O Canada!
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
O Canada!
As you may already know, a school in New Brunswick has eliminated the singing of "O Canada" every morning because of a few (yet unnamed) parents complaining.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories
" small elementary school in a small New Brunswick town is at the centre of a big controversy because of a principal's decision to end the daily ritual of singing O Canada."
"School district Supt. Zoe Watson said the decision was made by principal Erik Millett after two parents complained about their children having to sing the anthem.
"Sometimes we have students whose parents, because of their beliefs, don't want their children to participate," Watson told CTV Atlantic. "
How do we stop this lunacy? Why are the rights of few allowed to trump the rights of many?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories
" small elementary school in a small New Brunswick town is at the centre of a big controversy because of a principal's decision to end the daily ritual of singing O Canada."
"School district Supt. Zoe Watson said the decision was made by principal Erik Millett after two parents complained about their children having to sing the anthem.
"Sometimes we have students whose parents, because of their beliefs, don't want their children to participate," Watson told CTV Atlantic. "
How do we stop this lunacy? Why are the rights of few allowed to trump the rights of many?
Re: O Canada!
God forbid these certain students simply declined to sing along when it came up... Instead they have to go and force their beliefs on everyone else. And the school district is naturally quick to pander.
Oh. Your. God.
- Bender
- Bender
Re: O Canada!
Because they're in Canada.Why are the rights of few allowed to trump the rights of many?
- GilletteNorth
- Rank 7
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:09 pm
- Location: throw a dart dead center of Saskatchewan
Re: O Canada!
Playing the national anthem isn't a 'right' however, this situation likely occured because one dumb principal (who doesn't represent the whole of Canada) decided to pander to the complaints of a small group of parents. What amazes me is the decision to stop playing the anthem occured over a year ago and only now is being challenged by parents of other students attending the school.
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
Re: O Canada!
No it isn't, but it is a right to be able to do it if you choose to. It isn't the act of playing that is the right it is the ability to exercise your choice to do so.GilletteNorth wrote:Playing the national anthem isn't a 'right'
Apparently no one knew. The children only said something to their parents when they wanted to practice it for some other occasion. The parents questioned why they would have to practice when they do it every day in school. That's when the truth came out.What amazes me is the decision to stop playing the anthem occured over a year ago and only now is being challenged by parents of other students attending the school.
Re: O Canada!
What exactly could anyone object to about singing the country's national anthem?
This is not a religious issue where someone is forced to participate in something they dont believe in.
It is the anthem of our country.
If you agree, take a few moments and email your MP. It will only get as far as the deputy's desk, but if enough people complain, maybe someone will take notice.
This is not a religious issue where someone is forced to participate in something they dont believe in.
It is the anthem of our country.
If you agree, take a few moments and email your MP. It will only get as far as the deputy's desk, but if enough people complain, maybe someone will take notice.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: O Canada!
If you went to "their" country, you can bet your self centered, politically correct ass you would be required to respect "their" country. In the States, even if you arrived yesterday, from where ever you came from....just try dissing the Star Spangled Banner. Just try!
I believe it's every country's right to demand respect from people living within their borders.
People who move here to seek a better life, more power to them! But come on.....I know we're a fucken doormat, but show us the respect we'd show to your country. If you don't want Canada to be "your" country....pack your bags. Show us a little respect!
Doc, better dust off the reading glasses, and stow the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Show me in the article where it mentions anything about the complainers being from another country?.."That's the way we do things here. Don't like it? Buy a ticket home....."

Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Re: O Canada!
Unfortunately my MP, Olivia Chow, Mrs. Taliban Jack, probably agrees with this policy.trey kule wrote: If you agree, take a few moments and email your MP. It will only get as far as the deputy's desk, but if enough people complain, maybe someone will take notice.
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: O Canada!
More on topic here, how is it that singing the National Anthem for 3 minutes every morning makes you a better Canadian? If it did, shouldn't it be law that we all sing it at our workplace every morning? Does the House of Commons or the Senate open with the national anthem every day? (I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't) Everyone points to the Americans as being particularly patriotic, but how many people saw the scene in the movie "Supersize Me" where Spurlock was trying to get typical Americans to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (which, I believe, is done every day in American schools) in front of the White House, but was having more success with the description of the Big Mac?
I'm an immigrant here, and certainly didn't sing every morning in either elementary or high school, and I feel very strongly about being Canadian.
Note, I'm not saying that I agree with stopping the singing, just asking for the rationale behind it.
I'm an immigrant here, and certainly didn't sing every morning in either elementary or high school, and I feel very strongly about being Canadian.
Note, I'm not saying that I agree with stopping the singing, just asking for the rationale behind it.
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Re: O Canada!
It wouldn't have happened 50 years ago when there were no PC police ready to give every political, religious, moral objector a pass. In those days you were told what to do and you did it. You learned it and you knew it.North Shore wrote:Spurlock was trying to get typical Americans to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (which, I believe, is done every day in American schools) in front of the White House, but was having more success with the description of the Big Mac?...
... Note, I'm not saying that I agree with stopping the singing, just asking for the rationale behind it.
As for your question, my answer would be that we do this in school where the mind is ready to learn. You know the saying "give me a child 'till he's 5 and he is mine forever". Once the children learn it, then the words are not just the words but the spirit of what is said is instilled. You don't need to do it once you enter adult life. Some companies like Wall Mart and Honda do their version of the company song or cheer, which builds teamwork and enthusiasm. Not such a bad thing in the 'me' world....
Re: O Canada!
I'm also interested to know who the complainers are, but won't point speculative fingers at immigrants. It could be immigrants, French sepratists, an aboriginal group, anarchists, who knows...
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:39 am
- Location: St.Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec
O Canada!
Hey All
At my daughters school in California, they 'Pledge Allegience To The Flag' on fridays during assembly. She was born in the States, so if my daughter wants to sing, thats fine. I am proudly Canadian, and don't sing along because its not 'My National Anthem". I do stand with everyone else, out of respect for their traditions.
Gord
At my daughters school in California, they 'Pledge Allegience To The Flag' on fridays during assembly. She was born in the States, so if my daughter wants to sing, thats fine. I am proudly Canadian, and don't sing along because its not 'My National Anthem". I do stand with everyone else, out of respect for their traditions.
Gord
Re: O Canada!
I seriously doubt the parents responsible will ever be identified because in all likelihood they don’t even exist.
I vote to waterboard the principle and get to the bottom of this.
I vote to waterboard the principle and get to the bottom of this.
- GilletteNorth
- Rank 7
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:09 pm
- Location: throw a dart dead center of Saskatchewan
Re: O Canada!
Can you show me where in our Canadian Laws it states "every Canadian shall be allowed to sing the national anthem if and when they choose to do so..."Dushan wrote:GilletteNorth wrote:
Playing the national anthem isn't a 'right'
No it isn't, but it is a right to be able to do it if you choose to. It isn't the act of playing that is the right it is the ability to exercise your choice to do so.
I think what you are trying to say is that we have the right to express our opinions and beliefs. That right still wouldn't allow you to stand up in class every 5 minutes to sing the national anthem. This is not a human rights case and had better not be presented as a human rights case because whoever it was who complained about singing the national anthem will then use that as an excuse to keep the anthem from being played. Is that what you want?
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
Re: O Canada!
Soon we'll have to sing Hail to the North American Union anyway 

That'll buff right out 



-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Re: O Canada!
News flash doc
When I was in school the only people who refused to sing the national anthem were WHITE, VERY WHITE. The rest of us ethnic and coloured people stood up and sang. The family that refused where Jehovahs witness I believe and have been in Canada many generations.
So stop blaming the rest of us for everything. Anyways, in the end the people only complained. The Principal is the one who made the decision, blame him.
When I was in school the only people who refused to sing the national anthem were WHITE, VERY WHITE. The rest of us ethnic and coloured people stood up and sang. The family that refused where Jehovahs witness I believe and have been in Canada many generations.
So stop blaming the rest of us for everything. Anyways, in the end the people only complained. The Principal is the one who made the decision, blame him.
Re: O Canada!
Hotel Tango wrote:The family that refused where Jehovahs witness I believe and have been in Canada many generations.
So stop blaming the rest of us for everything. Anyways, in the end the people only complained. The Principal is the one who made the decision, blame him.
Excuse my ignorance, but why would a Jehovahs witness be offended by singing O Canada?
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Re: O Canada!
I just googled it and found this quote
"Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag of any nation, recite the pledge of allegiance, stand for or sing the national anthem, run for public office, vote, or serve in the armed forces."
I remembered she couldn't have birthday parties or go to them either.
"Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag of any nation, recite the pledge of allegiance, stand for or sing the national anthem, run for public office, vote, or serve in the armed forces."
I remembered she couldn't have birthday parties or go to them either.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:17 pm
Re: O Canada!
Who is this Jehovah guy, and what did they witness him doing?



The best "Brown Bear" of them all!


Re: O Canada!
Nobody is saying it is a "human" right to sing the anthem, or express yourself in any way.GilletteNorth wrote:I think what you are trying to say is that we have the right to express our opinions and beliefs. That right still wouldn't allow you to stand up in class every 5 minutes to sing the national anthem. This is not a human rights case and had better not be presented as a human rights case because whoever it was who complained about singing the national anthem will then use that as an excuse to keep the anthem from being played. Is that what you want?
It is the right of the majority not to have the minority dictate its views on them. So two unnamed parents complain and the principal is so quick to accommodate them without thinking about the other 300 people it affects. That is what is wrong with this situation.
As for JWs not being allowed to sing, salute, etc. I have no problem with it as long as they do not insult those singing by sitting, for example. If I go to church for a wedding or a funeral I abide by the actions of others. When all stand up, I stand up. When all sit down I sit down. I don't know what is going on and why, but my sense of respect tells me I need to do what all others are doing regardless of my belief and faith. I also wear a yamakha when I enter a synagogue even though I am not Jewish. It's called respect.
Re: O Canada!
Schools have gone downhill since the muppets like this Principal took out the lords prayer from the schools as it may offend some who do not believe in God.
Now it is the National anthem that is being attacked .What next our rights to freedom of association.
Is this part of the official Green party manifesto ?more like the dangerous Reds manifesto and handbooks on undermining community values

Now it is the National anthem that is being attacked .What next our rights to freedom of association.
Is this part of the official Green party manifesto ?more like the dangerous Reds manifesto and handbooks on undermining community values


- Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
Re: O Canada!
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada
The best testing of the standard of civil liberties in a society is the best way that society treats its dissenters and minorities. Few dissenters, and no other religious minorities, have put Canada to the test quite so acutely in this century as have the Witnesses of Jehovah.
During World War I Jehovah's Witnesses were targeted because of their anti-war attitudes and refusal to take part in military service. Rather than being banned directly, Jehovah’s Witnesses had to deal with censorship of their literature during the war and the court’s refusal to recognize them as a legitimate religion, thus rendering unable to claim the status of conscientious objectors.
During the late 1930s, Witnesses were tried for sedition because their literature attacked the clergy and political leaders of the country.
In July 1940 the government of Canada banned the Jehovah's Witnesses. Overnight it became illegal to be a member of this sect. The law, passed under the War Measures Act, was vigorously enforced. Beatings, mob action, police persecution, and state prosecution confronted the Jehovah's Witnesses as they ignored the ban and continued to go about their work spreading the word of God.
The struggle was bitter indeed. Jehovah's Witness children who refused to sing the national anthem and salute the flag during patriotic exercises in public schools were often expelled from class, and in a few cases, removed from their parents' care and placed in foster homes and juvenile detention centres. Men of military service age who refused to fight spent the war trying to get out of alternative service camps established across Canada for conscientious objectors. Jehovah's Witness spent a good deal of time in the courts during the war years; they challenged government policies with which they disagreed, and were arrested in the hundreds and charged with being members of an illegal group.
All this was nothing compared to what the Quebec government did to them under the Duplessis era.
In the end the Supreme Court held that there can be no freedom of religion without freedom of speech.
In several other cases, including Chaput v. Romain (1955) and Lamb v. Benoit (1959), Jehovah’s Witnesses successfully sued the police for damages. In Chaput v. Romain, police had raided a home where a religious service by Jehovah’s Witnesses was being conducted, seized bibles and other religious paraphernalia, and disrupted the service despite not having a warrant and no charges being laid. In Lamb v. Benoit, a Jehovah’s Witness was detained for a weekend for distributing seditious pamphlets on city streets, and was offered freedom from jail if she agreed to sign a release form absolving police from charges of wrongful detention. After she refused, she was charged with sedition but later acquitted. In each case, the accused were successful in defending their rights in civil court.
In order to obtain religious freedom the Jehovah's Witnesses popularized the idea of a Canadian Bill of Rights and established numerous libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian constitution.
The best testing of the standard of civil liberties in a society is the best way that society treats its dissenters and minorities. Few dissenters, and no other religious minorities, have put Canada to the test quite so acutely in this century as have the Witnesses of Jehovah.
During World War I Jehovah's Witnesses were targeted because of their anti-war attitudes and refusal to take part in military service. Rather than being banned directly, Jehovah’s Witnesses had to deal with censorship of their literature during the war and the court’s refusal to recognize them as a legitimate religion, thus rendering unable to claim the status of conscientious objectors.
During the late 1930s, Witnesses were tried for sedition because their literature attacked the clergy and political leaders of the country.
In July 1940 the government of Canada banned the Jehovah's Witnesses. Overnight it became illegal to be a member of this sect. The law, passed under the War Measures Act, was vigorously enforced. Beatings, mob action, police persecution, and state prosecution confronted the Jehovah's Witnesses as they ignored the ban and continued to go about their work spreading the word of God.
The struggle was bitter indeed. Jehovah's Witness children who refused to sing the national anthem and salute the flag during patriotic exercises in public schools were often expelled from class, and in a few cases, removed from their parents' care and placed in foster homes and juvenile detention centres. Men of military service age who refused to fight spent the war trying to get out of alternative service camps established across Canada for conscientious objectors. Jehovah's Witness spent a good deal of time in the courts during the war years; they challenged government policies with which they disagreed, and were arrested in the hundreds and charged with being members of an illegal group.
All this was nothing compared to what the Quebec government did to them under the Duplessis era.
In the end the Supreme Court held that there can be no freedom of religion without freedom of speech.
In several other cases, including Chaput v. Romain (1955) and Lamb v. Benoit (1959), Jehovah’s Witnesses successfully sued the police for damages. In Chaput v. Romain, police had raided a home where a religious service by Jehovah’s Witnesses was being conducted, seized bibles and other religious paraphernalia, and disrupted the service despite not having a warrant and no charges being laid. In Lamb v. Benoit, a Jehovah’s Witness was detained for a weekend for distributing seditious pamphlets on city streets, and was offered freedom from jail if she agreed to sign a release form absolving police from charges of wrongful detention. After she refused, she was charged with sedition but later acquitted. In each case, the accused were successful in defending their rights in civil court.
In order to obtain religious freedom the Jehovah's Witnesses popularized the idea of a Canadian Bill of Rights and established numerous libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian constitution.
Re: O Canada!
If they don't recognize and respect the anthem, the flag etc. how come they recognize and use the courts and the Bill of Rights. It seems a bit strange....Driving Rain wrote:In order to obtain religious freedom the Jehovah's Witnesses popularized the idea of a Canadian Bill of Rights and established numerous libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian constitution.
- Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
Re: O Canada!
The best testing of the standard of civil liberties in a society is the best way that society treats its dissenters and minorities.If they don't recognize and respect the anthem, the flag etc. how come they recognize and use the courts and the Bill of Rights. It seems a bit strange....
Is this a great country, or what?

Re: O Canada!
It's not so much how the society treats them, it is how they treat the society that I am puzzled about. They do not want to salute the flag, country, authority in general, it seems. Yet they use the courts where you have to stand up when the judge enters, there is flag in the corner, you have to be sworn in as a witness etc. etc. How do they reconcile this against their stated beliefs?Driving Rain wrote: The best testing of the standard of civil liberties in a society is the best way that society treats its dissenters and minorities.
Is this a great country, or what?
Not judging or condemning, just curious?