Paul St-Pierre Plamondon repeatedly affirmed his determination to refuse to swear allegiance to the King of England. However, article 128 of the Political Law of 1867 makes it an obligation. Can he refuse to comply?
First of all, it must be understood that section 128 has nothing to do with the principles of federalism. By obliging each deputy to take God as witness to his political commitments, this article forces them to recognize that the origin of supreme power in the state can reside only in the person of the king, and nowhere else.
Accordingly, Article 128 requires each deputy to personally renounce seeing in the population the real and authentic source of supreme power. Is it right ? Is it moral?
A deputy is a public law authority whose primary function is to serve the general interests of the population. But if he undertakes in advance to put the interests of the king above those of the population, his freedom of conscience is compromised. So what can he do?
In all conscience, each deputy is justified in disobeying the requirements of section 128 since they are detrimental to the general interests of the population. In doing so, each finds himself putting political morality above a patently unjust law. There is nothing arbitrary in disobeying a law when it is law only in name. In fact, it is the National Assembly that should take the initiative to settle the matter by purely and simply repealing section 128. Quebec would remain within its jurisdiction since a local repeal would have absolutely no effect in the other provinces.
What can the Attorney General of Canada do then? Not much ! If Quebecers are divided as to their attachment to Canada, they are not when it comes to protecting such a fundamental value as the primacy of the will of the population in political matters.
By refusing to take the oath of allegiance, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon will take a moral act of Republican sovereignty in accordance with the general interests of the population.
The moral law is a superior principle which always stands above unjust laws, which are too often closer to crime than to justice.