Western Standard – Windsor Hassle<br/> What kind of country will we end up with if new Canadians are allowed to explicitly reject the constitutional order? By Mark Steyn

A few weeks back in this space I asked: what is immigration for? The question arises again in “a fascinating issue,” as Mr. Justice Edward Belobaba puts it, that’s been brought before his court by one Charles Roach.

Mr. Roach is an immigrant to this country, a legal resident but not yet a citizen. And the reason he’s not a citizen is because he’s disinclined to take his oath of allegiance. And the reason he won’t take his oath is because he doesn’t want to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. And the reason he doesn’t want to swear allegiance to the Queen is because he and his fellow blacks “were colonized as a people by the British throne, and we were enslaved as a people by the British throne and, to me, taking an oath to the monarch of Great Britain, without any disrespect to the Queen herself as a person, is like asking a Holocaust survivor to take an oath to a descendant of Hitler.”

No doubt. But how many Holocaust survivors would voluntarily emigrate to a state ruled by Adolf Hitler Jr.?

Well, Mr. Roach has, and he’s hoping to bring a class action by himself and other disaffected would-be Canadians to have the oath of citizenship slung out, and replaced with something more congenial to him and his fellow immigrants. Otherwise, they’ll take their application papers and flounce off to some more appealing jurisdiction.

Well, no, scrub that last sentence. Mr. Roach isn’t planning on going anywhere. It’s the Canadian constitutional system that’ll be checking out.

This isn’t his first whack at the Windsor piñata. He tried it in federal court in 1992 and lost 2-1. Now he’s in an Ontario court, and Judge Belobaba is minded to play along. …

You can pretty much see where we’re headed, can’t you?… We’re an indulgent nation. Judge Belobaba mused openly about an “offshore queen,” as if Her Majesty could restore her bona fides with Mr. Roach merely by buying a condo in Mississauga. But, of course, the oath is not about a particular octogenarian lady and her primary residence. New citizens swear to “bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors” because, simply as a point of law, she is the person in whom Canada’s sovereignty is vested–that’s to say, as the Governor General’s office puts it, “the Sovereign personifies the State.” So it’s not about her as an elderly white lady of German-Scottish extraction but about “the Crown” as the embodiment of the state’s legitimacy. One day that might change, and “Her Heirs and Successors” will include a shiny new Republic of Canada. But, until that day, to reject the oath is to reject the sovereignty of Canada.

Charles Roach, by the way, has been in Canada since 1955, so he’s been opposed to the oath almost since its creation. Canadian citizenship, after all, dates back only to 1947. Mr. Roach hails from Trinidad, so he was born a British subject and has never lived under any regime other than the House of Windsor. So presumably it can’t be that oppressive to him, or he’d have moved to Haiti or Chad or Uzbekistan or somewhere that had the great good fortune not to be brutalized by the British Crown. In other words, as anything other than “a fascinating issue” to Judge Belobaba, his case is a crock.

Aaaaand while I’m on the subject of her abused majesty:

The Joy of Curmudgeonry – A Broad Competition of Bads

“According to the elitist values of the monarchical system, the most stupid, immoral royal is more fit to be head of state than the wisest, most ethical commoner.” [1]

The hereditary-monarchical system allows in theory that the most stupid, immoral royal can become head of state, whilst the wisest, most ethical commoner cannot. It says nothing of necessity about the hereditary head of state’s fitness for the office apart from the vital matter of his not having attained it in an open competition. Therewith it is instructive to note the very slim chance of a wise, ethical commoner — let alone the wisest, most ethical commoner — ever coming to power through the political competition which obtains under a democracy, since such competition by its very nature is stacked overwhelmingly against such men.

I’d like to know to what point in history these people are referring to when they refer to “the most stupid, immoral royal” and what, precisely, that royal did to set back the progress of the nation, and any “wisest, most ethical” commoner who ever had the misfortune to get into politics at all, much less rise to the top of that unfortunate profession, in any form of government, never mind a monarchical one.