Queen Elizabeth II Has Died

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I didn't say you downplayed the atrocities of the British.

I also pointed out you responded to a video explaining one of those atrocities with a whataboutism about quoting a tweet from someone with a hammer and sickle and how bad that is.

Whataboutism is used to excuse bad behaviour. Suggesting to people who express interest in human rights that they may want to rethink endorsing those who openly use symbols of genocidal regimes, does not invalidate the initial argument. It's not one or the other, two (or ten!) things can be considered at the same time.

While a classic psychnet drive-by did provide the opportunity, it's important for you to know that I would have brought this up whether it was made in the Queen thread or a Flames game thread. Communism used as a flippant fashion/cultural accessory is a pet peeve of me because it is a source of a lot of pain and struggle within my family and culture (I personally was a refugee, and our family had its fair share of death and pain because of it). To me, a hammer and sickle is no different than a swastika, or a pink triangle, or white hood would be.

If even the act of quoting a post with a hammer and sickle in the profile photo is bad, how morally repugnant do you think referring to someone who actually oversaw African concentration camps as "about as solid and stable of a monarch as one can hope for" is?

That's quite the stretch there to take a comment about her overall stability, and extrapolating it out to concentration camps. I'm well aware of the failings of the monarchy and British colonialism... that does not mean that Elizabeth the individual had no redeeming qualities or was a terrible queen in the context of history. She came into an ugly world, and some of those ugly issues remain, but in general I do think she set a decent example of royal behaviour, and looked to right many wrongs through her reign by actively pushing the monarchy towards a more humanitarian path (best demonstrated by her patronage to over 600 charities in her life). I'm not a big royalist myself, but I can commend her for that.

Now does she hold some responsibility for atrocities made during her reign? As head of state during the time, she absolutely should, it comes with job. But to anyone who can understand context, there's a gap the size of fifty Grand Canyons between her and Stalin/Hitler who actively orchestrated their atrocities.

I have no issue standing by my statements. Elizabeth wasn't perfect, and didn't reign under a perfect monarchy...but she was about as good of a monarch as one could expect in the context of history and reality. Just imagine the alternate reality if you had an outright Nazi-sympathizer as a king for a few more decades instead.

What are your thoughts on Elizabeth?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Yeah except they aren't all that different. The result of both is human rights atrocities, mass murder, forced labor and other horrors. The hammer and sickle crowd is just too dense to understand that the end state of communism is the same, even if the intention at the start is not as evil on the surface.

"They're the same, except when they're not the same."

It should be pretty obvious that I'm not a tankie, but I'm not exactly seeing the Threat of Communism as a big deal in 2022 the same way the rise of White Supremacy has been washing over Europe and the Americas in the last two decades.

In fact, Communism/Socialism being used as a boogieman to rile up the idiots while White Supremacists are in positions of power pushing dehumanizing agendas feels like a massive red herring.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Slava

But I suppose that is kind of my point. As long as everyone plays along and agrees that they're not going to exercise that power, it's all fine. What happens when someone is in that role and finds a piece of legislation particularly objectionable though?

There's a play and TV movie called King Charles III that goes through that scenario, where Charles refuses assent to a bill that he feels limits freedom of the press too much.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play)

[Hack&Lube]

Most people seem to have no idea how our political system works or has worked for hundreds of years. It's based on historical conventions and the momentum of that convention is impossibly difficult to deviate from for a Monarch and by that extent, the same goes for our Governor General.

The last time reigning British monarch refused ascent for a Parliamentary bill on their own choosing was 1696 when William III vetoed the Qualification Bill. I think in 1708 Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill on advice of the government.

Charles is never going to refuse ascent for any modern bill. If it comes to that, then something has really gone wrong in Parliament. Come to think of it, this might be a good safeguard if another Donald Trump comes into power who wants to take other country's nuclear secrets to his golf course and sell them to our enemies.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Whataboutism is used to excuse bad behaviour. Suggesting to people who express interest in human rights that they may want to rethink endorsing those who openly use symbols of genocidal regimes, does not invalidate the initial argument. It's not one or the other, two (or ten!) things can be considered at the same time.

While a classic psychnet drive-by did provide the opportunity, it's important for you to know that I would have brought this up whether it was made in the Queen thread or a Flames game thread. Communism used as a flippant fashion/cultural accessory is a pet peeve of me because it is a source of a lot of pain and struggle within my family and culture (I personally was a refugee, and our family had its fair share of death and pain because of it). To me, a hammer and sickle is no different than a swastika, or a pink triangle, or white hood would be.



That's quite the stretch there to take a comment about her overall stability, and extrapolating it out to concentration camps. I'm well aware of the failings of the monarchy and British colonialism... that does not mean that Elizabeth the individual had no redeeming qualities or was a terrible queen in the context of history. She came into an ugly world, and some of those ugly issues remain, but in general I do think she set a decent example of royal behaviour, and looked to right many wrongs through her reign by actively pushing the monarchy towards a more humanitarian path (best demonstrated by her patronage to over 600 charities in her life). I'm not a big royalist myself, but I can commend her for that.

Now does she hold some responsibility for atrocities made during her reign? As head of state during the time, she absolutely should, it comes with job. But to anyone who can understand context, there's a gap the size of fifty Grand Canyons between her and Stalin/Hitler who actively orchestrated their atrocities.

I have no issue standing by my statements. Elizabeth wasn't perfect, and didn't reign under a perfect monarchy...but she was about as good of a monarch as one could expect in the context of history and reality. Just imagine the alternate reality if you had an outright Nazi-sympathizer as a king for a few more decades instead.

What are your thoughts on Elizabeth?

Whataboutism isn't used to excuse bad behavior, it's a term the identifies the logical fallacy of responding to an issue or accusation by bringing up an entirely different issue or accusation, as opposed to addressing the original issue or accusation. Which is exactly what you did.

When someone brings up the Mau Mau rebellion and the role the British played in it (under the Queen's rule) and your response doesn't comment on it at all, but instead brings up an entirely different issue (if you want to argue that they're "thematically" similar you can, but it doesn't change anything), that's whataboutism. And you have to do more than dismiss people as snarky drive-by posters if you want to convince them that their point isn't important enough to address, but they should still address your entirely off-topic one.

I still think it's pretty simple. You admit yourself that the hammer and sickle gets used as a fashion element/cultural accessory. That, along with the fact that the distance between the best and worst communist is one far, far greater (fifty grand canyons worth?) than the best and worst nazi, tells us the two symbols might be the same to you, but they don't really mean the same thing to everyone else. Context (the thing you apply in your judgement of the Queen) is, as always, required.

So, if it's ok to commend the Queen despite her actual responsibility for atrocities without reconsidering or facing the question of how much you care about human rights, it's ok to quote a tweet from a user with a communist symbol in their pic who isn't actually responsible in any way for historical communist atrocities without reconsidering or facing the question of how much you care about human rights. Consider the context, of course! Agree?

Because if you disagree, then you open yourself up to a whole lot of questions about how many things you've spent money on things that currently fund communist governments or have benefitted previously from communist and nazi atrocities. That's much worse than quoting a tweet that has nothing to do with communism.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I follow the philosophy of Edmund Burke in terms of valuing the conservative approach of preserving systems and institutions.

People often talk about Calvin, Hobbes, and Voltaire but Burke is often forgotten. His famous work, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is an argument for preserving institutions, even if people don't necessarily see the immediate value for them but institutions are the foundation for the traditions and stability in our legal and political systems. Throwing out your institutions and trying to reinvent traditions that worked for hundreds of years results in chaos, inequity, and bloodshed like what was seen in the Reign of Terror in France or post-Soviet Russia (consequences of which we are seeing even today).

I fully support the continuation of the Monarchy as part of the institution of the 1000 year history of the political systems and legal systems Canada and other Commonwealth realms have inherited that follow much more historical convention than statute than people realize. People talk about the financial burden of maintaining the Monarchy but the entire system generates a return on investment in tourism and other factors for the UK that outweighs what is put in to support that one family. Preservation of some traditions are important, even if it flies in the face of some modern sensibilities.

I don't think too many people in countries that have abolished monarchies over the past two hundred years or so lament their loss. I think there is a good reason why most countries chose to abolish their monarchies in modern times. It's the embodiment of classism and nepotism, even if it is just symbolic.

Let's be honest, if the monarchy didn't already exist, no one would think it would be a good idea to have one. If having a monarch is really required as a check and balance against tyranny, then Canada should at least pick it's own. Having a foreign official head of state seems absurd.

[Sr. Mints]

Queen Elizabeth was replaced for letting her hair go grey.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Most people seem to have no idea how our political system works or has worked for hundreds of years. It's based on historical conventions and the momentum of that convention is impossibly difficult to deviate from for a Monarch and by that extent, the same goes for our Governor General.

The last time reigning British monarch refused ascent for a Parliamentary bill on their own choosing was 1696 when William III vetoed the Qualification Bill. I think in 1708 Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill on advice of the government.

Charles is never going to refuse ascent for any modern bill. If it comes to that, then something has really gone wrong in Parliament. Come to think of it, this might be a good safeguard if another Donald Trump comes into power who wants to take other country's nuclear secrets to his golf course and sell them to our enemies.

In 1926 (within the lifetime of the grandparents of most of the people reading this post), the Monarch's Canadian representative meddled in the affairs of Parliament and caused a constitutional crisis.

In 1975 (within the lifetime of many people reading this or at least within the lifetime of their parents), the Monarch's Australian representative meddled in the affairs of Parliament and caused a constitutional crisis.

I'll grant that neither of those examples are specifically related to the King/Queen interfering with the British Parliament, but let's not pretend that this is just some paper power that hasn't been exercised in over 300 years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In 1926 (within the lifetime of the grandparents of most of the people reading this post), the Monarch's Canadian representative meddled in the affairs of Parliament and caused a constitutional crisis.

In 1975 (within the lifetime of many people reading this or at least within the lifetime of their parents), the Monarch's Australian representative meddled in the affairs of Parliament and caused a constitutional crisis.

I'll grant that neither of those examples are specifically related to the King/Queen interfering with the British Parliament, but let's not pretend that this is just some paper power that hasn't been exercised in over 300 years.

I am interested in this, and if you've got links I've got time and an affinity for rabbit-holes.

That being said, Canada wasnt a Sovereign nation in 1926 and I dont really know what Australia's status was in 1975.

So that might have had more to do with it?

[Shazam]

1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair

1975: https://www.newsweek.com/kangaroos-t...attack-1735136

[dino7c]

Monarchy is like religion...if you grew up with it and your parents convinced you its important you probably think it is

If you didn't you are like WTF why?

I find the history interesting but at the end of the day all these people just happened to be born...I suppose its a lottery like anyone else.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Locke

I am interested in this, and if you've got links I've got time and an affinity for rabbit-holes.

That being said, Canada wasnt a Sovereign nation in 1926 and I dont really know what Australia's status was in 1975.

So that might have had more to do with it?

King-Bing Affair:

https://www.canadahistoryproject.ca/...king-byng.html

When scandal and a vote of non-confidence threatened King's minority government early in its term, King wanted to dissolve the government and call another election, but the Governor General, operating within his constitutional rights, denied King's request. King resigned over the issue, and Byng called on the opposition leader, Arthur Meighan, to form a government. This government lasted only three days, however, before it lost a vote in the House of Commons and an election had to be called after all.

King took advantage of the situation to argue that he, the elected Prime Minister of Canada, had been overruled by the representative of the Crown. Britain was interfering in the affairs of a sovereign country.

During the election campaign, King focussed on this constitutional issue, managing successfully to divert public attention from the Customs Scandal that originally gave rise to the problem and was a blot on his government's reputation. By recognizing the spirit of nationalism and independence in the country and being a spokesman for it, King won the next and several subsequent elections.

The Dismissal:

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-mome...tlam-dismissal

On 11 November 1975 Gough Whitlam proposed an immediate ‘half Senate’ election in order to break the stalemate.

This measure was not granted, and in a dramatic and controversial decision Governor-General Sir John Kerr instead dismissed the Whitlam government and appointed Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister.

Fraser immediately arranged for budget supply bills to be passed in the Senate, and called a double dissolution election. On 13 December the Labor Party was soundly defeated at the polls.

The Whitlam government remains the only federal government in Australian history to have been dismissed by the representative of the head of state.

Contention still surrounds the dismissal, which occasioned passionate protest across the nation and divided opinion on both Australian democracy and the functioning of the parliament.

Many opposed the actions of the Governor-General, an officer appointed by the Queen, in sacking a prime minister elected by the Australian people. Many disagreed with the ability of the Senate to block the effective functioning of an elected government.

Others supported the process used to remove Whitlam, to break the parliamentary deadlock and instigate the December 1975 election as a use of constitutional powers, where democratic means had failed to succeed.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm not an expert on the King-Byng Affair but I thought that Byng was correct. He's supposed to see if an opposition party can form government before calling an election.

I feel like the Lt. Governor in New Brunswick called on the party that won the second most seats to form government because it was a minority situation and they were the regining government.

Actually makes sense to me. If Trudeau had a minority government and knew he was going to lose, asked to dissolve Parliament, the GG could ask the CPC if they could form government first. If they could, it would save an election as the Prime Minister would have support of the majority of the house, which is the point.

[afc wimbledon]

Ironically I dont care that much about Canada being a monarchy as it is neither particularly expensive nor has much effect on us although I would vote for a republic in a heartbeat if given the choice.

The real damage the monarchy does is in the UK, it is the figurehead of a class system that does huge damage to the UK, promoting idiots to positions of power and holding the UK back in slow permanent decline

[Shazam]

Most of Europe is like that, even countries where the royalty has been abolished. There's centuries of wealth in some families, there's just no competing against that.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I follow the philosophy of Edmund Burke in terms of valuing the conservative approach of preserving systems and institutions.

People often talk about Calvin, Hobbes, and Voltaire but Burke is often forgotten. His famous work, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is an argument for preserving institutions, even if people don't necessarily see the immediate value for them but institutions are the foundation for the traditions and stability in our legal and political systems. Throwing out your institutions and trying to reinvent traditions that worked for hundreds of years results in chaos, inequity, and bloodshed like what was seen in the Reign of Terror in France or post-Soviet Russia (consequences of which we are seeing even today).

I fully support the continuation of the Monarchy as part of the institution of the 1000 year history of the political systems and legal systems Canada and other Commonwealth realms have inherited that follow much more historical convention than statute than people realize. People talk about the financial burden of maintaining the Monarchy but the entire system generates a return on investment in tourism and other factors for the UK that outweighs what is put in to support that one family. Preservation of some traditions are important, even if it flies in the face of some modern sensibilities.

I dunno, it seems like sometimes you have to take one step back to take two or twenty or two hundred steps forward.

There are a lot of really ####ty systems and institutions out there. If things are going well for you, then of course preserving those conditions seems preferable. Which probably factors into my opinion that the monarchy is really dumb, but as good as any option to serve its limited but imported function. Mostly I just don't trust us to come up with anything better right now.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

In fact, Communism/Socialism being used as a boogieman to rile up the idiots while White Supremacists are in positions of power pushing dehumanizing agendas feels like a massive red herring.

Communism isn’t a bogeyman, it’s straight up an awful ideology that’s directly responsible for mass murder, famine, and human misery. The hammer and sickle are symbols of this awfulness and quite frankly offensive and unacceptable to its victims and relatives.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Nm - I misinterpreted the post.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I follow the philosophy of Edmund Burke in terms of valuing the conservative approach of preserving systems and institutions.

People often talk about Calvin, Hobbes, and Voltaire but Burke is often forgotten. His famous work, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is an argument for preserving institutions, even if people don't necessarily see the immediate value for them but institutions are the foundation for the traditions and stability in our legal and political systems. Throwing out your institutions and trying to reinvent traditions that worked for hundreds of years results in chaos, inequity, and bloodshed like what was seen in the Reign of Terror in France or post-Soviet Russia (consequences of which we are seeing even today).

I fully support the continuation of the Monarchy as part of the institution of the 1000 year history of the political systems and legal systems Canada and other Commonwealth realms have inherited that follow much more historical convention than statute than people realize. People talk about the financial burden of maintaining the Monarchy but the entire system generates a return on investment in tourism and other factors for the UK that outweighs what is put in to support that one family. Preservation of some traditions are important, even if it flies in the face of some modern sensibilities.

We have changed every institution over and over again, Burke was wrong, utterly wrong on this mostly because he could not conceive of peaceful change, we, both Canada and the UK can remove the monarchy with no instability, the Cavaliers arent going to be riding down Kingsway or the Mall, the monarchy is a historically irrelevant institution that will one day soon cease to exist, sooner in Canada where the idea of a foreign monarch is truly absurd, but also in the UK because the very idea that there is a family that is magically better than the rest of us that we have to worship like some demi god is palpable nonsense, particularly when that family contains an utter nonce like Andrew

[getbak]

Besides the UK, there are currently 14 independent nations remaining where Charles is the monarch: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Most are small (in both population and size) island nations either in the Caribbean region or Oceania. Only 5 have populations over 1 million (Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica) and only Canada and Australia have populations over 10 million.

Canada is the only member of the G7. Canada and Australia are the only members of the G20.


I suspect Jamaica, New Zealand, and Australia will push to become republics before Canada does just because of the difficulties we have with Constitutional reform here.