The Royal Oath

One of my late mother’s mandatory Christmas rituals was to park herself three feet in front of the television and lap up the Queen’s Christmas message. She did so against a barrage of derision. She took her standing as one of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects very seriously.

So she would have been horrified to contemplate that someone was still fighting tooth and nail against the mandatory requirement for all new Canadian citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen. She would no doubt have been delighted to rise up each morning to state, if need be, “that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, 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.”

As you have probably learned elsewhere, the Ontario Court of Appeal has just released a judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Royal Oath after it was challenged by a group of Ontario-based litigants. The Court found that the requirement to swear the Oath is not a violation of the right of freedom of conscience and religion; or of the freedom of expression; or of equality; and that even if it is dead wrong in drawing those conclusions, the requirement is nevertheless justifiable as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

Somewhat to my own surprise, I find myself on reading the judgment wanting to tip my hat in several directions.

First of all, I tip my hat to the litigants challenging the Royal Oath. They have shown incredible persistence (although from another perspective, one might say that the judicial system has demonstrated great resilience). The original challenge was brought to the Federal Court in the early 1990s, and lost. Then an application was brought in the Ontario courts. The government sought, also un- successfully, to strike down the application on the basis that it was patently without merit. That decision was appealed without success to two higher level courts. Then the litigants tried to have the case considered as a class action, again without success. Finally, the application was heard. A lower court sided in favour of the Royal Oath. So the litigants (and the government as well, because it didn’t like one aspect of the ruling) appealed. And now we have the appeal court’s decision. However, the litigants can apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal, meaning the Supreme Court itself can decide whether to hear the case or let this judgment stand.

The litigants were an interesting crew. The original litigant (who died two years ago) was a “committed republican who believed that to swear fealty to a hereditary monarch would violate his belief in the equality of human beings and his opposition to racial hierarchies.” Two other litigants stated that the oath perpetuated a class system. A fourth was “a Rastafarian who regards the Queen as the head of Babylon”, and for whom taking the oath was a violation of her religious beliefs.

Second, I tip my hat to the judiciary. Judges are often thought to have the boring job of interpreting the nuances in section 52.1.b.vi. of the Artificial Insemination Act. But this case illustrates that judges have a deeper challenge: identifying the clash of competing principles, and finding a defensible way of ranking those principles— in reasoned, numbered paragraphs supported by judicial precedents laid out for all the world to analyze. Indeed, it is probably worth thanking the litigants again for forcing the issue to the point where the rationale in favour of the validity of the Royal Oath is laid out so starkly. My mother would no doubt have wanted to thank the government for defending the Oath so aggressively.

But my third and biggest tip of the hat is to the lady who started the whole fuss—and who, I have heard tell, is a pretty nice girl, though she doesn’t have a lot to say. I imagine that she has a Royal Oath of her own, which goes something like this:

Who will rid me of the meddlesome burden of having my name front and centre of every lawsuit brought by and against the government? Who cares about flippin’ oaths of loyalty in the first place. What kind of monarchy are we running here when I can’t even stash a crustless triangular cucumber sandwich in my purse to eat at home later without the world press denouncing me?

Except that my late mother would equally have had conniptions if she ever thought Her Maj. had misgivings about discharging her royal duties. And I am sure that Her Maj. knows that as well. So that tip of the hat is well earned. And—for my mother’s sake—let me assert my willingness to state the Royal Oath (not the one in italics) anytime. Even against a barrage of derision.

dsimmonds@wellingtontimes.ca