Government House Leader Mark Holland announced that there will be a special sitting of the House of Commons on Thursday, September 15 in "honour of Canada's longest-reigning sovereign. There, MPs will be given the opportunity to pay tribute to her life and legacy." This is to be followed on Monday, September 19 by a Day of Mourning so that Canadians can watch the Queen's funeral and "reflect."

Some MPs and cartel parties may pay lip service to the fact that the majority of Canadians are indifferent to the death of the Queen and polls indicate that a majority would like to end Canada's relationship with the monarchy. More likely is that MPs of every persuasion will find any number of reasons to gush over the Queen, her years of service and duty, alleged non-partisanship, sense of humour, love of horses and her dogs, fierce loyalty to family, 22 visits to Canada, how well informed she was about the affairs of the countries which make up her "realm" and so on. And on. And on.

To frame the issue as one of respect for the dead and the claims of some that they are honouring the woman, not the office, are ways of covering up the role of the monarchy and the constitutional order it stands for. Historical fraud is an act of rendering history in a manner which dismisses the essence of the matter. In the case of Canada's relationship with the monarchy, crimes of the past and present are dismissed by saying Elizabeth II had no role in their commission. The fact that the Monarch and their duty are essential to permit the perpetuation of an anachronistic constitutional order in the present is not up for discussion.

In Canada the crimes committed under royal authority are many. They start with the acts of genocide committed against the Indigenous peoples under Royal Charter; the crimes committed by the Hudson's Bay Company under Royal Charter; the creation of the North West Mounted Police (today the RCMP who will attend the Queen's funeral to "represent" Canada); the hanging of Louis Riel and imprisonment and execution of hereditary chiefs; the banning of Potlatch ceremonies and the Sun Dance and adoption of the Indian Act which made the Indigenous peoples "wards of the state" and condoned the residential school system, kidnapping of children and genocidal assimilationist policy. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, "defender of the faith," but has taken no responsibility for the acts committed under its auspices. The British Crown also directly commanded the brutal suppression of the nascent nation of Quebec and imposition of the policy of divide and rule as the basis of the system of rule and government designed to disempower the people. This is the constitutional order enshrined in the Constitution Act 1867, adopted by the Imperial Parliament in London, England, and used to unite the British "dominions" in British North America. This foundational document was incorporated in toto into the Constitution Act 1982. To date Canada has no Constitution written by the people of this country.

In the words of Ralph Goodale, High Commissioner of Canada to the UK, as he gushed over the new King, these are not serious problems which must be expunged by renewing the democracy. They are "issues for the future that need to be dealt with." He said these issues include the future of the monarchy, the future of the Commonwealth and the future relationship between Indigenous people in Canada and the Crown. "The treaties were signed with the Crown -- not with any government -- with the Crown, and that relationship is one that is exceedingly important to Indigenous people," he added.

Far from getting us to the heart of the matter, historical fraud is the intentional use of false or misleading information in an attempt to deprive another person or entity of what belongs to them by right. Historical fraud is carried out by the state to deprive us of the thought material we require to tackle the problems of the present so as to solve them in our favour. The massive blanket coverage of the death of the Queen and of the succession has the intention of mediating the thought material that is provided to the brains of human beings, in the countries of the "realm" first and foremost, and the world over. It is a concerted attempt to keep the institution of the monarchy and its Westminster system of government going. The preservation and perpetuation of this constitutional order, with or without monarchy, is at the heart of the actions of states such as those which prevail in the U.S., Britain, Canada and the countries whose constitutions are based on a system which permits a part to rule over the whole. On this basis, they are committing crimes today against their own peoples and the peoples of the world.

Attempts to reduce the matter of the death of the Queen and the succession to whether we are pro or con the monarchy seek to render nonsensical the great need and striving of the peoples of the world for their own empowerment. Our history is the whole social development and the stage of development now reached by the productive forces, of which the most important are the human beings who do the work and have contributed to bringing society, and civilization, to this point. This is what is forgotten, covered up, in how stories are told and why, when it comes to Queen Elizabeth II and the succession of King Charles III.

The crimes committed by British imperialism during the Queen's long reign of 70 years begin with the crimes committed against the Mau Mau in Kenya (1952-1960) where she was when she was declared Queen on the death of her father, George VI, in 1952. The factual accounts of massacres, the enslavement of peoples, the suppression of rebellions, the acts of human cruelty and violence committed by special forces and political police, in the name of "Her Majesty," are relegated to the margins of another narrative. So too are other pertinent facts, such as how the Royal Family has accumulated its vast wealth, possessions and its retinues, the role of its charities and even its discretion to influence legislation to protect and favour personal interests.  

Of great significance is how emotion and conscience are violated, such as when the cry goes out to shun those who have been victims of this rule when they express their anger, outrage and the utter contempt in which they hold the monarchy and all its trappings, including the Queen herself. It is said they are disgraceful and must be deprived of their standing in society. Far from it. All of it underscores the human need to see, to literally see and observe what is known, to understand how did we get here, what is unknown, to define especially what is unknown in precise terms, what is absent in our lives. Only in this way can we determine how to deal with the problems as they present themselves in the here and now.

All the developments that have taken place provide a very rich content, but this content is covered up with the narratives we are fed by the official circles and their media because it necessarily outstrips the already established forms. To put it very concretely, in the societies we live in today, the fetter on our lives is the social relations of production that we enter into independent of our will. The claims of monopoly right are literally forced down everybody's throats, to the extent that there is no public right. People cannot make claims for a livelihood, for conscience, for all the things that are needed, including those within the spheres of knowledge, pertinent information and of all matters related to life itself.

At the same time, being human beings in a particular historical period, caught in definite political and economic arrangements, we are all entitled to our opinions about what we need to do. The ruling class pays first-rate attention to the realm of public opinion. In the case of the death of the Queen and the succession, it is impelled to cover up the significance of the constitutional order it seeks to perpetuate, no matter the crisis it is in or the disasters caused for the peoples worldwide by the refusal to renew it. Of significance is that we have to be able to work together within the particular historical circumstances. We have to have the facts of the matter at hand. We have to be able to discuss the facts of the matter to decide where these facts lead us. We have to be able to make predictions such as how to prevent this or that social disaster, natural disaster and wars, both civil wars and wars of destruction against others.

History is calling on us to turn things around in a manner which favours us, the people, not the oligarchs whose constitutional order they will spare no effort to perpetuate. Let us use this turning point of history to inform this profound need for expressing our opinions, lest they become diffuse and we are left with no way of examining what is taking place and what is to be done about it.

(Photos: P. Powsland, C4Ciaran, The National, Gary36623569, Each Other, Conolly Youth Movement.)

The death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8 has brought to world attention the desperation of the ruling elites in Britain as well as Canada and other countries to preserve what they call "the constitutional order."

The display of power and privilege in the form of the automatic passing of power from Queen to King brings to light the content of the succession. This is despite all attempts to hide that content from us by subjecting us to all the pomp and pageantry which is designed to hold us in awe. It is a vain hope in the 21st century when the peoples of the world are waging life and death struggles for their right to be which this constitutional order opposes as a matter of both intent and fact.

Those who were part of the British Empire, whose rule the elites are celebrating, and especially the peoples in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the victims of slavery all over the world, are keenly conscious that the state of their affairs and the state of the affairs of their countries is the brutal legacy of this constitutional order.

What are called the symbols of the monarchy and crown jewels, which are sure to be on display during the coronation, represent the theft of the wealth of the colonized peoples and the blood and sweat of the enslaved peoples. Their estimated value today is set at £3-5 billion -- all of which should go to the peoples owed reparations for slavery, crimes of genocide and the slaughters and massacres which took place and continue to take place thanks to the regime imposed on them which continues into the present in alleged democratic forms. The crimes for which reparations must be paid include the imposition of a constitutional order, which is said to provide "peace, order and good government," designed to keep the people in thrall.

What is it we the people are inheriting when we get saddled with King Charles III and the constitutional order he is sworn to protect and all those who swear allegiance to his rule are sworn to protect? It is constantly repeated that this "constitutional order" is safe and sound with the succession. What is it comprised of?

We are told the hereditary passing of immense power and privilege from god-appointed mother to son to "reign over us" is a fait accompli; a matter of "stability" in a changing world. Stability for whom we must ask, and with what aim?

Can we say that there has been stability for the working people and the oppressed of the world, or of the Commonwealth countries or of Britain or Canada as a result of such anachronistic institutions and arrangements? What about all the countries and peoples that have been the victims of British rule and forms of governance called "peace, order and good government."

Peace signified the brutal suppression of the struggles of the colonized peoples for independence. Order meant the establishment of the system of courts, police and prisons to keep the working people in check and to deal with political and economic rivals. Good government refers to the system of party rule and elections which make sure the people are divided and cannot formulate and implement a nation-building agenda of their own which favours them, not the rich and their rule.

Has this "constitutional order" brought stability for the people? Of course not. Even the rich and the rulers bemoan the fact every day that everything is out of their control. No matter what dictates they issue to force people to submit to them and to control the productive forces, the productive powers are growing exponentially and have broken the bounds of anyone's control.

The constitutional order which the rich and powerful want the peoples of the world to accept is on display as the rulers mourn their queen and hail the ascension of another relic of past glories. Their control over the levers of power makes it possible to parade their wealth, privilege and power side by side with famines looming in several African countries and other results of the disasters caused by their refusal to provide the infrastructure and social programs needed by the people which could help them fend off the effects of changes to the climate, such as in Pakistan, the United States itself and many other places.

The majority of the people want to put an end to the serious problems they and their societies face, including their total lack of security, constant impoverishment, high levels of unemployment, corruption, violence and discrimination on every conceivable basis, as well as unending wars of destruction and threats to use nuclear weapons and targeted assassinations to eliminate economic and political rivals.

Narrow private interests rule the institutions whose allegiance is to the "Crown." These institutions are the legislatures, courts, cartel parties and all government ministries and agencies, from the Prime Minister on down. They exude a desperation to perpetuate the rule of narrow private interests by preserving what they call the constitutional order. To this day, in Britain, to call for the overthrow of the monarchy is considered a crime of treason while in Canada, freedom of conscience and expression are being denied and criminalized.

Nonetheless, relations between humans and humans and between humans and nature will be humanized and the Canadian polity is sure to provide itself with a modern raison d'état based on structures which are equal and recognize all as equal members with rights and duties as set by themselves. The nation of Quebec, the Indigenous peoples, the Inuit and Métis will be given full recognition by virtue of their being by enacting second to none new constitutional arrangements. History calls on Canadians to rid the polity of the idea that it is by preserving the constitutional order based on a fictitious person of state that peace, order and good government can be preserved. This is not true and the idea does not serve them in the least.

Canadians should call for the election of a Constituent Assembly to lay down the principles which would guide the kind of rule suitable to the conditions in the 21st century. They should not accept claims that this is not possible or is "too risky" or that "it is not broken so why fix it." Arguments which pose the issue as pro or con monarchy are diversionary because they are aimed at making sure the people do not provide modern definitions for the democracy we need in the 21st century -- a democracy which vests sovereignty in the people and renews the democratic institutions so that they meet the claims the people are within their rights to make on society in the present.

Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and of the 14 other "Commonwealth realms" died on September 8 at her residence in Balmoral, Scotland. Her son, Prince Charles, became King of the United Kingdom and took the name King Charles III. As such, he automatically became head of state of Canada, which includes Quebec.

The definition of a "realm" is "a community or territory over which a sovereign rules. The term is commonly used to describe a monarchical or dynastic state." So there you have it in plain language. We knew Canada was not a republic but now we can say for certain it is a kingdom! How disgraceful!

At the same time, the monarchy is said to be symbolic and nothing more. What is that about?

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec (PMLQ) expresses its disagreement with the cartel parties in Quebec who reacted to the death of the Queen by saying, from seemingly different angles, that the monarchy is of no consequence for Quebec. They argue that it is essentially symbolic and, therefore, "life goes on" -- it is "business as usual." In short, there is no reason to dwell further on the fact that Quebec is constitutionally linked to the British monarchy.

They have surely not forgotten that the Constitution, 1982, with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its unreasonable limits on rights and an unworkable amending formula -- both of which are sources of perpetual crises -- bears the signature of Elizabeth II.

It is also a fact that any law passed in Canada and Quebec must receive "Royal Assent" through a "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor." This is an unelected position said to be symbolic but it is not symbolic at all. It is precisely the institution which maintains the constitutional order in Canada and Quebec and that constitutional order is designed and functions to keep the people out of power. It is no coincidence that every time the Quebec National Assembly tries to get rid of this "symbol" for reasons of self-respect, various constitutional experts are quick to say that it is impossible, that it cannot be done.

Of course it can be done! It is the fundamental right of a people to decide all matters that concern them. The people can elect a Constituent Assembly and write a Constitution that vests sovereignty in them on a modern basis -- rather than vesting it in the persona of a foreign monarch to whom all elected officials, ministers, senior civil servants, judges and others, must swear allegiance.

To say that the Canadian Constitution does not permit this is becoming an increasingly incredulous argument, since it goes without saying that the Constitution will not permit this. It constituted the Canadian state as a "realm" of the British Crown, on the basis of the suppression and negation of the Quebec nation as well as by committing genocide against the Indigenous peoples. It defends the "constitutional order" which perpetuates this state of affairs. That is why Quebec did not sign the Constitution of Canada when it was patriated in 1982 without meeting any of the demands of one of the so-called founding nations. It enshrines the very definition of a power over the people.

But the question remains: if the monarchy is only symbolic, then why keep it? To preserve this "symbol" we will now have to "pay our share" for grandiose and opulent funeral ceremonies. We will pay who knows how much to crown the new "symbol" to rule over his "subjects" in his incarnation as "God's representative on earth," and ruler over all temporal affairs.

At the coronation, the new "symbol" will himself carry the two symbols of his rule — the orb and the sceptre. The orb is the symbol of divine power. A globe with a cross on top, it represents the dominion of God over the globe. The sceptre, which also bears the cross, represents the rule of the sovereign over secular affairs -- morality, belief, conscience and the values of the sovereign power. These are the values that are presented as Canadian values and, with some nuances, as Quebec values also. In other words, it is the whole domain of crime and punishment, war and peace, to establish what is reasonable and what is not.

Today, these symbols can be seen in the anarchy and violence which prevail at home and abroad. What the rulers call peace, stability and prosperity can be seen in the suppression of the human right to speak and the criminalization of all dissent said to be extremist at home, and wars of destruction and threats to use nuclear weapons to secure the striving of the U.S. to rule the world abroad. This striving is supported by the United Kingdom, Canada, and NATO members. None of it is decided by the people, but it is said to represent the people.

If an impartial inquiry were to find these to be mere "symbols" that are no longer relevant to modern life, then let us recognize that they come from medieval times, that they represent a rule established above the people and that it is high time we get rid of them.

It is time for the people of Quebec to adopt the symbols of their own striving for empowerment, such as the ceinture fléchée (arrow sash) of the people who fought a battle "la patrie ou la mort" against British colonial rule in the 19th century. They fought to establish a republic that recognized the principle that all people, without exception, have the right to govern themselves. The finger woven ceinture fléchée represented the unity of the people, regardless of wealth, national origin, skin colour, gender or creed.

And if the inquiry concludes instead that the symbols of the monarchy are not merely symbols of the past, is it not high time we draw warranted conclusions and adopt a constitutional order and symbols that are meaningful to the people, a constitutional order and symbols that represent their striving to vest sovereignty in themselves, not in the institution of a monarch -- and a foreign one at that?

What is the use of talking about a "Quebec identity" if it is used to block the people of Quebec from acting in a timely fashion to create a National Assembly that vests the sovereign decision-making power in itself, supplants its link with the foreign monarch and elects a head of state on the basis of criteria that it will have adopted itself to carry out a mandate that it will have established itself?

The National Assembly should be able to hold the head of state accountable and remove him or her from office if he or she does not fulfill the mandate given. It should be able to establish a reasonable salary, living and working arrangements, and the rights necessary to carry out the duties assigned. No to privileges, ostentation and pretense, and existence above the people or outside their purview!

The PMLQ raises the demand for the non-succession of the monarchy in Quebec and the establishment of a republic as an integral part of the demands for democratic renewal in which the people vest the decision-making power in themselves on all matters that affect their lives. It is part of the work to build new institutions that affirm people's sovereignty, at a time when the old institutions have been usurped by narrow private interests that accumulate all wealth and power in their own hands and whose decisions create grave dangers for the people.

This is not a matter of federalism versus separatism or breaking up Canada or any other malarkey designed to disinform the people by inciting passions. Breaking free from anachronistic arrangements is not only a necessity in the 21st century; it is a right.

These anachronistic arrangements are imposed from the past and are taking a very heavy toll on society. They enshrine prerogative powers over which the people exercise no control. It is a form of constitutional order which is harmful to the well-being of the people of both Canada and Quebec in every sense of the word.

The forces that break free from arrangements that do not suit them are the same as those who bring new arrangements into being which do suit them. Whatever is done it must be the people who establish their own vantage point and intervene to resolve the crisis their society and the entire world face in a manner which favours them, rather than falling victim to "solutions" that once again favour dominant elites who have become superfluous and a huge burden on society.

All Out to Vest the Sovereign Decision-Making Power in the People!
Our Future Lies in the Fight for the Rights of All!
Democratic Renewal Now!

www.pmlq.qc.ca

Anthony 'Gabby' Carter, known as Gabby, is a calypsonian and folk singer from Barbados, also a cultural ambassador for the island. He wrote this poem no sooner the news of the Queen's death was announced on September 8.

She was over there in Africa
When she get de news
She father dead
She'll be de British Head
No hesitation
No excuse!
There she was
Age twenty one
In the prime of her health
Flying home
Not to roam
But to Queen of the Commonwealth!
Queen of all of India
And New Zealand too
Canada and Australia
Mixed up in de brew
The English-speaking Caribbean
Will now become her tool
Over all these places
Young Lizzy will Rule!
All their natural resources
She hoarded
With an Iron Fist
Britannia kept on rolling
Lizzy did see to this!
This quiet
Wicked Woman
Never lifted a hand
To help bring Reparations
To any Caribbean land
She stood in silence
(And full support)
When one Winston Churchill
Killed millions of poor Indians
Oh what a bitter pill!
She never uttered a single word
Against that Peta Botha
Whose Apartheid Regime
Unleashed its killer Beam
On the Blacks of South Africa
She inherited millions of pounds
From the gains of slavery
Yet she allowed each colony
To wallow in poverty
Seventy five
Long hard years
This Monarch Liz did Reign
She made sure her colonies
Made no economic gain
A few hours ago
We got the news
No lies
Fakes news or tricks
That Lizzy
Queen of England died
At the age of ninety six
I can't offer no sympathy
I've never been a hypocrite
Her son Charlie
Is sure to be
Sitting where she did sit
At last!
He will become the Monarch
The British Ruler
The King!
If he brings us Reparations
Then I will support him!

(As published by Caribbean Organization for Peoples Empowerment)

Barbados renounces the monarchy and swears in its first President, Dame Sandra Mason, November 30, 2021.

 A poem by Barbados cultural ambassador, Anthony ‘Gabby' Carter, on the death of Elizabeth Windsor, queen of England has generated unwarranted criticism from certain quarters on the island. The poem points out some truths about the British monarch and her relationship to the crimes of British colonialism.

For those with a strong allegiance to British colonialism these truths were a bitter pill to swallow and so, just like Malcolm X described, they jumped to the defence of their colonial ‘massa'.

Local media reported that some people labelled the poem as "disrespectful," "distasteful" and "uncivilised" while others demanded that the Barbados government revoke Gabby's National Honour status if he does not apologise for penning the poem.

Guy Hewitt, former Barbados High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and recent contender for leadership of the opposition Democratic Labour Party is reported as having strongly condemned the poem and described it as bringing dishonour to Barbados. He is also reported to have stated that not only was the poem in poor taste but that it also, "displayed Gabby's ignorance of the role of a constitutional monarchy, the history of the Commonwealth of Nations and the late Queen's role in it."

The Emancipation Statue standing in Bridgetown, Barbados.

In reality it is those who are attacking Gabby and his poem who are bringing dishonour on the country. Even as the country is trying to step forward as a new republic, they are trying to honour and glorify its monarchical past under which the African descendants were enslaved and subjected to every indignity under Britain's colonial apartheid. Those who want to defend Britain's colonial crimes against the people of Barbados but lack the courage to do so openly try to frame the issue as one of respect for the dead. But let Vladimir Putin die suddenly tomorrow and you will see how much they believe in not speaking ill of the dead. How exactly was this respect for the dead demonstrated on the death of Muammar Gadhafi, Robert Mugabe or any other political leader that came into conflict with British colonialism? No, this has nothing to do with respecting the dead and everything to do with defending Britain's colonial crimes.

Those who claim that Gabby doesn't understand "the role of a constitutional monarchy, the history of the Commonwealth of Nations and the late Queen's role in it" demonstrate with this statement that they are the ones who are ignorant of Britain's colonialist political system and the role that its monarchy and royal family play in this oppressive arrangement.

If Guy Hewitt's words have been accurately reported in the media, he has a lot of explaining to do to the people of Barbados. Why is someone who aspires to political leadership in our country condoning and justifying Britain's colonial crimes against our people? Why is he attempting to falsify history in order to justify these crimes? What type of political leadership can such an individual provide?

Gabby is right and his poem expresses the sentiments of many Bajans. We need to raise our voices and make this clear so that those trapped in mental slavery understand that they're not going to be able to drag us back or stop our forward march.

(Caribbean Organization for Peoples Empowerment, September 13, 2022)