Talk:Monarchist League of Canada

Contents

4.1 Is the Crown in Canada British or Canadian?
4.2 The Crown and the Creation of the Commonwealth
4.3 Royal Title
4.4 One Queen, Multiple Crowns
4.5 Opinion of Louis St. Laurent
4.6 Past and Present
4.7 Tony O’Donohue Petition

5 Removed content

6 More on the Tony O’Donohue Petition

6.1 Article on the case

7 NPOV

8 Factual Accuracy Dispute

Miscellaneous/Etiquette

I feel that the members of the monarchist league are in poor form deleting the external links to republican sites. They are attempting to turn this into a propoganda page.

Neutral Point of View

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)

Concerns regarding Copyright

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)
I edited it to remove POV, and provide relevent links to other Wikipedia pages. In the meantime I will write a cronology which has no verbal, only factual, resemblance to the one on the MLC site. gbambino
gbambino, the fact remains that your chronology was a copyvio despite tweaking here and there. AndyL 02:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will compose a chronology which includes the facts about the Monarchist League that I know. Any "negatives" I'm sure I can leave up to you to add in. gbambino

Crown

Is the Crown in Canada British or Canadian?

There can be no argument against the fact that the Crown in Canada is not British. It is well established that the 1931 Statute of Westminster ended any presence of the "British Crown" in Canada, as each of the ex-colonies and dominions were elevated to an equal status with the U.K. This meant that the Crown transcended even the U.K. itself to become an umbrella-like pan-national institution which operates equally but distinctly in each of the 16 Realms. Since even before that time Canada has used the Crown similarly but still differently to other Realms. The constitutional history of the country will reveal this. gbambino
The fact that the Queen is British, lives in Britain and spends the vast majority of time there would tend to suggest that the crown is British. Also, the fact that the Queen's Canadian title gives precedece to Britain also suggests this. AndyL 01:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
gbambino, you have several times claimed that it is a "fact" that the crown has distinct Canadian features but you have never stated what these alleged features are. Please enumerate the "distincly Canadian" features of the crown. AndyL 02:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First off, The Queen is indeed British-- she is, after all, Queen of the UK. But when it comes to Canada, the Crown, or Queen of Canada, that is neither here nor there. So your supposition that just because the Queen lives in the UK, spends most of her time in the UK, or even because she is Queen of the UK, means that the Crown is British is grossly ignorant. I gave my explanation of the status of the Crown after the Statute of Westminster -- that is sufficient information to debunk your argument.

As for the Crown in Canada -- the Constitutions of all the Realms are not identical -- the Canadian Constitution sets out what the Crown in Canada does, and how, differently from the Australian, New Zealand, Jamaican, Tuvaluian (?), etc. constitutions. The Tuvalu constitution, for example, specifically states that The Queen is their head of state, whereas the Canadian does not. The Australian constitution lays out the relationship between the Sovereign and the Governor General differently to the Canadian. The Governors of Australian states have a completely different relationship to the Crown/Sovereign than Canadian provincial Lieutenant Governors. In Canada and Australia the Crown gives sovereignty to the states and provinces, whereas in unitary states like New Zealand, Belize, etc. it does not. As well, the Canadian sovereign has distinct Canadian symbols (Coat of Arms, Standard, etc.), and Canada has its own awards and honours issued in the name of the Monarch separate to the awards in other Realms. gbambino

The examples you cite seem, well, superficial. Can you point to anyting of substance that makes the crown "distinctly Canadian"? AndyL 03:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I regret that I haven't 'convinced' you. However, your lack of convincing does not influence facts about the constitutions of the different realms, the different roles of the Crown in different Realms, monarchical symbols, and different awards and honours in different Realms. gbambino
Do you acknowledge that there is a considerable body of opinion in Canada that holds that the Crown is British and not "distinctly Canadian"?AndyL 03:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Opinion has nothing to do with whether the Crown is purely British, it is a matter of constitutional reality rather than perceptions.

Also, I did not say the Crown was "distinctly Canadian," but rather that the Crown has "distinct Canadian aspects." gbambino

The Crown and the Creation of the Commonwealth

I'd like to point you to words by Richard Toporoski which outline why the Crown in Canada is no longer British: "Dr Smith describes the differences in opinion which took place earlier this century about the "divisibility" of the Crown. The concept is, of course, the result of the independence of the various realms of the Commonwealth, "united", as the Balfour Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 declared, "by a common allegiance to the Crown". This assumption of a continuing unity of the Crown or the person of the Sovereign was reiterated by Arthur Berriedale Keith, who described the situation created by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 as one in which "the Dominions are sovereign international States in the sense that the King in respect of each of his Dominions ... is such a State in the eyes of international law". (Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions, 1932, p. xxxvii) As late as 1939, the Dominions office resolutely affirmed this position, as Dr Smith quotes for us (p. 195): "It is by virtue of his succession as 'King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas ...' that he is King in all parts of his dominions. In this sense he is King in Canada in precisely the same manner in which he is King in the United Kingdom ... It is one kingship, but the King is in a position to act independently in respect of each or any part of his dominions". It is my view, though one that would not be subscribed to by many authorities today, that this is still fact. I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of "the British Crown" or "the Canadian Crown" or indeed the "Barbadian" or "Tuvaluan" Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction. Dr Smith suggests that this concept of "divisibility", however long it took for it to be articulated or accepted, explains how Canadians and Australians were able to make federal systems work." [1] (http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm|1)

Of course, you must also keep in mind that the words "It is by virtue of his succession as 'King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas ...' that he is King in all parts of his dominions..." applied when they were stated in 1939, but no longer do today, as a) Elizabeth II was crowned distinctly as Queen of Canada in 1953, b) The 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act creates her distinctly as Queen of Canada, and c) the Canadian Constitution, which outlines the role and place of the Sovereign in Canadian government was patriated in 1982. As Mr. Toporoski goes on to say in his piece: "There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law... the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law, a situation which certainly would not be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public opinion." gbambino

Royal Title

"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)
The 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act is irelevent to this debate. The Royal Styles and Titles Act is not a part of constitutional law, and therefore means nothing in relation to the arrangements set out in the Statute of Westminster and the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms. gbambino
"...the Royal Styles and Titles Act is not a part of constitutional law, and therefore means nothing in relation to the arrangements set out in the Statute of Westminster and the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms."

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)

The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act were inherited from the U.K. and are now part of the Constitution which would need unanimous consent of all 10 provinces, the HoC and the Senate to alter. The Royal Styles and Titles act remains only an Act of Canadian Parliament, and thus could be changed by Canadian Parliament tomorrow. gbambino
My dear bambino, the Canadian constitution has three elements - supreme law that can only be altered via an amending formula, statute law that can be altered by a mere bill in parliament and convention which is informal and unwritten. I suggest you read a bit of Eugene Forsey. The Royal Marriages Act, by the way, is received law and can be changed by a mere statute of parliament, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. AndyL 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. Still, whether or not the Royal Styles and Titles Act is a statute part of the Constitution or not is irrelevent to the point that the Crown in Canada is no longer British -- the Crown is only British in Britain. Your argument that "the U.K. comes first in her Canadian title, therefore the Crown is British" is almost comic. Unless you can prove that since the Statute of Westminster, and since the patriation of each Realm's constitution, the Crown has not transcended even Britain to become a pan-national body which is only 'divided' in its operation in each jurisdiction (the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in Right of Jamaica, etc.) then you haven't got much of a case. gbambino
- The Royal Styles and Titles makes it *quite* clear that the Crown is British and gives Britain precedence over Canada. AndyL 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How does the Royal Styles and Titles Act make is *quite* clear that the Crown is British and gives Britain precedence over Canada? You're using two words in a title in one country to define the 'nationality' of an institution which is the foundation of the governments of 16 countries around the world? You disregard constitutional reality, not just in Canada but in every Realm, to justify the way you interperet the wording of the Queen's title in Canada? gbambino
- By giving Britain precedence in her title. By, in essence, saying she's Queen of the UK before she's Queen of Canada and that her British role is the more important one. AndyL 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I certainly don't see how you can claim the "Canadian Crown" is not British when it is clearly identified as such in the Styles and Titles Act and indeed when its British idenity is given priority over its Canadian identity. AndyL 20:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One Queen, Multiple Crowns

The Crown and the Queen are not completely identical. The Crown in Canada is of course Canadian; this is a well-established fact of constitutional law and can be verified at Canadian Department of Justice (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/). Her Majesty the Queen, as a person (as opposed to her various constitutional offices), is naturally simultaneously Canadian, British, Jamaican, New Zealander, etc. This is a special relationship which the democratically elected governments of the Commonwealth Realms chose. Of course, this may be difficult for some people to understand: no private citizen is ever simultaneously and equally a citizen of 16 countries. But the sovereign is not a private citizen and you can only get nonsense trying to mix the two concepts. Peter Grey 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So far, AndyL, the Royal Titles and Styles act has been your only provided 'proof'. Your misinterpretation of it, is not 'proof' that the Crown in Canada is British.

For one, the Royal Titles and Styles act only recognizes that Elizabeth II is also Queen of the U.K. In fact, by separating the two titles, it illustrates that Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the U.K. is indeed separate and distinct from her role as Queen of Canada. So, if the Queen of Canada is recognized in her own Canadian title as being distinctly Queen of Canada, then that in itself shows that the Crown, like the Sovereign, is both British and Canadian. Whatever order Canada and the U.K. are placed is irrelevant. Would, after all, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Canada, the United Kingdom and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" cause you to believe that the Crown is only Canadian? Even that the Crown in the U.K. is therefore Canadian because Canada takes supremacy in her Canadian title? I hope this demonstrates just how utterly ridiculous your argument is.

The Crown is certainly British. It is also, like the Queen, as Peter Grey has pointed out, Jamaican, Tuvaluian, Barbadian, Australian, etc., etc., etc., and ouside of any legal jurisdiction is all of those all at the same time. However, the constitutions of the different realms create legal jurisdictions (nations) in which the Crown operates seperately from its operation in any other Realm. So, there is the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of Australia, and so on. The only "British Crown" is the Crown in Right of Britain. Therefore, to say the Crown in Canada is British is as illogical as saying the Crown in Canada is Jamaican!

I have already quoted for you Richard Toporoski's words on the matter, in particular these: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction. Dr Smith suggests that this concept of 'divisibility', however long it took for it to be articulated or accepted, explains how Canadians and Australians were able to make federal systems work."

As well, the Balfour resolution of 1926, which led to the Statute of Westminster, stated the Dominions were to become "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." [2] (http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/federal/1931.htm|1) Note the wording: "the Crown", not "the British Crown" or "the Crown of the United Kingdom" In fact this language is used throughout the Balfour resolution, as well as the Statute of Westminster [3] (http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/westmins.htm|2), and all relevant documents from the time to illustrate the fact that the Crown, now above and 'divided' amongst the equal Realms, could no longer be simply "British." Consider the patriation from Britain of the constitutions of all the Realms, as well as the altering of "the British Commonwealth of Nations" to "the Commonwealth of Nations", and your arguments that the Crown in Canada is British becomes even weaker.

To state "the Crown is no longer a purely British institution" is undoubtedly fact. That you see it as British is only your republican biased POV, and thus you have nothing substantial to back up your constant reverts. --gbambino 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion of Louis St. Laurent

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)

Your claim that Britain still has some sort of influence or control over the Crown in Canada, backed up by no "actual word of law" at all, is about 70 years out of date. As it stands now, any altering of Canada's relationship with the Crown would indeed be ineffectual in Britain. But, Britain could well become a republic and the constitution of Canada would still make Canada a monarchy with Elizabeth II as Sovereign -- no crisis. Just because Britain becomes a republic does not mean that the entire Royal Family simply vanishes off the face of the earth. The Statute of Westminster, as well as the Act of Settlement, is now constitutional law in each and every Realm, and the preamble to the Statute creates the convention that no Realm should alter the line of succession without the approval of every other -- that convention is as valid in the UK as it is in Canada. The UK could well alter the line without the consent of the other Realms, however so could Canada. No law, and no situation, makes the UK more dominant than any other Realm. The Statute of Westminster makes that very clear. - gbambino 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

The quotation by the then-Prime Minister of Canada shows that the much vaunted "multiple crown theory" did not arise out of the Statute of Westminster but is a modern interpolation. The theory is not based on constitutional law but on wishful thinking and is little more than sophist propaganda. AndyL 02:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... 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)

Nothing you've contributed contradicts the principle of equality between the Crown in the different Commonwealth Realms. I find it difficult to believe you've uncovered some new fact of constitutional law that has managed to slip past all the judges, politicians, civil servants, and lawyers of 16 countries for the better part of a century.

Past and Present

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)

Tony O’Donohue Petition

It would seem that actual rulings on constitutional law conflict with the MLC's theory. Rouleau threw out O'Donohue's petition because, under our constitution, the occupant of the position of monarch is determined by Britain, not us. This means that according to the courts, as of June 2003 the relationship is not one of equals. AndyL 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[4] (http://www.tonyodonohue.com/judgement.html)

Note also the use of the phrase "Union under the British Crown" in the ruling. It seems that the MLCs propaganda about "multiple crowns" and equality between the crowns is not supported. If you can cite any decision by a Canadian court that contradicts the one above, I'm all ears. Remember, legal theorists can claim any myriad of interpretations but what matters is not what your house legal and constitutional experts claim but what judge's actually decide. AndyL 12:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...but theories by lawyers or "experts" have no weight against a judicial judgement. AndyL 13:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the Judge is correct in all his statements, in fact, his words clearly prove that in the matter of the Crown there is a reflexive relationship between Canada and the UK. His words, and St. Laurent's, prove that there is a Queen of Canada and a Queen of the UK, but they are not separate offices. This has never been denied anyway.

But your salivating all over the fact that the Judge refers to the Crown as British, as though that proves all those who participated in the Commonwealth Conferences, Balfour, the Statute of Westminster, constitutional experts, and even the Canadian Department of Justice(!) wrong, is all for naught. The Judge says "the British Crown" because the Crown (meaning the institution we've been discussing ad nauseum here) really has no official name. The best the Judge could do was go by the wording of the preamble to the Canadian Constitution which states "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom..." Those words are 138 years old and have not been updated to reflect the evolution of the Crown since then. He could not say "the Crown," because what specifically would that refer to? The Crown of Denmark? The Crown of Thailand? He could not say "the Canadian Crown" because that term is in no legal documents, and, while the words "The Queen in Right of Canada" and the "Crown in Right of Canada" do appear in legal documents, the Judge could not say that the Commonwealth Realms are united under the "Canadian Crown" or "Crown in Right of Canada" as that is patently false. He has to refer to the Crown as British by default. gbambino 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the issue of equality. Since the "same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain", clearly the Crown in Canada is legally distinct from the British. Constitutional law also provides that they are the identical person. This dual nature of the monarchy was pointed out in the comment of 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC). This is why the Commonwealth Realms have the relationship they do. It is not a deficiency of the Constitution. - User:Peter Grey 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed content

Peter, please do not vandalise the talk page again. You're not supposed to remove other people's comments. From time to time the page can be archived but do not edit out other people's comments again. AndyL 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you see any irony in referring to argument based on constitutional law and official legislation as sophistry, and then countering with a declaration by a politician? User:Peter Grey 02:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, because the quotation by the then-Prime Minister of Canada shows that the much vaunted "multiple crown theory" did not arise out of the Statute of Westminster but is a modern interpolation which today's monarchists are desperately reading into the past in a dishonest attempt to rebut criticisms that the crown is more British than Canadian. The quote shows that your theory (or rather the MLCs since you are merely parroting something you've been told) is not based on constitutional law but on wishful thinking and is little more than sophist propaganda. AndyL 02:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino opened early with the absurd assertion that "there can be no argument against the fact that the Crown in Canada is not British". An assertion that has been torn asunder like a shipwreck 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)

Setting aside the fact that you're the only one using the bad-faith tactics you are accusing everyone else of, nothing you've contributed contradicts the principle of equality between the Crown in the different Commonwealth Realms. I find it difficult to believe you've uncovered some new fact of constitutional law that has managed to slip past all the judges, politicians, civil servants, and lawyers of 16 countries for the better part of a century.

" I find it difficult to believe you've uncovered some new fact of constitutional law that has managed to slip past all the judges, politicians, civil servants, and lawyers of 16 countries for the better part of a century."

That's because I haven't. The reason I know about the St. Laurent quotation is because learned Judge Rouleau cited it in his decision on the O'Donohue case a year or so ago. So yes, it would seem that actual rulings on constitutional law conflict with the MLCs pet theory. Rouleau threw out O'Donohue's petition because, under our constitution, the occupant of the position of monarch is determined by Britain, not us. This means that according to the courts, as of June 2003 the relationship is not one of equals. Sorry to burst your bubble. AndyL 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Judge Paul Rouleau's judgement (with my emphasis added):

CONCLUSION

[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.

[37] These rules of succession and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy and, therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

[38] In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

[39] In conclusion, the lis raised in the present application is not justiciablc and there is no serious issue to he tried. Public interest standing should not he granted. Given my ruling on these issues I need not deal with the other considerations that apply to the granting of public interest standing. The application is dismissed.

[40] If the parties cannot agree as to costs, the respondents are to provide me with brief written submissions within 10 days hereof and the applicant his submissions within 5 days thereafter.

Note also the use of the phrase "Union under the British Crown" in the ruling. I'm sorry guys but if you actually look at the law as it is written and as it is interpreted by the courts it seems that the MLCs propaganda about "multiple crowns" and equality between the crowns is not supported. If you can cite any decision by a Canadian court that contradicts the one above, I'm all ears. Remember, legal theorists can claim any myriad of interpretations but what matters is not what your house legal and constitutional experts claim but what judge's actually decide. Of course, I guess the MLC could join O'Donohue's appeal but I suspect that would be unlikely. AndyL 12:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier, gbambino claimed "It is well established that the 1931 Statute of Westminster ended any presence of the "British Crown" in Canada" -- tell that to the judge. Mr Toproski and Mr. Aimers can theorise whatever they like but theories by lawyers or "experts" have no weight against a judicial judgement. AndyL 13:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More on the Tony O’Donohue Petition

"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)

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)

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[5] (http://www.tonyodonohue.com/judgement.html), 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)

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)

Gbambino, if Britain became a republic what would happen to the royal family? Would they move to Canada? Do you not think the possibility of having a resident royal family would prompt a debate on whether Canadians (or the political establishment) really want that? Would the royal family even *want* to move to Canada. If not, how could we be a monarchy when our monarch lives in a republic (either Britain or in exile in France or Germany)? Try to be realistic. AndyL 20:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

I take it that's your way of saying you agree with me and Britain abolishing the monarchy would have an impact on Canada where the opposite would have no impact on Britain. But gbambino, of your conjecture is different please say so. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy do you think the PM and Cabinet would invite King Charles and his family to move to Rideau Hall permanently? What would this mean for the Governor General? Would Canadians, or a Canadian government, really want the de facto head of state to change from a 5 to 7 year appointee to an inherited position? Would Canadians really want to shell out to allow the royals to maintain their lifestyle? Would William and Harry and their wives and children really want to leave London for Ottawa? Would they not prefer to live as rich private citizens in Britain (or perhaps Paris or the German countryside?) I know it's a monarchist fantasy to have the royals here all the time but you're being unrealistic if you don't think there'd be consequences and a heated political debate about it. Frankly, I think if the British were to abolish the monarchy Canada would find a way to do the same either by using the McWhinnie formula to declare the throne "vacant" or by finding unanimity among the premiers under massive pressure by public opinion opposed to having King Charles here on a permanent basis. AndyL 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You refer to political impact, not to immediate constitutional issues. User:Peter Grey 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Article on the case

There is now an article regarding the O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003 case - interested parties may wish to discuss the implications at Talk:O’Donohue_v._Canada,_2003. User:Peter Grey 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

The citation is O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.). The official text [6] (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11019.html) 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)

O'Dononhue v. Her Majesty the Queen sounds fine to me and is, I believe, more accurate and as a monarchist I would think you'd agree! AndyL 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're really keen on accuracy, we could use 01-CV-217147CM. User:Peter Grey 22:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

So be it. I just think "O'Donohue v. The Queen" is much more fitting and plays on so many more levels but if "O'Donohue v. Canada" is official I'll give in. AndyL

NPOV

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)

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)

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)

If you think that article is biased then tag it but only if you actually think it's biased, not as a tit-for-tat retaliation. I think there should be more info in the MLC article on how the MLC actually functions, annual meetings? conventions? executive board? elections? internal conflicts?AndyL 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

As for how this article is POV, stating that the crown is "a distinctly Canadian institution and national unifier, both politically and symbolically" is POV. Stating that republicans contest this does not change that. AndyL 17:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

I see, this is about semantics again -- rather like when AndyL became agitated over the editing of the phrase "Movements such as Citizens for a Canadian Republic advocate democratizing and codifying the office in preparation for its eventual transformation into a presidency," to remove the implication that the transformation of the GG's office was an eventuality for which the CCR was preparing.

Well, let's analyze the phrase "Today the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as an institution shared between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in Right of Canada as a distinctly Canadian institution and national unifier, both politically and symbolically." It's uncontestable fact that the Crown is a body shared amongst the Commonwealth Realms. It is also fact that the Crown operates in Canada distinctly and uniquely in comparison to the Crown in Australia, the Crown in the U.K., the Crown in Tuvalu, etc., demonstrated by numerous points which were outlined earlier, both here and elsewhere. The only thing which might be contestable (by republicans, that is) is that the Crown is a "national unifier." While it is certainly an apolitical body, one which really does not favour one group, region, religion, language, culture, or race over any other, republicans will argue that it does cause division between Anglophone and Francophone Canadians. Their argument may be (well, is) capitalizing on the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Crown by Quebec sovereigntists, but it is an argument none-the-less. Would "today the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as an institution shared between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in Right of Canada as a distinctly Canadian institution, one which the Monarchist League argues is a national unifier, both politically and symbolically," be any better?

I can't understand why the objectivity of an entire article would be called into question over the wording of one sentence. Why must everything be so dramatic?

As well, I never stated I wanted to question the POV status of the CCR page -- I don't think there's any issue with it. What I did say was that if you want to question the MLC's neutrality, then you must want to question the CCR's as well -- both are almost identical, save for the fact that one has more information on it. That said, I agree that more info could go on the MLC article. I was actually thinking that this morning. However, I would have to take the time to do the research, and I still have a chronology to complete, oh, and let's not forget my job too. --gbambino 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute

If there is a example of an acutal dispute of fact in the article, rather than a mere personal attack on the Monarchist League unrelated to Wikipedia, then identify it. Peter Grey 22:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling the monarchy a "distinctly Canadian institution" is not factual yet it is passed of as a fact. If the sentence were changed to "what the MLC claims to be a distinctly Canadian institution" or some such that would be fine but as long as "distinctly Canadian institution" appears as a fact the article is both factually wrong and POV. AndyL 23:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is factual that "...the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as ... a distinctly Canadian institution...". The article doesn't claim that the League succeeds, which might be open to interpretation. We're looking for a dispute of fact in the article, not in a quote you've intentionally taken out of context. Peter Grey 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a statement of fact to me. What word modifies the phrase "a distinctly Canadian institution" so as to indicate this is an opinion, not a fact? AndyL 00:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Crown as distinctly Canadian and the Crown as shared between the Commonwealth Realms has already been discussed. You're entitle to dislike that if you want, but the article is not about your personal feelings. Peter Grey

It may have been discussed but it hasn't been proven that a crown shared with 15 other countries is "distinctly Canadian". AndyL 01:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Crown is no more distinctly Canadian than it is distinctly Australian or distinctly Jamaican. A system that apes the features of another system can hardly be called distinct.AndyL 07:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At issue is that the League "continues to promote ... the Crown as ... a distinctly Canadian institution...". Whether this an achievable goal doesn't change the fact that out in the real world, that is what the Monarchist League of Canada actually does. Plus, it has been proven; references to the legislation and court decisions were provided. How 'distinctly' Canadian is open to debate, but that's irrelevant here. Peter Grey 06:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Crown has a dual quality, having both a legal and personal nature. Again, this has already been discussed. Peter Grey 02:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is not proof. AndyL 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. AndyL, I apologise for the lack of diplomacy, but learn to read! The phrase clearly states: "Today the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as an institution shared between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in Right of Canada as a distinctly Canadian institution." It does not call the monarchy a 'distinctly Canadian institution'", it calls the Crown in Canada a distinctly Canadian institution -- which, as it operates seperately and differently to the Crown in every other Realm, it is. Nothing in this statement is factually incorrect, nor is it partial.

Peter Grey and I have explained the system and provided proofs until our faces are blue, but you still insist on pushing your biased republican POV. If you persist in being so difficult and bullyish I feel I'm going to have to put in a Request for Arbitration. --gbambino 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"calls the Crown in Canada a distinctly Canadian institution -- which, as it operates seperately and differently to the Crown in every other Realm." I don't think that makes it any more distinct than a clone. AndyL 19:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think" -- that's precisely the problem. You've been provided with proofs that make the statement "the Crown in Right of Canada is distinct from the Crown in Right of other Realms" true, so please provide the proof, beyond simply what you think, that there are factual inaccuracies, or that at least call the statement into question. --gbambino 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They all follow the same model, the differences between them are miniscule. It's like having a set of quintuplets and saying that because they each have different haircuts they are each "distinct". AndyL 20:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are all similar, but read the constitutions of the different Realms to see why the institution of the Crown in each is distinct from the other. And, your quintuplet analogy is a good one -- ask any set of twins (or quintuplets) if they are truly identical and, haircuts aside, they will each tell you they are distinct from their twin sibling, if not really in appearance (though they will point any out), then certainly in thinking and personality. gbambino 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Similar does not imply identical. Distinction exists - the degree of distinction is not relevant to this article. Peter Grey 21:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two of you argue as if "distinct" is a synonym for "derivative". AndyL 00:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thinly disguised ad hominem argument. There is no confusion about distinct. Peter Grey 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter and gbambino, if it is your claim that the sentence: "...the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as ... a distinctly Canadian institution..." is not a statement of fact but simply a statement of what the MLC believes, what is your objection to having the passage say "Today the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as an institution shared between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in Right of Canada as, what it claims is a distinctly Canadian institution, one which the group argues is a national unifier, both politically and symbolically."? AndyL 12:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

or "Today the Monarchist League of Canada continues to promote the larger body of the Crown as an institution shared between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in Right of Canada as, what it claims is a distinctly Canadian institution and a national unifier, both politically and symbolically."?AndyL 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Monarchist_League_of_Canada"