RMC Officer Sues to Avoid Saluting, Toasting Queen?

[Trinity]

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]

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]

...
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.

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.
...

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Crown-Loyal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
...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]

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 ?