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.
Québec has gotten rid of the royal oath requirement, surely Yukon can think of something.
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.
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.
Sorry, when did we throw out colonialism? We’re still doing it just as hard as ever.
You’re not wrong. But I was talking about the era in the 1960s when Britain shrank substantially by giving up so many overseas territories.
I was talking about the era in the 1960s when Britain shrank substantially by giving up so many overseas territories.
Awkward Canadian history here, but that time period is when our colonialism was anything but fading.
It’s not 100% over, but claiming is going just a strong as ever is a bit hard to swallow given that the UK was once the world’s largest empire.
Colonialism has changed significantly, but it has only grown in terms of net value being transferred from natural and human resources into private ownership. Governance in Canada is still based around the needs of capital with a thin veneer of humanism to give the air of credibility.
(For clarity, I am approaching this as a resident of Canada, I imagine the perspective is different from someone in the UK who feels that they missed out on the British Empire.)
Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.
I’m jelly of Americans, who will never have to deal with that bullshit. Nope, not at all!
Hey now, pledging allegiance to an inanimate object makes way more sense.
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.
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.
…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.
Metaphysics is weird and not at all fun.
That may not be the best example.
Imagine doing it to god, at least the monarch exists
Visit the monarchy: Expensive, once-in-a-lifetime experience
Visit God: Literally dead.
Well…. If anything happens, you can always say that « God told you to do it » and you have a federally approved oath to prove you must obey
Based . I would do the same fuck Charles .
I am your king!
Well, I didn’t vote for you…
fuck Charles
You may not have a choice.
I really hope this is able to set a precedent. Would be great to not inflict this guy on people.
Toss the tea in the harbor!
But we like tea.
And harbours.
Cause fuck him, that’s why.
Call second elections so that people can vote for them again.
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.
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.
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.
Uh huh, but then he paid hush money. But he is angry! He is furious about “the whole thing”.
Dude, come on.
I never said what he did was right, only why he might have done it.
The rumor and further theorizing that had he been king during the “whole thing” he would’ve punished him somehow, makes you seem sympathetic instead of acknowledging that hush money was paid, he is still part of the “family” and isn’t in jail when he should be.
Well, the current edgelords were still in middle school too.
It’s cool now to blame the son for the rumoured sins of the grandfather, so it’s empowering for people needing virtue to signal.
Rumored? Nah friend, there’s enough evidence to believe the majority of the rumors. And nobody is saying Charles killed the kids or raped the villagers, they’re saying he benefits from a dynasty and wealth built on the backs of those people, and so deserves no respect or allegiance. And that’s outside of the fact that the monarchy means fuck-all to Canada at this point. In Britain, at the seat of their power? Sure, maybe. But across the pond where the culture, people, laws, food, history are different? Fuck the crown and anyone with an ordained ‘right’ to rule.
As an American I 1000 percent approve!
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.
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.
