this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
186 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

7236 readers
823 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Queen Elizabeth was a good place to stop.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What seems likely to me is slowly changing things bit by bit. I don't think the UK would mind either, it's just a matter of spending time and effort (and money) making those legal changes.

The final constitutional change seems unlikely anytime soon. It's very unlikely that all the provinces will agree to play ball and get it done unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it

Darn it the wrong royal went to Epstein's Island.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The monarchy does not affect my life in any way.

[โ€“] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then you should have no problem if it was abolished.

[โ€“] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't care either way. Literally don't care.

I'm smart enough, though, to know that it's being used as a dog whistle to whip up populist nationalism which is never a good thing for a country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Touching_Grass 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That goes both ways though. Wouldn't the effort and cost to remove them be wasted if they don't actually do anything. Lots of people struggling right now and I'd be pretty pissed if the government went around spending time and money on this

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Don't look up how much the gold throne king charles III sits on is worth

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It doesn't affect us day-to-day no, but honestly I like being part of a 'Commonwealth'. I like feeling like I have something in common with Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, even if I've only ever been to the UK for a few hours.

Your family name (for most people, unless you're George Hitler) has no impact on your day-to-day, this to me seems like saying "We should just get rid of family names!"

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The people who are being manipulated with this nationalist dog whistle see no value in being a member of the Commonwealth. Canada First and MCGA and all.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is a mistake to assume that those of us who oppose monarchy are Canadian nationalists.

Some people simply hate outdated hereditary titles. They have no place in a democracy.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You don't need to keep the Royal Family to stay in the Commonwealth. Take a look at the current members of the commonwealth.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Changing our relationship with the UK in this climate of increasingly grabby fringe groups is a huge risk.

We have bigger fish to fry.

[โ€“] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Indigenous person here .... the monarchy is a complicated thing in Native Canada

On one hand most of us absolutely hate and despise the idea of a monarchy, kings and queens and all that garbage (personally I would love to see them removed from anything to do with government)

On the other hand, the monarchy is our linchpin on the government where many of our original agreements and treaties start and originate from. Many believe that in doing away with the monarchy ... it would give the government an opportunity to do away with many historic treaties and agreements from the past that were made with the monarch and not with the country. It's a whole legal debate that would be a huge headache for government/Native people/monarchists/anti-monarchists/etc

So in Native Canada ... it's split ... we would love to see the King leave ... but we also don't want to give the government a chance to step away from legal responsibilities. Argue what you want but whenever dramatic changes happen to laws regarding Native people .. historically, it's never been good for us .. and Indigenous Canada knows that by heart now ... we don't trust the Canadian government of any stripe to do anything beneficial for us ... we have to fight for ourselves all the time.

[โ€“] schmidtster 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I donโ€™t think most of those people who were questioned realize the monarchy is nothing but a figure and holds essentially no power, even though they do need to ratify stuff.

[โ€“] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I imagine they do realize that but then follow that thought up with, "So why are we continuing with this...?"

[โ€“] schmidtster 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not according to the article you posted.

Just over half of respondents, at 51 per cent, agreed with the statement that the monarchy in Canada is outdated, does not have a place in the 21st century, and โ€œwe have to get rid of it.โ€ In comparison, 33 per cent said the monarchy is an important part of the countryโ€™s history.

And

On the other hand, the number of people who believed the monarchy โ€œremains a positive symbol for Canadaโ€ rose by four points, to 52 per cent from 48, compared to 2021 data.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (13 children)

That seems to back up what I said? 51 percent, a majority, don't see any reason to continue on with what they see as an outdated institution.

load more comments (13 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

51 per cent, agreed with the statement that [...] โ€œwe have to get rid of it.โ€ In comparison, 33 per cent said the monarchy is an important part of the countryโ€™s history.

What kind of polling is this? It is not a contradictory standpoint to both say that something is an important part of a countries history, and it should be removed anyways.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay I know that "I'm smarter than everybody" is popular on sites like this but you can't be serious in thinking that the average person thinks the King of England has real practical usable political power in Canada.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You really want the Monarchy to go out on a high note rather than continue until everyone is just sick of it. QEII was The Office season 6. Charles is The Office Season 7. You don't want to see what Season 8 brings.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

All for it, but only after proper negotiations with indigenous peoples of these lands, so it doesn't just become an excuse for further land grabs.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reconsider if they want, but the position is locked into the constitution.

[โ€“] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Constitutions can be changed.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

In theory? Sure. In reality, nope. No one is going to spend the political capital on this.

We'd still need an executive, even if only ceremonial. Getting consensus on that would be almost impossible.

IF we somehow managed to get to some sort of negotiating framework, we'd still need agreement from the feds and all of the premiers. You can bet that each of them will bring a laundry list of things they want to change in the constitution, and at least some of them will be 'poison pills' to kill the proceedings.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I think we have more important things to do then to change the name of an official. Cause ultimately we well still need a head of state. Governor General or President who really cares.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

interesting

load more comments
view more: next โ€บ