Canadian Flag Pledge

[Wilber]

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.

Australia and New Zealand still use a version of the Blue Ensign as their national flags in spite of the Pommy Bastards. They are every bit as independent and nationalistic as we are but chose to recognize its place in their history.

[g_bambino]

I don't think that at all...

Is contradicted entirely by the words you follow it up with:

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 is not chosen by British law. Is that understood?

[Guest American Woman]

Canada's head of state is not chosen by British law. Is that understood?

I never said it was. Is that understood? I said Canada's head of state is subject to British law. And it is.

[Smallc]

I never said it was. Is that understood? I said Canada's head of state is subject to British law. And it is.

[Wilber]

I never said it was. Is that understood? I said Canada's head of state is subject to British law. And it is.

Only in Britain, but then so are you and I when in Britain.

[Guest American Woman]

Really? You really need the difference explained to you?

I realize that Canada's head of state is who it is because of Canadian law. In other words, I realize that the head of state is not chosen by British law, just as I said, but by Canadian law - which puts the British monarch as Canada's head of state. But. The British monarch is subject to British law, which makes the queen of Canada, Canada's head of state, by association, by virtue of being the same person, subject to British law, just as I said.

- There's a difference between "chosen by British law" and "subject to British law." -

I hope that helps. If not, can't say I didn't try.....

[Guest American Woman]

Only in Britain, but then so are you and I when in Britain.

I'm referring to who is able to become the British monarch, hence Canada's head of state - but then that was already obvious by the discussion throughout this thread.....

[Wilber]

I'm referring to who is able to become the British monarch, hence Canada's head of state - but then that was already obvious by the discussion throughout this thread.....

Yet you continually miss the point that she is our head of state by our choice, not because she is imposed upon us. Why does this disturb you so much?

[g_bambino]

I realize that the head of state is not chosen by British law, just as I said, but by Canadian law - which puts the British monarch as Canada's head of state.

You are again inferring that Canada subjects itself to British law in the selection of head of state. Canadian law does not put the British monarch as Canada's head of state.

[sp]

Edited May 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Yet you continually miss the point that she is our head of state by our choice, not because she is imposed upon us. Why does this disturb you so much?

No. It's you who continually misses the point, even though I've said repeatedly now in clear, concise English, that I realize she is your head of state by choice. It's your choice to have a head of state that discriminates against Catholics - because of British law - because she's subject to British law in that regard.

[g_bambino]

No. It's you who continually misses the point, even though I've said repeatedly now in clear, concise English, that I realize she is your head of state by choice. It's your choice to have a head of state that discriminates against Catholics - because of British law - because she's subject to British law in that regard.

The Act of Settlement is a Canadian law.

[Guest American Woman]

The Act of Settlement is a Canadian law.

So Canada willingly adopted the law into it's Constitution. Interesting. I didn't realize the discrimination was accepted and legalized by Canada - I was unknowingly giving Canada too much credit. I stand corrected.

[g_bambino]

So Canada willingly adopted the law into it's Constitution. Interesting. I didn't realize the discrimination was accepted and legalized by Canada - I was unknowingly giving Canada too much credit. I stand corrected.

All kinds of discrimination are legalised in Canada, the US, and every other country around the world.

[Wilber]

No. It's you who continually misses the point, even though I've said repeatedly now in clear, concise English, that I realize she is your head of state by choice. It's your choice to have a head of state that discriminates against Catholics - because of British law - because she's subject to British law in that regard.

Yes, it's our choice. How many times do we have to say it?

[Guest American Woman]

All kinds of discrimination are legalised in Canada, the US, and every other country around the world.

Way to try to deflect. I've had the what constitutes "discrimination" discussion with you, and don't care to go there again - but I will say this, if you believe that, and accept it within your nation, you have no room to ever criticize anyone else for discrimination - and your 'hate law' is nothing short of hypocrisy.

The idea that the Constitution of a secular nation, one that prides itself on tolerance, excludes Catholics (or marriage to Catholics) from being head of state is mind boggling to me.

Edited May 28, 2011 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Way to try to deflect. I've had the what constitutes "discrimination" discussion with you, and don't care to go there again - but I will say this, if you believe that, and accept it within your nation, you have no room to ever criticize anyone else for discrimination and your 'hate law' is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Consider us duly chastized if it makes you feel better. By the way, same sex marriage is legal in all of Canada.

[g_bambino]

I've had the what constitutes "discrimination" discussion with you...

Indeed you have, and in doing so made it blatantly clear that you are reliant upon denying that the word has any other definition other than the one you've chosen to fit your point of view. In reality, though, you're a hypocrite; criticising 16 countries for their discrimination while defending your own country's illogical discriminations.

[c/e]

Edited May 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed you have, and in doing so made it blatantly clear that you are reliant upon denying that the word has any other definition other than the one you've chosen to fit your point of view. In reality, though, you're a hypocrite; criticising 16 countries for their discrimination while your own country discriminates in its own way.

One. more. time. The definition, and it's not mine, clearly refers to "unjust" - and with that, I'll no longer waste my time going there with you again. But do keep trying to accuse us of discrimination to try to justify your blatant discrimination against Catholics; do try to deflect from what your nation condones if that makes it easier to live with.

As I said, it puts a whole new outlook on your 'hate laws' when religious discrimination is written into your Constitution.

[g_bambino]

I'll no longer waste my time going there with you again.

Of course you won't. You're clearly frustrated with the fact that nobody here - not one person - is accepting of your self-serving, narrowed definition of a word.

But do keep trying to accuse us of discrimination to try to justify your blatant discrimination against Catholics...

I don't believe I ever attempted to justify the anti-Catholic provisions of the succession laws.

[Smallc]

I don't believe I ever attempted to justify the anti-Catholic provisions of the succession laws.

I don't think that anyone has. People have put it in the context of why it was put in place, but, when you're talking to the proverbial wall......

Edited May 28, 2011 by Smallc

[Moonlight Graham]

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

I agree, is it outdated and unnecessary. I don't see much of a problem with appointing a GG, and they becoming our highest official head of state. I just don't want the GG appointed by the PM, since the PM already has too much power and the GG is supposed to act as a check on the PM/government's power. How about letting the official opposition choose the appointment of the GG, and keep it non-partisan?

An elected GG, or "president", causes its own problems with partisan gridlock and whatnot. The GG seems to have done a fine job in recent history.

But it will still be a few decades before this will likely happen, as older Canadians still have fond attachments to the monarchy that many younger people do not.

[Moonlight Graham]

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

very excellent point. but, we've been victims of this imperial control too, since its taken more than a century since confederation for us to remove all legislative dependence on Britain.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Wilber]

very excellent point. but, we've been victims of this imperial control too, since its taken more than a century since confederation for us to remove all legislative dependence on Britain.

How have we been victimized? How are we dependent?

[Moonlight Graham]

Australia and New Zealand still use a version of the Blue Ensign as their national flags in spite of the Pommy Bastards. They are every bit as independent and nationalistic as we are but chose to recognize its place in their history.

You can recognize your history without keeping an essentially British flag, with a few edits, as your own. History is great, blah blah blah, but time to move ahead. I recognize the fact that I came out of my mother's vagina, but i don't wear a patch of my mother's vagina on my jacket sleeve.

Were British, now we ain't. So why not remove some of the easily removable brit legacies and replace them with uniquely identifiable ones created by Canadians, for Canadians.

[Moonlight Graham]

How have we been victimized? How are we dependent?

WMaybe "'victimized" is too harsh a word, since we kept Brit ties post-confederation because we also benefited from them (ie: military protection). But we were greatly dependent and subservient to Britain on a great many political functions following Confederation until 1982. I've mentioned some in this thread already not long ago (ie: Statute of Westminster, JCPC, constitutional amendments etc.) too lazy to repeat.