Canadians ashamed of our constitution?

[Machjo]

We often hear Americans and Frenchmen and how they take such pride in their constitutions(especially Americans and how they always cite it when referring to a particular right), or how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has influenced the bills of rights and constitutions of many nations since, including the Canadian one.

But how often do you hear a Canadian beat his chest about the BNA Act and how it guarantees Catholics certain privileges not afforded others, or how our monarch is protected from "Popishness" by being prohibited from marrying a Catholic (kind of ironic seeing that we then guarantee Catholics special privileges in some provinces), etc.?

Should we be more proud of our constitution like Americans and Frenchmen are proud of theirs? Why don't we puff with pride at our unique separate school system and Anglican-guaranteed monarch?

8)

 

[Cliffy]

Perhaps because we don't really have one. The BNA was a private members bill in the British parliament, not really a constitution and Trudeau's constitution was not agreed to by Quebec or ratified by Canadians. As far as I'm concerned we don't have one, so nothing to be proud of.

 

[taxslave]

Perhaps because we don't really have one. The BNA was a private members bill in the British parliament, not really a constitution and Trudeaus constitution was not agreed to be Quebec or ratified by Canadians. As far as I'm concerned we don't have one, so nothing to be proud of.

That about sums it up. About the only time I agreed with Quebec too.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Perhaps because we don't really have one. The BNA was a private members bill in the British parliament, not really a constitution and Trudeau's constitution was not agreed to by Quebec or ratified by Canadians. As far as I'm concerned we don't have one, so nothing to be proud of.

Actually since Quebecers are protected by the constitution in the same way as other Canadians it means that the constitution exists whether Quebec approved of it or not. And the rights contained in the constitution are there whether you think they are or not as well.

You might note that the US constitution was not ratified by Americans either; at least not through a general vote. Does that mean it is not valid?

I suspect the reason that Canadians don't make the same sort of fuss out of the constitution as Americans is the same reason Canadians are more refined in their displays of patriotism; namely that Canadians are not Americans and see no reason to emulate them in everything they do. Canadians are simply not into the same sort of chest pounding patriotism that Americans seem to enjoy. So far as France is concerned I have no comment as I don't really know how much attention the average French citizen pays to the constitution.

 

[gerryh]

We often hear Americans and Frenchmen and how they take such pride in their constitutions(especially Americans and how they always cite it when referring to a particular right), or how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has influenced the bills of rights and constitutions of many nations since, including the Canadian one.

But how often do you hear a Canadian beat his chest about the BNA Act and how it guarantees Catholics certain privileges not afforded others, or how our monarch is protected from "Popishness" by being prohibited from marrying a Catholic (kind of ironic seeing that we then guarantee Catholics special privileges in some provinces), etc.?

Should we be more proud of our constitution like Americans and Frenchmen are proud of theirs? Why don't we puff with pride at our unique separate school system and Anglican-guaranteed monarch?

8)

Be interesting to see/hear what in your past resulted in your hatred of Catholicism and Canada's Monarchy.

 

[Machjo]

Be interesting to see/hear what in your past resulted in your hatred of Catholicism and Canada's Monarchy.

I don't have my mother (a Catholic) nor the Queen. I do believe in equality though, and I'd react the same way whatever religion were given special privilege. Is it that hard to understand?

 

[captain morgan]

I don't have my mother (a Catholic) nor the Queen. I do believe in equality though, and I'd react the same way whatever religion were given special privilege. Is it that hard to understand?

The problem is that your application of "equality" is skewed... Your commentary would represent real equality if you suggested that each individual rate payer could direct their education portion of their taxes to whatever school they wanted, and yes, this would include denominational, charters and private schools. "Equality" demands that all systems be split out of the equation and that also includes the public system.

The interpretation of your post is that you are unhappy that a separate (Catholic) system receives any funding at all. I'm sure if you asked the parent of a kid that was in the separate system if your 'suggestion' was fair or equal, they would disagree.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Perhaps because we don't really have one. The BNA was a private members bill in the British parliament,

Who introduced the bill in the British parliament has nothing to do with anything. The bill was drafted by Canadians, mostly at the Quebec Conference of 1864, and passed without amendment in 1867 to create the Dominion of Canada out of some former colonial territories. It's as much a constitution as anything any other nation has. Possibly one reason Canadians don't puff up about it is because they don't know much about it, which leads some to say silly things like, we don't really have a constitution.

 

[wulfie68]

I was thinking about this, not only in terms of the constitution but also in terms of the flag and the national anthem and why we don't revere them the same way our neighbours to the south do.

Our flag and anthem are only a couple decades old. The US flag was born in their war of independence: its been modified since, but the overall design was set then. Their national anthem was penned in the war of 1812, depciting a moment of stalwart bravery during a rather bleak interlude. By contrast our anthem and flag were adopted in the 60s and 70s amidst some wrangling to displace symbols Quebecers and anti-Empire groups found displeasing. They don't have the same meaning or history.

The same is true of the constitution: it was brought about by the most polarizing leader in the nation's history, never endorsed by Quebec, despite the concessions made to that province, and the next PM in line, immediately tried to fix some of the problems with the first draft but never got anywhere with it. Personally, I don't think it was very well done and reflects too much an attitude of "we have to do this to get it done" rather than do it right. Issues like the inequities granted to the Catholic Church or the way the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ignores property rights of citizens, among other things, I think are bothersome... and thats not getting into the way Quebec has been able to abuse the notwithstanding clause.

 

[petros]

I was thinking about this, not only in terms of the constitution but also in
terms of the flag and the national anthem and why we don't revere them the same
way our neighbours to the south do.

We were'nt indoctrinated to the point of believe a piece of paper and piece of silk can make you bullet proof.

 

[cranky]

In the US constitution the words 'the government shall not...' are used something like 21 times. The canadian charters has a smug, we are the government, sort of attitude.

 

[petros]

Well we are the government. We aren't some sort of sub-human that can't fight for rights because we are staring up the barrel of a gun. Some people just have no clue about how to flex and utilize their rights.

 

[WLDB]

The interpretation of your post is that you are unhappy that a separate (Catholic) system receives any funding at all. I'm sure if you asked the parent of a kid that was in the separate system if your 'suggestion' was fair or equal, they would disagree.

"
Depends on the parent. I was in that school system til grade 8. My parents know nothing of politics and have never voted. I told my mother last year that I had met Jean Chretien, she said "Who is he?"

It should be all or nothing. Fund all religious schools, or none. That would ensure equality on this question.

 

[ironsides]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


We as a people do not oppose this Preamble to the United States Constitution as was mentioned.

 

[gerryh]

What macho believes is that agreements made should be tossed out the door. He doesn't feel it's nesasary to uphold lawfully binding agreements, unless of course, they are beneficial to him personally.

 

[taxslave]

"
Depends on the parent. I was in that school system til grade 8. My parents know nothing of politics and have never voted. I told my mother last year that I had met Jean Chretien, she said "Who is he?"

It should be all or nothing. Fund all religious schools, or none. That would ensure equality on this question.

Is this different from province to province? As far as I know all private grade schools in BC get some public money.

 

[WLDB]

Is this different from province to province? As far as I know all private grade schools in BC get some public money.

Education is a provincial jurisdiction, so yes.

 

[Machjo]

The problem is that your application of "equality" is skewed... Your commentary would represent real equality if you suggested that each individual rate payer could direct their education portion of their taxes to whatever school they wanted, and yes, this would include denominational, charters and private schools. "Equality" demands that all systems be split out of the equation and that also includes the public system.

The interpretation of your post is that you are unhappy that a separate (Catholic) system receives any funding at all. I'm sure if you asked the parent of a kid that was in the separate system if your 'suggestion' was fair or equal, they would disagree.

When did I ever say that? I'd have no issue for example with a voucher programme with any schoool, denominational or not, Catholic or not, being allowed to participate.

What macho believes is that agreements made should be tossed out the door. He doesn't feel it's nesasary to uphold lawfully binding agreements, unless of course, they are beneficial to him personally.

So I'm assuming you support the idea that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England and that he should be banned from marrying a Catholic, as per the Constitution?

I personally oppose that. Ironic, seeing that I'm supposed to be Popophobic, right?

 

[The Old Medic]

Bar sisinster, the Constitution of the United States of America WAS ratified by the representatives of the people, elected by the people, in the respective State legislatures. It took effect only when 3/4 of the States had ratified it, and only APPLIED TO THOSE STATES THAT had RATIFIED it. Eventually, all of the original states did ratify the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and as each successive Amendment has come up, the required number of States have ratified them too.

Canada in fact does NOT have a Constitution, per se, at least not a written one. It was never ratified by the requisite Provinces, so it never actually took effect. We have elements of a constitution, but not a complete whole.

Just as Great Britain does not have a written Constitution. In actual fact, the oldest WRITTEN Constitution in the world is the one of the USA.

 

[WLDB]

Bar sisinster, the Constitution of the United States of America WAS ratified by the representatives of the people, elected by the people, in the respective State legislatures. It took effect only when 3/4 of the States had ratified it, and only APPLIED TO THOSE STATES THAT had RATIFIED it. Eventually, all of the original states did ratify the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and as each successive Amendment has come up, the required number of States have ratified them too.

Canada in fact does NOT have a Constitution, per se, at least not a written one. It was never ratified by the requisite Provinces, so it never actually took effect. We have elements of a constitution, but not a complete whole.

Indeed, ratified by representatives who represented rich white people. At the time there was still slavery, which had a big chunk of the population, women couldnt vote, freed blacks couldnt vote etc. So it was ratified by a small minority of the people living there.

As for our constitution: Constitutional Documents There it is.