From todays examiner
23 January 2008
Army captain must salute queen, court rules
By Conor Ryan
AN IRISH language campaigner has lost his battle to avoid the "institutional harassment" of a Canadian army pledge, which requires him to toast and salute Queen Elizabeth II.
Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh objects to the Canadian army's tradition to toast the British monarch and occasionally salute the song God Save the Queen.
The army captain had taken his grievances to Canada's Federal Court, the equivalent of the Irish High Court, and Mr Justice Robert Barnes published its ruling on Monday.
Mr Justice Barnes said although Canadians were free to hold their own views on the queen, army officers had to pay her respect.
"The queen is, of course, Canada's constitutional head of state and commander-in-chief.
"It cannot be seriously disputed that she is legally at the pinnacle of the Canadian Forces hierarchy, albeit in an emblematic role.
"The obligation of members of the Canadian Forces to display respect to one another and loyalty to their commanders is critical to the maintenance of good order," he said.
Mr Justice Barnes said Captain Mac Giolla Chainnigh's anti-monarchist views were always respected since he joined the army in 1975 at the age of 16. However, to ignoreofficial toasts and salutes would constitute a display of rudeness and disrespect, he said.
The army captain is a leading member of the Canadian Irish language movement, which last year opened the first overseas' Gaeltacht — assisted by a €20,000 grant from ex-Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Minister, Éamon Ó Cuív.
The captain applied for a judicial review after an internal grievances panel refused to excuse him from salutes to the queen on the grounds of "institutional harassment".
He said his issues were not with Elizabeth Windsor herself but rather her status as the symbolic Canadian head of state.
"I recognise loyalty to the people of Canada alone. I cannot in good faith toast her as the queen of Canada. In doing so I would be implicitly declaring the truth of a premise that I believe to be false," he said.
The court ruled against him and said that the situation was "constitutionally entrenched" and Capt Mac Giolla Chainnigh would have to respect that.
UNLIKE Ireland, Canada has never moved to detach itself from the apron strings of the British monarchy.
In 1926 it joined 15 other Commonwealth countries to sign the Balfour Declaration to gain equality with Britain under the one crown. Canadian law refers to a monarch but it stipulates that at all times this person must be the same as the king or queen of the United Kingdom.
And so while we made our burst for independence Canada remained part of the British Empire and today Queen Elizabeth II is its head of state and commander-in-chief.
She or her representative in Canada, the Governor General Michaëlle Jean, carries out duties on behalf of the "queen of Canada".
In 1982 Canada voted for constitutional independence but retained the queen as its figurehead.
At the turn of the millennium the Canadian parliament considered making a clean break but the public were overwhelmingly against such a move.
Queen Elizabeth II reigns over Canada's 10 provinces and three territories under her official title: "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
when I go for citizenship - lizzie will not be mentioned
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 23, 2008, 03:34:23 AM
when I go for citizenship - lizzie will not be mentioned
Same, if I go for citizenship.
Time to get the submarines out!
Wouldnt be the first war we've had against Canada, eh!
We wouldn't expect a Muslim or Jew to swear an oath on the Bible, so why should a republican not be excused from toasting a heredity monarch.
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 09:18:50 AM
We wouldn't expect a Muslim or Jew to swear an oath on the Bible, so why should a republican not be excused from toasting a heredity monarch.
As you heard in so many chessey army films , you must respect the chain o command and she is on the top in Canada .
Sure he can always just do a dev on it.
Muslims and Jew's have their equivalent holy text. Would an non believer be allow swear on the Constitution?
Lads is Lizzie not mentioned in the citizenship oath or will you be ignoring that part?
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 09:39:29 AM
Lads is Lizzie not mentioned in the citizenship oath or will you be ignoring that part?
Not in Australia - it's a few years away for me if I decide to go for it, a mate from Belfast got his last year and there was nothing about the Royal family mentioned
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 09:18:50 AM
We wouldn't expect a Muslim or Jew to swear an oath on the Bible, so why should a republican not be excused from toasting a heredity monarch.
Probably because religious rights/views tend to be enshrine in rights legislation to a greater degree than political views.
If the guy is such a conscientious republican he might be better off not joining the army of a state that has a monarch as it's head.
/Jim.
Maybe he didn't know about it before he joined Jim. He's not asking that the toast is ended but simply that he should not be subjected to it. Quite a reasonable request in this day and age, especially for a person who has given over thirty years service to his country.
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 09:53:45 AM
Maybe he didn't know about it before he joined Jim. He's not asking that the toast is ended but simply that he should not be subjected to it. Quite a reasonable request in this day and age, especially for a person who has given over thirty years service to his country.
And if I've a problem with my C/O can I refuse to salute him/her ?
This is the issue here any ruling here set a president which could break down the chain of command in the army. Why can't he just do a dev?
No she is not an officer commanding, she is a titular head by virtue of her birth into a discriminatory royal family of another country. There is no question of a break down in command structures. This issue is about adhering to an ridiculous outdated tradition that should have been scrapped years ago. Just another example of the old establishment classes clinging onto a bygone age and well done to Captain Mac Giolla Chainnigh for highlighting it. Why can't he do a Dev? He shouldn't have to.
Sure if he crosses his fingers behind his back it doesn't count.
I find the whole thing ludicrous. Having a royal family is bad enough, but having a what - 70 year old - woman as the head (albeit symbolic) of the army and making people pledge allegience is ridiculous.
Royal families should be a think of the past, but pledges/oaths to them should be gone even moreso - any pledge should be to the country and the people you are joining to defend.
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 10:14:36 AM
No she is not an officer commanding, she is a titular head by virtue of her birth into a discriminatory royal family of another country. There is no question of a break down in command structures. This issue is about adhering to an ridiculous outdated tradition that should have been scrapped years ago. Just another example of the old establishment classes clinging onto a bygone age and well done to Captain Mac Giolla Chainnigh for highlighting it. Why can't he do a Dev? He shouldn't have to.
"And so while we made our burst for independence Canada remained part of the British Empire and today Queen Elizabeth II is its head of state and
commander-in-chief."
I'm no lawyer but I would believe that if you set the precedent that you can ''disrespect'' the Commander in chief due to personal beliefs then anyone can use that excuse when they are pissed with their C/O and thus Chain of command breaks down
I'm assuming that everyone who is saying this man is correct was in agreement with the man who wanted to join the Gardai a few months back but insisted on wearing a turpin?
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
Quote from: full back on January 23, 2008, 10:41:28 AM
I'm assuming that everyone who is saying this man is correct was in agreement with the man who wanted to join the Gardai a few months back but insisted on wearing a turpin?
A turban. Dick Turpin wouldn't fit on your head.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on January 23, 2008, 09:45:57 AM
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 09:18:50 AM
We wouldn't expect a Muslim or Jew to swear an oath on the Bible, so why should a republican not be excused from toasting a heredity monarch.
Probably because religious rights/views tend to be enshrine in rights legislation to a greater degree than political views.
If the guy is such a conscientious republican he might be better off not joining the army of a state that has a monarch as it's head.
/Jim.
Too right James, ye can't be takin the Queen's shilling without at least giving her a nod!
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:43:20 AM
Quote from: full back on January 23, 2008, 10:41:28 AM
I'm assuming that everyone who is saying this man is correct was in agreement with the man who wanted to join the Gardai a few months back but insisted on wearing a turpin?
A turban. Dick Turpin wouldn't fit on your head.
:D
Cheers AZ
You know what I mean though?
I do. But as I'm one of those who would say he doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It's a bit much to join up to an organisation, which I'm sure includes agreeing to abide by their rules and procedures, and then refusing to do so.
Of course you could say he would be correct to try and get these rules changed, especially if he feels they are outdated, but that is a different argument entirely. As it stands, the Canadian Army recognises QEII as their Commander in Chief, and as such she is entitled to receive a salute from all members of the Army. The fact that it seems a bit mad to an outsider is neither here nor there.
Spot on AZ
I'm an Irish Canadian with a British Passport... Does that make me a sellout??
Quote from: screenexile on January 23, 2008, 11:24:13 AM
I'm an Irish Canadian with a British Passport... Does that make me a sellout??
it makes you confused ;)
Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh could always go crazt and live in ireland and fight in one of the irish armies or is that taking patriotism too far
Quote from: rosnarun on January 23, 2008, 12:04:50 PM
Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh could always go crazt and live in ireland and fight in one of the irish armies or is that taking patriotism too far
Why would a Canadian fight in a foreign army?
Hmmm, I wonder what this chap would have done had be been born 60 years earlier? ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Commonwealthposter.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War
Anyhow, for me, the key passage of the original report is the following:
"In 1982 Canada voted for constitutional independence but retained the queen as its figurehead.
At the turn of the millennium the Canadian parliament considered making a clean break but the public were overwhelmingly against such a move"
He's made his point, he was allowed his day in court, so why don't they just hang him for High Treason and get on with it. ::)
well you did ring the bell lads
EG, whats with the bit crossed out? You know we can still read it.
Why not just come out and say it, or does putting a line through it mean you dont mean it?
Please clarify.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 12:57:23 PM
EG, whats with the bit crossed out? You know we can still read it.
Why not just come out and say it, or does putting a line through it mean you dont mean it?
Please clarify.
It's a joke ,its an internet way of showing a "slip of the tongue "
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 12:57:23 PM
EG, whats with the bit crossed out? You know we can still read it.
Why not just come out and say it, or does putting a line through it mean you dont mean it?
Please clarify.
It's a joke ,its an internet way of showing a "slip of the tongue "
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 12:57:23 PM
EG, whats with the bit crossed out? You know we can still read it.
Why not just come out and say it, or does putting a line through it mean you dont mean it?
Please clarify.
It's a joke ,its an internet way of showing a "slip of the tongue "
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
You think he should given the chair don't you?
Be honest!
;D
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
I do. But as I'm one of those who would say he doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It's a bit much to join up to an organisation, which I'm sure includes agreeing to abide by their rules and procedures, and then refusing to do so.
Of course you could say he would be correct to try and get these rules changed, especially if he feels they are outdated, but that is a different argument entirely. As it stands, the Canadian Army recognises QEII as their Commander in Chief, and as such she is entitled to receive a salute from all members of the Army. The fact that it seems a bit mad to an outsider is neither here nor there.
Well said.
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
I think the main difference between the Queen and Bush is that Bush is a elected representative... Why should the Queen be the CIC of the Canadian army by virtue of outdated colonial law's...
As I said Pat, the rights and wrongs of it are debatable, and maybe he has a case to try and get the rule changed. That's an entirely different proposition to refusing to obey a rule of an organisation which you freely joined.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
I think the main difference between the Queen and Bush is that Bush is a elected representative... Why should the Queen be the CIC of the Canadian army by virtue of outdated colonial law's...
That's up to the people of Canada to decide though, isn't it?
Quote from: J70 on January 23, 2008, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
I think the main difference between the Queen and Bush is that Bush is a elected representative... Why should the Queen be the CIC of the Canadian army by virtue of outdated colonial law's...
That's up to the people of Canada to decide though, isn't it?
And what better way is there to do it than draw the world's attention to it and bring it to court?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 23, 2008, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
I think the main difference between the Queen and Bush is that Bush is a elected representative... Why should the Queen be the CIC of the Canadian army by virtue of outdated colonial law's...
That's up to the people of Canada to decide though, isn't it?
And what better way is there to do it than draw the world's attention to it and bring it to court?
He did and he lost so he has 3 options the way i see it
Leave the army
Respect the CIC
Do a dev
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
I nearly sent him a PM :D :D
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 23, 2008, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:42:51 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of Canadian military protocol, but I suppose you are saluting the Commander In Chief of the army, not the Queen of England. It's the office of CIC you are paying respect to, not necessarliy the holder of said office. I suppose the same could be said of many in the American army. 'W' is the commander in chief (titular) and as such is saluted by them, even if a sizeable number think that the man himself is an ar*e.
I think the main difference between the Queen and Bush is that Bush is a elected representative... Why should the Queen be the CIC of the Canadian army by virtue of outdated colonial law's...
That's up to the people of Canada to decide though, isn't it?
And what better way is there to do it than draw the world's attention to it and bring it to court?
He did and he lost so he has 3 options the way i see it
Leave the army
Respect the CIC
Do a dev
No he lost his case...what I suggested was that the people of Canada decide if they want the Queen as CIC, take the validity of her position to court or have some sort of referendum....
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 01:11:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 12:57:23 PM
EG, whats with the bit crossed out? You know we can still read it.
Why not just come out and say it, or does putting a line through it mean you dont mean it?
Please clarify.
It's a joke ,its an internet way of showing a "slip of the tongue "
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
You think he should given the chair don't you?
Be honest!
;D
What? Allow him the comfort of a chair? Make the lazy bugger stand, whilst they shoot him with a ball of his own dung! :D
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 23, 2008, 01:47:05 PM
what I suggested was that the people of Canada decide if they want the Queen as CIC, take the validity of her position to court or have some sort of referendum....
I guess it's implicit in the following:
"In 1982 Canada voted for constitutional independence but retained the queen as its figurehead.
At the turn of the millennium the Canadian parliament considered making a clean break but the public were overwhelmingly against such a move"
I'll be doing it in two months and had planned to assume they're referring to 80s rockers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/QueenInArgentina1981.jpg
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
I do. But as I'm one of those who would say he doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It's a bit much to join up to an organisation, which I'm sure includes agreeing to abide by their rules and procedures, and then refusing to do so.
Of course you could say he would be correct to try and get these rules changed, especially if he feels they are outdated, but that is a different argument entirely. As it stands, the Canadian Army recognises QEII as their Commander in Chief, and as such she is entitled to receive a salute from all members of the Army. The fact that it seems a bit mad to an outsider is neither here nor there.
He does have a leg to stand on to object to the status of the Monarchy otherwise the court would not have accepted his challenge.
Where does it say he will not respect the courts ruling.
He does not have a leg to stand on if he refuses to accept the courts ruling and the army want to discipline him.
Congratulations to him and his efforts, my Man of the Year so far.
The Army rules and regulations state that the commander in chief is the titular head of state. As such, he should either a) be agitating that the rule is of saluting the C in C is altered, or else b) trying to change the constitution to not recognising the Queen as head of state, or else c) that the head of state is not automatically CiC.
Either way, he would have a valid case in my opinion, but it is unreasonable to join up to an organisation, knowing this is a rule, and then flouting it. By all means disagree with it, try to change it, but why sign up at all if he felt that strongly about it? (Or aboot it even).
It seems as if he is not trying to change any of those constitutional elements, rather he is trying to say that he, as someone who doesn't recognise the Queen as head of state, shouldn't have to salute his own Commander in Chief. I would suggest that if Gonzo from the muppet show was deemed to be commander in chief, he would have to salute him.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
Says the man who has to do a Dev to get home to Meath everyday ;)
Quote from: Chrisowc on January 23, 2008, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
I nearly sent him a PM :D :D
Why didn't you i could of framed it my first official PM for a OWC'er
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
Says the man who has to do a Dev to get home to Meath everyday ;)
I'm still not going to ask you ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Indeed - I was only making a joke. I don't really think he should hang. Honest.
Listen here EG dont be going round confusing people with them there "internet style" jokes. Either say it or dont.
I want to know for sure if I am meant to be angry with you or not!! ;)
Gnevin, your mad for someone to ask you what "do a dev" is, arent you ;)
Says the man who has to do a Dev to get home to Meath everyday ;)
I'm still not going to ask you ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera#Entry_into_the_Free_State_D.C3.A1il:_the_.27empty_formula.27
Doing a dev
Basically he crossed his fingers.
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:07:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera#Entry_into_the_Free_State_D.C3.A1il:_the_.27empty_formula.27
Doing a dev
Thats just a wikepedia page with general info on him. He did lots of things.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:07:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera#Entry_into_the_Free_State_D.C3.A1il:_the_.27empty_formula.27
Doing a dev
Thats just a wikepedia page with general info on him. He did lots of things.
It should link to when he entered the Dáil by crossing his fingers after fighting a war about the oath among other things
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:24:16 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:07:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera#Entry_into_the_Free_State_D.C3.A1il:_the_.27empty_formula.27
Doing a dev
Thats just a wikepedia page with general info on him. He did lots of things.
It should link to when he entered the Dáil by crossing his fingers after fighting a war about the oath among other things
After all that it wasnt even that funny ;)
I dont get how I do it going home to Meath though, indulge me. A bit slow today (no smart comments!!)
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:24:16 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 23, 2008, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 03:07:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera#Entry_into_the_Free_State_D.C3.A1il:_the_.27empty_formula.27
Doing a dev
Thats just a wikepedia page with general info on him. He did lots of things.
It should link to when he entered the Dáil by crossing his fingers after fighting a war about the oath among other things
After all that it wasnt even that funny ;)
I dont get how I do it going home to Meath though, indulge me. A bit slow today (no smart comments!!)
It wasn't meant to be funny ,if it was slightly funny than it over achieved like Armagh in 2002 :P
Well i assume they still have the Oath of allegiance when you return to the county after being up the big smoke .
I hereby do swear by Graham Geraghty....
I believe is how its starts
That's a change from Jackeens swearing at Graham Geraghty.
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 04:41:05 PM
if it was slightly funny than it over achieved like Armagh in 2002 :P
Makes a change from teams under achieving, eh gnevin ;)
Quote from: Hardy on January 23, 2008, 04:50:59 PM
That's a change from Jackeens swearing at Graham Geraghty.
I'll take Hardys option Gnevin!
Quote from: Evil Genius on January 23, 2008, 12:46:49 PM
Hmmm, I wonder what this chap would have done had be been born 60 years earlier? ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Commonwealthposter.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War
Anyhow, for me, the key passage of the original report is the following:
"In 1982 Canada voted for constitutional independence but retained the queen as its figurehead.
At the turn of the millennium the Canadian parliament considered making a clean break but the public were overwhelmingly against such a move"
He's made his point, he was allowed his day in court, so why don't they just hang him for High Treason and get on with it. ::)
where have you been? thought you must have got a job... ;)
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 23, 2008, 03:00:03 PMbut it is unreasonable to join up to an organisation, knowing this is a rule, and then flouting it. By all means disagree with it, try to change it, but why sign up at all if he felt that strongly about it? (Or aboot it even).
It seems as if he is not trying to change any of those constitutional elements, rather he is trying to say that he, as someone who doesn't recognise the Queen as head of state, shouldn't have to salute his own Commander in Chief. I would suggest that if Gonzo from the muppet show was deemed to be commander in chief, he would have to salute him.
Why are you going on about unreasonable? He was 16 when he signed up to serve Canada and grudgingly took the oath.
Maybe he woke up one morning 8 years ago after a dream and decided enough is enough- I don't want to salute the effin Queen anymore I'll see what I can do about it.
''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.
.....He argues in his claim that the requirement to publicly express allegiance contrary to one's belief is degrading to an individual.
Aralt Has Lit The Torch
However, a Toronto lawyer is leading a similar fight, which she bills as the most serious legal challenge yet to the use of monarchist loyalty tests.
Kike Roach is representing 18 people barred from holding office, entering the legal profession or earning citizenship because they refused oaths of loyalty to the Queen in a class-action lawsuit.
"How are we going to modernize the Canadian state? Are we going to continue to be just some kind of colonial outpost for the rest of our lives?" she asked.
In his ruling, Barnes agreed there were some questions on the topic worth asking.
"Whether it is wise for Canada to maintain its linkages to the British monarchy is a matter for debate and resolution in the political sphere," he said. "But the fact remains 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."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html)
so they decided that the Queen of England can be the queen of Cananda to? whyd they do that
becsuae their was a piece of papre ina chrsitmsa crakcre thta said tehy culod
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 23, 2008, 07:36:14 PM
becsuae their was a piece of papre ina chrsitmsa crakcre thta said tehy culod
Oh you are so
Cinical synical...cynical ;D
anyway - I hope this thing is all sorted by the time my citizenship rolls around
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 23, 2008, 07:44:49 PM
anyway - I hope this thing is all sorted by the time my citizenship rolls around
Just to play the advocate - what if its not and you have a choice between citizenship with acknowledgement to Lizzie, or back home on the slow boat. Would you turn it all down?
I'll still have my landed immigrant (permanent resident) status - I'm basically a citizen - but I cannot vote
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 23, 2008, 07:50:23 PM
I'll still have my landed immigrant (permanent resident) status - I'm basically a citizen - but I cannot vote
So if there ever was a referendum to vote her out you could not vote her out.
I say swear the allegiance to get that vote at least.....
He could become more famous than Frank Maguire.
He is a member of a Commonwealth Force, having presumably opted not to join his own Countrys Armed Forces. He should therefore accept his responsbilities, which arise from taking the Queens Shilling. The gaelgoir in the SDLP have no problem with the pledge administered in Westminister, so why should he.
Quote from: Pangurban on January 23, 2008, 09:20:29 PM
He is a member of a Commonwealth Force, having presumably opted not to join his own Countrys Armed Forces. He should therefore accept his responsbilities, which arise from taking the Queens Shilling. The gaelgoir in the SDLP have no problem with the pledge administered in Westminister, so why should he.
He has joined his own countries armed forces ??? ??? ??? ???
Whats his problem then, he knew the protocol before he joined. If he feels so strongly about the issue now,albeit rather belatedly, he can do the honourable thing and resign his commission
Quote from: Main Street on January 23, 2008, 07:23:40 PM
Aralt Has Lit The Torch
However, a Toronto lawyer is leading a similar fight, which she bills as the most serious legal challenge yet to the use of monarchist loyalty tests.
Kike Roach is representing 18 people barred from holding office, entering the legal profession or earning citizenship because they refused oaths of loyalty to the Queen in a class-action lawsuit.
"How are we going to modernize the Canadian state? Are we going to continue to be just some kind of colonial outpost for the rest of our lives?" she asked.
In his ruling, Barnes agreed there were some questions on the topic worth asking.
"Whether it is wise for Canada to maintain its linkages to the British monarchy is a matter for debate and resolution in the political sphere," he said. "But the fact remains 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."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html)
And he should win the case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6311151.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6311151.stm)
Quote from: Pangurban on January 23, 2008, 09:55:23 PM
Whats his problem then, he knew the protocol before he joined. If he feels so strongly about the issue now,albeit rather belatedly, he can do the honourable thing and resign his commission
What is your problem with him taking a case? He has a perfect civil right to challenge this as a soldier and a citizen. He had a decent legal argument which has gathered support and will inevitably lead to more and more challenges to this monachy drivel.
He joined the army when he was 16.
Why should he resign and why would you regard that as honourable.
He is a soldier he has the honourable right to continue with his career and carry on his campaign in what way he can.
More power to him.
My problem is that he apparently had no qualms subscribing to the oath when he joined, and presumably has been complying with protocol throughout the intervening years, why is his conscience troubling him now. As for his legal challenge, which he is certainly entitled to take, i would be very surprised were it to succeed
Then its your problem Pangurban.
Who said that it had only been troubling him now.
His challenge started 7 or 8 years ago.
There comes a time.
So Donagh i take it you fully support the Sikh lad joining the guards and wearing the Turban? And Muslims women wearing the hijab in the civil service?
The Sikhs in Canada can wear their turbans in the Mounties, presumably their kirpan is no problem
unfortunately those bad-ass hats aren't worn by the Mounties all the time
Quote from: Donagh on January 23, 2008, 10:32:40 PM
And he should win the case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6311151.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6311151.stm)
Why should laws in the UK apply in Canada?
(http://www.wheelchairanglingandhamradio.co.uk/images/Queen_gun.jpg)
She'd be class in the front line though.
Quote from: Main Street on January 23, 2008, 11:42:55 PM
(http://www.sikhspectrum.com/092002/images/baltej.jpg)
THIS MOUNTIE IS NOT FOR SALUTING
Quote from: Main Street on January 23, 2008, 11:16:44 PM
The Sikhs in Canada can wear their turbans in the Mounties, presumably their kirpan is no problem
What are you talking about Mounties for? I was talking about the guards in Ireland and the Irish civil service
Gnevin, why are you comparing two completely different things??
Wearing a turban or a hijab is a physical expression of ones religion.
Whaever about the civil service, a guard wearing a turban could be singled out for abuse / attack based on this.
how is swearing or not swearing and oath to the Queen somehow comparable with physical displays of your religion beliefs in the public arena?
Its not like he is gonna wear a "f**k the queen" t-shirt while on duty ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 24, 2008, 10:20:29 AM
Gnevin, why are you comparing two completely different things??
Wearing a turban or a hijab is a physical expression of ones religion.
Whaever about the civil service, a guard wearing a turban could be singled out for abuse / attack based on this.
how is swearing or not swearing and oath to the Queen somehow comparable with physical displays of your religion beliefs in the public arena?
Its not like he is gonna wear a "f**k the queen" t-shirt while on duty ::)
Because people stated myself included if you come to our country you should obey our customs and traditions. No he swore and oath to join the army and had his day in court i don't think Canada can do fairer than that . People should stopped being biased by the fact that she is the Queen of England and think would they be so up in arms in the Dutch wanted him a oath to the Queen there?
He knew what he was getting into when he signed up for it, so to speak.
IMHO it is the same as the Sikhs & Muslims. If you go to a different country or take up a job you have to respect & accept what they do
Quote from: Gnevin on January 23, 2008, 11:06:13 PM
So Donagh i take it you fully support the Sikh lad joining the guards and wearing the Turban? And Muslims women wearing the hijab in the civil service?
I do certainly, though I would probably put restrictions on the hijab depending on the role.
I don't know much about Canada other than it produces Maple Syrup and is responsible for Brian Adams but why do they retain the Queen of England as their head of state?
I think that's a common enough occurance in countries within the Commonwealth. Is the Queen not also the titular head of state of Australia, New Zealand and others?
Edit : The 'Queen of England' is not her official title. She is (deep breath) 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
Quote from: Gnevin on January 24, 2008, 11:06:12 AM
Because people stated myself included if you come to our country you should obey our customs and traditions. No he swore and oath to join the army and had his day in court i don't think Canada can do fairer than that . People should stopped being biased by the fact that she is the Queen of England and think would they be so up in arms in the Dutch wanted him a oath to the Queen there?
What exactly is your problem with Aralt's legal challenge. That he isn't native born?
Sounds like xenophobia to me. If the challenge comes from a foreigner it is suspicious but if a challenge comes from native born it's alright.
He has been in the army since the age of 16. He is as Canadian as a native born. He has every right along with the native born Canadians to challenge the constitutional remnants of the monarchy.
The constitution does not only protect the rights of native born citizens.
Aralt's challenge is coming as a Canadian citizen, a learned loyal soldier, a self confessed Canadian patriot.
Quote from: Main Street on January 24, 2008, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 24, 2008, 11:06:12 AM
Because people stated myself included if you come to our country you should obey our customs and traditions. No he swore and oath to join the army and had his day in court i don't think Canada can do fairer than that . People should stopped being biased by the fact that she is the Queen of England and think would they be so up in arms in the Dutch wanted him a oath to the Queen there?
What exactly is your problem with Aralt's legal challenge. That he isn't native born?
Sounds like xenophobia to me. If the challenge comes from a foreigner it is suspicious but if a challenge comes from native born it's alright.
He has been in the army since the age of 16. He is as Canadian as a native born. He has every right along with the native born Canadians to challenge the constitutional remnants of the monarchy.
The constitution does not only protect the rights of native born citizens.
Aralt's challenge is coming as a Canadian citizen, a learned loyal soldier, a self confessed Canadian patriot.
I've no problem with his legal challenge, he took it he lost . Now he has the option of doing a dev or leaving the army
Stop saying 'Doing a Dev'. It's doing my head in, is what it's doing :D
Quote from: AZOffaly on January 24, 2008, 02:24:58 PM
Stop saying 'Doing a Dev'. It's doing my head in, is what it's doing :D
;D
Doing a Dev
Dev took the oath one day and abolished it the next.
Quote from: Main Street on January 24, 2008, 03:47:57 PM
Doing a Dev
Dev took the oath one day and abolished it the next.
He still took it after fighting a war amongst other reason not to have to take the oath.
So can we say from now on that if one hints towards something and keeps repeating it, in the vain hope that someone will ask what he is on about so he can sound clever "doing a Gnevin" ?
that can also apply when someone is winding someone up
I'm only Gnevin-ing ya
Or us Dubs can say "ask me gnevin" ;)
Just joking my glasnevinular freind!
Quote from: Gnevin on January 24, 2008, 11:06:12 AM
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 24, 2008, 10:20:29 AM
Gnevin, why are you comparing two completely different things??
Wearing a turban or a hijab is a physical expression of ones religion.
Whaever about the civil service, a guard wearing a turban could be singled out for abuse / attack based on this.
how is swearing or not swearing and oath to the Queen somehow comparable with physical displays of your religion beliefs in the public arena?
Its not like he is gonna wear a "f**k the queen" t-shirt while on duty ::)
Because people stated myself included if you come to our country you should obey our customs and traditions. No he swore and oath to join the army and had his day in court i don't think Canada can do fairer than that . People should stopped being biased by the fact that she is the Queen of England and think would they be so up in arms in the Dutch wanted him a oath to the Queen there?
What do uou think of this story in the sun today then?
A CHILDREN'S story based on the Three Little Pigs has been snubbed for a Government award — for fear it might offend Muslims.
The classic fairytale was reworked as the basis for an animated CD-Rom called The Three Little Cowboy Builders.
But it was turned down from Government agency Becta's annual awards after judges warned using pigs "raises culture issues".
They said they rejected it because they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".
Muslims consider pigs unclean and are banned from eating pork.
Becta also claimed the story in which pigs play the cowboys might offend builders.
The digital book's creator Anne Curtis claimed last night she had been unfairly branded a racist.
She added: "I felt disbelief. To be told we set out to alienate minority groups is a narrow-minded view that I'm sure does not represent the general view in the country."
Ms Curtis said she had received messages of support, including some from Muslims.
The CD-Rom — aimed at under-11s — has already won a prize at the Education Resource Awards.
Seems like everyone's bending over backwards to appease Muslins but when one Irish man say's he doesn't want to salute the Queen there's uproar....
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on January 24, 2008, 06:31:08 PM
What do uou think of this story in the sun today then?
I think that if the Sun (the newspaper) told me that the Sun (the star) rose in the east in the morning, I'd look for corroboration.
there wouldn't be any point, Deiseach. They wouldn't understand you.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 24, 2008, 03:55:53 PM
So can we say from now on that if one hints towards something and keeps repeating it, in the vain hope that someone will ask what he is on about so he can sound clever "doing a Gnevin" ?
I didn't realise that this phrase was so uncommon , i remember using it in school a lot maybe it was a in joke back then.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 24, 2008, 04:03:30 PM
that can also apply when someone is winding someone up
I'm only Gnevin-ing ya
Don't you mean i'm only Laoislad-ing you ;D
Just as long as you arent Pucking anyone we'll all be ok.
Don't worry about them Gnevin, they're a bunch of ill-educated ignoramuses. If you'd have said 'doing a Tony Banks' they might have understood.
Donagh now you are dublinfelling it with that air of condescension.
Quote from: Main Street on January 24, 2008, 10:05:20 PM
Donagh now you are dublinfelling it with that air of condescension.
Sorry MS, I should have put a wee winkie with that ;)
Quote from: Donagh on January 24, 2008, 10:11:08 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 24, 2008, 10:05:20 PM
Donagh now you are dublinfelling it with that air of condescension.
Sorry MS, I should have put a wee winkie with that ;)
I will be interested to see if this man of conviction packs it in or if he will suck it up and pay homage to Lizzie. If it were me I would say adios and look for another job but thats me. :-\
Quote from: stew on January 24, 2008, 10:19:22 PM
I will be interested to see if this man of conviction packs it in or if he will suck it up and pay homage to Lizzie. If it were me I would say adios and look for another job but thats me. :-\
I don´t know why it is thought that he should lump it. His mere presence in the army must really piss off some of them. He has to pay the costs of the legal challenge out of his own pocket so at least you wouldn´t begrudge him the pleasure of gritting his teeth and silently uttering some choice phrases while raising his glass in the officers mess.
AFAIA he will continue to give his support to furthur challenges to the constitution or changes to it.
Here's another Irishman who not only salutes the Queen, but is actually putting his arse on the line for her. I wonder what this "Fighting Irishman" would think of the other one out in Canada (and vice versa)
(From the Irish Times, Fri.May 23rd., 2008)
SOLDIER'S DIARY:
Wicklowman LIEUT PADDY BURY is serving with the British army in Afghanistan. In the first of an occasional diary from the front, he explains what attracted him.
WHY DOES an Irishman serve as an officer in the British army? It's a question I am asked almost every time I return to Ireland, sometimes with varying degrees of accusation or incredulity. Certainly, there are subtle contradictions in serving the queen as an Irishman, but even the fact that I can admit I serve in the British army is a testament to how much attitudes in Ireland have changed in the last five years.
In my limited experience of both soldiers and officers, it comes down to a calling. In today's society, with its decline of male identity, the warrior tradition embodied by the infantry is a huge attraction for young men, whether from Ireland or not.
Irishmen that I serve with have joined for a sense of self-worth, challenge, adventure, travel and above all, camaraderie. Drawn from all parts of the island of Ireland and from all backgrounds and religions, they have taken the considerable step of enlisting in, what is often for them, a foreign army. This is to fulfil an inherent desire often repeated in the history of Irish military service. The warrior ethos that underpins service in the infantry is inherent in many men and is reflected in the general interest and questions posed by young and old men when I return to Ireland.
The British army's imperial experience of incorporating all creeds and denominations to defend the realm has given it a great understanding of diversity and a cheery acceptance of others. I have never faced any anti-Irish hostility, and I would suggest my soldiers haven't either.
Sandhurst, the home of the British officer corps, is a model of diversity and equality, and throughout the training of both officers and soldiers careful attention is paid to ethnicity.
In the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment, there is always room for gentle ribbing between Northern and Southern Irishmen, in much the same way as Cork people rib Dubliners and vice versa, but this is part of the unique character of our pan-Irish battalion. In attracting those of the warrior creed, all else is voluntarily subordinated to the ideal of soldering. It is a real example to all Irish people of what can be achieved when we work together towards a common goal.
Those of us from the Republic who serve in the British army have diverse backgrounds and have taken different paths to get here.
Fellow officers from Kildare, Mayo and Dublin are drawn from across the spectrum of society, from old Anglo-Irish families to the urban middle classes.
Soldiers from Cork, Dublin, Meath, Laois, Kildare, Wicklow, Kerry, Donegal, and Cavan are also representative of all parts of Irish society, and have often taken long and winding roads on their way to enlistment.
Many have served in the Irish Defence Forces. These soldiers therefore often have a wealth of experience, maturity and, in many respects, a resilience to hardship that has typified Irish soldiers on the battlefield in the past. Added to this is a gregarious sense of humour and a litany of anecdotes that provide morale for us all when times are tough. They are truly unique, an admired band wherever they serve with the shamrock on their shoulder.
Yes, sometimes I wonder how the hell did I end up here. And yes, I would love to serve my own country at some stage. But on my first inspection of the soldiers' rooms as a new officer, I was struck by something that defined both my battalion in particular and being an Irish soldier in the British army in general. In a shared room, at one end of a bed, hanging from the ceiling was a large Union Jack. Exactly opposite it, not three feet from the Union Jack, hung the Tricolour. Contradictory, yes. But I knew I was in the right place.
Lieut Bury is on duty in Helmand province
Fair balls too him!
Quotethere is always room for gentle ribbing between Northern and Southern Irishmen, in much the same way as Cork people rib Dubliners
dont know about the rest of ye but i found that funny :D :D
f**k off!
These guys are defending our way of life!
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
Aww for fcuk sake ...give me a break.
As for Lt Bury - what a sad clown.
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
I don't think very many people in Ireland believe that, certainly very few non-unionists. I don't see why anyone would want to join a different country's army, if you're gonna die for a country you may as well make it your own one! Obviously if you really really believed in a particular cause this would be different (eg Irishmen in the International Brigade fighting Franco in the Spanish civil war) but this doesn't seem to be his motivation here from reading that article. His enlisting seems to be borne out of a desire for identity, machoism and camaraderie.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2008, 09:18:43 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
Aww for fcuk sake ...give me a break.
As for Lt Bury - what a sad clown.
Ireland had no problem with these wars but we just don't have the balls to have an army for these guys to join. Also the British army is the army the supplies our air defence and realisticly the army we would call on if anything went wrong!
Most people don't know this, but there are a small number of Irish Special Forces on active duty in Afghanistan as part of the coalition - neutral my arse!! Granted the numbers are only about 10 - but they are definitely there.
Quote from: aontroim on May 28, 2008, 09:42:46 AM
Most people don't know this, but there are a small number of Irish Special Forces on active duty in Afghanistan as part of the coalition - neutral my arse!! Granted the numbers are only about 10 - but they are definitely there.
They are in Iraq too!
Neutrality is pretty much compromised by Shannon anyway :-[
Quote from: aontroim on May 28, 2008, 09:42:46 AM
Most people don't know this, but there are a small number of Irish Special Forces on active duty in Afghanistan as part of the coalition - neutral my arse!! Granted the numbers are only about 10 - but they are definitely there.
Nonsense, that would be unconstitutional and couldn't happen unless authorised by the Dail. If they are there, they'll be there are part of UN forces not NATO (coalition).
I dunno Donagh. A lad I know is a Captain in the US Army, out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He's done 3 tours in Iraq, and was telling me when I met him at Christmas that there are Irish Army Rangers on the ground near Tikrit, where his last tour was. I didn't believe him, and thought he had them mixed up with the Irish Guards or something in the British Army, but he was convinced. He said Irish Army Rangers, and there was about 10 - 15 of them.
Yeah, but they're not part of NATO or any Brit/Yankee coalition. I agree that neutrality has been compromised by Shannon, but the deployment of troops is one thing that can't be got around. Irish troops can only be deployed as part of United Nations mandated peacekeeping missions which must then be approved by the Dail.
Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2008, 11:54:30 AM
Yeah, but they're not part of NATO or any Brit/Yankee coalition. I agree that neutrality has been compromised by Shannon, but the deployment of troops is one thing that can't be got around. Irish troops can only be deployed as part of United Nations mandated peacekeeping missions which must then be approved by the Dail.
I don't know under what mandate they are there, and I assume it's not NATO or the Coalition, but I don't think UN are in Iraq yet?
Have had it confirmed by someone there that they fall under the NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) - they are running convoys along with the Aussies over there.
On further digging i found this ;
QuoteNATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) currently numbers around 9,000 troops and is due to number about 18,000 by the end of July when it takes over coalition operations in the south and absorbs the British, Canadian, Dutch and some of the US forces in the south.
QuoteNATO's ISAF
Germany 2,200
Italy 1,200
The Netherlands 800 (due to rise to 1,400 in the coming weeks)
France 700
British 700
Spain 600
There are smaller forces in ISAF, with the 26 NATO and other non-NATO countries represented. Some countries also have other special forces troops here.
QuoteNATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF's mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.
QuoteISAF contributing nations
(as of 21 February 2005)
NATO Nations
Belgium 616
Bulgaria 37
Canada 992
Czech Republic 17
Denmark 122
Estonia 10
France 742
Germany 1816
Greece 171
Hungary 159
Iceland 20
Italy 506
Latvia 9
Lithuania 9
Luxemburg 10
Netherlands 311
Norway 313
Poland 5
Portugal 21
Romania 72
Slovakia 16
Slovenia 27
Spain 551
Turkey 825
United Kingdom 461
United States 89
Partner Nations
Albania 22
Austria 3
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 45
Finland 61
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1) 20
Ireland 10
Sweden 85
Switzerland 4
Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand 5
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2008, 09:18:43 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
Aww for fcuk sake ...give me a break.
As for Lt Bury - what a sad clown.
Ireland had no problem with these wars but we just don't have the balls to have an army for these guys to join. Also the British army is the army the supplies our air defence and realisticly the army we would call on if anything went wrong!
its america that keeps you safe tankie not the brits and as memorial day has just past in the states now would be a good time to give thanks..
Quote from: magickingdom on May 28, 2008, 07:48:55 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2008, 09:18:43 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
Aww for fcuk sake ...give me a break.
As for Lt Bury - what a sad clown.
Ireland had no problem with these wars but we just don't have the balls to have an army for these guys to join. Also the British army is the army the supplies our air defence and realisticly the army we would call on if anything went wrong!
its america that keeps you safe tankie not the brits and as memorial day has just past in the states now would be a good time to give thanks..
i think the Brits would be the first to help us out... and they do supply our air support, sure they did it the last time Bush was over.
Quote from: Tankie on May 28, 2008, 08:18:40 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on May 28, 2008, 07:48:55 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2008, 09:18:43 PM
Quote from: Tankie on May 27, 2008, 08:50:07 PM
These guys are defending our way of life!
Aww for fcuk sake ...give me a break.
As for Lt Bury - what a sad clown.
Ireland had no problem with these wars but we just don't have the balls to have an army for these guys to join. Also the British army is the army the supplies our air defence and realisticly the army we would call on if anything went wrong!
its america that keeps you safe tankie not the brits and as memorial day has just past in the states now would be a good time to give thanks..
i think the Brits would be the first to help us out... and they do supply our air support, sure they did it the last time Bush was over.
Air support? who's on the verge of carpet bombing us? ......well theres a few towns i wouldn't miss
any help needed will be from our old friends - the Spanish and French would land in Droves all along our south coast, by way of apology for cocking it up in the past.
But it wouldn't matter anyway, any invaders will be treated the same as the others - we'll let them in get them pissed and "paddyfy" them, they'll be professional jigs and reelers in a generation
Anyone read that new book, "The Green Marine", looks like a good read if a bit harrowing. The storey of a Dublin lad who 'd been living in America joined the Army after 9/11 to fight for his adopted country.
From the IN today:
Southern recruits to British army soar
By Rebecca Black
13/06/08
THE proportion of British army recruits from the Republic has more than doubled in the past year.
More than 10 per cent of those enlisting in the past 12 months came from south of the border, new figures have revealed.
This compares to 3 per cent in 2005/06 and 4.5 per cent in 2006/07.
Lieutenant Colonel Dick Rafferty, head of British army recruitment in Northern Ireland, put the rise down to "positive word of mouth".
"Historically there is nothing new in young men and women from the south joining the army but it's fair to say that for many years the numbers were in decline," he said.
"However, from 2003 onwards we have seen real growth with those joining more than doubling in the last year alone.
"There can be many reasons for this, one of which is that there is a change of attitude in the Republic towards a career in the British army.
"Economic conditions also play a part but I
suspect there is a strong word-of-mouth endorsement from serving soldiers telling about their experiences when they go home.
"Similarly, given the current strong and vibrant political relations between north and south there is less of a stigma in telling your friends and family that you've joined. Perhaps we are seeing old prejudices and preconceptions being put to one side or erased."
A Sinn Fein spokesman said he could see "no reason why any Irishman/woman would want to join the British army" in light of the army's record in Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq.
I read this, this morning. Beggars belief.
Some people just want to fight, no matter who its with or against.
These reports sadden me, but dont surprise me.
Thats about 60 recruits a year.
Pussies.
Real men go for the French Foreign Legion.
Quote from: Rav67 on June 13, 2008, 04:56:39 PM
A Sinn Fein spokesman said he could see "no reason why any Irishman/woman would want to join the British army" in light of the army's record in Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, is the inference here that if the British Army had a better record in Ireland, Afghanistan, and Iraq then Sinn Fein would advocate membership?
Dont think we have come that far yet but we are heading in that direction.
Has and always will be an element of Southerners joining their ranks. Even through the worst of the conflict they still joined up. Sad but true state of affairs!!
Quote from: Yes I Would on June 13, 2008, 08:13:11 PM
Has and always will be an element of Southerners joining their ranks. Even through the worst of the conflict they still joined up. Sad but true state of affairs!!
Them bloody Munster people - that's what comes from playing West Brit games like Rugby >:(
Maybe the prospects or potential for those who want a military career are better in the British forces than in the Irish. A lot of people in the south have moved on in terms of attitudes towards Britain, for better or for worse.
The prospects for mercenaries in the British army were always good as I'm sure the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Crossmaglen would surely testify. ::)