Fighting the monarchy after taking the oath

[leflex]

Hi everyone,

I have a legal question. I took my oath to become a Canadian citizen, even if I am profoundly republican. I have my life in Canada and desire to take part in what matters to this country, so even if I found it unfair, I wasn't going to deprive myself just because of the dictator's requirement to receive oaths.


However, this creates a weird situation, in which acting politically against that disgusting monarchy would be, on one side, my freedom of thought and speech as a Canadian citizen, and on the other side, going against the oath.
I'm left wondering if officials could use that against me to declare the oath null/revoke the citizenship?

Your opinons are welcome. :'(

 

[scylla]

I'm left wondering if officials could use that against me to declare the oath null/revoke the citizenship?

No - won't happen. You're worrying needlessly.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi everyone,

I have a legal question. I took my oath to become a Canadian citizen, even if I am profoundly republican. I have my life in Canada and desire to take part in what matters to this country, so even if I found it unfair, I wasn't going to deprive myself just because of the dictator's requirement to receive oaths.


However, this creates a weird situation, in which acting politically against that disgusting monarchy would be, on one side, my freedom of thought and speech as a Canadian citizen, and on the other side, going against the oath.
I'm left wondering if officials could use that against me to declare the oath null/revoke the citizenship?

Your opinons are welcome. :'(

There is no dictator with any power in Canada.

Harper might sometimes be described as exercising dictatorial powers but that is a manner of speaking, a hyperbolic characterization (well deserved, but hyperbolic nonetheless), even if it is, perhaps, his fondest dream.

But no, there is no dictator with power in Canada.

And even Harper should be gone after tomorrow. (So yes, please do be sure to vote, vote ABC.)

As for the Queen, her powers can hardly be described as powers at all, and certainly are not dictatorial. Her successor similarly will have no effective powers in Canada, and certainly not dictatorial powers.

Perhaps you could benefit by revisiting the study materials for the knowledge of Canada test.


All that noted: there would be nothing weird about an individual confessing, after obtaining citizenship, to having committed fraud by only pretending to take oath while not actually doing so. I suspect that sort of fraud is common.

I agree with Scylla, no matter how publicly you confess your fraud, this is not one at all likely to trigger revocation proceedings.

Obviously, though, the efficacy of political advocacy by a person who has admitted to committing fraud in order to obtain citizenship is likely to be severely compromised. My sense is that most Canadians are sensitive to and not likely to be much influenced by someone who confesses to such deceptiveness, especially someone who was deceptive in how they became a citizen.

 

[cprak0]

@ dpenabill
"I suspect that sort of fraud is common." Yes, just as with any oath. After all, an oath led to creation of the
word 'hypocrite'.

Do we really in this era need to have a symbolic monarch living in the UK? We don't let the "monarchs" live a
normal life either in the name of being symbols. If being a republic is so terrible, why not have a non living symbol?

 

[Canadiandesi2006]

Hi everyone,

I have a legal question. I took my oath to become a Canadian citizen, even if I am profoundly republican. I have my life in Canada and desire to take part in what matters to this country, so even if I found it unfair, I wasn't going to deprive myself just because of the dictator's requirement to receive oaths.


However, this creates a weird situation, in which acting politically against that disgusting monarchy would be, on one side, my freedom of thought and speech as a Canadian citizen, and on the other side, going against the oath.
I'm left wondering if officials could use that against me to declare the oath null/revoke the citizenship?

Your opinions are welcome. :'(

With the new laws in effect, its open for abuse by authorities. Everywhere authorities wield infinite powers to twist and manipulate every word uttered or stated and use that against anybody depends upon their motive.

After all, always the first victim of any conflict anywhere is the truth. Let's strive to protect this great country with all we can.

 

[leflex]

There is no dictator with any power in Canada.

Harper might sometimes be described as exercising dictatorial powers but that is a manner of speaking, a hyperbolic characterization (well deserved, but hyperbolic nonetheless), even if it is, perhaps, his fondest dream.

But no, there is no dictator with power in Canada.

And even Harper should be gone after tomorrow. (So yes, please do be sure to vote, vote ABC.)

As for the Queen, her powers can hardly be described as powers at all, and certainly are not dictatorial. Her successor similarly will have no effective powers in Canada, and certainly not dictatorial powers.

Perhaps you could benefit by revisiting the study materials for the knowledge of Canada test.


All that noted: there would be nothing weird about an individual confessing, after obtaining citizenship, to having committed fraud by only pretending to take oath while not actually doing so. I suspect that sort of fraud is common.

I agree with Scylla, no matter how publicly you confess your fraud, this is not one at all likely to trigger revocation proceedings.

Obviously, though, the efficacy of political advocacy by a person who has admitted to committing fraud in order to obtain citizenship is likely to be severely compromised. My sense is that most Canadians are sensitive to and not likely to be much influenced by someone who confesses to such deceptiveness, especially someone who was deceptive in how they became a citizen.

A fraud would be lying about your residence in Canada or giving wrong documentation, committing criminal acts and hiding them, etc. I took that oath and didn't even mumble it. I pronounced the wording - and it killed my soul-. If there is a law article that adds that the oath should be "pronounced with maximal sincerity and true submission to the queen", I'll be glad to know about it. I'm curious to know how you would like to justify that a young hard working permanent resident can get barred from becoming a citizen of his new and long term country because some random being overseas doesn't leave.

As for me, a dictator doesn't need to have a direct influence on my everyday life and guns pointed at me. A dictator is any fool who gets symbolic or actual power by virtue of being the offspring of someone else, and who SUBJECTS me. I won't be anyone's subject, I have nothing to do with the UK, and more and and more Canadians have nothing to do with it. People don't flood the streets to get rid of the monarchy because it's not a pressing/dangerous issue, but the problem remains.

 

[dpenabill]

"I suspect that sort of fraud is common." Yes, just as with any oath. After all, an oath led to creation of the
word 'hypocrite'.

Do we really in this era have a symbolic monarch living in the UK? We don't let the "monarchs" live a
normal life either in the name of being symbols. If being a republic is so terrible, why not have a non living symbol?

I have a personal opinion about the role of monarchy in our government, but frankly am not much vested in that opinion and, as a political issue, it is very, very, very low on the scale of even relevant issues let alone priority issues.

It would not make my top hundred list. Perhaps not my top thousand list. I think, in contrast, there are probably scores of municipal bylaws, city planning, and zoning issues around the country which are of much greater importance. Not to mention the looming issues of our day, ranging from protecting the environment to dealing with international crises (including refugees), from addressing the infrastructure needs of this country to protecting vulnerable Canadians from poverty, crime, physical and mental illness, from elevating the lives of all Canadians to the difficult task of managing (including funding) the necessary bureaucracies of a modern nation.

I absolutely do not think questions about the role of monarchy warrant hyperbolically vilifying Canada as subject to dictatorial rule.

To be clear, the OP was fully entitled to engage in free speech and anti-monarchy advocacy while still a PR and could have chosen to live in Canada as a PR until that advocacy prevailed and the oath of citizenship changed. The OP confesses to deception in taking the oath.

While such hypocrisy is probably very common, anyone who talks to those who have just gone through the ceremony of taking the oath and becoming a Canadian citizen, will almost always encounter at least a majority who are not just happy but enthusiastic about making the commitments just made, including the oath as it is currently constituted. Becoming a Canadian citizen was a huge, important step in my life, and my sense is that this is by far the prevalent attitude, a profound sense of joy and appreciation in becoming a Canadian, in embracing all that it means to become a Canadian.

So sure, like many other Canadians I am guessing, I take offense to hyperbolic disparaging of my country, Canada, especially by someone who confesses to having no allegiance to honesty even in such a solemn endeavor as taking the oath of citizenship.

This is not to say I am innocent. I have engaged in my share of hypocrisy, perhaps more than my share (being a jurist and having for a time, for too long a time, been engaged in the active practice of that profession). Perhaps, even, my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I do not ordinarily boast of my hypocrisy.

In contrast, however, I do often distrust those who are blatantly hypocritical, and would in particular rather distrust someone who confesses to overtly being deceptive. Even if I was inclined to agree with an advocate's platform, the advocate's agenda, if it is apparent that individual has been deceptive, particularly in the process of obtaining Canadian citizenship, I would resoundingly dismiss that individual's advocacy. For good reason. For reasons I think most Canadians agree with.

In any event, I do not think the role of the monarchy is an issue warranting much attention. But, I absolutely am offended by the unwarranted disparaging of Canada as if it is ruled by a dictator.

 

[leflex]

I have a personal opinion about the role of monarchy in our government, but frankly am not much vested in that opinion and, as a political issue, it is very, very, very low on the scale of even relevant issues let alone priority issues.

It would not make my top hundred list. Perhaps not my top thousand list. I think, in contrast, there are probably scores of municipal bylaws, city planning, and zoning issues around the country which are of much greater importance. Not to mention the looming issues of our day, ranging from protecting the environment to dealing with international crises (including refugees), from addressing the infrastructure needs of this country to protecting vulnerable Canadians from poverty, crime, physical and mental illness, from elevating the lives of all Canadians to the difficult task of managing (including funding) the necessary bureaucracies of a modern nation.

I absolutely do not think questions about the role of monarchy warrant hyperbolically vilifying Canada as subject to dictatorial rule.

To be clear, the OP was fully entitled to engage in free speech and anti-monarchy advocacy while still a PR and could have chosen to live in Canada as a PR until that advocacy prevailed and the oath of citizenship changed. The OP confesses to deception in taking the oath.

While such hypocrisy is probably very common, anyone who talks to those who have just gone through the ceremony of taking the oath and becoming a Canadian citizen, will almost always encounter at least a majority who are not just happy but enthusiastic about making the commitments just made, including the oath as it is currently constituted. Becoming a Canadian citizen was a huge, important step in my life, and my sense is that this is by far the prevalent attitude, a profound sense of joy and appreciation in becoming a Canadian, in embracing all that it means to become a Canadian.

So sure, like many other Canadians I am guessing, I take offense to hyperbolic disparaging of my country, Canada, especially by someone who confesses to having no allegiance to honesty even in such a solemn endeavor as taking the oath of citizenship.

This is not to say I am innocent. I have engaged in my share of hypocrisy, perhaps more than my share (being a jurist and having for a time, for too long a time, been engaged in the active practice of that profession). Perhaps, even, my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I do not ordinarily boast of my hypocrisy.

In contrast, however, I do often distrust those who are blatantly hypocritical, and would in particular rather distrust someone who confesses to overtly being deceptive. Even if I was inclined to agree with an advocate's platform, the advocate's agenda, if it is apparent that individual has been deceptive, particularly in the process of obtaining Canadian citizenship, I would resoundingly dismiss that individual's advocacy. For good reason. For reasons I think most Canadians agree with.

In any event, I do not think the role of the monarchy is an issue warranting much attention. But, I absolutely am offended by the unwarranted disparaging of Canada as if it is ruled by a dictator.

Be offended as much as you want, I am actually glad that this tickles you. There was no way I was going to deprive myself from becoming a Canadian citizen just because it was established by British rulers that loyalty to the queen was mandatory. Citizenship means MUCH MORE than being a subject and you are making it a catastrophe that people would go against this ignominy of a monarchy.

I have no practical need for a Canadian passport, since I am European and have an EU passport, which is way more useful, as everyone would agree. Citizenship is about caring about where you live, being able to take part in the political process, and a sense of belonging, specially if you have committed your life to the country that welcomes you. I am not a descendant of British colonists and I owe that woman or her grandsons nothing.

Call taking that oath "hypocrisy" as much as you like. I just saw it as an unfair and unjustified hurdle, in the middle of a process that otherwise made sense (including the security checks, the interview, the citizenship exam, residency requirements, so on and so forth).
The fact that most oath takers don't cry about having to do it doesn't mean they want to live in a monarchy. Most come to Canada to have a better life, be it for the safety that this country provides, the freedom, or the (arguably dwindling) possibility of economic success. The queen isn't their first concern and that's totally understandable, if it doesn't affect their daily life.

Just like dog poo, it doesn't bring national widespread outcry. But that doesn't make it right.


I'd like to add that if you are a jurist, then I can only question your competence. I was asked to take an oath, I took it. It didn't matter if I truly loved the queen or not. I did nothing illegal and my path in Canada has been spotless so far, if not shiny.

 

[cprak0]

Emotions and hurt... all this probably not intended.

I wonder this is an issue or a non issue just coz not all Canadians (born in Canada), still a majority (surprisingly!),
don't care a hoot about the oath or what it actually means. They don't have to swear by it. Neither do they have a
"pledge of allegiance" as in the US. And, yes, the oath doesn't really affect anybody's everyday life anyway.
This will continue to remain a non issue for most people as long as it is only the new Canadians who are made to
swear and just once in their life... so let's just leave it at that.

 

[dnyfyn]

If I do recall my legal class correctly, i vaguely recall

The biggest crime in Canada is waging war against the Monarch. Now I really don't know the definition of war in the context

 

[newcanuck15]

Once you become a Canadian citizen, there is no law in Canada that says you cannot exercise all your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That includes the right to freedom of speech, thought or political association. So, unlike some monarchies where you can be imprisoned, in Canada, we have the right to criticize, even insult, our leaders. A legal line is drawn on physical threats and defamation, but being a republican and advocating against the monarchy is fully protected.

There's a lobby group called Citizens for a Canadian Republic that has already proven this. It's also very active in working towards ending the monarchy in Canada. Just do a web search of their name and you'll find out about them.

 

[dpenabill]

Once you become a Canadian citizen, there is no law in Canada that says you cannot exercise all your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That includes the right to freedom of speech, thought or political association. So, unlike some monarchies where you can be imprisoned, in Canada, we have the right to criticize, even insult, our leaders. A legal line is drawn on physical threats and defamation, but being a republican and advocating against the monarchy is fully protected.

There's a lobby group called Citizens for a Canadian Republic that has already proven this. It's also very active in working towards ending the monarchy in Canada. Just do a web search of their name and you'll find out about them.

Actually all the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter protect
everyone in Canada, including PRs and even temporary residents, NOT just citizens.

We often talk about free speech, much like it is talked about in the States, but the Charter actually protects freedom of expression.

In particular, Section 2 in the Charter prescribes:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

To be clear, I have not been addressing, one way or another, the so-called monarchy issue. It warrants no attention. As previously noted, there are municipal zoning law issues of more importance, and otherwise there are all too many really huge issues confronting our time.

Contrary to what has been suggested, I was not tickled. I was disgusted. Disgusted not by criticism of the monarchy. That warrants a mere shrug. But disgusted by the cavalier disregard for the solemnity of the final step in becoming a citizen of Canada. For purely selfish reasons no less (there "was no way I was going to deprive myself from becoming a Canadian citizen . . ." ). And disgusted by the hyperbolic mischaracterization of the Canadian government as dictatorial.

A million new citizens took the oath of citizenship in the course of the last five or six years. For the vast majority of them this was a long and important journey, and they were enthusiastic about embracing the commitments as well as the benefits of becoming a Canadian citizen. I did not think that callous belittlement of this extremely important and solemn event, which for many, if not the vast majority of new Citizens, is among one of the more important events in their life, should go unchecked in a forum devoted to helping those still navigating the process to become a citizen.

 

[leflex]

Actually all the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter protect
everyone in Canada, including PRs and even temporary residents, NOT just citizens.

We often talk about free speech, much like it is talked about in the States, but the Charter actually protects freedom of expression.

In particular, Section 2 in the Charter prescribes:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

To be clear, I have not been addressing, one way or another, the so-called monarchy issue. It warrants no attention. As previously noted, there are municipal zoning law issues of more importance, and otherwise there are all too many really huge issues confronting our time.

Contrary to what has been suggested, I was not tickled. I was disgusted. Disgusted not by criticism of the monarchy. That warrants a mere shrug. But disgusted by the cavalier disregard for the solemnity of the final step in becoming a citizen of Canada. For purely selfish reasons no less (there "was no way I was going to deprive myself from becoming a Canadian citizen . . ." ). And disgusted by the hyperbolic mischaracterization of the Canadian government as dictatorial.

A million new citizens took the oath of citizenship in the course of the last five or six years. For the vast majority of them this was a long and important journey, and they were enthusiastic about embracing the commitments as well as the benefits of becoming a Canadian citizen. I did not think that callous belittlement of this extremely important and solemn event, which for many, if not the vast majority of new Citizens, is among one of the more important events in their life, should go unchecked in a forum devoted to helping those still navigating the process to become a citizen.

Again, you disregard everything I say about the pleasure and honor that becoming a Canadian brought me, to reduce it to my disdain for that ridiculous oath matter.

I wrote a long post to counter your mediocre intellectual terrorism attempt, the one which will not suffer dissonant opinions, but I have just decided to erase it, considering after all that monarchist goons deserve only a short date: 1793.

Enjoy everything it means for the likes of you (assuming you have a minimum of historical knowledge).


Regards.

 

[newcanuck15]

To be clear, I have not been addressing, one way or another, the so-called monarchy issue. It warrants no attention. As previously noted, there are municipal zoning law issues of more importance, and otherwise there are all too many really huge issues confronting our time.

Millions of Canadians disagree. When the queen dies, most want to get rid of it. Search "God Save the Queen, 'Cause Canadians Aren't So Sure" for a revealing article.

Good riddance, I say. There's no valid reason for Canada in 2015 to have a foreign person living in a castle on another continent as our head of state. To the world, and new Canadians, it says we have no pride in our nationhood and are too complacent to make Canada fully independent.

 

[nope]

Millions of Canadians disagree. When the queen dies, most want to get rid of it. Search "God Save the Queen, 'Cause Canadians Aren't So Sure" for a revealing article.

Good riddance, I say. There's no valid reason for Canada in 2015 to have a foreign person living in a castle on another continent as our head of state. To the world, and new Canadians, it says we have no pride in our nationhood and are too complacent to make Canada fully independent.

I'm not a particular fan of the Canadian monarchy, nor of monarchy in general. However, as a soon-to-be Canadian, I'm not interested in advocating for its change, either. The fact is, I admire Canada's political culture, and I am not arrogant enough to think that I understand it. Suppose the Governor-General was removed from the scene, for example -- how would that change behaviour? Right now, there is a person with symbolic stature, and minimal, but real, powers, that the Prime Minister answers to (sometimes). Remove that, and how does the political culture change? I thought the articles about the role of the GG in cases of a minority parliament were very interesting.

One could argue that Canada's system gives it the benefit of an authority outside politics (which the US, for example, desperately needs) -- the Governor General -- while at the same time insulates it from the drawbacks of an authority outside politics -- e.g. the hazards of succession. England (and Canada) may raise up a laughable twit as King, but they are an ocean away and the GG can still operate as a moral and occasionally political actor.

I think that a great deal of the annoyance that dpenabill feels is the sense of the OP as being someone who has come to Canada and immediately begun shouting about something that he doesn't fully understand, and being vocally proud of starting his shouting well after the point at which it might have had an effect on him. It's the same thing I feel when a loudmouth makes fun of someone else for trusting them, or treating them as an honest person, and subsequently getting burned. Not to mention that a person blubbing about 1793 in response to the rather non-dictatorial Canadian monarchy of 2015 has issues.