Canadian oath to Her Majesty the Queen to remain law

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...emain-law.html

Canadian citizenship oath to Queen to remain law

Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to remove the country's citizenship oath, which requires applicants to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II

Queen of Canada: HM the Queen with her Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Prince Phillip in 2010

Immigrants to Canada will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen Elizabeth II after the Supreme Court of Canada refused on Thursday to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.

The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.

At issue is a provision in Canada's Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be "faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors."

Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's titular head of state. Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth of former colonies.

Longtime permanent residents Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan challenged the law because they do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

Informed of the Supreme Court decision that ends the battle, McAteer, 81, of Toronto, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

Immigrants to Canada pictured taking an oath of loyalty to the Queen of Canada

"It's been a long haul," said McAteer, a staunch republican who came to Canada from Ireland 51 years ago. "[But] I feel the same: If the oath stands, then I won't take Canadian citizenship."

Topey, a Jamaican Rastafarian, said her religion forbids taking an oath to the Queen. Bar-Natan, an Israeli, argued that the oath represents entrenched privilege he opposes.

The federal government maintained that taking the oath has been around since Confederation.

In its ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the Queen remains Canada's head of state, calling the oath a "symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed."

Lawyer Peter Rosenthal said the high court refusal to hear the case doesn'tnecessarily indicate an endorsement of the oath - but simply means the justices didn't feel the case was worthy of their attention.

Another victory for monarchists in Canada. Good.

It's also good for Canadian national identity for immigrants to pledge themselves, in terms of integration and loyalty.

Thoughts?

[Reality]

Isnt this just the best news... WHY WHY WHY! I don't like this personally ;/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Isnt this just the best news... WHY WHY WHY! I don't like this personally ;/

It's good news because it shows a bit of backbone in the face of a tiny minority wishing to overturn an important historical + constitutional tradition.

If Paddy and Rastaman don't want to pledge then tough luck, it isn't their country so they don't get to dictate the terms and conditions.

[Reality]

My opinion is bias anyways, I will would forever say I don't like it.

It's good news because it shows a bit of backbone in the face of a tiny minority wishing to overturn an important historical + constitutional tradition.

If Paddy and Rastaman don't want to pledge then tough luck, it isn't their country so they don't get to dictate the terms and conditions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My opinion is bias anyways, I will would forever say I don't like it.

Hey i'm not having a go - well sorta - but I am glad you have posted you disagree. A thread with agreement after agreement is boring as hell.

Are you not a fan of monarchy/the Queen then? I assumed by the crown in your user motto you would be.

[Reality]

Hey i'm not having a go - well sorta - but I am glad you have posted you disagree. A thread with agreement after agreement is boring as hell.

Are you not a fan of monarchy/the Queen then? I assumed by the crown in your user motto you would be.

The Queen no. What I have a problem with is that different countries/people want independence hence why majority votes get sent to the High Court, yet it is turned against them; this really isn't today's society for example, the commonwealth has been in existence for millennia after millennia and times have radically changed since then.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, I feel that in the current climate and today's society no one is ever happy and you can't make it so; with all the different people in the world, so no matter how hard some individual or nation tries your word is powerless against those who govern the law, which still age from centuries ago.

[AgnesIO]

The Queen no. What I have a problem with is that different countries/people want independence hence why majority votes get sent to the High Court, yet it is turned against them; this really isn't today's society for example, the commonwealth has been in existence for millennia after millennia and times have radically changed since then.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, I feel that in the current climate and today's society no one is ever happy and you can't make it so; with all the different people in the world, so no matter how hard some individual or nation tries your word is powerless against those who govern the law, which still age from centuries ago.

Millennia after millennia? I think decade after decade would be more realistic