*** Welcome to piglix ***

Citizens for a Canadian Republic

Citizens for a Canadian Republic
Citizens for a Canadian Republic.png
Founded 2002
Focus Canadian Republicanism
Location
Key people

Tom Freda, National Director

Pierre L. J. Vincent, Associate Director
Website www.canadian-republic.ca

Tom Freda, National Director

Citizens for a Canadian Republic (French: Citoyens et Citoyennes pour une République Canadienne) (CCR) is a Canadian advocacy group founded in 2002 that advocates the replacement of the Canadian monarchy (in both its federal and provincial jurisdictions) with a head of state who would either be chosen through a general election or elected by the Parliament of Canada; no proposals relating to a replacement for the monarch in right of each province have been proffered.

While CCR favours the retention of the Westminster style parliament, with the prime minister as head of government, the organization does not endorse any particular republican model of government. The organization's general objective is "to promote discussion and help raise awareness of the clear advantages of amending The Constitution to allow for a democratically-chosen Canadian citizen to serve as head of state."

Citizens for a Canadian Republic was formed in 2002 "in an effort to provide balance in the debate over whether or not Canada should remain a constitutional monarchy" and advocating the “Canadianization” of the head of state. It remains the only formal organization devoted to the establishment of a Canadian republic.

That same year, CCR became involved in O'Donohue v. Canada, a lawsuit filed by one of its members, Tony O'Donohue. This suit challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, one of the laws governing succession to the Canadian throne, which disallows the sovereign from either being or married to a Roman Catholic. O'Donohue argued that it thus violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was dismissed in 2003, a ruling that was upheld in 2005, part of the rationale behind the decision being that, as the Act of Settlement is a constitutional document on equal-footing with the Charter, it could not be pre-empted by the Charter.


...
Wikipedia

...