this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024

24 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38969 readers

2565 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

[email protected]

King Charles won’t stand in the way if ‘Australia wants to become a republic’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Charles said to be adopting ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to republican campaigners before visit

King Charles has said he will not stand in the way if Australia wishes to replace him as the country's head of state, it has been reported.

Ahead of his visit later this month, the king is said to be adopting an "anti-confrontational approach" to Australian republican campaigners, the Daily Mail reported.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Is that something Québécois might actually agree with anglophones on?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Abolishing the monarchy would involve rewriting the constitution - if that was happening every province would want to slip in their own terms - Quebec would want specific French language rights and autonomy and if Quebec got their way Alberta would want something similar. We successfully altered the constitution back in 1982 - it took 2 years and the country almost blew up over it.

Basically it would be a total shit show. Considering the impact the monarchy has on our day to day life (basically zero) it's easier to just let sleeping dogs lie

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hell, Quebec still to this day hasn't ratified the 1982 update. They kept using the notwithstanding clause for years until the supreme court unilaterally decided that since QC is part of Canada, the constitution applies there in practice despite them not signing it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Man, I didn't even think about Quebec.

Some treaties that the French sign have had them require a French version and that the French version be equally-binding. I imagine that this makes any form of translation difference exciting. Is this the case for Quebec?

searches

Apparently so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982

English and French versions

Section 56 of the Act provides that the parts of the Constitution that were enacted in English and French are equally authoritative, and section 57 adds that the English and French versions of the Constitution Act, 1982 itself are equal. Section 57 is akin section 18 of the Charter, which provides that English and French versions of federal and New Brunswick statutes are equal.[20] The Supreme Court has interpreted section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 to mean that the English and French versions of federal, Quebec and Manitoba statutes are equal.[21][22]

Despite sections 56 and 57, significant portions of the Constitution of Canada were only enacted in English and even if there exist unofficial French translations, their English versions alone have force of law. To address this problem, section 55 requires that the federal Minister of Justice prepare "a French version of the…Constitution of Canada as expeditiously as possible." The Minister of Justice established a French Constitution Drafting Committee in 1984, which prepared French versions of the Constitution, and presented them to the Minister in 1990.[citation needed]

Section 55 also requires that "when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall but put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada." No action has been taken to put forward the French version for enactment. The reference to a proclamation by the Governor-General implies that some combination of the general, unanimity and special arrangements procedures would be required to enact the French version.[citation needed] Although the intention was presumably that the government of Canada would do so by introducing an amendment resolution in the House of Commons,[citation needed] a Senator or a provincial government could presumably do so since, under section 46, such amendments "may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Additional wrinkle: my understanding is that the question of what parts of Canadian law are part of the constitution and what are not is an active legal question being gradually resolved by courts.

The UK doesn't have any formal constitution, as the bar for Parliament to change anything it wants is the same -- a simple majority.

Canada's legal system was originally structured in a similar way, and did not have an explicit constitution written. When it became independent, part of the process indicated that some of that body of law was part of the constitution. And in present-day Canada, as in the US, it does matter whether a piece of law is part of the constitution, as the constitution has a different legal status from ordinary federal law.

But because the division is not presently fully-defined, I imagine that a rewrite would be a pretty substantial task, even above what would typically be the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents

After patriation, the methods of constitutional entrenchment are:

specific mention as a constitutional document in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982;

amendments to constitutional documents using the amending formula in Part V the Constitution Act, 1982;

in some cases, reference by an entrenched document;

ruling by a court that a practice is part of Canada's unwritten constitution; or

judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions.

The list of documents for the first two methods is well-established. For the next two, however, there is debate about which documents, or which parts of those documents, are included in the constitution. In some cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has made definitive rulings regarding whether a given documents forms part of the constitution, but in many cases the question is still unclear.

On the up side, I suppose that doing such a rewrite would clear this up. On the down side, I imagine that an actual rewrite would be an unholy mess from a legal standpoint, as it'd have to resolve what the constitution is at one go.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Just touching on point, doesn’t the UK not have a constitution because it’s basically whatever the Monarch says? And there is basically an agreement to off on whatever the MPs decide because otherwise they would officially overthrow the monarch

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Not without strings attached, as usual.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I dunno, I've met plenty of monarchist Anglos and plenty of anti monarchist Anglos and never one monarchist Quebecois or Quebecoise

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I am one. I'm a pretty weak monarchist, though, it's just that I look south and I'm glad that there's a "higher level" looking over our politicians. Even if the GG nominations aren't always ideal, at least in theory they aren't beholden to popular opinion. The fact that they're nominated and not elected ensures that they don't have the legitimacy to push their own agenda either. So it's a powerful position, but mostly symbolically and there would be a lot of backlash if some ambitious GG tried to use this power for anything other than extreme cases.

In my opinion, this is partly why our politics haven't yet devolved to the point of getting a Donald Trump. You can say what you want about Trudeau, but at least the government doesn't shut down every so often just because they can't agree on a budget.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It could be argued that the senate (also being unelected) is better at filling the role you ascribe to the GG. If anything it's even better, since they don't serve for a set term, and they have a much more involved legislative role.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Bonjour hi, I knew there had to be some Franco monarchists, I'd just never met any. I don't know if I completely agree but I appreciate the perspective.