Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
The three individuals behind the lawsuit have said they'll try to appeal it again.
Wednesday’s ruling notes that the citizenship oath is similar to one that senators and Members of Parliament are required to swear before they can take their seats. It can’t be challenged under the Charter, because “the Constitution cannot itself be unconstitutional,” and one part of the Constitution can’t be used to invalidate another part.
The British have the option of swearing allegiance to The Queen or to the nation itself with no mention of The Queen - sensible option in my view as those who don't wish to tie themselves to The Queen can do so.
If you take an oath to a person you take an oath to a person and so the oath to The Queen is exactly that - a oath to a particular person.
I have taken that oath - many moons ago when I joined the army here - and even know of people who decided against joining the army at that time because they refused to take an oath to The Queen. I also know of two men who were able to avoid conscription in the 1960s - again as they were conscientious objectors and their objection was to that taking of that oath - being of Irish Catholic descent they refused to take any oath to HM The Queen and refused to become Australian citizens either. Since the new 'pledge' was introduced they very quickly took that to become citizens - why - because there is no mention of The Queen or her heirs and successors but it is to Australia and its people.
Way more meaningful than to swear a oath of allegiance to an individual on the other side of the world who is meaningless in the day to day life of the country to which you have chosen to belong.
The British have the option of swearing allegiance to The Queen or to the nation itself with no mention of The Queen - sensible option in my view as those who don't wish to tie themselves to The Queen can do so.
"The oath to the Queen of Canada is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the Queen as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of constitutional monarchy," Weiler wrote in her decision.
"Applying a purposive and progressive approach to the wording of the oath, with regard to its history in Canada and the evolution of our country, leads to the conclusion that the oath is a symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed."
If the reference to the Queen in the oath were eliminated, or made optional, wrote Weiler, such a remedy would only be a superficial cure for the complaint.
"Because the Queen remains the head of our government, any oath that commits the would-be citizen to the principles of Canada's government is implicitly an oath to the Queen."
Royal Canada: a history of tours and visitsIn honour of the impending Royal Tour by The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, Royal Central takes a look a the history of Royal visits and tours of the North American country.
The Queen has been a frequent visitor to Canada making her first visit as Princess Elizabeth in 1951 with her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. We will take a look at some the highlights of the rich and varied history of Royal visits to the North spanning 228 years.
From 1786 until 1951, a wide range of visits were made by members of the Royal Family from Prince William, the future King William IV visiting in 1786-1787 up until 1951 when then Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh carried out a coast-to-coast tour of Canada. During this time span a total 27 Royal visits took place.
Immigrants to Canada will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen Elizabeth II after the Supreme Court of Canada refused on Thursday to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.
The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
At issue is a provision in Canada's Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be "faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors."
Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's titular head of state. Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth of former colonies.
Longtime permanent residents Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan challenged the law because they do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.
David Johnston will remain Canada’s Governor General until 2017 after being given a two-year extension of his term by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
“His Excellency David Johnston has been an exceptional Governor General and Commander-in-Chief, working tirelessly to advance the interests of Canadians and to promote a greater understanding of our great country, both at home and abroad,” Harper’s said in a press release Tuesday.
“He has made remarkable contributions to Canada in his role as the Queen’s representative in Canada, performing his duties with dignity, wisdom and aplomb.”
Johnston, a lawyer and academic, was appointed in October 2010 to what is customarily a five-year term. Extending his term means he will be the Governor General in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation, the PMO noted.
More: Buckingham Palace comes calling for origins of Canada's Windsors - Windsor - CBC NewsOfficials from Buckingham Palace could soon be calling Canadian cities and towns named Windsor.
England’s Royal Collection Trust, which is responsible for the care of the Royal Collection and manages the public opening of the official residences of the Queen, will publish a book on the history of Windsor Castle in 2016.
Windsor Castle is the Queen's summer and weekend retreat. It is the largest and oldest continually inhabited castle in the world. It began as a Saxon village more than 1,000 years ago, and has been home to British monarchs since William the Conqueror in 1086.
"As part of research for the book, we have been looking into the history of other places across the world which share the Windsor name," Royal Collection Trust senior press officer Hannah Dolby wrote in an email to CBC.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada has approved the creation of the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers
Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers
No major change I guess. Canada is probably the most pro-monarchy of the Queen's realms so this stuff doesn't get much resistance.
According to the law, the Sovereign of Canada is the authority for the creation of all official honours. Honours are created by letters patent issued by the Sovereign on the advice of the prime minister of Canada.
All honours in Canada are created by the Queen and bestowed by the GG so in this sense it doesn't matter the name of the honour.
According to the polls, there is a real possibility that Canada may have a left-wing government, pretty much for the first time in its history, following the upcoming October federal election. I wonder then what position the NDP holds on the monarchy. Is it a republican party like the Australian Labor Party ?
I would appreciate if the Canadian posters could please comment on this topic. Thank you.
If the NDP wins it won't be the first time a left-wing government is formed - the Liberals are a more left wing party than the conservatives, just not as left wing as the NDP.
I see, thanks ! The reason I asked is that a Google search returned an article about an NDP MP who introduced legislation to remove references to the Queen from the oath of citizenship. I guess that same MP also referred to the monarchy as "outdated" or something similar to that.As for the NDP's stance on the monarchy, I don't think it has an official stance. The monarchy isn't an election issue right now. The senate is, and the NDP is promising to abolish it (easier said than done), but there have been serious scandals with the senate in recent years which is what is causing the great push for reforming or abolishing it.
Even if the NDP do win outright (which isn't a guarantee; some polls put them winning by large margin, others put the Conservatives right behind them, and there is talk about a coalition with the Liberals), they aren't likely to win a majority and both the Conservatives and Liberals have pro-monarchy leanings.
If the monarchy had been on the NDP's agenda, had they then been able to abolish it? I've read / heard that it will be very difficult.