Since 2003, Federal Civil Servants No Longer Take An Oath To The Queen


dumpthemonarchy
#1
This is new to me. Interesting, it says here that federal civil servants no longer take an oath to the queen when they start their jobs. Makes sense to me, their loyalty must be directed is to Canada and Canadian taxpayers who pay their salaries. Not a foreign leader where we need a passport to enter the land where her castles and palaces sit.

The monarchy is part of our history, but should no longer be a part of our politics.

The article also discusses how the federal Conservatives want to make symbols of the crown more visible.


Conservatives push for royal revival | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Conservatives push for royal revival 10



By Jessica Murphy ,Parliamentary Bureau First posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:17:37 EDT PM | Updated: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:25:02 EDT PM

OTTAWA - Canadian monarchists charge republicans have been trying for years to hide symbols of the Crown so no one would miss it when it was gone.

"Republicans were very clever," Robert Finch, chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, said.

"For years we saw symbols of the Crown slowly being eroded and hidden away.
Heck, the average person would have no idea that Canada was a monarchy."

But now the Conservative government is doing its best to revive the profile of the monarchy in Canada.

The latest in a series of subtle moves to highlight the Crown is the Harper government's decision to hang a portrait of the Queen in the lobby of the Foreign Affairs building, replacing paintings by Quebec artist Alfred Pellan.

"My first reaction is if feng shui at Fort Pearson is the most pressing issue at Foreign Affairs," NDP MP Pat Martin, a staunch republican, said Wednesday, referring to the Lester B. Pearson Building, where Foreign Affairs is headquartered.

But he shrugs off the redecoration as part of the Tories' move to market a more "conservative traditionalism" for political points.

"God, Queen and country, militarism is the motif they are trying to create," he said. "It's by design."

References to the Queen have been sneaking back into news releases - referring to the NDP as "Her Majesty's Official Opposition", for example - and the Governor General's website has been revamped and rewritten to highlight the Queen and underscore her role as head of state.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also placed himself front and centre during recent royal tours.
Tom Freda, director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, said the changes have been "noticed, alright," but shrugged them off as "morsels."

"They're all window dressing," he said, noting republicans won some battles that the Conservatives haven't tried to overturn so far.
In 2003, the government initiated a slew of changes in the public service, including dropping the requirement for federal civil servants to swear allegiance to the Queen.

In 2005, references to the Queen were removed from official letters to foreign heads of state, which are now issued in the name of the Governor General.

"Those (changes) are permanent," Freda said. "They cannot be revoked, they cannot be changed. Canada is on a republican path."
 
taxslave
#2
I didn't when I worked for DND four years ago. Good thing because I would never take such an oath. I do not recognize a foreigner as head of my country.
 
Corduroy
#3
A victory for multiculturalism.
 
Colpy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

A victory for multiculturalism.

That is not a good thing.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#5
There's good multiculturalism and bad multiculturalism. Not taking an oath to a person, living in a palace or castle, who knows little about Canada and less of the country's day to day affairs, is good multiculturalism. When they are working, do govt employees believe they are serving queen Elizabeth? I doubt it. Most believe they are working for Canada and Canadians. So not taking the oath is honesty. It is eliminating empty words from our political system.
 
Omicron
#6
You guys are only saying all this because you don't know how the Canadian government is structured at the top levels.

The issue is not about the "Queen"... it's about an office called the "Crown".

The Crown is an office which does a function, and anyone could be sitting in it insolong as they can hold a pen and sign documents.

In order for Canada to separate itself from England as socially-peaceful as possible back in the 19th century, things were done so that Canada could extract itself from Britain in the least feather-ruffling ways possible. MacDonald was making a *point* out of how autonomy could be achieved without revolution.

They kept the office of "The Crown" because at the time huge debates were happening all over the new world about how there were to be checks-and-balances in order to prevent things like branches of government being taken over by a private-sector interest like Goldman's Sack in order to bring it down and into the hands of financial Barons via a series of up-and-down sell-high-buy-low recessions and booms. (Benjamin Franklin was *furious* about that loophole). The possibility of that was a big part of the incentive behind Canadian fore-thinkers insisting upon the border.

At this point the "Queen" takes zero money from Canada. Zilch. She's just the holder of a thing called the "Canadian Crown", which represents an office, and the deputy-minister of that office is the Governor General.

By tradition it's held by a lineal descendant of the Royal house of England, but it doesn't have to be.

The Canadian Crown is not the same as the British, New Zealand, Australian nor Canadian Crowns.

In 1982 Elizabeth told Trudeau she'd hand the Canadian Crown to Andrew if he could move to Ottawa and set up office there. For some bizarre reason Trudeau turned it down, even though it would have generated a tonne of tourist revenue from Americans coming up to watch pageantry. It would have created a tonne of work for Canadians currently working in the movie set-dec and costume industry... designing and building guilted carriages with those guys who ride on the back of carriages wearing fancy cloths and white wigs... which could have been jobs for guys good for not much else... etc. etc.

Anyway, the point is... tell me Mr. "dump the monarchy" if you know anything about the structure of the Canadian system of government, and tell me if you know what role the Crown plays, and tell me how dumping the monarchy would have done a better job of protecting us from the NY style uber-neocons who just took the nuts out the US economy, such that now it's going double-dip into another recession, which means they're never getting out... they are now going to have to permanently restructure down to something around Argentina's standard of living... which means we're stuck with a dollar higher than theirs...

... and how everyone who knows knew that it was going to mean shifting export of resources from the US to China, which is exactly what is happening, when in fact it would have been long-term socially wizer to have shifter the export-trade to Japan, because they're still making the best stuff...

You don't have a big-picture clue what you're talking about.

So tell me... in the world of checks and balances... what role does the Crown play in Canadian politics?
 
Corduroy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

So tell me... in the world of checks and balances... what role does the Crown play in Canadian politics?

None. Canada is a country without almost no separation of powers. The legislative branch has near total power over the executive (the Crown) and an easily achieved veto (simple majority) over most of the judiciary's important powers. The only thing the Canadian legislature has no power over in terms of the Crown is the law of succession, which it technically has to consult the legislatures of Commonwealth realms over.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

You guys are only saying all this because you don't know how the Canadian government is structured at the top levels.

The issue is not about the "Queen"... it's about an office called the "Crown".

The Crown is an office which does a function, and anyone could be sitting in it insolong as they can hold a pen and sign documents.

In order for Canada to separate itself from England as socially-peaceful as possible back in the 19th century, things were done so that Canada could extract itself from Britain in the least feather-ruffling ways possible. MacDonald was making a *point* out of how autonomy could be achieved without revolution.

They kept the office of "The Crown" because at the time huge debates were happening all over the new world about how there were to be checks-and-balances in order to prevent things like branches of government being taken over by a private-sector interest like Goldman's Sack in order to bring it down and into the hands of financial Barons via a series of up-and-down sell-high-buy-low recessions and booms. (Benjamin Franklin was *furious* about that loophole). The possibility of that was a big part of the incentive behind Canadian fore-thinkers insisting upon the border.

At this point the "Queen" takes zero money from Canada. Zilch. She's just the holder of a thing called the "Canadian Crown", which represents an office, and the deputy-minister of that office is the Governor General.

By tradition it's held by a lineal descendant of the Royal house of England, but it doesn't have to be.

The Canadian Crown is not the same as the British, New Zealand, Australian nor Canadian Crowns.

In 1982 Elizabeth told Trudeau she'd hand the Canadian Crown to Andrew if he could move to Ottawa and set up office there. For some bizarre reason Trudeau turned it down, even though it would have generated a tonne of tourist revenue from Americans coming up to watch pageantry. It would have created a tonne of work for Canadians currently working in the movie set-dec and costume industry... designing and building guilted carriages with those guys who ride on the back of carriages wearing fancy cloths and white wigs... which could have been jobs for guys good for not much else... etc. etc.

Anyway, the point is... tell me Mr. "dump the monarchy" if you know anything about the structure of the Canadian system of government, and tell me if you know what role the Crown plays, and tell me how dumping the monarchy would have done a better job of protecting us from the NY style uber-neocons who just took the nuts out the US economy, such that now it's going double-dip into another recession, which means they're never getting out... they are now going to have to permanently restructure down to something around Argentina's standard of living... which means we're stuck with a dollar higher than theirs...

... and how everyone who knows knew that it was going to mean shifting export of resources from the US to China, which is exactly what is happening, when in fact it would have been long-term socially wizer to have shifter the export-trade to Japan, because they're still making the best stuff...

You don't have a big-picture clue what you're talking about.

So tell me... in the world of checks and balances... what role does the Crown play in Canadian politics?

The word is queen in the oath.

I have a history degree and political science minor and I think the office of the crown stuff is just blah blah blah. And most Canadians don't think about it and don't want to think about it. And you know what's good for us? Laughable. Crown stuff is snob stuff.

We've had this discussion before, when the PM, any PM, makes a decision, he just does it. He's the head crown guy that makes it all happen. I have never heard any PM talk about the crown except the endless gibberish of being a minster of the crown, with no explanation why that matters. They don't explain because they can't as it has no resonance among Canadians.

The province of Canada had rebellions because they wanted more democracy against the family compact. You people always twist the crown so those who are against it, want less democracy. That's just plain wrong. More snobbery.

Camada is a unique and great country because we can reboot, start over and leave the useless junk behind, because we want a better future. Let other countries worry about their grand past and glories. Most here just couldn't be bothered. Canada does not need the crown to have a functioning democracy.
 
Omicron
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

None. Canada is a country without almost no separation of powers.

Wrong.

If people gather en-mass and ask, the Crown can fire a bad Prime Minister.

The PM's office and all the money he gets from neocons don't want you to know that.

If people gather en-mass and ask, the Crown can fire a bad Prime Minister.

The PM's office and all the money he gets from neocons don't want you to know that.

Even notice how one of the first things Harper snuck was severence from an oath to the Crown?

So... if no check/balance from being able to ask the Crown to fire a bad PM, what would you suggest as a check/balance?

This is serious sh-t, because yesterday the President just got check-mated by evils on the Republican side, where he had to authorize an increase of debt limit with no plan to pay it off... insisted upon by the Republicans who are doing some sort of cocaine tripping thrill of taking over and/or collapsing a mega-nation by virtue of using laws against itself.

Most of you child-like little twits who wouldn't notice the difference if you'd been born in caveman times don't care... for you it's just something fun to rant against like how when you were on a hunt it was fun to make fund of the caribou before you went to charge them in order to not feel so guilty if they gouged and killed you... hey... your death fed the tribe...

But seriously, this time the Americans have truly ****ed up into the hands of the most jerk-off forms of pig-money makers to the extent that those pigs are going to be the juiciest oofferings to hell, worth more that ten thousand normal people, but it's taking down the global economy, and Canada must shift trade ASAP.

This is bad.

You think we could get saved by a Bank of Canada dropping interest rates to zero (I don't know if you guys know how serious that was), but they've done it again...

... The US gave the turkeys who caused the last recession a bale-out, and those same turkeys just did it again.

This is serious.

In the old days our PM's made multilateral peace-and-defense alliances with every nation to make it impossible for us to be attacked without attacking someone else.

We take that umbrella, still in writing, and start with I know Iranians who would trade Persian carpers for southern-Alberta lamb in a second if the link could be established.

There are a trillion ways to use a resource-based economy to trade globally. It doesn't have to be selling tonnes of sand-tar to the US nor tonnes of coal to wherever....


We need proper trade-justice so a farmer of herbs in northern BC classified in India as rare get a properly mediated trade.

Suppose that's implemented.

Suppose the same guys who just de-regulated the US down into neanderthal guts comes along and tells you such trade regulations should be deregulated.

Pretend you're the first settlers along the Tigris-Euphrates discovering you could grown grain to grind and make bread for the mother to feed her kids and for you to stick in a pot to ferment to make beer.

The idea gets out, and others pour in.

Next thing you know it's over-populated such that everyone is elbowing, not to mention the part about how you do battle with the stupid goat herders who used to graze there such that you kick them up and over the green arche into Palestine, where they sulk and write stories about Cain killing Able, feeling like God loved Able more, as they raise their goats in Palestine, when the toughness of life in Palestine led to acceptance of God's perspective better.

You guys act like you don't know how it is Germany keeping the EU together.

Poetic, isn't it.

It's like how Japan took over 7-% of the economy of Asia after not getting it via the military option.

That means the rules of international trade enable achievement of the same objectives without bloodshed.

It means if Nazi Germany had won the war, then today it would be going nuts collecting taxes from Greeks.

It means if Hitler had won the war he'd be laughing over the seas and making deals with neo-Nazis taking down American domicracry, and the joke would be that if they'd had a leader they never would have got into the mess.

None of you have ever listened to FM CBC French...have you?

None of you nuts would know what might be required to sustain an attitude of right verses wrong.

In the mean time, the traditional trading partner to the south was warned by me a trillion times if he didn't stop acting like a zombie that I would trade with China, which is going to require some serious discipline.

I told them I was not going to accept the 200 million immigrants offered to Carter.

I have a system based upon making survival what they call trade from climate change,

Your beauty shall be recorded.

You guys are so nuts you don't know anything about how to save the planet.

You don't know anything about how to set up tents in Antarctica.

You guys are insane. You don't know anything about people willing to to be on the odd side of assassination of the Russian Monarchy, and you ****s give nothing but give foregiveness to the evil side of capitalism for them to go along with?

You're nuts.

You don't know anything about how to head off a global war by virtue of ****ing stupid MBA management.
Last edited by Omicron; Aug 5th, 2011 at 04:11 AM..
 
Corduroy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

You guys are insane.

Really? Because we're not the ones who just wrote a rambling wall of text about absolutely nothing, jumping from one random tangent to the next. Any sane person reading your post can immediately notice a very profound psychosis. You start off addressing the point, repeat yourself and then with little logical connection your scrambled brain jumps to an unrelated topic - Republicans in the United States apparently destroying the world. You then proceed to quite incoherently dump all your other issues, none of them related to the topic at hand, with anger and insults. Some of them I was able to pick out but most of it is so obscured I doubt that even you, after several hours have passed, have any idea what you were talking about.

I challenge anyone on this forum to read your post and understand more than 20% of it. It's largely a incoherent, non-cohesive, poorly- written, word salad of nonsense.

On topic, you should educate yourself on the separation of powers. If you Google its opposite ("fusion of powers") you will find that Canada is a textbook case (literally in university textbooks). All Westminster-based democracies have a fusion of powers to varying degrees, but Canada more so than others.
 
Omicron
#11
You never listened to Winston C. outside of parliament.

It was supposed to be funny while maybe you catching a point.

Re-read it with a Churchillian accent.
Last edited by Omicron; Aug 5th, 2011 at 03:30 PM..
 
dumpthemonarchy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Wrong.

If people gather en-mass and ask, the Crown can fire a bad Prime Minister. .


Your first line makes little sense. Who is "the Crown"? It must be a person to fire another person. It cannot simply be a process. Effective govt requires a clear mechanism, especially in politics. Otherwise it is Kafkaesque and undemocratic.

But that I maintain is how people think the crown may work in Canada. If something severe did occur, then the crown, governor-general, or even the queen, could "do something." That is always left undefined, likewise with some extreme event. It is perhaps one of your mysterious checks on Canadian govt, but has no reality in everyday govt practices.
 

Similar Threads

29
Oath of Allegiance
by triedit | Dec 14th, 2007