59
Standoff as Canada Yukon town council refuses to swear oath to King Charles
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
59 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22057 readers
9 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Quebec has the right idea. Why the hell do elected politicians in a democracy have to swear loyalty to a foreign hereditary monarch?
This “head of state” excuse sounds like a relic of the past to appease British sentiments.
I will disclose I am a Monarchist, but assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, I'll try to answer it.
Quebec as a Province, has the right to make that decision. The Provinces formed Canada in Confederation. Territories don't have that independence.
Charles is the King of Canada too, so he's a domestic monarchy.
Our whole government is set up with our head of state at it's core. While I acknowledge the pain and trauma many associate the Charles and his family, the Crown is legally how the Government of Canada is represented in many ways. Even if everyone involved supported moving to change that entity, the legal hoops would be extensive.
Even acknowledging that he plays a legal role in how Canada operates (technically) its still ridiculous that anyone would have to do this, or get in trouble for refusing. An oath to obey the laws of a country, sure, but swearing loyalty to an unelected monarch seems like it should be optional at the least.
There are Irish republicans who refuse to swear allegiance to the king/ queen and are unable to take their seats in Westminster. This doesn't trigger a by-election though.
There's a difference between him, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, and the Crown, King Charles III and all his heirs. As Head of State, King Charles is pretty core to the Government of Canada, so I think it would take a lot to make another option. Pretty much every oath for the Government of Canada (and Dawson City draws its powers from the Yukon Territory, which in turn gets its powers from the Government of Canada) involves the King, such as the Oath of Citizenship.
You are correct about this, Im not disagreeing.
Im just saying it would be nice to have the choice between the traditional oath and a non-royal version for whatever personal reason. "I promise to be loyal, steadfast, and obey the laws of Canada" (etc). Seems like that wouldnt negate the technical role of the monarchy, I dont know.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, I guess I jumped to conclusions. I'm just so used to people assuming that changing things is quick and easy when there's actually a lot of legal wrangling.
I completely agree with you. Similar to how witnesses in court doesn't have to swear in on a bible, there should definitely be alternatives!