Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain c
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next
Freakinoldguy @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:09 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
I don't need to do shit. The oath is a relic of a past many no longer support. It should justify itself, rather than other people having to justify why they think swearing loyalty to the 19th century is fucking stupid.
It's tradition. Tradition is important. Maybe you're still too young to understand that. Watch Fiddler on the Roof. There's a whole song about it!
Right now ISIS is apparently taking sledgehammers to priceless historical artifacts in Iraq. These objects are made out of stone. They have no intrinsic value. Yet we get upset when someone takes a sledgehammer to them. Same kind of thing.
Freakinoldguy @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:11 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
Glad I was born here, because FUCK THE OATH!
Don't like the current one? Maybe this one would be more to your liking?
$1:
I, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, joining the ranks of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, do hereby take the oath of allegiance and do solemnly vow to be an honest, brave, disciplined and vigilant fighter, to guard strictly all military and State secrets, to obey implicitly all Army regulations and orders of my commanders, commissars and superiors.
I vow to study the duties of a soldier conscientiously, to safeguard Army and National property in every way possible and to be true to my People, my Soviet Motherland, and the Workers' and Peasants' Government to my last breath.
I am always prepared at the order of the Workers' and Peasants' Government to come to the defence of my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - and, as a fighter of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, I vow to defend her courageously, skilfully, creditably and honourably, without sparing my blood and my very life to achieve complete victory over the enemy.
And if through evil intent I break this solemn oath, then let the stern punishment of the Soviet law, and the universal hatred and contempt of the working people, fall upon me.
J. STALIN
Pravda
25 February 1939
I vow to study the duties of a soldier conscientiously, to safeguard Army and National property in every way possible and to be true to my People, my Soviet Motherland, and the Workers' and Peasants' Government to my last breath.
I am always prepared at the order of the Workers' and Peasants' Government to come to the defence of my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - and, as a fighter of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, I vow to defend her courageously, skilfully, creditably and honourably, without sparing my blood and my very life to achieve complete victory over the enemy.
And if through evil intent I break this solemn oath, then let the stern punishment of the Soviet law, and the universal hatred and contempt of the working people, fall upon me.
J. STALIN
Pravda
25 February 1939
Jabberwalker @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:17 pm
It's more than tradition. Constitutional Monarchy is the fundamental structure of our country and at this point in our history, it is just about impossible to change that.
You would have to get all of the Provinces to agree, you see ... Quebec included. Our provinces can't agree on the shade of merde.
DanSC @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:24 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
It's tradition. Tradition is important. Maybe you're still too young to understand that. Watch Fiddler on the Roof. There's a whole song about it!
It's much more than tradition. HM the Queen is the foundation upon whose authority Canada even exists. All Canadian laws are her laws. All sovereignty is invested in her. You have to swear loyalty to the Queen because she quite literally is Canada.
CDN_PATRIOT @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:25 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
I don't need to do shit. The oath is a relic of a past many no longer support. It should justify itself, rather than other people having to justify why they think swearing loyalty to the 19th century is fucking stupid.
The beauty of all of this is that we live in a free country. Which means your free to leave at any time. I'll even buy you a plane ticket to anywhere you want to go, providing the destination is Afghanistan. I hear they love malcontents over there.
-J.
Jabberwalker @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:28 pm
DanSC DanSC:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
It's tradition. Tradition is important. Maybe you're still too young to understand that. Watch Fiddler on the Roof. There's a whole song about it!
It's much more than tradition. HM the Queen is the foundation upon whose authority Canada even exists. All Canadian laws are her laws. All sovereignty is invested in her. You have to swear loyalty to the Queen because she quite literally is Canada.
It's more than a foundation. It is the precise Constitutional/legal structure. It is far more than a tradition or cultural nicety.
Hyack @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:34 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
I'll even buy you a plane ticket to anywhere you want to go, providing the destination is Afghanistan. I hear they love malcontents over there.
With his attitude regarding Canada and the Queen over the years I think there are quite a few here who would be willing to help with the price of a ticket (one way). Count me in!
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:42 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
It should justify itself
Doesn't it though? You would think people should be loyal to the country they choose to call home. The Crown represents the country, and the Queen represents the crown.
Would you rather we swear to a government or party?
andyt @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:53 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
It should justify itself
Doesn't it though? You would think people should be loyal to the country they choose to call home. The Crown represents the country, and the Queen represents the crown.
Would you rather we swear to a government or party?
Queen as head of state seems to me to be the government. Ie the government acts in her name. I don't like swearing to the queen and her successors - how about swearing to the crown, as an abstract symbol rather than a person.
Here's the US version:
$1:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Except for the God bullshit, that's much better. Swearing allegiance to the constitution and laws, not any governing entity. (Funny tho, I thought the US allowed dual citizenship, yet make citizens renounce allegiance to any foreign state. How does that work?)
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:02 pm
By government, I meant as in "The Harper government" Or whomever the governing party is at the time. I think that's wrong. If your government goes batshit there is no reason to be loyal to them. But an impartial head of state who represents the nation makes sense to me.
That said, I could go along with swearing to The Crown. That said, to me "The Crown" and "The Queen" are for the most part interchangeable.
I don't get it either. Seems like a technicality that could go either way in the court. What would take precedent?
Unsound @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:05 pm
Constitutions can be changed, they can and should be debated. They are legal, not mythical or transcendent in nature. The Queen(or King) is a representation of the idea of Canada, of something greater than any individual. The actual heasd that crown rests on in unimportant. It's the idea.
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:07 pm
Unsound Unsound:
Constitutions can be changed, they can and should be debated. They are legal, not mythical or transcendent in nature. The Queen(or King) is a representation of the idea of Canada, of something greater than any individual. The actual heasd that crown rests on in unimportant. It's the idea.
This is what I was getting at.
andyt @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:17 pm
Then use a symbol that exemplifies that idea. Not a living person. Which is why I said the crown, which at the moment happens to rest on Queen E. When we do things in the name of Canada, we say the crown, as in crown lands, etc. We don't call them Liz's lands. To me swearing allegiance to Liz is too personal, and too anachronistic.
Of course I would also be in favor of getting rid Liz being our head of state, if it could be done without too much fuss and bother. We should patriate our head of state the way we did our constitution.
As for constitutions being changed - so what? That's a legal process. The US seems to function with swearing allegiance to the constitution.
Jabberwalker @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:19 pm
Unsound Unsound:
Constitutions can be changed, they can and should be debated. They are legal, not mythical or transcendent in nature. The Queen(or King) is a representation of the idea of Canada, of something greater than any individual. The actual heasd that crown rests on in unimportant. It's the idea.
Rots 'o ruck changing that one. You might get a little window of opportunity if King Charles III turns out to be a kitten eating, baby killing tyrant. Right now, he appears to be a nerdy and clueless Toff but that is not nearly enough to drive us into republicanism. Besides, the Royals following him are feckin' adorable.
Anyway, I swore an oath years ago to defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors ...
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:25 pm
andyt andyt:
Then use a symbol that exemplifies that idea. Not a living person. Which is why I said the crown, which at the moment happens to rest on Queen E. When we do things in the name of Canada, we say the crown, as in crown lands, etc. We don't call them Liz's lands. To me swearing allegiance to Liz is too personal, and too anachronistic.
Of course I would also be in favor of getting rid Liz being our head of state, if it could be done without too much fuss and bother. We should patriate our head of state the way we did our constitution.
As for constitutions being changed - so what? That's a legal process. The US seems to function with swearing allegiance to the constitution.
Of course I would also be in favor of getting rid Liz being our head of state, if it could be done without too much fuss and bother. We should patriate our head of state the way we did our constitution.
As for constitutions being changed - so what? That's a legal process. The US seems to function with swearing allegiance to the constitution.
See I'd be okay with the crown. The crown is still representing the idea of the country. That said, 50 years down the road everyone is going to have their knickers in a knot over swearing fealty to a golden glimmering object.
I am also okay with the idea of patriating a head of state; but, I don't believe the head of state should be elected. I also believe that, while they are the holders of power, that they have no input on running the country. The government, as they are right now, use this power to administer the country. If this power is abused the head of state can take it away.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next