this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
389 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2302 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Dawson City in Canada is facing a crisis as the new mayor and councillors won’t take the required oath of allegiance to King Charles.

They refused in support of an Indigenous councillor who opposes the oath due to the Crown’s history with Indigenous people.

Without the oath, their election could be canceled, and they can’t make official decisions.

The council has asked for a different oath, but Yukon law requires the pledge. Authorities are now looking into the situation.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

When I took a job at a Federal Agency I had the choice of swearing to God or the Queen. I choose the Queen, most chose God, I haven't seen that aspect in any of the reporting so I wonder if it's the same, but if so, incredibly based.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

When becoming a citizen I was asked to do either as well. I straight up refused and the judge wasn't up for arguing so he just let me win.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 59 minutes ago

more likely he knew the whole thing is bullshit

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago

It sounds like republican* atheists are not allowed to make an honest oath. If you have to swear on something that you don't believe in, what value does that oath have?

  • Not the usa party kind, but the ones who want an elected head of state instead of a hereditary one.
[–] [email protected] 95 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Imagine doing it to god, at least the monarch exists

[–] [email protected] 34 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I'm jelly of Americans, who will never have to deal with that bullshit. Nope, not at all!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

That may not be the best example.

[–] explodicle 36 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Hey now, pledging allegiance to an inanimate object makes way more sense.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 16 hours ago

...By a country that largely claims to follow a belief system wherein it is explicitly and plainly laid out: "Don't swear oaths (Matthew 5:34). Don't make idols / worship images or objects." (The second commandment)

Anerican patriotism is a cult lifestyle brand.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Not just an inanimate object - an idea that that object is meant to represent! We're about one level of abstraction away from the pledge of allegiance becoming a meaningless mantra of words with no meaning or relation to one another strung together to make a pretty song that is always sung off-key by grade school children.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

I mean bag on the pledge of allegiance all you like, but using the flag as a synecdoche of the nation as a whole doesn't seem like it is as great a leap of logic as you are making it out to be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Metaphysics is weird and not at all fun.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I really hope this is able to set a precedent. Would be great to not inflict this guy on people.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

As a Canadian I say send them to the stocks until they learn fealty to the king!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago

You make a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I will, however, counter by saying we should have a Kaiser instead.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 22 hours ago

Toss the tea in the harbor!

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong 147 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Québec has gotten rid of the royal oath requirement, surely Yukon can think of something.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am only a Canadian, and not a Canadian lawyer, but I don't think it will be as simple for Yukon. The biggest reason I can think of is that Yukon is a territory, and not a province, and so has different constitutional standing. From the government webpage:

There is a clear constitutional distinction between provinces and territories. While provinces exercise constitutional powers in their own right, the territories exercise delegated powers under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that the same legal maneuvers Quebec used may not be applicable.

[–] Enkers 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Also, doesn't Québec have some special considerations above the rest of the provinces? I seem to recall we deigned them a 'nation within a nation' or some such back in the mid 00's. I'm not sure if there were any legal ramifications to that, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They might, but I can't say for certain. I didn't mention it because, again, I'm not a Canadian lawyer, and the basic info on provinces vs territories was far more accessible.

[–] HellsBelle 4 points 14 hours ago

Quebec law is unique in Canada because Quebec is the only province in Canada to have a juridical legal system under which civil matters are regulated by French-heritage civil law. Public law, criminal law and federal law operate according to Canadian common law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

[–] [email protected] 98 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Monarchism is a anarchronism and should have been thrown out with the rest of English colonialism. I am annoyed as fuck that I had to apply to "His Majesty's Passport Office" for my passport.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Based . I would do the same fuck Charles .

[–] [email protected] 23 points 22 hours ago

I am your king!

Well, I didn't vote for you…

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago

fuck Charles

You may not have a choice.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As an American I 1000 percent approve!

[–] [email protected] 24 points 21 hours ago

Many though seem to want King Donald the First.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Weren't people a bit more positive about monarchy back when Elizabeth II was alive? I feel like she had a sort of mystique that made her feel more legit for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

He's widely unpopular in the UK because he's very politically involved via the massive amount of lobbying efforts he personally funds; something that the crown specifically promised not to do. Then there's Charles' hush money payments to cover up Prince Andrew's "indiscretions" with their family friend, Jeffrey Epstein.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

As it says in that article, the hush money payments are strictly rumours. First Elisabeth supposedly did it, then Charles suddenly got a role in it too. The only source appears to be an anti-monarchy group, so not sure exactly how reliable that is (afaik the Daily Telegraph and the Sun published the accusations, and we all know how reliable they are).

We do know for a fact Charles stripped Andrew of his remaining royal duties, fully cut the money he receives from the monarchy (no wage and no money for protection anymore) and is trying to get him out of his current home, but apparently there's legal reasons making that difficult to do. He's a lot harder on Andrew than Elisabeth was.

And while he used to be quite political before he became king, he mostly stopped after he was coronated. That, as far as I know, got him more critique, because he mostly lobbied in favour of green policies against climate change.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Rumour has it that Charles is incredibly angry about the whole thing and Andrew is very much in danger of being cut off completely if he doesn't keep his head down, so while Charles has paid people off, he has not forgiven or forgotten.

There's also that he wasn't king at the time he made those payments and may have been protecting their mother rather than his brother at the time. Andrew, idiot though he is, was the Queen's favourite.

Had the Queen already been dead and Charles been king at the time the news broke, he might well have let Andrew suffer the consequences.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 22 hours ago

The Queen's face and name has been on everything for decades. There are Canadians in their 70s who never knew anything different. That's just the way things were. It was tradition. That's how I saw it anyways. Anyone who complained about it was just complaining about a symbolic action we've all been doing for generations. Nobody is actually swearing their life to the queen--it's just a tradition. Then she died.

Now some random old guy's face and name is going to be on everything. If we're going to change everything anyways, then why not change it to something different? The argument that was seen as a small complaint before now makes a lot of sense. If we're changing the words to our oath anyways, then why not change them to words we can all agree on?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 22 hours ago

She was more relatable. She had corgis. She loved cows. She was an ambulance driver and mechanic during WWII. Nobody likes Charles.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

Cause fuck him, that’s why.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Call second elections so that people can vote for them again.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

Dawson city is so based. Toyed with the idea of moving there for years

load more comments
view more: next ›