Really? I think it's an American/ Western thing. My mother feels it is profoundly disrespectful if I look her in the eyes while speaking. I've found I can usually lessen the hot water I'm in just by not looking her in the eyes as she yells at me.
And here, that avoidance of eye contact is what would be considered disrespectful.
If I was talking to someone and happened not to be looking them in the eye and they told me 'look at me when I'm talking to you!', I wouldn't be particularly impressed.
Incidentally, in quite a few places direct eye contact is a sign of insolence or even aggression.
I didn't ask if you were impressed. I just asked if your parents had ever said that to you. It's something that usually happens between a parent and child, or some other adult in authority to a child (ie. a teacher).
As for insolence and aggression... it can seem that way, if the person doing the looking is staring, and/or displaying other non-verbals, such as rolling the eyes.
Consider the smileys we have here on the forum. There was a discussion a few years back about deleting the
smiley because some people felt it was too easy for posters to convey contempt or behave obnoxiously. Luckily we have other smileys that are good at conveying degrees of disapproval or negativity so the
doesn't get used as often (at least not by me; if you see me use it, be advised that it means I am either profoundly annoyed or expressing my contempt of what was said previously on the point I am addressing).
The trick with looking people in the eye when they're talking to you is to find the balance between attentiveness and staring. Attentiveness is an indication of respect. Staring can mean lots of different things, depending on context.
source
Facial cues play an important part in the way we communicate as a species. It is of course possible to communicate if your face isn't showing, but we have evolved abilities to spot intricate changes in facial expression. Psychologically speaking it plays a rather large role in traditional spoken communication.
100% agreed. It can also play a role in how we interact with some animals. Looking a dog in the eye can result in the dog attacking you. But looking a cat in the eye can result in the cat trusting you.
The way Canadians consistently pretend they don't live in a monarchy continues to amaze and amuse. As the CivIV quote says "I am the state." Allegiance to Canada is allegiance to the Queen, period. If someone doesn't want to acknowledge that reality they can't be a citizen. Citizens who don't want to acknowledge that reality are fortunate the Queen laughs them off.
Back to that again...
(somewhat less than profound annoyance, but still annoyed)
And in the event that the queen decides to change that balance, by Canadian law she can...if the government decides to change that balance, by Canadian law they cannot. That's the reality of a constitutional monarchy. It's all well and good to say the Queen won't, but it is totally pretense to say that the Queen can't. If the Queen says tomorrow that it has come to her attention that Canadian posters on CFC feel they do not owe her their allegiance and she wants them to present the oath of citizenship to proper authorities, she would be within her constitutionally granted rights.
Except that the Canadian posters on CFC did not say they feel they don't owe her our allegiance (if I'm in error, please feel free to correct me on that point). I was talking about 3 people who have refused to complete their requirements to get their citizenship. As for presenting the oath of citizenship, I was born here. I never had to take an oath of citizenship because I have always been a citizen of Canada.
I understand the relationship between the people and the crown. It's only when I see things like "oh, well, the oath is to the country" or "the Monarch is also head of the Church of England, but we are a totally secular country because the Monarch really has nothing to do with us" or "the queen has nothing to do with government" that I get amused.
Practically speaking, the Queen really
doesn't have a whole lot to do with us. Just because she could, doesn't mean she would. The last time she voiced an opinion on any Canadian political matter (she favored the Meech Lake Accord), she garnered a lot of criticism. By custom, the Queen cuts ribbons, makes appearances, shakes hands, waves to people, and does whatever other ceremonial things she does. And whatever her opinions may be, she's expected to keep her mouth shut about them, at least in public.
That said, it would be nice if someone would do something about Harper, but we're stuck with him until he either steps down voluntarily or loses an election. If Michaelle Jean wouldn't do anything, it's doubtful that a GG Harper actually appointed would (yeah, I know that officially the Queen appoints the Governor-General; however, it's understood that she just automatically accepts the person the Prime Minister recommends, and the effect is that the GG is essentially appointed by the PM, not the monarch).
BTW,
Canada has no official religion. We're not a theocracy. Religious services are not mandatory. We don't treat our PM or even the Queen herself with any kind of religious reverence.
By the way, I doubt that the Canadian legal system would consider a royal request that citizens repeat their oath of allegiance to the crown to be 'crazy'. In fact if I were Canadian I would be expecting to do so upon the death of this queen and the crowning of whoever the next monarch is.
It should be interesting to see what happens when Her Majesty dies - if Charles steps aside in favor of William, or if he opts to take the job he's trained for all these decades.
I'm always for that! I actually think your Queen is pretty cool, myself. I'd bend the knee, if Canada wasn't so obstinate about letting me in.
Is there some reason you're not allowed in Canada?
