Again, who cares? Is enforcing an oath to Charles really a hill that Canadians are willing to die on?

Respecting a country doesn't mean nothing can change.

It's an absolutely symbolic hill, and many might say yes. I am even somewhat ambivalent of this, but yet I see it as a symbolic finger of defiance to the country. When you make unilateral changes without discussion it is a matter of disrespect. I have felt an air of contempt from PQ politicians for a few years now, it's apparent that they have little regard for the country as a whole, while reaping all the benefits. I'm boycotting poutine & Quebec dairy products. ;)

Most Canadian are indifferent to it.

Demanding to Québécois elected officials to swear an oath to a foreign king is a way to make sure they remember who is the master and who are the conquered ones. It is demeaning. And still the new law doesn't make it illegal to do that oath, it just make it optional. It is the way it should be for all elected officials in Canada.

To counter your poutine boycott, I would want to boycott a traditional english canadian dish but I just don't know any... :D

Lords & Masters we are. :whip2

You can boycott Fish & Chips, Shepherd's Pie, Trifle, Yorkshire Pudding, Steak & Kidney Pie, Toad in the Hole, London Broil, most anything with gravy, and there are some very good British cheddars, all delicious.

Yawn, Quebec play-acting that it’s a country again.

Does the Quebec law just make the Oath optional, or does it substitute a new optional "Crown free" oath of allegiance?

I guess you need to believe that...

Aren't those british dishes? Are there any traditional ROC canadian dishes (outside american food, or course)?

You mean like Canada does when the USA is watching?

There are (were) already 2 oaths, one to the king the other to the population of Québec. From what I understand the oath to the king is now optional but the other one stays.

I grew up with lots from Newfoundland, but mostly we have just inherited dishes from Europe anyway (as Quebec does from France), so it doesn't really matter that much.

Canada does what it wants within it's own borders, as do most countries in the world, including Europe; remember all the American wars in which we chose not to participate. The US does not want to piss us off, because we're smarter and speak their language; we Anglos can communicate effectively and be stealth Americans.

Poutine, pâté chinois and most maple syrup based food are not inherited from France and are original creations. Does Canada has any such food? Maybe the beaver tail.

Québec can do pretty much what it wants within it's own border too, but with some limits. Actually, it was one of the strongest selling point of the No side in 1995; "what would Québec be able to do as an independant country that it cannot do within Canada?". Apparently getting rid if the oath to the king is among the things Québec can do, and the ROC should not complain about it because it doesn't change anything in how Canada function, it just makes the procedure to become a MNA more attractive.

Hickory sticks ?????

lol

Yes, hilarious isn't it? Canada is actually a series of local cultures, Quebec is just one, hence it is also Canadian. These culinary creations come from 400 years of cultural isolation, very much a product of the geography, and to be honest, they are rather modest creations. I had chips & gravy & dressing as a kid in NL before I knew what poutine was, and yes, Nfld. has it's own cuisine which is much more extensive than just that, as well as its own musical culture, folklore, and even language traditions and dialects. But NL doesn't become a perpetual headache for the ROC. These are the things that come with 400 years of cultural isolation. Maybe you will find out on your own someday. Anyway this has little or nothing to do with the topic. Being a part of a country and reaping the benefits means they should show some appreciation and recognition of the symbols and traditions which that country's systems are built on. If Quebec wants respect they should show it as well.

:previous:

There are certain Quebec posters who like to poke the bear. Don't let it get to you too much.

At the end of the day, Charles III is still the King of Canada, and there isn't much Quebec can do about that. They can choose to ignore him if they want. This won't change the reality on the ground.

Unfortunately, as the cultural make-up of Canada continues to evolve over the next 50 years or so, and as the country becomes more multiracial, I suspect that the monarchy in all of Canada, not just Quebec, will eventually become a historical anachronism of little day to day relevance. It will still be there, but people won't care. I imagine that the era of royal visits to Canada every couple of years is now coming to an end. The royal family will retrench to the United Kingdom. This makes me sad, but I see this as an inevitability.

Yeah, that’s how I see it too. If Charles III is okay with Quebec’s MPs not swearing loyalty to him anymore, then that’s that. He is the ultimate authority, after all.

In the good old days, if Canada were still truly King Charles III’s domain to manage as he pleases, there would likely be a British military expedition to kill the rebellious MPs and put some loyal ones in their place.

The fact that this isn’t happening this time is the King’s will and decision too — just like the opposite course of action on his part would be. (Quebec’s bill got Royal Assent.)