writer Julienne Bay about her husband recently
becoming a Canadian Citizen. Before I forget;
Congrats and welcome to Canada!
It is unfortunate that Mrs. Bay then goes on to disparage the
very ceremony she just witnessed. In this article I want to
address some factual errors made by Mrs. Bay as well as CBC
questions are asked) which has a link on the left. The radio
interview is somewhat better than the summary but errors
appear in both.
"But Julienne Bay asks why new immigrants should
have any allegiance to a colonial power?"
Well, no she doesn't. Apparently you can't even get past the
image caption without an error showing up. Mrs. Bay argues
that Canadians shouldn't swear an oath to the Queen. She
doesn't argue that new Canadians shouldn't swear an oath to
a colonial power, nor do they swear such an oath now. How
could such an error come about? Well...
"All new Canadian citizens must swear allegiance to the British monarch."
Ah, that is how that error came up. There are certain mantras
editors should be forced to repeat each morning:
- 'Between' cannot be used to link three groups. The correct
word is 'among'.
- Hillsborough is correctly pronounced as 'HILLS-bro', not
- The 'Canadian Monarchy' is distinct from the 'British
Monarchy' and the use of one or the other depends on the
In this case there really is no excuse since Mrs. Bay repeats
the Citizenship Oath during her interview. Queen of Canada &
Canadian Monarchy is said several times. Does it matter that
Her Majesty is also the British Monarch. Not in the slightest.
Just once I'd like to see some cheeky editor refer to Canadians
swearing allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica to prove a point
about how silly this mistake is. But why is this mistake made
"...given the role the British played in colonizing and
dividing many of the countries those citizens come
Ah. That would be why. This is far too short an article to go
into the historical debate about the British Empire's legacy.
But let me address the point being made here. Did the British
really 'divide many countries'? If you look at Canada you can
say this is false. The British (and specifically Queen Victoria)
were very much in favour of a unified entity in North
America. But let's talk about India for a second (since it will
come up shortly). Britain kept an extremely culturally diverse
country together for nearly the entire history of the British
Raj. It kept most of its native ruling class in place and tried to
limit ethnic clashes. Much of this was undone by the Two-
Nation Theory that argued Muslims were united based on
their religion rather than ethnic, location, or social class.
"His mother, Bay says, "grew up hearing stories of
colonial India: forced taxes on commodities such as
salt and agricultural crops that sent Indians spiraling
For starters, all taxes are 'forced'. Voluntary taxes aren't really
a thing. And the question must be asked what this has to do
with the Canadian Monarchy in a general sense and the
Queen in a specific sense. The Canadian Monarchy never
ruled India and neither did Her Majesty. And even if she did
would not the lion share of the blame go to the British
Parliament which actually governed India?
"And it's not just immigrants who feel this way. A
recent Canadian survey shows most citizens would
rather drop the constitutional monarchy."
This is actually the most blatant lie in the whole summary and
it can be laid squarely at the feet of the CBC. Mrs. Bay noted
the correct statistics in saying that a recent poll showed 38%
of Canadians would rather not have the monarchy long into
the future. This is compared to the 42% who do and the 20%
who don't care either way. Whoever wrote the summary failed
to uphold the highest standard of accuracy in portraying Mrs.
"Bay argues 2017 is a great year to enact such change.
Not only is it a milestone year as we mark 50 years of
And the CBC finishes off with a simple typo. Well done. But
wait. If Canada were only 50 years old all those references to
the British Monarchy would make sense. But such a ploy
seems too clever for the CBC.
"Pledging allegiance to the Queen only bolsters a past full of discrimination. Why not scrap mention of the Queen altogether?"
Because any claim made without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence. And the claim Mrs. Bay makes is just such a
claim. The Queen stays and you will need to do better than
that to remove her.
A Kisaragi Colour