"The Commonwealth@60"

IT NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED TO ME that the Commonwealth was born in 1949. In fact, it would have never occurred to me that the Commonwealth was even born at all, merely a long evolution that had its origins with the British Empire, which eventually transpired into a free association of independent Commonwealth states. But if I had to choose a date, it most certainly would not have been the London Declaration of April 26, 1949.

The term 'Commonwealth of Nations' was invented by Lord Rosebery on a trip to Australia in 1884. The first meeting of colonial heads of government was held back as far as 1887 and there were many that followed, including the all-important imperial conference of 1926 that resulted in the infamous Balfour Declaration, whose pronouncements were formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

Indeed, the Statute of Westminster was until very recently considered the real beginning of the modern Commonwealth, because for the first time each country was legally recognised as equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was a truly transformative development.

On the pages of the Commonwealth Secretariat you will even find that Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand "joined" in 1931. (Interestingly they are mute on when the United Kingdom "joined".) Certainly, the significance of 1931 cannot be overstated. The Imperial Commonwealth at that point stood for independence, equality, unity, allegiance, patriotism and free association of its members.

1949 is noteworthy only as a weakening of those things. The dropping of the British pedigree, the end of our united allegiance to the King, the loss of our common patrimony, all in order to make way for the newfound Republic of India, who would not countenance associate membership. The London Declaration was the moment the British Crown Commonwealth became de-Britished, unCrowned and Common-poorer, in that the wealth we had in common became much less so.

1949 was the point in time when our monarchy was demoted to the status of symbol in order to make way for republicanism. We were no longer required to recognize the King as our sovereign, only as the symbolic "Head of the Commonwealth". As a result, Commonwealth republics now outnumber Commonwealth realms, but even more apparent than republicanism, was the ever increasing political need to turn the page and erase from historical memory our so-called "colonial legacy". Her Majesty herself on coronation day in 1952 gave an indication of this desire:

"The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace."

The spirit of that international fellowship technically still lives on, but nobody gets excited about the Commonwealth anymore. The popular fraternity - our pan-Britannic patriotism - has evaporated forever. Admittedly, our cultural loyalty may have gradually withered anyways, and certainly culture and identity are increasingly complex notions in the 21st century. But if defending the British Monarchy or an "English Queen" on the basis of national identity now seems like an increasingly remote possibility as we head further into the cosmopolitan mire, that path was firmly set in motion back in 1949.

Sixty years of celebration. Yippee and hooray.

Read the full article >>

One Glorious and United Kingdom

Today is the 55th Anniversary of the Famous Speech by the Right Honourable Enoch Powell on the Royal Titles Bill, 3 May 1953. Enoch Powell always considered this to be his finest speech and was profoundly troubled by the Act that would legally recognize for the first time the disunity of the British Crown, not one glorious and united kingdom over politically independent parliaments, but a divisible crown fragmented across separately sovereign realms.

When the Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave statutory recognition to the legislative independence of the Parliaments of the Empire it recognized in its Preamble two voluntary limitations upon that independence. Those two limitations were that any alteration in the succession or in the title of the Crown would be made, if at all, only by the agreement of all concerned. It is important that the House should have the words of that Preamble in its mind.

‘... it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ...’

The Statute of Westminster preserved what were then considered to be the two essential unities – the unity of the person of the Monarch, by maintaining that the succession, if changed, should be changed simultaneously and in the same way; and the unity of the identity of the Monarch by maintaining that the title, if changed at all, should be changed simultaneously and in the same way. The second of those two unities, the unity of title, is deliberately departed from by the agreement which this Bill implements. Agreement there has indeed been; but that agreement is only an agreement to differ.

It is a consequence of that agreement to differ that, whereas in the only previous case since the Statute of Westminster where the royal style has been altered, that alteration was specified and written into the statute which made it, the alteration has here been left unspecified both as regards time and as regards nature. Therefore, to see what alteration is proposed in virtue of this Bill, we have to look to the White Paper.

The new style for the United Kingdom which is foreshadowed in the White Paper is not quite the first attempt at a new style which has been made. Over a year ago, on 7th February, when Her present Majesty was proclaimed, she was proclaimed by an unknown style and title and one which at that time had no statutory basis. It is not quite the same title as is proposed in the present White Paper. I am not quibbling over whether the use of a title in a proclamation requires statutory authority or not. I would only remark in passing, however, that it is remarkable that we should have this necessity for Commonwealth agreement and for legislation by the Parliaments if upon that solemn moment of her accession the Queen could be proclaimed by a title unknown to the law.

When we come to the proposed new style for the United Kingdom, I find in it three major changes, all of which seem to me to be evil. One is that in this title, for the first time, will be recognized a principle hitherto never admitted in this country, namely the divisibility of the Crown.

The second feature of the new title is the suppression of the word ‘British’ both from before the words ‘Realms and Territories’ (where it is replaced by the words ‘Her other’) and from before the word ‘commonwealth’, which, in the Statute of Westminster, is described as the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’.

The third major change is that we have a new expression and concept – the ‘Head of the Commonwealth’. I shall deal with these three major changes in order.

The term ‘Realms’, which is to appear in the new title, is an emphatic statement that Her Majesty is the Queen of a number of separate kingdoms. Hitherto, that has not been this country’s acceptance of the term. For example, in introducing the corresponding Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill in 1927, the then Home Secretary said:

‘... the word "Realm" is constituted an alternative expression for the "Dominions of the Crown" ’ (Official Report, 9th March, 1927, Vol. 203, Col. 1265).

That had come to be the case by a well-recognized historical process. If you look back at the Act of Succession, you will find a reference there, in respect of England, to ‘the Imperial Crown of this Realm and France and Ireland’. By the process of events the claim to the throne of France was dropped and by the successive Acts of Union the three kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland, each with their separate historical origins, were merged into one. There was one realm, over which was ‘the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the territories thereto belonging.’

With this unity of the realm achieved by the Acts of Union there grew up the British Empire; and the unity of that Empire was equivalent to the unity of that realm. It was a unit because it had one Sovereign. There was one Sovereign, one realm. In the course of constitutional development, indeed, the Sovereign began to govern different parts of that realm upon the advice of different Ministers; but that in itself did not constitute a division of the realm. On the contrary, despite the fact that he or she ruled his or her dominions on the advice of different Ministers, the unity of the whole was essentially preserved by the unity of the Crown.

That unity we are now formally and deliberately giving up, and we are substituting what is, in effect, a fortuitous aggregation of a number of separate entities. I have not deliberately exaggerated by using the word ‘fortuitous’. Here we find these different entities defining the identity of their Sovereign differently. By recognizing the division of the realm into separate realms, are we not opening the way for that other remaining unity – the last unity of all – that of the person, to go the way of the rest?

I come now to the second major alteration which will be made by the eventual use of the Royal Prerogative – the suppression of the word ‘British’ from the description both of Her Majesty’s territories outside the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth. Incidentally, and as a minor by-product, this suppression of our nationality has resulted in what is really nonsense. Strictly speaking, to describe the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom and ‘Her other Realms and Territories’ is meaningless. We describe a monarch by designating the territory of which he is monarch.

To say that he is monarch of a certain territory and his other realms and territories is as good as to say that he is king of his kingdom. We have perpetrated a solecism in the title we are proposing to attach to our Sovereign and we have done so out of what might almost be called an abject desire to eliminate the expression ‘British’. The same desire has been felt – though not by any means throughout the British Commonwealth – to eliminate this word before the term ‘Commonwealth’. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition in Australia said that he thought the time had come to change the description of the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster as the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ into the ‘British Commonwealth’.

Why is it, then, that we are so anxious, in the description of our own Monarch, in a title for use in this country, to eliminate any reference to the seat, the focus and the origin of this vast aggregation of territories? Why is it that this ‘teeming womb of royal Kings’, as the dying Gaunt called it, wishes now to be anonymous?

When we come to the following part of the title we find the reason. The history of the term ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ is not a difficult one to trace. I hope I may be forgiven if I do so very briefly. The British Nationality Act 1948 removed the status of ‘subject of the King’ as the basis of British nationality, and substituted for allegiance to the Crown the concept of a number – I think it was nine – of separate citizenships combined together by statute. The British Nationality Act 1948 thus brought about an immense constitutional revolution, an entire alteration of the basis of our subjecthood and nationality, and since the fact of allegiance to the Crown was the uniting element of the whole Empire and Commonwealth it brought about a corresponding revolution in the nature of the unity of Her Majesty’s dominions.
The consequence of that Act immediately followed. If the British dominions were not those territories which acknowledged the Queen, but were an aggregation of separate countries enumerated in a statute, it would be possible not only to add or to subtract territories, but for any of those territories to throw off their allegiance without any consequential result. That was, in fact, what happened.
In the following year, India declared its intention to renounce its allegiance to the Crown and become a republic. Because of that change in the whole basis of British nationality, the decision did not involve the consequences which would have followed as little as a year before. The declaration of the Prime Ministers of 28th April, 1949, included the following passage:

‘The Government of India have declared and affirmed India’s desire to continue with her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of those independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.’

It was accordingly enacted by the India (Consequential Provision) Act 1949, that the law of this country should continue to apply to India as it would have done if India had not renounced its allegiance to the Crown. The result of that is, as we have found in a queer way in the only definition of the term ‘Commonwealth’ on the Statute Book – it occurs in one of the sections of the Finance Bill 1950, because a Member of the then Opposition put down an Amendment to draw attention to the omission – that the Commonwealth consists of ‘Her Majesty’s dominions and India’.

The status of India resulting from these changes and declarations is an ungraspable one in law or in fact. The Indian Government say that they recognize the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth. Well, I recognize the Rt. Hon. Member for Walthamstow West [Mr. Atlee] as leader of the Opposition, but that does not make me a Member of the Opposition. When we endeavour to ascertain into what relationship with Her Majesty’s dominions this recognition of the Crown as Head of the Commonwealth has brought India, we find ourselves baulked. It was intended that this relationship should in fact be uninterpretable. It is, therefore, necessary to inquire what is the minimum content which entitles us to recognize unity at all, and then to ask whether that necessary minimum content is applicable in the case of India.

I assert that the essence of unity, whether it be in a close-knit country or in a loosely-knit federation, is that all the parts recognize that in certain circumstances they would sacrifice themselves to the interests of the whole. It is this instinctive recognition of being parts of a whole, which means that in certain circumstances individual, local, partial interests would be sacrificed to the general interest, that constitutes unity. Unless there is some such instinctive, deliberate determination, there is no unity. There may be an alliance. We may have alliance between two sovereign Powers for the pursuit of common interests for a particular or for an undefined period; but that is not unity. That is not the maintenance or the creation of any such entity as we imply by the name ‘Empire’ or ‘Commonwealth’. I deny that there is that element, that minimum basic element, of unity binding India to Her Majesty’s dominions.
I deny that there is present, in that former part of Her Majesty’s dominions which has deliberately cast off allegiance to her, that minimum, basic, instinctive recognition of belonging to a greater whole which involves the ultimate consequence in certain circumstances of self-sacrifice in the interests of the whole.

I therefore say that this formula ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ and the declaration in which it is inscribed, are essentially a sham. They are essentially something which we have invented to blind ourselves to the reality of the position. Although the changes which will be made in the royal titles as the result of this Bill are greatly repugnant to me, if they were changes which were demanded by those who in many wars had fought with this country, by nations who maintained an allegiance to the Crown, and who signified a desire to be in the future as we were in the past; if it were our friends who had come to us and said: ‘We want this’, I would say: ‘Let it go. Let us admit the divisibility of the Crown. Let us sink into anonymity and cancel the word “British” from our titles. If they like the conundrum "Head of the Commonwealth" in the royal style, let it be there.’

However, the underlying evil of this is that we are doing it for the sake not of our friends but of those who are not our friends. We are doing this for the sake of those to whom the very names ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ are repugnant.

Mr. Nicholson (Farnham): I beg my Hon Friend to measure his words and to remember the vast sacrifices and the oceans of blood that India has poured out in the past, and to recognize the deep affection and feeling that exist throughout India towards this country.

Mr. Powell: I, who have had the advantage and privilege of serving with the Indian Army in the War, am not likely to be unmindful of it; but it was an army which owed allegiance to the Crown, an enthusiastic allegiance, which was its very principle of existence and its binding force. That allegiance, for good or for evil, has been cast off, with all that follows.

Now, I am not under any delusion that my words on this occasion can have any practical effect. None the less, they are not, perhaps, necessarily in vain. We in this House, whether we are the humblest of the backbenchers or my Rt. Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury himself [Mr. Churchill], are in ourselves, in our individual capacities, quite unimportant. We have a meaning in this place only in so far as in our time and generation we represent great principles, great elements in the national life, great strands in our society and national being.

Sometimes, elements which are essential to the life, growth and existence of Britain seem for a time to be cast into shadow, obscured, and even destroyed. Yet in the past they have remained alive; they have survived; they have come to the surface again, and they have been the means of a new flowering, which no one had suspected. It is because I believe that, in a sense, for a brief moment, I represent and speak for an indispensable element in the British Constitution and in British life that I have spoken – I pray, not entirely in vain.

Read the full article >>

We deserve Knighthoods too

To her Most Excellent Majesty, ELIZABETH the Second.

May it Please Your Majesty,

We beg forgiveness for approaching Your Majesty's throne in this manner, but we were saddened to learn that Your Majesty did not appoint the Honourable John Howard to Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter yesterday. We were saddened not out of falsely raised expectations, but because expectations have now been raised to seemingly impossible heights, and because we in the Commonwealth are gravely starving for lack of Your Majesty's honour.

Madam, it is saddening beyond measure that we in the Commonwealth Realms abolished British Honours and knighthoods in favour of national orders without knightly rank. The old knighthoods had history, and heritage. They weren't just a Scout merit badge for good conduct, they were an honour and an obligation. Being a Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath, or of Saint Michael and Saint George, being called "Sir" and having a coat of arms, all that was more than just window dressing. Being a knight meant chivalry, honour, tradition and obligation. It was more than the community saying "Well done", it was a way of tying our high achievers into the fabric of the community. Reminding them of their obligations, to be generous, and community-minded. Chivalrous and gentlemanly. We expect Knights to act rightly. And more than that, it was a very public salute to excellence, to kindness and to service. Our national orders, the Order of Lenin, I mean Canada, or Australia or New Zealand, are not yet on the same level. Handy to have. Nice to look at. But not elevated, not a real honour, not a knighthood.

In abolishing British honours, Your Majesty's governments wanted to reflect a distinctive national identity. This, we were told, would strengthen the community, and abolish elitism. In reality it did nothing of the sort, it destroyed our inheritance and left our communities weaker. All it did was loosen the ties of affection that unites Your Majesty with your people, and your people with each other in the community. Our national orders have no transcendent significance because they are not knightly. They have no history, no "Honourable" heritage, and, although they show the recipient to be A Nice Chap and a man of merit, they don't remind him of his obligations to the Queen and to the community that gave it to him either. Our best, brightest and kindest deserve more than a gold-plated merit badge. They deserve honour. It is a shame that we no longer believe in the concept.

Madam, because you are still able to confer honours upon Commonwealth subjects that emanate from you personally, even though your governments may silently cast aspersions for the effrontery of bypassing them, we humbly beseech your most gracious Majesty to take these matters into due consideration. We wish long life and happiness to your Majesty, and am, forever,

Your Majesty's most Faithful and obedient Subjects,

Beaverbrook and Pitt

Read the full article >>

A Loyal Birthday Address to Her Majesty

To Her Gracious and Sacred Majesty Elizabeth, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis and her other realms and territories; Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

YOUR MAJESTY,

Whereas your Parliaments, dominated as they are by Wreckers, Levellers, Traitors and Malcontents, may neglect to send Your Majesty a Loyal Address on the Occasion of Your Majesty's 82nd Birthday,

And whereas Your Majesty's Crown, and the beloved constitution hallowed by the dust and the blood of our Fathers ought to be at the centre of our national life, and the protection of the same our chief care,

Therefore I, the least of Your Majesty's loyal subjects, have taken it upon myself to present to your most Gracious and Excellent Majesty this Loyal Address, upon Subjects Patriotic and Loyal, wherewith to confound Your Majesty's enemies, and for the maintenance of the loyalty which is your and our chief protection against Levelling Modernism and the Paineite Rabble who wish to destroy our honour, our history, our liberty, and Your Majesty.

Madam, this year marks the fifty-sixth of your reign. You have conducted yourself with grace, dignity and responsibility to all your subjects, and all your peoples. Your contribution to our stability and well-being has often gone un-noticed. You have never complained, but have unfailingly continued steadfast in your duties. For this, I salute you.

You stand at the end of a proud tradition, stretching back into the mists of time. Your Majesty sat upon the Stone of Destiny, upon King Edward's chair. You were anointed, hallowed, consecrated unto God by the Primate and Metropolitan of All England. You were crowned, acclaimed, and recognised, by right of blood succession, Queen regnant of this and your other Realms. You were lifted up above us "by the power, authority and ordinance of Almighty God". For this, I salute you, and Praise God for his grace unto us.

Your Majesty is a Christian Prince, a link in the chain between your people and God's Justice. As such, you are the Mother of your people, stretching out your hand to protect us from politics, politicians and their grubby electioneering. Your Majesty is the focus of our unity, above politics, answerable to no-one but God and your conscience. For this, I salute you.

You are the symbol of all that is decent, and good, and stable in our tradition. You are the personification of our law, and God's Law. You are united to your peoples, and they to you. You are a symbol of continuity, a rock in the midst of change. You are the link between the Motherland and her many outposts, independent, yet always united, in culture, law, language, sport and love of our collective Queen. Those who have left the Commonwealth too, hold you in high esteem. Your Majesty's devotion to the welfare of all your people makes you welcome everywhere. Sir Winston Churchill had it right when he said: ""We honour her because she is our Queen. We love her because she is herself".

Because you are our Queen, and because you are yourself, Your Majesty, on your 82nd birthday, your peoples around the world salute you.

God Save Her Majesty our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth!
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

Read the full article >>

Wigs and Robes in the Republic of Uganda

It would appear that Uganda did not get the memo on modernity. The Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament pictured here seems to be still stubbornly stuck in the past, clinging to that widely discredited notion, tradition. More specifically, British tradition.

Here's another shocker: the fanatical lengths to which some Ugandans want a practicing Christian country. Apparently the Lord's Resistance Army is at war with the government and will stop at nothing to establish a theocratic regime based on the Christian Bible and the Ten Commandments. Its leader, Joseph Kony, might want to brush up on one of its moral imperatives though, namely thou shalt not kill.

Read the full article >>

Take the Commonwealth Poll today!

For the Commonwealth Realms, The Monarchist has devised the poll of the 21st century. In the world of constitutional choices, it is crucial to lay them all out in order to arrive at a meaningful result. Public opinion cannot be divided into a simple yes/no manner; unfortunately, as the 1999 Australian referendum demonstrated, politicians and pollsters attempt to put us into simplistic camps in order to control or achieve a desired outcome. But we will not be hoodwinked. We will not perceive a weight of inevitability towards any one system without first asking the question. What is your constitutional preference upon the demise of Queen Elizabeth II?

The choices, as outlined in the poll in the sidebar, are as follows (listed in increasing order of difficulty):

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

1. Maintain Personal Union: If you would like to continue our fraternal allegiance to a shared Commonwealth Crown, with the legally separate sovereign of each nation remaining in personal union with the British Monarch, then you favour the status quo. You are what we call a traditional monarchist (also Commonwealth monarchist or Anglo monarchist), one who holds a belief largely on principled and/or sentimental attachment to the monarchy, in part based on traditional associations with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Nations and a personal identification with Elizabeth II and her family. If you are British and would like to see the United Kingdom survive as a political union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but also of England, Scotland and Wales, then you also favour this approach, for you are devoted to a single monarch reigning over the nations of the British Isles.

2. Patriate the Monarchy: If you are a national monarchist, be it Scottish, Australian, Jamaican, New Zealand, etc, then this is for you. You look forward to the day when another Royal of the House of Windsor or the House of Stuart is invited to become your national sovereign, totally separate from that of the British Monarch. If you reside outside of the UK, you may not be wholly satisfied by the fact that 15 of the 16 Commonwealth realms have a non-resident monarch. Patriating the monarchy would require no constitutional amendment, although unilaterally changing the order of succession and convincing a Royal could be challenging.

3. Crowned Republic: The clear choice of the liberal Canadian multicultural elite. We are in Ted McWhinney territory here, "quietly and without fanfare" dispensing with the need for Kings and Queens. You might plausibly be called a pragmatic or progressive monarchist, one who wants to sever all links to the Royal Family but keep the Crown and some trappings of monarchy. You maintain that, whatever the argued weaknesses of the current system, it also has many strengths; following the motto of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". You believe that constitutional monarchy provides the basis for stable democratic government, with the Governor-General (the monarch's nominal representative) acting as an impartial, non-political "umpire" of the political process. However, you would like to see the appointed Governor-General represent the Crown by becoming the de jure, not just de facto head of state. By the way, Australia is about as close to a Crowned Republic as one can get without actually becoming one. They are of the view that their Governor-General is the head of state, and the Queen their sovereign, which you have to hand it to them, is an admirable piece of monarchist sophistry. A national government or parliament deciding on its own to become a Crowned Republic would probably be vulnerable to multiple constitutional challenges. Incidentally, England became a Crowned Republic under Oliver Crowell in the 1650s and failed miserably. But hey, don't let that stop you.

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

4. Parliamentary Republic: You are what we call a "minimal change republican", who aimes to replace the monarch with an appointed head of state, but otherwise maintain the current system as unchanged as possible. Within this group in Australia, during the 1999 referendum, there were a small group of supporters of the ultra-minimalist McGarvie Model, but generally the favoured model of this group would be a non-executive president (probably) appointed by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament. In the 1999 referendum, it was the preferred choice of Australian republican politicians, earning the ridicule by monarchists as a "politician's republic". Alternatively, a parliamentary republic may have an elected ceremonial president such as that which exists in Ireland. (Added for the benefit of Lewis in the comments).

5. Semi-Presidential System: If your goal is to replace the monarch with a popularly elected head of state, who is more than just a ceremonial figurehead by virtue of the added democratic legitimacy conferred upon him by the electorate, then you are a progressive republican. This system is called co-habitation - probably the most feared option of every prime minister throughout the Commonwealth, the idea of sharing power and legitimacy with an elected president. France has a particularly powerful semi-presidential system, but the degree to which power would be shared in your particular country would be anyone's guess.

6. Presidential Republic: The choice of radical republicans, who see the minimal change option as purely cosmetic, and desire comprehensive revision to the current Westminister-based system. This would be the preferred option of people who admire the American congressional system, with its executive president and clear separation of powers between the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

In Sir Robert Menzies' words, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules.", but it need not be if all six choices are truthfully laid out in a nation-wide referendum. I think you would find if you did that, the number of people voting for the constitutional monarchy options would be far greater than those voting for the republican choices. So monarchists and republicans, take the poll! The poll will stay up for the next year.

Read the full article >>

The Anzacs at Passchendaele

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, and Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand are in Belgium at the Tyne Cot Cemetary (the largest cemetery for Commonwealth forces in the world, for any war) for the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele to honour the 40,000 diggers who fell in the Autumn of 1917. See also: The Queen at Passchendaele.

Her Excellency Mrs Marlena Jeffery honours fallen Anzacs

From Wikipedia: More than any other battle, Passchendaele has come to symbolise the horrific nature of the great battles of the First World War and the uselessness of the tactics employed. The Germans lost approximately 270,000 men, while the British Empire forces lost about 300,000, including approximately 36,500 Australians, 3,596 New Zealanders and 16,000 Canadians — the latter of which were lost in the intense final assault between 26 October and 10 November; 90,000 British, New Zealand and Australian bodies were never identified, and 42,000 never recovered. Aerial photography showed 1,000,000 shell holes in a 1 square mile area.

"I died in Hell
(they called it Passchendaele); my wound was slight
and I was hobbling back; and then a shell
burst slick upon the duckboards; so I fell
into the bottomless mud, and lost the light"
― Siegfried Sassoon

Read the full article >>

Commonwealth Day 2007

Text of The Queen's message to the Commonwealth, 12 March 2007

Click here for Audio

Today's Commonwealth is home to nearly a third of the world's population. Its almost two billion citizens come from so many faiths, races, cultures and traditions.

I think that one of the reasons for the success of this organisation is that it draws not only on certain shared values, but also from the principles and practices of everyday life, which can be observed day after day in the cities, towns and villages of our 53 member countries.

Over thousands of years, the very basis of community life has been the pooling together by individuals of their resources and skills. Rather than having to be good at everything, people were able to practice their own skill or craft. The lesson of community life is that to flourish we must help each other. To do this, there has to be a sense of fairness, a real understanding of others' needs and aspirations, and a willingness to contribute.

Despite its size and scale, the Commonwealth to me is still at heart a collection of villages. In close-knit communities like these, there are beliefs and values we share and cherish. We know that helping others will lead to greater security and prosperity for ourselves.

Because we feel this way, our governments and peoples aim to work even more closely together. And as individuals, we find that taking part in Commonwealth activities can be inspirational and personally rewarding.

In today's difficult and sometimes divided world, I believe that it is more important than ever to keep trying to respect and understand each other better. Each and every one of us has hopes, needs, and priorities. Each of us is an individual, with ties of emotion and bonds of obligation - to culture, religion, community, country and beyond. In short, each of us is special.The more we see others in this way, the more we can understand them and their points of view. In what we think and say and do, let us as individuals actively seek out the views of others; let us make the best use of what our beliefs and history teach us; let us have open minds and hearts; and let us, like the Commonwealth, find our diversity a cause for celebration and a source of strength and unity.

This is a thought worth bearing in mind as we gather on Commonwealth Day: we are a thriving community; we value our past; we make the most of our present; and we are working together to build our future. By respecting difference and promoting understanding, that future will be a better one for us all.

Read the full article >>

The Queen calls for understanding

The republicans call for a blow torch.

If a republican press release falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Lewis Holden likes to think so, which is why he enjoys flogging it to the (totally indifferent) masses. It's Commonwealth Day, a day for Commonwealth loyalists, the Queen is calling for understanding, and there low and behold is Mr. Holden, with his peerless artistry for rationalising truth, using the opportunity to slit monarchy's throat. You have to admire the timing. Almost gentlemanly.

Read the full article >>

France and UK considered merging, sharing Queen

According to today's Guardian, in an incredible discussion, Britain and France talked about a "union" in the 1950s, even discussing the possibility of the Queen becoming the French head of state.

In one of history's great might-have-beens, on September 10, 1956, Guy Mollet, the French prime minister, came to London to discuss the possibility of a merger between the two countries with Sir Anthony Eden, according to declassified papers from the National Archives, uncovered by the BBC. "When the French prime minister, Monsieur Mollet, was recently in London, he raised with the prime minister the possibility of a union between the United Kingdom and France." This needs to be read in its entirety:

At the time of the proposal, France was in economic difficulties and faced the escalating Suez crisis. Britain had been a staunch French ally during the two world wars. When Mr Mollet's request for a union failed, he quickly responded with another plan - that France be allowed to join the British commonwealth - which was said to have been met more warmly by Sir Anthony.

A document dated September 28, 1956, records a conversation between the prime minister and his cabinet secretary, Sir Norman Brook, saying:

"The PM told him [Brook] on the telephone that he thought, in the light of his talks with the French:

· That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the Commonwealth
· That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of Her Majesty
· That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis."

However, this proposal was also eventually rejected and, a year later, France signed the Treaty of Rome with Germany and the other founding nations of the European common market.

"I tell you the truth - when I read that I am quite astonished," the French Nationalist MP, Jacques Myard, told the BBC today. "I had a good opinion of Mr Mollet before. I think I am going to revise that opinion. I am just amazed at reading this, because since the days I was learning history as a student I have never heard of this. It is not in the textbooks."

No French record of the proposal appears to exist, and it is unclear whether there were any proposals for the name of the new union. A spokesman for the French embassy said most people had been surprised by the revelation. "We are looking at our national archives," he said. "We cannot comment at this stage."

Read the full article >>

Perhaps the Most Vile Sentence Ever Printed in Any Governmental Document in the Entire British Commonwealth of Nations

"There is no justification for retaining working court dress on the grounds of tradition alone - our courts are not a tourist attraction."

— Lord Chancellor's Department Consultation Paper, 'Court Working Dress in England and Wales', May 2003

by Andrew Cusack

This sentence alone epitomises the noxious worldview of the modernist. It is a sentence that pronounces with totalitarian authority a ruling to which it allows no appeal. Tradition, they would tell us, has no inherent value in and of itself. It is nothing but a potential boon to the tourist industry – which is thoroughly reprehensible itself.

Yes, you heinous ignoramuses! There is a justification for retaining wigs and gowns in court on the grounds of tradition alone: thus it is, and ever thus it has been, and ne'er has a soul come to harm because of it! Fat, vile, impudent, ignorant modernist bureaucrats! I believe there is a tradition in the American South involving a self-appointed gang of citizens, a noose, and a tree with strong branches. I couldn't think of a more appropriate exercise of such a tradition than ridding us of the damnable soul – loathsome, worthless degenerate! – who composed that sentence with all its odious implications.

You may read the detestable 'consultation paper' online at what was the Lord Chancellor's Department but which has since been corporately rebranded by Tony and the gang as the 'Department for Constitutional Affairs' with its own catchphrase 'Justice, rights and democracy' (sic), lacking the Oxford comma. There are further contemptible utterances in the document; it is not for the faint of heart.

Read the full article >>

Brits favour Old Commonwealth

Do you think? Do you honestly think? I've known this all along, but nobody will listen to little old me. The elites will have you believe that the modern, grownup, more urbane and cool Britannia has a greater cosmopolitan appreciation now for places like Paris, Milan and New York. Not the dowdy old Commonwealth. Or so they thought.

According to a Sunday poll, it turns out that the British still rank Australia, New Zealand and Canada most affectionately. Read Oz bowls us over...

It tops a list of the most respected nations that appears to reflect Britain’s continuing affection for the old Commonwealth.

Just under a fifth of people (18%) said Australia was the country they most admired after Britain. New Zealand came second with 14%, while Canada came next at 11%.

Australia’s popularity is highest among people aged 18-34, particularly those in London where there is a strong community of antipodean expatriates, and in the Midlands and Wales.

Beaverbrook

Read the full article >>

Queen to honour Canadian with DFC

I can't believe I missed this, but it was Christmas and I was busy: Britain honours Canadian pilot with Distinguished Flying Cross.

Flight Lieutenant Christopher Hasler is the first Canadian to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross since the Korean war. The cross has been handed out to Canadians 4,460 times, mostly during the Second World War. It is awarded for acts of valour, courage or devotion to duty performed while flying in active operations against the enemy. It was established on June 3, 1918, the birthday of King George V.

"Flight Lieut. Christopher Hasler and his Royal Air Force helicopter crew twice risked their lives during combat operations in Afghanistan.

In July, Hasler's Chinook helicopter came under intense fire from machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades during a mission to resupply British troops and pick up wounded in a Taliban stronghold in volatile Helmand province.

During another operation, Hasler landed his helicopter in a space among three buildings to get closer to the troops — again under heavy fire.

The slightest error would have been disastrous, but Hasler said there is at least one thing that scares him more than combat in Afghanistan."

"I don't know how I am going to feel when I meet the Queen" in May during the medal ceremony.

H/t as usual: Gods of the Copybook Headings. I like these good news bits. I think this one will serve as a useful segway into my year-end rant (post to follow).

Beaverbrook

Read the full article >>

The Queen's Royal Christmas Podcast

Full text of Her Majesty's Christmas message to the Commonwealth

"I have lived long enough to know that things never remain quite the same for very long.

One of the things that has not changed all that much for me is the celebration of Christmas.

It remains a time when I try to put aside the anxieties of the moment and remember that Christ was born to bring peace and tolerance to a troubled world.

The birth of Jesus naturally turns our thoughts to all new-born children and what the future holds for them.

The birth of a baby brings great happiness - but then the business of growing up begins.

It is a process that starts within the protection and care of parents and other members of the family - including the older generation.

Dedicated teachers, friends and voluntary workers like these here at Southwark Cathedral have much to contribute.

As with any team, there is strength in combination: what grandparent has not wished for the best possible upbringing for their grandchildren or felt an enormous sense of pride at their achievements?

But, despite the many community projects like this one, the pressures of modern life sometimes seem to be weakening the links which have traditionally kept us together as families and communities.

As children grow up and develop their own sense of confidence and independence in the ever-changing technological environment, there is always the danger of a real divide opening up between young and old, based on unfamiliarity, ignorance or misunderstanding.

It is worth bearing in mind that all of our faith communities encourage the bridging of that divide.

The wisdom and experience of the great religions point to the need to nurture and guide the young, and to encourage respect for the elderly.

Christ himself told his disciples to let the children come to him, and Saint Paul reminded parents to be gentle with their children, and children to appreciate their parents.

The scriptures and traditions of the other faiths enshrine the same fundamental guidance.

It is very easy to concentrate on the differences between the religious faiths and to forget what they have in common - people of different faiths are bound together by the need to help the younger generation to become considerate and active citizens.

And there is another cause for hope that we can do better in the future at bridging the generation gap. As older people remain more active for longer, the opportunities to look for new ways to bring young and old together are multiplying.

As I look back on these past 12 months, marked in particular for me by the very generous response to my 80th birthday, I especially value the opportunities I have had to meet young people. I am impressed by their energy and vitality, and by their ambition to learn and to travel.

It makes me wonder what contribution older people can make to help them realise their ambitions.

I am reminded of a lady of about my age who was asked by an earnest, little granddaughter the other day: "Granny, can you remember the Stone Age?"

Whilst that may be going a bit far, the older generation are able to give a sense of context, as well as the wisdom of experience which can be invaluable.

Such advice and comfort are probably needed more often than younger people admit or older people recognise.

I hope that this is something that all of us, young or old, can reflect on at this special time of year.

For Christians, Christmas marks the birth of our Saviour, but it is also a wonderful occasion to bring the generations together in a shared festival of peace, tolerance and goodwill.

I wish you all a very happy Christmas together."

Read the full article >>

Her Majesty's Speech

The Independent Television network has given Britons a short preview of the content of this year's speech from Her Majesty. This year's speech is said to reflect upon the interrelation between the different generations and Her Majesty points to the teachings of "the great religions" which emphasise this same bridge.

Her Majesty's speech will be broadcast to all her subjects throughout the Commonwealth and British monarchs have been broadcasting to their people since 1932 when George V used his speech to inaugurate the wireless' 'Empire Service' (replaced in our own day by the BBC's 'World Service'). Every monarch since has continued this tradition, with the exception of Edward VIII. The speeches were often delivered from the comfort of Sandringham, but this year Her Majesty will deliver the (pre-recorded) speech from Southwark Cathedral, See of the lately infamous Bishop of Southwark.

The first speech given by Her Majesty was delivered from that same desk which her father and grandfather had used to speak to their peoples. In her first Christmas broadcast Her Majesty began with a charming remembrance of her father and expressed her own desire to serve the Empire;

"Each Christmas, at this time, my beloved father broadcast a message to his people in all parts of the world. Today I am doing this to you, who are now my people."

In recent years the Christmas broadcast has been an opportunity for Her Majesty to reflect upon recent events such as the deaths of the late Princess of Wales and The Princess Margaret, as well as the September 11th attacks. George VI, in 1939, used the speech to urge his people to be strong in the face of coming troubles and throughout the last war the Christmas speech was a great source of morale to troops at home and abroad, stationed in all parts of the world. Even in our own day when it seems sometimes that monarchists are outnumbered it is touching and comforting to know that throughout Britain, and the Commonwealth, families gather around to hear Her Majesty's address to us, who are her people.

Read the full article >>

When you are all things to all people...

In the December 18th edition of The Scotsman, one finds a story by John Chiahemen on a possible enlargement of the Commonwealth, including prospective candidates "Algeria, Rwanda, Israel and the Palestinian Territories."

Of course, Secretary-General Don McKinnon is hard-pressed to comment directly on such intentions, other than to state that these countries are looking for entry into an organisation that will afford them more influence on the world stage than they may have had otherwise.

Certainly, it is not my intent to be critical of these prospective candidates. Their interest is, after all, based on seeing utility in the Commonwealth. Having said that, I am reminded of the old adage that "When you are all things to all people, you end up being nothing to anyone."

The Commonwealth works, by and large, because of the cohesiveness of its membership. We understand what the Commonwealth represents, and we appreciate our responsibility in maintaining that ethic.

At present, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are at loggerheads with one another, with no possible end in sight. In Gaza, Fatah and Hamas partisans are engaged in running gun battles with one another, and both the Israelis and the Palestinians express anger and indifference at the UN, the West (as a construct), among others for the morass.

Can we legitimately believe that bringing these two parties to Marlborough House and allowing them to attend CHOGM's will improve this acrid climate? Indeed, if the Secretariat's responses on Zimbabwe and Fiji are a reflection of policy, neither of these two governments will get through the front door.

Unfortunately, these nations' interest in the Commonwealth is predicated more on extracting than contributing - money, technical support, legitimacy, and a soap box to vent their angst with one another.

This is not to say that either should be dismissed as persona non grata on this count. Both hold a historical link to the Empire and Commonwealth. Israel functions very much as a modern Western liberal democracy, and there are elements in civil society and the intelligensia among the Palestinians that give cause for hope.

Both Israel and a Palestinian state could find themselves part of the Commonwealth family, but in every family, one makes accommodations for the common good. Each must resolve their own differences before they can hope to join this family.

Read the full article >>

Sovereign Independence

By Cyril Bagin

The Forgotten Milestone

This Monday, December 11 marks the 75th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, a milestone that is significant and yet forgotten. This law was passed by the Imperial Parliament at Westminster in 1931, forever changing our Empire into the Commonwealth. This is the day that Canada and the other Dominions became fully independent countries.

Most of us are aware of the national importance of the battle at Vimy Ridge and the maturing of Canada’s self-identity during World War I. But few are aware of the developments that occurred following this Great War, including both Canada’s welcome at the diplomatic table and the Imperial discussions which took place in the 1920s. These Imperial Conferences led to an organic development in the British Empire that was legally enacted by this Statute of Westminster. Though it was necessarily an act of the Parliament in the United Kingdom, it was actually a consensus agreed upon by the governments of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions existing at that time.

These Dominions within the Empire included the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland . Each of these, beginning with Canada , achieved internal self-government within the Empire. However, until 1931, the key word was “within”. Each Dominion was more than a mere colony and yet was still connected to the mother country. After 1931, each Dominion legally became an equal to the United Kingdom and fully independent in every way. The best example of the meaning of this change is with the declaration of war. At the start of the First World War, when the United Kingdom declared war automatically the whole Empire was engaged. But at the beginning of the Second World War, Canada independently declared war a week later.

This organic change within the Empire effectively created The Commonwealth that Canada still remains a key member of. These seven countries are thus the founding members of this international organization, which at that time was known as The British Commonwealth of Nations. Though each country was now fully independent, each state chose to remain a constitutional monarchy and to keep the unifying role of the Crown. Political power no longer united these realms; now only common allegiance united these free peoples. When she became our Queen, Elizabeth II also became Head of the Commonwealth and recognized that “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace.”

While recognizing the Crown, this Statute significantly changed the role of the monarch. Until 1931, King George V was Canada’s king because he was the King of the United Kingdom and he would take official advice in regard to Canada from both the Canadian and British governments. But, with this legislation, The King became our king independently and also became the first Canadian in international law. In other words, sixteen years before Canadian citizenship was created in 1947, the monarch was legally a Canadian and exercised a Canadian role independent of any other. At the next coronation in 1937, the Coronation Oath was changed and George VI swore to govern each realm according to our own laws and customs. He became King of Canada. This is why Canada would remain a monarchy now even if the United Kingdom ceased to be one.

The Statute of Westminster is one of Canada’s constitutional documents. It affected our parliamentary, governmental and foreign affairs. The Parliament of Canada’s powers were extended so that it had full power to make all laws necessary for state, including those that are extra-territorial. The powers of the British Parliament were limited, so that it could no longer affect the laws of a Dominion unless that Dominion requested and consented to that action. Therefore, because Canadian leaders could not agree on a new constitutional amendment formula, the British Parliament continued to pass amendments to Canada’s constitution until 1982, however only at the request of the Canadian government. This remained a formality, the real decision now being in Canadian hands.

As we prepare for the 140th anniversary of our confederation, all Canadians can pause to remember this 75th anniversary of the day we became fully independent. Hopefully this will also encourage us to further discover the history and identity of our country.

Cyril Bagin is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars and Canada’s National Historical Society resident in Windsor.

Read the full article >>

The Reincarnated Whiggish Rabble

I made a New Year’s resolution to be less partisan on The Monarchist blogspot, to take the high road as it were and to avoid the excessive rants of a die-hard Tory. Because it is true that monarchy today cuts across the political spectrum, that it naturally finds support in every party grouping and every walk of life. That monarchy itself, as the sovereign representative of the people, presides over the politics and remains above the stray. As is obvious, there’s no politics, where there's no power.

But we also know that certain political parties and their leaders are patently antimonarchist in their tendencies, be they Helen Clark’s Labour in New Zealand, the rampant republicanism of Australian Labor, the devine right of Liberal rule in Canada and the sovereignty undermining Labourite Europhiles of Great Britain. These parties are the Whigs of our times, the natural successors of 1679 and all that, who follow in the long tradition of weakening the Royal Prerogative whenever the opportunity avails itself. It continues even to this day: the Conservatives as the inheritors of Toryism are still the party most supportive of monarchy and the Liblaboury are still the Whiggamores wittling it all away. Whig or Tory, same old story.

In the heyday of Whig-Tory competitive politics, when the two-party political system really took off (circa 1780s), it was the Tories under the stewardship of William Pitt the Younger who stood foursquare against Charles James Fox (photo above left), the radical Whig leader who flirted dangerously with the ideas of the French Revolution to the horror of his fellow Parliamentarians, not least of whom was Edmund Burke, the principled Whig who crossed the chasm most abruptly to stand with the Prime Minister. We are the Commonwealth inheritors of Pitt's legacy, of the British Parliamentary heritage that still survives. The two oldest political parties in the world changed their names as we evolved from a Parliamentary aristocracy (Whig and Tory) to a Parliamentary democracy (Liberal and Conservative), but the political culture is still there. The traditions and sentiments persist. The institutions exist even as we have evolved. Because, and this is the key part: The monarchy goes on.

So it is up to all of us that this continues to hold true. To fight the political descendants of Charles Fox and stand foursquare against the reincarnated Whiggish rabble. As Burke said, all that is required for the undesirable to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well, we're doing something here. All principled Whigs are invited to join. To keep alive the legacy of Pitt.

(Originally posted by Beaverbrook here)

Read the full article >>

From Honours to Merit Badges

Part of every June 6 is the Queen's Birthday Honours. It is saddening beyond measure that Labour abolished British Honours and knighthoods in 2000, in favour of the Order of Helen Clark, I mean the New Zealand Order of Merit. Knight Grand Cross of the Noble Order of Saint Michael and Saint George becomes "Member of the NZ Order of Merit." And you don't even get to call yourself a knight, Sir or Dame, just "MNZM" after your name. Underwhelmed? Me too.

The old knighthoods had history, and heritage. They weren't just a merit badge for correct conduct, they were an honour and an obligation. Being a Knight of Saint Michael and Saint George, being called "Sir" and having a coat of arms, all that was more than just window dressing. Being a knight is mixed up with chivalry, honour, tradition and obligation. It is more than the community saying "Well done", it is a way of tying our high achievers into the fabric of the community. Reminding them of their obligations, to be generous, and community-minded. Chivalrous and gentlemanly. We expect Knights to act rightly. And more than that, it was a very public salute to excellence, to kindness and to service. "The NZ Order of Merit" is on the same level as a Scout merit badge. Handy to have. Nice to look at. But not elevated, not a real honour, Not a knighthood.

In abolishing British honours, the government said they wanted to reflect that Sacred cow "The New Zealand identity", to bring a distinctive flavour to the honouring of Kiwis by Kiwis. This, they said, would strengthen the community, and abolish elitism. Oh please. Yet again, this infantile insistence on destroying our inheritance has left the community weaker. It has loosened the ties of affection that unites the Queen and her people, and her people with each other in community. Who cares about the Order of Lenin, I mean Merit? It has no transcendent significance. It has no history, no "Honourable" heritage, and, although it shows the recipient is A Nice Chap, it doesn't remind him of his obligations to the Queen and community that gave it him either. A healthy dose of elitism does no-one any harm. Our best, brightest and kindest deserve more than a gold-plated merit badge. They deserve honour. It is a shame that Labour no longer believes in the concept.

Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read the full article >>

The Tipping Point

As our readers will by now clearly understand, the Monarchist and I are devoted Anglophiles and supporters of the Commonwealth, and loyal subjects of Her Majesty. But we are also – like most others of our ilk – intense admirers of the United States. This twin devotion may appear paradoxical to those with a weaker grasp of history, but of course there lies therein neither contradiction nor riddle.

As William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, insisted at the height of the American Revolution, the Americans were not traitors to England; rather, they revealed England’s betrayal of herself. It was the Americans who demanded the continuance in fact, and refused the relegation to the theoretical, of the fundamental principles of liberty and parliamentary democracy that Britain had so painfully brought into the world. For the Americans, liberty was not a buzz word or a punch line. It was not something that they would see diluted or bought off with creature comforts or temporary personal advantages. It was the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis of how they intended to live their lives and to structure their government and their society. Give me liberty or give me death, they said – and they meant it. They say it, and mean it, to this day.

With the events of the past two weeks, I have finally come to understand why the American people, whom I so admire, are so despised by so many in Canada. It is because people of principle and courage are bound to be despised by those who can claim neither. I have also come to understand, on a visceral level, what I have so far appreciated only on an intellectual, theoretical basis. I have always marveled at how the great Americans of their revolution – men like Washington and Adams, who were men of the greatest integrity, and possessed of the most irreproachable personal virtue; men for whom loyalty was a core quality – came so precipitously and violently to shift their allegiances. I now understand that it was because they encountered what exists in all things: a tipping point; a point of no return. It is precisely those of the greatest character, whose very integrity and loyalty most retard their progress toward it, who cross the chasm most abruptly. Adams and Washington had attempted as far as possible to reform the nature of British dominion over America. They had resisted as long as possible the idea that such reform would never happen. But, as if on cue, they recognized all at once that they had been wrong: that reform would never, ever come; that radical measures were, in fact, required; that continued prevarication was futile and only demeaned them; that to overthrow that which had evolved to become the opposite of what it claimed and ought to be would be virtue, not sin.

I am not so arrogant as to set my personal qualities, and my thoughts and actions, on a plane with those of Washington and Adams. But I will say this: with Thursday’s votes in the House of Commons, capping what are surely the two most disgraceful weeks in the history of the Canadian Parliament, I have reached my own, personal tipping point. I have abruptly come to see – with the force and clarity of a thunderclap – that the Canada that I have defended and loved no longer exists, and cannot be retrieved. And with that realization, I say that as of now, I believe this: what Canada has become not only is not worth perpetuating; it should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity.

What exactly have we witnessed over the past two weeks? We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.

As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.

The Liberals believe that they have saved Canada. It is stupefying that they cannot see, that they cannot even imagine; that saving Canada and saving themselves are not the same thing. Because they can be bought and sold, they cannot conceive that a Canada that is anything other than a hollow and worthless shell might not be. But above all, they suffer from that greatest of delusions: they imagine that the universe is static. This is Canada, they think; this is how it works. Elections are decided in Ontario and Quebec. Quebecers are sleazy and stupid: just throw them some bones, and try not to get caught. And no one else matters. Those westerners are crazy; they are dangerous; they are not reading the script. So just take their money and ignore them. Things have always been thus, and always will be. The Liberals, and with them much of Ontario, just cannot conceive that all this could ever change; that this grand order of theirs might one day soon be turned on its head, and cease to be.

But it could – just ask George III. And unless I am much mistaken, the events of the past two weeks have virtually ensured that it will.

I am not a Quebecer. I have not spent much time in Quebec, nor do I identify personally with Quebec’s culture and history. In short, I do not readily identify with Quebecers; I do not naturally walk in their shoes. But over the past several months, as Gomery has dropped bombshell after bombshell, I have found myself quietly and steadily becoming outraged on their behalf. And I have been inspired to behold the rise of their quite righteous indignation. I have been encouraged by the resolution and grit of Gilles Duceppe and his party, as they have stepped up to refuse, on behalf of all Quebecers, to be tarred by the Liberal manure. And I was proud to see the Conservatives join with them in an attempt to bring this disgrace of a government to the ground. Belinda Stronach accuses Stephen Harper of siding with separatists. I would say, rather, that the Conservatives chose to side with men and women of integrity and honour, against those who lack both, and that Belinda went where she belongs. Duceppe and the Bloc represent their people faithfully. Martin and the Liberals represent only themselves, and a view of how a country should function that no decent person can share. So from now on I say: Quebecers, save yourselves; take your birthright, take your beautiful land and heritage, take your pride and your self-respect, and go. I will be cheering you from the other side: cheering your courage and character, and cheering the death blow you will be delivering to the rotten structure that Canada has become.

To Albertans, and indeed to all Western Canadians, I now say: what are you waiting for? Can you now doubt that Ontario will never, ever, give you a seat at the table? Your money is taken from you, year after year, and not only have you no say in the matter, but under the current order, you never will. Make no mistake: with the new precedents of irresponsible government just set, what has been true in the past will be even truer in the future. And dissecting the events of the past two weeks, this has become clear to me: that the Stephen Harper who so closely represents you, your beliefs, and your aspirations for your future in Canada, is hated in Ontario precisely because he represents you, your beliefs and your aspirations. What does that tell you? This is the outcome of your twenty years of work in building a party, a platform, a cause that would bring you into Canada. This is the answer to “the West wants in”. So I now truly hope that the West will want out. Really, what is there here for you? Do you really want to continue to be taxed without representation, especially when so much of what you pay is handed over to others? Do you really want to continue to be despised and mocked? Do you really want to continue to elect senators who will go nowhere while Ontario Liberals send hacks of their own to the red chamber to “represent” you, and laugh in your face?

The Americans speak of “the spirit of ‘76”. This is the spirit of righteous indignation, the spirit of self-respect. It is the spirit that made the gentle and loyal farmers of the colonies conceive as their banner a coiled rattlesnake over the words: don’t tread on me. It is the spirit that brought ordinary men from their hearths and homes into the fields of Lexington and Concord, to stand against the soldiers of the greatest armed power on earth. It is the spirit that led the great men of an age to cast aside everything they had known and served, to build something better, something greater, something that they could reconcile with their beliefs, their integrity and their dignity. Will a “spirit of ‘05” now arise here? I believe it is already stirring. The Liberals, with much of Ontario in dumb connivance, have sown the seeds. They do not understand what they have set irretrievably in motion. It is far beyond their sphere of recognition to see that far from saving Canada, they have destroyed it. A Canada worth preserving might just have been revived had this government fallen. But the very factors and forces that prevented that fall have now pointed the future in a very different direction. And I say: so be it. The chasm has been crossed. The tipping point has been reached.

Walsingham (originally posted here, along with over 100 comments. Was described as "seminal" in the Ottawa Citizen)

Read the full article >>