Zach LarkinsAN OATH
S L Bradish wrote some time ago about a Muslim who refused to take the oath of office on a Bible. We all know that Muslims are required, by religion, to take offence at everything and so he insisted on a Qu'ran. Taking a page from this guy, we now have a fellow here in the Great White North who insists on becoming a citizen without swearing allegiance to the Queen.
Charles Roach is a Toronto lawyer who has lived in Canada for more than 50 years but has never become a citizen. Suddenly, he wants to become one. The reason(s) for this are his own business, but all sorts of possibilities spring to mind. Roach is a senior member of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, which is an organization that seeks to do away with Canada's ties to the British monarchy. Maybe he thinks that if new citizens are no longer made to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors," it will be only a matter of time before we reject the Queen as our head of state and replace her with a Canadian president.
Elected members of Parliament don't have to swear the oath, which explains why we continue to pay members of the Bloc Québécois and Parti de Québécois to do nothing but try and separate from the country, but that's another post altogether. Elected MP's have to be citizens and if we consider that those of different nations have already had to swear an oath, perhaps it is a bit redundant to ask them to do it again. I know, it's a stretch, but I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here. I also think a British subject shouldn't have to swear allegiance to a Queen they were most likely born under, but that is a personal opinion. So why the heck should Roach have to swear allegiance to our Queen then? Roach is black and likens the treatment of blacks by the British throne to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. He apparently feels that making him swear fealty to the current monarch would be "like asking a Holocaust survivor to take an oath to a descendant of Hitler." What sort of nonsense is this? It was the British Empire that took the international lead in ending the slave trade two centuries ago. If he has a problem with how black people were treated in the past, he certainly doesn't want to visit the USA. Between our two countries, what happened more than 150 to 200 years ago certainly has no bearing on people today. And to denigrate the treatment of Jews at the hands of Hitler by comparing it to events of 2 centuries past is way over the top. Roach must not be a very good lawyer as it seems he has way too much time on his hands to come up with such an asinine complaint.
Someone should remind Mr. Roach that there is no duty for him to become a Canadian. He is free to go back where he came from and free also to spend the next 50 years of his life here simply as a permanent resident. He is free to do whatever any Canadian can do, except vote. It is more than ludicrous to think some republican minded immigrants would dare change what they perceive to be a Charter infraction. Roach should be thanking Her Majesty for all she and her predecessors have done for democracy. Over the centuries, the sovereign's role has evolved from that of absolute ruler to instead being the protector of democratic rule. Queen Victoria, for instance, once refused to cross the threshold of even the humblest cottage without an invitation by its residents, as a symbol of who, ultimately, was sovereign in her kingdom. The old dominions of the Empire have transformed into the democracies of the Commonwealth, and along with them the monarchy that binds them all together has changed from imperial ruler to the symbol of each citizen's freedoms and obligations.
Mr. Roach should give his head a shake.
Charles Roach is a Toronto lawyer who has lived in Canada for more than 50 years but has never become a citizen. Suddenly, he wants to become one. The reason(s) for this are his own business, but all sorts of possibilities spring to mind. Roach is a senior member of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, which is an organization that seeks to do away with Canada's ties to the British monarchy. Maybe he thinks that if new citizens are no longer made to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors," it will be only a matter of time before we reject the Queen as our head of state and replace her with a Canadian president.
Elected members of Parliament don't have to swear the oath, which explains why we continue to pay members of the Bloc Québécois and Parti de Québécois to do nothing but try and separate from the country, but that's another post altogether. Elected MP's have to be citizens and if we consider that those of different nations have already had to swear an oath, perhaps it is a bit redundant to ask them to do it again. I know, it's a stretch, but I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here. I also think a British subject shouldn't have to swear allegiance to a Queen they were most likely born under, but that is a personal opinion. So why the heck should Roach have to swear allegiance to our Queen then? Roach is black and likens the treatment of blacks by the British throne to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. He apparently feels that making him swear fealty to the current monarch would be "like asking a Holocaust survivor to take an oath to a descendant of Hitler." What sort of nonsense is this? It was the British Empire that took the international lead in ending the slave trade two centuries ago. If he has a problem with how black people were treated in the past, he certainly doesn't want to visit the USA. Between our two countries, what happened more than 150 to 200 years ago certainly has no bearing on people today. And to denigrate the treatment of Jews at the hands of Hitler by comparing it to events of 2 centuries past is way over the top. Roach must not be a very good lawyer as it seems he has way too much time on his hands to come up with such an asinine complaint.
Someone should remind Mr. Roach that there is no duty for him to become a Canadian. He is free to go back where he came from and free also to spend the next 50 years of his life here simply as a permanent resident. He is free to do whatever any Canadian can do, except vote. It is more than ludicrous to think some republican minded immigrants would dare change what they perceive to be a Charter infraction. Roach should be thanking Her Majesty for all she and her predecessors have done for democracy. Over the centuries, the sovereign's role has evolved from that of absolute ruler to instead being the protector of democratic rule. Queen Victoria, for instance, once refused to cross the threshold of even the humblest cottage without an invitation by its residents, as a symbol of who, ultimately, was sovereign in her kingdom. The old dominions of the Empire have transformed into the democracies of the Commonwealth, and along with them the monarchy that binds them all together has changed from imperial ruler to the symbol of each citizen's freedoms and obligations.
Mr. Roach should give his head a shake.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern