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.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
417 points (99.3% liked)
World News
39102 readers
2849 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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
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.
Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.
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
I'm jelly of Americans, who will never have to deal with that bullshit. Nope, not at all!
That may not be the best example.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I really hope this is able to set a precedent. Would be great to not inflict this guy on people.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Toss the tea in the harbor!
But we like tea.
And harbours.
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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?
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›