Mr Jack Straw MP
Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

19th April 2008

Dear Mr Straw

I wish to draw your attention to Challenge the Oath, a new campaign launched this week.

The campaign is calling for the introduction of an alternative oath of allegiance for new citizens, MPs, public officials and members of the armed forces, one which does not require a personal allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors.

Note that we are not calling for the current oath to be scrapped - only that an alternative oath be introduced for those who - for reasons of principle and conscience - find it difficult to make an honest and heartfelt pledge to an unelected monarch.

There is of course plenty of precedent for making allowances for those who object to the current oath. As far back as the nineteenth century oaths were altered to allow for those who do not believe in God. More recently any argument that an oath to the monarch was constitutionally necessary was disproved by the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the members of which have to take no such oath.

It is also worth noting that around the Commonwealth there are moves to replace the wording of various oaths with something more fitting for modern democratic societies: Jamaican parliamentarians now swear an allegiance to the constitution; state parliaments in Australia have begun the process of removing all mention of the Queen from their oaths; and a legal challenge is currently underway in Canada to remove the obligation on new Canadian citizens to pledge allegiance to Queen Elizabeth.

It is our view that a legal requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen is discriminatory and unjust. By forcing people to take oaths they do not truly believe we devalue and undermine their importance. We believe there should be a choice of oath for those who have principled objections to the current wording.

It is with this in mind that we would ask you to consider introducing changes to the law which would permit all those who currently must take an oath to use an alternative wording, one which does not make any mention of the Queen or the monarchy.

Furthermore, I would ask you to consider the wording proposed recently by the Victorian state parliament in Australia, an oath to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Australia and the people of Victoria according to the law."

This matter raises a number of important questions and issues of principle. We would welcome an opportunity for a small delegation from the Challenge the Oath campaign to meet with you to discuss these matters further, and to personally make the case for an alternative oath of allegiance.

Yours sincerely

Graham Smith
Campaign Manager
Republic