Would you rather living in a country where......
- Thread starter Sublime
- Start date
I find Flag burning to be hateful and disrespectful, it represents this country and by burning it it insults me and those who have died for this country. Those who want to protest and burn something set your pants on fire, there yours and not a symbol of something I respect.
It's a piece of cloth. Under certain circumstances, some may see fit to deface the flag in the interest of a protest. I find the practice distasteful and reprehensible; however, I do not think that doing so should constitute a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I realize this is not applicable in Canada, but I agree with the US Supreme Court decision in Texas vs. Johnson.
Johnson (a resident of Texas) burned the American flag in protest, he was taken to court and the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state to ban flag burning. Johnson took the case to the US Supreme Court, they had a different approach:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
I personally don't like it either, but I would rather live in a place where it is permitted.
Johnson (a resident of Texas) burned the American flag in protest, he was taken to court and the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state to ban flag burning. Johnson took the case to the US Supreme Court, they had a different approach:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
I personally don't like it either, but I would rather live in a place where it is permitted.
What would happen, then, if that caused the Constitution to violate another article in the Constitution? Can a Constitution violate itself? Which article would take priority?
Not only would it violate the American principle of unlimited and unabridged free speech, but it would be confusing to have contradictory articles thrown into the same piece of legislation. It would probably be a nightmare for the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
That's not unconstitutional either, I think not — although I will subsequently blind you with all the colours of the rainbow until you memorize and sing God Save the Queen. 
