[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

You're in Canada. The King is head of state. Swearing an oath is, as you said, just words anyway. This is getting ridiculous.

Swear an oath to the Constitution.  Problem solved.  He won't have to swear an oath to the leader of the Anglican Church.  As I recall, a sincerely held religious belief is sufficient to warrant of many exemptions in this country.  Why should it be different here?

It's funny when it's Canada that gets accused of colonialism its always swept under the rug.  "minimal intrusion", "just words", etc

Ah, anyway, I will note that freedom of religion does have limits, apparently.

[viper37]

Can that be a legitimate defence in this case.?

Drunk?  Absolutely not.

Didn't the Supreme Court reverse prior rulings on this?  Or did it only apply to more serious crimes, like actual murder?

[viper37]

I read the headline first and thought "What a fuckin' moron!".  Then I realized it's a satyr.  Oh weel.  Can't mock PP there.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/09/pierre-poilievre-asks-extremist-group-to-go-back-to-threatening-other-peoples-families/

[ulmont]

I'm of two minds.  First of all you know I'm a royalist, I like keeping these bits of our heritage.  It's understood by all that it isn't an oath to King Charles personally, but to our entire constitutional system of government symbolized in the monarch.  And lawyers SHOULD be faithful and uphold that constitutional system.

But on the other hand - it's just words, and why make such a big deal about it?

1. That entire constitutional system of government symbolized in the British monarch (for sake of argument, I will limit this to areas outside of England) is by definition colonialist and oppressive.  Whether or not it violates aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as rights to freedom of conscience and religion, I defer to more local judicial polities to decide (absent that deference: oh hell yeah, this is some bullshit).

2. "It's just words, and why make such a big deal about it?" is one of those lovely arguments that can never help but apply equally well on both sides, to the point of uselessness.

You're in Canada. The King is head of state.

Found the colonialism again.

[Admiral Yi]

1. That entire constitutional system of government symbolized in the British monarch (for sake of argument, I will limit this to areas outside of England) is by definition colonialist and oppressive.

A symbolic head of state with no formal powers is hardly the definition of colonialist.

As to oppressive, I suppose a person who would  prefer not to take the oath could consider that oppressive.

[Josephus]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

[ulmont]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

1. I think it's somewhat worse when the king is some dickhead from across an ocean that conquered your lands less than 900 years ago.
2. You make an excellent point though; are you interested in hearing more about republicanism?

[crazy canuck]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

Not really. It does not make sense to swear to the monarch personally since our constitution was repatriated.  I won't go into the legal weeds, but that fundamentally changed our constitutional relationship with the crown.  It makes much more sense to pledge allegiance to the constitution now.

[Barrister]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

Not really. It does not make sense to swear to the monarch personally since our constitution was repatriated.  I won't go into the legal weeds, but that fundamentally changed our constitutional relationship with the crown.  It makes much more sense to pledge allegiance to the constitution now.

Legally speaking there's no reason you couldn't swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

But right there in the Constitution is the provision that executive authority resides with the monarch.  Section 9 in fact.  So it makes much more sense to swear allegiance to the monarch, who is a person, rather than the constitution, which is a piece of paper.

[HVC]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

Not really. It does not make sense to swear to the monarch personally since our constitution was repatriated.  I won't go into the legal weeds, but that fundamentally changed our constitutional relationship with the crown.  It makes much more sense to pledge allegiance to the constitution now.

Allegiance to the constitution? That sounds decidedly American  double agent!  

[Barrister]

New name for the BC Liberal Party: BC United.

On the one side, the BC Liberals aren't really connected to the Federal Liberals, and the Federal Liberals are a somewhat tarnished brand anyways, so a rebrand makes sense.

On the other side, it sounds like a Euro soccer/football club, not a political party.  And to some it might echo Alberta's United Conservative Party, which is probably not a positive connection to have.

[Valmy]

Yeah BC United sounds like something much more fun than a political party.

[Jacob]

Yeah BC United sounds like something much more fun than a political party.

Agreed.

On the other side, it makes sense because it is the union of provincial Liberals and Conservatives, opposing the NDP.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah BC United sounds like something much more fun than a political party.

Agreed.

On the other side, it makes sense because it is the union of provincial Liberals and Conservatives, opposing the NDP.

Yes, they needed to find something that had neither Liberal or Conservative in the name.  The BC Liberals were just in the right place at the right time to be a place holder when the BC Social Credit party collapsed.  I am a bit surprised the name change did not happen sooner.

[crazy canuck]

Found the colonialism again.

Yeah, but that's like saying British people should not swear loyalty to the king because that's feudalism.

Not really. It does not make sense to swear to the monarch personally since our constitution was repatriated.  I won't go into the legal weeds, but that fundamentally changed our constitutional relationship with the crown.  It makes much more sense to pledge allegiance to the constitution now.

Allegiance to the constitution? That sounds decidedly American  double agent!  

But that is technically what we do in Canada when we pledge allegiance to the Canadian Crown.  To the extent the Crown has any constitutional power now, it is exercised by the GG.  And it is that constitutional arrangement that the pledge is directed to.