Colby Cosh: Supreme Court to decide which comes first — Crown oath or Sikh faith

Commentary more nuanced than the header:

…Over the remainder of the 19th century, the great hero of world atheism, Charles Bradlaugh, fought successfully in England for the principle that oaths could be replaced by “affirmations,” allowing unbelievers a loophole into political life and all secular professions. This option is in fact available under the Alberta Legal Profession Act, and was given to Wirring, but the difference in wording between “swear” and “affirm” didn’t seem to assuage his religious feelings. The core problem seems to be the notion of “allegiance,” but at common law all citizens were understood to owe allegiance to the sovereign, as part of a reciprocal obligation, whether we like it or not. Maybe this is some of the meat left on the bone that the Supreme Court apparently hopes to gnaw; I don’t know that anyone expected them to give leave to an appeal of Wirringat all.

Source: Colby Cosh: Supreme Court to decide which comes first — Crown oath or Sikh faith