[PluggyRug]

westmanguy westmanguy:

Having an unelected bloodline for our head of state is sort of archaic for our day and age.

Archaic is good, or would you prefer President Joseph Jacques
Jean Chrétien.

[commanderkai]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

westmanguy westmanguy:

Having an unelected bloodline for our head of state is sort of archaic for our day and age.

The Clinton's and Bush's would disagree with you.

Define "unelected"

[stemmer]

BartSimpson

$1:

Then the Japanese and Tongans are racist, too, because a white, black, Catholic, or Jewish person will never be their head of state?

Yes...if that is infact their policy they are racists...

I am against policies being made by judges that should be made by our elected officials....

I am against rulings like that of the Sikh biker being allowed NOT to wear his helmet because of his relgious turban...

Yes...those two things outrage me...

However I have long believed in the reforms proposed a long time ago by the Western Reform Party and later the Reform Party...

I believe ALL state and government officials should be elected by the people and not appointed... I believe in true representation of the public and not some type of quasi-democracy as we presently have in Canada....

[Paige]

While I'm always up for things like a charter change; this is bullshit, his argument holds as much logic as my colander hold water. He's more or less asking why even bother having an oath at all? as he seems to not want to swear it, no matter what it says.

[Knoss]

$1:

What is some foreignn asshole in Trinidad (Canadian Passport or not) doing trying to shake things up and abuse the court system? This man was born in a Commonwealth Dominion, and he immmigrated to another one, and is now complaining about having to swear an oath to our Head of State? As far as I'm concerned, he swore an oath, and now he's breaking it. Take his passport back, and let him live in Trinidad (since that's where he's living now anyway).

The oath should be to uphold the law. We do not need the manarchy to do this we do need government.

$1:

We didn't vote to accept the queen but then we never voted to elect our senators either, and they do a hell of a lot less for Canada than she does.

True, but the pledge of allegence does not reffer tothe Senate. Also, the senate can be reformed (triple E).

[MacDonaill]

Knoss Knoss:

$1:

What is some foreignn asshole in Trinidad (Canadian Passport or not) doing trying to shake things up and abuse the court system? This man was born in a Commonwealth Dominion, and he immmigrated to another one, and is now complaining about having to swear an oath to our Head of State? As far as I'm concerned, he swore an oath, and now he's breaking it. Take his passport back, and let him live in Trinidad (since that's where he's living now anyway).

The oath should be to uphold the law. We do not need the manarchy to do this we do need government.

$1:

We didn't vote to accept the queen but then we never voted to elect our senators either, and they do a hell of a lot less for Canada than she does.

True, but the pledge of allegence does not reffer tothe Senate. Also, the senate can be reformed (triple E).

Swearing the Oath of Allegiance to a republic is swearing it to the State alone, which for me is not good enough. The Queen represents something more than just the State or the collection of laws in this country. She represents also the traditions, history and foundations upon which this country is built. Would-be citizens must swear allegiance to that. Natural born citizens don't have to, but if we emigrated to another country, say Spain, Sweden, Japan or any of a myriad of constitutional monarchies in the world, we would have to swear a similar oath - and they would not tolerate our refusal or clear disrespect for their traditions. Neither should Canadians tolerate this clear show of disrespect.

If Canadians decide as a people to form a republic one day, that's our decision and prerogative. Until that day, immigrants must swear allegiance to Her Majesty as they have always done, no exceptions. If they don't like it, there are plenty of republics they could have chosen to live in.

But this is not a debate about that. This is about whether or not we will allow newcomers to dictate to us our own immigration policies and procedures.

In any case, the Charter guarantees the rights of Canadian citizens, and until they swear that Oath, they are not citizens and so it guarantees them nothing. Canada owes them nothing.

[Knoss]

Still parliment should change the oath to be inline with the views of most Canadians.

[Paige]

Yes; Parliament should do it, not some judge on behalf on a non-citizen who's just being annoying.

[themasta]

Paige Paige:

Yes; Parliament should do it, not some judge on behalf on a non-citizen who's just being annoying.

Nicely put. I would also point out that the judge is likely appointed.

[themasta]

Knoss Knoss:

Still parliment should change the oath to be inline with the views of most Canadians.

What do you suppose that view is? I personally like having the monarchy. It has history and pedigree, no Dubya branches on that family tree. But the strongest argument for leaving well enough alone is that by cutting our ties to the monarchy, we wouldn't be improving at all. At best, we'd maintain the status quo, except with an elected President/King/Governor General who'd be a pain in the ass, expecting to exercise their sudden "legitimate" authority. I suppose that eventually we'll have to move away from the monarchy, but why jump the gun, wait until it's necessary before you start tinkering.