21 Comments
User's avatar
Paul Murphy's avatar

Re: Charles III

1 - the purpose of his visit to Canada from the perspective of the governing liberals was to demonstrate the new prime minister's social power and connections. (Remember it's all about dynastic families -now starring the Soros scion as young duke Harkonnen )

2 - the purpose of the land acknowledgement is more subtle. One of the talking point themes being tested against western separatism is the claim the indian reservations (now "Native Canadian nations") are based on treaties newly independent provinces would have to honor.

Expand full comment
Steven F. Hayward's avatar

Very useful points. The second point especially didn't occur to me, but makes perfect sense (from a leftist point of view).

Expand full comment
Bryan Stephens's avatar

It is so sad to have gone from such a great lady to this dork.

Expand full comment
Michael van der Riet's avatar

She murmured not at all in complaint when Charles was sent to Colditz in Kilts, possibly the second most formative experience of his life after having been dropped on his head as a newborn. Liz played her role as a royal with grace and aplomb, but she doesn't seem to have been a great mother.

Expand full comment
Pnman55's avatar

It only great, but gracious.

Expand full comment
Pnman55's avatar

Not only…

Expand full comment
Andrew Boxall's avatar

Charles III

Steve's comments display - with the greatest of respect - the limited appreciation that Americans (and others from systems with an executive presidency) have concerning the role of the monarch in a British (or Canadian, or Australian, or NZ) consitutional monarchy. Walter Bagehot, the 19th century British consitutional shcolar, set out the position:

1. The sovereign has three recurrent rights vis-a-vis the executive governmen: to be consulted, to encourage and to warn;

2. The sovereign, subject to 3, must always act in accordance with the advice of the executive government; and

3. In truly exceptional circumstances (eg irretrievable breakdown in the government's ability to control parliament prejudicing the conduct of national affairs with no political initiative in place to resolve the crisis, flagrant unconstitutionality of proposed government action) the sovereign has the right to dismiss the government with a view to causing a fresh election to be held [this is what happened in Australia in 1975].

Applying these principles, if advised by the Carney government to include a land acknowledgment, HM had no alternative but to do so. Any other approach would trigger a consitutional crisis. Indeed, his speech was in all likelihood written for him by the government, as these addresses typically are. So, it can safely be assumed that George V was opposed to the very marrow of his bones to the policies and programme of the first McDonald Labour government in the 1920s, but as a dutiful consitutional monarch he read the speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament seting out the programme.

While it may well be, as the environmental views expressed by HM before his accession suggest, that he is personally disposed to a bit of greenery, it cannot be assumed that the land acknowledgment was anything other than an expression of the Carney Government's wokery.

Expand full comment
Steven F. Hayward's avatar

As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that!"

Expand full comment
Al Sparks's avatar

I've seen or heard more than one criticism of Charles's land acknowledgement, without explaining that the Prime Minister, in this case the Canadian Prime Minister, writes the speech while the monarch dutifully reads it from the throne in Parliament.

I watched the speech, and the camera did pan around the Canadian Senate. There were quite a few people in "First Nation" traditional headdress and ensemble.

They seem to have more political power than their numbers indicate (estimated 5% of Canadian population).

As an outsider looking in, I find that to be the case in Australia too regarding their indigenous population.

It's British Empire guilt.

Expand full comment
Pnman55's avatar

I solved the non-renewable Propane/Natural Gas issue when I purchased a Recteq wood pellet grill several years ago. The grill uses a renewable energy source—hardwood pellets. I could choose to use a solar-rechargeable battery to power the auger and the cook controller. There’s less work for my HVAC system because the kitchen isn’t overheated by the stove. And I’m not using Propane, Natural Gas, or Electricity for cooking. So, a wood pellet grill is actually an environmentally friendly and ecologically responsible choice. Just doing my little bit to save the environment. 😎😇😉 (Be interesting to watch an environmental scold’s head explode when I trotted out the above bit of tripe.)

Expand full comment
Steven F. Hayward's avatar

Wood pellet grills are great (I'm fond of the Traeger line); the fact that they are eco-friendly is a trade-off I'm willing to accept!

Expand full comment
Pnman55's avatar

I looked at a Traeger several years ago when my local Lehi Costco had a Christmas sale. I thought the steel would rust out. The online reviews agreed. The Recteq is all stainless steel. I keep it under my shed overhang uncovered. Rain, snow, summer heat and sun, and subfreezing temps. Other than faded black paint, pressure-washed, it looks new.

Expand full comment
The Gora's avatar

God has a wicked sense of humour: Michael Mann has to be one of the least manly looking men on the planet; just oozes soy.

Expand full comment
Tim Hurlocker's avatar

Any time you see carbon dioxide treated as a pollutant, hear "carbon capture" discussed, or read about carbon "emissions" you know you're being hoaxed. More carbon dioxide is a good thing, not bad. The Climate Change charade is over, spent, although we'll probably see a few more windmills as the last graft plays out.

Expand full comment
Rascal Nick Of's avatar

I love Mark Steyn. What Mann has been allowed by the courts to do to him is utterly appalling.

Expand full comment
Rascal Nick Of's avatar

Land acknowledgements are empty words unless they give the land back. The epitome of virtue signaling. Should i feel better if a man robs me and then as he flees with my stuff, yells out: “i acknowledge that i stole from you!”? 🤡🌎🐂💩

Expand full comment
The One's avatar

What tribe did the Algonquins take it from?

Expand full comment
Michael Lee's avatar

I think we should ask King Charles to produce his 23andMe results, just as was demanded of Senator Warren.

Why shouldn't Charles, who is 75% German and only through his maternal grandmother has any English ancestry, be compelled at every public appearance to provide a land acknowledgement to the Celts and the Angles and the Saxons?

It may turn out Elizabeth Warren is more Native American than Charles is a descendant of the ancestral tribes of the British Isles.

Expand full comment
Michael van der Riet's avatar

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that a Carney was a person employed by a carnival to bark out the attractions of the Bearded Lady and Siamese Twins?

Expand full comment
Joseph Kaplan's avatar

This whole column could be labeled Babylon bee and no one would know the difference

Expand full comment
Bradley J. Birzer's avatar

So much winning!!!

Expand full comment