Why would anyone /not/ say the oath?

[asaif]

Maybe because they are embarrassed to recite a medieval-style oath, one that you expect to hear only in the "Game of Thrones"
Honestly, why is still anyone required to swear allegiance to an individual or a family in the Twenty-first century. What about pledging loyalty to the Nation or the constitution instead. I like how the Australians changed their oath more than two decades ago to:
From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Makes more sense to me

 

[labeamer]

Maybe because they are embarrassed to recite a medieval-style oath, one that you expect to hear only in the "Game of Thrones"
Honestly, why is still anyone required to swear allegiance to an individual or a family in the Twenty-first century. What about pledging loyalty to the Nation or the constitution instead. I like how the Australians changed their oath more than two decades ago to:
From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Makes more sense to me

That's my whole point. In this day and age, swearing to die to a monarchy (maybe even for a bad cause or bad decision the monarch inadvertently made) is ludicrous. In my humble opinion, it just does not make sense. If the bad decision was made by a legitimate government, which was chosen by the majority, we ought to live with the consequences of that decision. Rest assured, the government will be gone when its term is up if it doesn't have the mandate of the majority. However, we do not choose a monarchy just like we do not choose a sibling. I would not die for my sibling if s/he screwed up.

 

[MrB]

There's an immigrant sense of entitlement and privilege that in my opinion is quite irritating. It's simple if you don't want to say the oath, don't apply for Canadian citizenship! Until Canadians collectively decide that they want the oath amended, it is what it is!

 

[neutral]

Because most of immigrants don't care (for not saying other words) about the queen.

 

[screech339]

You all do realize that in order to change the oath to canada instead of the queen, it requires a constitutional change to remove queen as head of state and make canada a republic.

So until Quebec and every province, senate and house of Commons get on board, the Queen of England is also Queen of Canada.

If Harper cannot reform the Senate without constitutional changes, you can be sure that the Queen will always be head of state, whether you like it or not.

 

[eileenf]

You all do realize that in order to change the oath to canada instead of the queen, it requires a constitutional change to remove queen as head of state and make canada a republic.

So until Quebec and every province, senate and house of Commons get on board, the Queen of England is also Queen of Canada.

If Harper cannot reform the Senate without constitutional changes, you can be sure that the Queen will always be head of state, whether you like it or not.

Screech, changing the oath and changing Canada's governmental structure are two entirely different things. I appreciate your confidence, but it is not supported by the facts. See previous efforts to change the oath, which did not involve or require becoming a republic, or see Australia, which still holds QE as queen if Australia, but reformed its oath to focus on Australia, not the queen.

 

[eileenf]

There's an immigrant sense of entitlement and privilege that in my opinion is quite irritating. It's simple if you don't want to say the oath, don't apply for Canadian citizenship! Until Canadians collectively decide that they want the oath amended, it is what it is!

Immigrants are entitled to have opinions, political and otherwise, just like other Canadians.

 

[screech339]

Screech, changing the oath and changing Canada's governmental structure are two entirely different things. I appreciate your confidence, but it is not supported by the facts. See previous efforts to change the oath, which did not involve or require becoming a republic, or see Australia, which still holds QE as queen if Australia, but reformed its oath to focus on Australia, not the queen.

That is because Australia doesn't have the strict constitution that Canada has. They are more freer in being able to make the changes. You can thank Trudeau Sr for making it next to impossible to make any changes.

What is interesting note is that the oath is part of the citizenship act and not part of the constitution act. A judge had made that comment in one of his rulings. So, in theory, if this is possible and true, one could change the oath to Canada and not the Queen. Does the law accept that one can remove the queen from oath and yet maintain queen as head of state. Would they conflict with each other? Don't know.

If the parliament can make changes and it has in the past, I guess those that don't want to pledge to the Queen can always wait until the parliament changes the oath.

 

[MrB]

Immigrants are entitled to have opinions, political and otherwise, just like other Canadians.

Here comes the classic "I'm entitled to my opinion" narrative. Of course! everyone is entitled to stating their varying opinions, this is a free society and one of the numerous things that make this country great. However choosing not to recite the oath at your citizenship ceremony is not a matter of opinion, it's a requirement.

A good number of us come from countries that have horrific records in fundamental human rights but we want to come to Canada and act like reciting the oath is the greatest violation of human rights. That's what I define as the immigrant privilege and sense of entitlement. Like I have said before, you have the choice to not become a citizen if swearing to a figurehead is that meaningful to you. For a lot of us it's a symbolic and harmless gesture that is part of Canadian heritage and as far as I know it hasn't killed anyone. cheers!

 

[bambino]

Does the law accept that one can remove the queen from oath and yet maintain queen as head of state. Would they conflict with each other? Don't know.

Then you should probably abstain from opining.

The answer is, yes, one can remove the Queen from the oath without that having any effect on her being head of state. The oath is a schedule to the Citizenship Act and can be altered by simple amendment. Not a constitutional issue at all.

 

[screech339]

Then you should probably abstain from opining.

The answer is, yes, one can remove the Queen from the oath without that having any effect on her being head of state. The oath is a schedule to the Citizenship Act and can be altered by simple amendment. Not a constitutional issue at all.

One can always go to court to find out. So until someone challenge it in court, the changing of the oath to Canada instead of the Queen, the oath to Queen remains.

 

[alphazip]

One can always go to court to find out. So until someone challenge it in court, the changing of the oath to Canada instead of the Queen, the oath to Queen remains.

As Bambino stated, the oath can be changed by Parliament at any time. In fact, it has been discussed before. A change in the oath certainly does not involve removing the Queen as head of state; they're two different issues. There will be no change in the oath under the current government, however, because it has shown itself to be very pro-monarchy (reverting to the term Royal Canadian Air Force, etc.). The crackdown on oath takers has also come under the current government.

As a Canadian citizen by descent, I've never been forced to take the oath, but I did recite it (the guests were asked to join in) at a friend's citizenship ceremony, and I had no objection. Of course, I'm of British descent on my Canadian side...don't know how I'd feel if I weren't. During the ceremony I attended, one immigrant (a woman) was singled out by the aisle prowlers and told to move her lips.

 

[screech339]

As Bambino stated, the oath can be changed by Parliament at any time. In fact, it has been discussed before. A change in the oath certainly does not involve removing the Queen as head of state; they're two different issues. There will be no change in the oath under the current government, however, because it has shown itself to be very pro-monarchy (reverting to the term Royal Canadian Air Force, etc.). The crackdown on oath takers has also come under the current government.

As a Canadian citizen by descent, I've never been forced to take the oath, but I did recite it (the guests were asked to join in) at a friend's citizenship ceremony, and I had no objection. Of course, I'm of British descent on my Canadian side...don't know how I'd feel if I weren't. During the ceremony I attended, one immigrant (a woman) was singled out by the aisle prowlers and told to move her lips.

I agree that the oath can be changed at parliament stage and it has been noted to be changed before.

As for the woman singled out because she wasn't reciting the oath, what's the problem. If she doesn't want to cite the oath, what is she doing there?