Oath of Loyalty to Canadian Values

[Leafless]

scriblett

You wrote- " What is you suggestion for an oath of allegiance."

Actually I think that this country is so weak weak in leadership and dysfunctionally diverse that I don't think it QUALIFIES as a country initally.

But if any my contribution would be:

' I pledge allegiance to the flag of Canada, and to the federation it stands for: one Nation indivisible with Rights and Freedoms for all'

[Hicksey]

What's to stop people from faking it to get in and wreak havok?

If that's what we're trying to stop, isn't after the crime a little too late to impose that punishment considering the punishment's primary function is prevention?

I have no problem with deporting anyone without full-on citizenship that commits a crime. That makes sense. If they can't live by the rules of our society long enough to merely gain citizenship, they ought to be sent back from whence they came.

However, this oath seems to me like a waste of time. Do we really think it will be a deterrent to the type of people we're afraid of? We're supposed to believe that a person that would kill numerous innocents and themselves with a suicide bomb will be dissuaded from doing so because of an oath? That's ludicrous.

I have to agree. This is about nationalism. In some cases I have no problem with nationalism. In this case it serves no purpose and achieves no objective.

[geoffrey]

If someone is supporting terrorism (presumably, financially or materially) or engaging in it, they should be prosecuted.

Like the Tamil Tigers supporters that are also Liberal campaign contributors?

Would anyone be willing to take an oath to the effect that it is a Canadian value to "promote the Interests of the British Empire"? Yet, it is what the 1867 Constitutional act says, in its preamble, that is why Canada was created.

Trying to define "Canadian values" should prove as easy as nailing jell-o to the wall.

I'd love to be part of the British Empire myself. We don't have enough imperialistic conquests these days.

By the way hot shot: http://www.nmc.edu/library/images/jello.jpg

[scribblet]

Oath of loyality to Canadian values

Published: February 28, 2006

The Fraser Institute has released a position paper suggesting the federal government require new immigrants to Canada to swear an oath of loyalty to Canadian values and principles and deport those who violate this oath.

What is your suggestion for an oath of allegiance?

© Ottawa Citizen 2006

Hummm.

for starters, Canadians respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and women are to be treated as equal.

I have spent some time researching the fat cats behind Stephen Harper's rise to power and many have an association to the Fraser Institute (which has an association to the National Citizens' Coalition, our new PM's old digs), so I can only assume they mean Canadian Values according to Mr. Harper and the NCC.

Please define 'fat cats' and provide a source for your statements. The people running the organizations you mention are not wildly wealthy.

Canada's values are tolerance and freedom of speech among other things.

[speaker]

scriblett, are you able to tell us who is running the Fraser institute? is there any chance the people running it are the people who provide it with its funding?

[scribblet]

scriblett, are you able to tell us who is running the Fraser institute? is there any chance the people running it are the people who provide it with its funding?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fraserinstitute/

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/ you can read their website if you like, I know it was founded by Michael Walker. Its a think tank which publishes opionion etc. so read what they have to say and accept it or not. As to who all funds it, I'm sure they produce a financial report, but who cares, there are lots of organizations and institutes producing papers and giving opinions - if you don't like it, go elsewhere and donate to the think tank of your choice. Its a free country.

[geoffrey]

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/pdf/financials-04.pdf

Thats the year end financials.

[dpwozney]

This is the case in the federal public service where some Quebecers refused to take an oath of alegiance to the Queen of Canada and now that oath is simply a meaningless formality.

According to James R. Robertson,

"Since 1905, Members of Parliament have been allowed to 'solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm' that, though they cannot take the oath, they are still loyal to the Monarch.(1) The wording of the affirmation as it stands today is as follows:

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.".

Queen Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867 states:

"Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

[Mad_Michael]

Oath of loyality to Canadian values

Published: February 28, 2006

The Fraser Institute has released a position paper suggesting the federal government require new immigrants to Canada to swear an oath of loyalty to Canadian values and principles and deport those who violate this oath.

What is your suggestion for an oath of allegiance?

© Ottawa Citizen 2006

Hummm.

for starters, Canadians respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and women are to be treated as equal.

Loyalty oaths??? In Canada???

That Fraser Institute is going downhill - very fast. Twenty years ago, they were at least sane and reasonable. They going over to US neocon la-la-land now.

Not enough racists in the country (thankfully) to implement this kind of American crap.

[B. Max]

That Fraser Institute is going downhill - very fast. Twenty years ago, they were at least sane and reasonable. They going over to US neocon la-la-land now.

Not enough racists in the country (thankfully) to implement this kind of American crap.

There is certainly no shortage of cultural marxists.

[geoffrey]

There is certainly no shortage of cultural marxists.

Agreed. I've yet to see ANY neocon ideas come out of the Fraser institution. Oh well, people might start using real terms one day instead of trying to instill fear with things they don't even understand.

[Mad_Michael]

There is certainly no shortage of cultural marxists.

Could you name a contemporary Canadian example of one please? I'm curious. Should be easy for you since you say there are so many of them.

[Mad_Michael]

There is certainly no shortage of cultural marxists.

Agreed. I've yet to see ANY neocon ideas come out of the Fraser institution. Oh well, people might start using real terms one day instead of trying to instill fear with things they don't even understand.

1. This thread is ostensibly about one of them.

2. And it is rather amusing to see you rant about silly fear-mongering ideologies that people don't understand, yet you agree with the Marxist label being applied. Looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Mad_Michael]

For those of you who think this "loyalty oath" is a good idea, I respectfully submit that if Canada had one in 1867, women, blacks and jews would never be permitted to have any rights at all in Canada as at that time, such things were not part of any "Canadian values" and any oath at that time would have sworn to uphold the bias in the law that blocked these people out. Likewise with the French language.

No thank you. I'm Canadian. I'm not afraid of other people.

I'm willing to go to the barricades on this issue to defend my beloved Canadian heritage from the hatemongers. Loyalty oaths are for fascists and authoritarians.

[Remiel]

I would if it should be criminal to try and institute a thought police...

[Figleaf]

Asking immigrants to swear and oath to a set of vague principles is pointless. Most will have no problem accepting motherhood statements even if when the rubber hits the road their views in practice might differ substantially from what Canadians think.

Canadian Bureaucrat: "Swear that Women are equal."

Prospective Immigrant: "I swear that women are equal ..."

Canadian Bureaucrat: "Thank you."

Prospective Immigrant: "... except in moral matters where they should defer to their husbands."

Instead of a stupid and feckless oath, we should have suitability questionaires and possibly interviews.

[Army Guy]

swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

PROPOSED OATH OF CITIZENSHIP

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

I don't think we have to define all canadian values , just our democratic values, which are ? anyone care to take a swing.

I'm willing to go to the barricades on this issue to defend my beloved Canadian heritage from the hatemongers. Loyalty oaths are for fascists and authoritarians

before you start cutting wood for those barricades and painting signs....Oaths have been part of our culture dating back to the late 1700's, and still are required by law if you want to serve our country from MP's, sentors, governor general, to be a member of our military, or RCMP, i'm sure there is alot more out there, heck maybe i'm wrong but is there not an oath for the beavers, cubs, scouts etc..there nothing new ...

[g_bambino]

Oath of loyality to Canadian values

Published: February 28, 2006

The Fraser Institute has released a position paper suggesting the federal government require new immigrants to Canada to swear an oath of loyalty to Canadian values and principles and deport those who violate this oath.

What is your suggestion for an oath of allegiance?

© Ottawa Citizen 2006

Hummm.

for starters, Canadians respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and women are to be treated as equal.

Oaths, in our country, are part of a reciprocal verbal contract between the Sovereign and her people. The Queen took her Coronation Oath wherein she swore to "govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs." Mirroring that, citizens swear to obey her authority (for those born here, their loyalty is viewed as implicit). So, the citizenship oath is really a spoken agreement that binds new citizens to obey Canada's laws. As something with legal force, that's all it should do. The laws we have already reflect our values, so promising to obey them means that people will conform enough to what is deemed right and wrong by the state. Anything beyond that is indeed despotism. Leave the oath as it is.

[Wilber]

Oaths, in our country, are part of a reciprocal verbal contract between the Sovereign and her people. The Queen took her Coronation Oath wherein she swore to "govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs." Mirroring that, citizens swear to obey her authority (for those born here, their loyalty is viewed as implicit). So, the citizenship oath is really a spoken agreement that binds new citizens to obey Canada's laws. As something with legal force, that's all it should do. The laws we have already reflect our values, so promising to obey them means that people will conform enough to what is deemed right and wrong by the state. Anything beyond that is indeed despotism. Leave the oath as it is.

Well put.

[Mad_Michael]

Oaths, in our country, are part of a reciprocal verbal contract between the Sovereign and her people. The Queen took her Coronation Oath wherein she swore to "govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs." Mirroring that, citizens swear to obey her authority (for those born here, their loyalty is viewed as implicit). So, the citizenship oath is really a spoken agreement that binds new citizens to obey Canada's laws. As something with legal force, that's all it should do. The laws we have already reflect our values, so promising to obey them means that people will conform enough to what is deemed right and wrong by the state. Anything beyond that is indeed despotism. Leave the oath as it is.

Indeed. An oath to uphold the laws of the land, I can't see anyone legitimately objecting to that.

But the OP speaks of something entirely different than that. It speaks of some "oath of loyalty to Canadian values" and that is an entirely different matter - one that is quite rightly objected to as despotic and obnoxious.

[Nocrap]

I have spent some time researching the fat cats behind Stephen Harper's rise to power and many have an association to the Fraser Institute (which has an association to the National Citizens' Coalition, our new PM's old digs), so I can only assume they mean Canadian Values according to Mr. Harper and the NCC.

There aren't many 'fat cats' at the Fraser Institute, I think you have a very big misconception about how much a public policy analyst makes.

Sure some of the senior fellows are old big business men and government officials, but this is in all organizations. Someone has to pay the bills to keep the lights on and the phone bills paid.

Where is your evidence of a connection between the NCC and Fraser Institute? Many people are members of both, clearly, but there isn't a formal link just to let you know.

I love the conspiracy theorists!

There are several links actually. The NCC were behind Mike Harris' election as Premier of Ontario with their 'Common Sense Revolution'. His government with ringleaders John Baird and Jim Flaherty proved to be the most corrupt ever to hit the province. Mike Harris now writes for the Fraser Institute. Many of the largest contributors to Fraser have been Reform Party supporters for years and according to Harper's biography the Reform Party has always been propped up by the NCC. Also in the bigot Tom Flanagan's book on Preston Manning he mentions that the Institute helped Manning in planning his economic platform.

[dpwozney]

According to James R. Robertson,

"Since 1905, Members of Parliament have been allowed to 'solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm' that, though they cannot take the oath, they are still loyal to the Monarch.(1) The wording of the affirmation as it stands today is as follows:

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.".

The footnote states:

"(1) Arthur Beauchesne, Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, Fourth Edition, The Carswell Company Limited, Toronto, 1958, citation 15, p. 13. This was apparently done by Instructions passed under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet of 15 June 1905. The question arises as to how a Royal Instruction can legally amend a constitutional provision; it does not appear that this issue has been addressed. According to later editions of Beauchesne’s (see, for example, Sixth Edition, 1989, citation 243), the Oaths of Allegiance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 0-1, permits Members who object to being sworn to make a solemn affirmation, if the taking of an oath is contrary to their religious belief or if they have no religious belief. This, however, does not appear to be correct, as a federal statute cannot override a constitutional provision.".

[dpwozney]

Queen Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867 states:

"Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

This is an issue for people who follow New Testament Christian law.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37, KJV)

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12, KJV)