There's that reference to the flying of the Red Ensign that I might have been thinking about last Friday - the Harper government decided to fly it at Vimy year round despite that being against the rules of protocol:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after lobbying by some veterans groups, decided to fly the Red Ensign during April's 90th anniversary commemoration of the Vimy Ridge battle in France. His government quietly decided soon afterward to fly the flag year-round. The Red Ensign was the flag Canadian soldiers fought under during two world wars, and was replaced in 1965 by the Maple Leaf...Quietly. Like that.A spokesman for Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, defended the move. He noted that a public opinion poll showed a strong majority of Canadians - 79 per cent - favoured the flying of the Red Ensign at Vimy for the April commemoration ceremony. "We can recognize the fact that the Canadian Red Ensign is an enduring source of Canadian patriotism," the spokesman, Alykhan Velshi, said. "It's entirely appropriate that it flies at the monument [in Vimy] to commemorate those soldiers who fought under it." Mr. Dallaire said Ottawa's decision suggests the country does not know how to properly mark its history. "You sort of wonder sometimes at the maturity of our nation in things of this nature."
But the point is interesting. However natty, co-opting the past and reshaping it for political purpose is fairly embarrassing, and perhaps never more so than conservatives and WWI given the Winnipeg General Strike. Safe to say that what the soldiers fought for and their values were as diverse as today and likely not in line with ours. Saying Canada was more Canada on this past date or that fails to appreciate that 1867 was a different from 1917 as today 1957 was from today. And, anyway, what about the exclusion of Newfoundlanders that flying the WWI flag represents? If the Canadian Red Ensign is flown, shouldn't their flag fly, too? And which Red Ensign? It kept shifting as provinces joined until 1924 when it was standardized with a new Federal crest - though it was never adopted officially as the nation's flag for use on land. Which is that "enduring source of Canadian patriotism" and when did that enduring thing occur anyway, seeing as no one was thinking about the flag from say 1972 to 2004?
But it is a good flag and protocol for the most part evades me as a reason for anything. I just hope they are actually flying the right one shown above...maybe...and not the 1924-1965 one...maybe it is this very busy one.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - July 9, 2007 9:47 AM
Protocol is only protocol until it isn't, when it is replaced by new protocol.
As for looking to the past and interpreting it -- why, that is done by any government for any number of reasons. Quarrel with a given interpretation, not with the fact that it is done.
cm - July 9, 2007 9:49 AM
If I remember correctly, the young man who gave me a tour of Vimy said that the Canadian soldiers wore the maple leaf as a hat badge, so flying the current flag would be appropriate.
Alan - July 9, 2007 10:49 AM
"Quarrel with a given interpretation, not with the fact that it is done."
That would go to the heart of criticism. The methodology is flawed, partisan and dopey. I am merely pointing that out. Just because many are stunned, it does not mean they are less stunned. <p>BTW - do you get confused at puppet shows?
Jay Currie - July 9, 2007 9:56 PM
I suspect Dallaire might be well advised to go back to his park bench.
This is a non-issue. We have a flag (albeit one which looks more like a logo), it is flying at Vimy. Harper decided to make a gesture to the veterans who fought under some version of the old ensign. It was not a partisan gesture - unless honouring a few old men who fought for their country is now a partisan matter. (Maybe we should check in with Smilin' Jack on that one as he is so determined to make the death of six young Canadians a partisan matter.)
(And Alan, I am surprised at you suggesting a partisan motive - what are you implying? That flying the current Canadian flag was cooked up in a rush by a bunch of Liberal hacks and foisted on an ungrateful nation in the face of spirited opposition so Mike Pearson could remove the hated Union Jack and keep a few members of his Quebec Liberal caucus happy is a partisan matter? And that allowing the Ensign to be flown is lèse majesté the rightful Liberal hegemony on Canadian matters symbolic? Surely not. I mean suggesting that Harper is flying the Ensign at Vimy in defiance of the Liberal Party monopoly on national icons seems rather mean spirited and over the top all at the same time.)
Alan - July 9, 2007 10:29 PM
About as weirdly badly social-engineeringly partisan as making it known that the Prime Minister is writing a [Ed.: (<i>cough</i>)bad</i>] book on hockey. It's the slow left hook of staking claims that is so embarrassing. Like the promise and failure on those armed Arctic ice breakers we now learn today as slush breakers...<i>'cause you know its in the Arctic so it much be Canadian, eh?</i><p>Doesn't matter what is or was, just what can be made of it. But, as you note, conservatives can take pride in that it is as bad as the Liberals have done in the past so it must be 100% quality pure leadership.
Alan - July 9, 2007 11:22 PM
Darcey has a very good range of comment on this. 50 star flags only - best illustration of the point Dallaire was making.
Ben (The Tiger) - July 10, 2007 8:22 AM
I don't know that it's so bad on either side. National symbols and pageantry are settled on after a dialogue among various parties.
The Liberals have had more of a say over the past few decades because, well, they've tended to win elections, and when the Conservatives have done so, they've stuck more to policy matters (though they did bring back naval ranks and uniforms and air force uniforms in the early Mulroney years -- I think they should have gone whole hog and brought back the old air force rank table and reinstated the "Royal" titles for the services, but that's just me)... This is just the right getting its act together again after leaving the symbolism field mainly to the centre-left for the last half-century.
About the Red Ensign as an enduring source of Canadian patriotism, though -- I wonder if this is the Canadian government re-asserting its claim to use of the Canadian Red Ensign over, say, that of the political elements on the extreme right (not unlike what some mayors are doing in England with the Cross of St. George).*
* -- Other than the provincial flags based on the Red Ensign. Note that the adoption of the Ontario flag was an extended middle finger towards Pearson and Ottawa. Ditto for Manitoba.
Ronald Starkie - September 7, 2008 4:48 AM
Vimy is a National Historic Site and flying the historic Canadian Red Ensign is appropriate. There are many National Historic Sites that fly or display historic flags. I do not understand the rationale of the ensign detractors. Canada is a tolerant country. We have two official languages, two versions of our national anthem, yet there are those that condemn a symbol of Canada!
As a tribute to those who fought under the Canadian Red Ensign let's make it the official "Ensign of Canada" regardless of the version. Many countries in the world have an ensign as well as a national flag.
I was three years old when the flag debate occurred and still it goes on. There was no national referendum on the Flag issue and many Canadians felt their voices were not heard. I cringe when a few arrogant supporters of the 1965 flag say "it's done, get over it". Perhaps the best way to resolve the matter is to let Canadians have an official choice of which flag they display. This is no different than observing two official languages. Could you imagine the outcry if the government suddenly said there would only be one official language?
Ronald Starkie - September 7, 2008 4:49 AM
Vimy is a National Historic Site and flying the historic Canadian Red Ensign is appropriate. There are many National Historic Sites that fly or display historic flags. I do not understand the rationale of the ensign detractors. Canada is a tolerant country. We have two official languages, two versions of our national anthem, yet there are those that condemn a symbol of Canada!
As a tribute to those who fought under the Canadian Red Ensign let's make it the official "Ensign of Canada" regardless of the version. Many countries in the world have an ensign as well as a national flag.
I was three years old when the flag debate occurred and still it goes on. There was no national referendum on the Flag issue and many Canadians felt their voices were not heard. I cringe when a few arrogant supporters of the 1965 flag say "it's done, get over it". Perhaps the best way to resolve the matter is to let Canadians have an official choice of which flag they display. This is no different than observing two official languages. Could you imagine the outcry if the government suddenly said there would only be one official language?
Ronald Starkie - September 7, 2008 4:49 AM
Vimy is a National Historic Site and flying the historic Canadian Red Ensign is appropriate. There are many National Historic Sites that fly or display historic flags. I do not understand the rationale of the ensign detractors. Canada is a tolerant country. We have two official languages, two versions of our national anthem, yet there are those that condemn a symbol of Canada!
As a tribute to those who fought under the Canadian Red Ensign let's make it the official "Ensign of Canada" regardless of the version. Many countries in the world have an ensign as well as a national flag.
I was three years old when the flag debate occurred and still it goes on. There was no national referendum on the Flag issue and many Canadians felt their voices were not heard. I cringe when a few arrogant supporters of the 1965 flag say "it's done, get over it". Perhaps the best way to resolve the matter is to let Canadians have an official choice of which flag they display. This is no different than observing two official languages. Could you imagine the outcry if the government suddenly said there would only be one official language?
Ronald Starkie - September 7, 2008 4:51 AM
Vimy is a National Historic Site and flying the historic Canadian Red Ensign is appropriate. There are many National Historic Sites that fly or display historic flags. I do not understand the rationale of the ensign detractors. Canada is a tolerant country. We have two official languages, two versions of our national anthem, yet there are those that condemn a symbol of Canada!
As a tribute to those who fought under the Canadian Red Ensign let's make it the official "Ensign of Canada" regardless of the version. Many countries in the world have an ensign as well as a national flag.
I was three years old when the flag debate occurred and still it goes on. There was no national referendum on the Flag issue and many Canadians felt their voices were not heard. I cringe when a few arrogant supporters of the 1965 flag say "it's done, get over it". Perhaps the best way to resolve the matter is to let Canadians have an official choice of which flag they display. This is no different than observing two official languages. Could you imagine the outcry if the government suddenly said there would only be one official language?
Dan Helmer - December 4, 2008 10:14 PM
My grandfather and father fought under Red Ensigns at Vimy Ridge (wounded/decorated), and at D-day respectively, and they were disturbed by the change of flag in 1965. Why?, because the change was made to appease Quebec primarily as well as the Liberals paranoia over Britain and the Monarchy. A political decision tampering with our heritage. I say so boo to that. The people of Canada should of been given the choice on such a decision via referendum. Basically the flag was imposed on the population by closure, because Pearson thought a referendum would be devisive. In fact, such a change in a national symbol would have been discarded by a vast majority, if the polls were to believed. Any changes now that would be proposed to our current flag now would be met with stiff opposition, and I have heard that sort of change would require referendum. Well, maybe the folks who lived and fought under the old flag felt the same way too. Further, there are over 100K heroes buried around the world in military cemetaries who would agree with me. Look, you can't invent a symbol, or a culture, or a history. Our old flag wasn't perfect of course, but it was selected by Sir John A. and it flew in one form or another in all of the major battles that forged our country and gave it identity. Isn't that what a flag is for? Its about evolution, and therefore heritige. My feeling on flags in general is that they should be reflective of a nations history, therefore evolve on that basis. On the other hand, political flags are generally imposed on a population with or without their consent: the hammer and sickle, the swastika, etc. Our current flag doesn't really have any historical significance, and most people under forty don't even remember the old flag. Politicians through manipulation have washed the memories of the Red Ensign from the books and only permit them to remember what is politically correct, because if that wasn't true, every Canadian would know and recognize the old flag and what it meant to our ancestors, most notably those lying in foreign lands, never to come home again. It is not a political flag, it is an historical flag, and if we care about our ancestors and what they sacrificed defending and building our nation, through more adverse times than we have experienced, we should be proud to fly it and defend it from its detractors, period. Therefore, it should be recognized officially as historical flag of Canada, and be permitted to fly as an historical flag anywhere, anytime by anyone. I have come to admire our current our current flag, and mean no disrespect to it, I just have a different view on flags, their evolution and meaning.