Critique of Crown misses the point
James Gordon (Insight, Oct. 11) contributes yet another attempt to topple our Head of State and he misses the point like so many others: the key issue to be discussed is our Head of State (the Crown), not the Monarch — he focuses on the person rather than the institution.
The arguments he sets out are not new and are illustrative of how most of us address the issue. Unfortunately, we only discuss it in response to something in the media and the media only repeat what others say and what they say is thin: “Save us from America,” “the Queen does not define our Canadian Identity,” “Cultural mosaic is our identity,” “Quebec is ostracized,” etc.
Where should we find a multicultural body that represents us all satisfactorily? We would have to clone them. Our real culture and identity is reflected in how we live and other than those few visible squeaks about Chesterfields and the letter “Z,” we can all see that our culture is local to a certain extent but our national culture is . . . what we consume. And we primarily consume American culture, whether that be music, sport, language, how we work, food, news.
Sadly, one cannot rely on the interest groups who are really the only people the media will listen to. Even John Aimers is quoted as suggesting that we “give our allegiance…to a person”. This is wrong. Our allegiance is to the Crown, which is an institution embodied solidly in our political and historical heritage but also in our own constitution. Mr. Gordon’s attention has been distracted by a British accent; I hardly think that we are all walking around speaking like the Queen (unless you are on Air Farce).
The focus should be on the role of the Crown in our political life, not the person. I suspect that if most Canadians are like me, then they have a tough time grasping this concept of the Crown in Canada. It is not at all simple as changing our Constitution(!) or installing a president (Why a president?? Where did Mr. Gordon get this political concept? Show some imagination!).
If we were to address the real issue of the place of our Head of State then, what role should it have in our constitution? Who would represent that position in our political system (ie. how would we ‘staff’ it)? Many republics elect their president; this is a redundancy since we already have an electoral system. It would also allow politics to be rather too entwined with the role of the Head of State, something which our current system handles so effectively.
Please, all those who shoot their mouths off: the issue is serious and it deserves thorough discussion. Get away from your fixation on an accent and start looking at the real issues.
Lawrence Wardroper
Waverley Stree