Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship

26 Feb

Good news.

Would-be Canadians will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen after the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.

The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the “symbolic” oath.

At issue is a provision in the Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

The challenge to the requirement was launched by Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan — longtime permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship but, for different reasons, do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

Informed of the Supreme Court decision that ends the battle, McAteer, 81, of Toronto, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

“It’s been a long haul,” said McAteer, a staunch republican who came to Canada from Ireland 51 years ago.

“(But) I feel the same: If the oath stands, then I won’t take Canadian citizenship.”

Topey, a Jamaican Rastafarian, said her religion forbids taking an oath to the Queen. Bar-Natan, an Israeli, argued that the oath represents entrenched privilege he opposes.

Hey, if’n y’all don’t like it, go back to Ireland, Jamaica, and Israel, and get the fuck out of Canada!


Posted by on February 26, 2015 in Canada, good news, law, The Kulturkampf


38 responses to “Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship

  1. realgaryseven

    February 26, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Reblogged this on ReactionaryThought.

  2. ArkansasReactionary

    February 26, 2015 at 3:46 pm


    Canada can certainly do without any more republicans.

  3. Will S.

    February 26, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    Damn right!

  4. Gerry T. Neal

    February 26, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    Excellent news! God save the Queen!

  5. Will S.

    February 26, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Hear, hear!

  6. infowarrior1

    February 26, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    It shall be God save the King soon enough.

  7. Eric

    February 27, 2015 at 12:32 am

    Well, as an American have rather strong prejudices against monarchs…but as someone pointed out, out of 44 US presidents, 1/4 were generals. Of course, all of the republics south of the US have much higher percentages.

    I think there’s something about society that the more masculine it is, the more it tends to lean to a strong leader in some way When women vote as a majority, as they have here since the 1970s, look at the collection of goofballs they’ve voted into office…it just hasn’t been the same Ike was at helm here.

  8. Will S.

    February 27, 2015 at 12:44 am

    I agree; I think feminism favours stronger bureaucracies rather than stronger individual leaders – so that’s what we have, bureaucracies ever increasing in size and influence, interference in people’s day to day lives, dictating more and more what citizens can or can’t do, as per the whims of progs.

    Funny thing about America: America, as an independent nation, since the end of British colonial rule, has never had monarchs of course; but… America sure does like political dynasties, from the Adams (John and son John Quincy), to the Roosevelts, to the Kennedys, to the Bushes…

    I think Americans subconsciously like monarchy, and miss having one. I mean, why else do American girls want to grow up to be princesses? 😉

  9. Will S.

    February 27, 2015 at 12:45 am

    I kid, of course.

    Or do I? 😉

    Is there not some plausibility in my jesting? 😉

  10. Will S.

    February 27, 2015 at 12:50 am

    As for Canada, we require an oath of allegiance to the Crown for newcomers for the same reason that newcomers to the U.S. have to swear an oath of allegiance to America: in both cases, the oath is of allegiance to the government of the new country. Wanting Canada to drop the oath to the Crown is like wanting America to drop the oath to America. Just wrong! And if someone wants to come to a country, presumably liking the new country for what it is, why should they object to swearing an oath to that new country’s form of government and its governing authorities, unless and until such time as they can loyally change that form through the democratic political process?

    If not, they should not bother coming, or if already there, should GTFO!

  11. Eric

    February 27, 2015 at 1:12 am

    I don’t know if still the same under Obama, but it used to be that naturalized Americans had to renounce allegiance to monarchies and if they had royal titles of some kind, they had to remove them.

    You’re right; I’d forgotten about the political dynasties. Do realize that since 1981, a Bush or Clinton has part of the Executive Branch of Government?

    Bush Sr, Vice President 1981-1989
    ” President 1989-93
    Bill & Hillary (co-presidents lol) 1993-2001
    Bush Jr. president 2001-2009
    Hillary (Secretary of State Feminism) 2009-2013

  12. Eric

    February 27, 2015 at 1:14 am

    On the princess complex, Rookh Kshatriya noted once that the US actually invented the ‘Disney Princess’, in lieu of the European versions.

  13. Will S.

    February 27, 2015 at 1:18 am

    Ah yes, the Bush-Clinton coalition government. 😉

    True, the Disney version of princesshood is quite different, given that it involves commoners ending up becoming royalty, which is exceedingly rare. (Happens in the Arab world, though, and so in Jordan, Lisa Halaby, an Arab-American woman, ended up as Queen Noor…)

  14. cecilhenry

    February 27, 2015 at 7:51 am

    Here is a great response on being Canadian. NOthing to be proud of anymore. A nation needs protection from its government.

    Well thanks for writing in. I do agree with you. I have the same feelings. I gave away my team Canada hockey jersey. I gave away a hoodie I had that said Canada on it. Really anything that pertains to Canadian nationalism I have given away or certainly will not be wearing it any time soon. I do not feel right wearing it as I myself question what it is I am supporting. I no longer attend Canada day celebrations, I no longer fly the Canadian flag outside my home as I used to. (my Dad flew it for years and I kept up the tradition for a while) Today though I want nothing to do with Oh Canada. I even find it hard to watch NHL hockey games. I won’t go into why but I think you know why. Anyways just letting you know you are not alone in your feelings. I feel the same way and it hurts me every day too. I do not identify with what they are making “Canadians” out to be. That is not how I was raised and not what I believe. They have out right hijacked MY and YOUR Canadian culture. Through the use of heavy propaganda carried through the media and other various methods. Perhaps we need to start a support group or something? The only thing that keeps me going day by day is knowing that in the end God is in charge. Even if our satanic leaders continue to do this to us I know that God still has my back. God Bless

    PS: I do still fly a flag but I will no longer fly the maple leaf. I rotate different flags on my flag pole. I fly the union jack, the Candian red ensign, The Star Spangled Banner, The Confederate Flag, the Jolly roger, Marines “don’t tread on me” flag. I rotate them all every few weeks. Perhaps if you flew a few of these flags it would help you feel better. It helps me feel better. Just a suggestion that may help brother.

    Really what is there to be proud of? Our culture has been watered down and thrown in the trash. We are not supposed to have a culture anymore. Everyday the news media brainwashes us that it is “multiculturalism”. All these asians, south asians whatever the hell you want to call them running around yip yapping in some other dialect. Then all the homeless and drug addicted lining the streets. Collecting welfare checks and whatever other free socialist services they can avail. Others who are not addicted or mentally ill roaming the streets or sitting in their subsidized apartments playing video games and collecting welfare, or going out and working on the side. Simply because they do not have to. Really what is there to be proud of? There is nothing to show off here in the lower mainland. Years ago I brought some relatives here from Scotland to visit. It went pretty well. However today I would be embarrassed to bring them here. I would sooner go rent them a room in the interior of BC or on the Island than bring them to Vancouver. It is a ugly cesspool and there is nothing Canadian about this place. The sad part is that it is spreading like a disease all across the Country. Even cities in the interior are starting to turn into non Canadian zones. If we don’t stop this soon the entire Country will be gone. Actually I feel it already is gone. When I see people wearing a Canada hat or t-shirt. Or waving a Canadian flag or cheering for the Canadian hockey team. Honestly I look the other way. I think what a bunch of delusional idiots. How stupid are they? What are they celebrating? The destruction of this beautiful nation our European ancestors built? Now it has turned into some multi-ethnic communistic dumping ground. I think since the gold standard has been removed they have been trading people with SIN numbers attached to their name as currency and to inflate our currency. Could that be true? Anyways what a sad state of affairs. Good bye Canada. It used to be a nice place. Enjoy the little bit that is left. There will be none left for our grand kids. Sickening. So hard to sit and watch it slip away. The worst part is the ignorant ones waving their flags caught up in the hockey game, brainwashed by the CBC. Goodbye Canada. Your now just a nothing. Nothing special at all. It saddens me deep in my heart.

  15. ArkansasReactionary

    February 28, 2015 at 1:25 am

    I’m an American, and an ideological supporter of monarchy, I’d like for one to be established here. So it’s not all Americans who are republicans, just the vast majority.

    I do hope you Canadians are able to hold on to what remnants of conservative order are left in your country. Concede nothing to the left.

  16. Will S.

    February 28, 2015 at 3:38 am

    Thanks, AR. I certainly hope we can, too.


  17. infowarrior1

    February 28, 2015 at 4:11 am

    King of America. Does this sound right considering the fundamental republican nature of its founding?

  18. Will S.

    February 28, 2015 at 4:29 am

    It sounds odd, because as long as America has been independent, it has always been a republic, and when it was a monarchy, it was British.

  19. ArkansasReactionary

    February 28, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    “King of America. Does this sound right considering the fundamental republican nature of its founding?”

    The actions which led to our independence were immoral, so it would not seem wise to take that event as indicative of what is the best course of action.

  20. Eric

    March 1, 2015 at 12:49 am

    Arkansas Reactionary:
    Well, consider this: in a Republic—at least the kind originally established in the United States—you can be an advocate for a return to Monarchy. But try advocating for Republicanism in a Monarchy and see what happens.

  21. Will S.

    March 1, 2015 at 1:31 am

    Ah, but Eric, it all depends what kind of monarchy. One can freely advocate for republicanism in a liberal democratic constitutional monarchy such as Canada; only if you plot violence against monarchs can you be charged with high treason. As long as you don’t go that far, though, and actually commit violence, you can advocate for republicanism all you want.

  22. ArkansasReactionary

    March 1, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    The problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes monarchy and republicanism to be equal systems, I don’t see why that should be assumed.

  23. Eric

    March 1, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Will & AR:
    As Aristotle pointed out, the people are the ultimate government no matter what. Even totalitarian states are presumed to exist with the consent of the governed. To my mind, the FORM of government is irrelevant: the character of the people and culture are important.

    I do have problems with the idea of a hereditary monarchy: although the Romans came fairly close to solving the problem with Aristocracy. That system had its faults too, but it was the longest-running functional government in known Western history.

    • Will S.

      March 1, 2015 at 11:12 pm

      The way that Britain solved the problems of hereditary monarchy, was to strip the monarchy of all but a ceremonial role, and to pretty much make Parliament supreme.

      In Canada, we have formalized that, constitutionally.

      I think it’s a decent compromise; it allows for the people to have a say through their elected representatives, just as in a republican form of government. But it maintains the symbolism of aristocracy, and rule by divine right rather than at the whim of the people, and allows the monarch, or his / her representative in Ottawa, the Governor-General, to be able to step in and break any deadlocks that might arise between the House and the Senate. So the monarch still does have the potential to exercise some real power, should the need arise; but otherwise, steps out of the way and lets the people govern through Parliament.

  24. Eric

    March 2, 2015 at 1:04 am

    I’ve always been intrigued by Jakob Burckhardt’s theories on this subject. He had the interesting thesis that a state/culture functioned when the political and social were separated. IOW, when the State concerned itself with maintaining order and national defense. Needless to say, he favored Aristocracy. The strength of that system is that those with a vested interest in the State make the policies.

    The US Constitution was based on the same idea, except that it was what Thomas Jefferson called ‘a Natural Aristocracy’—hence, it used to be limited, for example, to persons who owned property or otherwise had a stake in the functioning of society.

  25. Will S.

    March 2, 2015 at 7:35 am

    True, Eric; the American republic has devolved a lot away from what its Founders originally envisioned; now, the Executive branch, the Presidency, has all the power, and often ignores Congress altogether. It’s a shame; I do think the original design worked reasonably well enough.

    I sometimes wonder what an America that stayed at the Articles of Confederation, rather than adopting the Constitution, would have been like. I suspect a lot more decentralized, which would have made American history quite different…

  26. ArkansasReactionary

    March 2, 2015 at 4:50 pm


    Where did Aristotle say that? The governed are the cause of government, but government is legitimized by the intellects rather than the will of the people (because they acknowledge it as legitimate, not because they will it.)

    I would agree that the Romans had the best republic in history.

  27. ray

    March 4, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    Don’t swear oaths to emperors, presidents, gurus, dilly llamas, mullahs, queens, or any other worldly entities, whether collective or individual. Including angels. Defending national sovereignties is good, and Scripturally sound. Serving queens is not. That leads to globalism, not national integrity.

    When Hussein Obama was raised to power by the American nation, many persons (especially ‘celebrities’) swore public oaths to him. This, also, is idolatry. We see the results.

    “You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear. He is your praise.” (Deut. 10)


  28. Will S.

    March 4, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    Well, ray, if you don’t swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen, as a foreigner moving to Canada, you don’t get to become a Canadian citizen. That’s a choice one can make, of course.

    The Bible permits oaths to magistrates, according to Reformational, Confessional Protestant understandings, i.e. traditionalist Reformed and Lutheran doctrines. I know other traditions, such as those derived from Anabaptist traditions, have different views.

    The Queen of Canada has very little actual political power; she is mostly a figurehead, though she can break ties in the event of a deadlock.

  29. infowarrior1

    March 5, 2015 at 3:59 am

    @Will S.

    Just like the Emperor of Japan. Only a shelling point she is. But the benefit is that she does not get the sword applied to her being the shelling point as a figurehead with no real political power.

  30. Will S.

    March 5, 2015 at 6:20 am

    Exactly, infowarrior1.

  31. ArkansasReactionary

    March 5, 2015 at 4:53 pm


    1.The abandonment of monarchy caused globalism (if one cares about chronology that is)

    2. No one swears oaths to angels

    3. Angels are not worldly powers.

    4. Christianity permits civil oaths.

    5. No one swore oaths to Obama.

    6 (preemptive). Chronology is not idolatry.

  32. ray

    March 6, 2015 at 3:58 am

    “Well, ray, if you don’t swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen, as a foreigner moving to Canada, you don’t get to become a Canadian citizen. That’s a choice one can make, of course.”

    Nation first or God first. That’s a choice too.

    “The Bible permits oaths to magistrates, according to Reformational, Confessional Protestant understandings, i.e. traditionalist Reformed and Lutheran doctrines.”

    Scripture expressly prohibits folks from taking oaths or vows, except in context of Deuteronomy, i.e., vows to God. Pls don’t make tired old ray look up the passage. :O) All valid marriage, for example, is based in a mutual vow to God by the groom and bride. Not an oath to the State, as covenant between man and wife is the business of our Creator. That’s not overtly stated biblically, but it’s inferable.

    Doctrinal revisions of God’s word is the willfulness of men (and worse). The denominations love to play these games. Out-thinking God. That’s why Christ dictated the Book of Revelation to Patmos John.


  33. ArkansasReactionary

    March 6, 2015 at 3:56 pm


    Your arguments show the folly of sola scriptura, Christian tradition has always held ecclesiastical and civil oaths to be licit. Christ intended to prohibit only private or frivolous oaths.

    Also, no ones swears oaths to the state, that’s a straw man.

  34. Will S.

    March 6, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    AR, as a confessional Protestant, I also hold to Sola Scriptura, but the Magisterial Reformers did allow for the swearing of oaths as required by civil magistrates, and so I have no issue with such.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s