"I used to believe that the monarchy was a good symbol of our heritage and how
we achieved independence peacefully, unlike the US. IT clearly set us apart from
the US. But, a Head of state should be a unifying figure, and the Monarchy is very
unpopular in Quebec – this is unlikely to change, even with immigration –
Quebecois see the monarchy as a symbol of defeat and past oppression, and despite
the Queen’s long and loyal service, I doubt this will change under her reign, and I
don’t see Charles being any more popular. It’s the institution, not the person, that is
the issue.
Even though my mother was born in the UK, I am now of the belief that we should
stay in the Commonwealth but should have a Canadian head of state. However,
that means opening up the Constitution, which is something that is unlikely to
happen soon.
So regardless of my views, we are stuck with it for many years."

​"One thing is, in doing such a thing, we should start from the top down, and perhaps
the first thing for me is that it is time we should finally have a made-in-Canada
head of state. For many French Canadians, the British-based monarchy is not an
endearing institution. As well, it is not a symbol of great relevance to the increasing
number of Canadians of non-British heritage, including the aboriginal peoples. The
Queen has no real power as such, most of it having been transferred to the
Governor General. This was made abundantly clear with the GST bill, in which she
had no choice but to sign it into law despite the controversy over the way in which it
was passed.
In the past, I tended to support the monarchy, as I believed it to be a symbol which
helped to distinguish ourselves from the US as a nation which gained independence
peacefully. But now I feel that other things are more important, namely that we
must create national institutions and symbols that are equally valid and relevant to
all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin or their religion. You should
remember that the Queen is of course a religious symbol as the head of the Anglican
church.
Twenty-five years ago we did this sort of thing with the flag. We got a brand-new
flag. No one individual group, British, French or anybody, could claim that it had a
special relationship to it, that it was its symbol more than it was anybody else's,
with the possible exception of course that the maple leaf does not grow in all parts
of the country.
Anyway, I hope that by such reforms as creating a new head of state that
everybody equally can identify with, it will have an effect of unifying the country.
Recent events have shown us that while the American system has too many checks
and balances and power is too decentralized within each level of government, such
as the budget process in the United States where they could not agree on anything,
our Canadian system is the exact opposite. There are not enough checks and
balances in our parliamentary system as it has evolved to the current time. Power
within each level of government is centralized in the head of government,
particularly when that is a majority government. I believe the greater power
should be given to bodies which are independent of interference from the
government so as to prevent abuse of power by the government and otherwise
make government more responsive to public needs. This is a role of the Senate, the
head of state and so on.
Unfortunately, the current institution of Governor General is not adequate to this
task, as it is currently an appointed head of state, or it would be an appointed head
of state if you made that the head of state, and it is quite likely that whoever was
appointed Governor General the government would of course be completely
sympathetic with government policy. I also believe you cannot give an appointed
person or body any real authority in a democracy. So I think that, importantly, it is
becoming increasingly clear that there is a need to provide more checks and
balances on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister, because increasingly
power is centralized in his office.
I believe we should replace both monarchy and governors general with an elected
president, but I would not want anything like the American President, which so
totally dominates things. I would, though, require that any aspirants to the position
of president previously have held elected office so that they be familiar with
parliamentary procedures and also that they be competent in both official
languages, again so that they can communicate with all Canadians."

"In the first place he made short work of what I have called my "chronological
snobbery," the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own
age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account
discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by
whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If
the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one
passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like
all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those
widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to
attack or feels it necessary to defend them."

​All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king. -J.R.R Tolkien

​All that is gold does not glitter

Not all those who wander are lost

Michael I & Anne on a Romanian Stamp

The old that is strong does not wither

Deep roots are not reached by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken

A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken

The crownless again shall be king

Tolkien

The idea that advances in technology, science, and social
organization can produce improvements to the human
condition. Additionally, the belief that the above advances
have worth. A supporting belief is that history is linear, not
cyclical (ie. human progress never reaches a plateau or perfect
state but always seeks to move towards it).

The idea that society must continue to change, that the status 
quo cannot be considered progressive. History itself has a
'story arc' leading to the further advancement of humanity.

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

36120


Michael McAteer, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Freedom of religion – Freedom of conscience – Right to equality – Citizenship – Legislation – Interpretation – Does a statutory requirement that compels a ceremonial oath or pledge have the purpose of “controlling expression” – Does this Court’s Amselem test apply to a freedom of conscience claim and, if so, how – What evidence or rationale does the government need to constitutionally justify its requirement for a ceremonial oath or pledge – Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, ss. 3(1)(c) and 12(3) – Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, 2004 SCC 47.

The three applicants are permanent residents of Canada. Although they wish to become Canadian citizens, they each object to the statutory requirement under the Citizenship Act to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Michael McAteer emigrated from Ireland and argues taking the oath would be a betrayal of his republican heritage and impede his activities in support of ending the Canadian monarchy. Simone Topey emigrated from Jamaica and claims that it would violate her religious beliefs as a Rastafarian to make an oath to the person who is the head of Babylon. Dror Bar-Natan emigrated from Israel and argued that it would violate his belief in equality of all persons to swear allegiance to a symbol of inequality where some must bow to others for reasons of ancestry. They seek a declaration that an oath requiring them to bear true allegiance to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors” violates their rights under sections 2(a), (b) and 15(1) of the Charter and are not saved by s. 1.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding: i) there was no violation of sections 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter; ii) the oath was a form of compelled speech that prima facie violates s. 2(b) Charter rights; and iii) the violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the applicants’ appeal but allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal and set aside that part of the lower court judgment holding that the oath violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.