Today we remember all of those who have served their country and those that continue to serve overseas for our country protecting Canadian beliefs and values abroad. We remember our servicemen and servicewoman for making the supreme sacrifice while upholding Canadian beliefs and values far from home and protecting our nation. Thank you and may us as a nation never forget these brave men and women’s sacrifice and so we can fully appreciate our servicemen and servicewomen past and present for their dedication to Canada while upholding Canadian beliefs and values far from home and protecting our, may God rest their souls. May we also offer our condolences to those families that have lost family members in the line of duty and will deal with the grief of losing such an important part of their life.
Spain’s King Juan Carlos, who led Spain’s transition from dictatorship to democracy but faced damaging scandals amid the nation’s financial meltdown, announced Monday he will abdicate in favour of his son so that fresh royal blood can rally the nation in its time of trouble.
The king told Spaniards in a nationwide address that he started making a plan to give up the throne after he turned 76 in January.
He said that the 46-year-old Crown Prince Felipe — whose 70 per cent approval rating in a recent El Mundo newspaper poll compares to his father’s 41 per cent — is ready to be king and will “open a new era of hope.”
- Queen Elizabeth turns 88: A royal diplomat in her ‘best decade’ yet
- Abdicating Dutch queen was a wartime Ottawa schoolgirl
Juan Carlos didn’t specify which problems his son must address as the next head of state for Spain. But the king stressed Felipe will need to “tackle with determination the transformations that the current situation demands and confront the challenges of tomorrow with renewed intensity and dedication.”
Two other European monarchs abdicated last year:
- Dutch Queen Beatrix, after 33 years as head of state.
- Belgium’s Albert II, after his 20-year reign as king.
By contrast, British monarch Queen Elizabeth turned 88 in April with no sign of stepping aside.
As Spain embarks on what appears to be a sluggish but steady economic recovery, its biggest problem is the drive by the wealthy northeastern region of Catalonia to hold a secession vote in November — one labelled illegal by the central government in Madrid.
1st-born daughter will likely succeed Felipe
Now that Felipe is set to become king, Spain is expected to change its constitution to make sure his first-born daughter Leonor can succeed him.
The royal family has said it wants the change to ensure she is next in line to the throne in the event that Felipe’s wife gets pregnant again and gives birth to a boy, who would become monarch under the current constitution.
Analysts say that could open the door to political negotiations for additional proposed constitutional changes, including demands by the leading opposition Socialist Party to grant Catalonia more autonomy or special financial benefits to ease Catalonian separatist feelings.
“I think both parties could agree on a change to accommodate the needs of Catalonia,” said Antonio Barroso, a London-based analyst with the Teneo Intelligence political and business risk consulting firm. He cautioned that the process could take months.
Artur Mas, the president of Catalonia, declared that the king’s abdication would not derail his plans to hold the vote asking Catalans whether they want to secede from Spain.
“We have a date with our future on Nov. 9,” Mas told reporters after the king gave his speech.
The abdication was first announced Monday by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who did not say when the handover would happen because the government must now craft a law creating a legal mechanism for the abdication and for Felipe’s assumption of power.
Rajoy, however, said he would preside over an emergency cabinet meeting on Tuesday to draft the law which is assured of passing because his centre-right Popular Party has an absolute majority in Parliament.
Far-left parties called for a national referendum to abolish Spain’s monarchy after the king made his announcement and said they would hold nationwide protests Monday night. They surprised the nation May 25 by polling much stronger than expected in the European Parliament elections, taking away seats from the mainline Popular and Socialist parties.
On throne for 39 years
Juan Carlos has been on the throne for 39 years and was a hero to many for shepherding Spain’s democratic and economic transformation, but has had repeated health problems in recent years.
His longstanding popularity took a big blow following royal scandals, including a 2012 elephant-shooting trip he took in the middle of Spain’s financial crisis during which he broke his right hip and had to be flown from Botswana to Spain aboard a private jet for medical treatment.
The king’s image was also tarnished by the investigation of his son-in-law, who is suspected of embezzling large amounts in public contracts.
His daughter Princess Cristina in January was forced to testify in the fraud and money-laundering case targeting her husband Inaki Urdangarin, an Olympic handball medallist turned businessman. She became the first Spanish royal to be questioned in court since Juan Carlos took the throne.
In his speech the king did not mention any of the scandals, played down his health issues and praised the crown prince.
“My son Felipe, the heir to the throne, embodies stability,” Juan Carlos said.
Felipe would presumably take the title King Felipe VI. He has a law degree from Madrid’s Autonomous University and obtained a master’s in international relations from Georgetown University in the United States.
He also has a Canadian connection, attending Ontario’s Lakefield College School during the 1984-85 school year.
Felipe is married to Princess Letizia, a former television journalist. Their daughters are ages eight and seven.
Like his father, Felipe has travelled the globe trying to maintain Spain’s influence especially in former Latin American colonies, while seeking to promote the nation’s international business interests.
With files from CBC News
The Troubles refers to a violent thirty-year conflict that began with a civil rights march in Londonderry on 5 October 1968 and concluded with the Good Friday Agreement on 10 April 1998. At the heart of the conflict lay the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
The goal of the unionist and overwhelmingly Protestant majority was to remain part of the United Kingdom. The goal of the nationalist and republican, almost exclusively Catholic, minority was to become part of the Republic of Ireland.
This was a territorial conflict, not a religious one. At its heart lay two mutually exclusive visions of national identity and national belonging. The principal difference between 1968 and 1998 is that the people and organisations pursuing these rival futures eventually resolved to do so through peaceful and democratic means. This ascendancy of politics over violence was not easily achieved.
During the Troubles, the scale of the killings perpetrated by all sides – republican and loyalist paramilitaries and the security forces – eventually exceeded 3,600. As many as 50,000 people were physically maimed or injured, with countless others psychologically damaged by the conflict, a legacy that continues to shape the post-1998 period.
Direct rule returns
In 1968, the Northern Ireland parliament had been dominated by unionists for over fifty years. Its attempts to solve social and political ills, such as institutional discrimination against Catholics, were too slow for nationalists and republicans and too quick for many unionists. This gave rise to growing tension and violence between the two communities.
The mounting scale of the disorder led successive UK governments to intervene. In 1969, the situation was so grave that British troops were sent to help restore order. By 1972, things had deteriorated so badly that the British government suspended the Northern Ireland parliament and imposed direct rule from London.
Relegated to the margins of UK politics for half a century, Northern Ireland had suddenly reclaimed centre stage.
The ‘long war’
At this time, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) – the main republican paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland – was uninterested in any solution short of British withdrawal and Irish unification. The ‘Provisionals’ had split from the ‘Official IRA’ in 1969 and are subsequently referred to here as the IRA.
For them, the ‘long war’ was the only option. This strategy had been gaining traction since the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) in 1971 and the killing of 13 people by the Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday the following year.
When secret talks with the UK government in 1972 collapsed, the IRA leadership resolved to erode the British presence in Northern Ireland through a war of attrition.
For their part, the major loyalist paramilitary organisations of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had resolved to use violence to resist republican paramilitaries and to oppose Irish unification.
It was against this backdrop of soaring violence and increasingly entrenched positions that moves to find a lasting solution began.
Sunningdale’s frosty reception
Direct rule by British ministers was viewed as a short-term measure and a process designed to restore self-government to Northern Ireland was soon underway. The first attempt was the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, which provided for both a devolved, power-sharing administration and a role for the Irish government in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland – the so-called ‘Irish dimension’.
Together with the UK and Irish governments, just three Northern Ireland political parties participated in the Sunningdale talks – the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and the centre-ground Alliance Party. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was wholly opposed to Sunningdale and did not participate. Representatives of the ‘extremes’ – loyalist and republican paramilitaries – were not invited.
Sunningdale’s political institutions collapsed in early 1974, toppled by the Ulster Workers Council (UWC) strike, a near-insurrection spearheaded by a coalition of unionists and loyalists that effectively brought Northern Ireland to a standstill.
Although Sunningdale was ultimately a failure, it contained the seeds of the much more intricate and successful Good Friday Agreement twenty five years later.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement
As the cycle of violence escalated post-Sunningdale, further efforts were made by successive UK governments to devise a political settlement, but only one acceptable to those parties it considered “legitimate” and non-violent.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) in 1985 was a serious attempt to achieve a political accord that resolved the “Irish question”. It gave the Irish government an advisory role in the affairs of Northern Ireland and determined there would be no change in Northern Ireland’s constitutional status – no Irish unification in other words – without the consent of its people. Nonetheless, the treaty broadly alienated the unionist community, which opposed Irish involvement and rejected the proposal for a devolved, power-sharing government. Among the major parties in Northern Ireland, only the SDLP and Alliance Party supported the AIA.
Sinn Féin, the “political wing” of the IRA, was as vociferously opposed to the agreement as unionists. The party had grown in prominence and influence since republican hunger striker Bobby Sands was elected a member of parliament on a wave of popular support shortly before he died in 1981. It had shown Sinn Féin the power of political engagement and led to the adoption of a strategy known as “the armalite and the ballot box” in which the IRA would continue the “armed struggle” while Sinn Féin contested Northern Ireland elections.
Crucially, when the IRA announced a ceasefire in 1994, mainstream republican leaders had recognized that the ‘long war’ was unwinnable. (Equally, the British Army had come to the view that the conflict could not be won solely by military means.) Sinn Féin’s commitment to politics and the electoral process enabled it to enter negotiations designed to end the Troubles and restore self-government to Northern Ireland.
Cross-party talks began in earnest in 1996. In almost all quarters, a combination of political realism and war-weariness cleared the path to negotiation. Importantly, President of the United States Bill Clinton took an active personal role, appointing veteran US senator George Mitchell as chair of the talks process that concluded in the Good Friday Agreement.
Negotiating with Sinn Féin was unpalatable for many unionists and loyalists. The UUP, under leader David Trimble, agreed to participate only if those they regarded as terrorists were committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Representatives of loyalist paramilitaries also agreed to take part. By contrast, Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) viewed the whole process as unacceptable. They abandoned the talks and opposed the subsequent agreement, but still took their seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly that resulted.
Nevertheless, the Good Friday Agreement marked a seismic shift in Northern Ireland’s political landscape. The UUP and SDLP agreed to accept power-sharing, including with former paramilitaries who were committed to the peace process.
All signatories to the agreement endorsed the “consent principle”. This meant that any change in Northern Ireland’s constitutional status – Irish unification – would happen only popular majorities voted in favour in separate referendums held at the same time on both sides of the border.
After the Good Friday Agreement
If the Good Friday Agreement and the return of self-government to Northern Ireland had been an enormous challenge for all concerned, so was its fitful implementation. Many significant issues remained unresolved in 1998, not least the decommissioning of republican and loyalist weapons.
These and other matters were now susceptible to the force of argument rather than the argument of force. Even so, the first phase of devolved power-sharing was to prove fragile and short-lived, requiring the re-introduction of direct rule from 2002 until 2007.
Only then had sufficient trust been developed between the communities to enable the restoration of devolution.
When government returned to Stormont buildings in Belfast, this time it involved a fully inclusive power-sharing arrangement that embraced both the DUP and Sinn Féin – now the dominant parties within their respective electorates.
This partnership of constitutional opposites is perhaps the most remarkable outcome of the Troubles, and one that underlines the triumph of politics over violence in post-conflict Northern Ireland.
( Credit to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles)
On this day in 1945, Eva Braun met Hitler while employed as an assistant to Hitler’s official photographer. Of a middle-class Catholic background, Braun spent her time with Hitler out of public view, entertaining herself by skiing and swimming. She had no discernible influence on Hitler’s political career but provided a certain domesticity to the life of the dictator. Loyal to the end, she refused to leave the Berlin bunker buried beneath the chancellery as the Russians closed in. The couple was married only hours before they both committed suicide.
Also on this day in 1945, the Americans liberate the concentration camp at Dachau. Five hundred German garrison troops guarding the camp are killed within an hour, some by inmates, but most by the American liberators, who are horrified by what they bear witness to, including huge piles of emaciated dead bodies found in railway cars and near the crematorium.
There were 33,000 survivors of the camp, 2,539 of them Jewish. Dachau, about 12 miles north of Munich, was the first concentration camp established by the Nazi regime, only five weeks after Hitler came to power. At least 160,000 prisoners passed through the main camp and another 90,000 through its 150 branches scattered throughout southern Germany and Austria. Medical experiments, ranging from studying the effects of freezing on warm-blooded creatures to treating intentionally inflicted malaria, were carried out on prisoners. At least 32,000 prisoners died of malnutrition and mistreatment at the camp itself; innumerable more were transported to the Auschwitzgas chambers. A memorial was established at the campsite on September 11, 1956
(Credit to: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-and-eva-marry for this story)
On this day in 1977, Via Rail Canada was created when then Federal Minister of Transport Otto Lang announced the creation of a new Crown corporation that would take over all passenger rail services in Canada. It was called Via Rail Canada. Until 1977, both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway had operated a mix of profitable freight services and debt ridden passenger services.
The Liberal government had promised to create VIA Rail almost three years earlier during the 1974 election campaign. The new corporation is designed to halve the $200 million per year passenger rail subsidy that CN and CP receive from the federal government. Passenger services will be streamlined, and some routes may be cut. Train fans are worried, while some critics believe the passenger rail system should be scrapped completely in favour of cheaper, more dependable buses.
VIA Rail eventually took possession of all CN and CP passenger equipment and personnel. However, VIA Rail does not own a single rail line and must pay right of way fees to CN and CP and contract with them for maintenance. Gradually, the corporation takes over CN and CP routes, beginning with the busy Quebec City to Windsor corridor on April 1, 1978. By 2000, VIA Rail is carrying almost 4 million passengers a year.