Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Monarchy's Continuing Power

An illustration of the real practical power that the Monarchy still has, even in the Commonwealth, is given in this story from the State media division online about a Canadian soldier who had refused to pledge loyalty to our Sovereign:

"....the fact is that the Queen is....Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State"...."A refusal to display loyalty and respect to the Queen where required by Canadian Forces' policy would not only be an expression of profound disrespect and rudeness but it would also represent an unwillingness to adhere to hierarchical and lawful command structures that are fundamental to good discipline."


JeffWeichel said...

Is this sarcasm? I hope so, however if it were an actual opinion I believe it would warrant a response something like the following:

How is this practical power? Pride should not inflate the whipping into shape of a lowly captain to the standards of practicality. What's next - the punishment of an officer for refusing to acknowledge the merits of tea time?

I mean no disrespect and have absolutely no negative feelings or political grievances against "Great Britain", but I take the side of the little guy. Why should he be forced to pledge loyalty to a monarch he does not affiliate himself with? True, Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, but any sort of political or legislative dependency was severed with the Canada Act of '82.

And if this is not in your knowledge already, that same captain was given a choice whether or not to swear on the Holy Bible on the day of his signing. Every member of the Canadian armed forces is. Does it not seem profoundly contradictory that he is given the choice to swear his service by Jesus' name yet is forced to do so for the Queen? If Canada is a multicultural society and its citizens are diverse in religious beliefs and thus would entitle a choice of whether or not to swear on the Bible, then can this argument also be applied to those people of different cultural and geographic origins who possess no care for Queen E? I believe so...

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Mr. Weichel:
I appreciate your engagement here: keep it comng!
The substantive issue aside, vis-à-vis the essay assigments of our course, it will be worth revisting what you have written here and asking of it two questions. [.] What is its relationship to the precise argument in the original post? (I.e. not to the argument that you are pre-disposed to expect. [2.] What is the direct contradiction the response contains, and how can it be corrected?