U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2015, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,541,240 times
Reputation: 8193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brusan View Post
yes, but that is just applying good old common sense and where governments are concerned, that is rarer than the proverbial hen's teeth.

I have taken an oath on more than one occasion and while i'm not a screaming anti-royalist, my armed forces oath of the early 60's still rankles when thought of to this very day with mention of the "queen, her heirs and successors". I remember as a teen thinking "what the hell, i'm volunteering fer chrissake; what better commitment do you freak'n need? Why would any oath to defend my country include her and her stupid progeny.?"

i've aged and mellowed (scouts honour) so assign that reference a value should i ever be occasioned to have to swear another oath with her mention within and would very likely just tune out completely for that part without the obvious holding of nose with left hand while raising right hand.
lol!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2015, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,691 posts, read 8,762,959 times
Reputation: 7309
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Yes, but that is just applying good old common sense and where governments are concerned, that is rarer than the proverbial hen's teeth.

I have taken an oath on more than one occasion and while I'm not a screaming anti-royalist, my armed forces oath of the early 60's still rankles when thought of to this very day with mention of the "Queen, her heirs and successors". I remember as a teen thinking "what the hell, I'm volunteering fer chrissake; what better commitment do you freak'n need? Why would any oath to defend my country include her and her stupid progeny.?"

I've aged and mellowed (scouts honour) so assign that reference a value should I ever be occasioned to have to swear another oath with her mention within and would very likely just tune out completely for that part without the obvious holding of nose with left hand while raising right hand.
Chevy may pop up and clarify, but it has always been my understanding that you aren't actually swearing allegiance to the person, The Queen, but to the crown and our form of government. This came up when certain people didn't want to swear allegiance to the Queen in their citizenship ceremony.

"The court of appeal ruled that new citizens were not “literally” swearing allegiance to the Queen but “symbolically” to Canada’s “form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,146,540 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
That is what impressed me about Calgary's mayor. He did not forget that he too is part of a minority that has in the past been demonized. It's always interesting to me how short a time it takes for a formerly discriminated against minority to turn around once they are 'in' and then forget themselves and discriminate in turn against the next group to come along. Calgary's mayor wasn't one of them.
That exists In the gay community to some degree when you start speaking of trans rights. With that said, as a nation I don't think we can afford to forget and we need to apply the same logic and the same respect for the right of the person to choose.. For a woman wearing the Niqab, there could be a variety of reasons she wears it. It isn't my place to judge or make assumptions. She has every right in Canada to tell her husband and her community to take her niqab and stick it where the sun doesn't shine, but ultimately she needs to make the choice about whether it oppresses her or is something that she values. If the choice is that she values it than we should value her choice and respect it. If we have oath requirements than we apply them but accommodate our requirements while respecting her values and I think that this is being done in a practical and respectful manner (one that transcends Stephen Harper!). I know its uncomfortable to people but its what sets us apart and I think makes us a stronger, more inclusive and respectful nation.

Hmmm Naheed Neshi for PM

Last edited by fusion2; 10-11-2015 at 11:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 09:10 AM
 
18,282 posts, read 10,383,572 times
Reputation: 13350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Chevy may pop up and clarify, but it has always been my understanding that you aren't actually swearing allegiance to the person, The Queen, but to the crown and our form of government. This came up when certain people didn't want to swear allegiance to the Queen in their citizenship ceremony.

"The court of appeal ruled that new citizens were not “literally” swearing allegiance to the Queen but “symbolically” to Canada’s “form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy”
Of course that mellowing aspect I mentioned earlier occasions the realization that if the words mean something other than their face value; they are easier to utter.

There will undoubtedly come a day when they are no longer pertinent at all and will be discarded in favour of a total redraft but until then "if it ain't broke, why fix it" seems to prevail without major objection.

I place a high value on our affiliation with the U.K. to the extent of living through all those times of flag debates and veteran's objections etc..

After having served in the military both my brother and I used to pick at the scab of my father's objection to the flag issue when those rare occasions of family gatherings and rum and cokes for the men out in the garage were tradition until one of those resulted in Dad finally admitting he liked the new flag and also the idea that went with it's inauguration.

Now it's me bemoaning the loss of the fine old traditions of "splice the main-brace" (Rum tot time) and the square rig uniform that I obsess over. Gads, the girls I met wearing that rig.....but I digress.......

Chevy is correct in every respect as regards our monarchial heritage and current influence it still has being of nothing but a positive for Canada. When it is time to consign the Monarchy to the annals of history only Canada will decide, but it will always remain in memory as a stable influence on our evolution as a country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2015, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,541,240 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Chevy may pop up and clarify, but it has always been my understanding that you aren't actually swearing allegiance to the person, The Queen, but to the crown and our form of government. This came up when certain people didn't want to swear allegiance to the Queen in their citizenship ceremony.

"The court of appeal ruled that new citizens were not “literally” swearing allegiance to the Queen but “symbolically” to Canada’s “form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy”
Mennonites never had a problem with the monarchy. They were much more comfortable dealing with monarchs than democracies, and overall, Imperial Russia was a golden age for Mennonites, where, due to the monarchy, for a long time they could live exactly how they wanted to. I'm reading a book right now, the story of one Mennonite, turned historian later in the US where the Mennonote diaspora took him, and he recounts how at the time leading up to the Revolution, pastors were preaching against democracy.

However, I digress. Sometime during the Bush presidency, someone once suggested that perhaps countries needed someone 'over' them, like a constitutional monarchy - something above the fray. And that in place of that, Americans became more religious and overly nationalistic. A monarchy being an idea that transcends the person.

I've been thinking about that since then, not quite knowing what I think of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top