this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
321 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39096 readers
3186 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 60 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.

[–] mack7400@lemmy.world 25 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 12 points 3 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.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago (1 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.

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 5 points 3 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.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Metaphysics is weird and not at all fun.

[–] dipcart@lemmy.world 41 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] dipcart@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 32 points 9 hours ago

Toss the tea in the harbor!

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 36 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

As an American I 1000 percent approve!

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 20 points 8 hours ago

Many though seem to want King Donald the First.

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 130 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 33 points 11 hours 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@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 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.

[–] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour 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

[–] bighatchester@lemmy.world 62 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Based . I would do the same fuck Charles .

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 17 points 9 hours ago

I am your king!

Well, I didn't vote for you…

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago

fuck Charles

You may not have a choice.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 85 points 14 hours ago (2 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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Sorry, when did we throw out colonialism? We're still doing it just as hard as ever.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 37 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 15 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

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.)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

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.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 15 points 13 hours ago (5 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.

[–] Aphelion@lemm.ee 21 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 4 points 7 hours ago (1 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.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Uh huh, but then he paid hush money. But he is angry! He is furious about "the whole thing".

Dude, come on.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I never said what he did was right, only why he might have done it.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 14 points 9 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?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 14 points 9 hours ago

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

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago

Everyone loved the powder pink lizard queen.

[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 18 points 14 hours ago

Cause fuck him, that’s why.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 9 points 13 hours ago

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

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

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