Is She Worth It ???
Jul 5th 2010 | 12:44 pm
#76
Happy in NB
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,020
From: Island View, New Brunswick
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Who owns the crown jewels and all the other gifts given to the Monarchy?
Personally I am happy to see the monarchy continue in whoever is positioned on it. It is always our safety valve in the case of the country needing a rallying point above the political power if it ever switched to some extreme end of the spectrum (came close with the last lot).
Jul 5th 2010 | 1:00 pm
#77
Corn Nibbler
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 254
From: Burlington, ON
Re: Is She Worth It ???
cornmatthew - have you been reading a different document? Most of the appellant's claims were thrown out, and he was given 30 days leave to resubmit more particular claims. As was pointed out, he is (or was not at the time of his action) a citizen, and thus had no charter rights!
Roach was (and is) a republican and argued the same point as you do, albeit from the opposite direction. As somebody opposed to the monarchy, he felt that he could not in all good conscience swear the oath. He argued that the oath requirement was an infringement of various Charter rights and wanted to be allowed citizenship without having to take the oath.
The court found, essentially, that the oath amounts to a declaration of allegiance to the Canadian constitution as personified by the Queen, rather than to the Queen personally or the monarchy specifically. And so there is nothing preventing a person who advocates peaceful constitutional change from taking the oath and becoming a citizen:
Against this constitutional background, the oath of allegiance has to be understood to be binding in the same way as the rest of the Constitution of Canada not forever, nor in some inherent way, but only so long as the Constitution is unamended in that respect.
It is a matter of common sense and common consent that it is neither unconstitutional, nor illegal, nor inappropriate to advocate the amendment of the Constitution. The proponents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords did not walk with trepidation in their advocacy of those amendments at least not on that score. Paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 itself "dares" constitutionally to legitimize the abolition of the monarchy. All that is required for constitutional legitimacy is that the constitutionally provided amending formula be followed.
Given that the appellant does not advocate revolutionary change (i.e., change contrary to the Constitution itself), [...] his freedom of expression (paragraph 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (paragraph 2(c)) and freedom of association (paragraph 2(d)) cannot conceivably be limited by the oath of allegiance, since the taking of the oath of allegiance in no way diminishes the exercise of those freedoms. The fact that the oath "personalizes" one particular constitutional provision has no constitutional relevance, since that personalization is derived from the Constitution itself. As it was put by Professor Frank MacKinnon, The Crown in Canada, Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1976, at page 69, "Elizabeth II is the personal expression of the Crown of Canada". Even thus personalized, that part of the Constitution relating to the Queen is amendable, and so its amendment may be freely advocated, consistently with the oath of allegiance, either by expression, by peaceful assembly or by association.
It is a matter of common sense and common consent that it is neither unconstitutional, nor illegal, nor inappropriate to advocate the amendment of the Constitution. The proponents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords did not walk with trepidation in their advocacy of those amendments at least not on that score. Paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 itself "dares" constitutionally to legitimize the abolition of the monarchy. All that is required for constitutional legitimacy is that the constitutionally provided amending formula be followed.
Given that the appellant does not advocate revolutionary change (i.e., change contrary to the Constitution itself), [...] his freedom of expression (paragraph 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (paragraph 2(c)) and freedom of association (paragraph 2(d)) cannot conceivably be limited by the oath of allegiance, since the taking of the oath of allegiance in no way diminishes the exercise of those freedoms. The fact that the oath "personalizes" one particular constitutional provision has no constitutional relevance, since that personalization is derived from the Constitution itself. As it was put by Professor Frank MacKinnon, The Crown in Canada, Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1976, at page 69, "Elizabeth II is the personal expression of the Crown of Canada". Even thus personalized, that part of the Constitution relating to the Queen is amendable, and so its amendment may be freely advocated, consistently with the oath of allegiance, either by expression, by peaceful assembly or by association.
Jul 5th 2010 | 3:55 pm
#78
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,113
Re: Is She Worth It ???
I would much rather have a Monarch than some slimy politician. 8million is peanuts compared to the revenue generated by all that surrounds the monarchy. I dread to think what the cost of separating crown lands and state revenues from them would take in the courts.
Who owns the crown jewels and all the other gifts given to the Monarchy?
Personally I am happy to see the monarchy continue in whoever is positioned on it. It is always our safety valve in the case of the country needing a rallying point above the political power if it ever switched to some extreme end of the spectrum (came close with the last lot).
Who owns the crown jewels and all the other gifts given to the Monarchy?
Personally I am happy to see the monarchy continue in whoever is positioned on it. It is always our safety valve in the case of the country needing a rallying point above the political power if it ever switched to some extreme end of the spectrum (came close with the last lot).
Exactly what I said earlier!
Very well put.
Im waiting for the "the monarch is a drain on the British tax payer" argument again...<yawn> is 60p a year really worth that much to them what can you actually buy for that?..... a pointless arguement.
Jul 6th 2010 | 2:40 am
#79
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,908
From: Oakville, ON
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Read the whole opinion, not just the bit at the end marked 'CONCLUSIONS'.
Roach was (and is) a republican and argued the same point as you do, albeit from the opposite direction. As somebody opposed to the monarchy, he felt that he could not in all good conscience swear the oath. He argued that the oath requirement was an infringement of various Charter rights and wanted to be allowed citizenship without having to take the oath.
The court found, essentially, that the oath amounts to a declaration of allegiance to the Canadian constitution as personified by the Queen, rather than to the Queen personally or the monarchy specifically. And so there is nothing preventing a person who advocates peaceful constitutional change from taking the oath and becoming a citizen:
Roach was (and is) a republican and argued the same point as you do, albeit from the opposite direction. As somebody opposed to the monarchy, he felt that he could not in all good conscience swear the oath. He argued that the oath requirement was an infringement of various Charter rights and wanted to be allowed citizenship without having to take the oath.
The court found, essentially, that the oath amounts to a declaration of allegiance to the Canadian constitution as personified by the Queen, rather than to the Queen personally or the monarchy specifically. And so there is nothing preventing a person who advocates peaceful constitutional change from taking the oath and becoming a citizen:
As the judgement states:
Obviously, the newly-elected Bloc Québécois Members of Parliament had no difficulty swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen, even though they are committed to working democratically to achieve a monarch-less independent state.
Last edited by Oakvillian; Jul 6th 2010 at 2:44 am.
Jul 6th 2010 | 2:50 am
#80
Corn Nibbler
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 254
From: Burlington, ON
Re: Is She Worth It ???
A few pages back on this thread, somebody claimed that a republican couldn't take the oath of allegiance. The court considered that argument and threw it out.
Jul 6th 2010 | 2:51 am
#81
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,908
From: Oakville, ON
Re: Is She Worth It ???
How right you are. I stand corrected. Note to self: read back through thread before wading in again....
Jul 8th 2010 | 3:10 pm
#82
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,272
Re: Is She Worth It ???
I'm with you - God save the Queen!
Jul 9th 2010 | 7:36 pm
#84
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,236
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Long Live the Queen. Long may the Monarchy reign.
Jul 9th 2010 | 7:38 pm
#86
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,236
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Exactly... otherwise we may as well just be America, or worse... France.
Jul 10th 2010 | 12:13 am
#87
Happy in NB
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,020
From: Island View, New Brunswick
