What is Canada?

[-TSS-]

Exactly, how big an issue is this in Canada? I could imagine that for an immigrant coming from a third world country if the only obstacle to becoming a citizen of a wealthy western country is to swear an allegiance to a foreign head of state, I just can't believe there would be a long queue of people refusing to swear such an oath.

[Topaz]

These people must have know about this before they had to take the oath and IF they don't want to then why don't they go the USA.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Through many centuries of reform, the monarchy (and the Queen) and the GG has very little legitimate power in our politics. By convention, Parliament has the power and the Crown is mostly a rubber stamp expect in the most extraordinary circumstances where the Crown can be a check on Parliament's power when it may be abusing it's power. Swearing allegiance to the Queen doesn't mean you have to abide by what she says/does, because she doesn't have the power of legitimacy to make any Canadian "to suit up and go to war"...that is Parliament's power.

Swearing allegiance to the Queen is simply swearing allegiance to Canada. The Queen is the symbolic physical embodiment of Canada (our Head of State), not some tyrant or anyone with any real power to make any Canadian do anything. The Queen/monarchy is symbolic more than anything, why don't people understand that?

[August1991]

These people must have know about this before they had to take the oath and IF they don't want to then why don't they go the USA.

Huh?

Topaz, imagine a world in which they don't have such a choice. Imagine a world without America.

[Moonlight Graham]

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

How is the Queen of Canada a "foreign woman"? She is a Canadian citizen. She just happens to live in a different country, but given she is Queen to many different countries in the Commonwealth, this is inevitable since she can't live in every country at once.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

I'd be in a favour of this, with "under God" taken out. But the whole point of this thread is for Canadian citizens to decide this, not a few non-citizens who don't like the Queen.

[Moonlight Graham]

Huh?

Topaz, imagine a world in which they don't have such a choice. Imagine a world without America.

There's a ton of other countries in the world that are Republics. If they don't like any them, go back to their homelands, or don't become citizens.

Are these protesting immigrants not going to use our money either because the Queen is on it, or are they not going to follow our laws because the Crown has assented all of them?

[-TSS-]

I know this is a Canadian forum but I still must tell you about an Aussie friend of mine years ago.

Namely, there was the republic-referendum in Australia in 1999 and the republic lost the referendum. Not really because people would have preferred the monarchy but because the pro-monarchy government worded the referendum in a way that was unacceptable to the voters.

However, my Aussie friend was talking to some of his Japanese friends about the upcoming referendum and his friends said that perhaps it is time for Australia to finally become independent. That was in 1999 and those people did not know that Australia has been independent since 1901. It's just an arrangement that the foreign head of state is the head of state of Australia as well.

That moment made up my friend's mind as he was undecided until then. He voted for the republic but to his disappointment the republic lost.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thankfully, the judge hearing this case seems to understand the issue perfectly:

Justice Edward Morgan said although the Queen is indeed the head of state, she is also a symbol of the political system and of the state itself. He said some people might not take the oath as literally as the applicants did.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/12/repugnant-citizenship-oath-to-queen-shoud-be-illegal-court-hears/

[AlienB]

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.

I don't think so, authority does not lie with the people in Canada. The Monarch has final say on who holds posts in Canada. While BC has taken some steps to create a form of recall, it is pretty horendus needing a very large number of people to bring forth a recall. Also for referendum the legislature still has veto.

All Mps, judges etc. have to pledge allegiance to the crown, and they serve at the pleasure of the crown.

The people have no power in Canada to effect law. The closest thing is the commons which is in no way representative of the people, only a majority by mega parties that are about their agenda, not personal choices. It is just a stage show.

No Canada isn't a republic, in no way is it a republic, even if you think that sounds nice and makes you feel better at the end of the day.

Since 1982 you may have some sort of point.... for people born after 1982 in Canada, but they may represent a de facto lawless anarchy state without recognition of the Queen as the head of state. I think this will continue to be an issue as America erodes more and more Canadian sovereignty.

I think there will be a serious question of the monarchy arise in 10 or 20 years... and perhaps again not long after that if so.

I think though there is a majority of people in Canada who are ok with the monarchy.. it is just a question of how much sovereignty will be eroded, with joint policing, american owned economy, american veto on Canadian travel etc..

It is really the American influence that waters down the idea of a monarchy, likewise it is the american systems and media that make Canadians forget they live in a monarchy because their world concepts are formed on american foundations.

To be honest though, Canada suffers a legislative bloat, legislatures make make work projects cause they can't fix the problems so they create new ones by disrupting the status quo with laws to manage society differently rather than accepting the common law. Look at it this way, how many laws were defined outside of court by the crown? How many laws were put into force without agreement by the commons?

The crowns method of bringing about change of law is through court judgement.. people just don't see it that way. The crown acts on the advice of her councillors, .. there is some overlap but you should be able to separate the two.

The Westminster tradition enables republican concepts of leadership, actually dictatorship housed under the leader of the majority party.. but this isn't any real republic or democracy it is rule by the largest faction and not by population but by majority in the most areas, not the entire state.

This in essence is Canadian Democracy.. a form of Ochlocracy. None the less the part people must not forget to insure democracy is the free society part.

People should not be bound by the majority so as to have their freedoms and personal liberties infringed.

None the less the Crown is the judge of the representatives of democracy in principle and the system that encapsulates that.

None the less... the Crowns judgement is human, not textual.

IMO majority rule is good if everyone has a vote, rather than centralization of opinion in the hands of one person.

Everyone doesn't have a vote on the issues so that is a problem.

Likewise the majority doesn't respect freedom in many cases in Canada, so really Canada's constitution is not healthy. It is corrupted. That being yes the crown is important.. the continuance of Canada is an important concept.

But no Canada is not a republic, it is suppose to be a free and democratic constitutional monarchy.

republics have no assurances of freedom and even today places like the US are under threat of tyranny by institutional rule due to ignorance of their constitutional protections established to insure freedoms for Americans, rather than the mob rule of the majority.

Edited July 13, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest American Woman]

I agree, completely.

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

I'm assuming you have "forced" in quotes because you realize that you weren't actually forced to, since no one forced you to become a citizen. Having said that, it would bother me, too.

[g_bambino]

I could imagine that for an immigrant coming from a third world country if the only obstacle to becoming a citizen of a wealthy western country is to swear an allegiance to a foreign head of state...

We're talking about people swearing allegiance to Canada's head of state; nobody coming here swears allegiance to a foreign anything.

[g_bambino]

Namely, there was the republic-referendum in Australia in 1999 and the republic lost the referendum. Not really because people would have preferred the monarchy but because the pro-monarchy government worded the referendum in a way that was unacceptable to the voters.

That's a lie. The question was formulated by a convention dominated by republicans. The republican side lost and since then they've been using this myth that John Howard (then prime minister) rigged the whole thing. In other words, they've been very sore losers.

Republicans must resort to all sorts of myths in order to try and win people over. Case in point:

It's just an arrangement that the foreign head of state is the head of state of Australia as well.

That's a logical fallacy. The head of a state, made such by the laws of that state, cannot be foreign to the state he or she heads.

[g_bambino]

I don't think so, authority does not lie with the people in Canada.

Well, that is your opinion. However, the Glorious Revolution did happen and since then parliament has actually been the supreme institution in our governmental order. Parliament makes law and the law says there's a monarch, the law says who is and who will be monarch, and the monarch is bound by the law (though many are conventions, but upheld by parlaiment, nonetheless). The democratic aspect of constitutional monarchy is what differentiates it from absolute monarchy, which Canada is not (unless you ask some pathalogical Stephen Harper haters).

[AlienB]

Well, that is your opinion. However, the Glorious Revolution did happen and since then parliament has actually been the supreme institution in our governmental order. Parliament makes law and the law says there's a monarch, the law says who is and who will be monarch, and the monarch is bound by the law (though many are conventions, but upheld by parlaiment, nonetheless). The democratic aspect of constitutional monarchy is what differentiates it from absolute monarchy, which Canada is not (unless you ask some pathalogical Stephen Harper haters).

Sorry this isn't a parliamentary democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy. It is the constitution that determines those things not legislators.

Your use of parliament is also errored, as you are probably referring to the commons not the parliament which is headed by the monarch, who has final say as the third part of parliament, and has veto on all law.

IMO, I make my own decisions, parliament does not, the monarch does not. Legally though people in Canada, the monarch has final say. If you don't agree with that, you don't agree with canadian law.

[Wilber]

What's so magic about republics? Most of the world's armpits are republics.

W

[jacee]

I'd be in a favour of this, with "under God" taken out. But the whole point of this thread is for Canadian citizens to decide this, not a few non-citizens who don't like the Queen.

I agree Canadians should decide whether we all have to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

And I think given a choice, the answer would be no we don't want to do that.

So why make others do it?

[AlienB]

I agree Canadians should decide whether we all have to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

And I think given a choice, the answer would be no we don't want to do that.

So why make others do it?

Loyalty and allegiance does not equal subservience, it means exercise judgement for the benefit of.

I think people don't understand the fullness of the oath. That it binds you to do right and work for the interest for, working for the interest of the monarchy does not negate or remove acting for the interest or benefit of other things such as yourself. It does not delegate how one must view or delegate how the monarchy ought to be in society to best fullfill its cause.

It simply means you are acting pro bono in that regard. Any good person should be acting pro bono and pro socio regardless. If they arn't then I woulnd't want them part of my society, I wouldn't want them alive.

If people are equals then in effect you must view yourself as a peer as if your sovereignty is absolute and self derived then to recognize someone elses supremecy it brings about equality of society and a basis or respect and goodwill..

It simply means that if your view of the monarch is good then you will do good, it is a mirror image of your virtue and values and the will to uphold those values. If the monarch is seen as perfection and right then if one is to be their fullest then they will seek to encapsulate those values and uphold those values.

If there is something that does not seem right then it is ones duty to bring that to perfection and that is the basis of law to bring about right.

The crown is the unity of Canadian society. As long as the crown acts dutifully for the benefit of all the people then society prospers.

What does the oath mean to others here? And who here has taken it either officially or in private?

Now bear in mind I wouldn't take the oath either because I don't agree with all the laws of Canada. However would adjust the oath to add in things like, that so as long as she acted in right and for good and righeousness and in accordance with justice and dignity and was lawful in following the laws of Canada as an equal.

basically adding conditions to keep the peace and insure loyalty, that being that they fullfilled their duties, and they acted pro bono and pro socio, and upheld the law, that being in mind the constitution.

Sadly I am of the impression that the Queen has allowed for laws which are unconstitutional to come into force, and until those laws are removed I could not take the oath because she is not ruling constitutionally.

There are laws which violate human rights, and there are laws that unfairly deprive individuals of their property, freedoms and other rights.

Until those things are upheld I could not support further destruction of civil liberties and protections, and further oppression of the people under unjust rule.

Now I would loyalty further to uphold the constitution and assist the monarch if that was their intent.

The fundamental is regardless of all words I feel the constitution is simply do right and assist society to do good.

.

In that respect I support my view of the institution of what a constitutional monarch is suppose to be, not the state to which the monarch exists as a condition of the environment and their personality. I can only aim to further bring into or support that as opposed to accept the status quo as a representation of a perversion of right.

Edited July 14, 2013 by AlienB

[GostHacked]

That's a lie. The question was formulated by a convention dominated by republicans. The republican side lost and since then they've been using this myth that John Howard (then prime minister) rigged the whole thing. In other words, they've been very sore losers.

Republicans must resort to all sorts of myths in order to try and win people over. Case in point:

That's a logical fallacy. The head of a state, made such by the laws of that state, cannot be foreign to the state he or she heads.

What do you mean? Essentially our head of state is the Queen of Canada. They might have the Queen of Australia but it's still that old lady queen from the UK. Or is this the correct line of thikning?

[Wilber]

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

Doesn't matter. Because you were born in Canada and your citizenship cannot be revoked, you are bound by that allegence anyway. If it is too much for you, you could always renounce your citizenship but no one can take it away from you. Not so for someone choosing to become a citizen. You do not get to choose which parts of citizenship apply to you. It is the whole enchilada or nothing.

[jacee]

Now bear in mind I wouldn't take the oath either because I don't agree with all the laws of Canada.

Thanks for making my point.

How many of us would take the oath to the Queen?

A poll in this thread would be interesting.

It's a pretty hypocritical situation:

Justice Edward Morgan said although the Queen is indeed the head of state, she is also a symbol of the political system and of the state itself. He said some people might not take the oath as literally as the applicants did.He added that Canadians are allowed to freely criticize the monarchy after they take the oath.You swear an oath to the monarch but it doesnt stop you from speaking against the monarchy the next minute, Justice Morgan said.

So what's the point of the oath? It makes no sense.

And woe betide he who intends to "alarm" the monarch! Get ye hence to jail for 14 years, ye wretched sod!

49. Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, ...

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Like ... breaking wind near the monarch? or ... I don't know, maybe making fun of her by doing a pirouette?

This whole 'monarch' thing is a joke, should not be taken seriously and should be taken out of the oath and certainly out of the Criminal Code.

Did you know that the Monarchist League of Canada has no real interest in the legal aspects of having a monarch? They just like dressing up like queens and enjoying "the pomp and ceremony".

It doesn't get much sillier than that.

The common person should NOT have to swear allegiance to any monarch. It is a violation of democracy. We elect and pay our governments to work for US!

It's time to dump all references to swearing allegiance or being penalized for anything to do with a monarch. It's ridiculous.

Edited July 15, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

That's a logical fallacy. The head of a state, made such by the laws of that state, cannot be foreign to the state he or she heads.

Is the Queen a citizen of Canada? If so, how did she become one? Did she take the oath to herself?

Does she get to take advantage of our health care? She's not here enough to qualify for residency. At least the people objecting to the oath are actually residents of Canada!

To be Canadian, you have to swear an oath to someone who is not Canadian?

It's a joke. Of course she's foreign to Canada.

[Topaz]

No, the Queen isn't a citizen of Canada, but she is the head of the Commonwealth and those countries are free at any time to leave the Commonwealth. I don't think that will happen until the next generation is ruling Canada. No one should be able to go live in another country and try to change the laws and rules of it. So if you don't like them pick another country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

[Wild Bill]

To be Canadian, you have to swear an oath to someone who is not Canadian?

It's a joke. Of course she's foreign to Canada.

You know, my mother's side has been in Canada since the 1690's, since the good ship Hector landed in Pictou, Nova Scotia.

Like most other Canadians, we were very welcoming of newer immigrants.

However, if we had known then that allowing so many in would mean that we would be forced to change not just our national culture but our very political system and no longer bear allegiance to the Crown I am certain we would have had a much different attitude.

You welcome people into your home and they want to throw out your furniture and change the whole decor.

Screw the lot of them! Their attitude is presumptuous, arrogant and rude!

[jacee]

You welcome people into your home and they want to throw out your furniture and change the whole decor.

Screw the lot of them! Their attitude is presumptuous, arrogant and rude!

And yours.

And of course I'm sure Indigenous people would have a thing or two to say about your presumptions.

Um ... could you put their 'furniture' back please?!

And the thousands of children who were 'disappeared' in the residential schools?! Their families would ike to know where they're buried, how they died ... and WHY?!!

Maybe there are things more important than "decor" and the pomp and ceremony of monarchy?!

Edited July 15, 2013 by jacee