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.

  • @PumpkinSkink
    link
    English
    1144 days ago

    Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.

    • @TheEighthDoctor
      link
      English
      28
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Imagine doing it to god, at least the monarch exists

    • @mack7400
      link
      English
      364 days ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          224 days 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
          link
          English
          94 days ago

          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
            link
            English
            54 days 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
          link
          English
          14 days ago

          Metaphysics is weird and not at all fun.

      • @FelixCress
        link
        English
        73 days ago

        That may not be the best example.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 days ago

      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

  • [email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1594 days ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      384 days ago

      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.

      • [email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 days ago

        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.

      • enkers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 days ago

        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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 days ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            43 days 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

  • @dipcart
    link
    English
    604 days ago

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

      • @dipcart
        link
        English
        94 days ago

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

  • Flying SquidM
    link
    English
    1064 days ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -4
      edit-2
      4 days ago

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

      • @Bassman1805
        link
        English
        444 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          4 days 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.)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 days ago

            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?

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        104 days ago

        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.

    • Flax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -154 days ago

      You’re literally British, unless you’re Canadian as well

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        244 days ago

        Yes I am. What’s your point?

        • Flax
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -144 days ago

          So if the monarchy ended in Canada with colonialism, it wouldn’t make a difference

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            English
            364 days ago

            I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It would make a huge difference, especially to the indigenous people of Canada.

            • Flax
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -14 days ago

              To you writing to His Majesty’s Passport Office

              • Flying SquidM
                link
                English
                94 days ago

                Okay? I never said it would. I just hate being a citizen under a monarchy. I’m really confused about what your issue is.

  • @bighatchester
    link
    English
    724 days ago

    Based . I would do the same fuck Charles .

    • @NOT_RICK
      link
      English
      264 days ago

      I am your king!

      Well, I didn’t vote for you…

  • @BetaBlake
    link
    English
    404 days ago

    Toss the tea in the harbor!

  • smokebuddy [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    83 days ago

    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.

    • @Nuke_the_whales
      link
      English
      103 days ago

      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.

      • @pyre
        link
        English
        83 days ago

        more likely he knew the whole thing is bullshit

    • @RunawayFixer
      link
      English
      113 days 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]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    204 days ago

    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.

      • 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.

      • palordrolap
        link
        fedilink
        64 days ago

        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
          link
          English
          04 days ago

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

          Dude, come on.

          • palordrolap
            link
            fedilink
            34 days ago

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

            • @Maalus
              link
              English
              24 days 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      164 days ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      154 days 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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -134 days ago

      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.

      • @OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe
        link
        English
        174 days ago

        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.

  • @riodoro1
    link
    English
    114 days ago

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