Thursday, 17 December 2009

All for debate but...

Last month, I was asked by the Centre for Inquiry to participate in a debate on the monarchy. The Centre for Inquiry describes itself "the leading free thought organization in Canada, promoting reason, secularism and critical thinking." The CFI was to host the debate. The participants were to be the Monarchist League, Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and the Canadian Secular Alliance.

My initial reaction was why in the world would the Canadian Secular Alliance be invited to participate as issues of church and state are irrelevant in Canada vis a vis the Crown. And, since the host of the debate, Centre for Inquiry, also promotes secularism it appeared as though they wanted to both host and participate in the debate. Ultimately, I suspected that the CFI/CSA might be just another republican group, which would give the republican side a clear advantage.

Then, my investigative nature kicked in, the great amateur sleuth that I am. I came across this blog posting by Justin Trottier, CFI's executive director...and low and behold the President of the Canadian Secular Alliance, too. He was also the guy who was to be the neutral moderator of the debate. The icing on the cake was his post on the Citizens for a Canadian Republic's Facebook group:

I'm a supporter of your organization and the Executive Director of the pro-secular Centre for Inquiry. I just posted a blog entry in support of this issue to our international blog...
November at 16:36


Not surprisingly, I respectfully declined to take part.

This lead to Justin Trottier twittering the following:


Monarchist League refuses to debate validity of monachy @ CFI. When you don't have a point in your favour you'd avoid informed debates


Not quite, Mr. Trottier. I am all for debate, especially "informed" ones. The same old tired arguments put forth by republicans can be refuted - most quite easily as matter of fact. But, where's the objectivity and fairness in a debate organised by republicans, moderated by a republican who publicly supports one of the republican participants and is president of the other republican participant?

Until next time,
Robert / The D.C.






1 comment:

radical royalist said...

... a debate organised by republicans, moderated by a republican who publicly supports one of the republican participants and is president of the other republican participant

Sounds very much like a debate republicans hold everywhere. In April 2008 the Australian PM Kevin Rudd called in a "2020 summit". Handpicked "delegates" voted in favour of "a" republic with a margin of 98:1. Monarchists were not invited to take part, the result was a foregone conclusion.

A fair discussion? That's not what republicans have in mind.