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.
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.
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.
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.
Yea it’s likely more complicated for them.
The whole thing is bullshit if you ask me and territories should be on equal footing with provinces.
The royal oath should be abolished country wide.
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.
…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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
Not in the slightest.
The monarchy only has a 50% approval rating here, and that is only because Lizzy played the game of appearing nice and having a lot of PR.
Her kids and grandkids are fucking needy arseholes that should be fired out of a cannon. Can we send them to Ukraine instead of missiles?
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.
You’re literally British, unless you’re Canadian as well
Yes I am. What’s your point?
deleted by creator
So if the monarchy ended in Canada with colonialism, it wouldn’t make a difference
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It would make a huge difference, especially to the indigenous people of Canada.
To you writing to His Majesty’s Passport Office
Okay? I never said it would. I just hate being a citizen under a monarchy. I’m really confused about what your issue is.
What? I feel like you need to explain this more.
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.
As a Canadian I say send them to the stocks until they learn fealty to the king!
You make a compelling argument I hadn’t considered. I will, however, counter by saying we should have a Kaiser instead.
As an American I 1000 percent approve!
Many though seem to want King Donald the First.
More like king Vladimir now, Donald is just a Viceroy.
Toss the tea in the harbor!
But we like tea.
And harbours.
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.
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.
She was more relatable. She had corgis. She loved cows. She was an ambulance driver and mechanic during WWII. Nobody likes Charles.
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?
Everyone loved the powder pink lizard queen.
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.
Cause fuck him, that’s why.
Call second elections so that people can vote for them again.
Dawson city is so based. Toyed with the idea of moving there for years
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.
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.
more likely he knew the whole thing is bullshit
Why the hell is swearing an oath to Canada not an option?
I feel the antiquated laws equated Canada and the Monarchy. Hopefully this action brings change.
Or at least the Toronto Maple Leafs
Or Mr Tim Horton himself
Historically, the Queen represented Canada. So you were choosing God or the country
Why TF are a city council swearing an oath at all?
