1967/01/01 by Margaret A. Banks · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Psychology · #Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction #Legal principles and applications #Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies #Commonwealth #Citizenship #Law #Suffrage #Political science #Tribunal #Government (linguistics) #British Empire #Meaning (existential) #Nationalism #Empire #Politics #Psychology
paper · doi:10.2307/825368
openalex publication_date 1967/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2025/11/06
IT is customary to say that Britain and Canada have universal adult suffrage. The truth, however, is not quite so simple, for in both countries the right to vote is limited to those residents who are British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland; moreover, certain classes of persons are subject to a legal incapacity to vote. The standard text books on British and Canadian government tend either to overlook or to deal inadequately with the meaning of these terms,' and one must go to other sources for an accurate definition of them. Within the past twenty years citizenship within the Commonwealth has become much more complex than formerly. In the past, the constituent parts of the Empire or Commonwealth did not have separate citizenship; their citizens, like those of the mother country, were simply British subjects. The growth of the spirit of nationalism led, however, to changes in this situation, Canada being the first Commonwealth country to establish a citizenship of its own. The Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946,2 which went into force on January 1, 1947, provided for the acquisition and loss of Canadian citizenship, as distinct from British nationality3; it also made clear, however, that all Canadian citizens continued to be British subjects and that all persons who were British subjects by the law of any part of the Commonwealth would be recognized as such in Canada.4