I'm now flying the 1957 Canadian Red Ensign.

[Machjo]

'First Nations leaders were strongly attached to the old flag. James Gladstone, a Blood (Kainai) appointed to the Senate in 1958 said: “Personally I do not want to see any other flag flying but the Red Ensign.” Many chiefs had received a Union Jack as a ceremonial seal on treaties: “Under these symbols of justice, we feel safe. Take them away from us and it will be another sign that we are not safe.”'

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia

 

I started flying a 1957 Canadian Red Ensign this weekend.

 

I'd been thinking lately about how some states have a state flag and then a different civil flag. Germany for example has a presidential banner, a state flag, and a separate civil flag. The state flag simply adds the German coat of arms in the middle of the civil flag. By law, only federal government buildings can fly the state flag and anyone else can face a fine for flying it; though that seems a little extreme in my opinion.

 

Regardless though, I still see a benefit to promoting an unofficial civil flag and relegating the state flag to official purposes only. Firstly, it promotes public respect for the government. Secondly, it reminds the government to circumscribe the breadth of the official realm to public matters only. This is especially important today as the state contemplates legislating pronoun use in government institutions for example.

 

Though Canada recognizes an official Royal Banner and an official state flag, it has no separate civil flag and so the state flag has come to fill the void on people's lawns and at Canada-Day celebrations for example. Symbolically, one could understand this as overreach of the official realm into the unofficial.

 

Prior to 1965, the Union Jack served as Canada's official flag. Unfortunately, it did a poor job of distinguishing between Canada and the UK whenever that distinction was needed. To fix that problem and in the absence of an alternative official state flag, the Government of Canada made official use of the Canadian Red Ensign from the start of Confederation onward but without ever conferring an official status on the flag itself.

 

Ironically, even though the Union Jack remained the official state flag, Canada seldom used it since Confederation, preferring instead to fly the unofficial Canadian Red Ensign on the Peace Tower and on Federal Government buildings with the Union Jack (the official flag) having flown only briefly on the Peace Tower after the Boer Wars as a result of public pressure). In spite of extensive official use including in the two world wars, the Government had conferred an official status only on the use of the Canadian Red Ensign, but the flag itself always remained an unofficial and so merely de facto flag of Canada.

 

This combination of the Canadian Red Ensign enjoying a long history in Canada, but without ever having enjoyed an official status (even if its use had), seems to make it an ideal unofficial civil flag of Canada for those who see a value in promoting an unofficial civil flag that distinguishes itself from the official state flag.

[cannuck]

Thanks for an informative post.   

I salute your choice.

[turningrite]

Wow, so some First Nations are celebrating the symbols and detritus of colonialism! Who'd have thunk it?

[Machjo]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

Wow, so some First Nations are celebrating the symbols and detritus of colonialism! Who'd have thunk it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-special-relationship-of-native-peoples-and-the-crown-1.1189032

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-fraser-canadas-first-nations-have-enjoyed-a-long-and-fruitful-association-with-the-monarchy

For all the harm colonization imposed on Canada's indigenous peoples, they would have suffered it ten fold had Canada been a republic. The monarch, for all of the limitations the Constitution has placed on his or her authority over the generations, has always tried to protect the indigenous peoples to the degree he or she could. That's why as strange as it may seem, Canada's indigenous peoples are among the most monarchist in the country. The monarch helped to curb at least the worst of the tyranny that Parliament inflicted on the indigenous peoples and indigenous Canadians are grateful for that.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

That flag is an awful symbol of the immoral monarchy.

[Machjo]

17 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

That flag is an awful symbol of the immoral monarchy.

The harm that the Canadian Parliament had inflicted on the indigenous peoples would have been ten times worse had we been a republic. The monarch managed to curtail at least the worst of it.

[-1=e^ipi]

18 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The harm that the Canadian Parliament had inflicted on the indigenous peoples would have been ten times worse had we been a republic. The monarch managed to curtail at least the worst of it.

What a bizarre excuse to support an immoral system that says that people are not equal under the law, and that the head of state should be determined not through merit but by birthright.

[Machjo]

12 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What a bizarre excuse to support an immoral system that says that people are not equal under the law, and that the head of state should be determined not through merit but by birthright.

We may be able to come up with a better system, but there is merit to a system that provides a counterbalance to the the tyranny of the majority.

 

I don't see how a republic would manage that when the same people vote for both the legislative and the executive branch.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

31 minutes ago, Machjo said:

We may be able to come up with a better system, but there is merit to a system that provides a counterbalance to the the tyranny of the majority.

You mean false majority due to the first past the post system?

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

You mean false majority due to the first past the post system?

Even if it were a true majority, what stops it from engaging in mob rule? Even the constitution can be changed with enough support.

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, Machjo said:

Even if it were a true majority, what stops it from engaging in mob rule? Even the constitution can be changed with enough support.

Freedom of Speech.

[Machjo]

Regardless, I was proposing the Canadian Red Ensign as an unofficial civil flag so no one would force you to fly it. Fly the Maple Leaf if you prefer that. No one is stopping you.

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, Machjo said:

Regardless, I was proposing the Canadian Red Ensign as an unofficial civil flag so no one would force you to fly it. Fly the Maple Leaf if you prefer that. No one is stopping you.

I support your right to fly a monarchist flag. However, I disagree completely with what it represents.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Freedom of Speech.

Really? Didn't the government ban indigenous religions for a while? Even now the Constitution discriminates on the basis of religion in the separate school system.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I support your right to fly a monarchist flag. However, I disagree completely with what it represents.

Fair enough.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

Really? Didn't the government ban indigenous religions for a while? Even now the Constitution discriminates on the basis of religion in the separate school system.

Canada does not have Freedom of Speech. It has also never been a Republic. Nor has it ever been secular.

 

Blame the monarchy for the catholic school system. They imposed it upon us hundreds of years ago in order to appease Quebec theocrats and prevent Quebec from joining the US.

Edited July 24, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Canada does not have Freedom of Speech. It has also never been a Republic. Nor has it ever been secular.

 

Blame the monarchy for the catholic school system. They imposed it upon us hundreds of years ago in order to appease Quebec theocrats and prevent Quebec from joining the US.

The separate school system was reiterated in the Charter in 1982 by Trudeau Sr. Chretien contributed to writing it... hundreds of years ago?

[-1=e^ipi]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The separate school system was reiterated in the Charter in 1982 by Trudeau Sr. Chretien contributed to writing it... hundreds of years ago?

Canada has had religious schools since before confederation.

The whole 'freedom of religion' and 'separation of religion and state' of the US constitution was greatly unappealing to the Quebec theocrats. As a result, the Quebec theocrats made a deal with the monarchists and Quebec was a semi-catholic theocracy until the Quiet Revolution.

 

This started long before the 1982 Charter.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Canada has had religious schools since before confederation.

The whole 'freedom of religion' and 'separation of religion and state' of the US constitution was greatly unappealing to the Quebec theocrats. As a result, the Quebec theocrats made a deal with the monarchists and Quebec was a semi-catholic theocracy until the Quiet Revolution.

 

This started long before the 1982 Charter.

Oh yes, but the Charter re-affirms it. In fact, the separate school system was an election issue in Ontario just three elections ago if I remember. The Liberals under McGuinty defended it and the Liberals won. They defense? It's in the constitution. Okay, the constitution isn't sacrosanct you know.

[-1=e^ipi]

From wiki

 

The 1867 Constitution

These pre-existing rights for tax-funded minority faith schools were then part of the constitutional negotiations surrounding Canadian Confederation in the 1860s. At the Confederation conferences, Roman Catholic Archbishop Connolly of Halifax argued for separate Catholic and Protestant school systems across the entire federation, administered by the central government. This was forcefully rejected by French Canadian delegates from Canada East, who demanded provincial control over education.^[3] The compromise was Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which allows the federal government to intervene only to protect minority schools which are already established. Apart from that caveat, the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

From wiki

 

The 1867 Constitution

These pre-existing rights for tax-funded minority faith schools were then part of the constitutional negotiations surrounding Canadian Confederation in the 1860s. At the Confederation conferences, Roman Catholic Archbishop Connolly of Halifax argued for separate Catholic and Protestant school systems across the entire federation, administered by the central government. This was forcefully rejected by French Canadian delegates from Canada East, who demanded provincial control over education.^[3] The compromise was Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which allows the federal government to intervene only to protect minority schools which are already established. Apart from that caveat, the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The point is though that sometimes the majority can abuse its power. That's where a monarchy can counterbalance the will of the majority in some cases. It's not perfect, obviously. But in the case of the indigenous peoples though, it certainly softened the blow compared to south of the border. In fact, they were fleeing the south for the protection of the crown.

[-1=e^ipi]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The point is though that sometimes the majority can abuse its power. That's where a monarchy can counterbalance the will of the majority in some cases. It's not perfect, obviously. But in the case of the indigenous peoples though, it certainly softened the blow compared to south of the border. In fact, they were fleeing the south for the protection of the crown.

Majority? The majority couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. Indigenous peoples couldn't vote.

[Machjo]

6 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Majority? The majority couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. Indigenous peoples couldn't vote.

Around three Ontario elections ago, everyone in Ontario could vote and they overwhelmingly voted for the government that would protect the separate school system. The Greens and the PCs who were proposing eliminating it each in their own way got the least votes.

 

And even more recently, the government wanted to make English and French mandatory for all judges and the First Nations opposed it since it would impose two instead of just one second language on any indigenous person who wanted to join the supreme court.

 

Though it's true that the monarch has lately become a rubber stamp to a large extent, she still possesses the authority should she wish to exercise it to refuse to sign a bill into law. She should use it more to make the monarch more relevant.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Machjo

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

Around three Ontario elections ago, everyone in Ontario could vote and they overwhelmingly voted for the government that would protect the separate school system. The Greens and the PCs who were proposing eliminating it each in their own way got the least votes.

Cons wanted to fund religious schools.

Greens only changed their position on catholic schools recently, not 3 elections ago.

Also, the first past the post system limits options. Why else do you think we have that awful premier Doug Ford?

[Machjo]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

Cons wanted to fund religious schools.

Greens only changed their position on catholic schools recently, not 3 elections ago.

Also, the first past the post system limits options. Why else do you think we have that awful premier Doug Ford?

Right now in Ontario, only two religions are funded. The PCs were proposing to fund all schools, the Greens none. In both cases, they were being just to all equally, just each in a different way. The Liberals defended the status quo and the NDP kept mum.