1. It is the institution of monarchy I do not agree with, what it is, and what it stands for. The royal family uphold this system.
2. Our parliament (as a monarchist state) makes British monarchy core of our federal structure. Even though the official line is that the monarchy and their representatives play a more ceremonial role, our system is all about ‘in right of her majesty’. This system goes against basic principles of democracy. It also excludes indigenous people from ever being head of state in their own homeland.
3. The mostly ‘ceremonial role’ they play is at great financial cost to the country. Estimated over $50million in 2015. This is for a handful of people. When you compare this to what is spent on Indigenous communities, it’s hugely disproportionate. Sending an underlying message their lives and life style and up keep is more important than the basic needs Indigenous people struggle to get from the system.
4. Having monarchy as head of state is an archaic medieval practice that keeps feudalism intact, where the class system and social inequality is entrenched as basis of the government. They are the highest of aristocracy and said to represent ‘humanity of the state’ and ‘collective spirit’ (according to Canadian Heritage). It assumes aristocracy is, after all, trusted because they’re superior in intelligence and ability. Especially when it comes to making decisions on policy and money matters.
5. The official line is that the idea one is supreme and divine by birth has been abandoned for centuries. However, we still maintain practice of the right to rule by birth, against the backdrop of feudalism, classism, aristocracy. It simply does not jibe with principles of social equality and democracy.
6. Being a monarchist state makes (British) conservatism as a default governance system, more apt to serve the privileged white Anglo-saxons.
7. The British monarchy have two streams of power: they are head of Church of England (Anglican Church) and head of the State. Again, contradicting democratic principles that say church and state are to be separate and apart.
8. It is at royal decree of monarch lands were ‘acquired’ as colonies by their agents. As the lands were considered unoccupied because Indigenous people were deemed uncivilized people because thy were not Christian therefore could not own land. These legacies still are very much at the crux of our relationship with the ‘state’. Indigenous people are still displaced from their lands and having the ability to determine their own destinies.
9. The automatic deference and respect expected to be paid by us, as ‘subjects’ no less with codes of behaviour around the monarchy, is plainly absurd. Bow? Curtsey? These traditions are in places like our courts and parliaments. The absurdity is that the respect was never earned and there is no accountability to us to gain the respect because it’s believed they are born more ‘supreme’ and answer only to God. They are seen as righteous and cannot do wrong. The sense of impunity extends to aristocracy in general, where room for error is larger in being perceived forgivable.
10. Our blind interest in celebrity culture, especially those that appear flawless, or live fairy tale like lives keeps the royal family in limelight of curiosity, making them look relevant to us even if they are just pure spectator objects. When their lifestyle has little relevance to ours, except maybe as fashion, behaviour, protocol icons. In western culture we socialize our children with fantasies aspiring to being princesses or princes.
11. As said the monarchs living realities have little relevance to ours. They are so removed from our realities in so many ways: socially, economically, culturally. How can the monarchy have empathy and understanding for our community conditions? When their riches are as a result of exploitation under colonialism and slavery. These systems of power continue directly and indirectly, safely secured in our political and economic systems.
12. Great atrocities were done in the name and direction of King/Queen for first peoples and black people. Our historical and present relationship with the state as indigenous people is often tenous. Treaties, agreements and terms of relationships have been abused, misused, ignored in their favor time and time again. Even though by convention, the democratically elected are acting on their own prerogative, again they working in the larger oppressive hierarchical system that remains. How can you have a good relationship with anyone who sees the other parties as ‘subjects’?
13. The fact the monarchy are head of state and church blurs the line of being able to question them, or the system. The insult to injury is dispossession of lands and control over our own affairs has been to subjugate people through religion into becoming ‘subjects’. In Iqaluit’s Anglican church the holy water bowl was gifted by Queen Elizabeth ‘to my Eskimo people’. Are we hers? Or our own? (I would add as a side note: if monarchy are prime examples of morality, why is ‘God save the Queen’ about crushing the rebellious Scots?).
14. The principle of divine right to rule was used by medieval monarch to instill fear and obedience. Fear was an instrument of colonialism. Fear is certainly still a weapon in controlling systems in Nunavut, fear of (further) economic depravity for example.
15. Even if I am not in favour of being a monarchist state it’s the system we have. I have said before, moving towards becoming a Republic would be great symbolism and act towards reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous people. This would require in shifting the whole system to be more Indigenous governance focused.
16. So supporting having an Inuk governor general, it is within this context of it is what we have right now. If we are to move towards detaching from archaic outdated systems that continue to harm and destroy our communities at worst, work not in their favor at best, who would best be in a position to start the dialogue? It is a standard question of working with the system or outside the system, or both.
17. Until this system is revamped we are stuck seeming being hypocritical at some point. When people are working in the system I understand there are individual decisions on where they draw the line on their relationship with monarchy or the state, representing themselves and being true to themselves as an indigenous person (and feeling like they are not being a traitor). Being a colonized people is often a never win situation as there are many corners to get stuck in in the colonial system.
18. Personally I refused to swear an allegiance to the Queen when being called to the bar (to become a lawyer). Firstly, I went to law school to equip myself with education to learn the Canadian justice system in hopes to give myself tools to seek justice for our people. Justice in the plainest definition of the word, not the Canadian legal definition of the word. Secondly, for the reasons I described above, it is my belief fairness, equality and justice is founded on people, not the “supreme” or “divine” rulers. Thirdly, our history of treatment on behalf of the monarchy and monarchist state has meant being marginalized, it has meant genocide, and subjugation. I did not want to participate in the systems that continue that. Going to law school was struggle enough to feel indoctrinated in an oppressive system. Fourthly, I wanted my oath to represent service to my community, (and not the Queen).