g_bambino Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Perhaps this happens more than I realise, but it was a pleasant surprise for me to read that a federal court judge had thrown out a Charter case brought before him by a Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh - of the Royal Military College, no less - in which he argued the Forces requirements to pay respect to the Queen and salute the Union Flag (a Canadian flag, by law) were an infringement on his personal beliefs and his freedom of expression. Judge Barnes ruled: I cannot think of any Canadian institution where an expectation of loyalty and respect for the Queen would be more important than the Canadian Forces... Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh likes it or not, the fact is that the Queen is his 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. National Post: Officer’s lawsuit against allegiance to Queen dismissedOf course, the law is the law, and Chainnigh, despite his obvious imported Irish republican sentiments, is in serious denial if he thinks Elizabeth II is a "foreign monarch" and not the Queen of Canada. But, I found the judge's other comment more interesting; he said: "Chainnigh's refusal to participate in the protocols would 'constitute a display of rudeness and disrespect entirely inconsistent with traditional Canadian values and accepted international protocols.'" For the first time in a long time, respect for the head of state is described as a "Canadian value." I'm personally not a fan of the tossing around of the term "Canadian values" - what exactly "Canadian values" are is so open to personal interpretation. But, it seems for some time we've been told by our federal government what we should believe "Canadian values" to be, and any sign of respect for the Canadian monarch certainly wasn't one of them. What's more, this was said in a case that actually dismissed someone's argument that their feelings had been hurt and the Charter allowed them to do whatever they want; seemingly the epitome of modern, Liberal "Canadian values." I know it is but one, relatively unobserved case; but, I hope it sets a precedent for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yes that familiar "yada yada yada - whatever you say sir" feeling. But I agree something needs to be done about it. So that those with warm fuzzy feelings about our glorious imperial past could still enjoy them, without forcing everybody else to pretend to be following the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh - of the Royal Military College, Gaels My mother would say that the difference between Scots and Irish were that the Scots were crazy while the Irish were mad. I argued that it was always the otherway round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yes that familiar "yada yada yada - whatever you say sir" feeling. But I agree something needs to be done about it. So that those with warm fuzzy feelings about our glorious imperial past could still enjoy them, without forcing everybody else to pretend to be following the suit. Canada 'IS STILL' a Constitutional Monarchy with the Queen being 'Head of State' and everyone follows suit. It is our tradition 'ya know'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yes that familiar "yada yada yada - whatever you say sir" feeling. But I agree something needs to be done about it. So that those with warm fuzzy feelings about our glorious imperial past could still enjoy them, without forcing everybody else to pretend to be following the suit. Simple, until we become a republic, don't join the military. Wonder how many countries are out there which make oaths of allegiance optional for their armed forces or allow a person to make up their own? Not many I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Wonder how many countries are out there which make oaths of allegiance optional for their armed forces or allow a person to make up their own? Not many I would think. Wouldn't that be just too wonderfully "Canadian," though? Join the Peacekeepers to hand out candy, and swear - oops, I mean affirm - allegiance to whatever you want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Correction - optional, not the "oath of allegiance" itself. Only the part demanding the allegiance to the monarch of a foreign state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Correction - optional, not the "oath of allegiance" itself. Only the part demanding the allegiance to the monarch of a foreign state. Nope the Queen is still the Head of state for Canada and any country still in the commonwealth. It was sort of a stipulation in letting Canada become a country without a war with the redcoats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Correction - optional, not the "oath of allegiance" itself. Only the part demanding the allegiance to the monarch of a foreign state. Canadians who also hold Dutch, Swedish, Thai, Jamaican, Australian, British, Spanish, Lesotian, Belgian, Norwegian, Belizian, and a host of other countries' citizenships have sworn allegiance to a foreign monarch. But, I digress. Of course we wouldn't want our military members giving fealty to the monarch of a foreign state. Thank goodness, for you and me, they don't. Or, did you miss the "Queen of Canada" part of the oath? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joan Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Canadians who also hold Dutch, Swedish, Thai, Jamaican, Australian, British, Spanish, Lesotian, Belgian, Norwegian, Belizian, and a host of other countries' citizenships have sworn allegiance to a foreign monarch. But, I digress. Of course we wouldn't want our military members giving fealty to the monarch of a foreign state. Thank goodness, for you and me, they don't. Or, did you miss the "Queen of Canada" part of the oath? I think we are coming to a time in our history when we will have to truly grapple with this. Many Canadians, new and old, object to swearing allegiance to the Queen, often a symbol of colonialism and oppression. As the challenges rack up, there will be a need to reconsider our 'colony' status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) I think we are coming to a time in our history when we will have to truly grapple with this. Many Canadians, new and old, object to swearing allegiance to the Queen, often a symbol of colonialism and oppression. As the challenges rack up, there will be a need to reconsider our 'colony' status. It's only a symbol of colonialism and oppression to those so ignorant as to acutally believe Canada still has a "colony status." Unfortunately, so many Canadians are so stupid when it comes to their governance and history, you may not be wrong about having to grapple with this soon. Hopefully well educated judges like Justice Barnes will help keep the unaware at bay, though politicians will pander to whatever is popular, no matter how retarded. Edited January 22, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I wonder how much it cost Mr. Channigh in legal fees? Or should I say, I wonder who was footing the bill for his legal costs. Anyone have any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I think we are coming to a time in our history when we will have to truly grapple with this. Many Canadians, new and old, object to swearing allegiance to the Queen, often a symbol of colonialism and oppression. As the challenges rack up, there will be a need to reconsider our 'colony' status. Where did you get the idea we are still a colony? The Monarchy was once a symbol of colonialism but times change. In Canada's case, it has never been a symbol of oppression but rather of how our country came to exist. We may want to change our relationship with the Monarchy some day but until then, everyone takes the same oath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I wonder how much it cost Mr. Channigh in legal fees? Or should I say, I wonder who was footing the bill for his legal costs. Anyone have any ideas? Canadian republicans...I knew a good fellow, irish as they come. Worked for Pat Boyer in etobicoke, canvassed for Mulroney.....didn't vote. Wouldn't because he was only landed and would get citiznship because of the oath. Nice guy but nuts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Or, did you miss the "Queen of Canada" part of the oath? Right. Queen of Canada. Does much (anything??) in and for, this country? Has any allegiance to this country? As Wilber says, it's all in the past. And I don't think the past, especially long time gone past, should be forcing people to say and do something they don't believe in here and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Right. Queen of Canada. Does much (anything??) in and for, this country? Has any allegiance to this country? As Wilber says, it's all in the past. And I don't think the past, especially long time gone past, should be forcing people to say and do something they don't believe in here and now. No it is not in the past, it is in the present. It is part of the oath. If you don't feel you can take the oath, don't join. If you want to join the military police etc, or become a citizen, you don't dictate the terms under which you will do so. You accept them or bugger off. I you want to lobby to have that changed, fair enough but until then you abide by the terms. Canada has a bad habit of ignoring or rewriting its history to appease the flavour of the day. It is what it is, we are where we came from. We became the country we did for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Right. Queen of Canada. Does much (anything??) in and for, this country? Has any allegiance to this country? As Wilber says, it's all in the past. And I don't think the past, especially long time gone past, should be forcing people to say and do something they don't believe in here and now. Actually, the Queen has made no secret of taking her responsibilities to Canada quite seriously. You know, this disrespect for the Queen, our heritage and all that goes with it has really come about only in the last few decades, as we experienced a wave of immigration from different sources than before. It's all very well for these "newcomers" to refuse to adopt the incumbent heritage but it's a bit much to expect the rest of us to be supportive. I would love to see this issue put to a referendum, with a clear question. If my side lost, then I would have to accept the people's verdict. If we won, maybe it would stop the incessant nattering... If someone wants to live in a republic then let them become Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well said WB. Myself, well, I wonder what the problem is. I wish just one of the people who bitch about the Monarchy could even just one time show me a tangible way in which the Monarchy has a negative effect on them. And lets not trot out the old "offends me" horse, thats just manipulative crap. As for the clown who brought the case forward in the first place, well he certainly should not be allowed to be a member of the forces. I for one, being from England would never trust this guy. He would probably also incur some ill will from many other many members. He wants to be an officer yet by his actions has shown that he has absolutely no idea about what that involves. We tend to take our oath very seriously in the forces. We further see no harm nor shame in proclaiming our allegiance to the Queen. As was said before, if people don't like the Queen as our Monarch then they should perhaps seek out some nice cozy Republic where their delicate sensibilities wont be so easily offended. Oh yes, whats this sheer bull about Canada being a Colony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joan Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Hm ... I thought I posted this earlier I think it is not as simple as choosing NOT to have a Queen. I think there are issues of Canadian sovereignty without the Queen, related to the land treaties with the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) Right. Queen of Canada. Does much (anything??) in and for, this country? Has any allegiance to this country? As Wilber says, it's all in the past. And I don't think the past, especially long time gone past, should be forcing people to say and do something they don't believe in here and now. This is just the type of ignorant and selfish dribble that leads to these time and money wasting court cases. Ignorant in the belief that the country is not presently a kingdom; selfish in the idea that one is so special that the law should be changed just to suit their ignorant beliefs. You have a right to believe what you want; it's not illegal to be stupid. But don't expect that the world should morph to accomodate your ignorance, bias, denial, or whatever particular problem you have. Edited January 24, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 I certainly hope no person in our military actually would give their life for the Queen. It's all a big joke anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 I certainly hope no person in our military actually would give their life for the Queen. It's all a big joke anyways. You must be French! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.