IN THIS EDITION: Declare Your Republic; Canadians Challenge Oath To Queen, New Zealand Dithers; God And My Right; Republican Movement News; Take The Republic Quiz And Win; Monarchy Myths.

A NEW CAMPAIGN by the Republican Movement sets to expand our network of like-minded New Zealanders even further. "In 2002 we started a 'Monarchy Free Zone' campaign for the Queen's Royal tour - in 2009 we're taking that a step further. If you're a republican minded New Zealander, now's your chance to declare a republic of your own and let your fellow citizens what you think" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.

Famous examples of self-declared republics include the Republic of Whangamomona, declared in 1989 to protest against the redrawing of regional government boundaries, the Free Republic of Okarito, formed to protest against land developers, and the Independent State of Aramoana, formed to protest against a proposed aluminum smelter.

All of these examples were protests, but a number grew into fun annual celebrations, in the case of Whangamomona. Declaring your own republic is easy. You can:

• Find a suitable "republic day" in your local area,
• Fire up the BBQ and celebrate your republic over a few cold beers,
• Stake your claim on our interactive map,
• let your local MP and local council know why you're giving up allegiance to the Royal family,
• Let the National Council know about your activities so we can help you promote them.

"We won't be able to declare our own republic - the Republic of New Zealand - without building support at the flaxroots first" said Mr Holden. "Declaring our own 'local' republics is the first step in that journey."

Canadians Challenge Oath To Queen, New Zealand Dithers

CANADIANS are challenging the Canadian Citizenship Oath in Canada's High Court - while New Zealand's Parliament dithers on the issue. Like the New Zealand Oath, the Canadian Oath requires new citizens to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors. A new lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of the Oath under Canada's Charter of Rights. It is backed by Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

The Republican Movement backs our fellow Commonwealth republicans in Canada in their challenge. We call on our Government to take note of the action. - and take action on our own oaths. Since 2006 the Oaths Modernisation Bill has languished at the bottom of our Parliament's order paper. While the Bill does not remove references to the Queen, it does add key values and ideas to our oaths- such as references to the rule of law, democracy and New Zealand. The Bill makes it easier  to remove irrelevant references to the monarchy at some stage in the future.

2009 is the sixtieth anniversary of New Zealand citizenship, which the Minister of Internal Affairs has described as 'an important step in New Zealand's path to independence as a nation'. It's time our Oath reflected our independence and new citizens swore allegiance to New Zealand.

God And My Right

A NEW BILL proposes scrapping the Queen's religious titles. The Bill is put forward by the Progressive Bills Project, a group dedicated to progressive initiatives. The Queen is still reigns over New Zealanders "by the Grace of God". Religion and the monarchy has long been closely linked - the Queen is also the Head of the Church of England. The British coat of arms even includes the phrase "Dieu et mon droit", which in French means "God and my right".

The Bill's author, CJ Shepard, says he's opposed to religious titles "...because they're inappropriate in a modern New Zealand context." However, Mr Shephard also states "This is not republican legislation. It accepts that, for now, we are stuck with the British Queen. But if we are stuck with this institution why do we need to remain stuck with the religious mysticism that is used to add mystique to the monarch's right to reign over us?".

If passed by Parliament, the Bill would change the Queen's title to "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth". It is likely that if it was ever drawn the monarchists would oppose it religiously. Interestingly, of our fellow Commonwealth realms, only Papua New Guinea has a similar non-religious title for the Queen, which was determined when they gained independence from Australia in 1975.

Republican Movement News

Republican Movement "Heart NZ" T-shirt in Black

NEW HEART NZ t-shirts are in the works - this time in a slimming black. We've already got some orders ready to go, so get in quick and buy yours. See the Republican Movement's Store for more details.

Take The Republic Quiz And Win

REGISTER on the Republican Movement website and take the Republic Quiz - and if you get at least 8/10 questions right, we'll send you a free republic.org.nz bumper sticker.

Monarchy Myths

ON ITS NEW website, the Monarchist League has a page titled "Just the facts". The problem is there are not many facts on the page. In our second edition of this column, we look at the final set of "facts" put forward by the monarchists:

Monarchies select their heads of state based on a fair and neutral process, not based on personal popularity, wealth, or through political scheming.

This fact is a total fiction. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, Catholics are excluded from the throne. That fact alone means that hereditary birth is not fair or neutral. Then there is the exclusion of females where there are older males in the Royal family - the Act of Settlement continues this ancient, pointless law. The idea that selecting a head of state by birth itself is not fair, or neutral. So long as everyone else who is born is excluded, there is nothing fair about one child being selected above all others just because they were born into the right family.

Democracy is based on the concept of political equality; that is, any child, irrespective of their birth, is politically equal and able to participate at all levels of government. Now, the monarchists spurn the idea of political equality, focusing on the problems of electing representatives - they're all ultra-wealthy, immoral schemers don't you know. The problem is that, more often than not, politicians succeed when they're not popular but their party or policies are (Jim Bolger in 1993 for example). Many who are not personally wealthy succeed - and those that are wealthy do too.

Monarchies are more gender balanced, multi-cultural, and inclusive than republics.

This fact nonsense, but to be fair it is only partly fictional. It is true that Governors-General within the Commonwealth are often from diverse ethnic backgrounds. However, this masks the reality that the Royal family is a culturally exclusive institution, based on primogeniture (that is, males first). This means that for all the diversity of culture and gender at the Governor-General level, the constitutional apex is still held by a family of exclusively English extraction.

However, the accusation against republics being non-multicultural or somehow less diverse than monarchies is simply not fact. Of the Republic of Ireland's 8 presidents, two have been women, two have been protestants and one has come from Northern Ireland. India, a country with a number of deep religious and social divisions, currently has a female President, and has previously had three Muslims, and a Sikh President. Despite what the monarchists say, republics are culturally inclusive. The issue is, however, not who the head of State (or their conduit in the Governor-General) is, but how they got there. No female monarch as ever earned their position, other than being born into the right family.

In a world full of divisions and selfishness, New Zealand shares its head of state with 15 other countries.

Again, this fact is a nonsense. Sharing your head of state does not lesson division or selfishness. India and Pakistan went to war in 1948, while both had the same head of state, King George V. England and Scotland have had a history of strife while sharing their head of State.

And in any case, all of the benefits New Zealand enjoys in its relationships with other Commonwealth countries are either unilateral (for example, trade agreements with Australia and Singapore) or through the Commonwealth (for example, access to fellow Commonwealth members' embassies). They have nothing to do with whether we have the Queen as our head of state or not.

The Queen is a completely apolitical head of state. She represents all New Zealanders regardless of their political views. This cannot happen in a republic.

The Queen is only apolitical because Her Majesty never intervenes in New Zealand politics - rendering the institution of monarchy as useless to New Zealand in any constitution sense. As the saying goes, "The Queen doesn't get muddy because she never plays in the mud". Governors-General are, however, political, and often make political statements and attempt to influence governments behind the scenes. However, since governments have no reason to listen to them, and the Governor-General has no real policy-making powers, they are often ignored.

Monarchies have statistically proven to foster greater trust between citizens.

The Republican Movement would like to see the statistics on this - but suffice to say that it seems strange the mere fact a country is a monarchy means that their is trust between its citizens.

Our monarchy is the least expensive political system available to the NZ taxpayers, and definitely provides the best possible value.

This fact is fiction. As the Republican Movement has shown from the 2008 Budget, this is nonsense. The Governor-General costs the New Zealand taxpayer around $11 million per annum. The President of Ireland, a country with about the same population as New Zealand and a parliamentary system of government, costs about $6.5 million per annum. The claim that the monarchy is cheaper is nonsense, as is the claim it's a better system of government.