Disavow portion of Citizenship oath
- Thread starter jbourne
- Start date
Not sure why some answers to OP are rude.
The main reason Canada doesn't discuss the monarchy much is procedural (changing the constitution is pretty much impossible at this point), but a sizable portion of citizens is actually in favor of becoming a Republic, according to polls before queen E2 died, and her son isn't exactly a popular figure...)
Not wanting to say the oath isn't exactly a fringe attitude, if we had to make every current citizen pronounce it. Many Members of Parliament, and not only in Bloc Québécois, are also in favor of becoming a Republic. The NDP leader is republican and said so himself.
The only thing is that it's the current requirement for a future citizen and that you can't gain that citizenship if you don't swear allegiance to King Charles.
OP has 0 choice here and that's it, he gotta go with the flow, forget what he just said the moment he said it (not whisper or mumble it please, no need to take any risk, IRCC agents job is to make sure the oath was pronounced) and focus on the fact that he became a citizen.
The main reason Canada doesn't discuss the monarchy much is procedural (changing the constitution is pretty much impossible at this point), but a sizable portion of citizens is actually in favor of becoming a Republic, according to polls before queen E2 died, and her son isn't exactly a popular figure...)
Not wanting to say the oath isn't exactly a fringe attitude, if we had to make every current citizen pronounce it. Many Members of Parliament, and not only in Bloc Québécois, are also in favor of becoming a Republic. The NDP leader is republican and said so himself.
The only thing is that it's the current requirement for a future citizen and that you can't gain that citizenship if you don't swear allegiance to King Charles.
OP has 0 choice here and that's it, he gotta go with the flow, forget what he just said the moment he said it (not whisper or mumble it please, no need to take any risk, IRCC agents job is to make sure the oath was pronounced) and focus on the fact that he became a citizen.
You can't during the oath ceremony itself. You need to say the full / entire oath to get citizenship. If you want to disavow, then you need to do that afterwards. Information is on the site you quoted above.
Well you can but remember it is a freedom which is available in a constitutional monarchy. There are many other written and un written oaths in other countries you cant skip.
After all you choose Canada when it was still under the Queen so it was your choice and you preferred a country run by a monarch.
Saying "run by a monarch" shows that one is also free to completely misunderstand how constitutional monarchies work.
None of the answers are rude.
In the context of the oath, talking about not saying the portion of the oath is meaningless. Best case, you make yourself feel good. Kind of like a guy farting against a hurricane and thinking that it is driving the winds away. This feeling will last for a bit and you'll be able to brag to your friends and family but when your passport arrives, it'll still mention the monarch. Worst case, they catch you trying to skip it and they deny you citizenship or make you retake it so that you say it right. You'll need to say it this time with your tail between your legs kind of like this Aussie senator had to:
Secondly, this whole thing comes from a misunderstanding of the monarchy and the role they play in our democracy. We're a constitutional monarchy. They're a figurehead. If we become a republic like say the France or India, you're going to need another figurehead to replace the monarch. In that since, it's kind of pointless whether there's a President or a King/Queen. All that the monarchy does is provides royal ascent to the bills that the parliament of Canada passes. They have no say in what becomes law and what doesn't. In that sense they have zero bearing on your life. Some of the wealthiest and most developed countries are constitutional monarches: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, NZ, the UK, Spain, and of course Canada.
So yeah, this is a pointless thread.
But Republics dont plead allegiance to President, but to the constitution/flag.
Oh, so swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth or papyrus makes more sense? Or if it's to the text of the constitution, do I get to parse to and disagree with that text? Does that include the 'slaves shall be counted as 3/5ths of a human' part, or do we just get to pretend that never happened?
The simple explanation (in both cases, actually) is that 'the Monarch' in the oath case is just considered to be the personification of a bunch of things (we don't deify our constitution, whic h isn't a single law anyway).
Is it a bit weird and archaic? Yep. There's a lot about Canada that is somewhat weird and archaic.
That's harsh loool I think what was meant was "a country that has a monarch as a head of state" not literally being run by one
I do agree this thread is completely pointless (albeit fun to read lool)...
As Canadians..there are far mor important discussions to be had... there is a general consensus that yes most Canadians don't want the monarchy but because changing that will take so much time and effort we simply can't be bothered right now lool
well you don't have to go personal, when my views don't align with that of yours.
But unfortunately, those who make the arguments against (this particular) monarchy can't seem to make their points without making such amateur mistakes and misrepresentations about how it works and the actual legal structure.
Mostly I agree with your conclusion here: we "can't be bothered" (read: we don't really want to change it), but I'd say the reason is that we actually have no idea and absolutely no consensus about what to replace it with. And that matters a LOT.
I also question the general consensus (i.e. that most Canadians don't want the monarchy), and not just in 'fact' (meaning I don't recall seeing info that convinces me a majority of Canadians consistently say they don't want monarchy).
But I don't consider any polls I've seen so far convincing because I learned a long time ago a rule of analysis that applies well here: without having and - crucially- having to choose between concrete, specific options, such lightly-expressed preferences have very little bearing on what people actually want.
Or put more simply: if the so-called 'choice' (in polls or whatever people claim as evidence) is just between "monarchy" and "something better", it doesn't mean anything at all. Because "something better" without specifying what that somethibng better actually is - that's just transparent bullshit.
So I'm done with this discussion. I haven't seen any actual proposals as to what to replace it with, nor consideration that maybe, just maybe, those replacements have their own problems and trade-offs and might actually not be better.
I have done both, take an oath of allegiance to a monarch and a papyrus (at different times) and there is nary a difference. In the heat of the moment, I didn't give either much thought and largely viewed saying the words as accepting a EULA. I say the words/check the box/click the button and get what I want. My views on monarchy, jingoism, nationalism, allegiance to flag/country/higher authority didn't really factor into it at that moment.
Thank you for the lesson.
You may have skipped the part where I say that OP has to pronounce the oath and move on.
That's the practical answer regarding the oath as it is now, nothing more and nothing else.
Also, quite funny to list a semi-presidential republic and a parliamentary republic and then add "need another figurehead". Only India illustrates your point. You may want to replace France with, say, Germany in your sentence.
But yeah, you're right about this thread being pointless.
Not necessarily because the idea of not wanting to pronounce a part of the oath or wanting it changed is stupid (after all, the oath has been modified a year ago), but because the courts already settled the matter...
Similar threads
