Talk:Monarchist League of Canada/Archive 1

message: Not being Canadian , I don't want to get involve, but this article may need to NPOV a bit. Smith03 17:52, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: *I've moved the non copyvio section of the article to a temp page as Gbambino insists on reinserting copyvio material. AndyL 01:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns regarding Copyright

message: *"The 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act creates her distinctly as Queen of Canada," and as subordinate to her role as Queen of the UK since Canada comes second after Britain in her Canadian title. AndyL 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For a monarchist you're taking a very American view of what a constitution is. Ours is a combination of a "written" constitution and an "unwritten" (or more correctly, statute) constitution. A number of the elements of our constitution are statute law or determined by convention. For instance, the Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act are part of our constitution yet, like the Royal Styles and Ttitles Act they are mere statute law. AndyL 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Title

message: *As Louis St. Laurent said during the debate on the Royal Style and Titles Act, "Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom" (note: he said this two decades or so after the Statute of Westminster) If you want to know if the crown is more British than Canadian ask yourself whether Canada would be a monarchy today if Britain had become a republic 50 or 100 years ago? Almost certainly not. Then ask yourself would Britian be a monarchy today if Canada had become a republic 50 or 100 years ago. The answer is yes. The monarchy's status in Canada has no impact on the British Crown but the Crown's status in Britain has very much of an impact on the Canadian crown. Also, consider that Canada has absolutely no ability to unilaterally amend the Act of Settlement or other statutes which say that the King or Queen cannot be a Catholic or marry one, despite the fact that Catholics make up 40% of the Canadian population and despite the fact that the succession laws' anti-Catholic provisions are anathama to Canadian values. Yet, Britain could. legally, unilaterally amend the Statute of Westminster or any other act regarding the royal succession tomorrow. While the Statute of Westminster suggests that changes must be with the consent of other commonwealth countries under British law the Statute of Westminster is a simple statute of parliament and can be amended or repealed by another statute. Clearly, the British have quite a lot of say on who our Queen or King is (and who his or her heirs and successors are) while Canada has absolutely no say over who the British Queen or King is. If Canada were to become a republic tomorrow, Britain would be unaffected. If Britain were to become a republic tomorrow it would create a constitutional crisis in Canada and there would likely be serious high level debate on becoming a republic. Indeed, it sounds like Canada's sovereignty is impaired as we do not have control over the rules determining who our head of state is.
:90% of what you are arguing is theory and interpretation and as I've pointed out much of the theory doesn't stand up against the actual word of the law. AndyL 00:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to add that King Edward VIII's abdication proved that the Crown is a shared institution and the Statute of Westminster does have effect in Britain.  After all, the British PM also had to seek the approval of the other PMs over the three suggestions put forward: a morgantic marriage, no marriage, or abdication.  Also, in 1981 the Privy Council of Canada met to give approval to the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer.--gbambino 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: ... given the plain facts of the Royal Style and Titles Act and the words of monarchist PM Louis St. Laurent, the man who created the concept of the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth. AndyL 02:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion of [[Louis St. Laurent]]

message: :You are correct that 100 years ago, the relationship was not one of equals. Perhaps you are sentimental about a time when Canada was the #2 partner in the greatest civilization in history.  I sympathize.  But that is not relevant today.  Canada and the United Kingdom can have separate constitutional crises if they choose.  That's what sovereign states do. So far, the Commonwealth Realms have freely chosen not to do this.  (Not every Dominion made that choice - consider the Irish Free State.)  Louis Saint-Laurent could just as easily said "Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom because she is Queen of Canada" - it would be just as true (reflexivity is implied in an equality relationship). Peter Grey 09:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Past and Present

message: "You're still avoiding the issue of equality." Hardly. The Crowns are not equal because the British Crown is superior to the Canadian. We are, as Judge Rouleau says "under the British Crown". And I'm sorry gbambino, if you think that Britain becoming a republic would have no impact in Canada and would not result in a debate on us becoming a republic then you're living in a dreamworld. AndyL 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does debate about a republic have to do with anything?  You stated that if Britain became a republic there would be a constitutional crisis in Canada, a claim which is completely false.  A republican Britain would not obliterate any part of the Canadian Constitution.  And, by the way, repeating yourself doesn't make you right. --gbambino 19:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Rouleau actually says "under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries" and several times refers to "symmetry among commonwealth countries".  (Thanks for the link, it provides some of the best counter-arguments for your conjecture that Canada is somehow constitutionally subordinate to the UK.) User:Peter Grey 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that Canada and other Commonwealth countries are "under the British Crown together" is quite different, indeed opposite, to saying that the crown of Canada and that of other Commonwealth countries are equal to the British Crown. We may be equal to Australia but we're still under Britain. AndyL 21:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The United Kingdom is one of the "other Commonwealth countries". Peter Grey 21:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No doubt that's why Rouleau explicitly referred to the equality of all the Commonwealth realms so many times.  Read the whole decision. (And at least learn the correct name of the document while you're at it!) Peter Grey 18:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a direct quote from Rouleau.AndyL 18:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You can't seriously expect me to hunt through a 4000-word document for a second time just because you don't want to accept what's written in black and white.  I've put up some grep output on Talk:O'Donohue v. Canada to get started. Peter Grey 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the word "equality" anywhere in Rouleau's decision. Symmetry, yes, but not equality. If I'm wrong please tell me where Rouleau's "explicitly referred to the equality of all the Commonwealth realms". If he did it "so many times" it can't be that difficult to dig up one citation. AndyL 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What does your conjecture matter?  It is irrelevent to fact. --gbambino 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You refer to political impact, not to immediate constitutional issues.  User:Peter Grey 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, they're all lovely theories and interesting to ponder, however have nothing to do with the fact that the Crown in Right of Canada is an existent legal body equal in status and power to the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, as well as having nothing to do with the structure of the Crown as created by the Statute of Westminster and the pariation of the Realms' constitutions, and therefore having nothing to do with  proving the Crown in Canada is "British."--gbambino 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You don't see the impact of a resident monarch on the office of Governor General as constitutional?AndyL 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's actually O'Donohue v. Regina (Latin for Queen). As we are a monarchy, court cases involving the state take the form of Regina v Doe or Doe v. Regina and are usually rendered in short form as Doe v. R. I would have thought that as a monarchist you'd be quite clear on this point and quite upset at anyone who neglected the role of the crown in our system by getting it wrong. AndyL 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The citation is O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.).  The official text  uses Tony O'Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, but I didn't think that would make a good encyclopedia entry.  The v. Regina formula is used in criminal cases. User:Peter Grey 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: If you're really keen on accuracy, we could use 01-CV-217147CM.  User:Peter Grey 22:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The official case name (per CANLII) is "O'Donohue v. Canada" (although the original complaint gave it as "v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada"). Since that's the formal name the Canadian legal system gives the case, that's what it ought to be under (with a redirect from the "as filed" name). (And wherever we put it, can we please stop using the stupid Microsoft quote character, "’" (%92), which my browser keeps converting to a two-byte UTF-8 equivalent - and since the English Wikipedia doesn't support UTF-8 in article titles, it's causing no end of problems.) Noel (talk) 05:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Tony O&#8217;Donohue Petition

message: There is now an article regarding the O%92Donohue v. Canada, 2003 case - interested parties may wish to discuss the implications at Talk:O%92Donohue_v._Canada%2C_2003. User:Peter Grey 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually O'Donohue v. Regina (Latin for Queen). As we are a monarchy, court cases involving the state take the form of Regina v Doe or Doe v. Regina and are usually rendered in short form as Doe v. R. I would have thought that as a monarchist you'd be quite clear on this point and quite upset at anyone who neglected the role of the crown in our system by getting it wrong. AndyL 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The citation is O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.).  The official text  uses Tony O'Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, but I didn't think that would make a good encyclopedia entry.  The v. Regina formula is used in criminal cases. User:Peter Grey 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: If you're really keen on accuracy, we could use 01-CV-217147CM.  User:Peter Grey 22:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The official case name (per CANLII) is "O'Donohue v. Canada" (although the original complaint gave it as "v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada"). Since that's the formal name the Canadian legal system gives the case, that's what it ought to be under (with a redirect from the "as filed" name). (And wherever we put it, can we please stop using the stupid Microsoft quote character, "’" (%92), which my browser keeps converting to a two-byte UTF-8 equivalent - and since the English Wikipedia doesn't support UTF-8 in article titles, it's causing no end of problems.) Noel (talk) 05:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on the case

message: The article strikes me as quite unbalanced and reads like a promotional piece rather than an objective article. AndyL 21:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a transparent attack on the League itself, rather than a challenge to the Wikipedia article. The article is not promotional nor unbalanced.  That would be like saying that, say, Shinto violates WP:NPOV because it only discusses one religion.  The article describes, factually, what the League is and how it operates.  Clearly that can not be separated from what the League stands for. It does not constitute a violation of the NPOV policy. (Can anyone produce an example of NPOV violation?) Peter Grey 06:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  This is an unfounded claim which reveals, yet again, AndyL's bias towards anything remotely monarchical.  If he feels that the MLC article is not impartial, then perhaps he should also dispute the neutrality of the Citizens for a Canadian Republic page, which he edits frequently. --gbambino 17:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: If there should be more info, research it and improve the article.  Neither Monarchist League of Canada nor Citizens for a Canadian Republic violate WP:NPOV, but both necessarily express points of vue because both are indirectly about points of vue and how the corresponding perspectives compare with de jure and de facto constitutional practice.  It's not rocket science. Peter Grey 18:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Look at the title of the article for why this is not a violation. Also, the bias referred to, if indeed there really is any, occurs only because the quote was pulled out of context. Peter Grey 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Peter, you've not answered my question. What's wrong with "what it claims"? If, indeed, the paragraph says what you claim it says, adding the words "what it claims" wouldn't change the meaning one iota and thus should not be objectionable to you. AndyL 12:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, for the last time, it is not an invented theory by the MLC -- it is a fact, which the league recognises, as opposed to the League supporting some return to the Empire days, or saying something as ridiculous as the Crown in Canada is still British. --gbambino 15:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't recall that... Peter Grey 18:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy Dispute (2)

message: Moreover, the article is largely cribbed from MLC material. For instance the article reads:
::Educational work is carried out through a web site, designed and maintained by volunteers from a variety of age groups. In addition, the League distributes free "Red Boxes" to schools and youth groups (Guides, Scouts), containing educational aides pertaining to the Canadian Crown and Monarchy.
While the MLC website reads:
:::Educational work is carried out through a web site, designed and maintained by volunteers in their teens and young 20's. The web site serves as a central resource for enquirers as well as the major recruitment tool for new members. In addition, the League’s “Red Boxes" are distributed gratis on request to schools and youth groups (Guides, Scouts.) Some province-wide mailings to history teachers have resulted in as many as 70% of the schools requesting a Box, suggesting an interest in presenting facts about the Canadian Crown to supplement the thin curriculum resources provided by government. 
The article reads:
::Canadian Monarchist News, the League's periodical, is published three times annually, and combines original research and reports on the Canadian Crown.
While the aforementioned website reads:
:::Canadian Monarchist News, the League’s periodical, is published around three times annually, and combines original research and lively reporting on the Canadian Crown with the more “clubby" aspect about the activities of League branches and members. 
The article reads:
::The League has become a major source of information on monarchical information and opinion and its officers are often sought out by the media for comment during major royal events. Aimers, the Dominion Chairman, sometimes gives over 500 appearances and interviews annually. Since the 1990s, Aimers co-anchored live network coverage of many Royal Visits and occasions. He maintains a working relationship with many of the press via backgrounders and a network of referrals as well as informal briefings.
And the website:
:::The League has also gained stature and members by becoming known as the media voice of intelligent monarchical information and opinion. The Dominion Chairman sometimes gives over 500 appearances and interviews annually; his presence is supplemented by the expertise of carefully-chosen colleagues. In the last decade, Mr Aimers has co-anchored live network coverage of many Royal Visits and occasions. He maintains a working relationship with many of the press via backgrounders and a network of referrals as well as informal briefings
The article:
::The League attempts to present the positive face of the Canadian Crown as an essential part of national identity, purporting to eschew a romantic "fan-club" approach. It works with elected officials of all political parties in an attempt to cement the role of the Monarchy, which the League sees as an umbrella institution under which every member of a diverse society can find his equal and respected place.
And the website:
:::The League attempts to present the positive face of the Canadian Crown as an essential part of national identity. It eschews a romantic “fan-club" approach, and has from the beginning resisted attempts from some quarters to use the Crown as a hobby horse to advance assorted partisan or ideological causes, usually of shrill voice and extreme stance. It works with all elected officials of all political parties in an attempt to cement the role of the Monarchy as the big tent under which every member of a diverse society can find his equal and respected place.  
AndyL 03:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you don't actually know if this is copyright violation.  You've just stated it only to further deface this article because it offends your staunch republican beliefs.  In fact, I stongly suspect that every little childish challenge you've made over the past couple of weeks has been driven by your having to face up to a reality which goes against all the republican propaganda you've been fed over the years.  You act as though Peter and I are secret agents of the MLC here to infiltrate Wikipedia with our brainwashing messages, and yet you're the only one to provide no facts to back up your claims and theories.  Peter and I have given more than enough proof to support the points made on the various monarchical articles -- legal documents, court rulings, reports from constitutional committees, constitutional experts, and so on -- all of which which transecnds any republican vs. monarchist debate.  While we strive to maintain fact, it has been you all along trying to push any pathetic little thing you can to alter people's thinking about the Crown in Canada, and to defame the MLC; when defeated in one area, you simply move off to another to make ridiculous claims.  I may be guilty of a few mistakes here and there, but personally, I've had enough of being accused of being a crackpot monarchist by the very person who's tring to be manipulative, and I hope the Arbitration Committee can do something about it. --gbambino 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "So, you don't actually know if this is copyright violation."
So, you haven't actually read the boilerplate. Please go read the title of the copyvio biolerplate, ok?AndyL 15:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected COPYright VIOlation