# RMC Officer Sues to Avoid Saluting, Toasting Queen?



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Officer fights military over salute, toast to the Queen*
Says public displays of loyalty are 'degrading'   
Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen, 24 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=002801b5-660e-433d-9631-a2405b815f6e&k=58362

An officer in the Canadian Forces is suing Canada's top soldier over a "degrading" policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God Save the Queen.

Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh, an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston, wants a court to overturn the requirement for members of the Canadian Forces to publicly display their loyalty to the monarchy.

*"It's a situation of institutional harassment that members of Canadian Forces be obliged to toast the Queen of Canada at regimental dinners,"* he said.

"To fail to do so would be interpreted as disloyalty, which could carry up to nine years imprisonment."

His objection is based on the premise that, while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen.

"You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but have the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian armed forces."

He also objects to the fact officers are required to show respect to the Union Jack.

He argues in his claim that the requirement to publicly express allegiance contrary to one's belief is degrading to an individual.

*Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh-- who legally changed his name from Harold Kenny to its Irish spelling -- says he signed up for the Canadian Forces to serve Canada, not a "foreign monarch."* He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.

The oath requires new members to swear they will be "be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada"

The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The governor general, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.

He has been fighting the policy within the military grievance system for the past five years. In May, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board rejected his complaint, saying his description of the toast to the Queen as "royalist symbolism" showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the way Canada is governed.

"The inclusion of the Queen at CF events is not just hollow pomp and ceremony; it is an acknowledgment of Canada's Head of State," the board ruled.

The National Defence Act says the Canadian Forces are "the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada," the decision notes and therefore, the loyalty requirement does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Had Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh objected when he first swore the oath in 1978, he would never have been enrolled, the board ruled.

He appealed the decision to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, who rejected it in August, writing that he saw no reason why "showing respect to our Head of Sate is anything but proper and lawful."

Earlier this month, Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh filed an application with the Federal Court to reverse Gen. Hillier's decision. The Department of National Defence declined to comment on a case before the court, but a spokesman confirmed the requirement.

"God Save the Queen is, of course, a national anthem and because the Queen is our head of state, we always salute," said Lieut. Adam Thomson.

*Military historian Jack Granatstein said the complaint raises a debatable point, but one better addressed when a Canadian Forces member first takes the oath.[/b]

"It's actually a question of substantial principle, but he should have worked out that question of conscience when he enlisted," he said.

Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh named Gen. Hillier, the grievance board, the federal government and others as respondents in Federal Court.

None have yet filed a response.
*


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

Oh my, this is certainly an example of recreational litigation if I ever saw one.  I have huge issues with anyone presenting to the courts frivolous and vexatious statements of claims but I have an even bigger issue that this individual holds a position at RMC and retains a commission.  All I can say, is Heat/Kitchen/Out.  

God save the Queen!


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

+1

He should of thought of all this prior to joining.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

Lets see,
......a fully grown adult has nothing better to do with his time than waste that of many others who surely have REAL issues to deal with??

Something I would expect from my inmates who think the world revolves around them, not from someone with a real job, and especially one teaching our future leaders.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2006)

I feel like Peter Griffin "This really grinds my gears".  
This guy is a Captain, right?  So, he's got a commission from, wait, let me think about this....Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada?  I think he should do as he says and send his commission BACK to her.


----------



## Bigmac (24 Oct 2006)

This falls under the WTF category?? He is moulding the minds of future officers at RMC and he does not want to toast the queen? He changed his name so perhaps he should also change careers if he does not wish to recognize military traditions. 

   What are your views on this?


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2006)

Resign.

Now, clean out your desk and get out.  This loyal soldier will escort you off the Queen's land.

Leave the CF off your resumé when you apply for your next job.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Oct 2006)

A reminder to those who find this offensive - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

In doing a cursory search for evidence of this person's academic contribution there are a few sites where his name appears, 2 of which having him attending a conference but not presenting or even submitting any abstracts. There are however, numerous hits on his efforts to raise the awareness of Irish language in the Limestone City and elsewhere, all contact information is using his RMC account.  (now correct if I'm in error, but the last time I looked, using an employer's internet service for non-work related communication was frowned upon.)

I can't possibly see how RMC (if they had to) could profess his challenge to the Courts was protected under academic freedom (there has to be a nexus and unless he's teaching a physics course in Gaelic that involves not having to use energy on a salute as it screws with the big bang theory - then there is no nexus for academic freedom.) I shall be writing to Principal Cowan my displeasure at retaining this individual on staff and wthdrawing my annual donation to the Ex-cadet club.   

Since it's been a while since I've done any recreational litigation myself, I'm going to file as an intervenor in his case.


----------



## keaner (24 Oct 2006)

Career...STOP.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Here we go again.  Just last year we had that wing-nut Atheist refusing to remove his headdress for Remembrance Services.  He too was an officer.  Now we have another, a teacher at RMC at that, pulling off a similar stunt.  These guys obviously must be ill-employed and have too much free time on their hands, to come up with these petty grievances.  They should be drummed out of the Forces and given Dishonourable Releases and no Severance or Pension packages.  They are a disgrace to the Uniform that they are wearing and the Oath that they took. 

Having attained the rank of Capt, this guy has defrauded the Government for all these years, accepting the pay and benefits of the CF, all the while paying lip service to the oath that he took.  As he places no value on the Oath he swore, we can no longer place any value on his word, nor his work ethic. 

After all these years he wants to file a grievance, but he does not properly understand the hierarchy and organization of the CF.  Obviously he has not completed any of the OPDP/OPME Crses.  He, as an associate professor of physics, is so smart he is stupid.   Time to put him out on the 'Street' where he can learn some 'Street Smarts' and either live a productive Civilian Life or become the failure he seems to be setting up as his future in the military.  Perhaps this is his scheme.  A scheme to be ejected from the CF before his obligations are over, and be heavily compensated for his troubles, or at the very least not have to pay for his education and Obligatory Service.

I guess "Truth, Duty and Valour" really means nothing to a lot of the younger graduates of RMC.  And some want to shorten the Enhanced Reliability Screening.  Time to really start asking people what they believe, before we allow them to progress to this state.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Oct 2006)

This is awesome...I felt the urge to puke this morning, and this helped me out greatly.

I agree that this should have been brought up when he originally joined. If it offends his sense of propriety so badly, he should resign his commission. I personally wouldn't want to follow this much ot a barracks lawyer anywhere.


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Oct 2006)

> "It's a situation of institutional harassment that members of Canadian Forces be obliged to toast the Queen of Canada at regimental dinners," he said.
> 
> "To fail to do so would be interpreted as disloyalty, which could carry up to nine years imprisonment."



I'm no lawyer (though I've been accused of being a barracks lawyer...) but wouldn't suing so you're allowed to do something that would count as disloyalty kinda, well, disloyal? Is there any chance our good Captain will get charged under paragraph 94 of the NDA (or the relevant paras out of the QR&O and any other relevant paras out of the NDA, whichever)?



			
				National Defense Act][b]94.[/b] Every person who uses traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty is guilty of an offense and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment.[/quote]

(George posted while I was writing)

[quote author=George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess "Truth, Duty and Valour" really means nothing to a lot of the younger graduates of RMC.  And some want to shorten the Enhanced Reliability Screening.  Time to really start asking people what they believe, before we allow them to progress to this state.



This is something I've noticed, and I'm here myself. I can't imagine how bad it looks to you guys on the outside...


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> A reminder to those who find this offensive - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html



Yes, I find this offensive.  It is his actions I find offensive.  He may be a really nice guy but he DID swear his allegiance.  He LIVED and WORKED under that oath and took the Queens shiiling for it without a hint of regret.  

He has breached his contract with Her Majesty.

THAT is offensive.


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

Here's the blurb that RMC sets out on its webpage, perhaps this person requires a review.  

Your Goal - 
An Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces 
As an officer cadet at RMC, your ultimate objective is to be commissioned as an officer in the Canadian Forces. The professional development and the training you will receive at RMC and at Canadian Forces Schools will prepare you for your diverse responsibilities as a junior officer. Fundamentally, you must demonstrate at RMC the capacity, the competence and the courage to command and lead in an operational theatre, and to look after the lives of your personnel. You must master these principles that Canadian Forces officers use when serving Canada and when performing their command, leadership and other duties: 

Lead by personal example and place your concerns, well being and comfort after those of your subordinates. You motivate, train and develop those for whom you are responsible. 
Demonstrate pride in and loyalty to Canada and to the Canadian Forces' leaders, units, personnel and uniform. 
Conduct yourself with honour, honesty and integrity in all of your activities. Base your decisions on solid moral and ethical values. Allow no discrimination, ill treatment or cruelty, and welcome the strength that diversity brings. Ensure that the activities of your unit and the actions of your personnel are in accordance with the regulations of the Canadian Forces and the Code of service discipline. 
Be professional and continually improve your competence as a leader through education, training, experience and self-improvement. In combat, fight to win and demonstrate skill, imagination, courage and fortitude. Discharge all your duties in compliance with the regulations and orders of the Canadian Forces, the laws of armed conflict and the appropriate international conventions. 
Respect and uphold the customs and traditions of the Canadian Forces and of your branch. Honour the memory of those who fought for the freedom of Canada. 
Believe in Canada. You believe in the rule of law, and in the Canadian Forces as an instrument of the Government of Canada and as representatives of all that is best in Canadian society.  
Lead the men and women of the Canadian Forces. This is your most fundamental responsibility. It may occur under the most hazardous and demanding circumstances, and may threaten the lives of you and your people. Duty and readiness for risk are at the core of your responsibilities. 
Guided by these fundamental principles, you pledge to act ethically and carry out your duties with :

Loyalty: You will be loyal and faithful to your subordinates, superiors and peers; 
Honesty: You act with integrity, truth and candour at all times; 
Courage: You face all challenges with determination, and strength of character; 
Diligence: You will carry out your duties with dedication, perseverance and competence while striving for excellence. 
Fairness: You treat everybody justly, equitably and without prejudice; 
Responsibility: You fully accept assigned responsibilities and the consequences of your actions.  
As an officer cadet you must strive to reach this level of professionalism. 

TRUTH, DUTY, VALOUR! 

http://www.rmc.ca/military/goal_e.html


----------



## mover1 (24 Oct 2006)

Ahh progress and tradition, when the two meet it makes one big funfest for everybody.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Oct 2006)

1.  Leave.
2.  Now.
3.  Really.


----------



## old medic (24 Oct 2006)

The top two threads here this morning, this one and http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52192.0.html
the one with Mr. Dorn's comments are certainly helping put RMC's reputation in league with The Tampa School of Correspondence.


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2006)

Ladies and Gentlemen, "The Queen."


----------



## Grunt_031 (24 Oct 2006)

Queen's Regulations and Orders might sort him out!


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

My thoughts exactly OM.  I am extremely disappointed to see this kind of "academic" exposure from RMC.  I recall very fondly, the brilliant teaching faculty RMC has, and has had.  I find I am reading more papers and articles on personal agenda topics from RMC faculty than good, solid academia and research.  I am also disappointed as I recall how hard the faculty and staff worked on gaining accreditation for RMC in the late 90s, if this type of "publishing" continues I can see RMC losing their accreditation.  

But most of all, I feel a huge disappointment that a member of RMC's faculty would subject RMC students to this negative publicity about RMC in light of how hard they have all worked to improve the relationships within Kingston's citizenry.


----------



## sigpig (24 Oct 2006)

I've always considered myself somewhat of an anti-monarchist - it's a remnant of the past and has no relevance to my life as a Canadian or as a member of the army. I didn't like swearing allegiance to the figurehead monarch of a foreign country and I wasn't thrilled about toasting her at dinners either.

That being said, I knew it was the price of admission to serve and I chose to do so. I had/have no delusions that anything was going to change in regards to this and I played the game as needed. Changes to this can only come from the political process when there is the will to do so. For a serving member to do this is very silly. 

The fact I think the monarchy is an anachronism in no way reflects on my loyalty towards or love of Canada and willingness to fight for her when I served. To me they are separate issues.

George, does the term 'wingnut' always accompany the word 'atheist' or just when referring to the officer with the Remembrance Day issues?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

This "officer" need to resign both his commission and his lofty rank - now.  And I mean immediately.

You don't sign up for the bits you like, you sign up for the whole thing and it's especially incumbent upon officers to realize this.

(see, I managed to post without swearing at the person in question!)


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2006)

The officer needs to accept CF regulations or be seperated from service.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

sigpig said:
			
		

> George, does the term 'wingnut' always accompany the word 'atheist' or just when referring to the officer with the Remembrance Day issues?



Just the officer with the Remembrance Day issues.  He is to be included in the same category as this 'wingnut' associate professor.  We have a Venn diagram of atheists at Remembrance Services, and a Venn diagram of rabble rousing "Bring the Troops Home" Professors, and a Venn diagram of disloyal RMC Teachers; and where all three overlap, we have the "Wingnut Factor".   

[Edit to correct discription of Charts.....Thanks JM  ;D]


----------



## muffin (24 Oct 2006)

I am suddenly embarrassed to drive into work  

I know this fellow... so I shall not say what I am REALLY thinking... 
I do not agree with his point-of-view. I think it is ludicrous really... I am at a loss for words. (I know - not easy to do!)

muffin


----------



## mover1 (24 Oct 2006)

Just a question. Is this dude one of those guys who con sideres himself and IRISH Canadian. Who puts his allegiance to his ancestral past above his present nationality.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

It makes you wonder where this person really draws the line on Loyalty.  How far down can his loyalty be trusted?  He has 'sworn' Loyalty to the Crown in the past.  Is he still loyal to the GG as Commander in Chief?  Is he loyal to the CF?  Is he loyal to his Regiment/Branch/Unit?  Where can we now expect him to have loyalty; except to himself?  I agree with Teddy and tomahawk6, the man should Resign if this is what his Loyalty really means.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

To my mind, the fact that this "officer" finds it necessary to SUE the CF over such an issue speaks volumes about his character and judgement.  He must go - now.


----------



## captjtq (24 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess "Truth, Duty and Valour" really means nothing to a lot of the younger graduates of RMC.



You'd be guessing wrong. It actually means quite a bit to most of us "younger graduates", or at least the peers I graduated with - one of whom was living those ethos when she was killed in action earlier this year. Many more are living them right now in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There are rotten apples in every bunch. Actually, in light of Fred's comments, perhaps things have changed significantly in the last five years or so... I am rather removed from _ Sodom on the St. Lawerence_. 

In this case, if my information (the ex-cadet database) is correct, the former Harold Kenny is a 1978 Graduate, which would put him in the 50 year-old range. That's the only Harold Kenny in the database, and there is no Mac Giolla Chainnigh listed. I don't know how many Harold Kennys there are in the CF and I don't have access to the DIN right now.

My opinion: if one cannot in good conscious honour the oath given upon enrolment, it's time to get out. I think the lawsuit is frivolous and very nearly vexatious.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

He's listed at RMC:

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/physics/MacGiollaChainnigh/index_e.html


----------



## Blakey (24 Oct 2006)

Anyone remember a show on TV (way back in the 60's I think), in which the opening sequence was that a US Calvary Officer was being "drummed" out of the military. (Or maybe it was a movie?)

The officer in question stood there while someone (using a sabre), stripped him of all his rank and buttons, the large wooden door to the fort then opened and out marched the officer, in disgrace.

Sounds good to me.


----------



## mover1 (24 Oct 2006)

OK so this guy wants to be irish and impose his "Irish" beleifs upon the rest of us. He probably romanticises the IRA, too.

Can you imagine if this guy was of another faith other than the Roman Catholic kind.....


----------



## captjtq (24 Oct 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> OK so this guy wants to be irish and impose his "Irish" beleifs upon the rest of us. He probably romanticises the IRA, too.
> 
> Can you imagine if this guy was of another faith other than the Roman Catholic kind.....



Like what? Wiccan, Episcopalian or Presbyterian? This isn't an Irish-Catholic/Protestant issue - he's arguing that the Queen is a 'foreign' monarch.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

That's the problem.  She isn't a foreign monarch.  She's the Queen of Canada.


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

This person must have been asleep in the Plato to Nato history course we got.


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> OK so this guy wants to be Irish and impose his "Irish" beliefs upon the rest of us. He probably romanticises the IRA, too.
> 
> Can you imagine if this guy was of another faith other than the Roman Catholic kind.....



Why do you deduce that he is RC?  



			
				captjtq said:
			
		

> Like what? Wiccan, Episcopalian or Presbyterian?



Could be he is enamoured with the Irish culture, not necessarily Irish religion(s)


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

I see illogical leaps are still abound.  The point of this topic is not to assume that the subject is attempting to make a religious statement in the absence of evidence to support such an assumption.  What we have is an Commissioned Officer in the CF, challenging not only the sovereignty of Her Majesty, but also the decisions of his Superiors.  (he's been to a number of boards with this complaint and been told, no no and no and now wants to appeal the decision of his superior officer - the CDS. ) 

That in and of itself is a serious gesture in usurping the authority of the NDA and Her Majesty.  (the fact that I'm annoyed at his lack of his stellar academic contributions is only because I'm an academic and have driven myself nuts with publish or perish and feel anyone who holds an appointment in academia has a responsibility to their field of study.) This officer's actions are inexcusable and not to mention very selfish and egocentric in attempting to move forward his own agenda on the backs of every single CF member that has under oath, pledged to protect Her Majesty and Canada.  I find this discord very frightening as it speaks to the depths of how far an individual will go to appease their own ego.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

I think Movers point was -- what if this guy was an Islamic...

Would RMC put up with Ishmail Wur Mohammed not swearing loyalty to the Queen?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

RMC isn't the issue, nor is religion.  Our "officer" _has_ sworn the oath, by his own admission.

Now, in a shocking example of ego, selfishness and ill-judgement, he's decided to _sue_ the CF in a misguided attempt to undertake some form of constitutional challenge.  His motives for doing so are irrelevant.

I'll say it again.  He must resign his commission immediately or have it stripped from him.  He can sue all he wants, but not while wearing the uniform.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

Teddy -- I agree with you -- I worded my comment poorly -- but I do feel the CF should be proactive in seperating him from the service.


----------



## GUNS (24 Oct 2006)

Bring back the military of the 60's and early 70's.

This BS would not have happened.

In those days they weeded out the jerks before they got out of Basic Training.

This may shock you young ones but in the old army we were yelled at, abused(compared to today's standards) ,embarrassed and made into soldiers.

We never complained, never reported being abused and would do it all over again.

Today's military is to wrapped around " political correctness" .

that felt good.


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> -- but I do feel the CF should be proactive in seperating him from the service.



Only to face a second suit for wrongful dismissal based on politicial discrimination.  Recreational litigation at it's best!


----------



## mover1 (24 Oct 2006)

Just stirring up the hornets nest.

Infidel-6 THAT is exactly what I was trying to say 


 I wasn't bashing the RC religion. I assume the guys pro Irish and anti Royal stance is him playing off the stereotypical Irish/English conflict. Hence I assumed he was RC.

Even some guy doesn't believe in the queen or God. He should do what the rest of us do. Just go through the motions and drink your booze. 
we all have to recognise things we don't believe in. IE Chrismas, Easter, Wedding Anniversaries.....


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

-  Services No Longer Required.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Bring back the military of the 60's and early 70's.
> 
> This BS would not have happened.
> 
> ...



I can appreciate that it felt good but it has no relevance .........the clock does not turn back and 'the good old days' really weren't all that good if you weren't a male WASP.


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

So all must serve without question? Has the article pointed out where he has failed to carry out his duty?

Without all the emotion of others, this member has a point he would like addressed and he has utilized the system for what it is there for. He could be like countless others who just don't go to mess dinners because of the 'inconvience' or bitch day in and day out never doing anything about it.

I, for one, wish that they remove the bathroom breaks at mess dinners - It just allows the speakers to empty their bladders and speeches go on for ever.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

...and when you run that through the system and get turned down all the way to the top, you would then sue to get your way?


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

+1

He didn't get the answer he wanted so he's having his tantrum.  It went up the chain to the very top and got what I would say was a reasoned response.  He didn't like it so now he's suing?  C'mon.

And going to the press or discussing this with the press might not be appropriate as well.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman -- Uhm your kidding right?

 He is failing his duty daily -- worse as a leader and educator his treachery is magnified


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Just a question. Is this dude one of those guys who con sideres himself and IRISH Canadian. Who puts his allegiance to his ancestral past above his present nationality.


As a Canadian of Irish descent, I pull off that "Irish Canadian" thing around the 17th of March every year, I drink whiskey and really do like potatoes.  I am also Roman Catholic.  But, you know what?  I signed my oath, took it, or whatever.  I can't remember much now (I _am _ forty now, after all!).  
I really REALLY like hockey (being Catholic, I guess I was supposed to be a Habs fan, but I went with the 'protestant' Maple Leafs), I really REALLY like three-down football (Go Argos!  Go Mustangs!) and most of all, I adhere to the rules, traditions and regulations of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces!  I consider it an honour and a privelage to have been accepted into this mob.
I enjoy researching my heritage, a bit anyway.  It just grinds my gears that this guy wants to take the "Royal" out of the "*ROYAL * Military College"


----------



## medicineman (24 Oct 2006)

All I can say is I remember this clown when I was working at the College - I even remember when he had his name changed.  He'd get somewhat upset that nobody could pronounce his name.  All I can say is this - if he is so up in arms, go back to the homeland and see if they accept him there.  I'm sure the collective IQ of both RMC and Eire may go up a few points.

MM

PS - I'm about 1/3 Irish, and still have no problems slagging someone down over this.  I'm Canadian - he obviously thinks he should be a hyphenated one.

MM


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

Good Point Von, I wonder if the Officer in question included a demand to remove the Royal too? If he didn't, quite the irony, is it not?


----------



## charlesm (24 Oct 2006)

Von Garvin has a good point,

  If he disagrees working for the Queen, why is he still at ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE. If you object that much to the queen , you should go find tenure at a different university/college.


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

Umm.. because the closest University for this officer to teach at is Queen's?   :king:


----------



## medicineman (24 Oct 2006)

charlesm said:
			
		

> Von Garvin has a good point,
> 
> If he disagrees working for the Queen, why is he still at ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE. If you object that much to the queen , you should go find tenure at a different university/college.



Like going down the street to work at Queen's University or better yet - go to Belfast and work at Queen's University there.  He could also go to Dublin to teach physics at the ROYAL College of Surgeons...we could really have a bit of fun offering career advice couldn't we?

MM


----------



## dardt (24 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> He didn't get the answer he wanted so he's having his tantrum.  It went up the chain to the very top and got what I would say was a reasoned response.  He didn't like it so now he's suing?  C'mon.
> 
> And going to the press or discussing this with the press might not be appropriate as well.



exactly


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> So all must serve without question? Has the article pointed out where he has failed to carry out his duty?
> 
> Without all the emotion of others, this member has a point he would like addressed and he has utilized the system for what it is there for. He could be like countless others who just don't go to mess dinners because of the 'inconvience' or bitch day in and day out never doing anything about it.
> 
> I, for one, wish that they remove the bathroom breaks at mess dinners - It just allows the speakers to empty their bladders and speeches go on for ever.



He failed in his duty when he (1) brought a political question into the public arena; (2) disregarded the decisions of the chain of command; and (3) brought a lawsuit against the CF for such a trivial reason.

He MUST go.


----------



## captjtq (24 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  She isn't a foreign monarch.  She's the Queen of Canada.



Therin lies the rub...   I agree 100%


----------



## LIKELY (24 Oct 2006)

This guy's whole carreer has bee based on a lie.
"He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen."

Therefore his first act as an officer in the CF was to tell a lie. 
He lied at his interview. He has lived a lie all these years and been paid handsomely for it.
I really think the CF has to reighn this guy in and discipline the bejesus out of him, and RMC should take the lead by ending his gravy train teaching career, with pay for now...  He has broken many rules by doing this and should be charged.  
He will become a poster boy for some but we have to make sure the T's are dotted and I's crossed...you know what I mean.

I really hope the CF doesn't drop the ball on this...Its great time to do justice and be seen doing justice.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2006)

Wow, this topic sure brings out the intelligence quotient.  Hang 'em!  Spit on 'em.  Bring back the days when we beat recruits, because they were better!!!  Get a grip guys.  Michael O'Leary layed out a warning on tone and content, so follow it.

This case is farcical; recreational litigation was a word I saw earlier which seems to be on the money.  His sentiments are on the level with the guy who refused to go into the Church.  The military has its traditions; show some respect and professionalism and fulfill the duties the uniform requires of you.  The question of the role of the monarchy in Canada is a political one and is probably not one best approached through military channels - infact, proper civil-military relations demands that it be the last place for it to happen.

I'm about done with this waste of time; I feel confident enough in my "Canadian-ness" (if you want to call it that) that I can happily sit through the next Church Parade or Mess Dinner.

Infanteer the Roundhead.  >


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

Infanteer, I think you're trivializing what this "officer" is doing.

Frankly, I could care less what his private attitude towards the monarchy is or how his religious/nationalist viewpoint figures into the equation.

My concern is that this person has elected to bring the CF into disrepute by bringing a friviolous and politically-motivated lawsuit after being told "go away" by the chain of command.  As an officer, he owes the institution that he serves a certain amount of loyalty, including eschewing such monumentally stupid displays of his poor judgement.  Moreover, by going public he opens himself to the _ad hominum_ attacks we've seen here; he's effectively become a public figure. 

Indeed, if he feels so strongly about the issues he's raised, he has only one option:  resignation.


----------



## medaid (24 Oct 2006)

I never swore my allegiance to the Queen...I affirmed it. Does that make me a naughty naughty boy too? 

Despite that fact, I agree with what Infanteer said...the military with our proud history really shouldnt be mixed up in something like this. It only spells trouble when one of us, an officer no less, brings this type of debate about both in the military, and the civiliarn world. We have some what showed our asses with regards to this topic... a little bit dont you think? A member not being loyal to the Head of State, might not be loyal to our country at all... damnations... what will happen next?

Drumming him out maybe is the answer...however...maybe we should make him pay the system back for all the years of fraud... and then slam hiim with a lawsuit ourself! ;D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Actually, this officer's actions could be considered as gross insubordination.  As he refuses to salute the Crown, does he also refuse to salute anyone who holds the Queen's Commission?  If such is the case, then he no doubt will (technically) be refusing to salute his superior officers.  That, or he has not defined clear lines by which he is following his arguments through.


----------



## beach_bum (24 Oct 2006)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I never swore my allegiance to the Queen...I affirmed it. Does that make me a naughty naughty boy too?



The afirmation has nothing to do with the Queen....it's about your belief in Christianity.  That's why it doesn't end with "So help me God".


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

Which means you did swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors...


----------



## mover1 (24 Oct 2006)

So if this guy doesn't want to toast Old Betty JR.  does that mean he cuts the crown off of his hat badges and scriblle out the R, ER's, Reginas etc off of the uniforms he wears and texts he reads. 

I want to be his lawyer.  After all if there is going to be one winner out of all of this it might as well be me. I wouldn't mind lining my pockets with all kinds of little slips of paper with the queen on them.


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

Royal Canadian Engineer -> Canadian Military Engineers....

Round up those treasonous individuals...sacrilege I say.


----------



## MP 811 (24 Oct 2006)

I noted that my post was removed from this thread.  I apologize if my use of a couple words offended anyone, that was not the intent...


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

Somethings that bother you in life aren't worth fighting for.
You cannot nail yourself to every cross you see. In this case
this meant so much to the individual that he changed his name
and took it all the way to the CDS and then beyond. 

To put it bluntly, we can see the cross he's nailing himself too.
He must be well aware of the public uprising and CF uprising
he is bringing.  He must be aware of possible charges against him.
He must be aware of his career ending and most likely having to
resign or be asked to leave.  

Although I DISAGREE with him, to him this issue is THAT important
that he chose to "nail himself to this cross" and make a stand. It is rare
that we see someone stand for their convictions (right or wrong) and
face such incredible pressure (even if it is self made!)

He's knows he's screwed and it wouldn't doubt him one bit to read
any of the comments in this forum.

That being said.. I'm not defending him but I'm just recognizing the
passion behind his actions (instead of calling it lunacy)


If he does resign... wouldn't he make more money as a civilian instructor
at RMC???  ;D : ???


----------



## probum non poenitet (24 Oct 2006)

I don't think this chap is thinking about Canada when he is questioning whether we should have a 'foreign' monarch or not.
I get the feeling he has adopted an _uber_-Irish identity (a name change is awfully radical), and feels vocal criticism of 'foreign English royalty' fits right in with the stereotype.

If my gut feeling is right, the irony is that rather than striving to keep Canada free of 'foreign symbols', he is trying to import a divisive and most definitely foreign issue to our shores.

Maybe he needs to transfer to the Óglaigh na hÉireann.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Somethings that bother you in life aren't worth fighting for.
> You cannot nail yourself to every cross you see. In this case
> this meant so much to the individual that he changed his name
> and took it all the way to the CDS and then beyond.
> ...



Bullshit!!!!!........sometimes you lose and just have to be MAN/WOMAN enough to face that fact. He obviously isn't made of the same stuff his Irish ancestors who faced grave odds to settle in North America.


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit!!!!!........sometimes you lose and just have to be MAN/WOMAN enough to face that fact. He obviously isn't made of the same stuff his Irish ancestors who faced grave odds to settle in North America.



Thank you for being so diplomatic and showing anger towards me
when your anger is towards the individual in question.  I didn't defend him
but merely showed another possibility, one that HAS NOT been disproven
and could be very well true.

Your attack on me is uncalled for.  You can disagree in a more appropriate
mannor if you really wanted to.

edit (fixed spelling on disproven)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

You are making it seem like it means THAT MUCH to him.....what, like our Savior going to the cross?

I call Bullshit on the fact it means ANYTHING except publicity to him, he know the rules but still played the collection game twice a month........obviously didn't mean enough to him to give up a paycheque.

I would think you of all people would know what "nail in the cross" really means. Our comrades in theatre right now are "crossing" it, not this clown.    I'm actually a bit embarrassed at your "cross" terminology in this case.
Maybe its just me though.


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Oct 2006)

No it's not just you...


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

If it meant that much to him then he should never have joined the CF.  Or he could resign in protest.


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You are making it seem like it means THAT MUCH to him.....what, like our Savior going to the cross?
> 
> I call Bullshit on the fact it means ANYTHING except publicity to him, he know the rules but still played the collection game twice a month........obviously didn't mean enough to him to give up a paycheque.
> 
> ...



Lets examine the term "nailing oneself to a cross"

It means taking a stand where you probably aren't going to win but
it means that much to you that you have no other choice but to stand
up for your own convictions. (roughly)  I am not saying he is as
saintly as Jesus.


This guy... is as good as gone.  He knows his actions are going to cost
him his career.  For him.. this is the same.  I could have said Custard's
Last Stand or Kamikaze... instances where there is one decision and
no real way out.  Instead of actual death he's committing career suicide
for his beliefs.

That is also where I disagree with the vast majority here.  These are
his beliefs and feelings.  They appear to be very strong since the age
of 16 he didn't like the oath so we can see how early they are rooted.
He changed his name... that's huge too.  We can assume his beliefs
RIGHT OR WRONG... are very strong.  

That is what I am saying.    That is VALID.

Your point is he isn't MAN enough to accept responsibility. 
That is ALSO a valid belief.  There is NO right or wrong answer
to this situation.

EDIT

Oh.. crap.  I disagree with the reasons he's doing it.  I agree entirely
with every other post demanding his Commision, the Royal in RMC, the queen
as our monarch, etc...   My post is simply to show he may not be a raving lunatic
but a misguided person with strong feelings in his heart.


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Oct 2006)

I get your point. 

The philosophy is his and thus valid. Very Cartesian, I'll give you that...

What's the ethics of his actions? Isn't that the central point, how ethical is the good Captain, believing one thing and practising another?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> He's listed at RMC:
> 
> http://www.rmc.ca/academic/physics/MacGiollaChainnigh/index_e.html


Even if I had not somewhat formed an opinion based on this thread, the first impression from looking at his photo was this is a man who does not care about the example that he sets for the cadets at RMC.  Not only is he a 'disloyal tool', he needs to see the barber.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2006)

OK, I've refused to get dragged into this dogpile, but I've got to jump in here........



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> *I could have said Custard's Last Stand*...



Custer. LCol (brevet-BGen) George Armstrong Custer. US Cavalry Officer killed at Little Big Horn.
Custard. A milk & egg based dessert or dessert sauce.

Hopefully this topic has now been beaten to death.
Notice how I snuck in a reference to both eggs and Custer's demise


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

I knew as I was hitting send... Custer was a bad idea.
I just didn't have any other example of "finality" as
a result of one's actions.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

How about Joan of Arc sticking to her principles?  Or Socrates?  I don't know if I would compare this guy to them, maybe his belief in his convictions?


----------



## warrickdll (24 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> ...
> His objection is based on the premise that, while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen.
> ...
> The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The governor general, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.
> ...





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  She isn't a foreign monarch.  She's the Queen of Canada.





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Which means you did swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors...




He took the matter to the Grievance Board, and it was rejected, for the very real reason that the Queen of England (amongst other titles) is our Head of State. And that is where he should have stopped, change on this issue requires a change to the Head of State - which would require the public and political will to do so first.

Almost everyone (currently serving and not) has expressed many opinions on Government, Prime Ministers, MPs, MNDs, Generals, etc. There are limits on what serving members can do or say in regards to politics and their superiors, but we all enjoy some rights - and how Canada determines its Head of State is not beyond questioning. Your oath of allegiance should not be misconstrued as a medieval oath of fealty (similar maybe, but not the same).

The Queen of Canada is a foreign monarch by the simple fact that she is not a Canadian. The Queen of Canada can also be seen as a foreign monarch by virtue of her being the Queen of England, unless you know who the GG of England is? 

A good court challenge would be to test how succession is determined and compare that to the Constitution on a Rights or Religious basis.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I can appreciate that it felt good but it has no relevance .........the clock does not turn back and 'the good old days' really weren't all that good if you weren't a male WASP.




Yes "Bruce", I will agree with you on two things, "Sadly you can't turn back the clock"and "Yes it was really good if you were a male WASP especially if you were in the Corps".

But as far as relevance, if you weren't there how would you know?.

As far as the good Captain, I don't think he would have got in and he sure as Hell wouldn't have lasted.

Cheers.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

can some sort of counter-suit be raised, charging this dumbass with wasting CF resources on a frivolous lawsuit when it doesn't even have enough money to outfit this Brigade with more than an Infantry Company's worth of AN/PVS-14's? AMybe we can get enough money from the counter-suit to buy another Section's worth?


----------



## sigpig (24 Oct 2006)

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Not only is he a 'disloyal tool', he needs to see the barber.



A barber? What for? Hair extensions? Half the armour officers I knew looked like that _after_ their haircut.


----------



## North Star (24 Oct 2006)

Well, this guy is done. He refuses to adhere to his oath , and has even publically renounced it. As an officer, he only has one option - resignation. That's it, that's all. He can't lead any soldiers from now on as he has repudiated his legal authority to do so.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, I've refused to get dragged into this dogpile, but I've got to jump in here........
> 
> Custer. LCol (brevet-BGen) George Armstrong Custer. US Cavalry Officer killed at Little Big Horn.
> Custard. A milk & egg based dessert or dessert sauce.
> ...


Not just that, but "eggs" and then "beaten to death"
You are indeed on a roll today!


----------



## Crown-Loyal (24 Oct 2006)

I am personally disgusted by this matter. In any case, I am but one person who's opinion does not amount to much by itself. However, I can't help but feel that the more "non previously British Empire"  people move to our country and infiltrate all our armed forces, police, government etc  that the more "anti-crown" sentiment will be spoken about and eventually lead in the future to be put to a vote on whether to stay tied to the crown or branch away and have a president. I know this issue is around today already, but I can't help by fear it will only get stronger as time goes on. To me it would be a very sad day indeed if we were to split from our Royal head of state, but I know for a fact ( being 19 ) that I am among very few of my generation that care. I know this from debates in school etc. 

 To have an opinion is one thing as a civilian, but to be in the Canadian Forces and take this issue to court is appalling.

Thanks to those who serve, have served, and in the future will serve Canada and our Head of State - GOD SAVE THE QUEEN


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Isn't it truly IRONIC that he has now taken this out of the C o C and is appealing it to the CROWN?


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

This is taken from Wikipedia but sums up what this guy isn't doing.

_Similarly the oath of allegiance to Canada, sworn by new citizens, the Canadian Forces, police officers, and parliamentarians, is an oath of allegiance to the monarch as sovereign of Canada, and to his/her heirs and successors according to law. The relationship between the Oath taker and the Monarch is a complex one with roots reaching back to historical periods when a monarch ruled and accepted an Oath of fealty. Modern Oaths are still reciprocal but now the Oath taker places their allegiance to the continuing State, its laws, etc., as embodied by the Monarch. As the legal personality of the State, the Monarch has obligations to the Oath taker. The Monarch's acceptance of her responsibilities to her subjects is symbolized by the Coronation Oath, where he or she promises "to govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs."[21]_

Basically by not believing in his oath and by rejecting the Head of State he is rejecting the embodiement of the State, its laws etc etc.  Whether he knows it or not.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Basically by not believing in his oath and by rejecting the Head of State he is rejecting the embodiement of the State, its laws etc etc.  Whether he knows it or not.



I guess he is one confused puppy.   :


----------



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Infanteer, I think you're trivializing what this "officer" is doing.
> 
> Frankly, I could care less what his private attitude towards the monarchy is or how his religious/nationalist viewpoint figures into the equation.
> 
> ...



Oh, I'm not trivializing it; I agree with everything you said - which is why I compared this case to the guy who couldn't be bothered to take his hat off when others wanted to pray.  Overinflated ego leads to making an issue where there should be none (just lift your glass, guy).

However, this thread has turned into a flaming joke and is close to being locked.  Some of the posts (yours included) where on target and to the point, but the other half were out to lunch.  Bring back the days when we could beat people - yeah, that would make him change his mind.

As for opening himself to public attacks, another Mod established that it wasn't going to be the case here.  There are places on the internet where there will be 7 pages of posts calling so-and-so a douche-bag, but here isn't one of them.

Finally, I agree with paracowboy.  Let's hope that we can recompense the money that is going to be wasted on this.  Maybe he can work it off by being permanently posted to the Ceremonial Guard at the Governor General's Residence.


----------



## BernDawg (24 Oct 2006)

It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that some of our troops are fighting and dying and he has enough time on his hands to do this.
 :


----------



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that some of our troops are fighting and dying and he has enough time on his hands to do this.
> :



+1.
Best post yet.

Fortunately, the CofC told him to give it up - unfortunately, he's proven to be very disloyal to all those officers above him (forget about the Queen or the C-in-C) by going to another venue.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> However, this thread has turned into a flaming joke and is close to being locked.  Some of the posts (yours included) where on target and to the point, but the other half were out to lunch.  Bring back the days when we could beat people - yeah, that would make him change his mind.



Seeing some of the other posts, I see where you're coming from.  Criticism of a public figure is one thing - ranting is another...


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

So going to the Ombudsmen after exhausting all avenues within the Chain of Command is disloyal too? 

The popcorn chomper should have been placed at the end of the article, cause any 'reasonable' person knew where it was going to lead :brickwall:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> So going to the Ombudsmen after exhausting all avenues within the Chain of Command is disloyal too?




Rifleman,
Please show where anyone said that???


----------



## warrickdll (24 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...
> _...Modern Oaths are still reciprocal but now the Oath taker places their allegiance to the continuing State, its laws, etc., as embodied by the Monarch....[21]_
> 
> Basically by not believing in his oath and by rejecting the Head of State he is rejecting the embodiement of the State, its laws etc etc.  Whether he knows it or not.



Now, I don't want to specifically support this person's course of actions, but the Law (as approved/stamped by the Head of State, or their representative) allows for political discord. Having a political doubt about how the Head of State is determined is not being disloyal (how you express the doubt while in uniform may be, in some way, limited). 

The term disloyalty can not be applied in a democracy when discussing how the Head of State is determined, if it were, then by accepting Canada's current use of the Head of State you would be being disloyal as determined by some previous point in history.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

He went through all the proper redress chanels and got turned down.

Is it just me or is it that these days , people associate getting justice with "getting their way"....anything short of the desired outcome is an injustice ?


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Rifleman,
> Please show where anyone said that???


I see what he means, though. However, the Bud-man is an accepted means of complaint, while whining to the media, or attempting to sue  : is not. I'm not sure if it could be considered a double-standard, but that's the way she goes.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Oct 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> He went through all the proper redress chanels and got turned down.
> 
> Is it just me or is it that these days , people associate getting justice with "getting their way"....anything short of the desired outcome is an injustice ?



Unfortunately in our society today this seems to be the case. It reminds me of a situation a few years ago when a man and his wife were accidentally seated in a smoking section of a restaurant. (For the young ones on the board you were once allowed to actually smoke in buildings!) The manager apologized profusely, as it was the only table left and offered both the man and his wife dinner and drinks for free. This compromise was not good enough for this man and wanted the entire restaurant to quit smoking while he was there (plus the free meal and drinks). The manager refused and then kindly asked said person to leave. 

This individual exhausted the chain of command and didn't get his way, so like a spoiled child running home with his ball decided to go outside the c of c and attempt to force his belief on the system. He is contemptable and is not worthy of wearing the uniform or being in command of anyone in the CF. Like the man in the restaurant he needs to be removed.

If he is so against the idea of the Queen and anything royal, do I have to salute this person if I see him?  Actually, on second thought, maybe a few trips around RMC and saluting him at every opportunity to remind him of his commission, courtesy of the Queen!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (24 Oct 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that some of our troops are fighting and dying and he has enough time on his hands to do this.
> :



That says it all for me.

Sorta disheartening to even read about some kind of crap like this... :-\

Edit - Wow, there are only 9 guests reading this thread at this time.


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Rifleman,
> Please show where anyone said that???



Here



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> +1.
> Best post yet.
> 
> Fortunately, the CofC told him to give it up - unfortunately, he's proven to be very disloyal to all those officers above him (forget about the Queen or the C-in-C) by going to another venue.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman would be fair ball, thats why it exists.


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

quote author=Bruce Monkhouse link=topic=52232/post-467604#msg467604 date=1161722729]
...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman is fair ball, thats why it exists.
[/quote]

Yes and the courts exist too


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman would be fair ball, thats why it exists.



Otherwise known as 'the Crown'.


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

Already done Med (except I wrote to Principal Cowan), and my clerk is filing my intervenor status application as I write.


----------



## North Star (24 Oct 2006)

You probably shoudn't have done that. Although his case is annoying, giving him a deluge of emails starts to get into harassment.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> You probably shoudn't have done that. Although his case is annoying, giving him a deluge of emails starts to get into harassment.



+1

No need for that.  looks like the problem has been solved though.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Yes and the courts exist too



Please tell me you know what the difference is in comparing these things.........


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

I removed Med's post with Clown-shoe's personal e-mail, and his superior's. While it may be appropriate for our civvie members to complain (I'm not sure) to his boss, it's certainly not for Mil members. I don't like the idea of Mike getting caught up in a Harassment case.

Besides, anyone that attention-craving is certainly googling their own name regularly. He probably rushes right from his tiny little car, tripping over his over-sized shoes, to get to the closest computer. He's going to see exactly how most folks feel about his waste of CF money.


----------



## MedCorps (24 Oct 2006)

I would argue, (not that I have choice in the matter, as someone deleted my post) that the e-mail address is in the public domain (on the physics faculty webpage at RMC, internet site) and if you are a non-serving member of the public, that you have every right to contact the good Captain and support or  not support his very public plight.

If you are a serving member, the rules might be a little different, so I would use care. 

Cheers, 

MC 

Edit to add the fact that the e-mail address is a Government of Canada e-mail address and not a personal account.  The citizens of Canada are paying for that e-mail address, they might as well use it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2006)

Well now that one knows where to 'google' ...............This way Mike and the 'site' don't end up wearing it.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2006)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> I would argue, (not that I have choice in the matter, as someone deleted my post) that the e-mail address is in the public domain (on the physics faculty webpage at RMC, internet site) and if you are a non-serving member of the public, that you have every right to contact the good Captain and support or  not support his very public plight.
> 
> If you are a serving member, the rules might be a little different, so I would use care.
> 
> ...



Maybe.  But it's not our job to go and make it any more public than it already is.  Joe civy can find that info without our help.  Plus I'd argue that that work e-mail although public is for work related purposes, not for our expressing our displeasure.


----------



## rifleman (24 Oct 2006)

Wow an cyber-space lynch-mob...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Wow an cyber-space lynch-mob...



Well, the apparant disloyalty and the BS surrounding his statements would stir up some pitchforks and rope from the people who come here to converse.

Don't ya think?   ;D

I think BernDawg summed it up nicely though...+1.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Oct 2006)

I think that's enough for now.  If there's desire to evolve this into a credible debate on the ethics or legal aspects of the case, it may be reopened tomorrow following requests by interested parties to any Moderator.  Now that the mob's collective outrage has been expressed, that need is fullfilled.  Don't be surprised if your post disappears in a cleaning of the thread by the staff.

The following is also offered for review: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html


----------



## Bill Smy (24 Oct 2006)

Glen McGregor, CanWestNews Service
Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, October 24

OTTAWA - A Canadian Forces officer is suing Canada's top soldier over a ''degrading'' policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God the Save the Queen.
Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh, an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., wants a court to overturn the requirement for Forces members to publicly display their loyalty to the British monarchy.

''It's a situation of institutional harassment that members of Canadian Forces be obliged to toast the Queen of Canada at regimental dinners,'' says Mac Giolla Chainnigh, who also objects officers being required to show respect to the Union Jack. ''To fail to do so would be interpreted as disloyalty, which could carry up to nine years imprisonment.''

His objection is based on the premise that while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen.

''You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) ... the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces.''

He argues in his claim that the requirement to publicly express allegiance contrary to one's belief is degrading to an individual.

Mac Giolla Chainnigh - who legally changed his name from Harold Kenny to its Irish spelling - says he signed up for the Canadian Forces to serve Canada, not a foreign monarch. He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.

The oath requires new members to swear they will be ''be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.''

The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The Governor General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.

Mac Giolla Chainnigh has been fighting the policy within the military grievance system for the past five years. In May, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board rejected his complaint, saying his description of the toast to the Queen as ''royalist symbolism'' showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the way Canada is governed.

He appealed the decision to Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, who rejected it in August, writing that he saw no reason why ''showing respect to our head of state is anything but proper and lawful.''

Earlier this month, Mac Giolla Chainnigh filed an application with the Federal Court to reverse Hillier's decision, naming Hillier, the grievance board, the federal government and others as respondents. None has yet filed a response.


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> So going to the Ombudsmen after exhausting all avenues within the Chain of Command is disloyal too?


No.  The Ombudsman is one of the avenues in the CF, but . . . 



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> He took the matter to the Grievance Board, and it was rejected,


Did he take his issue to the Ombudsman or did he go straight to lawsuite once the grievance process was complete?


----------



## Donut (20 Mar 2007)

Capt. Chainnigh (Kenny) is back in the news today, persueing his case against HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Fair Dealings...subscription (perhaps) required:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=7c9d1b0e-7522-4043-ac41-2316b5351e3e

Keep saluting our Queen
  
Ian Holloway 
National Post 


Tuesday, March 20, 2007


Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (until recently, Harold Kenny), a professor of physics at the Royal Military College and an officer in the Canadian Forces Reserves, has sued the government for what he alleges to be a "degrading" policy of requiring officers to stand during the loyal toast and salute during the playing of God Save the Queen. News reports suggest that Capt. Chainnigh has been fighting the policy for five years and has had his grievance denied by both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Capt. Chainnigh is now asking the federal court to declare the requirement to pay respect to the Crown as unlawful on the basis that it amounts to what he describes as "institutional harassment." In his public comments on the case, Capt. Chainnigh has repeatedly described Queen Elizabeth as a "foreign monarch." The news report says that his objection "is based on the premise that while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen."

It is clear what the federal court should do with respect to Capt. Chainnigh's suit. There are intellectually respectable reasons for arguing that Canada should become a republic. But to suggest that under current law the Queen is a foreign monarch is quite ridiculous. Even the most superficial reading of Canada's constitution makes this obvious. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 declares that executive authority over Canada is vested in the Queen. Section 17 provides that, along with the Senate and House of Commons, the Queen constitutes one of the three branches of Parliament. And, most pertinently of all, section 15 declares that the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

*Capt. Chainnigh's mistake is to confuse the freedom of conscience with the freedom of action. The fact is that, like every Canadian, Capt. Chainnigh is entitled to his own belief system. He is free to exercise his conscience at the ballot box to vote for candidates who are in favour of Canada becoming a republic. He is free to make a statement by changing his name to its Irish version. He is even free to resign his commission and to seek elected office himself, in order to better make the case for a republic. But as long as he wants the privilege of being able to describe himself as an officer (in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, no less), it hardly seems harassment to expect him to acknowledge the plain terms of the constitution. It is not up to him, or to any member of the Canadian Forces for that matter, to pick and choose which provisions of the constitution he wants to uphold. As an old Chief Yeoman of mine once put it, once you take the Queen's shilling you have to take the rough with the smooth.*

With the exception of the Monarchist League, many Canadian monarchists have fallen into the blunder of seeking to avoid confrontation by minimizing the constitutional centrality of the Crown in Canada. As much as Capt. Chainnigh might wish it otherwise, the bottom line is that ours is a thoroughly monarchical system of government. We are a constitutional monarchy to be sure, but we are a monarchy all the same. *Those like him, who hold publicly-conferred office yet who deny or belittle our system of government, are themselves arguably behaving contemptuously of Canada and its institutions. * Happily, both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and Gen. Hiller seem to have been robust in their denial of Capt. Chainnigh's grievance. Now it will be interesting to see how staunchly the government of Canada is willing to defend the constitution.

- Ian Holloway is the dean of law at the University of Western Ontario. He is currently on sabbatical leave as a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. He is a former chief petty officer in the Canadian Naval Reserve.

Ihollowa@uwo.ca

Article Ends, Emphasis mine.

This "Gentleman" has taken his grievance to the Federal Court, in the hopes of winning his case as a matter of institutional harrasment against non-monarchists. I truly hope that the Federal Court shows the wisdom that Prof. Holloway (CPO Ret'd) has displayed here.

DF


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Mar 2007)

I'm thinking of a descriptive term for this, um, person...

rhymes with [removed attempt to get around the word filter]


----------



## gaspasser (20 Mar 2007)

Any Officer, or Man/Woman, who refuses to acknowledge the Queen should be charged with treason {as we have ALL sworn allegience to the Queen} and removed from service.  
Does he walk around campus NOT expecting Cadets to salute him?  
Or is he just being lazy and doesn't want to raise his arm?
Toasting the Queen at Mess Dinners, etc,is by tradition.
Rant off.
Cheers, BYTD
oh, and...


----------



## Mike Baker (20 Mar 2007)

+1 BYTD


----------



## karl28 (20 Mar 2007)

+1 BYTD


----------



## imjustsomeguy (20 Mar 2007)

Why don't they replace the good captain him with somebody who WANTS to be there? He does not want, nor deserve the commission he has been given.
 I see that there are tons of people on this site that are waiting for a chance to serve the Queen (myself included).


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2007)

And if he wins his suit, so what?  His career is effectively over as an officer and, more importantly, a combat arms leader.  I guess he can make a second career out of preaching his interpretation of "constitutional and professional loyalty" to impressionable, young RMC cadets.   

Now, I wonder what he does when someone salutes him?  Does he return that salute?  After all the salute is a mark of respect towards the Queen's Commission, not neccesarily the individual holding said commission.  If he returns the salute then he is acknowledging that respect on behalf of a "foreign monarch"!


----------



## Romeo Echo Mike Echo (20 Mar 2007)

I have eaten your bread and salt.
I have drunk your water and wine.
The deaths ye died I have watched beside,
And the lives ye led were mine.
 Kipling, 

This little self styled Fenian doesn't realize the Queen is more Canadian then any republican head of state can ever be (appointed patronagejob or politician). She is not some Foreign Queen she is the Queen of Canada. 

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.​


----------



## Cardstonkid (20 Mar 2007)

I had to swallow hard when I swore allegiance to the Queen and her retarded son the Prince of Whales and "all of her heirs". The thing that got me through it is the fact that terms like"the Queen", the Queen's Shilling" and shite like that are anachronistic terms for important words like "Country", "national pride", and "Honour". Most I know have little or no use for all this frivolous crappolla of "Royalty", but I would never want to violate the memory of those that felt they were serving these obsolete notions. I would never want to abuse the foundations of our society, even though they are no longer relevent. 

We don't need all these trappings to make us a Country or a culture, but we do need a certain amount of perspective and decency. The rules right now are that we are a Country with a Queen as our head of State. It is a bit embarrassing and ridiculous, but that is how it is. So be it. If someday that changes that would be great with me, but I am a soldier, I take my orders and I serve. If Canada wants to be headed by a Queen then I swear an oath to the Queen and her retarded son. 

The swearing of a silly oath does diminish the value of an oath, just like telling your kids there really is a Santa Clause diminishes your integrity. We do it because it it the silly thing our society asks, and in the whole we hope it is worthwhile. So I understand this Captain's feelings, but I do not understand his actions. Come on, litigation? It's absurd to accept the rules you live and work by, accept the pay and benefits of the job, and then refuse to perform the tasks you have sworn to do. Yes, they are stupid. Yes they are an insult to intelligent people everywhere, but so what? You accepted the rules, you live by them. Suck it up. (Rant Done) :rage:

While I hope we are someday freed from the facade of the Monarchy, I am glad and grateful to be living in Canada. If Canadians want this "Royal" illusion then I will fight for their right to believe it, I am just glad none of those Royal dim wits actually order us or lead us into battle. 

I will now prepare myself to be flamed.


----------



## medaid (20 Mar 2007)

Dishonourably discharge the individual in question. At the same time ask him for his commission back, because like many have said before, it is a commission for Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. Since he does not respect the Queen as our monarch, and wishes to not pay the proper respects to the head of state, he should leave. NOW. no if ands or buts. Good day to you 'sir'. Will the drummer please drum out the individual in question as we cutt off all of his buttons, shoulder flashes and titles.


----------



## gaspasser (20 Mar 2007)

{attempt to post #2}
 :rage:
I have another salute for this "officer". 
I believe breaking his sword is also in order.
God Save The Queen.


{at least, She's a Lady}


----------



## medaid (20 Mar 2007)

NO NO NO I'll take his sword! At least I'LL have a use for it when I'm on Parade saluting the Queen  ;D


----------



## gaspasser (20 Mar 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> NO NO NO I'll take his sword! At least I'LL have a use for it when I'm on Parade saluting the Queen  ;D


+1.


----------



## Bane (20 Mar 2007)

This debate doesn't really seem all that useful.  We are in no way what so ever a 'functional' monarchy; everyone knows this.  We are far more influenced by the U.S. than the U.K. anyway.  I also don't know why some are so steadfast in their eagerness to defend the Queen; soliders don't fight for monarchs or the CDS or your brigade commander. There is a reason the regimental system is so powerful and why soldiers arn't taught indepth courses on foreign policy and political science as a means of motivation; because it doesn't work. Soliders fight for and with the people they know.  Sure the Queen seems like a nice lady and the CDS is freakin' awesome...but after having trained with, lived with and worked with the same people for 5-10 years...those are the people i'll really fight for.  Arguing over whether or not we should pay allegience to the Queen is a  product of the luxury of not currently being shot at. I have no issue with toasting her till the cows come home and respecting the very real traditions and heratige of Canada and the Canadian Forces.  But I know and understand the Monarch is never again going to SEND Canada into battle.   
I can't say that I'd die for the Queen, but I would for pvt. Bloggins anyday. 

I would have suggested to this Capt. to raise his issue with his MP and have him or her bring it up in parliment, or better yet wait till he's out of the forces to press his complaint then. However, this is really an issue that is not an important one. The CF has infinitaly more important issues to work on, so i'm glad he was given a polite 'thank you come again' by the CDS and others


----------



## Cardstonkid (20 Mar 2007)

Amen, Bane!


----------



## timma (20 Mar 2007)

If the officer in question  is so against the Queen that he will not salute to her then there's something wrong. You don't need to be ready to die for the Queen , but you should at least pay your respects to her as the head of state.
God save our gracious Queen!


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Mar 2007)

Have the terms of service changed?  I seem to remember something about not bringing suit against the Crown while a serving member of the Forces.  Is this still not the case?  Oh, and a happy belated St Fatpricks Day to the good Captain Unpronounceable.


----------



## NCSnotty (20 Mar 2007)

"her retarded son"  ?!

I presume this refers to Prince Charles.  I don't see how can deserve this, so I will defend some of his accomplishments:  He has a degree (the first ever for an heir to the throne) in history from Cambridge.  He speaks French and Welsh.  He spent most of the 1970s in the armed forces; flying jets in the RAF, and commanding a minesweeper in the RN.  Also:

"On being appointed Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment, a few months before he was 30, The Prince asked to take part in the parachute training course.

The Prince felt he could not "look them in the eye" or wear the Parachute Regiment's famous beret and wings badge unless he had done the course, he told his biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby, 15 years later.

"I felt I should lead from the front or at least be able to do some of the things that one expects others to do for the country," said The Prince."

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/militarycareer/

Twenty years ago people laughed at his interest in organic farming.  He spends a lot of time and money (his own, i.e., inherited family, as opposed to public, wealth) on charitable causes.

Say what you want about his personal life, but how many marriages could survive the pressure his did?  And he has been with Camilla for over thirty years.

Debate the merits of monarchy versus republicanism, but don't throw around undeserved personal insults.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Mar 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And if he wins his suit, so what?  His career is effectively over as an officer and, more importantly, a combat arms leader.  I guess he can make a second career out of preaching his interpretation of "constitutional and professional loyalty" to impressionable, young RMC cadets.
> 
> Now, I wonder what he does when someone salutes him?  Does he return that salute?  After all the salute is a mark of respect towards the Queen's Commission, not neccesarily the individual holding said commission.  If he returns the salute then he is acknowledging that respect on behalf of a "foreign monarch"!



Here's the deal. His career is over anyway. He graduated in 78 which means he joined in 73 or 74 he's almost got his 35 in and he's taken advantage of the crown to give him a BSC a Master's and a PHd. He has nothing to lose at this point and now that he has a Phd can likely just take his uniform off and teach there as a civie for the rest of his life. 

He will collect his pension, get a tenured position and live happily ever after...so this is no sweat for him.
Interesting that he didn't start raising a stink when he only had 10 years in and was just about to qualify for the CF to send him for his Masters degree or when he got us to pay for his PhD.....coincidence...I don't think so. A guy who showed this much disloyalty would not likely be recommended by his CO for PG training.
The good news is he won't be a CF member soon anyway....oh well  :


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2007)

Promoted Capt in 1985, this guy was posted out of 1 PPCLI in 1987and hasn't seen the field for some 20 years!  
B Eng, MSC, Phd all on our nickle...... great career huh?

Methinks the Colonel of the Regiment should ask him to remove his PPCLI accoutrements and adopt badges that are more appropriate to his inclinations...... (which are none).


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2007)

NCSnotty said:
			
		

> Say what you want about his personal life, but how many marriages could survive the pressure his did?  And he has been with Camilla for over thirty years.
> 
> Debate the merits of monarchy versus republicanism, but don't throw around undeserved personal insults.


Snotty.....
Problem with your comment about having been with Camilla for some 30 years is that - Diana, his 1st wife, hasn't been dead that long.  Not something you should have posted on your web site and be crowing about.


----------



## Inch (20 Mar 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> This debate doesn't really seem all that useful.  We are in no way what so ever a 'functional' monarchy; everyone knows this.  We are far more influenced by the U.S. than the U.K. anyway.  I also don't know why some are so steadfast in their eagerness to defend the Queen; soliders don't fight for monarchs or the CDS or your brigade commander. There is a reason the regimental system is so powerful and why soldiers arn't taught indepth courses on foreign policy and political science as a means of motivation; because it doesn't work. Soliders fight for and with the people they know.  Sure the Queen seems like a nice lady and the CDS is freakin' awesome...but after having trained with, lived with and worked with the same people for 5-10 years...those are the people i'll really fight for.  Arguing over whether or not we should pay allegience to the Queen is a  product of the luxury of not currently being shot at. I have no issue with toasting her till the cows come home and respecting the very real traditions and heratige of Canada and the Canadian Forces.  But I know and understand the Monarch is never again going to SEND Canada into battle.
> I can't say that I'd die for the Queen, but I would for pvt. Bloggins anyday.
> 
> I would have suggested to this Capt. to raise his issue with his MP and have him or her bring it up in parliment, or better yet wait till he's out of the forces to press his complaint then. However, this is really an issue that is not an important one. The CF has infinitaly more important issues to work on, so i'm glad he was given a polite 'thank you come again' by the CDS and others



I think most of you need to recheck your history. England (later Great Britain and finally the United Kingdom) has been a Constitutional Monarchy since the 1200's, that's almost 800 years since the King (or Queen) has held absolute power there. So your comment about the Queen sending Canadian troops into battle is pretty far off the mark, a British Monarch hasn't had the ability to do that without Parliament's approval since the middle ages.

The point of all this that I think some of you are missing is that while you may find the Monarch to be a useless symbol, the Monarch is a part of Canadian History, just like Vimy Ridge or Juno Beach. It's part of our national identity, all these things make us Canadian. They don't take anything away from our identity, they are our identity and to believe otherwise is just ridiculous.

God save the Queen.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> I had to swallow hard when I swore allegiance to the Queen and her retarded son the Prince of Whales and "all of her heirs". The thing that got me through it is the fact that terms like"the Queen", the Queen's Shilling" and shite like that are anachronistic terms for important words like "Country", "national pride", and "Honour". Most I know have little or no use for all this frivolous crappolla of "Royalty", but I would never want to violate the memory of those that felt they were serving these obsolete notions. I would never want to abuse the foundations of our society, even though they are no longer relevent.
> 
> We don't need all these trappings to make us a Country or a culture, but we do need a certain amount of perspective and decency. The rules right now are that we are a Country with a Queen as our head of State. It is a bit embarrassing and ridiculous, but that is how it is. So be it. If someday that changes that would be great with me, but I am a soldier, I take my orders and I serve. If Canada wants to be headed by a Queen then I swear an oath to the Queen and her retarded son.
> 
> ...



Cardstonkid...................consider the "retarded son" comment your one and only freebie.   
army.ca Staff


----------



## FastEddy (20 Mar 2007)

NCSnotty said:
			
		

> "her retarded son"  ?!
> 
> I presume this refers to Prince Charles.  I don't see how can deserve this, so I will defend some of his accomplishments:  He has a degree (the first ever for an heir to the throne) in history from Cambridge.  He speaks French and Welsh.  He spent most of the 1970s in the armed forces; flying jets in the RAF, and commanding a minesweeper in the RN.  Also:
> 
> ...




Well said "NCSnotty" you've restored my faith in Junior Officers. I was beginning to wonder ?, however, it is evident that there are a few Clots that have squeaked by.

Cheers.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Mar 2007)

I guess it's easy to believe the media stereotype of Royalty, especially those spewed out by the Fleet St mob.
Charles served as a Naval Officer and from all the Brits I talked to who served with him he was a stand up guy. 
I have met some whom I would consider retarded who rose to the rank of commanding Her Majesty's ships but my understanding is that he was not one of them.  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid... I believe that the Oath of Allegiance contains the words "I shall bear true allegiance... etc". If you find that your personal beliefs are at odds with the oath that you swore to uphold, then do the honourable thing and seek your release. As an officer you are required to set the example through both word and deed!


----------



## NCSnotty (20 Mar 2007)

I'll try to refer my post about Prince Charles to the original topic:

In our leaders -- military, political, royal, or otherwise -- we generally consider their ability to perform their duties as more important than their personal lives.  In our Governor General, or King, or Queen, their primary responsibility is to ensure that a democratic government exists for the country.  In a Commander-in-Chief, we look for, at a minimum, knowledge of the Armed Forces and some leadership ability.  I think the people our current constitutional monarchy has given us are more than adequate for the task, their personal lives notwithstanding.  (I'll undermine my argument by pointing out that having an adulterer as head of the Church of England is problematic for some...)

To change the currrent system, and its players is, however, an inherently political act, not a legal one.  I think Captain Kenny's biggest sin is to try to be an officer and a politician at the same time, (which is, I think, illegal) by masking his politics in legal robes.


----------



## eerickso (20 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Promoted Capt in 1985, this guy was posted out of 1 PPCLI in 1987and hasn't seen the field for some 20 years!
> B Eng, MSC, Phd all on our nickle...... great career huh?
> 
> Methinks the Colonel of the Regiment should ask him to remove his PPCLI accoutrements and adopt badges that are more appropriate to his inclinations...... (which are none).



Yeah, or he should've been fired 10 years ago and told to apply to the department of physic.


----------



## medaid (20 Mar 2007)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Cardstonkid... I believe that the Oath of Allegiance contains the words "I shall bear true allegiance... etc". If you find that your personal beliefs are at odds with the oath that you swore to uphold, then do the honourable thing and seek your release. As an officer you are required to set the example through both word and deed!



+1 ModlrMike

Those who didnt see fit the wording of said oath should have never sworn or affirmed it. If you had no intentions on serving Her Majesty maybe it time to get out...


----------



## Cardstonkid (20 Mar 2007)

You might be surprised possibly stunned to believe that some people can actually love Canada without a magical fairyland monarch benevolently loving us from on high. I guess if you personally disagree with the tattered remains of history that still resides with us then you do not deserve to serve in the CF? WOW, well I do not think Santa is real, yet I still take my kids to the mall to sit on his lap. I do not think the Easter Bunny is real, yet I still by chocolate eggs for my kids. 

I do not think the Queen and her heirs really run Canada, or that it is "their" money that pays my wages, BUT I still swear allegiance to the Crown because it is a metaphor for the collective rules, culture and history of our nation. 

It bothers me because it is not real, just like I feel a bit guilty hiding Easter Eggs and telling my kids that it is from a Giant Bunny! That does not stop me from doing it, because on the whole the harm that is done is probably worth it. 

My apologies for calling HRH The Prince of Whales a Retard. I see how that is a bit much. To imply that I should not serve because I have to plug my nose at all the "Royal" stuff is a bit past the pale as well. 

The point is that I am willing to serve, and like many others I am willing to look past the Royal anachronisms.


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> I am willing to look past the Royal anachronisms.




In your opinion thats is.....

I myself take great pride in serving my Queen and her intrest at home and abroad. Then again I suppose I have an outdated sense of loyalty to a vision and way of life perhaps greater then some people are willing to see.


----------



## Bane (20 Mar 2007)

Inch; Thank you for correcting me on the Canadian Forces being never 'again' be sent into battle. I should not have used the word again. 

You are mostly right to comment that england hasn't been an absolute Monarchy for some time, I must add that there is nothing in the 1225 Magna Carta that refers to the Monarchs ability to declare war. Also, the parliment was almost exclusivly a formal advisory commitee anyway, not the parliament we know and love today  . It did have authority to set taxes which could at times limit a monarchs ability to fight a war: Ex.  Charles I, ascended the thrown in 1625, had a difficult time fighting the majority of the 30 years war after he choose not to conviene parliment for ten years! 

I again I thank you for the correction, as being specific in ones in language is very important.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2007)

Both Canada and Australia have our issues with the whole Royalty thing - but, it's part of what we were and, to an extent - what we are.  Our parliamentary system with the two houses is similar in concept to the US with it's two houses - but from a personal viewpoint, I think our system works better than theirs IMHO

I have sworn my alliegance to the Queen AND to Canada
I have worn a capbadge my entire career that is adorned by the Queen's crown
I have my RSM/CWOs warrant framed & proudly on display
I am who I am... what can I say ?


----------



## medaid (20 Mar 2007)

My point with regards to the whole thing is that you swore or affirmed an oath. It is an oath of law. You swore or affirmed it knowing very well what it said, the CF's history, it's role within the Common Wealth and it's Commander-In-Chief and Canada's head of State. YOU KNEW all of that, and you swore that oath or affirmed that oath willingly and witout reserve. If you did, and you had no intentions on remaining faithful to Her Majesty, then I would say your enrollment was irregular, or, you need to re-evaluate your stance and get out. 

If you dont agree with the oath that you took when you were enrolled. You and this is the general YOU, do not deserve to wear that uniform and you do not deserve to call yourself a Canadian Forces Soldier.


----------



## NCSnotty (20 Mar 2007)

The notion of swearing an oath of allegiance is important, because it implies a relationship with a person (the Queen) and not an abstract idea.  We don't swear to uphold a constitution, or to a politician (God forbid), or to the holder of an office, but to a real person.  In our system we are asked to be loyal to someone who could (theoretically) personally call us to account if we do not fulfill our duties.  This is a natural human way of operating, e.g., we are loyal to friends, family, respected superiors, etc.  I think this is a great advantage of our system over the American one, and others.

Another important point is that the throne is never empty.  "The King is dead, long live the King" was a principle of Roman law.  The heir apparent to the throne assumes it immediately upon the death of the incumbent.  The coronation is a later formality, (cf. the swearing in of governments).


----------



## smitty66 (20 Mar 2007)

The CF should hand this "Gentleman" his walking papers. As someone who has used his affiliation with the "Crown" to further his education and flex his ability to teach as a College Professor seems rather hypocritical.  The idea of an outwardly and publicly disloyal officer instructing the future leaders of the CF, sickens me. From what I have read, Capt "Chapaflap" has been given his moment in the sun and minute of fame, it's pink-slip time! I think he has been indulged quite enough. Barring that he should do the honourable thing, and turn in his kit and Queen's Commission and release. Good luck to him in his civilian endeavors. 
The time wasted by the system in defending itself against these allegations would be better spent on dealing with matters more important to the CF. I am quite certain that the time of the lawyers and staffs involved could be put to better, more productive use.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Mar 2007)

Not to mention the funds DND has to spend because of this waste-of-rations, as opposed to say, oh, Afghanistan...  :rage:

I agree with others here.  If one is not prepared to swear/affirm allegiance to Her Majesty without reserve, one should not apply for Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> My apologies for calling HRH The Prince of Whales a Retard. I see how that is a bit much.



You could at the very least spell His title correctly. While I've never seen anything about it, I'm fairly sure that HRH The Prince Of _Wales_ has little or no authority over Whales that we commonly find in the ocean or hanging off the back of Japanese ships.
While it doesn't seem like much, for someone of your age to say "Whales" instead of "Wales" totally debases your argument.
For me, swearing the oath was one of the proudest days of my life. As a proud Monarchist i felt more pride then i could describe and to be a part of the "Prince Of Wales's Light Horse" was a very fabulous thing.
Its just a simple case of respect.


----------



## Kiwi99 (21 Mar 2007)

Teacher at RMC, OK.  But soldier first.  If he is so against saluting, then deploy this 'soldier' to Afghanistan where there is no saluting outside the wire.  He should be pleased as punch to be in such an enviroment me thinks.  Oh, but wait, maybe he is against real soldiering as well.


----------



## FastEddy (21 Mar 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> You could at the very least spell His title correctly. While I've never seen anything about it, I'm fairly sure that HRH The Prince Of _Wales_ has little or no authority over Whales that we commonly find in the ocean or hanging off the back of Japanese ships.
> While it doesn't seem like much, for someone of your age to say "Whales" instead of "Wales" totally debases your argument.
> For me, swearing the oath was one of the proudest days of my life. As a proud Monarchist i felt more pride then i could describe and to be a part of the "Prince Of Wales's Light Horse" was a very fabulous thing.
> Its just a simple case of respect.




Its a good thing I kept reading down to the end of this page or I would have duplicated your pickup on the "Whales".

IMO, this is not just a simple spelling error, but just another intended slight against HRH.

Cheers.


----------



## brihard (21 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> While I hope we are someday freed from the facade of the Monarchy, I am glad and grateful to be living in Canada. If Canadians want this "Royal" illusion then I will fight for their right to believe it, I am just glad none of those Royal dim wits actually order us or lead us into battle.
> 
> I will now prepare myself to be flamed.



I would point out, sir, that Prince Harry - one of those 'royal dimwits' - may well presently be leading his armoured troop in battle in the Basra region with the Blues and Royals. Prince Phillip served in the Second World War in the navy. Prince Andrew served in the Falklands and decoyed Exocets. I'm sure I've missed a few others.

Might I suggest that insulting them as you did is akin to insulting any competent officer, sir? It reflects poorly only upon yourself when you attack officers with some rather impressive service records. Though they may serve in the forces of another nation, perhaps the term 'superior' officer may not be inappropriate given the circumstances. Moreover, to blatantly attack the integrity of the oath oneself has sworn cannot help but to cast you in a poor light. Would you tell your troops that the oath they swore is bunk, sir?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Teacher at RMC, OK.  But soldier first.  If he is so against saluting, then deploy this 'soldier' to Afghanistan where there is no saluting outside the wire.  He should be pleased as punch to be in such an enviroment me thinks.  Oh, but wait, maybe he is against real soldiering as well.



Those that can....do. Those that can't.......teach.

I know that's not fair to most instructors or teachers, but in this case it's more than apt. This guy got what he wanted from the military and now wants out of his contract, preferring a big pay out to make him go away. 

Speaking of whales, this guy is even lower than their excrement.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Teacher at RMC, OK.  But soldier first.  If he is so against saluting, then deploy this 'soldier' to Afghanistan where there is no saluting outside the wire.  He should be pleased as punch to be in such an enviroment me thinks.  Oh, but wait, maybe he is against real soldiering as well.



I can just see this guy as your Pl Comd    I wonder if having your driver run him over would be illegal?  I'm sure I could make a better case for running him over than he can make for not saluting...


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Mar 2007)

Cardstonkid:

I wonder if the CO of 18 AD Regt (not 18_th_ as your profile has it) frequents these means?  I wonder if he's as amused as I am regarding your position here.

You're on duty and represent the CROWN 24/7, Sir.


Roy


----------



## Bane (21 Mar 2007)

"Military historian Jack Granatstein said the complaint raises a debatable point, but one better addressed when a Canadian Forces member first takes the oath.
It's actually a question of substantial principle, but he should have worked out that question of conscience when he enlisted," he said."

I normally don't like others doing my thinking for me  , but I agree with Jack.
After sixty books he's got his 'sum up a debate in two sentences' skill down nicely.


----------



## Stetson and Spurs (21 Mar 2007)

Canadian Law by virtue of the Constitution Act, 1982 states quite clearly that the Queen is the Head of State being referred to as the Queen of Canada. I think it will be interesting to see how this person makes a Charter argument against the Charter...


----------



## gaspasser (21 Mar 2007)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would point out, sir, that Prince Harry - one of those 'royal dimwits' - may well presently be leading his armoured troop in battle in the Basra region with the Blues and Royals. Prince Phillip served in the Second World War in the navy. Prince Andrew served in the Falklands and decoyed Exocets. I'm sure I've missed a few others.


During WW2, Princes' Elizabeth and Margerate learned to drive and shuttled wounded soldiers to and from hospitals.  At the time, it was the only thing the princess' were allowed to do.  But do they did!


----------



## Pikache (21 Mar 2007)

I see no further merit in allowing this thread to continue as I see more chance of mudslinging and flaming.

-The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Bigmac (21 Jan 2008)

> Officer’s lawsuit against allegiance to Queen dismissed
> Meagan Fitzpatrick and Phil Couvrette,  Canwest News Service
> Published: Monday, January 21, 2008
> 
> ...



http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=253579

Good for the judge! Is this guy still in the military??


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (21 Jan 2008)

I don't know if he's still in, but I hope that he will now comply with the judges order and show the respect to the Queen that is expected by all members of the Canadian Forces and demanded by his holding the Queen's commission.  

If he still has issues, which I suspect he does due to his disappointment toward the ruling, than I hope that he puts forth his release (which he should have long ago) so as to save himself from further disgrace through his hipocracy.  He should not be collecting a paycheck from an organization when he is unable to accept its very foundation.  

As a final word, the guy is an ass-hat.


----------



## Teflon (21 Jan 2008)

> As a final word, the guy is an ass-hat.



That my friend is an unprovoked insult to both Asses and Hats!


----------



## Haggis (21 Jan 2008)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> I don't know if he's still in,



 I would say that the line from the article which reads:


> Capt. Chainnigh, *reached at his office*, said "I'm obviously very disappointed and frankly quite surprised as well.


would imply that he is still in the CF.


----------



## geo (21 Jan 2008)

.... should Capt Chainnigh wish to imolate himself in protest.... I am prepared & will provide the matches.


----------



## GUNS (21 Jan 2008)

Can Officers be invited for a " Blanket Party". :warstory: :argument:


----------



## Privateer (21 Jan 2008)

Here is a link to the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T180906Decision.pdf

Apparently the good Captain is on the teaching staff at RMC.


----------



## Jager (21 Jan 2008)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Can Officers be invited for a " Blanket Party". :warstory: :argument:



Sure, Why not  :


----------



## MedCorps (21 Jan 2008)

Yep, he is still one of Her Majesty's loyal Officers on strength at the Royal Military College of Canada. 

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/physics/MacGiollaChainnigh/index_e.html

Doing fine work with symbiotic stars binary systems I am sure.

MC


----------



## medicineman (21 Jan 2008)

This guy used to make my skin crawl when I worked there - hopefully now he'll put his money where his mouth is and, paraphrasing Monty Python, "bravely, bugger off".

MM


----------



## xFusilier (21 Jan 2008)

> This guy used to make my skin crawl when I worked there - hopefully now he'll put his money where his mouth is and, paraphrasing Monty Python, "bravely, bugger off"



Well if it is of any small consolation, he'll have slightly less money to bugger off with as he is stuck paying the crowns legal bills, as his case was dismissed with costs to the crown


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2008)

If RMC is unable to do the right thing and terminate his contract (as he is seemingly unable to follow the terms and conditions of his commissioning), perhaps the students can organize to refuse to take any classes offered or taught by this "gentleman".

Maybe he will get the message then.


----------



## armyvern (21 Jan 2008)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Well if it is of any small consolation, he'll have slightly less money to bugger off with as he is stuck paying the crowns legal bills, as his case was dismissed with costs to the crown



Ironic isn't it??

He'll now have to reimburse the Crown with those Queen's Schillings that he's been receiving from Her since 1975 -- even though he's never agreed with serving under Her while wearing Her Commission. I am, of course, being presumtuous and assuming that he's had no problems with cashing Her monthly cheques since 1975 however.  :

Good on the judge. This guy is a hypocrite extraordinaire.


----------



## medaid (21 Jan 2008)

I still say, take his capbadge, remove his sword, and his sword belt, cut off all of his buttons on his tunic then drum him out of RMC.


Drum him out of his branch of service.

Drum him out of the Canadian Forces.


Make a public spectacle out of it, because we need to show the nation that people of this nature will NOT be tolerated...


----------



## medicineman (21 Jan 2008)

Perhaps hang him in a gibbet from the top of the Mackenzie Block for all to see - or would that seem like we were drumming up what happened to his ancestors at the hands of my evil English/Scots/IRISH family members?

MM


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jan 2008)

I wonder how many drummers in ceremonial dress we could round up from across the country.   >


----------



## BernDawg (21 Jan 2008)

+1 MedTech


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Jan 2008)

Yeah, lay some Chuck Connors action on his ass!


----------



## medaid (21 Jan 2008)

I'm serious. What he did could be interpreted as treason. We need to parade the entire RMC, cadets and serving pers all under arms, with a full military band and drum the bastard out. Once he leaves the gates of RMC he should be immediately taken by MPs to his branch's home base, and drummed out there, and then finally drummed out on parliament hill. 

Yes, it's a little extravagant so just RMC then.

But the whole entire point of this would not be to get him public support or media exposure, it'll be to show the entire nation, the Canadian Public that we are not afraid to punish one of our own, and we WILL do so in front of the scrutiny and watchful eyes of the people to whom we have sworn to defend. 

There is no worse of a crime then treason for a service person. There are a few others, but this one is one I cannot stand and will not stand for. IMO, he committed treason. He should be dealt with as such.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yeah, lay some Chuck Connors action on his ass!



Kat

I don't think many here remember "Branded"..........and he went on to be a 'hero'.  Or is it just the parade in the begining of the show that you want?    >


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Jan 2008)

Just the part before the opening credits will be fine.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2008)

National Defence Act, Section 94:



> Every person who uses traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment.



Sounds straightforward to me.


----------



## FastEddy (22 Jan 2008)

Gentlemen,  I hate to be the one to sour the wine, but has anyone stopped to think, regardless of the Militarys action or the Captains decision, since 1975 he'll draw a nice healthy PENSION, now that's a real travesty.

Its a pity he didn't work for ENRON, its amazing how people like this always come out smelling like roses.

With his attitude, he should be a shoe in for the Bloc or PQ.

Cheers.


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> With his attitude, he should be a shoe in for the Bloc or PQ.



Oh jebus... don't give people any ideas. Next thing you'll know, he'll be elected to some position that's making decisions and we're all doomed.


----------



## FastEddy (22 Jan 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Oh jebus... don't give people any ideas. Next thing you'll know, he'll be elected to some position that's making decisions and we're all doomed.





True True, your absolutely right and I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Cheers.


----------



## Bigmac (22 Jan 2008)

> Officer's complaint a royal pain, judge says
> Captain of Irish descent objected to drinking to 'an unelected monarch of foreign origin'
> TU THANH HA
> 
> ...



Another article this AM.



> He has long been active in promoting Irish culture in Canada. His office voicemail answers in Irish Gaelic and he is president of the North American Association for Celtic Language Teachers.
> 
> Asked whether his background might have informed his views on the monarchy, he said he didn't want to mix culture and politics.However, he added that "Ireland, like most countries that have been colonized and suffered the scourges of imperialism, understands perhaps a little bit better than other nations what the extremely negative aspects are of a government that's not responsible to the people."
> 
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wqueen22/BNStory/National/home

I wonder if this guy should be investigated for any monies he fronted to the IRA when they were actively operating in Northern Ireland?

He was told it was simply "a figurative way" of pledging loyalty to the people of Canada??? That is like saying saluting a superior officer is " a suggestion if ya feel like it at the time" to demonstrate that you kinda recognize the rank. 

Why is this man still in the military and teaching our future officers, seriously!!??


----------



## GUNS (22 Jan 2008)

Did I mention a "blanket party" for the lad. :warstory:  > :argument:


----------



## Cat (22 Jan 2008)

I must admit this thread shocked me - I just recently found it and finished reading through it and I really can't beleive the man is still teaching. 

I'm all for the blanket party or the drumming out - or both 

I simply cannot beleive that a member of the CF would discredit themselves, and the erst of the serving members with something so ridiculous.

I'm going to swear in on the 30th of Jan 2008 - prehaps I will swear to the Queen as opposed to the Bible....


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2008)

The decision of the court is only just out.
The ball is now in this Officer's court.
He must now resign himself to carrying out his duties & responsibilities OR... he can get out.

If he requires matches or financial assitance for a gallon of gas.... I'm willing to chip in 5$


----------



## Gunner98 (22 Jan 2008)

He threw down the gauntlet this morning on CBC Radio stating (in words as close as I can remember to the effect) that the next time the occasion presented himself he had a choice to make. If he choose not to salute or pledge then the NDA must be invoked (Charge him under NDA) or it is powerless and irrelevant.


----------



## Teflon (22 Jan 2008)

> He threw down the gauntlet this morning on CBC Radio stating (in words as close as I can remember to the effect) that the next time the occasion presented himself he had a choice to make. If he choose not to salute or pledge then the NDA must be invoked (Charge him under NDA) or it is powerless and irrelevant.



Good, then he can be charged and with the previous finding we can be fairly well assured that he will be found guilty and punished - Just another day in his irrelevant life.


----------



## Lumber (22 Jan 2008)

Ummmmmmmmm just wondering why it has to be "RMC" Officer, as opposed to just CF Officer, or CF member? Not trying to stir things up here, I agree with everyone else, this guy has a fumbled idea of loyalty and duty, but those three big letters had even me thinking at first that his being such a twit had something to do with RMC.


----------



## Gunner98 (22 Jan 2008)

If you read the thread and the news items - he is an Associate Professor at RMC and a member of PPCLI.


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2008)

Well... I guess it is high time for the Commandant of RMC to put on his pants, put his hat on and go have a face to face with the "gent".


----------



## Gunner98 (22 Jan 2008)

Dr. Mac Giolla Chainnigh conducts research which investigates the circumstellar morphology in symbiotic star systems. Symbiotic stars are binary systems in which one component, the "cool component", is a late-type star (e.g. a red giant), and the other component, the "hot component", is a compact object, typically a white dwarf.  Current work at RMC involves both observations and theoretical analysis of symbiotic stars.


----------



## Staff Weenie (22 Jan 2008)

Ah, so his field of study is appropriate, for in his world, he's the centre of the solar system and everything revolves around him.

BTW Elf - that's way too much astronomy terminology for an HSO.....


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2008)

This officer and "Gentleman" should resign his commission as soon as possible. He is not leading by example, and doing this for political reasons. The military is no place for politics and as such, his Commnding Officer should "counsel" this officer to cease and desist.
I will tell you one thing: if a MCpl or any NCM were to do this, he' d be segregated from the others and released. Any comments?


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This officer and "Gentleman" should resign his commission as soon as possible. He is not leading by example, and doing this for political reasons. The military is no place for politics and as such, his Commnding Officer should "counsel" this officer to cease and desist.
> I will tell you one thing: if a MCpl or any NCM were to do this, he' d be segregated from the others and released. Any comments?



It's what all of us wants, and wishes that he'll do.... and soon. 

I keep saying that he should be forcibly separated from the Force. He is the poisonous fruit in the tree, and we must cut him off before his contagion can spread amongst others. This is a chance for the CF to change the doctrine and training methods employed at RMC once and for all. Lets take this chance and utilize it to it's full potential.


----------



## garb811 (22 Jan 2008)

His history and heritage are important enough for him to legally change his name to something 99.99% of Canadians can't even pronounce.  On top of that he has become the champion of a dying language and figures the Canadian government should contribute funds to his pet project (Irish at home in Canada).  I also note the article states he speaks with a soft Ontario accent so I strongly suspect that Canada's reaffirmation of who our Head of State is is much, much less distant history than his ancestors emigration to Canada.  Yet the traditions and heritage of the Canadian Forces and Canada aren't worthy of his time because, it appears, his ancestors were conquered centuries ago and he can't get over that fact, notwithstanding his "nation" has been sovereign since 1921.  Good thing most of us don't abide by that train of thought or we'd be a nation of anarchists...oh, wait a minute, we're getting closer and closer to that every day.

For those so inclined, if someone were to lay a complaint to the NIS regarding his statements, they would be compelled to investigate.  A word of warning though, if charges were to be laid it would simply extend his 5 minutes.  I'm inclined to just let him fade away and in 2 months days, nobody outside the military will even remember who he is.  

Ref paying for his education, I'm personally gobsmacked that the CF saw fit to fund a PhD in this field and continues to pay him to research it.  My understanding was post-Grad was supposed to have some sort of military nexus/benefit to the CF?

Ref his career, perhaps a posting back to a Bn is in order so he can become reacquainted with his roots?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2008)

In regards to the blanket party, as a fairly senior NCM (30+ years)  a "blanket party" would have worked 15 or more years ago. It will not work in today's climate of "political correctness" for the following reasons:
1. Within a few days from now, a high profile lawyer will take on his case, if he has not done so already. They will cry about the rights a freedoms and how this "Officer's" case is an affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
2. If he is physically assaulted, the person(s) who carried out the assault WILL be subjected to the Code of Service Discipline. An assault is an assault, reasons notwithstanding. The civil rights crowd would have a field day with this, as will the media, crying about how his right to safety was violated; and
3. If he is removed from his position at RMC, he will sue and use the media to his advantage on how the CF is "discriminating" against him. He will apply for and may get an injunction preventing the CF from removing him.

LIke I said, ablanket party would have worked years ago....but not today.


----------



## Teflon (22 Jan 2008)

> 1. Within a few days from now, a high profile lawyer will take on his case, if he has not done so already. They will cry about the rights a freedoms and how this "Officer's" case is an affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;



He has already made a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case about this (allbeit without the high profile lawyer) in the courts and lost

But no I do agree a "blanket party" I really don't think would be a serious suggestion.


----------



## Cat (22 Jan 2008)

Teflon said:
			
		

> He has already made a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case about this (allbeit without the high profile lawyer) in the courts and lost
> 
> But no I do agree a "blanket party" I really don't think would be a serious suggestion.



It's a wonderful thought - but noone with any kind of common sense would actually try it - just adds fuel to the flames.

Hopefully this will die down and he'll be disgracefully removed from the forces - especially if he pulls some stunt at the next mess dinner or something...


----------



## Strike (22 Jan 2008)

Cat said:
			
		

> Hopefully this will die down and he'll be disgracefully removed from the forces - especially if he pulls some stunt at the next mess dinner or something...



Oooh, I would soooo love to be there!  I certainly wouldn't put up with that cr@p.

The guy may be smart and a good prof, but he's certainly not a good officer.  If it was a matter of keeping him on as teaching staff, then fine, offer him a contract after he's released/takes his release/whatever.


----------



## riggermade (22 Jan 2008)

Personally I think the S**tbubble should be properly disciplined.  My wife is Irish and came to Canada in 1989 and has been to many Mess dinners and other military functions, while she is not a fan of the British she does realize our history and traditions and has never made a deal about it.  This is a nother case of come dickhead trying to be more Irish than the Irish themselves.  Look at the States and their St Patrick's Day, no respectable Irishman would be caught drinking green beer, hard to make Guinness green.


----------



## Bigrex (22 Jan 2008)

IMO, when you sign on the dotted line, offering your life to the CF, all individual rights, and all political and religious beliefs should be suspended for the duration of your career if it interferes with your job and the fulfillment of your duties. it all started going downhill when the Cf started allowing natives to start growing their hair and Muslims to wear turbans and grow facial hair, as they no longer meet the uniformity that is required in a disciplined military, and in some cases, affecting safety. On ship, every member must be capable of donning a Chemox and fight fires, or to be able to wear a gas mask in a NBC attack in a war zone, excessive facial hair and the Turban prohibits this and therefor because of religious rights, that person cannot be safely employed in an operational theatre or on ships, hurting the CF on a whole. If you are unwilling to meet these basic standards for look and deportment, and pledge allegiance to the Head of State of Canada (the Queen), as a member of commonwealth countries military, then you should not be employed by the CF.


----------



## Lumber (22 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> If you read the thread and the news items - he is an Associate Professor at RMC and a member of PPCLI.



Not to mention my Astronomy teacher.... :


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> IMO, when you sign on the dotted line, offering your life to the CF, all individual rights, and all political and religious beliefs should be suspended for the duration of your career if it interferes with your job and the fulfillment of your duties. it all started going downhill when the Cf started allowing natives to start growing their hair and Muslims to wear turbans and grow facial hair, as they no longer meet the uniformity that is required in a disciplined military, and in some cases, affecting safety. On ship, every member must be capable of donning a Chemox and fight fires, or to be able to wear a gas mask in a NBC attack in a war zone, excessive facial hair and the Turban prohibits this and therefor because of religious rights, that person cannot be safely employed in an operational theatre or on ships, hurting the CF on a whole. If you are unwilling to meet these basic standards for look and deportment, and pledge allegiance to the Head of State of Canada (the Queen), as a member of commonwealth countries military, then you should not be employed by the CF.



Interesting that someone in the senior service would bring up beards in this context...  Religious allowances are acceptable to the Queen, and as such, my brothers and sisters at arms should be encouraged to carry on as such.  Nothing about a Turban, nor a beard precludes anyone from being able to do their job and service to the Queen.  Further, it is on dress regs as being acceptable, so my suggestion is accept it and move on.  Your perceived lack of uniformity does not preclude the members from the NDA, CoSD or QR&O's.

Further, friends and subordinates of mine, to whom you infer, are loyal subjects to the Queen, and take their Oaths very very seriously.  Being a Muslim and wearing a beard is not indicative of ability to do one's job... Nor is it a subject of discussion here as I understand it.


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> IMO, when you sign on the dotted line, offering your life to the CF, all individual rights, and all political and religious beliefs should be suspended for the duration of your career if it interferes with your job and the fulfillment of your duties. it all started going downhill when the Cf started allowing natives to start growing their hair and Muslims to wear turbans and grow facial hair, as they no longer meet the uniformity that is required in a disciplined military, and in some cases, affecting safety. On ship, every member must be capable of donning a Chemox and fight fires, or to be able to wear a gas mask in a NBC attack in a war zone, excessive facial hair and the Turban prohibits this and therefor because of religious rights, that person cannot be safely employed in an operational theatre or on ships, hurting the CF on a whole. If you are unwilling to meet these basic standards for look and deportment, and pledge allegiance to the Head of State of Canada (the Queen), as a member of commonwealth countries military, then you should not be employed by the CF.




Hmmm I think you carried that a weee bit too far there mate.


----------



## Strike (22 Jan 2008)

+1 MedTech


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Jan 2008)

Are professors at RMC tenured, to remain there until death or senility, or are they still subject to being posted every few years?


----------



## Welshy (22 Jan 2008)

On the radio this morning I heard he petitioned for this. As far as I know it is against regs for a CF member to petition (QR&0 19.10). It may have been a bad choice of words by the CBC, but if not I'm wondering why he is not being charged.


----------



## ggranatstein (22 Jan 2008)

To put a positive note on this...

Isn't it a wonderful reflection of our country that a man, a commissioned officer, can exercise his rights so fully and so contrary to what we all believe. When I see stories like this, I become even prouder of our system the I already was.

I am a monarchist, and actually a member of the monarchist league of Canada, but I respect this man's right to speak his mind.

That said, he lost the case today, so it's time for him to shut up, toe the line, or release. ;-)


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Are professors at RMC tenured, to remain there until death or senility, or are they still subject to being posted every few years?


Legally, as serving CF Regular Force officers they are subject to postings.  From a practical standpoint, once they're safely ensconsed in the limestone embrace of RMC they will not be moved.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jan 2008)

Time for an RMC "outreach" program mentoring Afghan Officers, in Kandahar of course.


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Time for an RMC "outreach" program mentoring Afghan Officers, in Kandahar of course.



That would be an honourable and highly sought after position (at least within the world of 031's)... OMLT is a task requiring persons of exceptional loyalty and capabilities, but also an opportunity to teach a person an exceptional level of humility (which in this context would work nicely).


----------



## Sig_Des (22 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Time for an RMC "outreach" program mentoring Afghan Officers, in Kandahar of course.



How about we just send him on an exchange to teach at Sandhurst. Come to think of it, could be the basis of a good sitcom  >


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> How about we just send him on an exchange to teach at Sandhurst. Come to think of it, could be the basis of a good sitcom  >



Heaven sakes Des, I wouldn't send him anywhere! He'd give us a bad name no matter where he went. Hey... actually since he's all about the binary stars and astrology send him to the space program... he can be Assistant Fortune Teller #2


----------



## Love793 (22 Jan 2008)

Wow is all I can say.

If he wins though, does this mean I don't have to salute those I feel no respect for?  ;D


----------



## Teflon (22 Jan 2008)

Love793 said:
			
		

> Wow is all I can say.
> 
> If he wins though, does this mean I don't have to salute those I feel no respect for?  ;D



Read all the prior posts, HE DIDN'T


----------



## Love793 (22 Jan 2008)

guilty as charged, I was in a hurry.  :-[


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Time for an RMC "outreach" program mentoring Afghan Officers, in Kandahar of course.



 ... in Gaelic.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jan 2008)

Bigrex said:
			
		

> IMO, when you sign on the dotted line, offering your life to the CF, all individual rights, and all political and religious beliefs should be suspended for the duration of your career if it interferes with your job and the fulfillment of your duties. it all started going downhill when the Cf started allowing natives to start growing their hair and Muslims to wear turbans and grow facial hair, as they no longer meet the uniformity that is required in a disciplined military, and in some cases, affecting safety. On ship, every member must be capable of donning a Chemox and fight fires, or to be able to wear a gas mask in a NBC attack in a war zone, excessive facial hair and the Turban prohibits this and therefor because of religious rights, that person cannot be safely employed in an operational theatre or on ships, hurting the CF on a whole. If you are unwilling to meet these basic standards for look and deportment, and pledge allegiance to the Head of State of Canada (the Queen), as a member of commonwealth countries military, then you should not be employed by the CF.



This is so ignorant on so many levels...way over the top.


----------



## slowmode (22 Jan 2008)

Why would he not have thought of this before joining? obv when you join you join under certain obligations..live with it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jan 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Why would he not have thought of this before joining? obv when you join you join under certain obligations..live with it.



He joined at age 16 (according to the press) for the free education and has stuck around for the free ride ever since....star gazing adds sooooo much to our operational capabilities!! :clown:


----------



## JBoyd (22 Jan 2008)

So we know he swore to the Queen, but why wouldn't he have just sworn to God? or is he an athiest as well?


----------



## Cat (22 Jan 2008)

I dunno - alot of people salute things they dislike/don't beleive in....like RegF saluting PRes and anyone saluting CIC (I've heard grumblings various places) They don't like it, but a commission is a commission - they get saluted most of the time. 

Like it or not - we all swear an oath - and that's all there should be to it.


This entire matter is very frustrating to me - simply because it's such a simple thing - you don't agree, you don't say the oath, you don't sign the papers....I hope he is removed from his uniform in short order - it just seems so wrong to have someone with those publicly stated beleifs teaching at RMC with a uniform and commission.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jan 2008)

I was sent this summary today:



> A decision was rendered today by the Honourable Robert L. Barnes of the Federal Court in file T-1809-06:
> 
> IN THE MATTER OF ARALT MAC GIOLLA CHAINNIGH v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2008)

Does it strike anybody as odd that Captain Arralt Macgeochnsinnishcnnnnennan....whatever, still publishes as late as 2005 as...



> *H.T. Kenny*, A.R. Taylor. _Colliding winds in symbiotic binary systems. I. Analytic and Numerical Solutions_, Astrophysical Journal, 619, 527-537 (2005).



....Harold Kenny? 

What's up with that?

G2G


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jan 2008)

They pronounced it on CBC this morning as    "Mack el henney"


----------



## Sig_Des (22 Jan 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Why would he not have thought of this before joining? obv when you join you join under certain obligations..live with it.



If anyone reads the very first post of this thread, they will find:



> Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh-- who legally changed his name from Harold Kenny to its Irish spelling -- says he signed up for the Canadian Forces to serve Canada, not a "foreign monarch." He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.



I don't know when he changed it, but I assume that his Fenian feelings got stronger since he joined.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2008)

I'm sure his legal name change was pre-2005, so the authorship is strange.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2008)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> If anyone reads the very first post of this thread, they will find:
> 
> Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh-- who legally changed his name from Harold Kenny to its Irish spelling -- says he signed up for the Canadian Forces to serve Canada, not a "foreign monarch." He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.
> 
> I don't know when he changed it, but I assume that his Fenian feelings got stronger since he joined.



If he found that he was unable to stand by the oath that he swore, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned. Even a 16 year old understands the words "true allegiance". This case is nothing more than an attempt by a marginal officer to deflect blame for his personal failings in his career. To spend 30 years moving from the ranks of Officer Cadet to Captain speaks volumes. I notice he's not offered to pay back his salary or the cost of his education... all funded by the same Crown he despises.


----------



## JBoyd (22 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm sure his legal name change was pre-2005, so the authorship is strange.



I found this, don't know if it is the same Harold Kenny, but it has to do with Irish Language Week. Looks to date back to fall of 2002.

http://www.stpatricksociety.com/Nuacht_Fall_2002.pdf

Last Paragraph, 5th page, right hand side.

and then there is this 
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gkbopp/KINNEY/Research/LINES/Aralt.htm
Last revised,  Dec 2004.

This article 
http://www.law.uwo.ca/News/March_07/Holloway_op_ed.html
mentions that (in regards to the date) his name change was recent.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2008)

And academic papers and publications often go years between writing, refereeing and publication; nothing particularly odd there.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2008)

Habitant said:
			
		

> To put a positive note on this...
> 
> Isn't it a wonderful reflection of our country that a man, a commissioned officer, can exercise his rights so fully and so contrary to what we all believe. When I see stories like this, I become even prouder of our system the I already was.
> 
> ...



Absolutely --

and the very first time that he refuses to toast the Queen ... he should be immediately charged with disobeying a lawful command and with acts prejudice to good order and discipline. So spoketh the judge.

Because, even myself or many troops posting in here who haven't one iota of an ounce of respect for this hypocrite -- would STILL salute that Commisssion that he is wearing. And, if one of my troops EVER refused to salute this man -- I'd charge them instantaneously with the same-said infractions.

That's the way it is. That's why we are the professional force that we are, and if this guy can not comply with the basic protocols for respecting that Commission or his CiC -- then nail him legally -- then let him go. It happens to "lesser" people every day in this outfit ... this guy is NO LONGER special says the court. So, I see no more reason for him not to be treated appropriately and IAW the Code of Service Discipline.

RMC Commandant should plan a quick Mess Dinner ...  >


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2008)

heh.... and make the good Captain "Mr Vice"....

Mr Vice, The Queen!


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Time for an RMC "outreach" program mentoring Afghan Officers, in Kandahar of course.


Put 'im in the Tower of London, with all the other taitors 

(j/k)

Just have a letter sent to him that Her Majesty no longer feels compelled to retain his services, thus freeing him of his obligation to toast Her.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> heh.... and make the good Captain "Mr Vice"....
> 
> Mr Vice, The Queen!


:rofl:
Nothing like sweet irony!


----------



## McG (22 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> If you read the thread and the news items - he is an Associate Professor at RMC and a member of PPCLI.


Maybe a trip back to a battalion would help sort this individual out.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> heh.... and make the good Captain "Mr Vice"....


I made the same comment in a conversation earlier today.


----------



## dimsum (22 Jan 2008)

*writing something just to follow conversation automatically*


----------



## Sig_Des (22 Jan 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> *writing something just to follow conversation automatically*



As an aside, why didn't you just click on the notify button up top right?


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jan 2008)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> As an aside, why didn't you just click on the notify button up top right?


This is my 3,345th post, and I had no clue what "notify" on the top right did.  I thought it notified the mods that the thread was whack!


----------



## Sig_Des (22 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> This is my 3,345th post, and I had no clue what "notify" on the top right did.  I thought it notified the mods that the thread was whack!



Quality vs Quantity, my friend  >


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> This is my 3,345th post, and I had no clue what "notify" on the top right did.  I thought it notified the mods that the thread was whack!



Dude,

That would be the button in the bottom right corner of a post --- time to get you OUT of Battalion!!  >

Oh PS -- Just a small point ...


All the "_*taitors*_" are already banished to PEI -- they worked with me over there.   >   :-*


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2008)

More people are noticing:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/let-us-be-done-with-him.html



> Tuesday, January 22, 2008
> *Let us be done with him*
> 
> This perfectly reflects how civilianizing the influence human rights has been on the military in recent years. Because just how in the hell does a Canadian Forces officer with the Queen's Commission, who took an oath faithfully swearing allegiance to Her Majesty, who teaches at the Royal Military College of Canada, carry on an eight year challenge against his Commander-in-Chief, is allowed to even question the central tenet of the Canadian Constitution as a serving officer, even to the point of appealing the decision of the Chief of the Defence Staff (the CDS!) to the Federal Court, without getting thrown out on his ear for disobedience and court martialed for flagrant disloyalty.
> ...


----------



## DONT_PANIC (23 Jan 2008)

I just finished reading Justice Barnes' opinion.  While a little dull, it was certainly well written and helped put a few complaints that others in uniform often make into perspective.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (23 Jan 2008)

Back in the days of his majesties navy, he would of been flogged to within an inch of his life by the "quartermaster" (good job for you vern) when that was done he would of been doused with pure vinegar, hung by the arms in shackles on the deck for a week secured to the main mast and been left to the elements. Whether or not he survived or not would have been of no consequence, because he had insulted his majesty and was to be treated and punished as a traitorous dog.

But again this was a time when "Blimey" could still be found in the english dictionary.


----------



## muffin (23 Jan 2008)

His name change was pre 2005 - 

.... ironic RMC sent a message to all students and staff re-affirming a little known saluting area today... lol


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2008)

Thank you Muffin!
I hope you make a point of having a "spin" by that place today >


----------



## exgunnertdo (23 Jan 2008)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> So we know he swore to the Queen, but why wouldn't he have just sworn to God? or is he an athiest as well?


You must "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her hiers and successors" in both versions.  The oath includes the statement "So help me God" at the end, and the solumn affirmation stops after the word "successors."  God is optional, the Queen is not.


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2008)

JBoyd...
The fella is in & on a daily basis, does not have to swear to god or swear allegiance to anyone in particular...

He carries a "Queen's commission"... and he needs to bear allegiance to his sovereign... which he has at many times in the past.
If he can't do so anymore out of conscience.... then it is time for him to fold it up, tear it up and send it back to sender.... & get the F%&? out


----------



## JBoyd (23 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> JBoyd...
> The fella is in & on a daily basis, does not have to swear to god or swear allegiance to anyone in particular...
> 
> He carries a "Queen's commission"... and he needs to bear allegiance to his sovereign... which he has at many times in the past.
> If he can't do so anymore out of conscience.... then it is time for him to fold it up, tear it up and send it back to sender.... & get the F%&? out



Don't get me wrong, I completely agree.


----------



## FastEddy (23 Jan 2008)

[/quote]

The attitude and antics of this Officer must be common knowledge to his Mess Mates and other Messes in the Area, so it would be a fair assumption that he must be a pariah among them.

He must do a lot of drinking alone, (maybe he doesn't drink) but I can't see his Brother Officers readily or socially associating with him.

I don't know if or how much the Forces might have changed, but I remember, he'd be lucky to get in the door.    

Of course this is all personal speculation, but I'm sure that I'm not the only one marching to this drummer.

Cheers.


----------



## medaid (23 Jan 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> God is optional, the Queen is not.



Oh ho ho ho... I LIKE that... can someone translate that into Latin? I think I found my new motto! ;D


----------



## JBoyd (23 Jan 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Oh ho ho ho... I LIKE that... can someone translate that into Latin? I think I found my new motto! ;D



either 
Deus est optional , Regina est non.

or as I couldnt find a translation for optional I changed it to 'an option' and you get

Deus est an bene , Regina est non.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> He carries a "Queen's commission"...



Interesting point.  If he doesn't feel he should swear allegiance to the Queen, why does he hold the Queen's Commission?  Perhaps he doesn't recognise it either, and that would make it a simple fact that neither should we and remove all Rank from his person.  He will simply be a Mister and entitled to what little a "Non-Commissioned" person is entitled to.  How that affects his Pay and his Pension is now a matter outside his control..........perhaps a lot less than he had schemed previously.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting point.  If he doesn't feel he should swear allegiance to the Queen, why does he hold the Queen's Commission?  Perhaps he doesn't recognise it either, and that would make it a simple fact that neither should we and remove all Rank from his person.  He will simply be a Mister and entitled to what little a "Non-Commissioned" person is entitled to.  How that affects his Pay and his Pension is now a matter outside his control..........perhaps a lot less than he had schemed previously.



Hey wait a minute now Sir --- even us "Non-Commissioned" persons are entitled to respect, and we also swore that oath to The Queen. Ahem, don't confuse him with us, because I'm not quite so sure that he'd fit in with "us" either!!  >


----------



## Rodahn (23 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hey wait a minute now Sir --- even us "Non-Commissioned" persons are entitled to respect, and we also swore that oath to The Queen. Ahem, don't confuse him with us, because I'm not quite so sure that he'd fit in with "us" either!!  >



Well said Vern...... My sentiments exactly.........


----------



## armyvern (23 Jan 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Well said Vern...... My sentiments exactly.........



Well, to be fair -- I know he didn't use the term "Non-Commissioned" to refer to us Oath Swearers in the CF, but rather to refer to "Non-Commissioned" types _outside_ of the CF (ergo his simultaneous use of the term "_Mister_").  

And, I agree with him -- 111%.


----------



## Trinity (23 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He will simply be a Mister and entitled to what little a "Non-Commissioned" person is entitled to.  How that affects his Pay and his Pension is now a matter outside his control..........perhaps a lot less than he had schemed previously.



SADLY, he might make MORE money as joe civilian university professor.      http://www.macleans.ca/education/universities/article.jsp?content=20070419_200633_9788



> The average salary for a full professor at the University of Toronto is $125,578 while most universities in Ontario pay their professors between $100,000 and $110,000. Smaller universities with less of a research focus pay less, but not dramatically so. For instance, Lakehead University’s average pay for full professors is $101,865.
> 
> When comparing similar institutions in different provinces, the one standout is Quebec. The average salary for full professors at the majority of French-language universities in Quebecc is under $100,000. For example, Universite Laval's average is $93,978. The province's two large English-language universities, however, offer pay more in line with other provinces. McGill’s average salary for full professors is $112,084.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Jan 2008)

> Traitorous or disloyal utterances
> 
> 94. Every person who uses traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to less punishment.


 NDA s.94

I hope that every time anyone pays him a compliment, it is accompanied by a hearty "*God save the Queen!*"


----------



## Strike (23 Jan 2008)

A friend of mine lives next to him.  We're trying to convince him to crank up "God Save the Queen" every night before he goes to bed.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jan 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> NDA s.94
> 
> I hope that every time anyone pays him a compliment, it is accompanied by a hearty "*God save the Queen!*"



I'd argue that he'd have a very valid and founded arguement of "harassment" if one were to push the boundaries of showing respect to The Queen's Commission adorning this gentlemen by accompanying the called-for salute with the non called for words. You would be doing so simply to show your non-respect of his personal beliefs -- you'd effectively turn it into a personal statement intended to imply scorn.

The words aren't necessary, but are implied. Simply uttering it to irritate the man --- is not on, not in my books. Not unless, you also happen to offer the exact same words to each and every individual you salute -- each and every time you do so.

Hmmm.... now there's a plan. Then, at least, you could argue that you show this respect to every person, not just him. You'd effectively turn the statement into a show of respect for The Queens Commission, rather than simply making the statement to him to enforce your disagreement with and non-respect for his personal beliefs.


----------



## Weinie (23 Jan 2008)

IMHO, the gentleman in question has exceeded his Warhol-granted fame allotment time by about 38 minutes. Let the good issue die. It is not worth another second of anyone's time.


----------



## gordjenkins (23 Jan 2008)

Yup-points are good 
and
worth the time

No point 'Playing the Ostrich" on issue of Queen- her picture now gone from Cdn Post offices/most Cdn currency/etc!

She is going ..going ..
why
-we are now a multi cultural country- why swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.

She is not Canadian old chap! 

RMC Officer is right 
and has my admiration for taking a stand
BZ
-


----------



## HItorMiss (23 Jan 2008)

Until the constitution which our system of government is based on changes, Guess what she is OUR Queen.

You don't like it and you're a civi well you can blissfully ignore it....But we in the CF work for HER and her Proxy the Governor General. If you are in and you don't like that I suggest you get out .


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Jan 2008)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we swear allegiance to a foreign monarch: the topic at hand is allegiance to the *Queen of Canada*!


----------



## armyvern (23 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> Yup-points are good
> and
> worth the time
> 
> ...



But, until such time (*if* ever) as She officially disappears --

She remains my Commander in Chief and the Sovereign Head of this Nation, and I WILL obey that Oath and follow those orders that sayeth I shall respect such. That is the great thing about democracy, and when I choose NOT to respect that oath that I _voluntarily_ took, nor my Commander in Chief -- I shall be OUT living and working in that multi-cultural society where NOT obeying one's Sworn Oath and Duty does not necessarily put my co-workers lives at risk. I can volunteer my release to The Queen. But when you make the choice to take that Oath voluntarily -- it does NOT come with caveats.

God save the Queen.

 :cheers:

Next you'll be arguing that he should not be subject to The Queen's Regulations and Orders due to that multi-cultural society in which we live due to his personal beliefs regarding Her Majesty. What a fucking outfit this would be then.  :


----------



## medaid (23 Jan 2008)

Looks like someone needs to better research to their history. We as a nation have never abandoned Her Majesty the Queen as our Sovereign, even though we have declared independence, we have never abandoned the Queen... and we're not about to.

God Save The Queen.


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Jan 2008)

He is an officer who accepted a Commission, a Queen's Commission.  When he stopped recognizing her, he should have turned it in with his uniforms.  Yes he has taken a stand and his legs have been kicked out from under him.   :-X


----------



## armyvern (23 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> He is an officer who accepted a Commission, a Queen's Commission.  When he stopped recognizing her, he should have turned it in with his uniforms.  Yes he has taken a stand and his legs have been kicked out from under him.   :-X



That's his dilemma though -- he obviously respects her enough to accept her paycheck every month. So he's taken a stand ... but not much of one. If he so hateth Her and is so committed to his cause -- he needs to STOP taking her money and prove it instead of just talking about it.

He needs to put his money where his mouth seems to be.

He's, quite simply, a hypocrite.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's his dilemma though -- he obviously respects her enough to accept her paycheck every month. So he's taken a stand ... but not much of one. If he so hateth Her and is so committed to his cause -- he needs to STOP taking her money and prove it instead of just talking about it.
> 
> He needs to put his money where his mouth seems to be.
> 
> He's, quite simply, a hypocrite.



+1 (and a coward!)


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2008)

Just to clarify things for people, HRH Elizabeth II is a Sovereign Person, and therefore not subject to nationality like the rest of us (a distinction shared by a few other monarchs). Arguments based on Her Majesty's residency or nationality are moot, our Sovereign Majesty can choose to live and work anywhere she wants.  

As Queen of Canada, therefore, she is as Canadian as you or I.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> why
> -we are now a multi cultural country- why swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.
> 
> She is not Canadian old chap!



Anyone else find it interesting/funny/ironic that this guy has a certain regimental crest as his pic?  Take a good look at it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jan 2008)

Royal Canadian Army Service Corps..... so?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jan 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> A friend of mine lives next to him.  We're trying to convince him to crank up "God Save the Queen" every night before he goes to bed.


Followed by "Rule Brittania", and then the theme from "Coronation Street".  >


----------



## dimsum (24 Jan 2008)

I meant the letters inside the star...E II R

(technically, the letter, number and letter)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jan 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> The attitude and antics of this Officer must be common knowledge to his Mess Mates and other Messes in the Area, so it would be a fair assumption that he must be a pariah among them.
> 
> He must do a lot of drinking alone, (maybe he doesn't drink) but I can't see his Brother Officers readily or socially associating with him.
> 
> ...




Sadly in today's military the mess is somewhat optional these days. You have to pay dues but it is possible to never darken the door. Mess dinners were mandatory when I served with a regiment in the nineties but in the Navy and Air Force they were on a voluntary sign up basis in recent years.


----------



## gordjenkins (24 Jan 2008)

[*i]Anyone else find it interesting/funny/ironic that this guy has a certain regimental crest as his pic?  Take a good look at it.   Wink[/i]*
My point exactly 
why should I have had to go around looking like a London Metropolitan Policeman with a Crown on top of my badge?

and
Latin "nil sine labore" Latin around the bottom

at least they had courtesy to add Royal *Canadian *Army Service Corps

-both Monarchy Crown AND Latin   have their place
or had

- not in Canada nowadays though! 

wink



_ *it would be a fair assumption that he must be a pariah among them.*_

What in "Heavens"  name would draw you to an assumption such as this?
 and you - a man of "the cloth"? How can you even suggest with your 'training" that he IS a pariah?
You are just ticked off because it was RMC Cadets who refused to attend "compulsory " Church Parades years ago-
and WON!



_*As Queen of Canada, therefore, she is as Canadian as you or I.*_

Does that mean that Charles and his new wife will be too/ How about Conrad Black LOL



[i*]That's his dilemma though -- he obviously respects her enough to accept her paycheck every month[/i]
*
Last time I believe the Queen paid was when the Brits had troops in Esquimalt and Halifax -early 1800s.
(I stand to be corrected on this)  Nowadays I believe this RMC gentleman's paycheck has on it *"Receiver General of Canada*' aka Canadian taxpayer.

In summary gentlemen, the Queen time in Canada is fading fast -
 enjoy QE2 while she lives 
- after her
bye bye Britain 
hello Canada

or...

God Save King Charles and Queen Camilla !!??


----------



## Teflon (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins 

Despite what you think, She (The Queen) is still around, and still the Queen of Canada so till such time as she isn't I guess you will just have to deal with your issues you have with that fact,...

But till she isn't around,...

Ladies and Gentlemen,... the Queen!


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> -both have their place
> or had
> 
> - not in Canada nowadays though!



Legally ... she certainly IS the Queen of Canada ... even nowadays. Your point is moot. She IS our Queen, and as long as She remains so ... we who have Sworn that Oath are OBLIGATED by Duty & Order to respect and follow that Oath. The lives of our brothers & sisters in uniform, and indeed of our fellow Canadians, DEPEND upon their soldiers upholding the duties and possible sacrifices associated with the Swearing of that Oath to defend.

_As Queen of Canada, therefore, she is as Canadian as you or I._



> Does that mean that Charles and his new wife will be too/ How about Conrad Black LOL



Hmmm, The Oath that YOU also swore to ...



> "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, *her hiers and successors*."



So YES, if Charles becomes the next Monarch and King of Canada, then yes ... *absolutely* as already Sworn to in that SAME Oath. But then, YOU already knew that and are simply beginning to troll.



> Last time I believe the Queen paid was when the Brits had troops in Esquimalt and Halifax -early 1800s.
> (I stand to be corrected on this)  Nowadays I believe this RMC gentleman's paycheck has on it *"Receiver General of Canada*' aka Canadian taxpayer.
> 
> In summary gentlemen, the Queen time in Canada is fading fast -
> ...



Trolling. Last time I checked, Canada had not decided that status UNDER the Queen was going to change with Her Majesty's death. Just what (in your own words) "in Gods name would draw *you* to an assumption such as this?"

_(Edited to add:  I note that your quote immediately above "in Gods name would draw you to an assumption such as this?", has now been modified in your original post to read as: "in "Heavens" name would draw you to an assumption such as this?" I'll leave your quote in it's original context within my post. It matters not to me a single iota of difference.) _ 

Long live the Queen.


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> My point exactly
> why should I have had to go around looking like a London Metropolitan Policeman with a Crown on top of my badge?
> 
> and
> ...



So, why use that symbol as your avatar?  You obviously have no respect for it so why not choose another one? 




> _ it would be a fair assumption that he must be a pariah among them._
> 
> What in Gods name would draw you to an assumption such as this? and you - a man of "the cloth"?
> RMC



Quite obviously because he recognizes that the CF as an institution has an inordinate amount of people to whom tradition, loyalty and honour aren't words that they had to look up in the dictionary, nor do most (excluding you and this professor apparently) pay lip service to their oath.



> _As Queen of Canada, therefore, she is as Canadian as you or I._
> 
> Does that mean that Charles and his new wife will be too/ How about Conrad Black LOL


  

As soon as Prince Charles becomes the Sovereign he too shall be as Canadian as you or I.  As for Black he renounced his citizenship so as far as I'm concerned he (and anyone like him) can toss off.


----------



## Trinity (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> _ *it would be a fair assumption that he must be a pariah among them.*_
> 
> What in "Heavens"  name would draw you to an assumption such as this?
> and you - a man of "the cloth"? How can you even suggest with your 'training" that he IS a pariah?
> ...



I believe you are mistaken. Fast Eddy called him a pariah, Not In Hoc Signo.  

What does one's trade have to do with one's opinion?  There are idiots in all trades. (not saying he is one  )

And yes, I'm positive that all chaplains are "ticked off" because RMC cadets won the right for all
CF members not to attend church parades.  That must be it.  What more reason does In Hoc Signoneed
to dislike this officer but an event *NOT *related to the topic such as RMC students and parades.   [/sarcasm off]

edited for [/sarcasm] and clarity


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins,

Mod Warning....I might not be much for old traditions but it'll be a cold day in hell before I let you insult our Queen, and make it seem as if you look forward to the fair lady's demise, on this website and get away with it.
Consider this your freebee......


----------



## Lumber (24 Jan 2008)

I'm going to play devil's advocate and try and keep people honest so that we're not ranting with our emotions boiling near critical mass. Hope this one doesn't blow up in my face as usual:

While gordjenkins may have spoken contemptuously about the Queen, he never actually insulted her, nor did he say anything about being disloyal, or that his misgivings would have a negative effect on his duties. His opinion that the Queen is even less than a mere figure his definitely moot, and I certainly don't feel he has the right to express this opinion so vocally. To me it just seems disloyal, as does the opinion of RMC Officer (my Astronomy teacher) of which this article is titled. 

As for his making it seem like he is looking forward to the fair lady's demise, I can't see why he would. With my little experience, she seems like a fine person, not to mention her being my Head of State. However, gordjenkins wouldn't be the first person to wish they had someone else above them in the COC. I can't say from experience, but can I not reasonably say that their are countless examples of soldiers with COs who made them pray for the day of their transfer to another unit? As long as it does not interfere with their duty, and I don't believe gordjenkins has indicated it would, then look forward if you please, if your situation is only so unbearable. 

As for the citizenship of the Queen, I first read on Wikipedia and got whiffs through further research that the Queen, as Regnant, technically has no Nationality. Instead of holding the nationality of every one of her realms simultaneously, she is above the requirement of having a nationality, she his quite simply the monarch. I couldn't get a perfect confirmation of this, but I couldn't confirm her "Canadian" citizenship either.

Oh and the GG is our C-in-C, not the Queen. The position technically falls upon the Queen, but the GG holds the title. It's not similar to how the GG represents the Queen in Canada. The Queen is the Queen, but the GG is basically the Queen in Canada (I know the semantics aren't great here but I'm going for brevity). Unlike representing the Queen, the GG is not simply representing the C-in-C , she IS the C-in-C. 
'


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm going to play devil's advocate and try and keep people honest so that we're not ranting with our emotions boiling near critical mass. Hope this one doesn't blow up in my face as usual:
> 
> While gordjenkins may have spoken contemptuously about the Queen, he never actually insulted her, nor did he say anything about being disloyal, or that his misgivings would have a negative effect on his duties. His opinion that the Queen is even less than a mere figure his definitely moot, and I certainly don't feel he has the right to express this opinion so vocally. To me it just seems disloyal, as does the opinion of RMC Officer (my Astronomy teacher) of which this article is titled.



Sure, he never _actually_ insulted The Queen, but he certainly insinuated it. He did _actually insult _ both his former Unit, and their isignia & tradition with this:



> My point exactly
> why should I have had to go around looking like a London Metropolitan Policeman with a Crown on top of my badge?



This statement itself can further be contextualized and classified as direct insult to The Queen -- as we all know that that is exactly what his intentions were by the use of the word "Crown" and the implication that it was the "Crown" which sullied & tarnished that Unit's isignia.

I don't know about you, but that disgusts me. It is insulting to know that a person who voluntarily swore an Oath to The Crown would willingly train, soldier, and work with personnel within a Unit whose basic tenet of service depends upon respecting their Oath, camraderie, team work, and Unit pride and loyalty -- would be so quick and careless as to allow his personal opinion regarding the Monarchy to tarnish the very symbol of that Unit and those personnel -- his fellow soldiers.


----------



## medaid (24 Jan 2008)

I think you need to give your head a shake GJ. Your comments are far from professional, and I call your service into question. Please, don't feel insulted, because I've yet to express my full opinion and reasons to why I've said that. Because of your feelings to our CiC, and your obvious lack of loyalty to both the service and your oath, I am going to argue that your enrollment was irregular, hence you should've never been in the Forces. I would argue strongly that you should've had your a$$ thrown out of the service for that reason alone. Want another reason? How about conspiracy to incite mutiny? Because with what you're spewing, it sure sounds like it to me. How is that remotely related? Well simple, Queen is our CiC. Your lack of loyalty to her, her heirs and saying that the should be abolished are a blatant act of mutiny, or the conspiracy there of. I hope you never tried to convince other during your service, because that would only further solidify my point. 

You are unfit to have that crest as you avatar. You are unfit to have claimed to have served, because that service was done through ill faith, and disloyalty! 

I will probably get dinged for having said all that, but that is my feelings towards your views against my Queen and my CiC.

If Britain ever calls on us for aide again, I will be on the forefront to offer my services. This is MY duty as a Canadian Forces Officer. This is MY LOYALTY as an Officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. This is MY HONOUR as both a Citizen and an Officer under the Canadian flag and the Crown of the Monarchy.

God Save the Queen.


----------



## Pikache (24 Jan 2008)

This subject will always be a touchy one, so before anyone adds to this thread, let's not go half cocked and ruin this thread.

People make bad posts when emotions run wild.

-Army.ca staff


----------



## Pikache (24 Jan 2008)

Oaths are personal things. Our Oath of Allegiance signifies a personal relationship between the member and the Queen.

If you're in the CF, you take the entire thing, not just the parts that you like.

If you feel that you can't complete your obligation according to the oath that you have sworn, well, you shouldn't have taken that oath in the first place. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to say the oath.

The relationship betwen CF and the Queen is of symbolism, and that of tradition. In practical sense, the Queen has very little say on day to day affairs of CF, but it's the symbolism and tradition that makes CF what it is.

So if we get rid of the Queen, then does this mean rest of the traditions of CF has no relevant meaning?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jan 2008)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> So if we get rid of the Queen, then does this mean rest of the traditions of CF has no relevant meaning?


Eliminating Canada's relationship with the Queen would involve much more than the CF.  The constitution would have to change, for starters, and right now, in Canada, there are many more important things on the go, and it would certainly be divisive.


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Eliminating Canada's relationship with the Queen would involve much more than the CF.  The constitution would have to change, for starters, and right now, in Canada, there are many more important things on the go, and it would certainly be divisive.



Exactly.

And, until such time as IT happens, if ever, than I shall fulfill my Sworn Oath and do my Duty IAW with that Oath ... under The Queen and will show Her & the bearers of Her Commission that due respect which is an inherent and sworn requirement for donning this Nation's uniform of Military Service.

As required. As expected.

It IS the professional thing to do.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jan 2008)

Yay - it's this argument again.  Does anyone have anything interesting to add, or are we just going to toss this around for another 10 pages?

 :boring:


----------



## McG (24 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> You are just ticked off because it was RMC Cadets who refused to attend "compulsory " Church Parades years ago-
> and WON!


Tying back to debates of church is a bit of a red herring.  In Canada we have a constitutionally granted freedom of religion.  There is not freedom to arbitrarily  opt-out of accepting/acknowledging the government hierarchy as given through the Constitution.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jan 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yay - it's this argument again.  Does anyone have anything interesting to add, or are we just going to toss this around for another 10 pages?
> 
> :boring:


I say that the following is happening: :deadhorse:


Feel free to shut 'er down.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Jan 2008)

I think there's a lot of irony in this.  Ostensibly, Mr. Mac Giolla Chiannigh is pursuing this a demonarchist... however, he's produced some incredibly pro-monarchist sentiment here and elsewhere that would otherwise have no reason to surface or be expressed.


----------



## cavalryman (24 Jan 2008)

Let me correct Mr Jenkins from an informed point of view.  I was an officer cadet at CMR St-Jean in the very early 80s, and I can assure him that in 1980 (to be precise) I was not forced to attend a church parade.  I had to form up with my squadron, true, but was dismissed before the church-goers marched into chapel.  So that red herring can be safely put into the trash.  It was over a generation and a half ago.  Years before the current crop of OCdts were even born. I fail to see what that argument has to do with this thread.  And Mr. Jenkins, as a retired officer, I might remind you that you did swear that oath.  If you swore it with mental reservations as to your loyalty to the crown you wore on your cap badge and the admonishment on your commissioning scroll, then you should question your conscience.  By the way, I trust you decline to show up for mess dinners - because should you ever manage to get invited to my unit and refuse to stand for the loyal toast, I can assure you that I would evict you from the premises, just as I would evict Capt Kenney.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2008)

Ummm... Might suggest to Mr Jenkins AND Capt Kenney that they should both fold up their commission scrolls and send em back to the Governor General - postage paid.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jan 2008)

I suppose it depends on how long ago we are referring to the state of affairs at RMC.  The January 1926 Standing Orders for RMC state:



> DIVINE SERVICE
> 
> 157.     Cadets will parade once every Sunday for divine service, attanding the church of the denomination to which they belong. ...



Then again, it also states:



> 162.     The clergy in charge of the churches attended by Cadets are encouraged to visit the College for intercourse with the Cadets of their own denomination.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2008)

Swearing the Oath binds the oath taker literally and symbolically to the nation by swearing personal alliance to the person of the Head of State. In the United States, the same purpose is served by swearing to uphold the Constitution.

In the case of divine worship, it seems clear that the regulations of 1926 were written with the intent to create closer ties between the officer cadets and the local community. You will notice that although there is an unwritten assumption that everyone is a churchgoing Christian, no one is compelled to go to a _particular_ church. The relationship is also supposed to practical and symbiotic, the local clergy are being encouraged to come to the college and interact with the student body, rather than leaving everything to the school Padre. 

While it would be nice for HRH to come and visit more often, we can get a similar effect with an interested and engaged CoC like Her Excellency Adrienne Clarkson, but this is not necessary for either the Monarch or the Governor General to discharge their duties (or us ours).


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jan 2008)

However,

The Queen is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England , so in essence we are also swearing allegiance to the Church of England.

Sorry, the Catholic in me, had to throw that in to the damn mix....

Well if Capt. Magillacudyoopsidroppedmyshillelagh uses that argument, I better get some ducats for the help!

dileas

dileas

tess


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2008)

Not entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada



> In Canada, the Queen's official title is:
> 
> * In English: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
> * In French: Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.
> ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jan 2008)

Way to go,

I was hoping to cash in on it....dang, back to the bingo at the Knight of Columbus hall....


dileas

tess


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2008)

Plus, "Defender of the Faith" was a title bestowed by the Pope in Rome upon Henry VIII for his vigorous challenge to the emerging Protestant Reformation - before Henry, on political grounds, decided that he, not the Pope, needed to be "Head of the Church" in England.


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I am not sure if this is a topic split or not... I do agree with the majority of users on here regarding anti-monarchist tendencies. If that is the case, the CF is not for you. I am loyal to the Queen and Canada Full stop.
> 
> I have heard the term drumming out bandied about here a bit and I was wondering if someone could share a little context for a young subordinate officer. I did a search and turned up nothing that appeared to match my inquiries. If an officer were to be drummed out it would be done at a parade no? And would the officers commission be "removed" at the time as well as rank?
> I am also curious as to how often this occurs now.
> Thanks in advance.



It's a bad thing. I hope it's gone. There are other ways to deal with problem children these days such as "enforcing existing regulations."

In this case, next time (if) he refuses to show proper respect to The Crown as required by his Oath -- charge him and then be done with him. It really is that simple. After all, that's what would happen to the first troop who refused to salute this gent's Queen's Commission.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jan 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Swearing the Oath binds the oath taker literally and symbolically to the nation by swearing personal alliance to the person of the Head of State. In the United States, the same purpose is served by swearing to uphold the Constitution.
> 
> In the case of divine worship, it seems clear that the regulations of 1926 were written with the intent to create closer ties between the officer cadets and the local community. You will notice that although there is an unwritten assumption that everyone is a churchgoing Christian, no one is compelled to go to a _particular_ church. The relationship is also supposed to practical and symbiotic, the local clergy are being encouraged to come to the college and interact with the student body, rather than leaving everything to the school Padre.
> 
> While it would be nice for HRH to come and visit more often, we can get a similar effect with an interested and engaged CoC like Her Excellency Adrienne Clarkson, but this is not necessary for either the Monarch or the Governor General to discharge their duties (or us ours).



There was no school padre per se. The permanent chaplaincy was created after WW2. It was stood up like all the other Branchs for the Great War of 1914-1918 and after the war everyone went back to their home towns and parishes. Between the wars troops (what regulars there were, the number was as low as 3000 for the whole of Canada in the early 30s) were marched out the front gates and either to the "Church of England" (anglican church of canada is a name we adopted in 1954)or the Roman Catholic Church. Most troops attended as it was a social norm of the day and considered military tradition. The reference to clergy visiting the school is because there was no permanent clergy at the school and they were being reminded of their duty to visit all their parishioners including "the Gentlemen Cadets."

PS Thanks to Trinity for saving my honour....I indeed did *not* ever say that someone should be considered a pariah...check the record.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2008)

Like Capt O'_whatshisname_, I oppose a *foreign* head of state and I do not accept the neat Constitutional fiction that HM is Canadian whenever she needs to be she. She is, most of time, an *agent* of the Government of Great Britain - she routinely acts as a trade and commerce _shill_ promoting British goods and services in markets in which we compete. It is a conflict of interest – actual not perceived – and it can only get worse as time goes by.

That being said I do not believe we should do away with our Constitutional Monarchy – just the monarch.

Let me explain (again  :boring: ): when, regrettably, HM dies (as she must), it is expected that some official or another – someone who holds or controls the Great Seal of Canada – will *proclaim* (roughly) that “The Queen is dead! God save the King!” In that moment HM’s “lawful heir and successor” will become King of Canada. I propose that on that sad day – and it will be sad because HM EIIR has been an excellent monarch for Canada – and even better for the UK – the official will simply say: “The Queen is dead!” and return to his or her office. In that moment we will _evolve_ into something called a Regency (much as I hate to cite it, Wikipedia gives a good, concise explanation of the term: _”a period of time when a regent reigns, and in a non-ceremonial monarchy holds power, in the name of the current monarch, or in the name of the Crown itself, if the throne is vacant.”_) There have been several regencies in British (and French) history. In our case, since no _replacement_ monarch would have been proclaimed we would have to find our own Regent – certainly, on Constitution grounds, the governor general of the day would be the only properly qualified person.

I would not suggest we just spring this on poor old Princes Charles and William on the sad day. Our Parliament should pass a _resolution_ (which is not a law), rather like the Nickel Resolution (1919, I think) which did away with _honours_ for Canadians and which Jean Chrétien used, in the 1990s to force HM to not give Conrad Black entrée into the UK’s House of Lords until he (Black) renounced his Canadian citizenship . That _resolution_ should say that we do not accept the Succession Act of 1703, etc, etc, (because, _inter alia_, they discriminate against Catholics) and, therefore, we reserve the right, at the appropriate moment, to issue our own list of HM’s “lawful heirs and successors” to the Throne of Canada. I further suggest that we delay doing that, and then delay further and then delay some more, and, and, and _ad infinitum_. Such a _resolution_ will constitutionally bind HM (and her British “heirs and successors”) and they will be unable to lay claim to the Throne of Canada, which will be vacant.

Nothing in *our* Constitution will change – we will still have the RCMP and HMC Ships – we just will be missing the actual “majesty” to sit on the throne in the Senate and wave to the crowds. We would still swear allegiance to our sovereign - even if we would not be too sure about who (s)he might be, by name. When the King of England comes to visit, on a trade mission, it will be as our honoured guest (and Head of the Commonwealth) and our _*Governor General Regent*_ will welcome the King on behalf of the Canadian sovereign (to be named at a much, much, much later date) and the people of Canada.

We will, likely, want to reconsider how we select the GG – just as the British reconsidered how they selected their monarchs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In 1688 the British gave us the excellent tradition which says that the people have a right to select their own form of government and, even, their own monarch. That right still exists for us, in Canada, in 2008; we should exercise it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jan 2008)

Wow, so many experts on the monarchy, all gathered here in one place.  I would think, after 1000 or so years of experience in the succession of rulers, that there might be the odd chap or two in the UK who are a tad more up on these things than we are.  I'm quite certain, when the sad day comes, that contingency plans are in place for a seamless transfer of the bosses hat, the big stick, and the shiny ball.

As for captain Mac Gilla Go Rilla, sit on yer shileileigh, and rotate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wow, so many experts on the monarchy, all gathered here in one place.  I would think, after 1000 or so years of experience in the succession of rulers, that there might be the odd chap or two in the UK who are a tad more up on these things than we are.  I'm quite certain, when the sad day comes, that contingency plans are in place for a seamless transfer of the bosses hat, the big stick, and the shiny ball.
> ...



And those chaps in the UK are the right people to plan the "seamless transfer" of the UK's sovereign. It ought to be chaps in Canada who plan the transfer for Canadians - unless we are just supposed to agree that the _Motherland_ knows best about how we should run our own country. We are fighting in Afghanistan to allow the Afghans to make their own decision about their own country in their own way - we might extend that principle to Canada and Canadians, too. We have a *Canadian Monarchy*; surely we, and not some clever chaps in London, are entitled to decide who sits on the throne.


----------



## Rodahn (25 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair -- I know he didn't use the term "Non-Commissioned" to refer to us Oath Swearers in the CF, but rather to refer to "Non-Commissioned" types _outside_ of the CF (ergo his simultaneous use of the term "_Mister_").
> 
> And, I agree with him -- 111%.



Ahh, but I being old....er remember the days when RSM's and SSM'S where commonly refered to by the officer corps as "Mister" as a sign of respect.... Different perspective I guess....

P.S. I've a lot to catch up to on this topic... That 4 letter word "Work" keeps interfering......


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And those chaps in the UK are the right people to plan the "seamless transfer" of the UK's sovereign. It ought to be chaps in Canada who plan the transfer for Canadians - unless we are just supposed to agree that the _Motherland_ knows best about how we should run our own country. We are fighting in Afghanistan to allow the Afghans to make their own decision about their own country in their own way - we might extend that principle to Canada and Canadians, too. We have a *Canadian Monarchy*; surely we, and not some clever chaps in London, are entitled to decide who sits on the throne.



I'm sure there are one, two, or thirty constitutional scholars in Ottawa who are paid a goodly chunk more than you or I (well, I anyway) to do exactly that.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (25 Jan 2008)

if he has such a huge problem, resign  hand back his commsion , after all he signed the line and agreed to terms of service.


----------



## Canadian Mind (25 Jan 2008)

Why hasn't he been discharged? I would have thought that this would be seen as insubordination.


----------



## Occam (25 Jan 2008)

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> Why hasn't he been discharged? I would have thought that this would be seen as insubordination.



There is no offence of "insubordination" in the NDA.  Insubordination is a group of service offences encompassing Disobedience of a lawful command, Striking or offering violence to a superior officer, Insubordinate behaviour (which is threatening or insulting language to, or contempt towards a superior officer), Quarrels and Disturbances, and Resisting or escaping from arrest or custody.  The Captain hasn't committed any of those.

You're looking for "Traitorous or disloyal utterances", which is under the category of Disgraceful Conduct in the NDA.


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jan 2008)

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> Why hasn't he been discharged? I would have thought that this would be seen as insubordination.



This would fall under section 94, not 85, of the NDA.


----------



## Gardiners1 (25 Jan 2008)

Geez, this guy can stay in but I can't get in due to kidney stones even though I would do anything to be in the military.  Go figure.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2008)

I'm a bit fuzzy, as it was 28 years ago, but I believe there was a passage in the TOS I signed that goes roughly " Thou shalt not bring suit against The Crown."  Has this guy not violated those Terms of Service, and is therefore eligible to be dismissed with prejudice?


----------



## medaid (25 Jan 2008)

Huh... That looks more then just vaguely familiar..


----------



## Occam (25 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm a bit fuzzy, as it was 28 years ago, but I believe there was a passage in the TOS I signed that goes roughly " Thou shalt not bring suit against The Crown."  Has this guy not violated those Terms of Service, and is therefore eligible to be dismissed with prejudice?



I can't see it.  All he did was follow the CF Grievance procedure.  Grievance to CO, grievance to IA, grievance to CDS, appeal to Federal Court of Canada.  While I don't support his argument, he's followed the letter of the law to air his perceived grievance and can't be faulted for the process.  What remains to be seen is the action he takes when forced with the dilemma of following his oath, or following his conscience.

Some of the comments in this thread are treading pretty heavily upon NDA 84, 85 and 129.  Like I said, while I don't condone or approve of his argument, and at the risk of making it appear that I'm defending the officer (I'm not), the actions he's taken so far in no way grant subordinates carte blanche to offer violence upon him, or act with contempt toward him.  While the public might be a little puzzled about his beliefs while wearing the Queen's uniform, I'm certain they're probably just as puzzled at the public bashing he's enduring here by other members of the CF.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2008)

I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.  But I'm probably wrong, as I was just a Corporal, and was therefore subject to a bit less liberal interpretation of the regs as this foine son of the auld sod.....err, grandson, or is it great-grandson?


----------



## Occam (25 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.  But I'm probably wrong, as I was just a Corporal, and was therefore subject to a bit less liberal interpretation of the regs as this foine son of the auld sod.....err, grandson, or is it great-grandson?



Nope, not a lawyer at all.  The reference is right in the Grievance manual.  http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp

7.7 Federal Court
Under the Federal Court Act, a FA decision is the same as a ruling by a federal board, commission or tribunal. Therefore, grievors who are not satisfied with the FA decision may seek "judicial review," at their own expense, before the Federal Court within 30 days of receiving the decision. Grounds for such application lie in a perceived error of law or fact, in the appearance that the decision was made in breach of the duty of fairness or of the principles of natural justice, without due consideration of the evidence, or where the deciding authority seems to have acted in any other way that is contrary to the law. As remedy, the Federal Court could declare the decision invalid, quash it, set it aside or refer the matter back for a new decision.


----------



## Neill McKay (25 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.



I think the thread is mis-named.  He hasn't actually sued anyone; he's just taken the next step in the established grievance procedure.


----------



## JBoyd (25 Jan 2008)

If I am not mistaken, that is the Queen's crown on the top of the tri-service badge. 

Also perhaps this would be a good read for some, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

as well as this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Forces

Despite the fact that the GG does represent her, She has been the CiC since 1968 and shall continue to be until such time as her reign ends.

I would also like to point out 


> Most of the Queen's powers in Canada are exercised by the Governor General, at present Michaëlle Jean, though the monarch does hold several powers that are hers alone.


----------



## x-zipperhead (25 Jan 2008)

This is an interesting thread.  Yes, she is our CiC and we swear loyalty to her.  In practice, however, what real power does the Queen exercise in Canada?  Not looking to get flamed here.  I have always served by the oath I took but it is a valid question, I beleive.


----------



## RangerRay (25 Jan 2008)

In my opinion, the judge made the proper decision.  It's nice to see that there are still some sound minds sitting on the bench! 

Slightly off topic, but I would support a move to patriate the monarchy.  As opposed to what Mr. Campbell has outlined, at the time of Her Majesty's demise (long may she reign), Parliament should invite someone from the House of Windsor who is further removed from the immediate line of succession to become the new King (or Queen) of Canada.

Having said that, I fully support the current situation in sharing the Sovereign with the UK and other realms.  Patriation of the monarchy is an option, however.

God save the Queen!


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Jan 2008)

I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot." 



Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot."
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.



Career suicide?? Well, he IS a Captain, but he HAS been serving since '75.



Perhaps some of us believe that, in his case, assisted-suicide is not the answer? I'm talking about NOT allowing mandatory-retirement-age-assisted-suicide; as in ... the sooner -- the better.

I don't believe for an instant that allowing him to fade into the wallpaper's gawd-awful flower design and leave when his age dictates he shall is the correct COA in this instance. That certainly gets _my_ knickers in a knot.

I'm an atheist too BTW (& of Irish heritage at that) ... so George W already knew that not all athiests (or Irish descendants) are wingnuts, only some; take it as you wish.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Jan 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot."
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.



There is your first mistake, he is not Irish, he is Canadian.

Serving in the Canadian armed forces, of his own free will and accord.

HE was not drafted where he was forced to lay an oath or allegiance to the Queen.  He only had to do this afer he joined voluntarily.

And for the record, Canada, and Ireland has many astronomical observatories where he can apply for work.

And since I wear a kilt, I do not have any panites on that are in a knot.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.



 ???

OK wingnut, where did that come from?

If you have an axe to grind, come straight out and say so.  We are quite obliging here.


----------



## eurowing (26 Jan 2008)

I wonder whether he has either the Silver or Golden Jubilee Medals.  If this officer is wearing either, well, words would fail me.


----------



## RTaylor (26 Jan 2008)

I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.

Since she represents Canada I'd salute her, but not because she's part of the Royal Family as they should have no bearing in Canada, except as foriegn officers and the like. If push came to shove she has no say over the Canadian Miltary as it now stands (from what I understand, has no real political power at all), and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jan 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> I wonder whether he has either the Silver or Golden Jubilee Medals.  If this officer is wearing either, well, words would fail me.



The CD......it has the queen on it. He must have one of those


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.


She is more than just a figurehead.   Canada is a constitutional monarchy.  At the head of this monarchy is a sovereign.  Currently, that is Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, Queen of Canada.  You don't have to like her, and I acknowledge that you would salute her.  But she is more than just a figurehead.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.
> 
> Since she represents Canada I'd salute her, but not because she's part of the Royal Family as they should have no bearing in Canada, except as foriegn officers and the like. If push came to shove she has no say over the Canadian Miltary as it now stands (from what I understand, has no real political power at all), and that's all that matters to me.



I guess that's another choice you'll have to make before you sign the line, then.  She in fact DOES have a pretty high position in the food chain, and if you can't, in good conscience, swear true allegiance to that position, I guess you may as well not waste the recruiters ink.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jan 2008)

So why hasnt this officer been dismissed from the service ?


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.
> 
> Since she represents Canada I'd salute her, but not because she's part of the Royal Family as they should have no bearing in Canada, except as foriegn officers and the like. If push came to shove she has no say over the Canadian Miltary as it now stands (from what I understand, has no real political power at all), and that's all that matters to me.



The Queen, through the Governor General, has real power in Canadian Politics.

http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/01/index_e.asp



> Canada's Parliament consists of three parts: the Crown represented by the Governor General, an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons. One of the Governor General's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a Prime Minister. The Governor General also gives Royal Assent to bills passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, reads the Speech from the Throne, signs State documents, summons, opens and ends sessions of Parliament, and dissolves Parliament for an election. The Governor General also presides over the swearing-in of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada and cabinet ministers.
> 
> The Governor General almost always acts on the advice of the prime minister, but has the right to be consulted, to encourage, to warn, and to meet regularly with the Prime Minister and senior government officials. There are rare occasions when the Governor General does not agree with his or her ministers. The most famous example occurred when Governor General Lord Byng refused Prime Minister Mackenzie King's request to dissolve Parliament in 1926.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So why hasnt this officer been dismissed from the service ?




Because he hasn't done anything REALLLY offensive yet, like smoke a cigarette near a door, or own a gun.   : :


----------



## JBoyd (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.
> 
> Since she represents Canada I'd salute her, but not because she's part of the Royal Family as they should have no bearing in Canada, except as foriegn officers and the like. If push came to shove she has no say over the Canadian Miltary as it now stands (from what I understand, has no real political power at all), and that's all that matters to me.



Despite the fact that Canada severed the legislative dependence from the UK with the passing of the Canada Act in 1982, The Queen has remained Head Of State to this day and still holds all of her constitutional powers. As well, although the Governor General does act as the de facto Head of State and the Queen's federal representive in Canada, Her Majesty does hold several powers that are hers and hers alone.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Because he hasn't done anything REALLLY offensive yet, like smoke a cigarette near a door, or own a gun.   : :



You cannot pick and chose who you salute. Refusal to salute is an offence at least in the US Army.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jan 2008)

A poor attempt on my part to show the fawked up sense of priorities in Canada


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You cannot pick and chose who you salute. Refusal to salute is an offence at least in the US Army.



The idiot officer FNAHK with the unpronounceable name has not (according to my reading of the reports) refused to salute or toast our Sovereign nor has he (on any occasion that has been reported) failed to do so.  What he did was take all legal steps to change the requirement to so do, as his "belief" is that Queen Elizabeth (nor anyone not Canadian?) should not be the Head of State of Canada.  There are no service offences (or civil offences that I am aware of) that outlaw beliefs, opinions or feelings, only ones that outlaw actions or neglect of actions.  Whether he committed an service offence by publically stating his political beliefs in the manner that he did is another matter, one that is not so cut and dried as some would like to believe.

That being said, I still believe he is a disloyal tool.


----------



## RTaylor (26 Jan 2008)

I'd salute the Queen because I've made an oath to do so. If I only made the oath to salute the flag that's all I'd salute (well, besides officers and so forth).

The Queen is royalty and as much as I can remember they all hold some commission in their respective military, so in the end an officer is an officer and I'd be saluting that (the same as we'd salute the US President or some other foriegn power we'd salute them in their manner if the situation dictated). It makes me feel better to think of it that way than to be saluting her just because she's Queen of another country.

In all honesty we're only hearing from the media on this and thinking the guy a monster, I'd like to hear a chunk of his reasoning about this.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Jan 2008)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52232/post-467852.html#msg467852

[quote author=Mac Giolla Chainnigh]

''It's a situation of institutional harassment that members of Canadian Forces be obliged to toast the Queen of Canada at regimental dinners,'' says Mac Giolla Chainnigh, who also objects officers being required to show respect to the Union Jack. ''To fail to do so would be interpreted as disloyalty, which could carry up to nine years imprisonment.''

''You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) ... the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces.''
[/quote]

Was that what you were looking for?

dileas

tess


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> just because she's Queen of another country.



She's the Queen of this country you know 

From my oath of allegiance certificate :



> Do swear that i will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty, Quen Elizabeth the second, *Queen of Canada*, her heirs and successors according to law


----------



## HItorMiss (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> It makes me feel better to think of it that way than to be saluting her just because *she's Queen of another country*.



I can't believe it has to be said again she is not just the Queen of England she is also *THE QUEEN OF CANADA*.

You are saluting her because you swore to do her bidding in the defence of her nation under the rule of her Parliament by proxy of the Governor General. Can it be any more clear then this?


----------



## Sig_Des (26 Jan 2008)

RTaylor said:
			
		

> I'd salute the Queen because I've made an oath to do so. If I only made the oath to salute the flag that's all I'd salute (well, besides officers and so forth).
> 
> The Queen is royalty and as much as I can remember they all hold some commission in their respective military, so in the end an officer is an officer and I'd be saluting that (the same as we'd salute the US President or some other foriegn power we'd salute them in their manner if the situation dictated). It makes me feel better to think of it that way than to be saluting her just because she's Queen of another country.
> 
> In all honesty we're only hearing from the media on this and thinking the guy a monster, I'd like to hear a chunk of his reasoning about this.



Fact of the matter is, when you make that Oath of Allegiance, you are making an oath to the state, as Embodied by Her Majesty the Queen. If you aren't actually making that oath a personal one, than your oath to country, IMHO, is omitted. Remember when the Queen too her coronation oath, she promises "to govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs."

Personally, I'm not much of a Royalist by any means, but I see her as Queen of Canada, and I took that oath, and I swore by it.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ......... she is also *THE QUEEN OF CANADA*.






.......she is also *THE QUEEN OF CANADA*.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 Jan 2008)

Ok Goerge just made it clearer...... ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> A poor attempt on my part to show the fawked up sense of priorities in Canada



Actually I thought your line was just awesome.....


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2008)

Thanks, sometimes my tone just doesn't translate well to print.  Trust me, I'm an absolute riot in person.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Thanks, sometimes my tone just doesn't translate well to print.  Trust me, I'm an absolute riot in person.



Cough Cough....mind if you and Bruce go to the other side of the smoke area, I am trying enjoy the fresh air....

dileas

tess


----------



## eurowing (27 Jan 2008)

It isn't well known, but Canada was the first to proclaim the Queen as our own.  I'm sure I could find better sources than Wiki, but I know it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen in Canada first, by the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, on 6 February 1952.[29] Her British proclamation was read at St. James's Palace the following day.


----------



## JBoyd (27 Jan 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> It isn't well known, but Canada was the first to proclaim the Queen as our own.  I'm sure I could find better sources than Wiki, but I know it is true.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
> 
> Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen in Canada first, by the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, on 6 February 1952.[29] Her British proclamation was read at St. James's Palace the following day.



Here is a list of Canadian Monarchs dating back to Confederation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_monarchs

It is also of good importance to know that although some have alluded to the fact that we are recognizing a foreign monarch, that is not the case. With the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the Canadian Crown became legally distinct from the other crowns of the commonweatlth, Meaning Canada has a national monarch.


----------



## Lumber (27 Jan 2008)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> With the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the Canadian Crown became legally distinct from the other crowns of the commonweatlth, Meaning Canada has a national monarch.



Are the other "crowns of the commonwealth" not the same as our crown, the Queen? Is she not our "national monarch", just as she is the "national monarch" of Englad, and where else have you?


----------



## JBoyd (27 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Are the other "crowns of the commonwealth" not the same as our crown, the Queen? Is she not our "national monarch", just as she is the "national monarch" of Englad, and where else have you?



Yes she is Canada's 'national monarch', that was what I was trying to get across. It seems as though some people feel we are saluting and paying respect to a foreign monarch. We may have a constitutional monarchy here in Canada, but she is OUR Queen, Just as much as she is Antigua's Queen, or Grenada, or Belize, etc.

Her official title is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. '


----------



## Lumber (27 Jan 2008)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Yes she is Canada's 'national monarch', that was what I was trying to get across. It seems as though some people feel we are saluting and paying respect to a foreign monarch. We may have a constitutional monarchy here in Canada, but she is OUR Queen, Just as much as she is Antigua's Queen, or Grenada, or Belize, etc.
> 
> Her official title is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. '



IMO, the reason people keep view the Queen as a "foreign" monarch is because they do not understand how Canada and England, and Belize and Grenada etc. can be separate, sovereign nations, yet still maintain the same "Head of State". It comes from the colonial era, when Canada, then British North America (B.N.A.), was not a country of its own, but merely a colony of England. The land naturally belonged to England, and so the Queen of England was naturally the Queen of B.N.A., Grenada etc... I think they have a further difficult time in understanding this when they see an example like India, where they severed there ties to the monarchy when they became independent. 

When the Queen was the Queen of England and her colonies, and not Queen of many sovereign nations, she had but one nationality: English. Technically, as regnant, she had no nationality, a factthat continues to this day, but people cannot stop seeing her as English (or British) in nationality, and hence "foreign". 

I believe that under the State of Westminsister (correct me if I'm wrong), the Canadian parliament has the complete right to control the line of succession of the Canadian monarchy. Since the statute, however, we have maintained the line of succession as the House of Windsor, as have all the other realms of the commonwealth, for obvious reasons. 

So if we wanted to, we could establish a "House of Harper" and have a non-foreign monarchy of our own. Now I am not one of the one who sees the Queen as foreign, I put that in to appease the republicans. But it would be 'cool' to have a 'local' Canadian aristocracy, if I may be so frivolous to say so  :


----------



## IGA (27 Jan 2008)

As someone who has never been in the military, I must say that I'm a little surprised at the strong pro monarchy feelings expressed. I can understand living up to your oath and the tradition of the monarchy in the CF. Amongst my group of friends and aquaintences the feeling is somewhat different. It is either not caring or strongly of the opinion of the Queen being foreign, and Canada should have our own head of state. I know technically the Queen is not foreign, but in all practical senses she is the Queen of the UK. Someone said Canada has never left the monarchy, but as the Queen of Britain you could say they have left us. The Commonwealth is more of a symbolic group  now. With Britain joining the EU there is no benifit in being in the commonwealth. In fact I beleive Germans and Italians have more rights in Britain than Canadian or Anzacs do. I've never had to take an oath to the Queen, nor would I. I agree with most of you that if you did take an oath  then you should honor it. And as far as I can see, he has. Things do change, maybe his and societies feelings toward the monarchy, and Britain are not as strong as they were when he joined.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

IGA said:
			
		

> As someone who has never been in the military, I must say that I'm a little surprised at the strong pro monarchy feelings expressed. I can understand living up to your oath and the tradition of the monarchy in the CF. Amongst my group of friends and aquaintences the feeling is somewhat different. It is either not caring or strongly of the opinion of the Queen being foreign, and Canada should have our own head of state. I know technically the Queen is not foreign, but in all practical senses she is the Queen of the UK. Someone said Canada has never left the monarchy, but as the Queen of Britain you could say they have left us. The Commonwealth is more of a symbolic group  now. With Britain joining the EU there is no benifit in being in the commonwealth. In fact I beleive Germans and Italians have more rights in Britain than Canadian or Anzacs do. I've never had to take an oath to the Queen, nor would I. I agree with most of you that if you did take an oath  then you should honor it. And as far as I can see, he has. Things do change, maybe his and societies feelings toward the monarchy, and Britain are not as strong as they were when he joined.



Pro-Monarchy feelings??

Don't be so quick to assume that is the case.

There are a great many here who respect that Oath that we swore. Swearing that Oath is swearing to respect it. While in uniform -- it is one's duty to uphold it. It does not mean that one has to agree with it ... but they must uphold it. Insulting her publicly or her position is NOT upholding that Oath -- it is an act of insubordination. We are supposed to be more professional than that.

I've previously pointed out that "while She is recognized as Our Queen, and until Canada changes that, if ever" then She must be given the respect and loyalty due to Her by us.

Does that mean that I agree with the Monarchy? Does that mean that I am a loyalist? I certainly never said that. But, right now she is ... and I will uphold that Oath until the law of this land changes. It is a part of my Duty.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

IGA:

ArmyVern pretty much summed up my own feelings on the matter.  

Simply as a point of conversation, I'm a libertarian, and would argue that NO government body has any right to control of my person or property - whether that government is headed by a President or a Monarch.  

However - as a soldier I willingly and freely gave my allegiance to the state - which state, in this country, at this time, is embodied in the person of Her Majesty.  To not show the respect required by the laws and traditions of the institution which I freely joined would, I think, disqualify me from belonging to that institution.  

It's that simple.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> So if we wanted to, we could establish a "House of Harper" and have a non-foreign monarchy of our own. Now I am not one of the one who sees the Queen as foreign, I put that in to appease the republicans. But it would be 'cool' to have a 'local' Canadian aristocracy, if I may be so frivolous to say so  :




Hey why not?  I hear Conrad Black will be looking for a new gig...... in 4-12 years....   >


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hey why not?  I hear Conrad Black will be looking for a new gig...... in 4-12 years....   >



Does that mean that we have to give him back his Canadian citizenship that he revoked?  :-\


----------



## Lumber (27 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Does that mean that we have to give him back his Canadian citizenship that he revoked?  :-\



It would be the Canadian thing to do.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> It would be the Canadian thing to do.



Can we start a poll?  >


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can we start a poll?  >



Do you mean one of those internet polls where people who have zero knowledge on a subject offer their opinions ?


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do you mean one of those internet polls where people who have zero knowledge on a subject offer their opinions ?



Yeah!! Like that!

We could give the Globe and Mail comments section a run for their money.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> I believe that under the State of Westminsister (correct me if I'm wrong), the Canadian parliament has the complete right to control the line of succession of the Canadian monarchy. Since the statute, however, we have maintained the line of succession as the House of Windsor, as have all the other realms of the commonwealth, for obvious reasons.



The Statute of Westminister is listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982.  Thus it is part of our constitution.

The preamble to the Statute of Westminister, 1931 states


> And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in *the law touching the Succession to the Throne * or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:



"the law touching the Succession to the Throne"  is the Act of Settlement, 1700.


> Recital of Stat. 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. §2. and that the late Queen and Duke of Gloucester are dead; and that His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants.



Therefore to change our Head of State or the order of succession to that office would require Canada to amend its constitution, which it could do without affecting the succession of any other commonwealth realm.  However, for the UK to amend the Act of Settlement, they would require approval from all the other realms affected by the Statute of Westminister if they wanted a uniform change of succession.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Jan 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> would require Canada to amend its constitution,



And we all know how easy that is...........


----------



## sean1 (28 Jan 2008)

In Australia like Canada the crowns are seperate with her Majesty known as Queen of Australia. Trying to explain to those who have no wish to understand and continually scream that she is foreign is also frustrating. We had a referendum on the subject of a republic which failed mainly due to republicans not being able to agree on a model  ;D As for this RMC officer if he feels so strongly hes free to resign his commission and seek a civillian career.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There are a great many here who respect that Oath that we swore. Swearing that Oath is swearing to respect it. While in uniform -- it is one's duty to uphold it. It does not mean that one has to agree with it ... but they must uphold it. Insulting her publicly or her position is NOT upholding that Oath -- it is an act of insubordination. We are supposed to be more professional than that.



Well said Vern.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can we start a poll?


  

Only if _"Let the pompous git rot in hell"_ is one of the choices.


----------



## medaid (28 Jan 2008)

IGA said:
			
		

> I've never had to take an oath to the Queen, nor would I.



Would you like to give up your citizenship then? Although if you were naturalized citizen i.e. someone who was born in Canada, I can see why you have never sworn an oath to the Queen before. If you were like many of those in the Canadian public who were immigrants then you have sworn an oath to the Queen already. You have sword the Oat of Citizenship.

_"I swear (or affirm) 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."
_ - Canadian Oath of Citizenship

You will clearly see that in the oath, Her Majesty the Queen was clearly stated as the Queen of Canada. 

I've always wondered why naturalized citizens never had to swear or affirm the Oath of Citizenship. Are their loyalties affirmed or sworn at birth? I don't think so. I still remember affirming an Oath of Allegiance when I was in Cadets. I guess times have changed?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2008)

During the Tenure of our previous government, I was told that I had a sworn duty to the Minister, I told them that I had sworn an oath to Queen and country (several times I might add) and that took precedence over covering my Ministers butt, for some dumbass goof that he made.


----------



## IGA (28 Jan 2008)

MedTech, I've never had to swear an oath to the Queen. Born and raised and still live in Canada, too bad our head of state can't say the same thing. I understand the legal part of the  Queen not being foreign. In reality she is foreign, she doesn't live here and is a citizen of another country. Who does she think she is Stephan Dion. I  just think it is time for Canada to have our own head of state. I think the commonwealth is not relevant anymore. And I find it embarrassing when the Queen is representing Canada on the world stage like the opening of Olympics or world fairs  And I also agree with what Army Vern had to say . But like i said IMHO it would be better not to have to swear an oath to a foreign head of state.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

IGA said:
			
		

> ............. Born and raised and still live in Canada, too bad our head of state can't say the same thing. I understand the legal part of the  Queen not being foreign. In reality she is foreign, she doesn't live here and is a citizen of another country. Who does she think she is Stephan Dion. I  just think it is time for Canada to have our own head of state. ...............



So?  What do you think of a Prime Minister or a Member of Parliament not being born in Canada?  Wouldn't that be the same thing?  "A Foreigner" making all of those political decisions for you in Ottawa, must really rile you up.    >


----------



## Inch (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  What do you think of a Prime Minister or a Member of Parliament not being born in Canada?  Wouldn't that be the same thing?  "A Foreigner" making all of those political decisions for you in Ottawa, must really rile you up.    >



You mean foreigners like our last two Governors General? Or Vic Toews born in Paraguay, the president of the TB and former Minister of Justice? 

But don't sweat it IGA, they're good people, they even swore an oath to our Queen to prove it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (28 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> During the Tenure of our previous government, I was told that I had a sworn duty to the Minister, I told them that I had sworn an oath to Queen and country (several times I might add) and that took precedence over covering my Ministers butt, for some dumbass goof that he made.



What do you suppose "Minister of the Crown" means? That is how all Cabinet ministers are referred to, they take an oath to Elizabeth when they are sworn in at Government house.


----------



## IGA (28 Jan 2008)

I don't consider Mr Toews or Mrs Jean or any other MP or Gov. Gen. that was born outside of Canada to be foreign. If they have become a landed immigrant or Canadian citizen and are living in Canada, while they are in government. I don't know why you would get the impression that I would be riled up about any of them. At least not more so than any other MP


----------



## Inch (28 Jan 2008)

IGA said:
			
		

> *Born and raised* and still live in Canada, too bad our head of state can't say the same thing.



You alluded to being born and raised as having to be a requirement to be the head of state. In a country as open and accepting to immigration as we are in Canada, I would think that it shouldn't matter where one is born, including our Queen.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

I know some awesome and outstanding Canadian citizens who weren't born & raised in Canada.

I also know some absolute nincompoops who *were* born & raised here, and I'd ship them out if I had the opportunity.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2008)

As an aside, it is even possible for naturalised Canadians to swear or affirm allegiance to Her Majesty?


----------



## IGA (28 Jan 2008)

Inch, I said born and raised, too answer MedTech about not having to swear an oath. I too know many good Canadians not born in Canada, my mother and sister for 2. And I never said anyone had to be born and raised in Canada to be head of state. What have you got against a Canadian citizen who actually lives in Canada being head of state of Canada. And having our own monarchy and aristocracy is archaic  IMHO. Maybe we should issue muskets to the army and sailing ships to the navy


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

IGA said:
			
		

> Inch, I said born and raised, too answer MedTech about not having to swear an oath. I too know many good Canadians not born in Canada, my mother and sister for 2. And I never said anyone had to be born and raised in Canada to be head of state. What have you got against a Canadian citizen who actually lives in Canada being head of state of Canada. And having our own monarchy and aristocracy is archaic  IMHO. Maybe we should issue muskets to the army and sailing ships to the navy



What don't you understand, that despite the fact that some might think it archaic -- obviously the majority in this country, right now, do not??

Right now, in Canada, She is Our Queen.

If, and until, that changes --- it's our Duty, by virtue of the uniform that we wear, to uphold that Oath ... not to slander Her. Seems pretty friggin' simple to me.

So, perhaps this site isn't the best place to be debateing this topic -- being that if we are in uniform we should be keeping our personal thoughts and opinions on Our Queen to ourself; our not doing so is in contravention of the Orders and Code of Service Discipline that we are bound to follow.


----------



## geo (28 Jan 2008)

IGA...

Suggest you stop    :deadhorse:


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

Here's my take.  I hope I don't get too flamed for it...

I too believe the Monarchy is archaic.  Let's be practical and realistic.  The Queen does not practicaly govern our Country, nor does the GG.  The PM does.  I believe her "reign" over Canada is more symbolic than anything else.

Having said that, I still respect her for what she was for us and what she represents.  The traditions that we refer to in this post (Oath, Commission, Salute, etc) are all nice ways to remind us, Canadians, our heritage and where we're coming from. 

But that's just my opinion!

Max


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ........  The Queen does not practicaly govern our Country, nor does the GG.  The PM does.  I believe her "reign" over Canada is more symbolic than anything else............



Interesting in your lack of knowledge of our Parliamentary System.  You are partial correct, but the fact still remains that it is the Crown's signature that is placed on any Act that Parliament passes.  It is the Queen's signature of approval on all the heraldry in the Canadian Forces.  Her "reign" may appear as only symbolic to some, but those are the ones who really have no idea of what her role is.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

He hasn't done DCE001 yet --- either that, or that must be one of the questions he got wrong.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting in your lack of knowledge of our Parliamentary System.  You are partial correct, but the fact still remains that it is the Crown's signature that is placed on any Act that Parliament passes.  It is the Queen's signature of approval on all the heraldry in the Canadian Forces.  Her "reign" may appear as only symbolic to some, but those are the ones who really have no idea of what her role is.



I agree, but when is the last time the Queen, or GG for that matter, actually took a decision with regard to Canadian Politics, or refused to sign an Act?  

I know that theoratically she does govern us, but PRACTICALLY she doesn't!  

Max


----------



## Occam (28 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What don't you understand, that despite the fact that some might think it archaic -- obviously the majority in this country, right now, do not??



I may have misread it, but if you're suggesting that the majority are in support of the monarchy as it exists today, you'd be wrong.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28442/half_of_canadians_would_cut_ties_to_monarchy

_53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...55 per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince Charles becomes King_


----------



## GIZMO (28 Jan 2008)

Perhaps the Irish Forces is the place for this person.....


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He hasn't done DCE001 yet --- either that, or that must be one of the questions he got wrong.



Done and Done.  And got a pretty good mark


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I agree, but when is the last time the Queen, or GG for that matter, actually took a decision with regard to Canadian Politics, or refused to sign an Act?
> 
> I know that theoratically she does govern us, but PRACTICALLY she doesn't!
> 
> Max



Actually she does hold the right, but has left the decision making to Parliament, as she and her forebearers have done with the Parliaments of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. through agreements made over the passage of time.  As for not making a decision with regard to Canadian Politics, I do believe she has from time to time made some decisions outside of the 'advice' of Canadian 'suggestions' in relation to some matters pertaining to Canada.  Were they earth shaking decisions?  No.  But she did exercise her rights.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> I may have misread it, but if you're suggesting that the majority are in support of the monarchy as it exists today, you'd be wrong.
> 
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28442/half_of_canadians_would_cut_ties_to_monarchy
> 
> _53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...55 per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince Charles becomes King_



Check your +/- ratio for that poll. That unscientific poll.

The vast majority of Canadians have not made this an election issue -- I'd wager that makes it moot to them -- acting in the typical, non-chalant, Canadian-like, not really care one way or the other manner.

If it's getting YOUR knickers in a twist, you are in the minority. This doesn't even cross the minority of Canadians radar as being an issue -- let alone cause the majority of Canadians to call for Her ouster.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Done and Done.  And got a pretty good mark



Yeah me too on both fronts -- but I got that question right.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually she does hold the right, but has left the decision making to Parliament, as she and her forebearers have done with the Parliaments of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. through agreements made over the passage of time.  As for not making a decision with regard to Canadian Politics, I do believe she has from time to time made some decisions outside of the 'advice' of Canadian 'suggestions' in relation to some matters pertaining to Canada.  Were they earth shaking decisions?  No.  But she did exercise her rights.



Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.  

I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.

Max


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.
> 
> I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.
> Max



So?  Following your logic, we should do away with the CDS?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Following your logic, we should do away with the CDS?



I never said we should do away with the Queen.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I never said we should do away with the Queen.



OK.............You got me.

So?  Following your logic, we should no longer have a CDS, because in your opinion he only plays a "symbolic" role.  He does not command anything.  I wonder if you really understand the hierarchy of the CF at all?  Who do you think the CDS is, and who do you think sits around his conference tables during "Prayers" and other "Discusion" and "Orders" Groups?  Who do you really think is the military "Driver" of the CF?  Not DND, but the CF?


----------



## Occam (28 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Check your +/- ratio for that poll. That unscientific poll.
> 
> The vast majority of Canadians have not made this an election issue -- I'd wager that makes it moot to them -- acting in the typical, non-chalant, Canadian-like, not really care one way or the other manner.
> 
> If it's getting YOUR knickers in a twist, you are in the minority. This doesn't even cross the minority of Canadians radar as being an issue -- let alone cause the majority of Canadians to call for Her ouster.



+/- 3.1%, 19 out of 20 times.  What's unscientific about it?  

I didn't claim it was an election issue, that was your suggestion.  I pointed out to you that based on the latest poll, the majority are unsupportive of the monarchy as it exists - nothing more, nothing less.  Lots of things have very strong or very weak public support, yet remain off the table as election issues.

I also didn't say it's "getting my knickers in a twist" - would you mind explaining where you got that idea from?  My intent was merely to point out that support is declining for the monarchy, and is currently at its lowest point in Canadian history.  If the trend continues, you may well see it become an election issue.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.



Ostensibly Parliament, but backbenchers vote according to Cabinet instructions (or get kicked-out!), and Cabinet decisions are dominated by the PMO (esp. since Trudeau).  I really don't think the Queen has much political influence over what happens in Canada, despite her legal authority.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.............You got me.
> 
> So?  Following your logic, we should no longer have a CDS, because in your opinion he only plays a "symbolic" role.  He does not command anything.  I wonder if you really understand the hierarchy of the CF at all?  Who do you think the CDS is, and who do you think sits around his conference tables during "Prayers" and other "Discusion" and "Orders" Groups?  Who do you really think is the military "Driver" of the CF?  Not DND, but the CF?



The example of the CDS was just to give the crowd an example of theoratical vs practical...


----------



## Cat (28 Jan 2008)

Mortarman


I do beleive you can - I know when I was un public school we reaffirmed our citizenship with an oath - I have the paper somewhere saying that I did it.

I dunno what you'd have to do to arrange  it though.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The example of the CDS was just to give the crowd an example of theoratical vs practical...



So?  Which way do you want to "run" with him?  The same as the Queen?  Yes or No?  That is the question.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Which way do you want to "run" with him?  The same as the Queen?  Yes or No?  That is the question.



I assume you didn't get my point...  

I wanted to show you what I meant by Theoratical vs Practical.  I never directly compared CDS vs Queen....


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.
> 
> I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.
> 
> Max






			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I assume you didn't get my point...
> 
> I wanted to show you what I meant by Theoratical vs Practical.  I never directly compared CDS vs Queen....



Looked pretty much like you did to me.  So?  Yes or No?  Do we get rid of the CDS as your logic suggests?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looked pretty much like you did to me.  So?  Yes or No?  Do we get rid of the CDS as your logic suggests?



Don't make my logic suggest something it didn't please, especially when I tell you it doesn't.


If you look carefuly at my post, there is a paragraph change.  I talk about the Queen and her practical power, then change paragraph, changing the focus of the conversation to the difference between theoratical/legal vs practical (powers).  



> *I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical*.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.



Then, I give an example to clarify what I mean between theoratical/legal and practical



> I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  *Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.*



I don't see how I implied that we should we rid of the CDS with that statement....

Max


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> +/- 3.1%, 19 out of 20 times.  What's unscientific about it?
> 
> I didn't claim it was an election issue, that was your suggestion.  I pointed out to you that based on the latest poll, the majority are unsupportive of the monarchy as it exists - nothing more, nothing less.  Lots of things have very strong or very weak public support, yet remain off the table as election issues.
> 
> I also didn't say it's "getting my knickers in a twist" - would you mind explaining where you got that idea from?  My intent was merely to point out that support is declining for the monarchy, and is currently at its lowest point in Canadian history.  If the trend continues, you may well see it become an election issue.



So, now you see that your poll is moot yes? Their own damn website tells you that the poll is unscientific.

-3.1% margin means your 53% majority could very well turn out to be 49.9% ... and that equals a "NO" vote ... even in Quebec.  

What's unscientific about them??

How about this:



> 53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...55 per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince Charles becomes King





> 53 per cent of respondents would support Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy...*26% per cent of respondents said Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy if Prince William becomes King*



Hmmm, what a difference the wording could make eh? Polls have leading questions.

People answered only because they were ASKED. If they had NOT been asked ... would they really have given a shit one way or the other?? I'd wager not, being that, as I already pointed out ... they sure as heck don't seem to be screaming for the Monarchy to be done away with ... nor faintly whispering either. They're not making it an issue at elections simply because, for the vast majority -- it is a NON issue.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

OK?  I don't think you are reading what your wrote.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.



Now, I take it that you say the Queen has "theoratical power" over us, but the "practical power" is with the PM and Parliament.




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.



This, I take you to mean that the CDS has "theoratical power" over the CF, but the "practical power" lies with the commanders in the CF, not the CDS.

Thus, if you feel there is no need for the Queen as she only has "theoratical power" and not "practical power", then you must feel the same about the CDS and that there is no need for him as he holds "theoratical power" and not the "practical power" of the 'commanders' of the CF.  

I think you were quite clear on that sentiment.  Don't you even recognize your own logic?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This, I take you to mean that the CDS has "theoratical power" over the CF, but the "practical power" lies with the commanders in the CF, not the CDS.



For the Xth time, it was an isolated example of what is practical and what is theoratical.  We all know that the CDS also takes decision at his level.

I think you didn't understand what I meant... But that's fine, you must know better than me what I meant 

Max


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jan 2008)

Just following the logic of your statements.   If you want to live in denial.......fine.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just following the logic of your statements.   If you want to live in denial.......fine.



I'll just smile


----------



## Occam (28 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, now you see that your poll is moot yes? Their own damn website tells you that the poll is unscientific.



No, I don't see how it's moot.  I also don't see where it says that it's unscientific.  Unscientific polls are those such as are found on newspaper websites.  They are inaccurate because they can be skewed for a number of reasons.  Angus Reid and Ipsos conduct scientific polls, if you do a little research into the subject.



> -3.1% margin means your 53% majority could very well turn out to be 49.9% ... and that equals a "NO" vote ... even in Quebec.



It could turn out to be 56.1%, too.  Your point?  The median of the responses is still a majority.



> Hmmm, what a difference the wording could make eh? Polls have leading questions.



Now you're really reaching.  What's leading about these questions?

_Q. Next, we’d like to ask you some questions about the monarchy. Under the terms of the Canadian Constitution, Queen Elizabeth II holds the position of Canada’s head of state. Would you support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?
Q. In the future, Prince Charles may become King of the United Kingdom and Canada. If Prince Charles does become King, would you then support or oppose Canada ending its formal ties to the British monarchy?
Q. Thinking about the future King of the United Kingdom and Canada, which of these options would you prefer?_



> People answered only because they were ASKED. If they had NOT been asked ... would they really have given a crap one way or the other?? I'd wager not, being that, as I already pointed out ... they sure as heck don't seem to be screaming for the Monarchy to be done away with ... nor faintly whispering either. They're not making it an issue at elections simply because, for the vast majority -- it is a NON issue.



You sure seem stuck on this "election issue" point.  You introduced it to the discussion, I didn't.  If you want me to admit that it's not an election issue, then sure - it's not an election issue...right now.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> It could turn out to be 56.1%, too.  Your point?  The median of the responses is still a majority.


No it's not. As they point out with their -/+ rating.


> Now you're really reaching.  What's leading about these questions?
> ...
> You sure seem stuck on this "election issue" point.  You introduced it to the discussion, I didn't.  If you want me to admit that it's not an election issue, then sure - it's not an election issue...right now.



There are many threads on this site which show how poll questions can "mislead" individuals into selecting whatever answer the pollster wants to achieve. "Should Canada be using LAV in Afghanistan" springs immediately to mind. Of course, this question was asked immediately after an accident which cost a Canadian life, and of course there was no follow on to the question to make it reflect the current reality of "Should Canada be using LAV in Afghanistan when not using them means the troops would be on foot for the most part?" You always get what you want with polls. They'd have gotten a totally different result on that poll had it reflected the actuality of the question the were asking AND it's implications. There's also many posts on this site about those of us who've found ourselves hung up upon re Afghanistan polls as soon as we answered the "type of work" lead up question with "other", to then answer "Canadian Forces" when asked to describe that "other".

No, you're right I brought up the election issue as a direct counterpoint to your stating that the majority of Canadians want to see it gone. You based that comment on ONE poll, with a small sampling. With a very ambiguous result to that poll -- quite possibly a minority as stated by the poll -/+ itself. If it were such a huge majority and such an important issue it WOULD be an election issue. It's not, right now. Nor are there even mere whispers of it being so from that vast majority of obviously way too silent Canadians for whom you are professing it is, and whom you are stating want to see the Monarchy go.


----------



## Lumber (29 Jan 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the Xth time, it was an isolated example of what is practical and what is theoretical.  We all know that the CDS also takes decision at his level.
> 
> I think you didn't understand what I meant... But that's fine, you must know better than me what I meant
> 
> Max



I think your statement would have been more clear if you had changed your wording from "practical power" to "practicality". In theory, the CDS could issue orders to each and every field commander, however, that would be highly unpractical. Of course altering your wording so would make your attempt to distinguish between theoretical power and practical power useless. I do agree, however, that your were in no way trying to propose that either we need to do away with the CDS or that the CDS is useless. How GW would come to this conclusion and why he would press it so far, I don't know. As soon as you said that's not at all what you meant he should have grown up and said "Sorry, didn't understand properly, thank you for clarifying."

As for what you were trying to say in regards to the Queen and her practice of power in Canada I totally agree. People keep saying how important the GG (and the Queen through her) are because it is their seal that actually brings a law into effect. However, it is parliament that actually proposes, debates, and votes on those laws. The Queen or GG never interfere with that process, and I invite anyone here to give an example of where the GG has NOT given a law royal ascent. 

Now lets take a step into the hypothetical and use or imagination. Canada is about to vote in a law that is very important for Canada, but which, for some reason, the Queen absolutely objects to. She then forbids the GG from giving it royal ascent, preventing it from actually coming into law. My hypothesis: Canada requests/demands the Queen change her decision. If she does not, Canada says, well we really don't need your permission, and severs ties to the monarchy. 

While hypothetical, IMO, that's how it would go. *I, for one, am all for maintaining the monarchy!*. It breeds cooperation and friendship with other commonwealth nations. This example, however, should exemplify the symbolic nature of the crown.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2008)

I think the word you seek is "impracticable".
"It would be _impracticable _ for the CDS to avoid using the chain of command and instead personally issue orders to all field commanders in the Army"


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Jan 2008)

Anyway, this thread is a hair's width away from being locked. It's going round and round. I don't think any minds are going to be changed. Let's keep things fresh, civil, and moving along, or it will be done.

Thanks.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2008)

OK.  NCdt Lumber and SupersonicMax

I really don't know what they teach you guys in RMC these days, but logic doesn't seem to be one thing.  




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right, that's why I say she has theoratical power  over us, but never really uses it.  That means the practical power is to the PM and the Parliment.
> 
> I think there is a distinction between theoratical/legal and practical.  Theoratically, the CDS could take every decisions  for every commander in the CFs.  Practically, he doesn't.
> 
> Max





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK?  I don't think you are reading what your wrote.
> 
> 
> Now, I take it that you say the Queen has "theoratical power" over us, but the "practical power" is with the PM and Parliament.
> ...



It seems to me that you have said the same thing about the CDS as you have said about the Queen.  If you see no point in having the Queen, you see no point in having the CDS.  Don't flip flop on me.  You made the statement.  I colour coded the similarities to make things easier for you.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Jan 2008)

I think we have beating this dead horse into a stain on the road.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jan 2008)

George, you mix 2 completely different statements.  All I wanted to do is, for the XIth time, GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS PRACTICAL and what is THEORATICAL.  I, in no way, tried to imply that we should do away with it.  What do you need more, convince myself this is what I meant to say???

Max


----------



## Lumber (29 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  NCdt Lumber and SupersonicMax
> 
> I really don't know what they teach you guys in RMC these days, but logic doesn't seem to be one thing.
> 
> ...



GW,

I'm not going to continue SupersonicMax's debate with you about the logic of his statement and its implication, but I will argue that you should have dropped the issue as soon as he said that that was not what he meant. Let's say his logic _was_ wrong. That wouldn't matter, because he attempted to clarify himself to you; he implored that you understand that the conclusions you drew were not the ones he was attempting to make. 

And while we're continuing to be insanely off topic, I'll throw this our there:

Today in class I went to ask my teacher, Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh, a question. I noticed that the colour in between the two "captain's bars" was not the same colour as the rest of his slip-ons. His slip-ons were black, but the space in between the two gold bars was _green!_ Can anyone explain why?


----------



## Lumber (29 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I think the word you seek is "impracticable".
> "It would be _impracticable _ for the CDS to avoid using the chain of command and instead personally issue orders to all field commanders in the Army"



"unpractical": 
un-prac-ti-cal
–adjective
not practical; impractical; lacking practical usefulness or wisdom.
www.dictionary.com

There's always got to be a pundit watching my every step. Well take that!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> I noticed that the colour in between the two "captain's bars" was not the same colour as the rest of his slip-ons. His slip-ons were black, but the space in between the two gold bars was _green!_ Can anyone explain why?



Perhaps because he wears an army uniform and they were issued to him?  Digging through a shoebox of old insignia and other junk that I have, slip-ons that I've worn from Lt to Maj all appear as you describe.  Were you thinking that it was some sort of Irish conspiracy?


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Jan 2008)

The Sgt. and WO's mess of the 48th Highlanders has a huge picture of the queen, which faces you as you enter the mess fromthe ante room.

She is young in the picture and pretty.  We come to attention and remove any head dress we wear, otherwise people, like the loud one that wears the post office symbol on his arm.

I get my drink and sit underneath her picture.  I like it, because now people are coming attention to me.  I then talk to my friends, all the time knowing of my new hidden power.

Beer is cold in the mess too, it's neat there.  We shout and tell jokes.  People shout at us to be quiet, and we make fun of them.   All the time I know that I am the one they came to attention to at the door, not the Queen.

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> "unpractical":
> un-prac-ti-cal
> –adjective
> not practical; impractical; lacking practical usefulness or wisdom.
> ...


Noted; however:
Usage Note: The adjective *impracticable * applies to a course of action that is *impossible to carry out * or put into practice; impractical, though it can be used in this way, also can be weaker in sense, suggesting that the course of action would yield *an insufficient return * or would have little practical value. A plan for a new stadium may be rejected as impracticable if the site is too marshy to permit safe construction, but if the objection is that the site is too remote for patrons to attend games easily, the plan is better described as impractical.

This is from your very site.  You stand corrected, lad.  It would be impracticable (eg: impossible to carry out) for the CDS to issue orders to all field commanders.


----------



## Jammer (29 Jan 2008)

Fishheads, fishheads....ahh what do I know about grammar. My last boss was Australian...


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Jan 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Perhaps because he wears an army uniform and they were issued to him?  Digging through a shoebox of old insignia and other junk that I have, slip-ons that I've worn from Lt to Maj all appear as you describe.  Were you thinking that it was some sort of Irish conspiracy?



He has been away from the Regiment for a while, his slip-ons are old, like some of us.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jan 2008)

Now that the discussion has spiraled into semantic debates, we can end this one for now.  Do not be surprised if any of your posts disappear in a cleaning to restore the thread to posts on its original purpose.

If Harold the Celt ever makes it into the news again, the thread can be reopened at that time.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## McG (4 Dec 2014)

And it is back in the news.



> Queen cannot send Canadian troops to war, Attorney General says in letter aimed at settling longstanding dispute
> Joseph Brean, National Post
> 04 December 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Dec 2014)

I remember this weirdo from the College.  Guy lived in an RV in the RMC staff parking lot, what more needs to be said.


----------



## bick (4 Dec 2014)

What Branch/Corps/Regiment does this fella belong to?


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Dec 2014)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> What Branch/Corps/Regiment does this fella belong to?



He's out now. 





> and recently retired as professor of physics at the Royal Military College of Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2014)

DUH!



> The Queen “cannot issue orders within the military establishment,” he wrote. “All that she is empowered to do is to parrot the decisions of our democratically elected officials. The power lies with the people, as it must if we are to claim the status of a democracy.”



Anyone who has any inkling of our Parliamentary System would know this.  This only proves how stupid some people who claim to be intelligent really can be.

This is yet another case of a 'trivial' complaint tying up the courts.


----------



## Gunplumber (4 Dec 2014)

Did this guy get a CD? It must burn his butt have the queens head on it!


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2014)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Did this guy get a CD? It must burn his butt have the queens head on it!



He must have holes in all his pockets and wallets.

I wonder what monetary unit he gets paid in?    >


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2014)

Bit coin







 ;D


----------



## Sigs Pig (4 Dec 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> He's out now.



Must be recently recent.  Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh

ME


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Dec 2014)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Must be recently recent.  Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh
> 
> ME



I read his bio.....he sounds more like a Death Star technician than an officer.


----------



## medicineman (4 Dec 2014)

When I ran into him, I seem to recall he was a Patricia.  He was extremely condescending and took great offence when you didn't pronounce his Erse name properly.  He had a go at me one day, since I'm a quarter Irish, asking why I didn't change my name...I told him the rest of me was English, Scot and Canadian and felt no need to.

IIRC, his previous iteration was as a "Kelly", but not 100% sure - whatever it was, it was a lot easier to pronounce and recognize.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Dec 2014)

http://irelandmonumentvancouver.com/side-3-the-100-names/the-100-names/aralt-mac-giolla-chiannigh/

If not mistaken, his name could also be transliterated as McGillicuddy, Arrant Taig (or Tim).   >


----------



## Tibbson (4 Dec 2014)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Did this guy get a CD? It must burn his butt have the queens head on it!



Actually, if he was due for the CD there is no guarantee he would have gotten it by now if he got out in the last few years.  What with the backlog and all.


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Dec 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I remember this weirdo from the College.  Guy lived in an RV in the RMC staff parking lot, what more needs to be said.



Classic!


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2014)

No need to sit here discussing the social habits of a third party.  Locked.


----------

