Canada: Conservatives to restore "royal" monkier to Canada's navy, air force

[socialshockwave]

Source: The Globe and Mail

The Harper government has promised major events next year to commemorate the War of 1812. It has swapped traditional art in government buildings with pictures of the Queen. And on Tuesday it will announce that the names of the armed forces will be restored to those that were discarded more than four decades ago.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-to-restore-royal-moniker-to-canadas-navy-air-force/article2130125/

---

I think it's a good idea. Canada has always held ties to Britain even after our independence and most Canadian military soldiers want these names back, so. /shrug

[rfranklin]

1. Conservatives boldly marching into the past...

Just think of how much money they are going to waste on rebranding their uniforms and equipment.

[OnlinePoker]

4. Uniforms aren't going to change

The big expense will be in the cost of all the signs and stationary and regulations that have to be dumped for new ones (Canada is bilingual, so everything has to be translated as well).

[earthbone]

2. Terrible idea.

It will cost too much and I can hear Quebec screaming already."Canadian" navy or army is just fine.

[SpiralHawk]

3. Freaking Royalists (R)

just what a "democracy" needs...

[JaneQPublic]

10. "Royalists" or "Tories": either is an apt name for conservatives. (nt)

[socialshockwave]

5. I just realized I spelled "moniker" wrong. Sadly I can't edit it now. n/t

[rfranklin]

7. Don't monkey with it!

Monkier that you are.

[Zywiec]

6. Canadian Oath of Citizenship

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and

bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors,

and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

[iverglas]

12. I hate to come to these parties late

but I'm wondering what point you were making by quoting the oath of citizenship.

The reigning monarch of the UK is the head of state of Canada, by virtue of the provision of our long-debated and democratically adopted 1982 Constitution that says so. A head of state is commonly regarded as an embodiment of the state and the people represented by the state. This is why you Democrats were polite to George W Bush all the time when he made State of the Union speeches and such.

Everybody tries to come up with first principles for things -- stone tablets, pieces of parchment, the people named on them ... There aren't any such things, but nobody yet has come up with a way of avoiding the issue. You down there worship your constitution and those founding father people, we pretend to think a monarch has some source of authority. (Our constitution isn't quite enough, since it doesn't actually decide who gets to be monarch, we just wait til that's sorted out and go along.)

We all tend to like our own systems of government best. I wouldn't take yours for all the money you own China. ;) And I haven't found one better than mine yet.

Constitutional monarchies like Canada, Norway, Sweden, Japan, etc., consistently make up a majority of the countries ranked highest in things like the human development index and various freedom indexes, and countries with the lowest GINI indexes (greatest income equality), for instance. They tend to be peaceful and stable. The monarchs in question are the heads of state because the people decided they were. The monarchs mind their own business, and everybody's happy.

Now, this latest Conservative (they are not "Tory") abberation is something else. I don't care what anybody in the damned military wants, our armed forces have no business being called "Royal" anything. A titular head of state is supposed to be neither seen nor heard, and this is just nonsense.

I'd prefer that my oath of citizenship be to Canada, certainly. (And I don't think it should have that burble about the duties of Canadian citizens, since there aren't any.) But I'd feel kind of silly swearing allegiance to a flag, I assure you!

[Kolesar]

8. I hate the army an' I hate the R.A.F.

I don't wanna go fighting in the tropical heat
I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open letter bombs for you

Career opportunities, the ones that never knock

[jayschool]

9. Careers

Every job they offer you's to keep you out the dock

[bemildred]

11. Rejoin the British Empire while you are at it. nt

[iverglas]

13. since there is no such thing as the British Empire ...

?

Maybe that was your point. ;)

[bemildred]

15. Maybe.

(But you can tell they miss it.)
:hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. well, nobody ever actually stopped calling them the RCAF or RCN

seems like it should be a non-issue, the original change wasn't made for any for political or nationalistic reason, it was a corporate rebranding if you will of the combined forced.

[iverglas]

16. having lived here all my fairly long life

I have only ever heard "RCAF" in connection with things like WWII, and I have no recollection of ever hearing "RCN" in my life.

The whole thing is really just referred to as the Canadian Forces anytime I hear it referred to, which is a fair bit.

Yes, it was a name-unrelated decision to merge the forces. But they weren't then called the Royal Canadian Forces.
http://www.forces.ca/

This is pure pandering to an obviously right-wing constituency and its desire to get its own way. Elements within the Forces kicked and fought against the merger for reasons having nothing to do with national defence, and this whole thing is just a prize for them for hating the Liberal Party.

I do too, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ;)

[roamer65]

17. Will Canada feel the same way when its King Charles?

I know Australians favor the formation of a republic, in response to an ascension of Charles to the throne.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/5035/if_charles_is_king_australians_ponder_republic/

[iverglas]

18. Australians place a little too much weight on testosterone

so I can see them not being thrilled about a guy who's into climate change and that kind of thing. ;)

We live closer to the great republic, and we are a little more reluctant to fix something that basically just ain't broke. I speak only for myself and those who agree with me, of course!

I have a couple of Aussies on a discussion board on my other monitor, just friends from a mutual interest in genealogy. They're women ... but I see they're awake now, so I'll go ask 'em. ;)

[roamer65]

19. Bring up the shenanigans of former Gov General John Kerr...

getting PM Gough Whitlam removed from office in 1975 with your Aussie friends. That left a bad taste for Britain in many Australians mouths. Also, as an Australian cabbie once told me...Australia would have been Japanese in 1941-42, if it were not for the American forces stepping in to replace the retreating British.

[iverglas]

20. and we had the recent prorogation bother

But as compared to an elected president? Still no thanks, for me!


Also, as an Australian cabbie once told me...Australia would have been Japanese in 1941-42, if it were not for the American forces stepping in to replace the retreating British.

Um ... the British were really a little occupied at the time ... and if the US had "stepped in" a few years earlier, like, oh, Canada did, things might have been a bit better for a lot of people ...

[FLAprogressive]

22. I've never really seen the use of a parlimentary republic. Having a useless president is worse than

having a useless monarch.

[FLAprogressive]

21. Cool. Acknowledging their status as a constitutional monarchy.

[formercia]

23. Does that mean that Canadians go back to being Cannon Fodder?

The Brits liked using Colonials to make the Enemy waste their Ammunition.

[iverglas]

24. actually, it's USAmericans who take that view now

Perhaps you've heard of "friendly fire" and the odd incident thereof recently.