Jeffrey B. Meyers, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

The coronation of King Charles was a cringe-inducing display of white European hereditary privilege and ostentation that angered many, both in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

That anger, or in some cases simple apathy or collective eye-rolling, should not be ignored because the monarchy and the Crown are not merely symbols, they’re a massive expense.

The cost of the coronation to the British taxpayer has been estimated at £100 million (almost $170 million in Canadian dollars) — extremely costly in a post-Brexit period of economic uncertainty and decline for the U.K..

Some of the vast private wealth and land holdings of the Royal Family are also connected directly to England’s role in colonization and the slave trade.

Despite all this, the monarch remains the head of state for many Commonwealth countries, including Canada.

The U.S. style of republicanism

While the American experiment in republicanism isn’t looking especially good at the moment amid the shambles left by Donald Trump’s presidency, the country’s founders were correct in recognizing that democratic legitimacy and monarchical power cannot be easily reconciled.

In fact, their biggest mistake and that of subsequent generations may simply have been to permit the presidency to retain elements of absolute or unfettered power in the form of executive privilege.

From George W. Bush’s disastrous war on terror to the Trump administration’s outright repudiation of democratic norms, recent presidents have not hesitated to behave like kings.

In Canada, we can benefit from both the lessons of the United States and the U.K. to avoid idealizing a republic with a powerful president and at the same time acknowledging that a traditional monarchy, even a purely symbolic or constitutional monarchy, is no alternative.

As I have argued before, each Commonwealth nation would have different legislative and constitutional processes to follow to sever ties with the British monarchy. Canada’s in particular would be complex and difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

It would require unanimous consent of all provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. In practice, this would probably not be possible without referendums in each province. Because of this, some leading constitutional lawyers in Canada regard the question as a non-starter.

But if Canadians aren’t careful, they may one day find that events in the U.K. make the decision for us.

Here’s how.

Different political systems

Suppose current British demographic trends and polling data pan out and a decade or two from now a younger, more diverse British population loses patience with the monarchy.

Like Canada, the U.K. has a constitution and the monarchy is essential to it. But unlike Canada, the U.K.’s constitution is largely unwritten. Changing the British Constitution can at least theoretically be done by an ordinary act of Parliament and without the complexity of co-ordinating 10 sovereign legislatures.

Another difference? The U.K. is a unitary and not a federal state. This means British parliament, unlike Canada’s, can unilaterally amend its constitution to address the status of the monarchy if it wishes.

Similarly in the U.K., any conventions around public consultation would also be arguably less complex and more straightforward than in Canada because of the British system of government. This could lead to a bizarre situation in which the British monarch ceases to be the British head of state but remains the Canadian one.

To my knowledge, this would be a completely uncharted territory and a constitutional crisis of the highest magnitude.

Rather than continuing to sit nervously on the sidelines observing America’s presidential system lurch from crisis to crisis, or celebrating the coronation of Britain’s new king as our own, Canada should learn from the errors of both the republican model and monarchical model and do something different.

Looking ahead

We might start by recognizing forms of political association, governance and policymaking that are less European and owe more to Indigenous models.

Mary Simon, Canada’s governor general and the King’s representative in Canada — as well as first Indigenous person to occupy that colonial office — is correct when she says many Indigenous people look to the treaty relationship with the Crown, which predates Confederation itself, as part of their strategy of decolonization.

But it’s tough to reconcile a European hereditary monarchy with a Canada in which Indigenous people are attempting to take control over their own destiny.

Similarly, for many Canadians who immigrated to Canada from parts of the former British Empire in the Caribbean, Africa and India, finding the old colonial monarchy waiting for them here is no sign of dynamism.

It will be up to the current generation of Canadians to decide if now is the time to begin taking this question more seriously or whether to leave it to the United Kingdom to decide for us.

Jeffrey B. Meyers, Instructor, Legal Studies and Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The crowning is perhaps the most famous part of British coronations. Yet easily overlooked – and equally important – is the coronation oath, which has been a fundamental component of the ceremony since medieval times.

It is of such significance that the remainder of the rite cannot proceed unless it has been sworn. Why? The oath is the essential counterpart to the recognition and acclamation.

The recognition is the moment at the beginning of the ceremony when the monarch is presented to the people for approval. The acclamation is the moment in which the people accept the new monarch.

Together, these three acts establish a contractual relationship between sovereign and peoples. By public commitment to the promises and values enshrined in the oath, the monarch is forming a bond to the largely uncodified constitution (the UK’s constitution has never been assembled into a single written document).

There has been talk of a shorter service for Charles III’s coronation. But to omit these vital stages would amount to constitutional vandalism.

Before primogeniture (the law of firstborn inheritance), the British monarchy was elective. In Anglo-Saxon times, the witan (the leading nobles or council of the country) chose the new sovereign. And until at least the middle ages, a secular enthronement, preceded the coronation service.

Today’s acclamation comes from that tradition of electing a sovereign. This is when the officiant (usually the Archbishop of Canterbury), standing with the candidate in Westminster Abbey, asks whether or not the congregation recognises the candidate’s entitlement to be crowned.

Those present acclaim the person as their monarch, crying “God save the King/Queen”, representing the country. Some historians contest the acclamation’s importance on the grounds that the respondents are unrepresentative of the people and unlikely to reject the candidate: “as if there was any choice in the matter”.

Nevertheless, it is vital to what follows that they are asked at all. In Portugal, under the Avis dynasty, the acclamation assumed such supreme importance that the crowning withered away altogether. By contrast, Russian peasants were never asked for consent to recognise a new Tsar.

This piece is part of our coverage of King Charles III’s coronation. The first coronation of a British monarch since 1953 comes at a time of reckoning for the monarchy, the royal family and the Commonwealth.

For more royal analysis, revisit our coverage of Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum jubilee, and her death in September 2022._

Following the acclamation, the candidate must commit to their side of the contract – the terms set out in the coronation oath. “Coronation oath” is a slight misnomer. It is actually a series of promises in question and answer form, sealed by an oath sworn “in God’s presence”. The text of the promises has evolved, but the core has remained.

In the version lasting (with tweaks) from 1308 to 1685, the candidate promised to confirm the laws of their predecessors, to maintain peace, to administer impartial justice with mercy and to preserve and enforce the laws that parliament would pass.

The makings of a modern oath

The Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689 ushered in a major change when a revised oath became statutory. The version used for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953 had three essential parts and retained the oath’s medieval core.

Firstly, would she promise: “to govern the Peoples … according to their respective laws and customs?” Secondly, would she cause: “Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all … [her] judgements?” Lastly would she: “maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel” as well as “maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law”?

Afterwards, came the oath proper. Elizabeth II swore:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

As this shows, the monarch swears to uphold certain key values: law, justice and mercy (although Charles has said he sees himself as a “defender of faiths” and the service is likely to reference other denominations and religions).

That obligation speaks to the nation, but also broadcasts a global message of what the United Kingdom stands for.

The coronation oath marks the moment the monarch’s actions and words correspond to the trust placed in them by the people when they recognised and acclaimed them as their king or queen. Together, the two stages form a contract on the basis of which the service can proceed to the crowning.

There is a sense that uncrowned (and therefore unsworn) monarchs were, and are, not fully sovereign. Would Richard III have usurped the crown so easily had one of the princes in the tower been crowned? Might Lady Jane Grey (the nine-day queen) have seen off Mary Tudor if she had reigned long enough to undergo coronation? As it was, Mary I led the only successful coup d’état of the 16th century.

Writing of Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936, the late Queen Mother commented that it was fortunate that “he was never crowned”. Clearly, an abdication post-coronation would have been more problematic because the coronation oath establishes accountability.

Breach of contract can, for a sworn monarch, have terrible consequences. The charge of flouting their coronation oaths was levelled against Edward II (deposed and murdered), Richard II (ditto), Charles I (deposed and executed) and James II (deposed and exiled). Those kings could not be trusted because they had broken their sacred word.

The oath is at once a conduit for tradition, a constitutional pillar, a source of legitimacy and authority and a marker of national values. The coronation oath binds monarch to peoples and to the governmental system of the state, but it also communicates some of the principles – law, justice and mercy – upon which that governance rests.

Oaths are still an important part of employment in the British armed services, police force, parliament, privy council and law courts. Each of those oaths mentions allegiance, service or loyalty to the sovereign. How incongruous it would be if the person at the summit of the constitutional pyramid had no oath to swear themselves.

David Crankshaw, Lecturer in the History of Early Modern Christianity, King's College London and George Gross, Visiting Research Fellow, King's College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Julian Barling, Queen's University, Ontario and Alyssa Grocutt, Queen's University, Ontario

Canadians go to work each day expecting to return home safely, but for too many workers and their families, this expectation is unrealistic. According to the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, there were 1,081 workplace fatalities in 2021 alone.

Each year on April 28, Canadians remember and honour those who have been killed or suffered injuries or illness at work. This day, known as the National Day of Mourning, was established by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1984 and made official in 1991.

Four decades have passed since the National Day of Mourning’s first observance, and the annual toll from workplace fatalities in Canada continues to remain high. But just how deep and pervasive is the problem? And what can we do about it?

Widespread suffering

Those who consume news media can be forgiven for thinking the number of murders in Canada each year vastly exceeds the number of work-related fatalities. One reason for this is the excessive news coverage of murders relative to other causes of death like workplace fatalities.

The real numbers tell a different tale. About 700 people are murdered annually in Canada, while close to 1,000 people die at work each year. But one study from the Journal of Canadian Labour Studies argues the actual number could be 10 to 13 times greater.

The suffering goes well beyond the 1,000 workers who die each year. Within the workplace, colleagues who have witnessed horrendous tragedies are affected, as are leaders who have to break the awful news to family members and motivate surviving employees.

Outside the workplace, the emotional and financial burden on family members has been ignored for too long. What if the news media devoted as much attention to workplace safety incidents as we did to murders? Would the public demand that management, workers and government authorities work together to enhance workplace safety?

Myths about worker control

The National Day of Mourning presents us with an opportunity to reflect on workplace fatalities and the enormous toll they take on affected families, co-workers and organizational leaders, and commit to making a difference.

We can start by dispelling some major misconception that are inhibiting progress in workplace safety and health. One misconception among managers is that, because workplace safety is so important, every aspect of employees’ work requires control.

Yet, based on extensive interviews with senior managers and employees and an analysis of documentation from 49 manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom, researchers found the opposite is true.

Among the five key types of human resources approaches, only one was associated with fewer workplace injuries: higher levels of empowerment, which included autonomy and employee participation. Even managers that ceded small, incremental amounts of control to employees had a positive impact.

Myths about safety costs

A second common misconception is that government safety inspections can be costly; yet again research suggests otherwise.

According to a comparison of more than 400 workplaces that were not targeted for safety inspections in California, and an equal number that were randomly selected for inspections between 1996 and 2006, random safety inspections work.

Five years after random inspections, companies saw a 9.4 per cent reduction in injury rates, and a 26 per cent reduction in costs associated with the injuries.

These gains in safety were achieved without any cost to employment numbers, sales, credit rating or likelihood of firm survival, which are frequent concerns in the face of government safety inspections.

Given this, policymakers should feel reassured that increasing the number of safety inspectors is a wise investment in both injury reduction and cost reduction.

Myths about sick leave

The National Day of Mourning’s calls for reconsideration of workplace safety are particularly relevant in the era of COVID-19. The pandemic highlighted the misconception that paid sick leave hurts organizations.

Year-after-year, more people die at work from health-related issues, such as respiratory diseases and occupational cancers, than from safety incidents.

A 2020 study from Ontario’s Peel region revealed that 25 per cent of the employees surveyed went to work when they had COVID-19 symptoms; 88 workers even did so after being diagnosed with COVID-19.

Why? Because they could not afford to lose any pay. If we are to protect employee health and limit the spread of infection, we need to de-politicize perceptions around basic workplace programs such as paid sick leave.

Worker health programs and policies need to be implemented based on the best of evidence, rather than being a subject for negotiations between labour and management or the whims of the government.

Paid sick leave policies and programs are primary tools in preventing the spread of infections, thereby benefiting employees and protecting organizations and their communities. Employees should be reassured that they will not lose pay when they protect themselves and others by staying home when ill.

A new approach is needed

We need to change the widespread perceptions that workplace safety requires the tight grip of management, that random safety inspections hurt organizations and detract from profitability, and that paid sick leave is an expensive luxury.

On the contrary, employee autonomy and engagement, random safety inspections, and paid sick leave are some of the practices that management should welcome to develop safe and healthy workplaces.

Another small action that could have wide-ranging benefits is to change the very language of occupational safety. For too long, “workplace accident” has been the term used for any workplace safety incident or injury.

Why is this problematic? By definition, “accident” implies an event that is unpredictable, unplanned and uncontrollable. If that is indeed the case, we should be forgiven for not taking any action.

Yet post-injury and inquest reports tell us that the opposite is true: these incidents are invariably predictable, preventable and controllable. The time has come to change how we think about occupational health and safety.

Julian Barling, Distinguished Professor and Borden Chair of Leadership, Smith School of Business, Queen's University, Ontario and Alyssa Grocutt, PhD Candidate in Organizational Behaviour, researching workplace safety, at Smith School of Business, Queen's University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gabrielle Edwards, University of British Columbia

News about the climate crisis alerts us to the urgent need for drastic global changes. Given this, it’s not surprising that one study surveying thousands of young people found most respondents were worried about climate change, and over 45 per cent said worries about climate change affected them daily.

Young people are experiencing high levels of climate anxiety which is characterized by feelings of fear, worry, despair and guilt and can negatively affect psychosocial health and well-being.

Taking climate action is one proposed way to reduce climate anxiety by turning negative emotions in response to the reality of urgent challenges into positive action.

Engaging with food systems presents a major opportunity to act on the climate crisis, as they contribute 21 to 37 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Both home-based discussions with parents or caregivers and school curriculums have a place in helping young people connect relationships with food to advocating for change to food systems or making more sustainable choices to benefit our shared planetary health.

What is a food system?

A food system includes everything that happens to food from farm to fork. The food system also includes all the people involved in each of those steps, including us.

Every time we eat, we participate in the food system. Yet, due in part to the increased number of steps between farm to fork, and the fact that in our dominant global economy food is positioned as a product to consume, there is a growing disconnect between people and the food system.

This disconnect has both contributed to current issues caused by food systems, and continues to perpetuate them. These issues include biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and global inequalities related to both labour practices and resource extraction.

Impact of daily choices

Many of us rarely consider the impact our daily food choices have on the environment. Those that do seldom see our own potential in engaging with and transforming the food system beyond eating on the basis of conscience.

Recognizing our role in the food system can be empowering, as it presents opportunities to act on the climate crisis.

Primary and secondary schools are a logical place to engage students in these issues as they are locations where young people spend most of their day and institutions that have goals of promoting an educated and engaged citizenry.

Despite the potential of educational institutions to engage young people in issues related to food systems, many school curriculums around the world, including throughout Canada, fail to do this.

Beyond nutrition, cooking

For example, research about primary school curriculums in 11 countries including Australia, England, Japan, Norway and Sweden finds that curriculums tend to focus on nutrition education or cooking skills with little to no mention of the ways current food systems are destroying our environment or perpetuating gross social injustices. Research about Canadian curriculums has similarly found curriculum policies tend to focus on eating in healthy ways as a matter of individual choice.

Although much curriculum does not take a holistic approach to food systems education, there are many third-party organizations that have created resources for educators examining food systems in a more comprehensive way.

Nutrition and cooking are important for individual health. But this limited focus can be disempowering for young people as it does not consider the positive impact people can have on transforming food systems to be more just and environmentally sustainable.

By showing the next generation ways to change our food systems for the better, we can not only reduce climate anxiety, but also ensure the next generation is equipped with the knowledge and skills to create a more just and sustainable future.

Taking action locally

So how do we support these important issues in our schools? If you are a concerned parent, you could join the parent advisory committee at your child’s school or write to your school district to find out if there are any positive local initiatives and to express concern.

You could also write to your provincial or territorial legislative representative to advocate for the inclusion of these issues in the curriculum.

Outside of school, parents or caregivers could find ways to engage children in discussions around food systems that go beyond nutrition. For school projects where a child has a choice about the topic, or as a home project, encourage your child to research different organizations in your area that are involved in sustainable food systems work. Together, visit a local farm or starting a small indoor or outdoor garden.

How a meal arrives on a plate

Another activity to start thinking about the global impact of food systems is to explore how a meal comes to be on your plate. You could ask questions like:

• What are the ingredients?
• Where in the world did all those ingredients originate?
• Who was involved in growing the ingredients, in transporting them and in creating the food being consumed?
• Were all those people treated fairly?
• Was the environment harmed in the production of the food?

Analyzing even a simple meal can lead to complex thoughts and discussions around food systems and reveal stark social and environmental issues.

By looking beyond nutrition, food can become a powerful tool to empower young people to take climate action which, in turn, can lead to reduced climate anxiety and increased feelings of hope for the future.

Gabrielle Edwards, PhD Candidate in Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.