Children of a Common Mother

Wouldn’t it look much better with the old Canadian Red Ensign instead of that ugly modern maple leaf flag?

Personally, I’ve always rather admired the Canadian maple leaf flag. Its graphic simplicity functions as a clear (& even poetic) identifier.
Considering the plethora of over-conceptualized (& designed) flags in the world, the simplicity and directness of the red maple leaf on a white ground is refreshing.

But then, I also like the Swiss flag. Japanese heraldry, too.

*

A handsome monument, by the way. I wasn’t aware of it. Thanks.

I agree with Rob. I think the Maple Leaf flag is boring, modern, and artificial. The old flag had the benefit of age as well as a slowly-evolving design. It’s replacement showed a complete lack of respect for Canada’s heritage and traditions, especially considering (this Remembrancetide) that it was the flag under which so many Canadians made the ultimate sacrifice in two terrible world wars.

Hey, don’t call my mother common. Your Queen may be common -certainly her children are- but my mother isn’t.

Points well taken, Andrew.
I understand and appreciate the benefits and significance of age, heritage, and tradition in the case of the Canadian flag. Or any flag, for that matter.

Why was the Red Ensign design replaced, anyway? I don’t know. Certainly I’m not for replacing existing, traditional designs with new ones for no good reason. As for the maple leaf design itself, however, I still like it. A look at art/design history will show that simplicity as an aesthetic approach is not merely “modern.” As for boring — that’s a personal response, I guess. But I would definitely agree that the new design is indeed artificial (as opposed to natural, or “slowly-evolving” as you so well put it) if it replaced the traditional Red Ensign for some arbitrary or “political” reason.

I grew up near that border, and have always admired that monument.

The maple leaf has been worn on the lapels of Canadian soldiers since the Boer War, so it is not a modern symbol, but very much endemic to the Canadian psyche and identity.

The maple leaf flag, however, is not. Though the flag centrally applies the maple leaf against the backdrop of the Royal Military College of Canada flag (itself going back to 1874), it was designed and approved by a Liberal dominated Parliamentary Committee and adopted by the government. It is very much a symbol of Liberal Canada, and a rejection of the old Tory dominion.

Liberal internationalists were appalled to be mistaken as British by the Egyptians during the Suez Crisis, and thought an independent foreign policy dictated the need for an independent flag.

The flag is a perfect symbol of the desire to be seen as an impartial, honest broker in the world, neutralist to the bone and morally relative so as to not give offence. The wish to be nice and to be liked, to portray ourselves as UN peacekeepers from the “Peaceable Kingdom”.

But all that is going out the door with the “War on Terror”. For the first time since Korea, Canadian soldiers are falling and dying in the dozens again, but under the new flag. Still, it’ll take some time to come around to it.

Why was the Red Ensign design replaced, anyway?

Because it did not sufficiently reflect the New Canada envisioned by Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his puppetmaster, Lester B. Pearson (and whoever was pulling his strings.) They abolished the old Canada, daughter of the British Empire and Catholic France, in favour of the new single-party socialist state in which we all now live unhappily ever after.

The maple leaf flag is more a symbol of the Liberal Party of Canada, than of the country it is purported to represent. Thankfully, however, most Canadians are spared this painful knowledge since the re-ordering of the Canadian political sphere has also involved the total eradication of history classes in school or a free press.

Knowing now the political “reasons” for replacing the Red Ensign design, I have to agree with Andrew that the new design is artificial.

*

I will admit to knowing far too little about Canada. Thus, I’m surprised to learn there’s only one political party, no history classes in the schools, and no free press. Quite disturbing.

A co-worker of mine whose wife is from Quebec occasionally reads a Canadian magazine called “The Walrus.” I’ve not read it, however. Since there’s no free press in Canada, is the content of that publication overseen/censored by the government?

Har, har, har.

The Walrus is a sort of Canadian version of the New Yorker, except that, like the Irish Times, it’s operated by a private charitable foundation set up purely for that purpose rather than owned by a person or corporation. I’ve often thought that an admirable modus operandi, actually.

KD, there is more than one political party in Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada under Stephen Harper minority government is currently in power (125 MPs), the Liberals are currently serving as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (101 MPs), the loyal but separatist (they want to separate from Canada but have no problem swearing allegiance to the Queen) Bloc Quebecois (50 or so MPs) and the socialist New Democratic Party (30 MPs), not to mention the myriad of political parties without representation in Parliament.

Where on God’s green Earth did you ever get the idea we were a one-party state?

I may be wrong, but I believe her comment was a sarcastic response to Hilary’s.

Sarcasm is among those things that are hard to convey via the internet.

Sorry, but my response to Hilary’s post was quite sincere. Since I know little about Cananda, I took her at her word when she said Canada was a “single-party Socialist state.” Now I read (via the Monarchist) that the conservatives are in power, & that, indeed, there are other parties. That makes more sense.

If the conservatives are now in power, why does Hilary call Canada a “single-party Socialist state”? And since The Walrus is a priviately owned Canadian version of The New Yorker (as it were), I take it there IS a free press in Canada. I also take it that history is taught in Canadian schools (I found the notion that it had been “totally eradicated” rather hard to believe).

Sorry for my lack of sophistication, but I don’t understand why Hilary said those things.

*

Andrew, I’ll take a look at The Walrus sometime, sounds interesting. There are so many magazines & journals out there now, it’s hard to keep up.

PS: I’m a he, not a she. Married, with one son.

You’re right, sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet. So is sincerity too, perhaps. Andrew, you, however, do a fine job of conveying both sincerity & decency. Kudos, to you & to your interesting, unique blog.

KD,

Hilary is exaggerating things somewhat, but it’s not far from the truth in some ways.

The Liberal Party is a power party much like the old PRI in Mexico was; power for power’s sake. They have governed Canada for something like 70 of the past 100 years, or something like that, with Conservatives governing at the odd interval when the people send the Liberals (or Libranos,as I call them) to the penalty box. Although they portray themselves as a party for the common good of the people, all of their financial backing is from the corporate sector in the Golden Triangle (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal). This is where this county’s elite, who are Liberal, are located. Currently, the conservative West is growing in population, and is becoming the economic engine of Canada. As such, it is starting to flex its new political muscle, much to the dismay of those in power back East.

We do have a free press in law. However, the mainstream media is either state-owned and Liberal-friendly (CBC) or owned by Liberal-friendly families (Thompsons-BCE, Aspers-CanWest Global). BCE and CanWest Global own the biggest private TV networks and the daily newspapers in every major city, except for the openly Liberal Toronto Star. The exception is the National Post, which tends to lean towards the Conservatives.

As for history not being taught, well Hilary is pretty bang on there. What history is taught is politically correct revisionist pap, and even isn’t really taught much or to a high standard.

The flag was one step in the Liberal plan to destroy the heritage of Canada,and replace it with its vision of NewCanada. Most countries dramatically change their flag after a revolution. Except here, most people didn’t realise a revolution occured until 30 years later.

Hope that helps! I’m sure others will correct me in some way.

Canada’s current flag design was proposed by the NDP (Canada’s far-left party). The Liberals had an unheraldic, though slightly less awful, proposal–three red maple leafs between two blue bars (*A Mari Usque ad Mare*–“His dominion shall be from sea to sea.”). In committee, some objected to the latter’s Trinitarian connotation.

So the Liberals didn’t want the Conservatives to have their way (the Red Ensign), and the Conservatives didn’t want the Liberals to have their way (the “Pearson Pennant”), so the worst of all possible proposals won out.

Canada is a one-party state in much the same way the U.S. is a one-party state. All democracies are one-party states.

Thanks for sharing this photo with us. Red Ensign or Maple leaf, the message remains the same. If only we had more such reminders…

I much appreciate your explanations, Splendor Sine Occasu. It sounds like many of the same sort of arguments (& accusations) that occur between conservatives & liberals in the United States also occur in Canada. As one who finds himself in sympathy with certain conservative as well as certain liberal ideas/ideals, I am sometimes bewildered by the way both sides portray themselves as victimised by the other.

Pardon my error, it should have been “victimized.”

Only one thing to add to the useful addition by SSO: the Post used to be owned by Hollinger/Conrad Black but some short years ago, he sold it to the Aspers for a mess of pottage.

Very very few of the dailies in the former Dominion of Canada are owned by anyone other than the Aspers.

And you forgot to mention that all broadcast media are heavily regulated and censored by the CRTC – government body. Most of the book publishing trade is controlled by Liberal-friendly Heather Reisman who owns Indigo/Chapters. She tells Customs and Revenue Canada which books are accepted by her stores and CRC bans whichever ones do not fit her leftist/pagan criteria. Mark Steyn’s new book, is, for example, very difficult to buy in this country because he doesn’t like Heather and she doesn’t like him.

Getting the picture KD?

Sorry, Hilary, not completely.

It sounds much to me like the “anti-American liberal-biased media” argument put forth by many here in the United States. Such conspiracy-toned arguments (& that includes the “vast right-wing conspiracy” arguments) should, it seems to me, be considered suspect by most thinking persons. Perhaps, that’s naive (?).

I’ve read some rather compelling articles (replete with “facts & figures”) about “liberal” control of the media here in the U.S. I’ve also read compelling articles (again, replete with “facts” etc) about right-wing (I won’t say “conservative” because there’s so much disagreement these days on who is a “true” conservative & who is not) control of the media.
(Surely, the U.S. & Canadian media is not “controlled” in the sense of Soviet or Nazi media/communication.)

Maybe I’ll find myself in Canada sometime & be struck by how right you are.
Thus, I defer to you, since I’ve not been to Canada.

Hard to tell from a distance of course. But I can tell you that there are plenty of Canadians who look upon the United States, even under Bill Clinton, as a place where a person may say what they think, read what they want and write down and publish what they believe to be true without risk of the government taking away one’s business or children.

I have had this conversation with American friends a great deal. Compared to what is happening fairly regularly here, the US is still a paragon of civil freedoms.

Don’t feel badly though, KD, even fairly well-informed Americans simply never hear about what is considered normal procedures here. We have “human rights tribunals” with power to fine or imprison, in which the rules of due process are not applied. We have a Supreme Court appointed directly from the Prime Minister’s office, by one man, without oversight or even the right to review by Parliament. The Senate and all ministerial positions are also appointed directly by the PM’s office, even his own caucus, whether it is the Liberals or the Tories in power, do not have a great deal of input. We have a Charter of Rights that allows any court in the land to overturn laws enacted by democratic process on the basis of a single lawsuit. We have laws in British Columbia that allow the local police to investigate private citizens without their knowledge and with out a court order. We have federal hate crime laws that make it a criminal offense publicly to refute certain political ideas. The press and broadcast news is controlled by the civil service and publishing is run from a single office in downtwon Toronto. Canadians do not enjoy the privilege of voting on particular issues – the notion of ‘ballot initiatives’ was totally new to me two years ago; never heard of it. Canadians vote every time there is a provincial or federal election or by election. Unless they belong to a particular party, there is no public means of swaying a vote in parliament and even if there were, the Charter of Rights has rendered Parliament essentially futile. ANy law passed can be overturned the next day if a special interest group has enough money and clout. There was, until the Tories defunded it, a government programme by which such special interest groups could use public funds to push court cases through. This is how the federal gay marriage law was forced. My money was used by homosexual activist organizations to push court cases in BC, Ontario and Quebec, the last of which resulted in the Liberal Party enacting the legislation. THey got to throw up their hands and say, “well, the courts ordered us to, so what could we do?” Yes, the same courts they had themselves appointed, with the activist organizations using a tax-funded agency set up by the Liberal party in 1973 to pay for the costs.

Round and round she goes in the closed political system that is Trudeau and Pearson’s Canada.

But it’s OK that you don’t believe me. I often hear my American friends complaining about how badly things are going for you guys down there and it is very amusing.

I remember having dinner with some people at the Carindal Mindszenty Foundation Conference in Chicago a few years ago and someone there complained that he had been fired from his administrative position, he suspected, because of his political views. He complained about the growing liberalism of the US civil service. I’m sorry to say that I was so uncharitable as to laugh out loud.

I agree with you in that, compared with what we in Canada consider ‘normal’, complaints from my US friends about leftist encroachments on civil freedoms come across as a little…

well.

I stopped him complaining quickly enough after I told him a few of the things that are happening here.

Just be glad you have the freedom to be so skeptical about the claims of the right wing nutters and conspiracy theorists.

Truly fascinating, Hilary.

I must admit to having had no idea that civil liberties were being undermined in Canada. Interesting that it comes from the left in your country, whereas recent encroachments on civil liberties here in the States comes from the far-right Bush administration. I’d be curious to know what leftist encroachments your friends have specified.

Recent encroachments on civil liberties come from the Government, period. It used to come from the Democrats, and the past eight years its been from the Republicans, and soon it will be the Democrats again.

If any of the Canadian provinces had any sense, they’d get out of Confederation as soon as possible. Ditto for states in the U.S.A. Constitutionally, it’d be much easier for states to declare independence as it’d only require a state legislature or specifically-organized convention to pass acts to that effect. In Canada, if I understand it correctly, the federal government has complete sovereignty over the provinces, so technically Ottawa would have to approve any provincial secession.

Still, even though it was completely legal and constitutional, the last time states seceded from the U.S., our tyrannical president called up the troops and waged a vicious war of attrition on the states involved, killing more Americans than any other war before or since.

I wouldn’t put any money down, but if I had to it’d be on Newfoundland or Quebec first to shake off the shackles, or down here Vermont or New Hampshire. People often assume Quebec will be the first, but polls have shown that Newfoundlanders (having only become Canadians in 1949) actually identify themselves seperately from Canadians to a much greater extent than the Quebecois. As for VT or NH, well, I doubt either will ever work up the courage, but it’d be in the intrinsic interests of every state if they did.

True, Andrew, encroachments on liberty come from Government, or any “ruling” group or individual. One might say it’s the nature of power & rule in this world.

I have a close friend in Vermont. I’ve never heard him speak of secession, but I’m certain he would welcome the prospect!

Andrew & Robert:
I loathe the Red Ensign- the flag of the British merchant fleet with the shield of Canada tagged on. No thanks. I really like the maple leaf flag. I don’t find it boring but pretty original.

xavier

Of course, true liberty is of the Spirit — something numerous saints & martyrs have shown us.