Fighting the monarchy after taking the oath

[Bigudi]

Just a few observations.

If the premise is that breaking the oath means citizenship is revoked, then the that premise is flawed. Citizenship is not revoked if someone commits a felony, even though at oath, the laws of Canada are sworn to be faithfully observed. Likewise with duties, allegiance.

It's not a felony. Canadian citizenship will be revoked if it was obtained through misrepresentation. Lying on the oath is, by definition, a misrepresentation in order to acquire the citizenship. So...

But like I said, it would never be a legal issue, but it should be.

 

[Natan]

I was born a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, and have always been proud to have her as my monarch. I believe that Canada is better governed as a constitutional monarchy, as it is presently constituted, than as a republic. I have never had a problem taking an oath of fealty to Her and Her heirs.

That being said, from a strictly legal perspective, the mere fact that, under current Canadian law, one can become a republican after taking the oath, can have been a republican before taking the oath, and can be a republican <i>while</i> taking the oath, renders this part of the oath completely unenforceable and, therefore, of ritual value only. The Canadian Parliament does not have the constitutional power to require an individual to denounce a legally held political creed (e.g., republicanism, liberalism), nor the power to require an individual to espouse a specific political creed (e.g., monarchism, conservatism). Thus, it is no lie, and no misrepresentation, when a republican takes the Canadian oath of citizenship as a part of the <i>ritual</i> of becoming a Canadian citizen; any more than it is when an atheist sings, "God keep our land glorious and free".

There are those who object to swearing fealty to a monarch, many for good reason, such as being from a country that was oppressed by Her Majesty's Government through colonization, resource theft and/or slavery. There are others who hold long held philosophical and/or religious reasons for objecting to such an oath. All things considered, it seems divisive to require an oath of fealty to a monarch in the oath of citizenship. Should I become a citizen, I would continue to be a loyalist and an outspoken proponent for Her Most Canadian Majesty; while at the same time adding my political voice in support of removing the oath of fealty from the oath of citizenship.

 

[Natan]

The Queen cannot, in the strictest sense, be a citizen of Canada, nor of the United Kingdom, nor of any of Her other realms. That would require Her to be Her own subject. In the same way that She cannot vote in elections for Her own government, She cannot be a subject of Her own monarchy, nor a citizen of Her own realm. The monarch, in our system of government, stands above and outside of citizenship, in the strictest sense of the word. While one cannot say that the Queen is stateless, how can She be, being, as She is, the monarch of sixteen different realms, one cannot attribute to Her citizenship of any of Her realms.

But should, for example, Scotland become an independent <i>republic,</i> it is entirely possible that Scotland might extend citizenship to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, in her private capacity as a current Scottish resident of long standing.

It is a matter of public record that certain members of the Royal Family, excluding Her Majesty, <i>are</i> citizens of Canada. This has been the position of the Canadian Government, despite the many mighty and authoritative pronouncements made by the exalted members of the canadavisa.com community of bloggers.

 

[screech339]

"You can be a citizen of ontario for example without holding canadian citizenship. "

I don't know what you're talking about there. There's no such thing as an Ontario citizen. It's a province, not a country.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/citizen

Oxford dictionary of citizen:

1 A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized:
a Polish citizen; the rights of every citizen.

2. An inhabitant of a particular town or city:
the citizens of Los Angeles

Webster definition of citizen

http://i.word.com/idictionary/citizen

: a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
: a person who lives in a particular place


I guess you never heard of an Ontarian: citizen of Ontario; Manitoban: citizen of Manitoba or even Newfoundlander: citizen of Newfoundland.

 

[Natan]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/citizen

Oxford dictionary of citizen:

1 A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized:
a Polish citizen; the rights of every citizen.

2. An inhabitant of a particular town or city:
the citizens of Los Angeles

Webster definition of citizen

http://i.word.com/idictionary/citizen

: a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
: a person who lives in a particular place


I guess you never heard of an Ontarian: citizen of Ontario; Manitoban: citizen of Manitoba or even Newfoundlander: citizen of Newfoundland.

This line of reasoning is pure sophistry. The vernacular use of the word citizen to mean denizen is not a legal construct and is, therefore, completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The legal concept of citizenship conveys specific rights and responsibilities recognized by lawful governmental/tribal authority.

Under U.S. law, there is no such thing as a citizen of Los Angeles. The United States Constitution recognizes citizenship of the United States of America and citizenship of a particular state. Thus, one may be a citizen of California, but never a citizen of Los Angeles. Further, under U.S. law, not all residents of a state are citizens of that state, only those residents who are citizens or nationals of the U.S.A. are eligible to hold and exercise state citizenship.

I am unaware of any laws in Canada that establish provincial citizenship. To my knowledge, only the Canadian Government and aboriginal nations/tribes convey legally recognized citizenship in Canada.

 

[newcanuck15]

The key term here is NATIVE BORN. These people have their citizenship by right, not by privilege. It is a HUGE difference. In addition, they did not CHOOSE to live in a Constitutional Monarchy, they were born in one. You are missing the part that people made a CHOICE to live in Canada, but nonetheless feel the need to lie in their first commitment as a citizen. That's saying a lot about their (lack of) ethics.

Maybe. That's not what is in debate here.

Here is the misinterpretation again. The government is not forcing anyone to do anything. Becoming a citizen is a CHOICE, not a demand. Again, did anyone force these people to become citizens? No. What the government so is saying: "Hey, pal. Sure, I can grant you the privilege of citizenship (which I don't need to do), but in exchange I request some commitments from your part. Your choice. What do you say?"

Lying is horrible way to take advantage of a system in order to acquire a privilege. I am sure that legally this would never be an issue, but I sure wish it was.

Isn't that awesome?!?!
Instead of coming do Canada and get a citizenship through lies, people can go do Australia and be honest! Hurray!
That, obviously, just proves my point that people are not FORCED to come to Canada, let alone FORCED to become citizens.
Please, go to Australia. Great HDI, great weather, great people and great government.

You make it sound like immigrants should know better than to apply for citizenship in a constitutional monarchy and not expect to declare allegiance to a king or queen and all their descendants until the end of time (which is essentially what the oath says).

I have news for you. Aside from a handful of former British colonies, it's actually unheard of in other western monarchies to have an oath to a monarch. I mentioned Australia, but Barbados has also stopped requiring it. Outside the Commonwealth, the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and The Netherlands no longer do either.

Check out the Kingdom of Norway's citizenship oath:

"As a citizen of Norway I pledge loyalty to my country Norway and the Norwegian society, and I support democracy and human rights and will respect the laws of the country."

Hmmm, funny, I don't see a mention of any monarchs. Ooooh! The nerve! They all must be really bad people!

Even Third World monarchy Morocco has moved on from medieval times and abolished it!

So why would immigrants expect it? It's Canada that's the aberration, not them.

I have many immigrant friends, both landed and naturalized, who tell me that the oath to the queen was a last minute surprise because the specific wording isn't usually known until a few months before the ceremony. That's after years of waiting for a visa and 4 long years of residency. So of course it's forced! What are they supposed to do, throw away all that time investment and start over with Australia or some other country?

What's really disgusting is that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that's supposed to guarantee freedom of
conscience, thought and expression, yet our government expects new Canadians to give up those fundamental rights to become a citizen. Yes, it's true, according to the judge who ruled on a legal case contesting the constitutionality of the oath just last year. Despite ruling against the complainants, he admitted that it did indeed contravene their charter rights, but the government had a right to exempt them!

"He ruled that while the oath did on its face appear to infringe the right to free expression in the Charter, it did so minimally. The violation, in the form of “compelled speech,” he ruled, was a “reasonable limit” on a constitutional right in light of Parliament’s objective to have new citizens swear allegiance to the country’s constitutional structure." Globe and Mail, Aug. 13, 2014

Funny how the "constitutional structure" of the monarchies I listed above are all still intact, yet don't require a new citizens to declare subservience to royalty.

Also,the ruling says to me that the government admits to two classes of citizens: those who are born here and can live their entire life without taking an oath to the queen, and those who come here wanting to become citizens and be denied their charter rights.

Of course, the "government" I refer to is no longer in power. The Liberals who now are have tried in the past to get rid of the oath's reference to the queen but failed. They will try again before their term is up, but only if those reading this call or write their member of parliament and tell them it's time for Canada to join the civilized world and get rid of it.

 

[keesio]

I have many immigrant friends, both landed and naturalized, who tell me that the oath to the queen was a last minute surprise because the specific wording isn't usually known until a few months before the ceremony. That's after years of waiting for a visa and 4 long years of residency. So of course it's forced! What are they supposed to do, throw away all that time investment and start over with Australia or some other country?

They must not have paid attention because I knew very clearly that I would be swearing an oath to the Queen. It's on CIC's website, in notices I got from them, and even during my test/interview day. if I recall correctly, it was in my "invitation to oath" letter also. I even had a CIC rep joke with me at the interview/test day about me (as an "yankee") swearing an oath to the Queen.

 

[Bigudi]

You make it sound like immigrants should know better than to apply for citizenship in a constitutional monarchy and not expect to declare allegiance to a king or queen and all their descendants until the end of time (which is essentially what the oath says).

I have news for you. Aside from a handful of former British colonies, it's actually unheard of in other western monarchies to have an oath to a monarch. I mentioned Australia, but Barbados has also stopped requiring it. Outside the Commonwealth, the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and The Netherlands no longer do either.

That's even better for my point. There are many options out there for a person who doesn't want to pledge allegiance to the Monarch. See? Everybody can be happy and not lie.

Check out the Kingdom of Norway's citizenship oath:

"As a citizen of Norway I pledge loyalty to my country Norway and the Norwegian society, and I support democracy and human rights and will respect the laws of the country."

Hmmm, funny, I don't see a mention of any monarchs. Ooooh! The nerve! They all must be really bad people!

I never said that. I absolutely NEVER defended Monarchy, did I? I left very clear that this is not what is in debate here. That's all. I do have my personal opinion on monarchy, and it is not very positive, I assure you. But I will not lie on my oath, because I made a choice. Again, a CHOICE.

Even Third World monarchy Morocco has moved on from medieval times and abolished it!

So why would immigrants expect it? It's Canada that's the aberration, not them.

Because these are the rules. It's simple as that. Like it or not.

I have many immigrant friends, both landed and naturalized, who tell me that the oath to the queen was a last minute surprise because the specific wording isn't usually known until a few months before the ceremony. That's after years of waiting for a visa and 4 long years of residency. So of course it's forced! What are they supposed to do, throw away all that time investment and start over with Australia or some other country?

Oh my god, I don't know your friends, but it appears they are not the sharpest pencil in the box. The information is ALL OVER. In booklets, newspapers, TV, the freaking CIC official website. And, mind you, is the first freaking thing you read on Di Discover Canada. An explanation why we pledge allegiance to the Queen. It's there. Open you booklet. Page one.
Ignorance is never an excuse. Not knowing you have to take the oath is no excuse. The rules are there, openly.
I can't even start to imagine how a person would start a citizenship process without knowing in details all the steps and requirements that it will take. Seriously, am I crazy here? Is citizenship process a joke for these people?

Of course, the "government" I refer to is no longer in power. The Liberals who now are have tried in the past to get rid of the oath's reference to the queen but failed. They will try again before their term is up, but only if those reading this call or write their member of parliament and tell them it's time for Canada to join the civilized world and get rid of it.

To be clear again, I do not support the mention to the Monarch in the oath. What I am saying is, if that's the rule of the game, I will play it fair and square. And I will be true in my oath, with all my heart.
If that changes in the future, even better.
I just think that dishonesty should be reprehended.

 

[screech339]

As for the oath to the queen, I wouldn't care one way or another. For those who say the people born in canada and doesnt have to say oath is somewhat a false statement. There are some occupations that require oath to the queen and there are probably some schools whereby students cite the oath.

So to say that canadian born never had to pledge allegiance to the queen is a false statement to make.

But I rather Canadians get to decide whether they want to change the oath from within the system than to have the oath being forced to change from outside the system from people who dont have canadian citizenship.

PR have the choice of saying the oath as is and try to change it afterward or remain as PR until oath is changed. That is up to them.

 

[dpenabill]

For those who are interested in opposing or disavowing the Oath to the Queen, one of the parties who lost the challenge to the oath in the Ontario courts, which the Supreme Court declined to review, Dror Bar-Natan, became a citizen today. He had previously sent a letter to the Citizenship Judge stating his intent to disavow the oath, and immediately after the ceremony today submitted a letter to the CJ disavowing the oath.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/30/man-renounces-oath-to-the-queen-right-after-becoming-canadian-citizen

To my view this is largely an exercise in grandstanding, more or less a circus act if not simply foolishness (no hint of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, albeit in a certain light one might perceive a resemblance to Robespierre, but older and without the wig), particularly given what the court has ruled regarding the meaning of the oath itself. For that, see the decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario 2014 ONCA 578

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2014/2014ONCA0578.htm

 

[links18]

Does a citizen of a different country where Her Majesty is Queen necessarily have to pledge allegiance to her again to become a Canadian citizen? If I recall correctly, citizens of countries where she is Queen do not have to do this when acquiring UK citizenship.

 

[ari5323]

An applicant had his Oath today (nov 30) in Toronto with a red T shirt reading :

loyalty for royalty in 2015 ? (-:

[/img]

TORONTO - A Toronto man publicly recanted "the royalty part" of the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the Queen moments after becoming a Canadian citizen on Monday, choosing to pledge his "true" loyalty only to Canada and its people.

Dror Bar-Natan, a math professor from Israel, says the monarchy is a symbol of inequality and calls the portion of the oath dealing with it "repulsive." But he believes strongly in the rest of the pledge that deals with citizens' responsibilities.

I'm definitely proud to be a Canadian," the 49-year-old said after the ceremony. "It's a wonderful country, a truly wonderful country, with one small iota that I disagree with."

Bar-Natan was one of three longtime permanent residents who challenged the constitutionality of making citizenship conditional on the pledge to the Queen, her heirs and successors.

In upholding the requirement, Ontario's top court said the Queen remains Canada's head of state and the oath was a "symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed."

The court also found, however, that all citizens have the right to espouse anti-monarchist views and new Canadians could publicly disavow what they consider to be the message conveyed by the oath.

Bar-Natan explained that his actions on Monday were fully in line with the court's findings.

"For a long time I was held back from taking citizenship because of the allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors part of the oath. I never felt comfortable with that," he said. "I hope this paves the way for others."

At a citizenship ceremony in east Toronto, Bar-Natan first swore the oath along with some 80 others and then, while being handed his citizenship certificate, informed the citizenship judge of his intent to disavow the portion of the oath pledging allegiance to the Queen.

He formally recanted that part of the oath following the ceremony and handed the judge a letter explaining his decision.

"I wish to affirm my allegiance, my true allegiance to Canada and the people of Canada, but also to disavow the royalty part and only the royalty part of the citizenship oath," Bar-Natan told the judge as others looked on.

"I hear you sir. And I thank you for your honesty," said citizenship judge Albert Wong, who shook Bar-Natan's hand. "I welcome you to Canada and I look forward to the contributions you will make."

Bar-Natan later said he had felt "somewhat humiliated" at having to say the oath at all, despite being able to disavow the part of it he disagreed with later.

"I do feel that it is comparable to hazing, the fact that you are required to stand up and express views that are opposite to yours," he said. "I don't think it is a part of Canada to impose political speech on others. To impose opinions on others."

Bar-Natan added that a website he has set up — disavowal.ca — will allow other Canadians to publicly disavow their pledge to the Queen, regardless of when they took their oath.

Bar-Natan's controversial decision sparked some strong reactions on social media.

"Strip him of citizenship the moment he disavows the oath. If he doesn't want to keep the oath, he shouldn't be made a Canadian," tweeted one person.

"Why do people come here if they have no intention of following the basic requirements," said another.

Bar-Natan's lawyer said he hoped his client's actions would draw the new Liberal government's attention to re-evaluating the wording of the citizenship oath that deals with the monarchy.

"He underlined how silly it is to require somebody to say it," said Peter Rosenthal. "I hope that will contribute to the public debate about this and the present Liberal government will do what the Chretien government almost did in 1994."

In the 1990s, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien was set to scrap the oath to the Queen but got cold feet at the last minute, then-citizenship minister Sergio Marchi has told The Canadian Press.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/man-renounces-oath-to-the-queen-right-after-becoming-canadian-citizen-358886981.html

 

[Bigudi]

There...
No need for more whining. Just go disavow your oath and be happy.