What is Canada?

[AlienB]

Ok a few permanent residents wishing to become Canadian Citizens do not want to issue an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Personally I think those people need to reread their immigration materials, because if they don't understand the Queen is the head of state, the head of parliament, and the head of judiciary, and Canada is a constitutional monarchy... that is headed by the Queen they need to read more about Canada's legal system.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy if you want to be Canadian then you become a constituent of that Monarchy, as the monarch is representative of the state.

There is no "Canada" as a legal entity. Did they want to pledge to the Supreme Court? What about to Parliament? Well sorry no those insitutions are not the state, they are sub components of the state.

There is no "Canada" There is a Federal Government, but Canadian Citizenship is not Federal Citizenship, it is state citizenship.

Of course this would be a landmark case if it was accepted.

None the less the perversion of Canada into a republic by antimonarchists is just further proceeded by your guys following comments.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

Edited July 12, 2013 by AlienB

[Keepitsimple]

Only in Canada......could non-citizens take the country to court to complain that the process for becoming a citizen is discriminatory and violates their constitutional rights! Insane.

[Moonlight Graham]

from the OP article:

Forcing would-be Canadians to pledge allegiance to the Queen before they can become citizens is discriminatory and a violation of their constitutional rights, three permanent residents are set to argue in court on Friday.

So our constitution is unconstitutional? They clearly don't understand our political system then, and completely disrespect it with this request. No citizenship for them then! Nice try guys...

More from the OP:

“Taking an oath of allegiance to a hereditary monarch who lives abroad would violate my conscience, be a betrayal of my republican heritage, and impede my activities in support of ending the monarchy in Canada,” McAteer says in his affidavit.

He wants to end the Canadian monarchy now, and he isn't even a Canadian!

Edited July 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Im a natural born Canadian, and I wouldnt pledge allegiance to the Queen... Not sure why an immigrant should have to either.

[Moonlight Graham]

Im a natural born Canadian, and I wouldnt pledge allegiance to the Queen... Not sure why an immigrant should have to either.

Well, it's perfectly legit to not want to pledge such an oath, but it is our law, and is the basic foundation of our entire political system and our constitution. Until our constitution changes, and we become republican, that's the way it's going to be. If an immigrant doesn't like our laws, go find another country, and don't try to change them just to accommodate their foreign beliefs when they aren't even citizens yet.

Someone commenting in the National Post agrees with me:

It is incredibly arrogant to move to a country - especially a free, democratic nation like Canada - and then demand that it change one of the most fundamental aspects of its character just to accomodate you. Full citizens get a say on these matters. Non-citizens do not, simple as that. This ought to be summarily thrown out of court.

[Wild Bill]

Im a natural born Canadian, and I wouldnt pledge allegiance to the Queen... Not sure why an immigrant should have to either.

Well Dre, I guess my vote cancels yours!

However, you were born a Canadian. Suggesting changes to our political structure is the right of any Canadian.

However, an immigrant applying to become a citizen has no rights. He is by definition a foreigner!

As such, he should mind his manners and keep his mouth shut. If he wants to criticize our system, let him become a citizen first!

Until then, he is like a guest who stays in your house and thinks he has the right to demand you change the decor.

Screw him and the horse he rode in on!

[guyser]

However, an immigrant applying to become a citizen has no rights. He is by definition a foreigner!

Actually, the immigrant has the same rights as you do.

So does a tourist.

Rights under the Charter are not just for Canadians, they are for all people. We can however restrict some, as some of a citizens of Canada's are, such as at airports or border crossings

[g_bambino]

Ok a few permanent residents wishing to become Canadian Citizens do not want to issue an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy if you want to be Canadian then you become a constituent of that Monarchy, as the the monarch is representative of the state.

There is no "Canada" as a legal entity. DId they want to pledge to the Supreme Court? What about to Parliament? Well sorry no those insitutions are not the state, they are sub components of the state.

There is no "Canada" There is a Federal Government, but Canadian Citizenship is not Federal Citizenship, it is state citizenship.

Canada is a legal entity; read the Constitution Act 1867:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen... to declare by Proclamation that... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act

5. Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

Constitution Act 1867

However, the above describes only a legal concept. Canada can also be the land within its borders; it can be the people that make up its population; it can even be considered a foreign state by some actually living within it, to some born within it. So, given that, the purpose of the Oath of Allegiance contained within the Oath of Citizenship would be lost if fealty were required to be given to "Canada", or even anything other than the Queen. The Oath of Allegiance is a verbal contract in which prospective citizens promise to recognise the authority of and obey the laws issued (with, depending on the type of law, the consent of parliament or the cabinet accountable to it) by the monarch--the constitutional repository of the state's authority--in exchange for enjoying the protections, privileges, and services the monarch will provide them through the vast array of laws enacted with Royal Assent or issued by Royal Prerogative and government departments that operate in the sovereign's name. It would be impossible to make such an agreement with "Canada". "Canada", having neither a fixed definition nor an animate form, cannot respond to the promise, unlike the identifiable and living Queen, who made a reciprocal vow at her coronation to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs.

What's funny is these three stooges building their case on the Charter, the same Charter that was enacted on 17 April 1982 with the Queen's own signature. They recognise the legitimacy of the law enacted by the monarch's constitutional power, but refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the monarch's constitutional power. Tautological arguments for everyone!

This failed in the courts twice before. I don't even know why it's been allowed back there again. But, I'm fairly certain it'll fail again. There's nothing to stop these people from, once becoming Canadian citizens, agitating for the recreation of Canada as a republic. Their freedoms of conscience and expression are guaranteed by the Charter and the Constitution Act 1982 spells out the process by which the Crown could be lawfully removed. All that's asked is that they accept the governmental order as it is--a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy--until such a time as they successfully have it changed.

[ed.: fix fmt]

Edited July 12, 2013 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

The irony is hilarious. The ignorance is just sad. They're taking exception to the Queen of Canada for something the Queen of another state did. They obviously don't understand what the monarchy is or how it works.

[Wild Bill]

Actually, the immigrant has the same rights as you do.

So does a tourist.

Rights under the Charter are not just for Canadians, they are for all people. We can however restrict some, as some of a citizens of Canada's are, such as at airports or border crossings

You had to remind me, Guyser! That has stuck in my craw ever since it was forced on us by some judges - that no one ever voted! They chose to interpret the Charter in that manner and the way our system has evolved, those unelected judges can just stick it to us! I have never understood why something as undemocratic as rule by judges was allowed to happen but I can't deny it has. I suspect it is because whenever a hot button issue comes along the politicians use the Supreme Court to deflect heat away from themselves by abdicating their responsibility for making the laws that govern us.

I'll bet you a bottle of The Glenlivet that including non-citizens would never pass a referendum among the citizenry at large.

[g_bambino]

The irony is hilarious. The ignorance is just sad. They're taking exception to the Queen of Canada for something the Queen of another state did. They obviously don't understand what the monarchy is or how it works.

I don't see where the office of the Queen of Canada being distinct from the office of the Queen of the UK is problematic for any of them; at least, not from the article. Apart from the woman who thinks the Queen is the "head of Babylon" (whatever that means), the other two just don't like monarchy. That's an opinion one is entitled to hold, and fair enough if they can formulate an at least rational reason as to why they hold it. But, it's a bit rich to say so while for years living in and enjoying the benefits of a tolerant, free, and democratic state structure built around a monarchy; a state structure that protects one's right to malign and agitate against the monarchy.

Pledging allegiance to the Queen doesn't mean devoting one's self to the person of Elizabeth II; to have to love her and never speak ill of her. It just means promising to abide by "her" rules, which well include the steps to lawfully abolishing her position. Given that, it's unfathomable how these people think taking the Oath of Allegiance within the Oath of Citizenship means giving up their beliefs. In the ruling of the court the first time this matter was put before it, it was said ""[t]he fact that the oath 'personalizes' one particular constitutional provision has no constitutional relevance, since that personalization is derived from the Constitution itself... Even thus personalized, that part of the Constitution relating to the Queen is amendable, and so its amendment may be freely advocated, consistently with the oath of allegiance, either by expression, by peaceful assembly or by association."

[ed.: sp.]

Edited July 12, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I have never understood why something as undemocratic as rule by judges was allowed to happen...

This is likely because you've never understood either the role of judges or democracy.

[Claudius]

Australia doesn't require immigrants to swear allegencee to the Queen but rather the country, its' people and its' laws -- much more rational, relevant and mature.

The Queen as Head of State or figurehead is absolutely irrational and irrelevant. Are Canadians going to accept laws or edicts the Queen of England imposes on us? Absolutely not, thus the office is a sham and the oath is a sham. She has been de facto replaced by the GG.

Who here is going to suit up and go to war because the Queen says so? Those of you raising your hand are prime candidates for the Darwin award.

I don't dislike the Queen i think she's great but this head of state part is nonsense. It never applies which makes it a useless appendex, except for nostagia.

[Claudius]

I have never understood why something as undemocratic as rule by judges was allowed to happen...

This is likely because you've never understood either the role of judges or democracy.

This is why I tend to snicker when people go on and on about how democracy is what makes us great. It isn't. Rule of law based on a 'white paper' of beliefs, ethics and rights, ruled on by a supreme court is wart makes a Western nation great.

time and time again when a Western society evolves or advances socially it is the Supreme court ruling on a constitution or a charter of rights that drags our society forward not democracy. If it were still up to democracy women would still not be allowed to vote.

[August1991]

Im a natural born Canadian, and I wouldnt pledge allegiance to the Queen... Not sure why an immigrant should have to either.

I agree, completely.

I was once "forced" to pledge allegiance to this foreign woman, and it has bothered me ever since.

[g_bambino]

Australia doesn't require immigrants to swear allegencee to the Queen but rather the country, its' people and its' laws -- much more rational, relevant and mature.

Australia doesn't require prospective citizens to swear allegiance to anything; they take a pledge, like the Boy Scouts. They pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people. What's meant by "Australia" there? Without given definition, it's open to personal interpretation, which makes the whole exercise of pledging loyalty to it rather meaningless; you could be pledging to something different than the person next to you. And "the people"; is one really going to be loyal to those included in "the people" but with whom one vehemently disagrees? Australia's pledge is word fluff.

[g_bambino]

I was once "forced" to pledge allegiance to this foreign woman...

We're talking about the Queen here, not your foreign woman. Please stay on topic.

[Claudius]

What's meant by "Australia" there? Without given definition, it's open to personal interpretation, which makes the whole exercise of pledging loyalty to it rather meaningless; you could be pledging to something different than the person next to you.

Um, what? No. There is no ambiguity, or at least swearing to a Queen that has no more connection to the country than the maple leaf is frankly even more ambiguous.

Australias "Pledge of Commentment" required by new immigrants:

"From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

All new citizens have the choice of making the pledge with or without the words 'under God'.

What's wrong with this? Nothing ambiguous about it.

The sky has not fallen in Australia.

[AlienB]

Canada is a legal entity; read the Constitution Act 1867:

However, the above describes only a legal concept. Canada can also be the land within its borders; it can be the people that make up its population; it can even be considered a foreign state by some actually living within it, to some born within it. So, given that, the purpose of the Oath of Allegiance contained within the Oath of Citizenship would be lost if fealty were required to be given to "Canada", or even anything other than the Queen. The Oath of Allegiance is a verbal contract in which prospective citizens promise to recognise the authority of and obey the laws issued (with, depending on the type of law, the consent of parliament or the cabinet accountable to it) by the monarch--the constitutional repository of the state's authority--in exchange for enjoying the protections, privileges, and services the monarch will provide them through the vast array of laws enacted with Royal Assent or issued by Royal Prerogative and government departments that operate in the sovereign's name. It would be impossible to make such an agreement with "Canada". "Canada", having neither a fixed definition nor an animate form, cannot respond to the promise, unlike the identifiable and living Queen, who made a reciprocal vow at her coronation to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs.

What's funny is these three stooges building their case on the Charter, the same Charter that was enacted on 17 April 1982 with the Queen's own signature. They recognise the legitimacy of the law enacted by the monarch's constitutional power, but refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the monarch's constitutional power. Tautological arguments for everyone!

This failed in the courts twice before. I don't even know why it's been allowed back there again. But, I'm fairly certain it'll fail again. There's nothing to stop these people from, once becoming Canadian citizens, agitating for the recreation of Canada as a republic. Their freedoms of conscience and expression are guaranteed by the Charter and the Constitution Act 1982 spells out the process by which the Crown could be lawfully removed. All that's asked is that they accept the governmental order as it is--a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy--until such a time as they successfully have it changed.

[ed.: fix fmt]

Thanks for the info I see a constitutional monarchy differently. The Monarch is the State, while Canada is the Monarch's territory.. the monarch claims and chooses to exercise their will over that territory. Provinces are constiuent bodies which have different civil laws, which the division of territorial administration is set out in the constitution 1867.. however the Monarch is the head and final point of process and laws are exercised as the will of the monarch who ascends laws. The monarch uses advisors such as privy council and parliament to determine their will.

People just have some foreign view of what Canada is, it isn't a republic, which is a people exercising their will over a territory. A monarch is a person that being the monarch exercising their will which has territorial implications.

This is further complicated by Canadian nationalities that came into existence in 1952 or so, and further complicated by the end of British Subject status.. however in effect new citizens are still british subjects (actually Canadian Monarch Subjects) as well are people born before 1982 (they are actual british subjects though unlike new immigrants today). There is an ever increasing issue though due to the population born after 1982 increasing, as only new immigrants are new subjects as natural citizens of Canada unless they exercise an office mandated by law to require subject status by taking the oath, do not exist. Run of the mill people who havn't taken the oath who were born after 1982 arn't pledged subjects of the monarchy. They hold "citizenship in Canada as a Canadian National by virtue of jus soli.

None the less, Canada itself is a constitutional monarchy, but no there is no national oath or oath to the nation, if they want an oath to an inanimate object they should move to America.

Canadians pledge to the monarchy not to a flag.

The republicanism of Canada has been gradual post WWII though.. this is why this case is troubling. There are other issues too.

So what are those provinces and federations then? Is it the Lt. Governors who make the decisions for those entities, or is it the legislators.. but arn't legislatures only for making laws? They don't execute the law, they are not the executive so why would you pledge to a legislature?

People in America don't pledge to the President or the congress... it is the idea of the what the flag represents. Much like pledging to the monarch is pledging to the idea of what the monarchy means.

That is Canada, there is no other Canada that exists.

Personally if people don't support legal Canada they shouldn't be Canadians... its a free world people don't need to be citizens of a country whose laws violate their beliefs.

I'm not really sure how to describe people born after 1982 in Canada other than "Canadian Citizens", that is they owe no loyalties but are subject to the laws of Canada currently though to hold specific offices they have to become a "Canadian Monarch Subject"

In effect they are under jurisdiction only while in Canada but subject potentially upon their return.

The subjects are not confined by territory in their duties as subjects of the crown.

Edited July 13, 2013 by AlienB

[g_bambino]

No. There is no ambiguity, or at least swearing to a Queen...

If there's no ambiguity then answer my question: what is the "Australia" one is pledging loyalty to? There's no mistaking who Elizabeth II is and what she is; she is the source of all authority of the state; it's all spelled out in the constitution; there are no alternate definitions.

[Claudius]

If there's no ambiguity then answer my question: what is the "Australia" one is pledging loyalty to? There's no mistaking who Elizabeth II is and what she is; she is the source of all authority of the state; it's all spelled out in the constitution; there are no alternate definitions.

lol. I'm not going to sit here and play your childish "why daddy" game. There is no abiguity for anyone who can read and understand basic English. Your question is answered within the oath:

"From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

ZERO ambiguity. Period. No argument to it. Drop the "it's ambiguous" baloney because it's not. Plain and simple. Are you going to pretend the existance any country without a monarch is "ambiguous"?

No ambiguity.

None.

The subject of ambiguity is closed. I'm not going to argue this for the next 40 posts. If you want to pretend it's ambiguous by all means continue.

Next......

"There's no mistaking who Elizabeth II is and what she is; she is the source of all authority of the state;"

Um yeah except she isn't save in print. She realistically has zero authority in Canada because no way will Canadians ever be accepting edicts or laws or policies directed by her. The GG has de facto circumvented any authority she ever had. Therefore her "authority' is nonexistant. Making the pledge a sham.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Claudius

[August1991]

Thanks for the info I see a constitutional monarchy differently. The Monarch is the State, while Canada is the Monarch's territory..

WTF?

"Canada" is the rocks and trees of this place. This place, call it Canada, will long survive any government or State. In 50,000 years, the land - Canada - will still be here.

So what's the claim of this foreign family?

[g_bambino]

The Monarch is the State, while Canada is the Monarch's territory.. the monarch claims and chooses to exercise their will over that territory...The monarch uses advisors such as privy council and parliament to determine their will.

People just have some foreign view of what Canada is, it isn't a republic, which is a people exercising their will over a territory.

Well, a constitutional monarchy is really a bit of both; hence, it's been called a "crowned republic". The sovereign "exercises her will" at the direction of parliament or a cabinet accountable to the elected chamber of parliament, or through delegates such as judges (appointed by the monarch on the advice of those in cabinet, who're, in turn, accountable to the elected chamber of parliament). But, the sovereign reigns and the powers belonging to the sovereign do so only because it's stipulated in the constitution, which is a law amendable by parliament (or, in Canada's case, parliaments). In other words, Elizabeth is queen and possesses sovereignty and the full authority of the state only because the Canadian electorate, as represented in parliament, allows it.

[g_bambino]

lol. I'm not going to sit here and play your childish "why daddy" game.

So, you can't answer my question. Thank you for proving my point.

Um yeah except she isn't save in print. She realistically has zero authority in Canada because no way will Canadians ever be accepting edicts or laws or policies directed by her. The GG has de facto circumvented any authority she ever had. Therefore her "authority' is nonexistant.

That's just ignorant gibberish. The "print"--by which one assumes you mean that little thing called constitutional law--makes Elizabeth II the Queen of Canada; she holds all executive authority, is the government, and forms one of the three parts of parliament. The governor general derives his or her authority from the Queen; again, spelled out in the constitution, as well as in Letters Patent issued by the monarch. Elizabeth II is thus both an identifiable person and her position and authority is unabmiguous. "Canada", on the other hand, can mean many things; just above, August tells us it's the land. I could disagree and say it's Canadian citizens as a group. Some sovereigntist from Quebec would tell you its a foreign country. Whichever you pick, it can't promise anything back to you in return for your pledge of loyalty or allegiance or whatever.

[dre]

I would just get rid of the pledge or replace with one similar to Australias.