Why would anyone /not/ say the oath?

[eileenf]

I'm puzzled by the idea that some people may have any objection to saying the oath, but would still attend the ceremony, pretend that they are saying the oath and then sign it.

While the written word is more legally enforceable, the spoken word is closer to the heart.

Personally I am not a monarchist. I said the oath, but did I say it with my whole heart? No. Do I have never ending and true fealty to a random family in England. Not really. And neither do most Canadians. And good luck finding any Quebeckers who are monarchists...

Like most Canadians, I think there should be a new oath that omits, or at least streamlines, the monarchism so that it reflects the reality of the very limited role that the monarchy has is Canadian lives, hearts and politics.

 

[screech339]

Right. What puzzles me, though, is not that there are people not willing to say the oath. I'm puzzled by the idea that some people may have any objection to saying the oath, but would still attend the ceremony, pretend that they are saying the oath and then sign it. If I were to object to the oath, but I'm willing to sign it nonetheless, why would I not say the words as well? I would be lying anyways! The only difference is that, by not saying the words, I would be taking a greater risk of being caught, so it wouldn't make any sense for me to not say the words... hence my confusion. I would think that signing is more "binding" that speaking.

I'll take a look at those cases. If they went to their ceremonies willing to sign but not to speak, maybe I'll get some idea of what's going on in their heads.

What about those who swear in court to tell the turth and nothing but the truth. They don't have to sign their name either. Their words is still binding as well.

 

[eileenf]

I read the article. The officer pulled out the wrong person that was apparently not saying the oath.

Please reread and then post the quote the backs up your interpretation of the article.

 

[screech339]

While the written word is more legally enforceable, the spoken word is closer to the heart.

Personally I am not a monarchist. I said the oath, but did I say it with my whole heart? No. Do I have never ending and true fealty to a random family in England. Not really. And neither do most Canadians. And good luck finding any Quebeckers who are monarchists...

Like most Canadians, I think there should be a new oath that omits, or at least streamlines, the monarchism so that it reflects the reality of the very limited role that the monarchy has is Canadian lives, hearts and politics.

As I mentioned earlier to his post.


What about those who swear in court to tell the turth and nothing but the truth. They don't have to sign their name either. Their words is still binding as well. If they are found to be lying, they be charged with perjury.

 

[screech339]

Please reread and then post the quote the backs up your interpretation of the article.

CIC said the officer made a mistake and the man was not trying to avoid or alter the oath. They are looking for the man but have yet to find him.

 

[labeamer]

I read the article. The officer pulled out the wrong person that was apparently not saying the oath. There was still a person not saying the oath. The officer made a mistake in pulling the wrong person out. That's the only misunderstanding. There's no backpedaling.

i think the news article says the officer made an error in determining whether the man mouthed the oath, and they are looking for the same man whom they denied the citizenship.

 

[screech339]

The man. They are only referring to one man. They are looking for him in order to give him his certificate. Earlier in the article: "Subsequently, it was found that the officer made a mistake in the determination that the oath was not taken. The office has been attempting to contact the candidate to rectify the situation."

You are correct. My "misunderstanding". However it was determined that the man DID say the oath. What if it was actually determined that a person DID NOT actually say the oath. What then?

Again no back pedaling involved.

 

[screech339]

What about those who swear in court. They don't sign their name either. So their words are just from the heart only. It is not "legally binding" since they didn't sign their name.

Same applies to those who lost in court cases over belief that "verbal agreements" are not legally binding. No signature required there either.

 

[labeamer]

screech339,

I just have a question for you. Feel free to ignore it if you like.

Immigrant or not, are you comfortable in signing and swearing an unconditional allegiance to a person (a foreign queen, in this case) in this time and age?

Thanks.

 

[screech339]

screech339,

I just have a question for you. Feel free to ignore it if you like.

Immigrant or not, are you comfortable in signing and swearing an unconditional allegiance to a person (a foreign queen, in this case) in this time and age?

Thanks.

A straight up answer. YES.

Now if I get called up join the fight on the queen's behalf, that a difference scenario. I can always refuse or join. The choice is still up to me.

The key word is choice. I can choose. If I don't like it, I can choose not to participate in it.

 

[labeamer]

A straight up answer. YES.

Now if I get called up join the fight on the queen's behalf, that a difference scenario. I can always refuse or join. The choice is still up to me.

The key word is choice. I can choose. If I don't like it, I can choose not to participate in it.

hmm i thought the allegiance would obligate and conscript you to fight on her and her heirs behalf and die if you need to.

 

[screech339]

hmm i thought the allegiance would obligate and conscript you to fight on her and her heirs behalf and die if you need to.

Hence the choice. I can still refuse and be charge a traitor. Still a choice.

You seem to imply that everyone has no choice. There is always a choice. And when there is a choice, there is always a consequence of that choice. And a lot of people don't want to take responsibility or be accountable to their choices they make if the end result doesn't turn out the way they hoped or wanted.

 

[isilrion]

What about those who swear in court to tell the turth and nothing but the truth. They don't have to sign their name either. Their words is still binding as well.

I'm sorry if it appeared that I was disagreeing with you. I am not. In the (hypothetical?) citizenship scenario, there would be a person willing to be bound by a signature and not by words. That is the contradiction I was trying to understand.
Also, I would argue that what is binding is not the saying of the words, but the appearance that you are agreeing with the terms. If you swear in court with your fingers crossed out of sight (symbol for "I'm lying", at least where I come from), you are still bound to tell the truth. If you manage to not say the words, but still convince everyone that you did, I would hope you are still bound to tell the truth. This would make it even less understandable that someone would go through the motions and not say the words.

I guess the person may be trying to deceive himself/herself? "I didn't really swear fealty to the queen, and I'm going to ignore every other indication that I did it".

 

[screech339]

I'm sorry if it appeared that I was disagreeing with you. I am not. In the (hypothetical?) citizenship scenario, there would be a person willing to be bound by a signature and not by words. That is the contradiction I was trying to understand.
Also, I would argue that what is binding is not the saying of the words, but the appearance that you are agreeing with the terms. If you swear in court with your fingers crossed out of sight (symbol for "I'm lying", at least where I come from), you are still bound to tell the truth. If you manage to not say the words, but still convince everyone that you did, I would hope you are still bound to tell the truth. This would make it even less understandable that someone would go through the motions and not say the words.

I guess the person may be trying to deceive himself/herself? "I didn't really swear fealty to the queen, and I'm going to ignore every other indication that I did it".

I understand what you are saying. I can understand where you see the contradiction. Not saying you disagree or agree with me. Just understanding your thoughts.

 

[bambino]

Very well said, Eileen.

I think the whole process is marred by those attitudes, and that's really unfortunate. For too many prospective citizens it devolves into an adversarial relationship with their government based on suspicion and mistrust, and marked by an utter lack of transparency. Those are the very things many of us had hoped to leave behind by coming to Canada. A good friend of mine, a local physician and citizenship applicant himself, has described the process as "dehumanizing", and I tend to agree. Our initiation in the Canadian family should reinforce and validate those lofty Canadian values we are asked to make our own but does the exact opposite in too many instances. That is so sad...