CPW

The Queen was sovereign from the moment of her accession on (I think) 6 February 1952. The coronation is a ceremonial event that publically marks what has already happened and enables the new ruler to make certain vows (before God, incidentally, and before the people) and the people to acclaim him or her as sovereign, but it has no effect on the King or Queen's position as sovereign. That is a different question, of course, from what happens to the crown at the state opening of parliament.

hot wasabi peas

Couldn't he just cross his fingers behind his back?

Tableland

She was sovereign from the second her father died, yes. She wasn't allowed to wear the Imperial State crown because she hadn't had her coronation. Why? Qui sait?

Liana

I was hoping you did Tableland

Hipster Contrarian

This is what I'll be doing if I ever get that far!

Iceman01

I have been in communication with him regularly in his endeavor to date. His action is fully supported. In my case (having lived in Canada for 11 years), this very Queen assented to a UK Bill of Parliament to strip me of Nationality thereby making me Stateless. I am still Stateless. Why in the earth would any person of sane and sound mind swear an oath to such person in such circumstances. It is totally perverse and repugnant for certain persons to comply with this oath requirement. Religious people are also fully justified in taking the same stance as me as:

A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.

An oath to Canada is fine but not to Queen - she had her day and has no role to play in this modern age. She is excess baggage. In any event, we will remain Stateless until they get shot of this archaic State symbol.

JAJ

What Act was this, then? British nationals have never been rendered stateless by an Act of Parliament.

And if you have been in Canada 11 years why on earth are you not a Canadian citizen anyway?

Iceman01

JAJ. This is a story which would result in a manuscript (it also one part of a large litigation case that is now in the European Court of Human Rights - one of the objectives with this litigation was to get them off their turf before 12 neutral judges & this has now been accomplished) . It all has to do with Southern Rhodesia and the UDI period. The Brits passed a special dispensation whereby certain persons could acquire British Nationality in "Accordance with the House of Commons Statement of 17th June 1968" (Note: There is no link to the BNA 1948). The coniving buggers then passed the Zimbabwe Act 1979 whereby they stripped this British Nationality on the basis of you having acquired it in the first place as you were a British Subject having been born in Southern Rhodesia. The case law on passing retroactive legislation was not well established at that time, however it is well established now. In Canada, retroactive legislation is not allowed under the Canadian Charter (Canada Constitution Act 1982). In addition to this, the majority of persons who were granted this had a female parent who was a CUKC otherwise than by descent. The BNA 1948 was discriminatory as you could not automatically acquire CUKC by descent through the mother (I am also not talking about a discretionary grant under Section 7 of the BNA 1948). This has been partially addressed with Amendment 4C of the BNA 1981 and the gender discrimination continues. This is one of the main parts of the ECHR case and the Brits are toast (3 cases have been won to date in the Canadion Courts on this specific issue - Bennar, Taylor and Augier are the main ones). You can see the cover up on this big time by simply reading the first case in the High Court with Hicks (he is from Oz). Refer to [31] of Hicks, R (On the Application of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]. 11300 people applied for British Citizenship by Descent under 4C of the BNA 1981 in the 12 months preceeding July 2005. 4000 approved and 7300 refused. I wonder why? The main reason is that they are born on or before the 6th February 1961 (the cut off date) and I am in this group. As this amendment came into force on the 1st April 2002, you can extrapolate how many are still being discriminated against - it is not a few hundred. I have checked the UK Statistics reports for 2002 to 2005 for grants of British Citizenship. These reports have the number of refusals as well as the basic reasons - none are detailed under Section 4C of the BNA 1981, hence we are attacking this as well. Zimbabwe Citizenship can not be obtained - The legislation is such that if you have been out of the country for more than 5 years, you loose it (if you are white!!!!). Further to this, the madman has imposed a requirement that you must renounce any legal right you may have to citizenship of the countries where your parents were born (if you are white!!!!). This is physically impossible to do as you can not renounce something that you do not have in the first place and no foreign diplomatic mission would accept such renunciation where it would ultimately make you stateless and also as one would not be a citizen in the first place (hence nothing to renounce). There are also court proceedings in the German Courts at present and this has to do with Article 116(2) of the German Basic Law where they are refusing to renaturalize Germans and their descendants where the former were stripped of German Citizenship under §2 of the 11th Regulation on the Third Reich Citizens Law of 25th November 1941. This matter is also linked to High Court proceedings that were filed last week in the UK and the Germans have been joined in it. The UK Attorney General is also helping me out on the UK proceedings. Moral of the story here is the domino effect - whoever started it off is the one who is to blame. Would you be swearing an oath to a Queen having gone through this nonsense. She is not my Queen and whoever wants to worship or revere her is most welcome to do so. The solution to the Canadian problem is simply to change the oath to an affirmation (much easier and appropiate). The Canadian Courts now give you this choice - you can affirm to an affidavit and do not have to take an oath on religious grounds.

Tableland

Britain betrayed various Commonwealth countries through successive governments once certain people decided it was in the British interest to join Europe. Australia and New Zealand were badly hit by the imposition of various tariffs on their goods. Even today the British government continues to betray Commonwealth citizens and lean in favour of Germans, etc., whom Australians and NZs died en masse defending Britain from. The latest betrayal was the arbitrary banning of New Zealand Anchor butter by Peter Mandelson who decided that free markets weren't so good after all, and preferred to betray Commonwealth citizens, dismiss the American model of economics and embrace that hugely successful Soviet-style of trade management instead.

JAJ

Upon independence of a colony, it was a normal practise for British nationality to be withdrawn from citizens of that country who became citizens of the new country on Independence Day. Unless they retained specific links to the United Kingdom or a place which remained a colony.

No-one was ever left "stateless" by this process.

Incidentally, Southern Rhodesia, although technically a colony (until 1980) was treated as a country for the purposes of the 1948 Act as it created its own citizenship laws in 1950.

What a colony does with its own citizens after independence is not within the jurisdiction of the British government.

And while you rant on about "gender discrimination" in British nationality law, there's some of that in most country's citizenship laws. Doesn't make it right, but you might want to investigate how Canada has treated pre-1977 children of Canadian mothers.

No-one is asking you to "worship or revere" the Queen of Canada. That's not necessary in a constitutional monarchy. And incidentally, she will remain Queen of Canada until such a time as the Canadian people decide otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...p_%28Canada%29

Once again - if you are in Canada so long, then why on earth are you not a Canadian citizen?

dbd33

In short then, you don't like the Queen being head of state of Canada and so have chosen not to be a citizen of Canada. That's fair enough, no one is asking you to be a Canadian. However, it's not a reason to change the Canadian citizenship procedure.

Iceman01

[QUOTE=JAJ;4797311]

You are probably not aware of the extensive litigation that has been conducted in the Canadian Courts in respect of the gender discrimination that was in effect continued under the Canadian Citizenship Act 1977. There are now three major heavyweight cases that the Government has now lost. I will give you the details and some basic comments. You can take a read through these cases. The Canadian jurusprudence is way ahead of most countries, specifically the U.K.

1. Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358

URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...canlii376.html

This was a 10 judge judgement in the Federal Court of Appeal which he eventually succeeded with (he was quiet determined to never give up and I give him credit for hanging in there). In the court transcript, this is stated:

[103] The differential treatment of children born abroad before February 15, 1977, of Canadian mothers under the Citizenship Act and Regulations violates s. 15(1) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1. It is the intention of these reasons to declare the legislation in question of no force or effect in so far as it authorizes this differential treatment: Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52.

The Canadian Government fought this case tooth and nail and came off second best. Having lost this one, it capitulated in the second case (Augier) which was slightly different (discrimination through the male line) as he was born out of wedlock to a Canadian Citizen father and his mother was a foreign national.

2. Augier v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2004 FC 613

URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/...2004fc613.html

3. Taylor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1053

URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/...006fc1053.html

Any person would consider the Canadian Government's resistance in this case as quite disgusting. This was the Canadian war bride case denying children born in the U.K. to U.K. woman who married Canadian soldiers after the 2nd world war. The Canadian Government is potentially going to appeal this case, however the public are up in arms about it. There is some classic prose by the Judge in this case.

[211] For instance, prior to the Civil War, many American nationals, slaves in particular, were not citizens. Slavery has been abolished in America and it would be inconceivable today to deny citizenship status to Afro-Americans on the ground that their ancestors in the nineteen century were not citizens themselves. Let’s nevertheless imagine the following fictitious scenario:

(a) An old citizenship statute provides that all “free men” born in this country are citizens of this state. Therefore, slaves and women are not citizens. The statute is discriminatory both on the grounds of gender and civil status of the person at the time of birth. Moreover, it excludes all black slaves based on their race.

(b) Thirty years later, the statute is amended to provide that all “free men and women” born in this country are citizens. In passing I note that the amending statute now gives a different legal qualification under the law to a continuing condition (being a woman) and an isolated event (being born free) which taken together did not previously confer citizenship status in the past. It can also be argued the presumption against retroactivity would prevent the “free women” born in this country before the coming into force of the amending statute from claiming that they were “citizens” since the date of their birth, and accordingly, that they were entitled prior to the coming into force of the amending statute to benefit from all the privileges and advantages of citizenship.

(c) Another 30 years later, the same statute is repealed and replaced by another statute which now provides that all persons born in this country after the coming into force of the new statute are citizens of this country. The new statute also contains a further provision to the effect that persons who were citizens immediately before its coming into force are citizens of this country. It might be argued that “age” is not an analogous ground of discrimination because the transitory provision in the new statute applies irrespective of the age a person has at the time of the coming into force of the new statute. The requirement imposed by the new statute for persons who were born before the coming into force of the new statute, is simply that they have to be citizens at that date. However, after 60 years, there may still be a group of black men and women living in this country who were not born as “free men and women”. This group did not have any citizenship rights under the old statute. Therefore, they continue to be denied citizenship status and are not natural-born citizens of this country. Accordingly, under the new statute, they would have no right to obtain a certificate of citizenship.

[212] I will now provide a second example under the current Citizenship Act. John and Mary are not married. They nevertheless decide to have children. John is Canadian and Mary is British. They live together in England. On February 14, 1977, Mary is admitted to a London hospital. At 11:58 p.m., she gives birth to Albert. A few minutes afterwards, Mary gives birth to a second child, Robert. The latter is born on February 15, 1977, at precisely 12:02 a.m. Both births are registered the same day. Albert, the older twin, is not a natural-born Canadian citizen (since he was born out of wedlock prior to February 15, 1977 and his mother is British) while Robert is a natural-born Canadian citizen (since he was born after February 14, 1977 and his father is a Canadian).

[213] After the coming into force of the Charter, certificates of citizenship are requested by the parents. They learn at this point that only Robert is a Canadian citizen. A variation of the same example involves Albert. He is now 25 years old and he wants to get a Canadian passport. His passport is refused because he is not Canadian. Despite the fact that Albert is the same age as his brother (after all, only four minutes separate the two brothers), he learns that he is not a Canadian citizen. Besides, he is also told that had he had the ability to claim citizenship, he lost it at the age of 24 when he failed to apply for retention of his citizenship. Again, I fail to see how a proceeding instituted by Albert or his parents to have the impugned legislative provision declared inoperative under the Charter and the Bill of Rights can be dismissed on the basis that the Charter or the Bill of Rights cannot apply retrospectively, unless restoring the “crystallization of rights” theory that has been rejected by the Supreme Court in Benner.
__________________________________________________ ______________
One of the major things that has been dealt with in the Canadian cases is the the issue of retroactive and retrospective application of the Charter when trying to acquire citizenship after the Charter has come into force. If you apply after the date that the Charter came into force (the UK equivalent is the HRA 1998), you will succeed on the grounds of discrimination as you are subjected to the discriminatory and differential treatment at the time of application on an enumerated discriminatory ground, that being age. A date of birth is an immutable characteristic which you can not change and it can not be held against you (from the Canadian cases).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++
You have asked the question why I do not become a Canadian citizen. I have indeed submitted an application in August 2005, however it has been specifically stated that I will not swear an oath to the Queen. The application no doubt has been suspended under §17 of the Citizenship Act, Chapter C-29 as the Minister has not issued a single document to date. They have accepted the application as I am tracking it on E-Cas. The Canadian Government knows very well that it is the quiet before the storm. This particular action will so happen to be used by Roach in due coarse as part of the class action suite against the Minister of Citizenship. in the Ontario Superior Court.

Iceman01

Please refer to the response already provided on this message. Before anyone jumps to a conclusion on what Charles Roach is doing (refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen etc.), they would be well advised to read the initial application filed in the Ontario Superior Court by him. I have attached it. His arguments to a number of people are justicable as well as justified (and that is why he has indeed succeeded in the first round of the battle). I so happen to be one peson who is in full agreement with him and there no doubt will be many others, however they may indeed be a minority. The majority just accept the oath of allegiance without knowing full well what they are doing as well as committing themself to. A few erudite folks will question this requirement on day one. The masses (those getting naturalized after a minimum 3 year residency term) who would be deemed to be the sheep, simply accept it with no questions asked for the sake of getting a Canadian Passport (the right to vote and the right to work for Canadian Federal Government Public Bodies may be so called benefits, however most people do not care two hoots about them as who wants to vote for a socialist government or who wants to work for an inept bunch of bureaucrats)??

roxye3

Hi Iceman. Please do not take this perosnally but try not talk for the majority. I have to say that it is a shame that you made an attempt.

The Majority take the oath because it has meaning to us. To be British or Canadian means to follow certain traditions and cultures which are strong to our countries. We have a Queen. We chose this because of how is relates to our being British or Canadian. Please beaware (of which I am sure you are) The Queen choses to remain seperate from the politics of British Immigration. She, as head of state (Which is her duty) ratifies (Rubber Stamps) Bills and acts. In short she did not strip you of your citizenship so please do not use her as your fuel to disapprove of our cultures and traditions as she is very much integrated in them including the Oath. I'll think you'll find that it was indeed the signifying power in Britain at the time that took British nationality from you. The elected body if you will.

If people wanting to be British & Canadian will not swear the Oath then I guess you can always Pledge Alligiance to the Flag of the United States of Whatever. Go Bush! Whoo!

If you want to be Canadian or British you have to understand that certain aspects of our lives and cultures means that you must take the whole package. That is the deal and it is a done deal.

In all I do respect your oppinion. I think you have every right to exercise it too but you have to undertand that you can't go into a culture, society or system knocking it. Get in, take the Oath then seek change but remember, try not to talk for the majority. As some one from the majority I do not "Accept it". I Appriciate it, love it and want it.

I wish you all the best.