Oath To A Queen

From G & M:
"Appeal court upholds oath to Queen in citizenship case"

When new citizens swear an oath to the Queen, they are not pledging allegiance to her personally, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Wednesday, rejecting a challenge by three permanent residents who have refused citizenship over an oath they say violates their political or religious beliefs. The group launched a constitutional challenge last year, arguing that forcing candidates for Canadian citizenship to swear allegiance to the Queen violates the protections for free speech and freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  But in a decision issued on Wednesday, Ontario’s top court dismissed their objections to the oath, ruling the group was wrong to take the oath literally. The decision, citing previous rulings, says that would-be citizens are not actually swearing allegiance to the Queen herself as “the reference to the Queen is symbolic of our form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy.” The federal Conservative government has made several moves to boost the stature of the monarchy in Canada — including tacking the word 'royal' back onto the Royal Canadian Air Force. Not surprisingly, Ottawa mounted a vigorous court fight to uphold the oath to the Queen. Lawyers for the federal government argued that those who refuse to support Canada’s “foundational constitutional structure” are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship, such as the right to vote. Before the Court of Appeal in April, government lawyer Kristina Dragaitis argued that the Queen is at the “apex of the Constitution” and symbolizes the rule of law and the right to free speech: “The Queen and the Constitution protect their rights to dissent.” In a 22-page ruling last September, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan laid out the history of Canada’s evolution as a constitutional monarchy and turned down the request to void the oath. 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. However, the Court of Appeal on Wednesday also agreed with a cross-appeal filed by the federal government on this point and overturned Justice Morgan’s finding that the oath violates the Charter’s free expression rights, meaning that the government does not even need to justify it as a “reasonable limit” on free speech.

^ It's this simple: native-born Canadians (like myself) do not swear an oath to the Queen of Canada just like no other nationality makes its native-born citizens swear an oath (unless they go into government/military service.) If a person wants to become a naturalized Canadian then they have to accept everything that means and stands for and if they don't like a part of it then they can refuse and not be made a Canadian. No one is forcing them to do anything. It's free will. They knew the oath was there and that Canada has a Queen (if they didn't then they probably didn't pass the Canadian Citizenship Test and shouldn't be naturalized.) If and when Canadian citizens ever decide not to have a monarchy then the oath can be changed, but as long as Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada then the oath should reflect her the same way as the US Citizenship Oath reflects having a President. ^



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/appeal-court-upholds-oath-to-queen-in-citizenship-case/article20032155/