The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of three permanent residents who argued that they should not be required to recite an oath to the Queen as part of becoming citizens.

The would-be citizens argued that being forced to recite the oath infringes on their right to free speech and their right to freedom of conscience and religion. The court ruled that the oath is not to be taken literally but is symbolic of Canada’s government.

Peter Rosenthal, one of the lawyers representing the group, said the decision doesn’t address the mandatory recitation of the oath.

“What they ignore in my view is the fact that citizenship applicants are required to say the literal words and the literal words are words that go against the consciences of people like the appellants,” said Rosenthal. “I would think that any jurist and any person would recognize that saying that sentence, especially in public, would be repugnant to somebody who really feels that monarchy stands for inequality.”

The citizenship process requires that new citizens recite lines that say they will “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors.”

The judgment was written with the unanimous consent of the three judges who heard the appeal: Justice Karen Weiler, Justice Peter Lauwers and Justice Gladys Pardu. The panel wrote that the applicants erred by regarding the oath in its “literal” meaning.

“(T)heir interpretation is incorrect because it is inconsistent with the history, purpose and intention behind the oath,” reads the judgment, which says the oath is actually “symbolic” of our form of government.

READ MORE:

• Citizenship oath to Queen called ‘repugnant’

Michael McAteer, an 80-year-old who was born in Ireland, said he was disappointed in the decision, particularly in the suggestion that he is wrong in taking the oath literally.

“If you read the oath, it’s very literal,” said McAteer, a former Star reporter. “I find it kind of insulting to me because I consider myself to be a principled man and it’s against my principles to take any sort of oath that I know I will not be able to adhere to.”

McAteer said he was “disappointed” in the decision. He suggested that the oath could be made optional and that would satisfy his concerns, something the judgment considers but rejects.

The appeal was an attempt to challenge a decision made in 2013 by Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Simone Topey, 47, is a Rastafarian who believes that swearing an oath to the Queen would infringe on her religious beliefs. Israeli Dror Bar-Natan, 48, opposes the oath because he believes the monarchy symbolizes inequality, Rosenthal said.

Rosenthal said that he will counsel his clients to request to carry the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country.