What is Canada?

jacee · July 15, 2013

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.

Well then the queen and all her loyal subjects should have got the hell out of Kanata a few hundred years ago, or not come in the first place!

Edited July 15, 2013 by jacee

guyser · July 15, 2013

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!

If what you are saying is Judges imposed the Charter on all peoples, visitors, tourists citizens and the like, well ....that was never true.

The US COnst is the same, anyone on the soil has the same rights. As it should be.

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 dojnt live under any rule by judges, I dont know how you do either.

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

Oh probably not, especially if they think unfairly like some people and want separate laws for some folks, harsher laws for others.

cybercoma · July 15, 2013

It is the constitution that determines those things not legislators.

You're reifying the constitution. Who makes changes to the constitution? Legislators. Who interprets the constitution? Judges appointed by legislators.

Edited July 15, 2013 by cybercoma

Wild Bill · July 15, 2013

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?!

Well, dragging in indigenous peoples is not relevant to my point. Are you saying that because of problems with how the natives were treated immigrants have the right to force us to give up the monarchy?

Seems often when we debate about apples you start crying "What about the oranges?"

As far as making changes, I would cheerfully support a poll of how native people think about high numbers of immigrants forcing cultural changes in Canada, any day of the week!

You might not be happy with the results.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Wild Bill

Wilber · July 15, 2013

Anyone on the soil has the same rights under the law, they do not have the right to change the law until they become citizens and can elect law makers. That is what citizenship is all about. Before you can change something, you have to earn the right to change it and you earn that right under the rules as they stand, not ones you want to make up for yourself. That's one big difference between grownups and children.

g_bambino · July 15, 2013

Is the Queen a citizen of Canada?

Not only do you conveniently avoid explaining how a head of state can be foreign to the state he or she heads, you try to deflect attention to a faulty argument that rests on the incorrect assumption that citizenship alone defines who is foreign. Citizenship is just one legal classification of people in this country.

It's not even a certainty that the Queen is not a citizen:

Determining the citizenship of monarchs and former monarchs has long been a difficult question for many countries. Citizenship is typically a status conferred by the state on those meeting certain criteria related to place of birth, parentage, or naturalization. In the case of constitutional monarchies, citizenship--in theory, at least--flows from the Sovereign... This opens a whole host of questions as to whether a Sovereign can possess citizenship at all. The close relationship between citizenship and subjecthood exacerbates this problem: Can a Queen be a subject of herself?

The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History, and Development; p. 227

So, you may hold the opinion that monarchs are not citizens of the countries they head (such is my belief; the monarch is not affected by an act of parliament unless that act says is binds the Crown and no citizenship act, of any of Elizabeth II's realms, anyway, says such a thing. Rather, citizenship, as the author quoted above states, flows from the Crown). If that is your conclusion, though, yet you also believe that lack of citizenship makes the monarch a foreigner to the country he or she heads, then, by extention of your own logic, King Willem-Alexander is a foreigner to the Netherlands, Queen Margrethe a foreigner to Denmark, Co-Prince François Hollande a foreigner to Andorra, Elizabeth II a foreigner to the United Kingdom (as well as all her other realms), and so on.

Of course, Elizabeth II, regardless of the citizenship question, is, like all other reigning monarchs in their countries, not a foreigner to Canada because the constitutional law of Canada makes her Queen of Canada, a legal classification, like citizenship, but occupied only by one.

[ed.: +]

Edited July 15, 2013 by g_bambino

g_bambino · July 15, 2013

So what's the point of the oath?.

It's a legal contract. As with such things, personal feelings are irrelevant to the intent of the contract and the result of entering into it.

g_bambino · July 15, 2013

Sorry this isn't a parliamentary democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they developed simultaneously in the United Kingdom. I really suggest you read up on the Glorious Revolution and its effects.

Claudius · July 19, 2013

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

No I did answer the question. Pledging allegence to "The State of Australia" is no different or less ambiguous than pledging to the "head of state" which represnts what? That's right: the state. The two are actually equal in meaning (or levels of ambiguity) the Austrailian one is just more direct. It's actuallyless ambiguous. They plainly say "Australia" instead of making you swear to the Queen and leave it insinuated that this actually means, "Canada", by virtue of her being head of state.

That's just ignorant gibberish.

Nope. THe Queen for all intents and purposes has been circumvented by the GG and even the GG doesn't wade into decisions very often. Her office is meaninless, making the oath meaningless.

August1991 · July 19, 2013

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

I never uttered an oath to the British Queen, and I'm a Canadian citizen. (Not true. To work in the federal government, I once accepted to sign an oath of allegiance to her.)

So, I don't understand why foreigners who become Canadian citizens should state their allegiance to a foreign woman. If anything, I would prefer that they state, in public, out loud and recorded for a youtube video, their support for our Charter of Rights, and its respect of gay marriage. (Their neighbourhood friends/enemies back home could replay the youtube video.)

Maybe we would have fewer radical Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood members as immigrants if this was the litmus test of citizenship. [i Mohamed bin Mohamed declare publicly that I accept the Canadian Charter and gay marriage.] Youtube, the new Ellis Island.

-----

In the past, deference to European monarchs may have been a force of civilisation. Nowadays, civilisation is defined differently: A civilized society is still defined as how the majority treats the minority. For example, when Muslims are a majority, how do they treat minorities?

Edited July 19, 2013 by August1991

The_Squid · July 19, 2013

Nationalistic oaths are deplorable. If Canada decided to start an unjust war, or perpetrated some other sort of unjust act, I am under no obligation to support Canada or Her Majesty the Queen. In fact, I am under a moral obligation to oppose such actions.

Same holds true for an immigrant. I would hope they would oppose Canada and the government if the country decided to start or join an unjust war, or perpetrated some other sort of unjust act.

Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. – Bertrand Russell

This guy has an interesting take on these sorts of nationalistic oaths: http://www.skeptic.ca/Anthems_Loyalty_Oaths.htm

I think citizens would be better served by an oath that stresses civic duty, equality, and respecting diversity. The oath also requires the oath taker to "faithfully observe the laws of Canada". Does anyone do this? I know I don't. I am thinking specifically of blasphemy laws, which have not been removed and are still in effect in Canada. I blaspheme all the time...

Section 296 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for anyone to publish a blasphemous libel. The maximum sentence is ostensibly a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years.

True, there have been no prosecutions in about 75 years and it’s likely any prosecution would be met with a successful Charter challenge.

But the law remains on the books and, to that extent, seemingly reflects public policy in Canada.

As long as the law is there, it is available for anyone to commence a private prosecution of any publication that he or she feels is insulting to a religion.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/14/why-does-canada-still-have-a-law-against-blasphemy-2

August1991 · July 19, 2013

Nationalistic oaths are deplorable.

I agree.

But surely, to be a Canadian citizen, one should accept the limits of State power: specifically, the State has no power to discriminate on sexual orientation.

If an individual cannot accept this limitation on State power, then how can they live in such a society?

IMV, every citizenship session should be recorded on youtube, like a marriage ceremony.

Edited July 19, 2013 by August1991

PIK · August 13, 2013

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?

It is our way, I am sick and tired of constant complaining by people on how we do things. Either put up with it or leave. Fucking whinners, everybody wants to be a victim of something.

PIK · August 13, 2013

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.

She is our queen, what is so hard for you to 8understand about that. That is the way it always has been and will be.

FutureCanadian · August 13, 2013

I don't see the big deal

g_bambino · August 13, 2013

Pledging allegence to "The State of Australia" is no different or less ambiguous than pledging to the "head of state"...

Nobody pledges allegiance to "The State of Australia"; they "affirm loyalty to Australia and its people". Nothing in there says "Australia" means the Australian state; it could be the territory within the geographic boundaries, the nation as comprised by the people living within those boundaries. Or, if one chooses to think so, it could mean the state, a concept that exists in real form only as a conglomoration of governmental institutions that cannot be pinpointed like the monarch--the font of authority for all those institutions--can be.

Nope. THe Queen for all intents and purposes has been circumvented by the GG and even the GG doesn't wade into decisions very often. Her office is meaninless, making the oath meaningless

Nope. The monarch constitutionally retains all the powers of the state, the governor general derives his authority from the monarch. Read the constitution and the Letters Patent 1947 before taking up this subject again.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited August 13, 2013 by g_bambino

Topaz · August 14, 2013

You know things could be worse....we ALL could be forced to swear allegiance to the USA and if more US companies keep coming up and buying out all Canadian businesses, we never see it coming, and don't hear much about the security pact the two countries are working on and all that harmonizing.

g_bambino · August 14, 2013

You know things could be worse....we ALL could be forced to swear allegiance to the USA and if more US companies keep coming up and buying out all Canadian businesses, we never see it coming, and don't hear much about the security pact the two countries are working on and all that harmonizing.

Maybe Americans will have to swear allegiance to the Queen. All the natural resources the Americans want from us are hers.

Moonlight Graham · August 14, 2013

Anyone on the soil has the same rights under the law.

Citizens do not have the same rights as non-citizens in Canada.

guyser · August 14, 2013

Citizens do not have the same rights as non-citizens in Canada.

Such as ?

Moonlight Graham · August 15, 2013

Such as ?

Voting, joining the military, become an RCMP, serving jury duty, get a Canadian passport etc

August1991 · August 15, 2013

It is our way, I am sick and tired of constant complaining by people on how we do things. Either put up with it or leave. Fucking whinners, everybody wants to be a victim of something.

Giggle.

-----

I still prefer my youtube video requirement for citizenship. Like marriage, citizenship is a social contract and people should make this commitment public. To become a Canadian IMHO, a person must agree publicly (on the Internet) with "Canadian values". For example, they should say that "the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" in a youtube video for all to see.

I barely joke.

Edited August 15, 2013 by August1991

guyser · August 15, 2013

Voting, joining the military, become an RCMP, serving jury duty, get a Canadian passport etc

And those are rights?

Smallc · August 15, 2013

The only ones that are different for citizens are the rights related to voting and elections.

rightwingcanadian · August 31, 2013

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.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edited August 31, 2013 by rightwingcanadian