itrus

March 7, 2015

 

Is Canada’s citizenship oath a violation of freedom of conscience and expression, or simply a tempest in a teacup?

 

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a law that requires immigrants to Canada to take an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II in order to obtain Canadian citizenship. The law was challenged by three individuals. One, from Ireland, said it violated his conscience. Another, a Rastafarian, said it was against her religion. The third challenged the law because he opposes the notion of a hereditary head of state.

 

The lawyer representing the trio argued that it’s unfair that native-born Canadians, many of whom oppose the monarchy, can express their views in good conscience, since they never have to take the oath themselves. A lower court ruling had previously upheld the wording, arguing that the oath to the Queen is purely symbolic. The Supreme Court got around the freedom of expression argument by saying new Canadians are free to disavow their allegiance to the Queen after obtaining citizenship. I’m no lawyer, but this reasoning almost sounds like it came after the fact, like an effort to rationalize a decision already made.

 

As a native-born Canadian with roots in Scotland and England, as well as Ireland and France (and most likely some Aboriginal blood as well), I’m conflicted on this issue. Certainly, I know of people who don’t care for the monarchy. Just about every Canadian has at some point been involved in a conversation over whether we should retain the Queen as our head of state. My own ancestors were not always treated well by the English, who were acting on behalf of some monarch or another. But I, personally, have never known any other circumstance. Elizabeth has been Queen longer than I’ve been alive, and my parents were born under the reign of George V, and I don’t believe I’ve suffered any for it.

 

I lived in the States for a time, and my son couldn’t attend Boy Scouts unless he was prepared to pledge allegiance to the American flag. It felt a little uneasy to me, and probably to him, but he did it. Doing it didn’t make him any more American, nor any less Canadian in his opinion. This is the attitude taken by many who become Canadian citizens.

 

In reality, most Canadians, or their ancestors, have immigrated from somewhere, either recently or some time ago. As much as they love being Canadian and love the maple leaf associated with it, the new Canadians-to-be do not care about the oath-taking ceremony and treat it like a sting in the eye. No one owes any allegiance to a foreign head of state, even as you stuff it down our throats.

 

Kalpeshkhumar Harkhani, a Gujarat-born, Ottawa-based, physiotherapist, believes you just have to accept the oath as part of the culture. He knows there are many people in India who still have a bad taste in their mouths for the British, but say he understands that it’s only symbolic. One doubts he would jump in front of a bullet that might be headed for one of the Royals but, then again, not many native-born Canadians would either.

 

In the end, the highest court in the land has spoken: If you want to become Canadian, you have to make the Queen a part of your life … at least until you receive your passport.

 

That’s all that Canadians-to-be care about, Ms Queen. So happy basking in self-adulation!