Don’t want to pledge allegiance to the Queen? Seek comfort elsewhere: Macleans editorial
2015/12/04 1 Comment
More commentary on the recanting of the reference to the Monarchy in the citizenship oath:
It would be easier to be annoyed with Bar-Natan’s hypocrisy if he was less effusive in his praise for his new homeland. “I’m definitely proud to be a Canadian,” he told the Canadian Press after the ceremony. “It’s a wonderful country, a truly wonderful country, with one small iota that I disagree with.” That said, Canada is not an à la carte proposition in which new citizens should be encouraged to sign up for the bits they like and ignore the rest. Anyone who finds the totality of Canadian democracy repulsive is welcome to seek comfort elsewhere. Perhaps in time Bar-Natan will come to realize the bothersome oath to Queen Elizabeth the Second that irks him is actually an essential component of Canada’s remarkable tradition of freedom, tolerance and diversity.
When Britain took control of Quebec following the 1759 Conquest, Canada’s “citizens”—the 70,000 or so habitants who suddenly found themselves British subjects—were initially required to take an anti-Catholic “Test Act” oath to vote or hold public office. Concern for the rights of his French-speaking, Catholic citizenry led Quebec governor Guy Carleton to replace this offensive religious obligation in 1774 with a uniquely Canadian compromise: a secular oath pledging allegiance instead to the Crown. This early expression of Canadian constitutionalism allowed the Canadiens to participate fully in society and guaranteed their freedom of religion.
Today’s oath is a direct descendant of Carleton’s innovation. It is a deliberate effort to mould an inclusive society out of diverse parts—and the very reason Bar-Natan can become a Canadian while at the same time expressing dissent, however sanctimoniously. We should be celebrating this remarkable history of toleration, not disavowing it.
Source: Don’t want to pledge allegiance to the Queen? Seek comfort elsewhere
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
Ah, ah the Monarchy – what is the point? Well, I think there is a point. “Freedom” can be declared in the abstract, as a principle, or fought for in a revolution, but in most cases – even when declared as a principle or fought for in a revolution – freedom, when it is most solid, is the result of a long organic process of historical development, deeply rooted in a myriad of struggles, debates, and choices. Our freedoms in Canada come from deep traditions, stretching back, literally, into the mists of time, Anglo-Saxon tribes and kings, Roman Law, Judeo-Christian religion, the Magna Carta, Henry VIII’s break with Rome, the Elizabethan Compromise, the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, etc, etc. To which some would add native traditions, and the series of ‘compromises’ – imperfect and tragic as they were – made with first nations. Sometimes the symbols and rituals seem arcane and archaic, but they are vital, living symbols, even with all the glitz, glamor, and scandal, linking us to that long history, embodying the results of the struggle. In the case of the monarchy, it symbolizes the separation of the idea of the State from the partisanship of politics, and is one reason, perhaps, for our politics being less ‘paranoid’ than politics south of the border, where partisanship and the state are fused at the highest level in the office of the President. [Americans try to compensate for this, I think, with the “Cult of the Constitution”] So, while I am not a fervent monarchist, I still think of the monarchy as part of who and what we Canadians are, whether English or French-speaking, whether aboriginal or not, whether ‘new’ or ‘old’ Canadians, and, in fact, as part of who and what I am.