give a little implicit context. Yarrow was pardoned in 1981, which means it was a lame duck pardon. (i.e. Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, had been elected but not inaugurated yet.) Presidents often issue a lot of last minute pardons before leaving office and, as you can imagine, the controversial ones tend to end up being signed immediately after elections. It's also notable that Yarrow had, according to Wikipedia, already served his sentence by the time the pardon was issued.
By my estimation a far worse abuse of the pardon power was George H. W. Bush's lame duck pardon of six Iran-Contra conspirators, a conspiracy Bush himself was arguably involved in.
Depends on what you mean by "acknowledged offenders". Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were acknowledged offenders. In fact, repeatedly violating various segregation laws was a deliberate and well publicized strategy on their part. Not entirely clear why you think this should render them ineligible to receive pardons.
Note my comment on “unjust laws”
I did. I'm just a little unclear as to whether your standards for "acknowledged offenders" takes precedence over your claim about "unjust laws". The way you phrased it, " . . . the consequences of unjust laws - not give a pat on the back to acknowledged offenders", made it sound like these were two mutually exclusive things. If you were an "acknowledged offender" you couldn't have been convicted under an "unjust law" and if you were guilty of violating an "unjust law" you weren't an "acknowledged offender". Be careful throwing around your nots.
Well, there was the case of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh's resignation in 1976, but perhaps more germane to @stetson 's point was the low-volume but tough tussle between President Mary Robinson and Taoiseach Charles Haughey, where the point was frequently made by her supporters that she was elected by the citizens of the Republic, where he was not. President MacAleese had her own way of being outspoken, generally through informal avenues, given that the president's public statements must be counter-signed by a minister, and the point of her national constituency was discussed in the press.
What might interest some shipmates (well, 2 or 3, at any rate) is that the Irish presidency was designed on the model of the governor-generalship as was manifested in Canada in the interwar period; and should somehow we get 10 provinces to agree to move to a republican model (ha!) some of the details of Irish law on this might be of use.
If the problem is that an elected figurehead president might say or do something the obvious solution is to designate the most recently deceased prime minister to be president and have them stuffed and mounted. Then they can 'preside' over state occasions without worrying about what they might do or say. Plus it provides something for retired prime ministers to look forward to; a return to politics. Just a modest proposal.
Or if you prefer a much less macabre solution to the 'problem' of presidents with opinions some sort of mannequin might work. It might also work for monarchs as well.
I know this because they want to be world wide celebrities who earn their own millions
I consider republicanism to be an un-Canadian heresy. Luckily so long as we have cute pictures of young George and Charlotte, the monarchy has little to fear. Send young George for French lessons (his Great Grandma approves) and that's another generation secure.
That's the sort of proposition that killed the pro-republic vote in our referendum a couple of decades ago. Many republicans wanted the President elected indirectly - something along the lines of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Federal Parliament in a joint sitting. A Labor MP from Melbourne argued strongly and loudly for a directly elected President, paying no attention to conflicts of legitimacy. This split between republicans gave then PM John Howard the opportunity to get the vote he wanted.
An aside - the Aust States each has a Governor, also appointed by the monarch but on the advice of the State premier. There is no input from the G-G or the federal government. So far, almost no attention has been paid to their appointment should we become a republic.
One of the reasons why Canadian republicanism (although @Sober Preacher's Kid's suggestion that sentiment and an aversion to constitutional discussions are likely key) never got beyond beer-among-graduate-students is that the practicalities of a president in a parliamentary structure suggests indirection election, but that people in general would rather not delegate such matters, and would like a direct voice.
Meanwhile, Harry is on Vancouver Island, and the PM, when pressed on the question/non-question of funding security, repeats that he and the Queen haven't talked about it yet. The time difference is such a challenge.
As far as the Australian states go, I suppose that the Governor of Tasmania can always, on behalf of Her Majesty, welcome the President of Australia to Hobart.
In Canadian Polisci 101, my professor mused that because the UK doesn't really have a standard way to amend the constitution, it is easier for the UK to get rid of their monarch than it is for Canada.
That was more or less my point. Saying that anyone who is an "acknowledged offender" is unworthy of a pardon obscures a lot, particularly what they're acknowledged as offending against.
I'm always amazed at how low-profile Yarrow's case managed to remain. The only reason I knew about it at the time was because I happened to randomly look at a newspaper shortly after the pardon was granted. I remember some time later, asking my junior-high music teacher(a baby boomer) if he knew about the case, and he replied no.
Had I not seen the paper that day, I think I could have gone decades without knowing about that. Even for my post on this thread, I had to look up the performer's name.
As for the reason behind his pardon, I'm pretty sure Peter, Paul, and Mary had played Democratic fundraisers over the years, and Carter probably got lobbied by party bigshots. Something in that general vicinity, anyway.
Your prof is quite correct, and in the mid-80s some peon at the Privy Council Office was sentenced to write an analysis of Canada's situation should that happened. His supervisor said that if we didn't want to have the Queen in such a circumstance, all we had to do was to figure out what we wanted in her place, and then get ten provinces to agree, at least two provinces requiring referenda.
So shattered was he by his constitutional dossiers, he ended up moving to near Memphremagog where he lives in a most unconventional domestic situation, and raises heritage fowl for epicureans.
I think Pierre Trudeau had the right idea back when he was lambasting Mulroney for re-opening the constitution with Meech and Charlottetown: just forget about the constitution. Quebec's signature is just a formality, they still have to follow court rulings the same as everybody else, and having to do so doesn't seem to have pushed them away from Canada. (Caveat: I don't subscribe to the theory that the 1995 referendum was a near-miss, or anything close to that.)
(For non-Canadians: when Pierre Trudeau repatriated the Constitution from the UK and added a Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, Quebec was the one province no to sign the attendant agreement. Mulroney later tried to get special provisions for Quebec added to the Constitution, in exchange for their signature, but his two attempts both ended in failure. When Quebec narrowly voted to remain in Canada in '95, some people attributed the closeness of the vote to anger over the constitutional failures.)
As opposed to all other human beings.
That's a naughty thought and you should stand in the corner with your back to the room for a good half hour. So far no-one has paid any attention to the position of State Governors
Precedent implies two methods - "we prefer this Dutch bloke", and "just put your neck there please".
Not long after followed by 'we will get a king who can't speak a word of English, just so we don't have a Catholic'.
The very idea! Having a king from a Foreign Land, full of Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us™?
Would be Huge Outrage!
It always seems surreal to me the way these supposedly pro-monarchical ideas are never examined together. On the one hand there's the assertion that the monarchy should be a sinecure, doing nothing and not even expressing ideas or opinions ("completely a neutral and ceremonial figurehead"). The other is the assertion that there's no possible way to do without this unthinking, do-nothing position.
@Crœsos is almost correct in noting that the ideas are never examined together. Nothing about this topic is coherently examined by anybody, especially those who are tenured professors.
For this reason, I made reference to the Irish constitution's provisions for the presidency, and referred to instances where the president of that republic was not a dead fish, but had on account of their having been voted into that position by the state's electorate, a wielder of real power. While the Irish can be rightly blamed for a cavalcade of octogenarians, nonentities, and partisan figures (some hacks, some eminences) until the most recent three occupants (Robinson, MacAleese, and O'Higgins), de Valera can be credited for writing out the details of how this might be made to work. So if we want a replacement for the Crown in Canada, we need to figure out what that person(s) are to do, and perhaps then how to choose them.
Those 6 people on the planet who find this an interesting topic might also want to note how, in Canada's parliamentary crisis of 2015, Michaëlle Jean extended the GG's powers greatly by indicating that her decision to grant prorogation was on her estimation of the political situation, not on advice. So it might seem that circumstances and personality can extend the office's reach beyond that of a simple figurehead. In the aftermath, Mr Harper (of whom I cannot be found saying good very frequently) having finally realized that Canada was not a presidential republic with a monarchical carbuncle attached, took the appointment of her successor very seriously and tried to institute a mechanism to take it out of the prime ministerial whim category.
As a tangent, perhaps someone can do research on the frequency of Canadians posting on this topic in comparison with the weather.
Well, having a neutral and ceremonial figurehead means things like inviting a championship doesn't necessary involve that figurehead making an awkward political comment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/politics/white-house-lsu-ceremony-donald-trump/index.html
The UK might be a constitutional accident in which parliamentary sovereignty strangely balances with a formal monarchy, what Walter Bagehot argued was the genius of the British system, the mythos, the glamour, the religiosity of the state is invested in the Monarch, while the actual dirt on the ground politics is invested in the elected politicians. It is also where I think the concept of the loyal opposition arises, in which case, my loyalty to the State, manifest in Her Majesty, is not questioned, while I can question and attack and criticize every decision that the Prime Minister makes.
Mr. Yarrow was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. President Jimmy Carter pardoned him in 1981.
He has continued to express contrition and regret over an incident that happened 51 years ago.
There are no other reports of inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Yarrow.
At what point is a person absolved a a past indiscretion? He has a presidential pardon. Seems like people need to move on.
Someone above (Stetson?) mentioned the Globe and Mail's editorial policy regarding Dominion vs Canada Day. There must have been a bit of civil strife in the boardroom, because I distinctly recall editorials in past defending the Canada Day designation (despite the fact that it's illegal as there wasn't quorum in the Commons when it passed). Confusion on the name reigned as I was still attending the Dominion Day Regatta up to around 1990 (it may have continued as the DDR beyond that), and today the Canada Day Regatta is administered by the Dominion Day Regatta Association. Very Canadian.
As to having the members of the Order of Canada elect a Governor General, or President, or whatever Poobah, I think the only place that I've seen that proposed is, again, in the editorials of the Globe and Mail. The G&M brain trust also advocated passage of the Charlottetown Accord in the 1992 referendum, threatening the collapse of the arc of heaven were the Accord not passed. They're not to be trusted with sharp objects.