Fighting the monarchy after taking the oath

[newcanuck15]

You seem to have a very high opinion of the public's opinion. Alternately, you could ask them the following questions: 'Does Queen Elizabeth need a passport or a visa to come to Canada? Could she be turned away at the border?" I guarantee you that 100% would say 'No' -- which means they understand that she is a citizen. Only citizens, or those on the path to becoming a citizen, have the right to enter a country.

I suggest you brush up on your logic. This whole thread started with your congratulating yourself that even though you swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, you secretly don't like her. Do you think it is possible that the person you swore to uphold as a Canadian lacks the status of Canadian citizen? The literal meaning of the Queen is that she embodies Canada. She is more Canadian than you are.

First, if the prerequisite for Canadian citizenship is not having to show a passport or visa upon entry, then monarchs of other countries are Canadian citizens too. According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Conventions, 1961, none travel overseas with a passport or visa, including the Kings of The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, just to name a few.

In the case of QEII, this only applies to her. All her family members, including Prince Phillip, have passports.

Secondly, I didn't start this thread. I only responded. FWIW, I don't dislike the queen at all. I dislike the institution of the monarchy and believe Canada deserves to shed its colonial link to the UK and have a head of state who lives here and is selected by us.

Thirdly, there are no levels or grades of Canadian citizenship. You are a citizen, or you're not. That's it. No one can be more of a citizen than another.

Lastly, I suggest you contact the Monarchist League of Canada to resolve this. Although they do claim the queen is somehow "Canadian," they have never claimed that she is a citizen.

 

[newcanuck15]

You may want to brush up on Royal Standards of Canada: The Queen of Canada, Prince of Wales (Prince Charles); Duke of Cambridge (Prince Williams); Duke of Cambridge (Princess Anne); Duke of York (Prince Andrew) and Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward).

The Queen and her Royal Family are considered to be Canadian Royal Family from Canada's perspective. Not the same as British Royal Family. Canadian Royal Family is a group of people related directly to the Monarch of Canada, such as the House of Windsor. Most British and Canadian Royal Family are the same people but not all of them, thus there is a distinction between the two. Actually there are 5 Canadian citizens in the Royal Family. Prince Charles, Prince Williams, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, all direct descendent of the Queen of Canada.

Note that the spouses of the Canadian Royal Family not have Canadian citizenship, such as Prince Philip and Princess Diana, and Princess Camilla.

Not true. There is no mention of the royal family in the Canadian Citizenship Act. However, it does say that one must be physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least 1,460 days and have met personal income tax filing obligations for four of six taxation years.

Neither the Queen nor any of her family members meet those requirements.

The Act does mention dual citizenship, which it's possible that the royals could apply for. However, since they're the "royal family" of 15 realms, all of which (according to your definition) could claim them as citizens, no part of the Act allows for someone to hold citizenship in 15 countries at the same time.

Hence, the royal family is British and none hold Canadian citizenship.

 

[screech339]

Not true. There is no mention of the royal family in the Canadian Citizenship Act. However, it does say that one must be physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least 1,460 days and have met personal income tax filing obligations for four of six taxation years.

Neither the Queen nor any of her family members meet those requirements.

The Act does mention dual citizenship, which it's possible that the royals could apply for. However, since they're the "royal family" of 15 realms, all of which (according to your definition) could claim them as citizens, no part of the Act allows for someone to hold citizenship in 15 countries at the same time.

Hence, the royal family is British and none hold Canadian citizenship.

Again you need to brush on canadian law. The queen is Queen of Canada. Not Queen of Britain. As Queen of Canada, she is by definition: Canadian. The citizenship law doesnt apply to her because the citizenship pledge allegiance to the queen herself. Why would she need to pledge allegiance to herself simply because she is queen of CANADA.

Note that the queen would still need permission to enter US, but will never be denied. But techincally the US president can deny the queen from entering. Unlike Canada, the queen doesnt need permission to enter Canada, she is the Queen of Canada. Canada or any other 16 countries of the commonwealth cannot deny the queen from entering their country. Gee, dont need permission? Has the right to enter Canada as she pleases. Hmmm, sound to me that she has Canadian citizenship.

If, in an extreme case, that britain ceased to exist as a country, (as in no physical land, britain sunk below the ocean), the queen technically would be stateless (according to you since queen only has one citizenship, british) but the queen can still enter canada despite having "no british citizenship". Gee again sounds like she has Canadian citizenship.

I can bet that if any of the CANADIAN (not british) Royal Family ever applied for Canadian Passport, they will get it based on being part of the Royal Canadian Family. But why would they need to apply for Canadian Passport, if they can enter Canada as they please.

 

[keesio]

More information about the Queen of Canada:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx

It is clear that the Queen is much more than just a standard citizen.

 

[Bigudi]

I see it the other way. The government is forcing people to compromise their values of equality and democracy to support a system they don't believe in. I would even go so far as to call it extortion; declare your support for an elitist, undemocratic family (who aren't even Canadian, ironically), or we won't grant you citizenship.

Oh, god. What a drama.
Your premise obviously does not follow. You cannot extort someone to grant him a privilege. But you can, as you should, as for a commitment.
BUT... for the sake of the argument, let's say you are right. Let's say Canada is committing extortion demanding you compromise your values to grant you the PRIVILEGE of the citizenship (yes, it is not a right, it is a privilege). So what?
Did anyone put a gun in your head and forced you to move to Canada? Than were you forced to become a PR? And after that, were you forced to become a citizen?
People CHOSE to come to Canada. You have to bear the consequences (and the prerequisites) of your choices. People don't need to compromise anything to become a PR and live the rest of their lives in Canada.
But if you want, by your own choosing, to become a citizen, than YES, you have to make a commitment. You are welcome to never compromise and stay as a PR. And that's way more than Canada should do.

If you don't agree if the term, simply don't become a citizen. Why would anyone chose to immigrate to a Sharia country if they despite it (me, for example)? So why would anyone chose to immigrate to a country which is a Constitutional Monarchy if they despite it?

 

[newcanuck15]

Again you need to brush on canadian law. The queen is Queen of Canada. Not Queen of Britain. As Queen of Canada, she is by definition: Canadian. The citizenship law doesnt apply to her because the citizenship pledge allegiance to the queen herself. Why would she need to pledge allegiance to herself simply because she is queen of CANADA.

Note that the queen would still need permission to enter US, but will never be denied. But techincally the US president can deny the queen from entering. Unlike Canada, the queen doesnt need permission to enter Canada, she is the Queen of Canada. Canada or any other 16 countries of the commonwealth cannot deny the queen from entering their country. Gee, dont need permission? Has the right to enter Canada as she pleases. Hmmm, sound to me that she has Canadian citizenship.

If, in an extreme case, that britain ceased to exist as a country, (as in no physical land, britain sunk below the ocean), the queen technically would be stateless (according to you since queen only has one citizenship, british) but the queen can still enter canada despite having "no british citizenship". Gee again sounds like she has Canadian citizenship.

I can bet that if any of the CANADIAN (not british) Royal Family ever applied for Canadian Passport, they will get it based on being part of the Royal Canadian Family. But why would they need to apply for Canadian Passport, if they can enter Canada as they please.

Come on now, admit it. You're just making this stuff up, right?

1) The queen is not queen of Britain??
2) Although the residency and tax obligations are essential to becoming a citizen, reciting the citizenship oath is NOT. It can be attained by birth, and by being the child of Canadian citizens. In both instances, reciting the citizenship oath is not required. So your claim that the queen must be a citizen because she wouldn't be expected to recite an oath to herself is just plain idiocy.
3) Your analogy of Britain disappearing and the queen becoming stateless is just as stupid, so I won't comment at all.
4) The queen never needs "permission" to enter any country because she never just shows up somewhere wanting to enter a country. She has *always* traveled overseas at the invitation of host nations. Always. That includes Canada and all members of the Commonwealth.

The bottom line: The queen lives in the UK and pays taxes there. She doesn't live in Canada and pays no taxes here. That means she's a UK citizen and not a Canadian citizen.

 

[newcanuck15]

Oh, god. What a drama.
Your premise obviously does not follow. You cannot extort someone to grant him a privilege. But you can, as you should, as for a commitment.
BUT... for the sake of the argument, let's say you are right. Let's say Canada is committing extortion demanding you compromise your values to grant you the PRIVILEGE of the citizenship (yes, it is not a right, it is a privilege). So what?
Did anyone put a gun in your head and forced you to move to Canada? Than were you forced to become a PR? And after that, were you forced to become a citizen?
People CHOSE to come to Canada. You have to bear the consequences (and the prerequisites) of your choices. People don't need to compromise anything to become a PR and live the rest of their lives in Canada.
But if you want, by your own choosing, to become a citizen, than YES, you have to make a commitment. You are welcome to never compromise and stay as a PR. And that's way more than Canada should do.

If you don't agree if the term, simply don't become a citizen. Why would anyone chose to immigrate to a Sharia country if they despite it (me, for example)? So why would anyone chose to immigrate to a country which is a Constitutional Monarchy if they despite it?

At any given time, polls show at least half of NATIVE BORN Canadians want to end the monarchy. Are you saying that they don't deserve Canadian citizenship?

Look, I didn't start this discussion, but I agree with the person who did. The monarchy is a silly anachronism in Canada, a holdover from colonial times that should have been severed decades ago.

However, I don't condone not taking the citizenship oath. I say, take the stupid oath and then help Canada get rid of the monarchy. Sure, that means lying, but it's the government that is forcing new citizens to say something that in their heart, they don't believe in. Imagine that! Forcing new Canadians to commit an illegal act in the first 30 seconds of becoming a Canadian!

That's the reason why Australia eliminated the reference to the queen decades ago.

So despite your view that if one disagrees with monarchy, then don't come to Canada, new Australians (still a monarchy, by the way) can become citizens and not compromise their democratic and egalitarian ethics.

Take a look. Australia's oath makes so much sense, while Canada's looks like it's straight out of the 18th century:

Canada

I 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.

Australia

As an Australian citizen
I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people,
Whose democratic beliefs I share,
Whose rights and liberties I respect,
And whose laws I uphold and obey.

 

[screech339]

Come on now, admit it. You're just making this stuff up, right?

1) The queen is not queen of Britain??
2) Although the residency and tax obligations are essential to becoming a citizen, reciting the citizenship oath is NOT. It can be attained by birth, and by being the child of Canadian citizens. In both instances, reciting the citizenship oath is not required. So your claim that the queen must be a citizen because she wouldn't be expected to recite an oath to herself is just plain idiocy.
3) Your analogy of Britain disappearing and the queen becoming stateless is just as stupid, so I won't comstateless ment at all.
4) The queen never needs "permission" to enter any country because she never just shows up somewhere wanting to enter a country. She has *always* traveled overseas at the invitation of host nations. Always. That includes Canada and all members of the Commonwealt

The bottom line: The queen lives in the UK and pays taxes there. She doesn't live in Canada and pays no taxes here. That means she's a UK citizen and not a Canadian citizen.

1. I never said she is not the queen of britain. She is the queen of britain and she is also the queen of Canada. But queen of britain doesnt apply to Canada. She is Queen of canada. Everyone knows her as queen of britain but that doesnt mean she is not queen of canada.

2. You may want to look up the defintion of citizen. It also means a place where you live. You can be a citizen of ontario for example without holding canadian citizenship.

3. My analogy is perfect. How does one person become stateless? One way is the country no longer exist. So according to you if UK disappeared off face of earth, everyone in britain will become stateless except those with dual citizenship. The queen can still enter any of the commonwealth country as she is the head of state of the country. The only reason you say it is stupid and wont comment is because I'm right. My example proved my point that she has more than one citizenship. If the queen ever lost british citizenship, why can she still enter Canada if she is stateless. It would be obvious that she is not stateless and has some form of citizenship of canada.

4. She does not need permission from canada to enter any more than I dont need permission to enter canada myself. Under normal circumstances she would inform the commonwealth countries ahead of time of any arrival plans mainly for security reasons, after all she is queen.

Bottom line: you dont need to pay taxes in canada to be canadian citizen. Are you saying any canadian who pay no taxes in canada are not Canadian? Because the queen is a UK citizen since she pay taxes there and not here?

 

[dancouver]

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.

Canadian charter, as with many other nations allows people to change their mind. Therefore, the issue is not about the possibility of revocation, or even monarchy but moral character. Maybe the questioner has a tinge of regret, maybe not.

In any case, the person who started the debate should explore their "dilemma" by making their view public, safe in the knowledge that they will not become stateless or sent to the tower.

 

[newcanuck15]

1. I never said she is not the queen of britain. She is the queen of britain and she is also the queen of Canada. But queen of britain doesnt apply to Canada. She is Queen of canada. Everyone knows her as queen of britain but that doesnt mean she is not queen of canada.

2. You may want to look up the defintion of citizen. It also means a place where you live. You can be a citizen of ontario for example without holding canadian citizenship.

3. My analogy is perfect. How does one person become stateless? One way is the country no longer exist. So according to you if UK disappeared off face of earth, everyone in britain will become stateless except those with dual citizenship. The queen can still enter any of the commonwealth country as she is the head of state of the country. The only reason you say it is stupid and wont comment is because I'm right. My example proved my point that she has more than one citizenship. If the queen ever lost british citizenship, why can she still enter Canada if she is stateless. It would be obvious that she is not stateless and has some form of citizenship of canada.

4. She does not need permission from canada to enter any more than I dont need permission to enter canada myself. Under normal circumstances she would inform the commonwealth countries ahead of time of any arrival plans mainly for security reasons, after all she is queen.

Bottom line: you dont need to pay taxes in canada to be canadian citizen. Are you saying any canadian who pay no taxes in canada are not Canadian? Because the queen is a UK citizen since she pay taxes there and not here?

In reply #32 above, you said "The queen is Queen of Canada. Not Queen of Britain."

"you dont need to pay taxes in canada to be canadian citizen."

Ha! Now you're talking my language. According to Canada Revenue Agency, yes you do. If you are a Canadian living in another country and making money there, you are required by law to file a tax return and report all foreign-earned income. It's the law. There are 93 countries who enforce it between them and both the UK and Canada are among them. Therefore, if the queen is a citizen of Canada, she'd be classified as a "non‑resident of Canada for income tax purposes" and would be required to file a return and pay tax on anything connected to Canada. And, if she's also a citizen of 16 countries which have her as head of state, that means 16 tax returns!! Umm... I don't think so!

"You may want to look up the defintion of citizen. It also means a place where you live."

Absolutely. We agree. The queen lives in the UK, not Canada, so she's a citizen of the UK.

The rest of what you say is fairly incomprehensible. If the UK fell into the ocean, then the remaining people would be refugees. Of course we'd accept them into Canada.

 

[newcanuck15]

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.

Canadian charter, as with many other nations allows people to change their mind. Therefore, the issue is not about the possibility of revocation, or even monarchy but moral character. Maybe the questioner has a tinge of regret, maybe not.

In any case, the person who started the debate should explore their "dilemma" by making their view public, safe in the knowledge that they will not become stateless or sent to the tower.

Agreed. To go back to the original question of whether speaking against the monarchy, therefore contravening the oath to be loyal to the queen, can have a detrimental effect on a person's status as a citizen, it in fact has no effect. A member of Canada's republican movement (Citizens for a Canadian Republic) proved this a few years ago by renouncing the allegiance to the queen part of the oath. He submitted it to the Minister of Immigration and received assurances that it does not effect citizenship. This information can be Googled.

 

[keesio]

"you dont need to pay taxes in canada to be canadian citizen."

Ha! Now you're talking my language. According to Canada Revenue Agency, yes you do.

Not always. You can still maintain Canadian citizenship and not have any tax obligations. And even if you are deemed that you must file taxes or report income, being delinquent on your taxes doesn't mean you cease to become a Canadian citizen. So NO, CRA does not consider you no longer a citizen if you are delinquent on your taxes. Unless you know of an example of someone who was stripped of their citizenship because of tax fraud.

 

[newcanuck15]

Not always. You can still maintain Canadian citizenship and not have any tax obligations. And even if you are deemed that you must file taxes or report income, being delinquent on your taxes doesn't mean you cease to become a Canadian citizen. So NO, CRA does not consider you no longer a citizen if you are delinquent on your taxes. Unless you know of an example of someone who was stripped of their citizenship because of tax fraud.

No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean one ceases to become a citizen at all. I made the comment in reference to a Canadian who lives abroad full-time and has income. If you're a Canadian citizen and you live full-time in another country, you're subject to Canadian income tax.

The claim is that the queen is Canadian. She doesn't live in Canada. I was arguing that if she was indeed a citizen, CRA laws, as well as the tax laws of 16 other realms would apply to her - which is ridiculous.

The only country where the queen is subject to taxation is the UK. The reason? Because she's a UK citizen.

 

[newcanuck15]

1. I never said she is not the queen of britain. She is the queen of britain and she is also the queen of Canada. But queen of britain doesnt apply to Canada. She is Queen of canada. Everyone knows her as queen of britain but that doesnt mean she is not queen of canada.

2. You may want to look up the defintion of citizen. It also means a place where you live. You can be a citizen of ontario for example without holding canadian citizenship.

3. My analogy is perfect. How does one person become stateless? One way is the country no longer exist. So according to you if UK disappeared off face of earth, everyone in britain will become stateless except those with dual citizenship. The queen can still enter any of the commonwealth country as she is the head of state of the country. The only reason you say it is stupid and wont comment is because I'm right. My example proved my point that she has more than one citizenship. If the queen ever lost british citizenship, why can she still enter Canada if she is stateless. It would be obvious that she is not stateless and has some form of citizenship of canada.

4. She does not need permission from canada to enter any more than I dont need permission to enter canada myself. Under normal circumstances she would inform the commonwealth countries ahead of time of any arrival plans mainly for security reasons, after all she is queen.

Bottom line: you dont need to pay taxes in canada to be canadian citizen. Are you saying any canadian who pay no taxes in canada are not Canadian? Because the queen is a UK citizen since she pay taxes there and not here?

"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.

We can put this whole issue to rest about the queen's citizenship by looking at where a shared head of state exists elsewhere outside of the Commonwealth. The principality of Andorra is an independent country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, yet the non-resident president of France is co-prince and shares the head of state title with the non-resident Spanish Bishop of Urgell. Just like Canada, this arrangement is enshrined in their constitution. And just like Canada's governor general, a local person there takes care of all the official duties of head of state in their name. And, just like the Queen and Canada, neither the Bishop of Urgell nor the President of France are citizens of Andorra. It's an entirely ceremonial and honorary position that exists solely due to a quirk of history - just like Canada.

 

[Bigudi]

At any given time, polls show at least half of NATIVE BORN Canadians want to end the monarchy. Are you saying that they don't deserve Canadian citizenship?

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.

Look, I didn't start this discussion, but I agree with the person who did. The monarchy is a silly anachronism in Canada, a holdover from colonial times that should have been severed decades ago.

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

However, I don't condone not taking the citizenship oath. I say, take the stupid oath and then help Canada get rid of the monarchy. Sure, that means lying, but it's the government that is forcing new citizens to say something that in their heart, they don't believe in. Imagine that! Forcing new Canadians to commit an illegal act in the first 30 seconds of becoming a Canadian!

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.

That's the reason why Australia eliminated the reference to the queen decades ago.

So despite your view that if one disagrees with monarchy, then don't come to Canada, new Australians (still a monarchy, by the way) can become citizens and not compromise their democratic and egalitarian ethics.

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.