The Monarchy ...encore..

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

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

The breakdown was as follows:

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Permit me to summarize these reasons:

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more - Russia.

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

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

They too could use benign Monarchy.

I have gone on far too long.

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

As I see it..

"Galagher"

REMEMBRANCE

Janice Kennedy's 'Poppy' Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was never its purpose.


Medals for Stupidity

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

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

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

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

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

There should not be an award for stupidity.


Your Nearest Cenotaph

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

As I see it..

"Galagher"