The Monarchy ...encore..- Pt. 2

Andrew Coyne's two suggestions to improve our current system to better involve the Monarchy are as follows:

1. Have the Monarch once again appoint the GG and do so via members of her immediate family - e.g. the Prince of Wales; his brother Andrew etc etc. Or,

2. Discard the GG's office altogether and have the Queen or King directly liaise with the Government.

I see some merit in the first suggestion but do not see it being a viable solution for a number of reasons, including:

• Family of the Monarch is not the Monarch itself. And, to have the existing Canadian appointment process replaced by Brits - other than the Monarch him or herself - would not be supported by Quebecers nor by our so called left-wing elite. Even, I, on the right, would ultimately have trouble with it.

With respect to Andrew's second suggestion - I like it. Doesn't mean though it will ever happen.

• The current system is dysfunctional. Currently you have Canadians playing 'Queen for the Day' when all they are in fact doing is usurping the power of both our Prime Minister and the ruling Monarch. In the recent Prorogation Crisis did Madame Jean even consult with Queen Elizabeth? As her Representative she most certainly should have. And if she did, was the decision arrived at - her decision or the Queen's decision - the latter being the appropriate one.
• With current communications, the GG position as a intermediary is no longer needed. The PM can pick-up the telephone and speak with Her Majesty irrespective of where either of them may be in the world. They can even use Video Conferencing if they wish.
• Simply stated, the King or Queen of Canada no longer needs a representative in their ever less 'far flung empires'.

I think this second suggestion has the potential of breathing more life into a splendid and very worthwhile tradition. The Monarch would though have to become more visible here in Canada and his or her role as the Head of the Anglican Church would have to come to an end for obvious reasons.

Okay, that said, I am not confident that this important Institution will last given the opposition of so many Canadians and given the apathy of so many others.

I have stated my reasons why I think we desperately need to keep the Monarchy but there is one final one that I have yet to touch on.

In recent decades Canada has opened its borders to millions from around the world - with different cultures, different languages, different religions etc. This has been a welcomed development because Canada desperately needs immigration given our aging population. But one negative side effect is that it has resulted in less and less commonality with fewer and fewer symbols to help keep us together as a Nation.

The Monarchy is one of those Institutions that has been tested by the sands of time and accordingly gives us all something to be proud of and to respect.

As I see it...

"Galagher"

The Monarchy ...encore..

The other day I wrote half a Blog on why we should retain the Monarchy.

Then, on Thursday eve, I watched CBC's 'The Panel' and it dealt entirely with this important subject.

The breakdown was as follows:

• Chantal - is opposed to the continuance of the Monarchy since Quebecers have never and will never accept it.



• Allan - is in favour of keeping it, even though he sees the institution having little support across the country, since he believes that there are too many legal ramifications involved in changing to another system.



• Andrew - is in favour of keeping the Monarchy since he sees it as being a great asset in the preservation of our special democratic way of life. Plus, he put forward a couple of suggestions to modernize the institution.
  

I was not surprised by the position taken by Chantal. Given their history as a 'conquered' peoples, Quebecers are most unlikely to support anything with a British connection. In fact, I would likely be of that frame of mind had I been born a Francophone Quebecer.

That does not make their position correct - it does though make it understandable.

Allan's thoughts on the matter were new to me - in that I had never really considered the legal ramifications involved in changing to another system of government - i.e. a Republic. From my perspective his concern, although a major consideration, should not be the deciding factor in determining whether or not to retain a system that is seriously flawed.

That said, I do not see our current system as being fatally flawed.

That brings me to Andrew. I was delighted with the position he took since many of the reasons he gave in support of the Monarchy were included in my earlier Blog.

Permit me to summarize these reasons:

• The Monarchy is an institution that has survived over 13 Centuries and as such provides us with both tradition, custom as well as stability. An institution that transcends the centuries is something that has earned our respect.




• It is above politics, and therefore brings a much needed neutral, non-biased approach which is especially valuable in times of crisis;

• And for those who hate all things American (not me) - it provides a political system different from that of our large neighbour.

And, speaking of the States - you will recall George W. Bush's first election when the results were held up pending the 'Chad' fiasco in Florida. That incident had the potential of extending beyond the traditional Inauguration Day. Had it done so, the US would have been without an Elected President pending Judicial Decision on the Election outcome. As it was, it became very chaotic time with no Government in Waiting.

It is this type of situation where an impartial Monarch would be invaluable. For instance, a King or Queen could have stepped in and extended the term of the current President - Bill Clinton until the matter had been resolved by the Courts.

Another example also comes to mind. During Richard Nixon's second term, Watergate was tearing his Administration apart. There was concern expressed over his mental health during that trying period and there was some speculation that he was unstable enough to try to assume control of the government via use of the military.

Whether that was in fact true is not at issue here. The fact is, it could have happened, and may at some future date, actually happen. A Monarch would be the only one ideally placed to deal with such a situation in that He or She would be a neutral party that the populace could rally round.

Pity though, the United States does not have a Monarch to fall back on in times of need.

One more - Russia.

Those of you a little older can recall the attempt by the old guard in Russia to thwart the democratization of that country by arresting President Gorbachev and closing their Parliament. Had it not been for the courage of Boris Yeltsin climbing up on one their tanks and demanding that Gorbachev be released, the Coup would most likely have succeeded.

Should a similar event occur again, there is no guarantee that a Yeltsin will be available to climb up on a tank.

They too could use benign Monarchy.

I have gone on far too long.

Tomorrow I will deal with Andrew's two suggestions for the improvement of our Monarchy as well as considering one additional reason why I see the Monarchy as being an important institution for our future welfare.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

REMEMBRANCE

Janice Kennedy's 'Poppy' Dilemma

Ms. Kennedy is a writer for Ottawa's left of centre newspaper and this week she wrote an article setting out in great detail the dilemma she has on whether or not to wear a poppy.

In her own words: "How do I wear a poppy that recognizes the terrible sacrifices --- of Second World War Veterans when so many poppies today recognize (our veterans) deaths in Afghanistan"? (i.e. a war that she does not support)

The trouble Ms. Kennedy is having is that she too is getting a distorted view of things given her left wing perspective.

The Poppy is a strong symbol that does not glorify war -rather, it does the exact opposite. One of its main purposes is to help insure that we never forget the sacrifice of our soldiers made and to be ever vigilante to avoid war if at all possible. And of course, the other main purpose of the Poppy is to remember those Canadians who paid the supreme sacrifice on behalf of our country.

So in the case of Afghanistan, the Poppy continually reminds us that war is failure - a last resort - and certainly not something to be glamorized. And our soldiers who die there are equally entitled to our remembrances as were their counterparts in previous wars.

Janice - you can wear your poppy proudly - without the worry of being branded a pro-war.

That was never its purpose.


Medals for Stupidity

This week the Governor General awarded a new medal - The Sacrifice Medal, which among other things is awarded to those who die overseas as a result of military service.

So I suspect that the family of a soldier killed in an automobile accident would receive such a medal posthumously. And rightfully so. The soldier would not have been in that unfriendly environment otherwise.

But where I draw the line would be if that accident occurred as a result of the soldier driving intoxicated. Under those circumstances, I do not see a medal being deserved.

That leads me to the case this week, where a soldier's family was awarded the medal as a result of their son being killed in a game of chicken with firearms. If that indeed was the reason for his death - I do not see that it warrants special recognition.

My father was wounded twice in the Second World War - the first time as a result of one of his fellows playing with their rifle. The gun went off and the bullet ricocheted around the interior of Dad's Tank hitting him in the leg - had the chap who caused the incident been injured or killed, I would hope he or his family would not have been awarded a medal for doing so.

There should not be an award for stupidity.


Your Nearest Cenotaph

On those notes - get out to your nearest Cenotaph this morning and wear your Poppy Proudly.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

John Proctor's Ghost

Not the Ghost of John Proctor...



Mr. Proctor had his own personal ghost.



My home town of Brighton, Ontario had but one real Ghost and as I said, it was not John Proctor.



Proctor was a wealthy businessman who lived during the 1800s and during that time he built a large mansion that overlooked our fair village. His home was to the north of town less than a rifle shot away from the village grave yard.



On top of the Proctor home was a widow's walk where it is said Proctor kept close watch on his many ships entering and leaving Brighton harbour which in turn led to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence.



As a prosperous businessman, Proctor had many workers toiling on his behalf one of which was a poor soul by the name of Nix. Nix was married and no doubt had a bevy of little Nixes. What he did not have was money. In fact he was in debt to old man Proctor for advances made on his puny pay.



All would have gone along okay except for the fact Nix up and died. No doubt from being worked to death by Proctor.



His distraught wife came to John Proctor requesting the body of her husband for burial. To her absolute dismay, Proctor refused her request. Nix, he said, owed him $20.00 and his body would not be released to the family until said debt was paid in full. No doubt he put in an additional request for interest on the loan.



The widow having no means whatsoever, went home sans husband.



Proctor then placed Nix's body in the dank cellar of this mansion and there, over the years, it rotted - so to speak.



Now some strange happenings occurred. People living in the vicinity of the Proctor Mansion began to see at night a bright ball of fire emanate from the vicinity of the basement and fly through the air to the Town's grave yard which was located a short distance to the east. No doubt Proctor had an unrestricted view of these occurrences from his perch on high in the mansion's widow's walk.



But these occurrences unfortunately did not persuade Proctor from doing the right thing and turning over the body of Nix over to his wife and family.



I say unfortunately, since a short time later it cost Proctor, himself, his life. He was working on the barn roof next to the mansion and inexplicably fell (was pushed?) to his death.



No accident, said the locals - olde Nix had just taken his just revenge.



That's the story of Proctor's Ghost.



But let's move ahead a little.



It is now the 1950s in fair olde Brighton and yours truly and several other contemporaries are attending Johnny's 10th birthday party in February - in the evening. It was dark and on leaving the party we all decided to walk one of our number - Eric - home. Eric lived near the olde Proctor mansion and to save time we decided to cut across a few fields that cut just south of the mansion and behind the homes on Yonge Street where Eric lived.



On route, we ran into a chap by the name of Kenneth. Kenneth lived just below the mansion and indeed his home was closest in the village to the Proctor mansion. We naturally began talking about the Ghost Story.



Had Kenneth ever seen the Ball of Fire trying to enter the Grave Yard? - we asked. Of course he had - "numerous times". Our imagines went wild.



Just as we were approaching a wooden bridge - that crossed a small creek - that then led to Yonge Street, a man jumped out from under it and headed directly for the Proctor Mansion. Well you can imagine. We had scared ourselves quite enough before this happening - now with it - we screamed bloody murder and raced to the safety of Eric's home.



An unforgettable moment they say.



Now let's flash further ahead.



I am grown and once again living in Brighton and decide one day to take my 3 children to the Proctor House which has now become a museum.



Of course I tell them first about the Ghost - to get them in the right frame of mind.



A pleasant middle age woman greets us at the door and then accompanies us around the house pointing out various things of interest. Of interest to her that is. My children and I are only thinking about one thing - the Ghost in the Basement.



After she concludes the tour she asks if we have any questions. Only one I blurt out - "would it be possible for us to go down in the basement"?



"Whatever for" she replied. "There is nothing down there except the gardener's tools".



Nonetheless, I prevail upon her to let us see the basement telling her, in my pitch, about the John Proctor Ghost. She looked at me as if I had two heads - obviously the woman is a transplant from Toronto.



Anyway - we creep down the olde wooden stairs - and the lady was right - no Ghost, only a bunch of rakes and shovels.



How disappointing.


"Galagher"

p.s. During public school, I delivered the Globe and Mail and one of my customers was Stella Proctor - the last of the Proctors. During the summer months, Ms. Proctor lived in the olde Mansion with a woman companion who served as her aide. Years later, my wife was the head nurse at a Nursing Home in Trenton, and one of her patients was a 105 year old by the name of Amelia. This lady told my wife about the wondrous Balls that the Proctor family held at their mansion, high on Brighton hill, in the late 1800s. I often wonder if, during those glorious Balls, any of the guests took it upon themselves to check out the basement?

The Senate or The Monarchy?

Which should go?




No question - the Senate. It is a waste of money and is just a retirement home for Flaks / Hacks / Ner-do-wells. And oh yes, it is undemocratic. I get a little carried away ...




So what about an Elected Senate?




It would only succeed in adding another layer to an already slow and bureaucratic legislative process. Better to spend the money on House Committees to make them effective and to provide the ordinary MP with some real power.




I have heard it said that we need a Senate because the USA has a Senate to protect their States (read Provinces). But America does not have our British North America which protects the Provinces through a division of power with the Federal Government.




And as for Sober Second Thought - I have yet to see it happen. Perhaps it's due to the 'Sober' requirement?




The sooner the Senate goes - the better. Indeed, I would like to see Stephen Harper include its abolishment as part of his next Election Platform.





So what about the Monarchy? Should it go too?




No.




Can you imagine a President Jean Chretien? I shudder.




With the Monarchy, we here in Canada have something very special - dating back to the year 924 A.D..




Once it is gone - it is gone forever and Canadians will be the poorer for it. That said, I am not optimistic about its future given that many Canadians are either apathetic to the Monarchy or outright antagonistic.

They do not stop to consider what its replacement would be.

Simply stated, it would consist of more politicians which in turn would mean more partisan politics.

The value of the Monarchy is that it is above Politics and as such is unbiased. This can be of great value in times of trouble.

Think back to the Prorogation crisis of last year. Although I disagreed with the Governor General's decision, I respected it for the reasons noted above.

Also think back to the Second World War when Britian was all but defeated. Who did the populace look to before Winston Churchill came officially on the scene. It was the King, whom they rallied around and it was the King whom they were prepared to die for if necessary.

But it wasn't King George the VI - the man; but rather King George the VI the instituiton that rallied the populace.

We have been blessed for many years in having one of the great Monarchs on the Throne - Queen Elizabeth II. I do not suspect that Charles will be so well received but I do have great hope for his son William. But as I have attempted to show above, it really does not matter who occupies the Throne per se, it is the long tradition and history of this institution that makes it special and of value to us all.

Again, I am fearful for the future of the Monarchy here in Canada, but much more fearful of its replacement.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

Democracies of the World Unite

The time has come for the Democracies of the World to truly Unite and become a force to be reckoned with.


Why, you ask?


For several reasons, including the fact that the United Nations - like the League of Nations before it - has failed. It has been taken over by a bunch of petty little dictatorships that have as their prime objective the belittling of Western nations and while so doing, to extract as much money from their victims as possible.


The absolute veto given to the five major powers is another major problem. It has resulted in paralysis - especially since two of their number include Russia and China with both out to protect their ruthless proxies from meaningful UN action.


And speaking of China, in a relatively few years hence, it will have the largest economy of any nation: while the United States' importance will continue to decline.

And last, but by no means least, is the growing Islamist threat toward our democratic way of life.

For all of these important reasons, we need an close association of democratic nations to help offset these serious deficiencies and growing threats.


And in fact, there is such an Organization - it is called the 'Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development' or OECD for short.


Its main function is have its member nations cooperate economically amongst themselves to enhance their democratic institutions.

Given the above problems though it needs to do more.

Specifically, the OECD should include mutual defence to its Mission (i.e. an attack against one, is an attack against all).

Moreover, it should admit to its membership any nation that supports Free Elections and the Rule of Law. It should also work closely with those nations interested in becoming democracies.

But it will quickly have to grow and assume greater importance. Currently only 30 countries make up the membership of the OECD which started life back in 1961.

It will also reqire a name change - how about: The Alliance For Democratic Nations or The AllIANCE for short?

For the past several hundred years the world has had the luxury of relying upon one of its numbers - first Great Britain and more lately, the United States - to ensure a semblance of stability in world affairs - i.e. a world cop.

This era is coming to a close and no other democratic nation stands ready to assume the mantel. From here on in, strength will have to come from numbers and the protection of our way of life will be a collective responsibility - as it should be.

I can see a day, even in my lifetime, when non-democratic countries will be knocking at the door of THE ALLIANCE begging to be taken into a life of freedom and prosperity.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

Canada's Incarceration Rate is Too High

But not nearly as bad as that of the United States.


We here in Canada have an incarceration rate of approximately 110 inmates per 100,000 population which pales in comparison with that of the United States which tops 1000 per 100,000. In fact, America's rate is the highest in the world - even higher than Red China.


But Canada's is too high as well.


That brings me to our Tory Government.


It wants to be tough on crime - which I am all for - as long as our incarceration rate declines.


An Oxymoron? No.


We need to find ways of punishment that do not entail imprisonment. And of course, this applies to the United States tenfold.


I speak with some authority as I have spent time in jail myself. Permit me to explain.


As a law student, our Criminology Class toured many of the penitentiaries in southern Ontario and as a Queen's student, many of those prisons were located right there in our home town.


But, I digress.


From my perspective, the only persons who should be incarcerated are those who are guilty of committing or planning violent crimes - including those who possess guns during the commission of a crime.


Let me try to be more specific. In my estimation the types of crime that warrant imprisonment are: murder; rape; kidnapping; terriorism; robbery; assault; traffickers; and serious damage to property (e.g. arson).


Pedophiles are sick people and should be confined to mental asylums for life or until they are so old or infirm that they cease to be a threat to our kids.


But for the rest, the druggies (users), thieves, embezzlers, fraudsters etc etc - alternative punishments need to be employed.


Punishments such as fines, house arrest, confiscation of property, black listing (e.g. no longer hold public or private office), and community service should be imposed. And, jail - only as a last resort.


In a nut shell, prisons should be used to protect the public from physical violence or serious damage to their property. Prisons are too costly, and really function as crime schools. The fewer housed in these facilities - the better for the public.


Now back to the Tories.

They have passed and are in the process of passing additional legislation that toughens the criminal code: lengthier terms; more minimum sentences; less generous parole provisions.

And that's okay for the violent offender.

But it is not okay for the non-violent offender. Find another way to punish him or her. Place a permanent tattoo on their foreheads if you want - but don't put them in jail.

I will end with a true case example - Conrad Black.

You will know that I am opposed to the punishment handed out to Black.

Here is a more appropriate penalty: surrender of his Title; confiscation of his many properties and wealth; and a life long ban on owning or holding office in any company - either public and private.

As I see it..

"Galagher"