Talk:Oath of Allegiance (Canada)

Charles Roach & Ashok Charles
The information of Charles Roach and Ashok Charles focuses more on his requirement to swear the Oath of Citizenship, and thus belongs at article on that subject, where there is already what is mostly a duplicate of what is here.

The letter to the editor by Ashok Charles that is cited as evidence of Charles submitting notorised documents and having received responses does not affirm that this was done, only that Charles says it was so. --G2bambino (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The information concerning Charles Roach and Ashok Charles focus on their opposition to their presence of the Oath of Allegiance within the Oath of Citizenship. There is no evidence that either oppose other portions of the Oath of Citizenship but it is evident that both are in opposition to the Oath of Allegiance wherever it occurs within official protocol. As such, their opposition is clearly to the Oath of Allegiance in particular and reference to the actions they have taken to express their opposition is clearly appropriate to a section of the page on the oath which is headed "Opposition and Augmentation".
 * Citation for an article in The National Post and an additional letter to the editor in Maclean's Magazine, by Ashok Charles, describing his oral and written recantation of the oath have been provided. If a description of an action involving Citizenship and Immigration Canada appears in one of the two national newspapers, and the only national news magazine, and is not contradicted by the department it can be taken as reliable.
 * There's no distinction made in the case before the court; it is the Citizenship Act that is being challenged, not the content of the oath specifically: "the application is a straightforward Charter-based constitutional challenge of a federal law." The information here is also a duplicate of what appears at Oath of citizenship (Canada).
 * No, that is still just Ashok's claim of what happened. Third party sources are needed to make it a fact beyond simply what he says. --G2bambino (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The court documents cited in the article read:
 * "2.11.The Applicant has also requested of two citizenship judges that he be relieved of taking the oath or affirmation insofar as it requires him to swear to “be faithful to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her Heirs and Successors.” But the said citizenship judges informed him that the oath or affirmation would not be administered to him without the inclusion of those particular words.
 * 3.The Applicant takes issue with the form, content and religious character of the oath. Specifically, the Applicant objects to the making of any commitment of loyalty or allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors that is binding on his conscience, whether that commitment be evinced by way of oath or affirmation.
 * 4 The Applicant is willing to take a modified affirmation to be a loyal Canadian citizen, to obey the laws of Canada and to fulfill his citizenship duties."
 * Especially in consideration of section 4, it is clear that Mr. Roach's action is seeking only that exemption from reciting the Oath of Allegiance be available to himself and others who have otherwise qualified for Canadian citizenship.
 * Mr. Charles' action and the Citizenship Department's response is described in The National Post story cited: "renounced the reference to the Queen in 2004, and even got an acknowledgement from the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration." The uncontested letter which followed provides further clarification of the action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivashok (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Roach does object specifically to the part of the Oath of Citizenship that requires allegiance to the monarch. However, the case is against the Citizenship Act, and the Oath of Citizenship therein. That oath is not the same as the oath that is the subject of this article; the Oath of Citizenship is not two oaths in one.
 * If acknowledgement is supported by a third party source, the rest of it still remains Ashok's (your?) claim. --G2bambino (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oath of Citizenship contains the Oath of Allegiance in its entirety. As such, anyone consulting Wikipedia for information on the Oath of Allegiance would, naturally, be interested in its appearance within other oaths and the reactions that such inclusion has generated.

Are you saying that acknowledgement from Citizenship and Immigration Canada is conceded but not what was acknowledged (ie. renunciation as opposed to recantation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivashok (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The appearance of its variant in other oaths is clearly mentioned in this article already, with all the pertinent links.
 * Claims about the contents of the reply appear to remain hearsay. --G2bambino (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the current article, if the section in dispute were to be removed, there would be no reference at all to the inclusion of the Oath of Allegiance within the Oath of Citizenship. Even if we were to include the Citizenship Oath in the paragraph which mentions that the Oath of Allegiance "forms a part of the oaths taken new members of provincial and municipal police forces", we would still have to ensure that those consulting this page know that its inclusion in the Citizenship Oath generated opposition. This information is as pertinent as the information detailing the opposition that was generated by its requirement for civil servants and members of parliament (which are already part of the Opposition and Augmentation section).


 * The reference to Mr. Charles' action, supported by one newspaper article and two uncontested letters to the editor in national journals, gives anyone consulting this page a very clear understanding of what the action entailed, including the response of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Of course, a wide variety of supporting citations are offered in Wikipedia and it is part of the nature of consulting such a reference source that each individual must decided how much credibility they want to assign a cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivashok (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please indent you comments using consecutively more colons. Secondly, please sign your comments using the four tildes, as instructed at the top of your screen.
 * Your first concern is not true; mention of the requirement of allegiance to the sovereign as part of the Oath of Citizenship was, and still is, mentioned at the bottom of the Purpose and composition section.
 * Supposed lack of contest to a letter means nothing; we need verifiable sources to support your claims. The letter to the editor affirms Ashok's (your?) words, but does nothing to affirm what the ministry of Citizenship & Immigration did or said. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Redux
An anon editor inserted a large amount of information regarding the legal challenge against the Oath of Citizenship by Charles Roach. Per the above earlier discussion, I removed this, though it was once again restored. The court case focuses on the Citizenship Act and its requirement that new citizens take the Oath of Citizenship, which, though it contains words of allegiance to the monarch, is not itself the Oath of Allegiance. Further, I'm not sure what reason there could be to have identically duplicated information on two separate articles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CSIS and RCMP oaths
The oaths of allegiance for CSIS and the RCMP have been replaced with oaths of office:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.137.169 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

HCCanada
This article says: "Allegiance is not, however, given to that royal figure as an individual so much as to the Crown and other institutions and concepts the sovereign represents within both the federal and provincial spheres,[n 2][10][12]" This is not true. The allegiance is very specifically given to the INDIVIDUAL who lawfully holds the Crown. That's because of s. 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, which says: "III.  EXECUTIVE POWER Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen  9.  The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Source: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html

What this means is that, in LAW, all the powers distributed by the Constitution to the Executives of the federal and provincial levels are VESTED in Elizabeth Windsor, personally, as the individual holding the Crown, making her LEGALLY LIABLE for abuse of power by any member of the various Executives. The QUEEN's JOB is to protect the citizen (subject) from abuse of power; she SWORE a CORONATION OATH prescribed by ancient documents recognizing our rights and still valid and legally binding. SHE must ensure that we always have those rights; HER job is to police and control her Executives to ensure they don't act in any way that deprives us of those recognized rights.

There are too many self-serving government people these days who don't want this known, so they pretend that ALLEGIANCE is merely "a technicality", or that it is NOT to the QUEEN herself (in particular by characteriznig her as a "foreign" Queen, or pretending that the oath of allegiance is "colonial", or is just "symbolic" of lip-service paid to "institutions". This is all hogwash.  The OATH of allegiance is NOT COLONIAL, it's the only safeguard we all have as citizens of Canada against Executive abuse of power; and if we don't know this, we can't invoke the LEGAL RIGHT it confers on each and every one of us to call the Queen herself on the carpet if she doesn't do her job properly.  The Queen is not just some elitist, remote archetype or a member of a foreign royal family; she is an OFFICER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA, she has a written job description that was enacted in 1867, and if she doesn't see that it's done the way it's written, she can be REMOVED, as were Kings before her who also attempted to subvert the Constitution. It would do us all good to remember those ancient revolutions; they prove that the PEOPLE have the power, and the purpose of that power is precisely to ENFORCE the LAWFUL CONSTITUTION, not overthrow it by kicking the monarch out for a new regime.

The OATH OF ALLEGIANCE is thus a promise TO THE PERSON who herself is already UNDER OATH to guarantee our rights. It's a promise not to embarass the monarch by violating the terms of her CORONATION OATH.

Kathleen Moore, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
 * This is all quote true. The leading case is Calvin's Case.  Allegiance is due to the King or Queen by the law of nature, it is natural allegiance, if you are born within the Sovereign's Dominions.  Allegiance is owed to the natural body, so there is not one allegiance to the Queen of of Scotland, one to the Queen of England. We owe our allegiance to the Her Majesty the Queen.


 * "It is true that the King hath two capacities in him : one a natural body, being descended of the blood Royal of the realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; and the other is a politic body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man (and in 21 E. 4. 39 b. is called a mysticall body ;) and in this capacity the King is esteemed to be immortal, invisible and not sbject to death, infirmity, infancy, nonage &c...Now, seeing the King hath but one person, and several capacities, and one politic capacity for the relam of England, and another for the realm of Scotland, it is necessary to be considered, to which acpacity ligeance is due. And it was resolved that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politic capacity, and the politic capacity as it were appropraited to the natural capacity), and it is not due to the politic capacity only, that is, to his Crown, or kingdom distinct frmo his natural capacity, and that for diver reasons..."  (7 Co. Rep. 10 b.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:9CD8:82E3:71F9:AF1E (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Citizenship
The Citizenship Act requires that all new Canadians swear an Oath of Allegiance to HM as well as promise to obey Canadian Law and do their duty as a Canadian Citizen. The Act also mandates Citizenship Judges to administer the Oath. Citizenship Judges are sworn in the same manner as MP's and other Judges. Reference the Citizenship Act of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.156.109 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Oath of Citizenship is a different oath to this one, despite containing some of the same words. It's also already mentioned at the end of the "Opposition and augmentation" section here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Oath of Allegiance (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081219172416/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-017.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-017.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708014149/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2003/CMN_summer_2003_Update-6.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2003/CMN_summer_2003_Update-6.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206201330/http://www.monarchist.ca:80/new/quotes.html to http://www.monarchist.ca/new/quotes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Oath of Allegiance (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141210231140/http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/publctn/101/102-eng.cfm to http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/publctn/101/102-eng.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1994/1994canlii3453/1994canlii3453.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oath of Allegiance (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5qXvz463C?url=http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf to http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Status of PQ members
What is the status of the 3 PQ MNAs? Are they MNAs or not? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They've been seated & weren't required to take the allegiance oath to the king. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegiance to the natural person
There is a contradiction in the article where it says the oath is to the natural person then says it is not to the natural person.

An earlier editor made the point that the concept of allegiance was established as to the natural person not to the office. A more recent English case found that allegiance was owed to both the person and the office.

OTOH, foreigners in the American colonies could swear allegiance to the king in order to become naturalized, but it was considered local allegiance. It would not be recognized outside the colony.

The source used is by a constitutional lawyer but it is not in an academic source and cites no legislation or case law.

Does anyone have any good sources?