Acorn said:
I'm now on the horns of a dilemna: I'm not a fan of the monarchy, though I respect QEII for her bearing. If I discard the monarchy, I'm left with the Liberals (for the moment, and they'll come back in a few years even as this current scandal blows over).
Not necessarily, we are assuming that if we discard the monarchy we will not assume a new head of state. Even if we don't, and your stuck with the Liberals, at least you and your fellow citizens put Parliament there (regardless of who you voted for), whereas you have no say in who your next Head of State is.
Incidentally, Infanteer, the charge WOULD stick if it were brought, de jure of course. It's still on the books, and in a service context is not as archaic as providing a horse-hitch to saloon-goers. If one can disrespect the office of the Commander-in Chief of the CF because it's archaic how does one defend the archaic offices of NCOs, WOs and commissioned officers? Yeah, I know: "it's different." Sorry mate, it ain't.
It may stick or it may not stick (if it leaves the military) - I think this issue was broached before on this forum and we figured if someone was nailed with this, it would probably draw the Charter lawyers into the fray regarding the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression".
When was the last time someone was charged in the Military for this? You say it would stick, but who would really be petty enough to bring forward a charge like this (short of the accused being a complete knob and just looking for a charge)?
The offices of NCO's WO's and commissioned Officers are not archaic, they have a
de facto importance in the day to day affairs of the CF.
Aquilus said:
Infanteer, I asked fairly straight forward questions which you have again averted. And as for the oath, I think it's fairly straight forward. But I agree, we will obviously get no where like this, if there was anywhere to go with to begin with.
I answered you question, if you didn't understand it, I'll put it in simpler terms. I put much more stock in the contract one signs rendering one legally obligated to the profession then I do in an Oath to Kings and Queens in a far off land. It doesn't bother me at all because I don't see how one has to be loyal to the idea of a Monarch to be loyal to democracy and Canada. I never got into the Forces in the interests of personal servitude. If Canada (like Australia nearly did) voted to do away with the Monarchy tommorrow, would this suddenly free every soldier in the CF of their professional obligation?
This is probably the crux of the matter -
de facto and
de jure - do we need to update the Oath we give our soldiers? American soldiers swear a very real oath, stating they will defend the Constitution (which governs them) against enemies, foreign and domestic, and serve their President (their very real C-in-C):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
We swear allegiance to the monarch and his/her descendants - how does this tie us to military service in Canada at all? It mentions nothing of defence of the realm and nothing of the true service we give to
the Canadian People and the true fact that our lawful command authority lies within Parliament. Sure, there is a lot of fuzzy convention tied up in the Oath, but you don't want fuzzy convention when you are making citizens swear an obligation that includes unlimited liability.
And did Wes tell you to speak for him? Gah.
No, but he seems to be away and since he is a friend and you've charged us both as oath-breakers, I figured I would include him in the
apologia.
Wouldn't simply recognising the powers the GG already has and making it clear that we would not revolt if she actually used them be a lot easier? It dpes seem like a bit of a problem that the PM basically has the major say in who the Queen appoints as GG though. However, having an open public vote on the next GG, I fear, would simply create another political office filled with a politician, not the impartial "I am above politics" position that we really need.
This is one measure that I support in the current climate that we could probably accomplish it without any change to the Constitution. The Governor General possesses many important powers that could be "re-invigorated" if the position was held accountable to an electorate. One such is as the lawful Commander-in-Chief; the CDS is the only government figure who legally possess the ability to go directly to his superior - could this be a useful "check and balance" if properly implemented?
I am unsure of why people assume that once a person gets in with a vote, they automatically become a political double-dealer. Having political bias is part of being human. How does the appointment magically make them impartial? It wouldn't be the choice of electing or appointing a GG that would make the office impartial, it would be empowering the office to perform its Constitutional duties that would, because then the GG is forced to make political decisions relying upon their own judgement. I can settle for that because I have faith (generally) in democracy.
As Mr Campbell pointed out, other states have elected offices that are the "heads of state" and they don't succumb to instability. If the system is setup right (with long terms and limited powers of intervention), I believe the office can maintain a certain degree of aloofness from the day-to-day drudgery of Parliament - thus achieving Mr McKay's "Fire-extinguisher" affect.
Neill McKay said:
Certainly, but it's pretty bad form for him to get onto the Internet and say it to the world. I occasionally have cause to gripe about my CO, but you won't read about it here -- it's limited to quiet conversations with my messmates and my wife.
Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion. People come on here and slag the Government (who is the real command authority) everyday and we don't bat an eye. And doing this doesn't make anyone less of a soldier (which I've been trying to get at in the face of the "oath-breaker" charge).
Certainly, some of the comments made earlier lacked tact (although I think people overreacted to "Chuck"), but welcome to a free society, where people are free to hold their own opinions. If this is how some choose to express their thoughts on the matter, then so be it.
Neill McKay said:
Why would an elected GG be any less vulnerable to corruption than an elected PM?
The Senate is appointed - is it impartial and invulnerable to corruption?
As I stated above, its not the election that counts, its the powers that are given to the office. A GG empowered by the public vote would do wonders in your "fire-extinguisher" analogy (now that they are elected, they have the moral authority to do so).
I guess the real gist of the arguement is whether we want a Head of State that is politically neutered (and thus impartial because nothing they say or think matters anyways) or one that is politically empowered to perform their duties (and thus liable to be partial to some opinion on the matter).
Also, do you think we should elect judges and Crown prosecutors?
No, because they are not representatives of the
vox populi, they are members of the Judicial branch which has its own requirements.
Incidentally are you trying to tell me that judges are truly impartial in the way they deliberate because they are appointed? Look at the contention of Supreme Court selection (both in Canada and in the US) - any office that has
de facto legal power is going to have issues with personal opinion and bias; elected or appointed.