Last week, Stephen Harper’s divisive brand of politics was on full display as he called it “offensive” that a new Muslim-Canadian would not want to uncover her face during a redundant and unnecessary citizenship ceremony.
This was after the Federal Court ruled that making her do so would be unconstitutional. Once again, Harper is on the wrong side of the courts and the wrong side of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He was also way offside by suggesting, “most Canadians” agree. No, Stephen, we do not. In fact, if it was not for our archaic first-past-the-post electoral system that gave you a majority with only 37.65 per cent of the vote, you would not even be in power today so please stop ascribing your bigotry to the rest of us.
Aside from this fear-mongering, which really is unbecoming of a prime minister, the thing that really bothers me is what a big deal Conservatives are making of what is little more than a symbolic act in the first place.
Why do new Canadians have to swear an oath in the first place—or affirm, because let us not forget the Charter guarantees not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.
By the time prospective Canadians get to the citizenship ceremony they have already met the criteria. For all intents and purposes they are already Canadian save for uttering the following meaningless lines.
“I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
They are meaningless because there is no specific crime for breaking the oath. Obviously if a person break Canadian law, whether she is a citizen or not, she will face the inherent penalties, but the Crown does not tack on a further charge of breach of oath. And she will not lose her citizenship. She could go to jail for the rest of her life, but she would do so as a Canadian.
On the flip side, not having taken the oath is not a criminal defence. I would love to see a judge’s reaction if someone stood up and said, “Your honour, I am not guilty because I never pledged allegiance or promised to observe the law and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
And you could not make it a crime to break the oath because that would be discriminatory. The other way to become a Canadian is to be born here—or to Canadian parents abroad. In essence the Citizenship Act creates two classes of citizens, those who were born citizens (first class), who do not have to take the oath and those who became citizens later (second class), who do have to take the oath.
I think it is discriminatory anyway simply because it is not a requirement for all citizens. It’s just not fair.
Furthermore, the oath is controversial. There are many people who find it offensive to pledge allegiance to a monarch. I think that’s a moot point and so do the courts, which have ruled the Queen in the oath is merely symbolic of the country. It was this controversy that paved the way to add the words Queen of Canada to the oath in 1977. It was almost changed to omit the monarch during the Chrétien era, but he got cold feet.
In any event, I don’t think it should be changed, rather it should be eliminated altogether and the ceremony should be an optional celebration during which our new compatriots, those who wish to attend, are warmly welcomed.
When I graduated from university, the school did not hold back my diploma because I didn’t go to commencement. Even if it did, I would still have a Bachelor of Science degree. Once a person has met the requirements for citizenship, they should be citizens without the added and arbitrary requirement to recite.
If the oath was eliminated, we would not have to endure these ridiculous political charades regarding what “free” people can and cannot wear at the ceremony.
