Jump to content
canflyer
Sign in to follow this  
LeSabre

Tories Throw us Back to Colonial Status

Recommended Posts

Until the constitution is changed, there is a Queen of Canada, we have a monarchy (Constitutional form with Westminster style Parliament) and the titular commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is the GG (Representing the Queen).

The title "Royal" is a perfectly accurate representation of the governance of Canada and the hierarchy of the Canadian Forces.

Yes, politically the monarchy is an obsolete concept but it is the reality of the day and it offends the Quebecois more than others but the suggestion that it reflects Colonial Status is just disingenuous, sensationalist posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until the constitution is changed, there is a Queen of Canada, we have a monarchy (Constitutional form with Westminster style Parliament) and the titular commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is the GG (Representing the Queen).

The title "Royal" is a perfectly accurate representation of the governance of Canada and the hierarchy of the Canadian Forces.

Yes, politically the monarchy is an obsolete concept but it is the reality of the day and it offends the Quebecois more than others but the suggestion that it reflects Colonial Status is just disingenuous, sensationalist posturing.

It offends me as a Canadian....I am not a royal lackey. The job of a PM is to unite the Country and this doesn't do it or even come close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until the constitution is changed, there is a Queen of Canada, we have a monarchy (Constitutional form with Westminster style Parliament) and the titular commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is the GG (Representing the Queen).

The title "Royal" is a perfectly accurate representation of the governance of Canada and the hierarchy of the Canadian Forces.

Yes, politically the monarchy is an obsolete concept but it is the reality of the day and it offends the Quebecois more than others but the suggestion that it reflects Colonial Status is just disingenuous, sensationalist posturing.

Sensationalist Posturing is the most accurate description of the CRAP agenda yet.

My grandparents all left serfdom when they came from Ukraine. You don't have to be from Quebec to be offended by this CRAP so don't use the divisive tactics of the Harpercrite regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a government that seems so focused on pretending to save every penny that they can this seems like an odd move. This sort of rebranding is an unnecessary expense at this time for no real reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until the constitution is changed, there is a Queen of Canada, we have a monarchy (Constitutional form with Westminster style Parliament) and the titular commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is the GG (Representing the Queen).

The title "Royal" is a perfectly accurate representation of the governance of Canada and the hierarchy of the Canadian Forces.

Yes, politically the monarchy is an obsolete concept but it is the reality of the day and it offends the Quebecois more than others but the suggestion that it reflects Colonial Status is just disingenuous, sensationalist posturing.

There is a difference between the fact of the crown within our system of government (which I support) and what is nothing more than a rebranding exercise that solves a nonexistent problem for partisan purposes (further solidifying old white rump of support towards Conservative rule that will last 1000 years.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is surprising that intelligent people can get bent out of shape over such a minor announcement.

I essentially agree, however, I'll also agree it is a waste of money. The biggest complainers though are more partisan than they claim the Minister is for introducing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is surprising that intelligent people can get bent out of shape over such a minor announcement.

I essentially agree, however, I'll also agree it is a waste of money. The biggest complainers though are more partisan than they claim the Minister is for introducing this.

Its got SFA to do with partisanship.

1. Did Harper ever bring it up in the election campaign?

2. Are we not heading ultimately more for more distance from the crown?

3. The expense is not worth it and it dilutes our independence maybe only nominaly but why bother doing that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It offends me as a Canadian....I am not a royal lackey. The job of a PM is to unite the Country and this doesn't do it or even come close.

It may offend you as a Canadian, but I suspect that this will be very well received by current and past members fo the Canadian Forces.

I suppose you are also offended by the Royal Canadian Mint and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It offends me as a Canadian....I am not a royal lackey. The job of a PM is to unite the Country and this doesn't do it or even come close.

It may offend you as a Canadian, but I suspect that this will be very well received by current and past members fo the Canadian Forces.

I suppose you are also offended by the Royal Canadian Mint and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

No I am not offended by them:

1. the mint is a Crown corporation not a direct government run business

2. RCMP is the traditional name but thye have become a joke so keep them with the royal moniker. All joking aside when the time comes their name should be changed as well. Remember the name ROYAL was dropped from the military in the 60's when the forces united.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the party of old white people is at its divisive best.

ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND – This week the Harper government announced that Canada’s Maritime Command, Air Command and Land Force Command will be known from now on as the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army, respectively – designations that were eliminated more than four decades ago.

In 1968 Paul Hellyer, then minister of defence in the federal Liberal government, scrapped the old names as he amalgamated the navy, the air force and the army into a single structure – the Canadian Forces – with a single uniform.

The change comes at a time when a number of shifts in the global political and economic fabric demand that Canada’s military adapt to new paradigms of security and defence. But far from bridging the gap between the Canadian Forces and their burgeoning responsibilities, the name change represents a disconnect with the present-day concept and the future role and capabilities of the military. A move that increases ties to the British crown is more divisive than unifying – and unification is a concept fundamentally entrenched in the character of Canada’s military forces.

Canada is a conglomerate of communities that seeks to defend its values and morals, not use the historical roots of its armed forces to wage war in the name of them. The “royal” restoration might be injurious to the overall image of the banner under which Canadians currently serve.

Many veterans who served in what were then the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army wanted the traditional names returned. There was a 40-year letter-writing campaign by veterans pressing for the rebranding of the Canadian Forces. Ottawa’s recent submission to this appeal seems to be an attempt to connect the interests of a few traditional politicians with a Canadian minority. Many who are not a part of the group of veterans will see it as little more than an empty link to the past.

Even to some with connections to the military the move is a sore point. The spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Legion, Bob Butt, said the government money that will be spent on making the change “would be better used to equip our sailors, soldiers, and airmen.”

Robert Finch, the chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, opines that “by having the word ‘royal,’ you are underlining the fact that the Queen is the head of the armed forces. … I think it’s important to drive home the point that the military is non-partisan or political. They’re not the prime minister’s or the defence minister’s; they are the Queen’s.” But those signing up to serve in Canada’s military forces retain the choice to pledge their allegiance, not only to the Queen, but also to God.

Canada is no longer a colony. It is no longer part of the dominions that might march to war against monarchal opponents on the battlefield amid musket and cannon fire. These imperial appellations are as archaic as the empire that Canada served and supported for more than a century. Canada is an independent country that has taken many strides to forge its own unique identity as influenced and inspired by new generations, not one that represents solely those of the (distant) past.

If the Conservative government wishes to connect further and more positively with those new generations, it should cast aside this regal and rather imposing nomenclature.

Scott Nicholas Romaniuk is a Dollard des Ormeaux native who is a conflict analyst and researcher in the fields of military and strategic studies, and international security and politics. He is affiliated with the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen and the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.

© Copyright © Postmedia News

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Reinstating+ ... z1VT9UQR7D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its got SFA to do with partisanship.
Lesson learned: Don't eat or drink while reading CF. Parnel, you owe me a new keyboard.

Should the new one only be accessible with your right hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1968 Paul Hellyer, then minister of defence in the federal Liberal government, scrapped the old names as he amalgamated the navy, the air force and the army into a single structure – the Canadian Forces – with a single uniform.

The single worst decision for morale ever taken by a Canadian government. That was a lovely green uniform sailors and air force personnel had the pleasure of wearing.

The spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Legion...

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The single worst decision for morale ever taken by a Canadian government. That was a lovely green uniform sailors and air force personnel had the pleasure of wearing

I'm really not interested in the military as fashion arbiters. The military likes to fall back on "tradition" as an excuse for all kinds of things. They're a department of the government like all the rest. You may recall the same arguments were made by the Tories and other "traditionalists" to fight the adoption of the Maple Leaf as the Canadian flag every step of the way. the Tories have always been the party of backward throwbacks, probably why they do so well in Alberta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really not interested in the military as fashion arbiters. The military likes to fall back on "tradition" as an excuse for all kinds of things. They're a department of the government like all the rest.

Typically pathetic HypoGrit attitude towards our armed forces we've seen & heard for decades. :td:

"In our military, it is often tradition and a sense of place in history that sustains us, especially when life is under threat,"

Retired colonel Chris Hadfield, best known as the first Canadian to walk in space

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/20 ... -navy.html

Seems the majority of those reponsing to CBC's polls approve of the renaming:

Yes, they’re a nice reminder of our military history and connection to the monarchy. 52.92% (10,360 votes)

No, they’re outdated terms and a step in the wrong direction. 45.11% (8,831 votes)

I don’t know. 1.96% (384 votes)

Total Votes: 19,575

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/20 ... force.html

Just more proof the HypoGrits are still way out of touch with the mood of the nation. :lol: Angry, old white men getting grumpy for grumpy sake. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically pathetic HypoGrit attitude towards our armed forces we've seen & heard for decades. :td:

"In our military, it is often tradition and a sense of place in history that sustains us, especially when life is under threat,"[/size]

Retired colonel Chris Hadfield, best known as the first Canadian to walk in space

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/20 ... -navy.html

Seems the majority of those reponsing to CBC's polls approve of the renaming:

Yes, they’re a nice reminder of our military history and connection to the monarchy. 52.92% (10,360 votes)

No, they’re outdated terms and a step in the wrong direction. 45.11% (8,831 votes)

I don’t know. 1.96% (384 votes)

Total Votes: 19,575

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/20 ... force.html

Just more proof the HypoGrits are still way out of touch with the mood of the nation. :lol: Angry, old white men getting grumpy for grumpy sake. :lol:

The poll is hardly a resounding endorsements of Harper's neo-colonialism. And your pro-militarism is worthy of Sarah Palin at her best, careful your personality disorder is showing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they’re a nice reminder of our military history and connection to the monarchy. 52.92% (10,360 votes)

No, they’re outdated terms and a step in the wrong direction. 45.11% (8,831 votes)

I don’t know. 1.96% (384 votes)

Total Votes: 19,575

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/20 ... force.html

Just more proof the HypoGrits are still way out of touch with the mood of the nation. :lol: Angry, old white men getting grumpy for grumpy sake. :lol:

I could be wrong but this is the first time I recall you ever using a CBC poll to prove your point.

The only questions I have on this are what is it going to cost and how far overbudget will it be when it is audited at the end? This main appeal for this is for Armed Forces members and veterans who were around when the initial conversion happened. With the exception of military members who have a long family history in the military, very few newer members could care less either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reformatorts used that article for a fund raiser "newsletter" yesterday hours after it was published, which tells me:

A: the party was previously aware the artilcle would appear

B: the fund raiser letter linked the article. When I saw the poll results at mid day yesterday the Libs were over 55% and this morning that position had flip flopped. So much for honest on line poll results.

Saying stupid (tcook052) has a personality disorder is poitically correct but his condition is much worse than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The poll is hardly a resounding endorsements of Harper's neo-colonialism. And your pro-militarism is worthy of Sarah Palin at her best, careful your personality disorder is showing.

Excuses, excuses. :roll: Face it, it's more proof the HypoGrits are out of touch with the mood of the nation, again. And BTW your anti-militarism is worthy of Neville Chamberlain. All the damage successive HypoGrit regimes did to our nation's armed forces is a disgrace for which they should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the comparison of Harper to Nixon...both phonies, crooks and liars.

Harper listens to an imaginary majority

Does anyone remember Richard Nixon and his “great silent majority?” That was Nixon’s label for the mass of middle Americans, ostensibly voiceless, whom he addressed in a celebrated 1969 television address, pleading for their support for his handling of the Vietnam War.

We don’t have a “silent majority” in Canada. It appears we have instead an “invisible majority.” This mass of unseen Canadians is like Harvey, the invisible rabbit from the 1950 film starring James Stewart. It can only be seen by those who truly believe in its existence — that is to say, by Stephen Harper and his apostles.

This invisible majority persuades the government to embrace policies that make absolutely no sense, decisions that cannot be justified in a rational way, initiatives that can be understood only by those who are able to commune with Harper’s Harvey.

Who knew the long-form census was as an intolerable intrusion resented by millions of Canadians? Who knew a falling crime rate would make a massive prison-building binge essential? Who knew that resurrecting the trappings of our colonial past would be smart politics in the Canada of the 21st century?

The invisible majority knew. The pollsters didn’t hear them, but Harper did, and he acted.

Canada is no longer a British colony. We go our own way and do our own thing (so long as the Americans don’t object too much). We no longer fly the Union Jack or sing God Save the Queen at public gatherings. The Red Ensign went out with John Diefenbaker. Canadians of British origin are a shrinking minority. We have transformed ourselves into a modern, tolerant, multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural nation. That’s something we can all be proud of.

So why is the government turning away from our present and future? So why is it taking down Canadian art works in federal buildings and replacing them with pictures of the Queen? The Queen seems like a perfectly nice lady, but she’s not Canadian. Do we need to be reminded of her and what she represents every time we turn around?

And what is this nutty business about putting the “royal” back in the Canadian military? That’s turning the calendar back more than four decades. The unification of the armed forces, which combined the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army into the Canadian Forces came about during the tenure of Prime Minister Lester Pearson (not Pierre Trudeau, as is widely assumed today).

For Pearson, shedding colonial baggage in the military was part and parcel of asserting Canada’s sovereign identity and was consistent with the adoption of the Canadian flag and anthem, which also occurred on his watch. Early, fierce opposition from some senior military figures faded. So did wasteful competition among the three services for the government’s favour and financial resources. For more than 40 years, the land, air and sea components of the Canadian Forces have sung from same song sheet and reported to a single boss, the chief of the defence staff.

So what possesses the government to roll back to the three services with the old names? The Conservatives have been assiduously courting ethnic communities and new Canadian voters – with some success in the last election. How can they square that effort with their new-old embrace of the British connection?

What secret intelligence prompted Defence Minister Peter MacKay to talk last week about how Canadian servicemen will be able to stand taller and prouder when the royal designations are restored?

“This is, of course, claptrap, utter nonsense,” commented military historian Jack Granatstein. “The British connection and the monarchy are even grander abstractions with little or no meaning for today’s servicemen and women. … The reality is that Canadians in and outside the Canadian Forces have turned their backs on the monarchy.”

Granatstein is right. He’s a smart man — smarter, I venture, than those members of Harper’s inner circle who follow the dictates of an invisible (if imaginary) majority.

Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens@sympatico.ca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This invisible majority persuades the government to embrace policies that make absolutely no sense, decisions that cannot be justified in a rational way, initiatives that can be understood only by those who are able to commune with Harper’s Harvey.

What a laugh. The Liberals not only claimed that they spoke for the "invisible majority" but the minority, everyone else, "true Canadian" values, as the Natural Governing Party attitude has taken them to the abyss.

The NDP similarly claims to speak for "All Working Canadians", a nice euphemism for union members.

No party speaks for anyone but those that voted for that party in the last election and likely only a portion of those truly buy-in to the party line.

The old "we speak for/represent all of " is a tired old debating trick that has been used by every politician since time immemorial.

The interesting thing about this move back to the "Royal" name is that it actually reflects the historical policy and rationale of the old Conservative Party; that being of strong ties to the UK/Commonwealth and distancing from the USA.

The whole issue is a grand but frivolous distraction that is getting the predictable reaction from tired, old Liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...