For those in the army, disregarding the woman on the coins can bring a lot of trouble.
Canadian Armed Forces Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh found this out the hard way. In 2001, the officer–a professor of physics at the Royal Military Academy–attempted to gain exemption from the military’s mandatory swearing of loyalty to the Queen. His initial efforts were turned down and now, seven years later, Federal Court Justice R.L. Barnes has rejected his appeal.
Given the lack of active participation of British Royalty in contemporary Canadian life, political or otherwise, it seems likely that most military personnel swear the oath of fealty without much thought. The reason why this particular quest for an exemption is unique is that Chainnigh feels strong ties to his Irish heritage. Indeed, he is one of very few fluent in the Irish language. This in mind, his difficulty with swearing allegiance to the Queen is not hard to understand. Interestingly, he is on record saying that he has no problem saluting the Queen when she is representing the UK, but that he has tremendous trouble recognizing her as the head of Canada. His contention is that the monarchy is anachronistic in a country promoting democracy and equality.
Despite accepting that there are some interesting considerations to be made regarding the continued relevance of the monarchy to Canada, Justice Barnes noted that “our present ties to the British monarchy are constitutionally entrenched and unless and until that is changed there is legitimacy within our institutional structures for demanding, in appropriate circumstances, expressions of respect and loyalty to the Crown.”
Beyond the question of whether or not Canada should carry on with the Queen as head of state, the immediate query of whether a legitimate case for abstention from loyalty oaths to her from members of the military seems too pressing to wait for the assuredly sluggish process that, if ever, will decide the fate of Canada’s monarchical future.
There is a strong case for granting certain exemptions from this practice. In the case of a man with strong feelings towards his Irish heritage–that is in many ways irreconcilable with loyalty to the British monarch–an exemption from the practice should be granted. It is certainly not imperative that an officer have a strong sense of duty towards the Queen in order to feel the necessary duty towards Canada. Rather, it would be quite absurd to make this argument, as it ignores the general sentiment of indifference towards the monarchy, while at the same time stepping with steel-toed boots on the often-lauded concept of multiculturalism. As there is no necessary link between loyalty to the Crown and to Canada, and because there is one between promoting the basic cultural tenets of the country and loyalty to Canada, this sort of provision should be a no-brainer. Surely some other object of loyalty–hockey pucks?–can be found as a replacement.
The Queen’s power in this nation has shrivelled and become nothing more than historical formality. There is no reason to place it in higher regard than considerations of multiculturalism as this case has done.