Canadian Flag Pledge

[bloodyminded]

It sure seems to bother AW even though it's none of her GD business. I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag they have down there rather than wasting her time trying to tell us what's wrong up here.

That's a ridiculous response. How often does the United States get brought up, domestic American issues discussed, dissected, debated? Many of them aren't even correct...but that's beside the point anyway. Who cares if we all agree with one another on this or that point? I just posted something about a US state which, it appears, had at least one, maybe two or three, factual inaccuracies. Ok. My bad. But life goes on.

It's "none of her business," but we can have discussions about the US...or about Israel, or Zimbabwe, or Fiji...how are these any of our "business"?

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

It sure seems to bother AW even though it's none of her GD business. I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag they have down there rather than wasting her time trying to tell us what's wrong up here.

As has been pointed out here already, everything is our business on MLW.

[Smallc]

Oh, and the Queen has several residences in Canada, one being Rideau Hall.

[Dave_ON]

Of course you are beholden to the Queen of England, a foreign monarch. Look at the official website. It doesn't say "Canadian monarchy"; it's British. Where is her residence in Canada?

Hmmm interesting how you never let the facts get in the way of your "opinion"

Here's a link, perhaps you should educate yourself a bit further before posting your thoughts. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least have the wherewithal to backup your claims with some facts.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/Canada.aspx

From the Official Monarchy website, it took me about 2 minutes to find. And I quote

In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms.

Hmmm now distinctive, now to me and most people distinctive means different not "same". Is this like "discrimination" for you whereby you choose the definition that suits your current POV?

As to the residences, take your pick she has more then most anyone else does in the country... ignoring for a minute that citizenship laws don't apply to the monarch, based on your logic she's more Canadian than most anyone else in the Country

She has an official residence in Rideau Hall as small C pointed out as well as an official residence in each of the 10 provinces. I'm not certain about the territories however.

How often does she set foot on your soil?

Again from the official website which you oft site but rarely read apparently.

Over the course of more than 50 years The Queen has been a regular visitor to Canada, paying over 20 visits. Together with The Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen has travelled through every part of the different provinces to meet people from all cultures, walks of life and regions.

Other members of the royal family have also visited on numerous occasions. The Queen makes a habit of visiting all of her realms fairly regularly.

And do the "rules" regarding the monarchy serve Canada - or Britain? This is why I keep bringing up the exclusion of Catholics, marriage to a Catholic; how does that serve Canada - a secular nation? Do the qualifications for a head of state that fit Canada apply - or are you left with whatever serves Britain?

The Monarch has served Canada very well in fact, you don't like them but that doesn't change the fact that she has fulfilled her role effectively. You imply disparity where none exists. You speak as if the UK is able to somehow overrule our own parliament, or that the Queen, because she is the same person that occupies the UK royal office, serves us in the same way she does the UK. This is a fallacy on your part, and one you clearly need to educate yourself on. Many of the questions you ask, demonstrate how little you understand our system of government or how the monarchy functions in Canada.

Do you have any say in it what-so-ever except to declare that the British monarch serves Canada separately? You get what serves Britain, and then, secondly, it serves Canada. She is British first and foremost. You are part of the commonwealth that is British.

As has been pointed out already, she is not British at all, she holds no citizenship in any of her realms. She doesn't serve one realm first over another. You still fail to see, that Queen of Canada, while the same person as the Queen of the UK, is not the same role. Each of her realms has a different role for her, and each of the realms chooses what the role is. We can choose whomever we wish to be our sovereign in all technicality, but at present why would we need to change the current line of succession?

As for the British Commonwealth, well that's technically as inaccurate as you referring to the UK as "England". It's the Commonwealth of Nations. This I can forgive I suppose, as many people still mislabel it thus. It suffices as it is the commonwealth of nations that stemmed from the old British Empire.

Sure, you take the queen of England and declare that she is the queen of Canada - except but for the fact that she's the queen of England, she would not be the queen of Canada. They are one and the same, and she resides in Britain - and always will. You have a head of state that does not live in Canada and never will.

No we take the Queen of Canada, who also happens to be the Queen of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados and a host of others. You can get the complete list from the official Monarchy site, which you are so intimately acquainted with already.

Further it is the constitution of Canada that names who our monarch is not the UK. As has been pointed out dozens of times, we could have a different sovereign than the UK. If they scrap it we could potentially keep it regardless of what they decide. The Queen actually resides in all her realms and not Britain, she can't be in all her realms simultaneously which where the role of the GG comes in.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Dave_ON

[guyser]

It sure seems to bother AW even though it's none of her GD business. I really think she should be doing something about that butt-ugly flag they have down there rather than wasting her time trying to tell us what's wrong up here.

Well, aren't you a ray of sunshine.

Speaking of butt ugly, at least they can change it tomorrow , as for you............

[scouterjim]

It may bother a lot in your village, never did in mine.

So, you and your "village" prefer to hold onto a colonial vestige instead of taking our place in the modern world?

[guyser]

So, you and your "village" prefer to hold onto a colonial vestige instead of taking our place in the modern world?

This 'vestige" is keeping us down? Third or fourth world ?

[g_bambino]

So, you and your "village" prefer to hold onto a colonial vestige instead of taking our place in the modern world?

Ah, that's the problem: We're being "held back" by "colonial vestiges". While you're on the subject of moving Canada into the "modern world", what do you recommend we do with the monarchy and all the other colonial vestiges this country is apparently weighed down by, such as civil and common law, parliament, confederation, the French and English languages, the military, geographic names, and so forth? Lead us into the modern world, please!

[jbg]

Nope. My allegiance is to Canada, not a foreign monarch.

My suggestion would be:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Royal Dominion of Canada. And to the monarchy for which it stands, one federation, under G-d, indivisible (yes to Quebec as well), with liberty and justice for all, from sea to sea to shining sea".

[Alan]

Long live the great people of Canada...Salut!

[scouterjim]

My suggestion would be:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Royal Dominion of Canada. And to the monarchy for which it stands, one federation, under G-d, indivisible (yes to Quebec as well), with liberty and justice for all, from sea to sea to shining sea".

What "dominion"? The trerm "dominion" was dropped back in the 1960's. It is no longer part of Canada's name.

[guyser]

My suggestion would be:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Royal Dominion of Canada. And to the monarchy for which it stands, one federation, under G-d, indivisible (yes to Quebec as well), with liberty and justice for all, from sea to sea to shining sea".

How about no pledge , no mention of god and we leave it all alone.

Optics is all that is.

[Moonlight Graham]

And in fact, the non-partisan nature of the Canadian monarch is precisely a safeguard against abuse of powers.

A good point. Obviously, having a completely undemocratic system is not good. But to me, it seems there are some non-elected positions in the Canadian political system that function better based on the fact they aren't elected, and therefore free of partisan bullcrap, electoral lies, pressure from interest/lobby groups etc. I think the governor general is a good example of this, as is the auditor general.

Constitutionally, the non-elected monarch/gg has many reserve powers they could greatly abuse, but in reality the Queen & GG really don't have much power because if they did pull B.S. moves beyond their conventional roles, Canadians would go ape-nuts and mobs would be tearing down their doors. It just wouldn't fly, as it didn't when the English brought in the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights to slash the powers of the monarch. The monarch/gg knows this, and so act mostly as a rubber stamp and check on abuse of power of government.

It's hard to say we're under much of a foreign occupation or undemocratic tyranny, because the true power still rests largely with the people. Canada's political system is far from perfect, not one you'd likely design from scratch, but has evolved (and continues to evolve) to what it is today over many centuries and seems to function ok. What the monarchy seems to symbolize bothers many, including me. It comes with it a history of colonialism/domination, one which i'd rather have no association with. Fixing that & becoming a republic is more complicated than it seems though.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[jbg]

What "dominion"? The trerm "dominion" was dropped back in the 1960's. It is no longer part of Canada's name.

I know. What a huge mistake.

[jbg]

How about no pledge , no mention of god and we leave it all alone.

Optics is all that is.

How about modify the word "flag" with "red ensign".

[Sandy MacNab]

I know. What a huge mistake.

Indeed!

[Sandy MacNab]

How about modify the word "flag" with "red ensign".

Where do I go to sign the petition?

[Moonlight Graham]

Canada's history has been a very long and slow evolution. Many people think Canada became an independent country in 1867 and that's that. Far from it. It would be another 50+ years before Canada could even sign our own formal treaties/agreements with foreign countries without Britain's signature on it, get legislation passed without a Brit signature, declare war or not independent of Britain, have Canada's highest court be our own & not the British Privy Council, and of course have the power to amend our own constitution.

It took us a century to get the Union Jack off our national flag, and until freaking 1982 to actually cut loose all legislative & constitutional dependence from Britain. We were still a subservient part of the British empire i would argue until at least the Statute of Westminster 1931.

The monarchy/Crown is certainly a legacy from this era. I understand its function, and its independence from Britain, but i don't really get the sentimentality of not being your own master. My dad still prefers the Red Ensign over the Canadian flag, WTF???

[jbg]

The monarchy/Crown is certainly a legacy from this era. I understand its function, and its independence from Britain, but i don't really get the sentimentality of not being your own master. My dad still prefers the Red Ensign over the Canadian flag, WTF???

The Red Ensign flew when Canadian troops stormed Juno Beach to save the free world. The Red Ensign flew over Vimy Ridge. 'Nuff said?

[Moonlight Graham]

The Red Ensign flew when Canadian troops stormed Juno Beach to save the free world. The Red Ensign flew over Vimy Ridge. 'Nuff said?

Well, as a Dominion of Great Britain and before agreements that would give us more independence, they controlled our foreign affairs at the time of WWI and we essentially forced to declare war when Britain did. Good times!

I suppose I get the Red Ensign in that context, but i would think our uniquely own flag would be superior. Call me crazy! My dad still flies the Ontario flag instead of the Canada flag because its a red ensign.

On a bit of related note, the brit who lives down the street flew a Union Jack off his house for about a year, with no Canadian flag anywhere. Pisses me off, i was going to buy a Canadian flag and shove it in his mailbox to remind him what country he was in but he recently took it down.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps you think we're subject to British law.

I assure you, we're not. They're separate systems.

I don't think that at all, which is why I find it at odds that you are subject to the British monarchy regarding your head of state. As I pointed out, your head of state is who it is because she's the queen of England. Your head of state, by virtue of Britain's laws, is subject to Britain's laws - which state that, as the head of the church of England, the monarchy must not be Catholic or married to a Catholic.

Canada's head of state, though a secular nation, is bound by Britain's laws excluding Catholics - and that is discrimination. In researching it more, I've found that I'm not the only one who recognizes that by far. I just find it surprising that so many Canadians are apparently ok with that, and as I pointed out, if our head of state were exclusive on one religion, say Islam, I'm guessing there would be a lot of vocal opinion about it - worldwide.

I don't see how it does. I mentioned to you that there were sound historical reasons for it; but that doesn't mean I think it remains useful. There have been legal challenges, I believe.

Yes, there have been legal challenges on the basis that it's discrimination. I haven't found any challenges coming out of Canada, though. Perhaps I've just missed it?

At any rate, many people are not ok with it, and not just passively objecting: Royal Row Breaks Out in UK over Anti-Catholic Legislation - In the week of the Royal Wedding, a centuries-old law banning British monarchs from becoming or marrying a Catholic is sparking an international row in the United Kingdom.

This, from the minister of Scotland, actually sums up what I've been saying nicely (emphasis mine):

"I recently wrote to the Prime Minister (David Cameron) calling for the abolition of all discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement, including its blatant discrimination towards Catholics, which is completely unacceptable in a modern society. I am deeply concerned at these reports that this much-needed and long overdue reform has been shelved by the UK Government," Salmond wrote.

We aren't beholden to the UK.

I've been referring strictly to your head of state. As you are not beholden to the UK, your head of state is bound to the laws of the UK. This is the point I've made; why would an independent nation be ok with being represented by a head of state based on the laws, the exclusions, of a nation you are not beholden to? Wouldn't you rather your head of state represent Canada first and foremost. rather than being limited by the Church of England?

It makes no sense to me, as the passive acceptance of the discrimination makes no sense to me, in a nation priding itself on tolerance and multiculturalism; a nation of people that are quick to point out discrimination against other religions. It's not only ironic, but hypocritical. This is your head of state - and as such, represents your nation. That Canada accepts this speaks for your nation.

If the UK abolished their monarchy, Canada could theoretically still have a monarch. With exactly the same role as currently.

The same role, but then Canada would have the say in the laws regarding who could, or couldn't, be the head of state - or who the head of state could, or couldn't be, married to. As it stands now, Canada is restricted by Britain's laws, which are discriminatory. There is no "just" reason for the exclusion in a secular nation.

Further, Canada could theoretically have a different monarch than the British monarch.

I'm speaking of the laws as they now stand. As long as Britain has a monarchy, that will be Canada's head of state.

I understand a principled view that Canada could be, at least potentially, beholden to a foreign dictatorship. But the laws and provisions would keep that from happening.

Yet the person who represents you, your head of state, is bound by foreign laws.

And in fact, the non-partisan nature of the Canadian monarch is precisely a safeguard against abuse of powers.

It may be non-partisan, but it's not secular - and as such it is based on religious discrimination. It's also based on discrimination against women as a man will always take precedence over a woman. It is, as I stated originally, archaic - and discriminatory in a secular, modern, tolerant society. Seems to me Canada would be better served by a head of state more representative of Canada's values.

Edited May 28, 2011 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

It may be non-partisan, but it's not secular - and as such it is based on religious discrimination. It's also based on discrimination against women as a man will always take precedence over a woman. It is, as I stated originally, archaic - and discriminatory in a secular, modern, tolerant society. Seems to me Canada would be better served by a head of state more representative of Canada's values.

I see your point, however I think a lot of people don't really care because it doesn't affect them. The Queen doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for Canada. The governor general does most of Canada's head of state functions, and is much more relevant to our political system.

There's no limit to gender for our governor general, but religion i don't know. We've had Catholic, Anglican, Ukrainian eastern orthodox GG's. But i Vincent Massey was raised protestant, then wiki says he switched to Anglican (no reason given), so maybe this switch was a part of his requirement to be GG. If true, this "rule" may not exist anymore, don't know.

[Molly]

But i Vincent Massey was raised protestant, then wiki says he switched to Anglican (no reason given), so maybe this switch was a part of his requirement to be GG. If true, this "rule" may not exist anymore, don't know.

Not likely meaningful at all. He was raised Methodist-- wich is basically just a branch of the C of E. Lots of folks, especially when he was a kid, wouldn't differentiate at all.

[Guest American Woman]

I see your point, however I think a lot of people don't really care because it doesn't affect them.

Yet they care about a lot of other things that don't affect them either. That's what makes it even more puzzling.

The Queen doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for Canada.

Which supports the idea of getting rid of the monarchy. Even as she doesn't do a lot, she is your head of state. She represents Canada.

The governor general does most of Canada's head of state functions, and is much more relevant to our political system.

I agree - the GG is much more relevant, which again supports my views that the monarchy is outdated and unnecessary in Canada.

There's no limit to gender for our governor general, but religion i don't know. We've had Catholic, Anglican, Ukrainian eastern orthodox GG's. But i Vincent Massey was raised protestant, then wiki says he switched to Anglican (no reason given), so maybe this switch was a part of his requirement to be GG. If true, this "rule" may not exist anymore, don't know.

There is no religious exclusion for the GG, but again, the GG is only the representative of your head of state.

[Wilber]

It comes with it a history of colonialism/domination, one which i'd rather have no association with. Fixing that & becoming a republic is more complicated than it seems though.

Yet it is your history and the reason your country exists in the first place.