Talk:Red Ensign/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Appeal to AndyL to delete the "disputed" Red Ensign linkage

AndyL,


I am sincerely asking, will you please delete(in its entirity) your Facist links to the Red Ensign?

Please.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, your attempt at intimidation via personal attacks has not changed my mind. And yes, it is a personal attack because you are not criticising my arguments but bringing my person into the argument. You have consistently failed to name any non-nazi organzations that advocate the restoration of the Canadian Red Ensign as the national flag. Instead you have resorted to trolling and posting irrelevent snippets from various things on the internet that have come up via google. If you like we can ask Snowspinner who resolved the LaRouche impasse to intervene here. As for your pesonal behaviour I am taking that to the Arbitration Committee. AndyL 23:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have said earlier that I have no problem qualifying the remarks regarding fascist groups by adding something like "Most supporters of the red ensign are individual monarchists and traditionalists, including some branches of the Royal Canadian Legion, who do not support the attempts by fascist groups to appropriate the banner," however as the advocacy of the red ensign by fascist groups is a) factual and well documented and b) of interest, I see no reason to censor that information in order to protect the sensibilities of other red ensign advocates. AndyL 01:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page

I would like anybody new to the wikipedia here to read this over, it would probably help alot. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a stupid reference

This passage from the article:

In recent years many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Canada, particularly those affiliated to Paul Fromm, have adopted the Canadian Red Ensign as a symbol of their movement meant to emphasise what they assert is their adherence to traditional Canadian values.

Um, OK. So my cousins are fascists? They fly the Red Ensign outside their house. I see them in lots o' places when I've driven around southern Ontario. (Yes, I can tell the difference between the Red Ensign and the Ontario provincial flag.)

My point is that this sentence should not exist in isolation. It is common in Canada to see the Red Ensign, just as it is common in America to see non-50 star US flags (I see 13, 48, and 45-star ones routinely, and the occasional 15-star 15-stripe one). This should be mentioned somehow. The way the article is written now is to imply that the Red Ensign is the Canadian equivalent of the Confederate flag, which is wildly unfair. A2Kafir 02:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said above I have no problem with qualifying the reference in order to make it clear that many individual Canadians fly the red ensign for traditional or historical reasons or out of monarchist sentiment and that most would oppose the attempt by fascist groups to appropriate the symbol. However, I think the attempt by fascist groups to appropriate the symbol merits a mention particularly as people start wondering why photos of skinheads carrying a red ensign are popping up around the internet and on tvAndyL 02:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Interesting: http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/002405.html It seems the fellow who runs this blog tried to have the Red Ensign on his web blog, along with others, but he had to discontinue it because "bigoted morons are linking to this piece as part of a crusade to link the Red Ensign to a racist agenda." Hmmm. Definitey worth a mention and a link. BTW, Canada has a monarch, so isn't being a Canadian monarchist redundant? And what about Canadian military veterans? My cousin was captured at the Dieppe Raid when he fought under the Red Ensign. Many veterans' parades use it. Isn't that quite a bit more notable as a few nutcase racists using it? A2Kafir 02:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Another interesting post: http://fim.ondragonswing.com/archives/006595.html A2Kafir 02:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would read "many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Canada have adopted the Canadian Red Ensign as a symbol" as meaning that everyone who flies the Red Ensign is a fascist. Also many other Wikipedia articles on symbols make note of their co-option by the far right e.g. celtic cross, sun cross. - SimonP 02:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Heads up

OK, it turns out there is a concerted leftist effort to call the Red Ensign racist. It is the lead link on: http://againstallflags.blogspot.com/ at the moment. THIS definitely merits mention. A2Kafir 02:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cause and effect. The use of the Canadian Red Ensign by far right and neo-nazi groups in Canada over the past few years has led to the response you cite. If they weren't using it there wouldn't be a "concerted effort", leftist or otherwise, to call the red ensign anything other than an historical banner. As for the query on monarchists, living in a monarchy does not automatically make you a monarchist. In fact, the number of Canadians who are either strongly monarchist or strongly anti-monarchist is relatively small. Most people are passive on the question but yes, those who are passionately monarchist (eg members of the Monarchist League of Canada), are more likely to support the Red Ensign a traditional emblem but not even the MLC or the Royal Canadian Legion call for the Canadian Red Ensign to be restored as Canada's national flag, only the aforementioned far right neo-nazi groups do that at present. AndyL 03:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flying or displaying the flag is a bit different than saying it should supplant the Maple Leaf. The page, as written, implys that many people flying the flag are racists. It should, at a minimum, mention veterans etc. as discussed above, AND the leftist backlash against the Red Ensign prompted by a few, very small racist groups. A2Kafir 03:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One blog entry does not a "leftist backlash" make. The number of fascist websites displaying the red ensign are far greater than the number (one) of leftist websites that decry this practice. As I've said, though, I agree that the attempted appropriation of the Canadian Red Ensign by fascists should be placed in context and that it should be made clear that most people who display the red ensign are not fascists. However, this should not preclude mentioning tha there *is* an attempt by fascists to appropriate the symbol. AndyL 03:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By a small group of them, maybe. Is there a citation you can find where they openly proclaim themselves and say "and the Red Ensign is our symbol!"? One snapshot of a few nutters isn't enough. For all I know, that was staged for the cameraman to smear the image of the flag. A2Kafir 03:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Flying or displaying the flag is a bit different than saying it should supplant the Maple Leaf. " This is true. AFAIK the only groups that advocate the replacement of the maple leaf with the red ensign are neo-nazi and fascist groups. This should be mentioned along with the fact that many other people who are not fascist display the red ensign for reasons of tradition and history while accepting the maple leaf as the national flag. AndyL 03:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my POV, AndyL is attempting to label the Red Ensign Facist Symbol

AndyL,

I openly accuse you AndyL of POV-pushing, with the intent to label the old Canadian Red Ensign a Facist Symbol. I will fight your attempt tooth-and-nail.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make sure you are well aware of the Three revert rule. - SimonP 03:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Specifics

Image:Fromm paul ensign.jpg
Paul Fromm features this photograph at the beginning of his videos and in many of his publications
Image:Scummarch.jpg
March in London, Ontario, April 2003 by neo-fascists protesting Canada's new hate crimes law
Image:Scumlogo.jpg
logo of the anti-immigrant, nativist Canada First Immigration Reform Committee featuring the Canadian Red Ensign

See this blog entry Red Ensign: Flag of Cranks and this one While this website does have a definite "leftist" POV the citations it lists are correct.I don't think the blog merits mentioning in the article but it could be listed as an external link and described as a "left wing anti-Red Ensign" site. The following far-right nativist and neo-nazi groups now advocate the adoption of the red ensign and Canada's national flag:

These groups are in addition to the aforementioned Canadian Heritage Alliance (neo-Nazi group) which offers Red Ensigns for sale, Canada First Immigration Committee/Canadians for Foreign Aid Reform/Canadian Association for Free Expression (Paul Fromm) and the Northern Alliance (neo-Nazi). AndyL 18:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also this interview carried on the white supremacist webcast American Dissident Voices hosted by Kevin Strom of the National Alliance. AndyL 03:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello SimonP,

Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. I appreciate that alot.


Make sure you are well aware of the Three revert rule. - SimonP 03:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Don, if we lift page protection do you agree not to revert the page so we can modify the article as described above or are you completely unwilling to compromise?AndyL 03:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)



AndyL,

Why would ordinary Canadians NOT want the Red Ensign re-instated? I do. The present Canadian Maple Leaf Flag is a Canada French Republican Tri-colour.The Dominion of Canada is not a Republic. It is a Constitutional-Monarchy, and a member of the British Commonwealth. Canada's present Maple Leaf Flag is French Republican. It does not represent English-Canadians. Not at all.


No. I will NOT agree to any linkage of the Red Ensign to Facist groups. It is my opinion that your basis for advocating that observation is biased, heavily slanted, and not significant.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the main point of discussion, but wouldn't a flag have to have three colours to be a tricolour? CJCurrie 04:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A2kafir asks: "Is there a citation you can find where they openly proclaim themselves and say "and the Red Ensign is our symbol!"? One snapshot of a few nutters isn't enough. For all I know, that was staged for the cameraman to smear the image of the flag. A2Kafir 03:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Melissa Guille, leader of the white supremacist Canadian Heritage Alliance writes: Fellow Nationalists! Canadian Heritage Alliance would like to wish you a happy Dominion Day! May your celebrations be joyous and remind people this is the day we honour the Red Ensign and the Canada our ancestors built.

The Canadian Heritage Alliance sells the red ensign online here

And check out this page form their site: [1] from Paul Fromm

“Fly the Red Ensign for Freedom”
…and that is what several groups did who came together peacefully to march on Sunday April 27.03, demonstrating their disapproval of the proposed Hate-Free Policy threatening the basic rights of freedom for Londoners.
The Canadian Association for Free Expression, Northern Alliance, Canadian Heritage Alliance, and supporters marched proudly beneath the Red Ensign to peacefully protest Debbie Lee’s discriminatory and fanatical “Hate Free Policy” that aims to limit the activities and maintain a database on citizens who do not fit the political agenda of the day.
As the groups marched, they were closely monitored by the London Youth and Hate Crimes Unit.
Sgt. Don McKinnon and Const. Christine Weston (possibly Terry Wilson’s replacement) spent their Sunday afternoon taking pictures of the citizens who had gathered for the march.
Why would a free speech march agitate the London police enough to send out and pay two officers to document the activities and the people present? Free speech is a basic right for ALL citizens in a Western country.
When did free speech become criminal? Political police?
The fanatical Const. Christine Weston has decided that she should investigate Melissa Guille of the Canadian Heritage Alliance further, which included contacting clients of her freelance web host/design business.
Guille is a mother and respectable citizen. She has no criminal record. So, why would Weston want to use her badge to arouse suspicion in Guille’s clients? Is there a shortage of violent criminal activity? The impression Sgt. McKinnon and Const. Weston are making is that violent crime is not a threat to the community (of course they can keep weapons)...but god forbid should you dissent from political correctness.
It’s obvious the goal is no longer serving and protecting the community, instead it’s watching for dissent. Doesn’t that make you feel safer?

Check out this photo the rally also made the local newspaper AndyL 03:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


news report

Image:Ensignlfp.JPG
Click here to enlarge

April 28, 2003 Marchers protest hate-free proposal By Joe Belanger, Free Press reporter

A former Toronto teacher fired for associating with white supremacists marched through downtown London yesterday to protest the city's proposal for a hate-free community. Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression joined seven other people, including representatives of two white supremacist grouops - Northern Alliance and Canadian Heritage Alliance - in the march from the cenotaph at Victoria park (click photo of newspaper article to read more)

Image:Ensignmarch.JPG
Another photo from the march

AndyL 04:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amusing to me to see the signs. They just say "Free speech for all." What's wrong with that? In the States, nothing. But I remember when Detroit newspapers were treated as contraband at the Canadian border because they reported on some trial in Canada that some judge said the people were verboten to know about. Sounded a bit, well, fascist to me. But I guess I'm just a dumb American. :) A2Kafir 04:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Possible Solution

My thoughts:

(i) The fact that far-right and neo-nazi groups in Canada have attempted to adopt (or co-opt) the Red Ensign as "their" symbol is indisputable, and has been documented in several sources. This information is historically significant, both as regards the evolving "cultural significance" of the flag, and as an insight into the propaganda methods of Canada's far-right networks. It is, therefore, worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.

(ii) Obviously, the Red Ensign is not used *exclusively* by far-right and neo-nazi groups in Canada. I gather from the above discussion that no-one is opposed to qualifying the current passage so as indicate that many individuals outside the political fringe have a personal connection to the flag, and are willing display it on regular occasions.

(iii) My solution would be to create a sub-section of the article entitled "The Red Ensign in Recent Decades" (or "The Red Ensign since 1960", or "The Red Ensign as a Political Symbol", or other words to that effect). This sub-section could include (i) John Diefenbaker's attempts to establish/retain the RE as Canada's national flag, (ii) efforts by conservative-but-not-far-right groups like the Orange Order to mobilize support for the RE in the 1960s, (iii) the continuing use of the flag by monarchists and others in the political "mainstream", and (iv) the recent use of the flag by far-right groups (+ whatever else may be appropriate).

This approach would allow all relevant information to be covered, while also ensuring that no sensible reader would come away from the article thinking that *only* fringe groups in Canada, and their supporters, still display the RE.

Does this seem reasonable? CJCurrie 04:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much better than what's there now. A2Kafir 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This would seem to require an article on the Canadian ensign in and of itself. I've created a Canadian Red Ensign as the beginning for such an article though I haven't yet sectioned it. Feel free to develop as necessary but I'd appreciate if, in the spirit of compromise, editors refrain from removing material they disagree with. It would make more sense to contextualize than to censor. Let's try to avoid the need for article protection. AndyL 04:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Now that a separate page for Canada has been created, I don't think it's necessary to include the Fromm reference on the main RE page. CJCurrie 05:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News Flash: Aryan Nations Fly the USA Flag

Aryan Nations Fly USA Flag

http://images.google.com/images?q=naziandoldglory.jpg&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi

By AndyL's absurdly low bench-mark, the USA Flag page here on Wikipedia, should have the USA Flag linked to the Aryan Nations.

Sieg Heil.

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 04:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Point well taken. Nutters in the US use the present and past US flags in their parades. Yet no one but the whacko leftists in the USA consider the flag a symbol of fascists.A2Kafir 04:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The stars and stripes is the national flag of the US and is thus used by literally hundreds of thousands of groups and hundreds of millions of people therefore use by one particular group is not significant. The Canadian Red Ensign is not a national flag and is not widely used thus those groups that do use it are worth noting, particularly those groups that advocate it as Canada's national flag. Don is using a false analogy by comparing use of the red ensign by neo-nazis with use of the stars and stripes. AndyL 04:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evolving Cultural Significance?

CJCurie,

Two "r"s, that should be. As in Arthur Currie, not as in Marie Curie. CJCurrie 04:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What cultural significance? Would you advocate linking the USA Flag page to its USAGE by the ARYAN NATIONS?

The difference is that the US flag is currently used as a national flag, and is regularly displayed in public by a large percentage of the American population. Although the Red Ensign is hardly obscure in Canada, it is *not* displayed by the majority of the population on a regular basis. (I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians have no strong opinions about the RE one way or the other).
When far-right groups co-opt a cultural symbol like the Red Ensign for their own purposes, it becomes notable. The intent of Fromm's group is to use the RE as a tool of cultural exclusivity -- and this *is* significant to the evolving cultural meaning of the symbol.
Look ... I wouldn't argue for a moment that *everyone* who displays the Red Ensign is a fascist, or entertains far-right tendencies. My family used to have a Red Ensign on display, beside a Canadian flag, at our summer camp area (the flags might still be there; I haven't visited in a while). I always took this as a display of the evolving history of the nation, not as indicating any far-right tendencies. While I don't personally have any strong feelings toward the RE, I'll admit to being somewhat irritated that a far-right group would co-opt an historical symbol from Canada's past (even an exclusively "British" one) for their own purposes. All the same, the fact that they've done so strikes me as noteworthy.
My suggestion for a compromise solution still stands. CJCurrie 04:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Aryan Nations USAGE of USA Flag

http://images.google.com/images?q=naziandoldglory.jpg&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi


Well, would you?


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Also check out this interview with the white supremacist magazine National Vanguard. KAS is US Neo-Nazi leader Kevin Strom of the National Alliance, PF is Paul Fromm:

KAS: Another thing I remember from our trips across Canada was the red ensign flag of Canada, flying everywhere; the flag with the Canadian shield in the main red section, and the British Union Jack in the upper left. That flag symbolized a connection, a common heritage of our two countries, the Anglo-Saxon heritage which is still commemorated in Hawaii's flag and which was also used in the American 'Grand Union' flag as well. Now that red ensign has been replaced by the maple leaf flag in Canada, yet you, at your protests and at your meetings, still use the red ensign. What's the reason for that? Can you explain the symbolism of that flag?
PF: That flag, as far as we are concerned, is the flag of the real Canada. And as a technical point, it was never actually delisted as Canada's flag. They added the maple leaf flag, and most people consider that the new flag of Canada, but the old red ensign was never decommissioned or delisted -- so it is also an official flag. This change was made in 1965 -- isn't that coincidental? -- the year they changed the immigration policy.
My analysis of that is that when you're about to utterly change a country, you don't want the old symbols around, because the symbols will clash with the new order you're trying to create. Their criticism of the old red ensign was that it stressed our European heritage -- you've got the Union Jack in the top left, which correctly emphasized the fact that our legal system and our political system derives from Britain. Of course, multiculturalism is very uncomfortable with that: We're supposed to believe that everybody contributed equally; the natives of the Congo, the denizens of Samoa, all contributed every bit as much to Canada as the founding European people. So the old symbolism was inconvenient.
Also the crest was filled with reminders of our European heritage -- it contained the crests of the French, the Irish, and the Scots; and then the three maple leaves joined together at the bottom of the crest, which were originally green maple leaves, symbolized the founding European peoples. This can be read a number of ways, but the founding European peoples -- the French, the English, and then the others who came later, all united to create the one.
It was a very powerful and very dramatic flag. I believe that the real reason it was changed in favor of the new one was not to have a reminder there of what Canada was.
KAS: Does the red ensign still fly anywhere in Canada?
PF: Oh, yes. We fly it at all our protests, we fly it at meetings, and a lot of our members wear it as a cap badge or a jacket badge. We've got a lot of young people, and it's become the symbol you'll see from coast to coast. And other young people who look at it know what it means. And it's interesting that it is most popular among people who were born long after it had stopped being used as Canada's flag.
KAS: So, in a way, it's a symbol of both tradition and rebellion.
PF: Yes, exactly. A symbol of tradition and rebellion. A little bit like the battle flag of the Confederacy is in your country.

Summation of ArmChairVexillologistsDon POV

(1). AndyL is a left-wing crank.

(2). AndyL views the Red Ensign as a symbol of Hate.

(3). AndyL wants to use Wikipedia's high profile, and respected creditibilty, to spread his "Hate Label" across the planet.


I will not sit by passively, and allow AndyL to use Wikipedia as his "personal Pulpit."


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 04:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hello CJCurrie,

I'm very sorry that I mispelled your name. It is Currie with "rr", got it man. My spelling is not best at times. Sorry.

Next up,


The difference is that the US flag is currently used as a national flag, and is regularly displayed in public by a large percentage of the American population. Although the Red Ensign is hardly obscure in Canada, it is *not* displayed by the majority of the population on a regular basis. (I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians have no strong opinions about the RE one way or the other).


I personally do not fly the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. I view it as a "French Republican Tri-colour" that was froced upon the Canadian Nation as the result of the political dirty tricks of the Liberal Pearson Goverment. I'm only in my 30s, the Maple Leaf Flag is older than me. But I know my Flags, and I've done extensive research on this.


What AndyL is trying to do is to build up the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag as he terms it as the Multi-culturalist Flag of Canada. I view it as the French Rag that Pearson snookered us into buying (the lying SOB). AndyL wants to hurt the old Red Ensign by labeling it a symbol of Hate. If AndyL hurts the Red Ensign, he then indirectly builds up the Canadian Maple Leaf.


That is my opinion, on the present state of the dispute, between AndyL and I.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 04:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted at least one or two points on this issue.
I won't go into your comments on the origins of the Canadian flag, though suffice it to say that I have some difficulties with your analysis.


Diffculty with my analysis CJCurrie,
Canadian Maple Leaf Flag

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca.gif

Proposed 1920 Quebec Flag

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-qc!20.gif

The link between the parentage of these Flags is unmistakable.
Again, I won't get into this. CJCurrie 05:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's more important to the present discussion is your apparent belief that AndyL is attempting to "hurt" the Red Ensign so as to "build up" the Maple Leaf. While I can't speak for his intentions, I can find two basic problems with your logic.
First, I'm not at all convinced that it "hurts" the RE in a broader, cultural sense to point out that it's currently being co-opted by the far-right. The cultural meaning of the flag has changed over time, and I suspect that it means rather different things to rather different people these days -- at best, it's a glimpse into a shared national past; at worst, a sign of cultural belligerence. Pointing out the use of the RE by groups like Fromm's does *not* nullify other possible meanings of the flag. I've heard non-white monarchists such as Anne Cools argue that the Canada's historical link to Britain should be taken as a sign of cultural diversity and toleration (she specifically referenced the British Empire's more enlightened policy on the slave trade than that of the US in the 19C, when I spoke with her on this matter a few years ago). I'm certain that she'd consider Fromm's use of the Red Ensign to be near-blasphemy. If you or others want to create (or promote) a more "culturally open" meaning of the RE to combat Fromm and his lot, go ahead. But this doesn't mean that the use of the symbol by Fromm and others should go *unreported*.
Second, I think you're making a serious logical error by assuming that anything which "hurts" the Red Ensign is meant to promote the Red Maple Leaf. The current discussion has *absolutely, postively nothing* to do with the present Canadian Flag. I mean nothing. At all. To assume that there is such a connection is to indulge in a false dichotomy on the situation. CJCurrie 05:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Red Ensign, The Grand Union, The Hawaii Flag, and The Blue Ensign

They are all Flags of the British Navy Jack Design. Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii (the Sandwich Islands) where all British Colonies. We all share a common culture, the English-Speaking Culture.


the flag with the Canadian shield in the main red section, and the British Union Jack in the upper left. That flag symbolized a connection, a common heritage of our two countries, the Anglo-Saxon heritage which is still commemorated in Hawaii's flag and which was also used in the American 'Grand Union' flag as well.


The above Flag observations are correct.

The USA's Grand Union Flag (1775-1777 AD)

http://flagspot.net/images/u/us-gu.gif

Canadian Red Ensign (until 1964 AD)

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-1957.gif

Australian Blue Ensign

http://flagspot.net/images/a/au.gif

New Zealand Blue Ensign

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nz.gif

Hawaii State Flag

http://flagspot.net/images/u/us-hi.gif


Additionally,


Their criticism of the old red ensign was that it stressed our European heritage -- you've got the Union Jack in the top left, which correctly emphasized the fact that our legal system and our political system derives from Britain.
Also the crest was filled with reminders of our European heritage -- it contained the crests of the French, the Irish, and the Scots; and then the three maple leaves joined together at the bottom of the crest, which were originally green maple leaves, symbolized the founding European peoples. This can be read a number of ways, but the founding European peoples -- the French, the English, and then the others who came later, all united to create the one. It was a very powerful and very dramatic flag.


The French-Speaking part of Canada was recognised by the Banner of Royalist France(the three Golden Fleur-de-lis on a blue background), that was present on the shield of the Coat-of-Arms of Canada, present in the Red Ensign field,

Royalist France

http://flagspot.net/images/f/fr-3b.gif

Canadian Coat-of-Arms (1957-1994 AD)

http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/flagdisplay/images/web/panel1-1.jpg


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 05:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, I won't get into this. CJCurrie 06:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CJCurrie: The Maple Leaf Flag is a Canadian French Republican Tri-colour

Hello CJCurrie,

You wrote below,

I won't go into your comments on the origins of the Canadian flag, though suffice it to say that I have some difficulties with your analysis.


Diffculty with my analysis CJCurrie,

Canadian Maple Leaf Flag

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca.gif

Proposed 1920 Quebec Flag

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-qc!20.gif

The link between the parentage of these Flags is unmistakable.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon



Again, I won't get into this. CJCurrie 06:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hello CJCurrie,


For your interest, please have a look at the this website,

CBC's The Great Canadian Flag Debate


Closure Ends Flag Debate

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-80-301/politics_economy/canada_flag/clip5

40 years later, and it is still going eh.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 06:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Explaination of Bi-Colours and Tri-colours

Hello CJCurrie,



Please review, French Republican Tri-colour (Blue-White-Red)

http://flagspot.net/flags/fr.html

http://flagspot.net/images/f/fr.gif


Peru Flag (Red-White-Red) Tri-colour

http://flagspot.net/flags/pe.html

http://flagspot.net/images/p/pe.gif


Canadian Maple Leaf (Red-White-Red) Tri-colour

http://flagspot.net/flags/ca.html

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca.gif



A tri-colour Flag is composed of THREE REGIONS (not necessarily three colours).

A bi-colour is similarly composed of TWO REGIONS.


Vertical Regions' (up-and-down) are called Pales.

e.g., Early Quebec St. Jean Bapstiste Flag (ca. 1840)

http://flagspot.net/flags/ca-qcsjb.html

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-qc{j2.gif

(a vertical bi-colour, with Green-White Pales)


Franco-Ontarien Flag (1975 AD)

http://flagspot.net/flags/ca-on.html#Ontarois

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-f-ont.gif

(a vertical bi-colour, with Green-White Pales, with a White Jean d'Arc Fleur-de-lis, and a Green Trilium, blazoned on the left and right Pales, respeectively).


Horizontal Regions' (left-to-right) are called Fesses.

The first Revolutionary Tri-colour was used by Protestant (Lutheran) Dutch, who declared the Independence of the Republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands in 1582 AD. The Dutch War of Independence (1581-1648 AD) resulted in the Spanish Netherlands breaking away from Spain.


Their Revolutionary Republican Tri-colour was known as the Prinsevlag,

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nl-princ.gif


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 07:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requested unprotection.

Has everyone come to an agreement? Where is the other article mentioned in WP:RFPP? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

    • Please leave links in the future. Have now unprotected, but will keep watching. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

A new look

I've just read over this debate for the first time. I was not previously involved or aware of this debate. I have to side with AndyL and CJCurrie on this. I do not accept the contention that AndyL is trying to smear the RE by linking it to neonazi groups. He has made a solid case that those groups are trying to take possession of the flag, and that merits mention in the CRE article. The changes that he has proposed to clarify that use of the CRE does not imply support for those groups address the concerns that have been raised by others. it seems pretty clear that ArmchairVexillologistDon is too close to this debate to bea ble to determine what is NPOV. For the record, I fly the CRE on Dominion Day alongside the Maple Leaf for historical reasons, and will continue to do so to ensure that it does not become a neonazi flag. There are my two cents. Kevintoronto 14:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said. Even supporters of the Red Ensign who oppose the extremist groups should note with concern the extremist groups' attempts to make the Ensign theirs, rather than whitewash the issue away. Samaritan 15:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for moving "it" off the front page

Hello,

Thank you very much for moving the "said Facist links" off the front page of Wikipedia's Red Ensign area. I am very happy that "it" is now not the first thing you see.

Additional Information Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Red_Ensign


Most supporters of the Canadian Red Ensign, however, reject attempts by white supremacists to co-opt the symbol and decry attempts to associate the Canadian Red Ensign with racist views.


Thank you so much for saying that very clearly. I can not thank you, and Wikipedia enough. The page which you have added, in my opinion, is excellent. It presents all the facts, within their context, in a fair balanced, and informative fashion. In my opinion I feel that you have done a great service to the history of the Red Ensign, and Wikipedia. Thank you again for this kind, fair, balanced, and very professional encyclopedia entry.



Thank you very much indeed.


Sincerely,

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 17:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


AndyL: "False Analogy Rebutal" is the typical complaint of the HairSpliter

AndyL,

You wrote below,

The stars and stripes is the national flag of the US and is thus used by literally hundreds of thousands of groups and hundreds of millions of people therefore use by one particular group is not significant. The Canadian Red Ensign is not a national flag and is not widely used thus those groups that do use it are worth noting, particularly those groups that advocate it as Canada's national flag. Don is using a false analogy by comparing use of the red ensign by neo-nazis with use of the stars and stripes. AndyL 04:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Points-of-Order

(i). You noted the usage of the Red Ensign by Neo-Nazis.

(ii). I noted the usage of the Stars-and-Stripes by Neo-Nazis.

(iii). I ascerted that if observation (i) was "WORTHY" of note, then observation (ii), was equally "WORTHY" of note


AndyL, you ascerted that I, ArmchairVexillologistDon was using False Analogy when formulating observation (iii). False Analogy is referenced on Wikipedia as listed below,


False Analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy


False analogy is a logical fallacy applying to inductive arguments.
In an analogy two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). Unfortunately, in the case of a false analogy, A and B are only superficially similar (if that) and are different in some fundamental way which influences their relationship with property X.


Now, the Canadian Red Ensign was Canada's National Flag until 1965 AD. The USA Flag is the USA's National Flag. So until 1965 AD, they are indentical, for the purposes of arguement.

So you argued that the Canadian Red Ensign usage by Facists was relavent because it was not Canada's current National Flag, and they advocated its re-instatement.


Your arguement is based on the follows premises,

(a). only Facists groups advocate its re-instatement,

(b). the 1965 AD replacement was adopted by consensus,


I fundamentally disagree with BOTH premise (a), and (b).


So what about premise (a)? One does not need an Organisation to advocate a Flag. Ordinary individual citizens can advocate the re-instatement of the old Red Ensign.


As well, premise (b) has been contested in Canada, going on 40 years now. I myself advocate the re-instatement of the old Red Ensign, and or a new Flag design with BOTH the Union Jack, and the Fleur-de-lis in it.


At any rate, you and I, AndyL are polar-opposites in the way we see things, so it is very likely that we would never agree on anything.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 02:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


AndyL: Ontario's and Manitoba's Red Ensigns appear to be on your Hit-List

AndyL, it seems your "love" of the Red Ensign is not "limited" to the Canadian Red Ensign (1867-1964 AD), but you seem to favour the replacement of the Provincal Red Ensigns as well.


You (according to the website history logs) favour the inclusion of the following "replacing the Red Ensigns" links posted below,


Replacement of Ontario Red Ensign with French Republican Tri-colour

http://makepeace.ca/on/en/


Replacement of the Manitoba Red Ensign with a "Stylised Buffalo"

http://www.mts.net/~hajones/portfol/flag.htm#flag


Neither of these Red Ensigns (the Ontario, and the Manitoba) have even been touched by any Facist groups. 'So, it would seem that you AndyL have a systematic Adgenda to get rid of all Canada's Red Ensigns.


It would seem, that you AndyL are anti-British Commonwealth, eh.


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 04:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon, I think you're spending far too much time worrying about AndyL' background and percieved biases. It looks personal, a bit obsessive and, to be brutally honest, not very big of you. (I'm not saying this, myself, to cut you down at all; I'm just hoping you're a reasonable fellow who can adjust his course.) If these serious enough sites are advocating replacing the Ontario and Manitoba ensigns, a supporter of the Red Ensign would very much want to know about movement afoot to replace; I'd imagine a hypothetical mainstream, anti-racist, pro-Red Ensign web discussion board or email list would be buzzing about these very sites. AndyL is dealing here in pure facts that are just about as neutral as you can get. If he didn't add what he's added that you've protested, somebody else: perhaps an interested reader with no prior biases from abroad with curiosity and a search engine; perhaps a dismayed Red Ensign supporter, etc. - could add them just as well. Samaritan 05:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moreover there is no evidence that AndyL added the links in question to those pages. - SimonP 06:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In fact I did not add those links though I don't see the problem with either of them. Certainly not with the Manitoba link given its origins with a Winnipeg Free Press contest (thus making it newsworthy).AndyL 08:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Resolution

I've been asked to see what I can do to help resolve this dispute. To start, would some people please quickly tell me what's going on? I'd obviously like multiple sides of the story. Snowspinner 07:57, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The dispute has actually been resolved. Don is continuing his personal attacks, however, for no discernable reason. AndyL 08:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


AndyL,

Yes. You got your own Canadian Red Ensign page. Fine by me.

The dispute has actually been resolved. Don is continuing his personal attacks, however, for no discernable reason. AndyL 08:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


What is the first things you do?

(i). Say I used "False Analogy" with the Star-and-Stripes Aryan Nations thing?

(ii). Stick on the Manitoba Red Ensign page a link to replacing its own Red Ensign with a "Stylized Buffalo" from that left-wing rag the Winnipeg Free Press (aka "Canada GladFly", i.e., annoying pain in the ass).


So yaa. I got fed up.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 08:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(sigh) Actually, the link you mention on the Flag of Manitoba page was added on July 31st by User:65.94.226.54 (see here). Since my complaint against you has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee perhaps you should redirect your attention there?AndyL 08:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don, you and Andy are both independent-minded young Canadian men who hold earnestly to minority political views, are concerned about the appropriation of the Red Ensign by neo-Nazis, and care enough about this crazy free encyclopedia to get into these lonnng threads about it. You may be more alike than you'd like to admit. :) On this note, can we say vive la difference, or at least let's live with it, and let it go? Samaritan 08:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hello Samaritan,

You are probably right, on alot of scores. I guess it would be best to "let it go". So I'll do just that. As per the "arbitartion commtitee" looking at what I've said about AndyL, I stand by every word I've said.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 14:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The Union Jack is Canada's Offical Alternate Standard since Feb 15, 1965

The Ontario Flag was around since 1905 AD


Manitoba Coat-of-Arms Granted 1905 AD

http://homeschooling.about.com/library/blcambcoat.htm

The Coat-of-Arms of the Province of Manitoba was granted in 1905 AD. The Red Ensign of Manitoba has been in existance since 1905 AD.


Please correct your page accordingly AndyL.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Ontario Flag was around since 1868 AD


Ontario Coat-of-Arms Granted 1868 AD

http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/coaONT.htm


The Coat-of-Arms of the Province of Ontario was granted in 1868 AD. The Red Ensign of Ontario has been in existance since 1868 AD.


Please correct your page accordingly AndyL.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ontario had no official flag until the legislative assembly passed the Flag Act in 1965.AndyL 07:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)



The Royal Union Flag in Canada

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb.gif

by Zeljko Heimer http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca.html#current The "Royal Union Flag" (British Union Flag) is a current "official" flag of Canada per act of parliament of December 18, 1964, to "show allegiance to the crown and as a symbol of Canadian membership in the Commonwealth". It is required to be flown at Canadian federal government facilities (if sufficient poles are available) on Victoria Day, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminister (Dec 11), and Commonwealth day. The national flag (maple leaf) takes precedence in all cases except during a royal visit.

My personal observation in southern Ontario is that it is infrequently used, although it can be seen occasionally. Kevin McNamara, 31 October 1998


One of the "concessions" which the advocates of the new (Maple Leaf) national flag of Canada granted to those in favour of the erstwhile Canadian Red Ensign was the formal recognition of the Union Jack as a flag of Canada, (where, in official Canadian parlance -- as I'm certain many of you know -- it is formally referred to as the "Royal Union Flag"). This was done via a resolution of the federal Canadian Parliament on 18 December 1964 wherein "Parliament approves the continued us of the Union flag as a symbol of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as our continued allegiance to the Crown".

The practical result of this resolution is that the Union Jack is to be flown alongside the Canadian national flag at all federal government buildings, airports, and military bases on special occasions, "such as the Queen's Birthday, and on the anniversary of the passing of the Statute of Westminster by the Imperial Parliament", on 11 December 1931.

[The Statute of Westminster, by the way, is the piece of British legislation wherein it was formally declared that all the self-governing Dominions of the Empire/Commonwealth and Britain were constitutionally "equal in status", with "no member subordinate in any way" to another. Until this Statute was passed, there was still considerable confusion about the legal status of the Dominions on the international stage; although we had been self-governing, internally, for almost 100 years, all our foreign affairs were, more-or-less, supposed to be conducted via London. The Statue of Westminster formally changed that -- and, in fact, there is a school of thought which asserts that 11 December is the real independence day for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.]

I actually put this to the test last time I was home on the Queen's Birthday: I randomly drove around Ottawa and found that out of 21 federal government buildings I came across with the capacity to implement the resolution (i.e.., those with a second flag pole, since the National Flag must also be flown), 19 complied. That was in May 1992.

One last point: although it is true that we general still say "Victoria Day", in fact, the formal title has been for quite some time "the Queen's Official Birthday" (with the added implication of "in Canada"). We are not technically celebrating Queen Victoria's birthday, but rather the reigning sovereign's birthday. The same thing occurs in the UK -- the Queen's actual birth date is 21 April, but the official celebration is in June. Glen R. Hodgins, 23 May 2000


AndyL,


From 1868-1965 AD the Province of Ontario used the Red Ensign with the Coat-of-Arms of Ontario in the red field. It was the unoffical Flag. Nevertheless, it was used. Similiarly, From 1905-1966 AD the Province of Ontario used the Red Ensign with the Coat-of-Arms of Manitoba in the red field. It was the unoffical Flag. Nevertheless, it was used.


Therefore, the 'Ontario Red Ensign was used as the defacto Flag of Ontario since 1868 AD. It was not "designated as offical until 1965 AD. Nevertheless, the Ontario Red Ensign has been flow by the Provincal Government of Ontario since 1868 AD. And it has been offically flown since 1965 AD.

Once again, therefore, the Manitoba Red Ensign was used as the defacto Flag of Manitoba since 1905 AD. It was not "designated as offical until 1966 AD. Nevertheless, the Ontario Red Ensign has been flow by the Provincal Government of Ontario since 1905 AD. And it has been offically flown since 1966 AD.


Don you are wrong about the Ontario and Manitoba red ensigns. You are falsely assuming that those provinces' flags were created at the same time as their coats of arms but you are wrong. See this article which reads:
By the end of the year, when it was clear that the Canadian Red Ensign would not become the national flag of Canada, Manitoba began to consider a suitable provincial flag. The choice, a red ensign bearing the arms of Manitoba on the fly, was passed by an act of the Legislature on May 11, 1965. However, this flag bore the Union Flag, a royal badge, in the canton, so permission to use it had to be sought from the Queen. Royal assent was given in October, and the government chose May 12, 1966 as the day to have the flag come into effect.


AndyL,

I am an "arm-chair" Vexillologist. I do not have a degree in it. But neither do you. Vexillology is my hobby, and I have studied and researched it intensively.


In the mid-1960s, the Ontario Red Ensign had been unoffically used since 1868 AD. Similarly the Manitoba Red Ensign had been unoffically used since 1905 AD.



ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 18:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Warning to AndyL : Do not delete my Ontario/Manitoba Red Ensign entries

AndyL,

Do not delete my Ontario/Manitoba Red Ensign entries. If you do, I shall consider it VANDALISM BY YOU. Then I shall be forced to request ARBITARTION on BOTH the Ontario, and Manitoba Red Ensign pages.

I have a bookcase of Heraldy (Coats-of-Arms, Family Crests), and Vexillology (Study of Flags) books. I have studied them intensively, as I derive great pleasure from doing so. The Ontario and Manitoba Red Ensigns are illustrated and referenced "at the turn of the century" (that is around 1900-1910). I have the books to prove it. I shall buy a SCANNER, and scan them in here for all to see, if it will shut you up.


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 19:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's try to settle down a bit. The links to Alistair B. Fraser's Flags of Canada seem to be pretty clear that these REs were not used officially, and I think that we all agree on this. The question then is whether they were used popularly, and unofficially by the governments. For that, we should have some evidence. Don, perhaps you could go to a photocopy shop and scan in a page or two, or at least provided the bibliographic deatils so that your arguments can be verified independently. In the meantime, I am going to tidy up the formatting on the Ontario page. It is bad form to use bold text to emphasise your argument in the text of an article. Kevintoronto 22:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see it's already taken care of. How about we leave the page as is until evidence is provided as I've described above, and then the change can be made at that time? This way, an edit war is avoided, and we avoid having unverified information in the article. Kevintoronto 22:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see someone added Australia's

New Zealand has one too, right?A2Kafir 20:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


AndyL : Andy has committed vandalism of the Ontario/Manitoba Red Ensign Pages

The Coat-of-Arms of Ontario was granted in 1868 AD. Thus, the Provincal Government unoffically used the Ontario Red Ensign from 1868-1965 AD. In 1965 AD, they simply designated the already in use Red Ensign, as their offical Flag.


Similarily, The present day Coat-of-Arms of Manitoba was granted in 1905 AD. Thus, the Provincal Government unoffically used the Manitoba Red Ensign from 1905-1966 AD. In 1966 AD, they simply designated the already in use Red Ensign, as their offical Flag.


These are facts.

I have the books to prove it. As the Christmas season is tight for cash, I may or may not buy a scanner. If I do, I shall scan in the information and post it here. Until then AndyL's act of VANDALISM of the Ontario and Manitoba Red Ensign pages will stand.'


AndyL, you are a vindicative vandaliser, and I amazed that Wikipedia has you as an editor.


BTW, before the 1948 AD Fleur-de-lis Flag the province of Quebec had a Blue Ensign Flag. In the Blue field the 1868 AD Coat-of-Arms of Quebec was placed. The Quebec Flag page is in GROSS ERROR by incorrectly stating that Quebec previously had a Red Ensign. It NEVER had a Red Ensign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Quebec

From 1868-1948 AD Quebec had a BLUE ENSIGN.

If anyone actually cares.

Hey AndyL, perhaps you could take a break form you apparent favourite activity of VANDALSING FACTUAL ENTRIES, and actually CORRECT a GROSS FACTUAL ERROR in the Quebec Flag page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Quebec


'Quebec Blue Ensign

Flag of 1868 (only official design after 1920)

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca-qchis.html

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/c/ca-qc192.gif

Its is a BLUE Ensign, NOT a Red Ensign. The Red and Blue colour have different meanings (not that I could write this here, without you VANDALISING IT).


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,

I'm gonna say this for one last time, you block-head,


From 1868-1965 AD, the Red Ensign of Ontario, existed, and was flown. In 1965 AD, it was designated Ontario's OFFICAL FLAG.


Similarly, from 1905-1966 AD, the Red Ensign of Manitoba, existed, and was flown. In 1966 AD, it was designated Manitoba's OFFICAL FLAG.


After I prove this, I intend to write directly to "Jimbo" Wales, and request to have you fired as Administer/Editor.

I'm gonna call for your "Administrator/Editor" head.


ArmChairVBexilloglist DonArmchairVexillologistDon 23:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,

You wrote below,

Assertion is not fact. Where is your evidence?AndyL 23:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Here is what you have done,

(i). you have VANDALISED the Ontario, and Manitoba Red Ensign pages,

(ii). you are harrassing me by your repeated, out-of-hand dismisals of my contributions.

(iii). you are INANELY clinging to the "improper wording" of a biased source.

this article


Here is what is going to happen presuming you don't summarily ban me,


(iv). I'm gonna search the web for postable references, for WHAT I KNOW IS TRUE (as I have the books to prove it),

(v). If I can afford it, and I see a good deal on one I want, I'm gonna buy a scanner, and post the pictures out of my Flag books.


In the mean time, your VANDALISED ENTRIES will stand, and I won't bother to post ANY FLAG INFORMATION on main Wikipedia pages.

But, when I get my evidence, you have just given me grounds to request your removal from your present post of Administrator/Editor.


And, the beauty of it is this, you don't even realise how in the wrong you are AndyL, and how much ammunition with "Jimbo" Wales, that YOU have HANDED to me.


ArmChairVexillologistDon64.230.172.187 00:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


New Zealand

AndyL,

Just to let you know, I have added an entry on the Red Ensign of the Dominion of New Zealand. I have provided an EXACT REFERENCE, for my entry, (in fact I have purchased the said 1929 Book by Gordon, and I reading it now).

I ask you not to VANDALISE my entry.

Please.


The Dominion of New Zealand had an offical Civil Red Ensign, for use on land in 1902 AD. The Red Ensign was particularly popular with the Native Maori Tribes, who prefered the use of Red over the Blue.


http://flagspot.net/images/n/nz_civil.gif


Reference:
W.J. Gordon, "Flags of the World Past & Present Their Story & Associations", Frederick Wayne, and Co. LTD, London, New York, pp.101-103, Colour Plate p.103, (1929).


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 20:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


AndyL: That is one act of VANDALISM? Care to loose your Admin/Editor Status eh?

AndyL,

I put this back in.

I bought the 1929 book of Gordon.

Please stop interfering with rightful information.


The New Zealand Red Ensign was offically for Civil use on land, for the people of the Dominion of New Zealand.

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nz_civil.gif

Reference:
W.J. Gordon, "Flags of the World Past & Present Their Story & Associations", Frederick Wayne, and Co. LTD, London, New York, pp.101-103, Colour Plate p.103, (1929).

(Deletion of above Red Ensign Flag, Reference and Text, shall be reported to Sam Spade as VANDALISM).


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 23:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The sources I have checked state that the Red Ensign's use on land was confined to Maori lands and events and was not authorized for general use. - SimonP 02:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


AVD do you known if your source is the same thing as W.J. Gordon's A Manual of Flags, Incorporating Flags of the World published in 1933? - SimonP 02:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


SimonP and AndyL,


The book which I have puchased, and is sitting in front of me is listed below,

The New Zealand Red Ensign was offically for Civil use on land, for the people of the Dominion of New Zealand.

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nz_civil.gif

Reference:
W.J. Gordon, "Flags of the World Past & Present Their Story & Associations", Frederick Wayne, and Co. LTD, London, New York, pp.101-103, Colour Plate p.103, (1929).


Let me make me-self crystal clear, upon review of pp. 101-103 and the Colour Plate p.103, one can see the Civil Red Ensigns for use on land by the people of the Land for,

(i). the Dominion of Canada,

(ii). the Commonwealth of Australia,

(iii). the Dominion of New Zealand,

(iv). the Union of South Africa.

W.J. Gordon (1929 AD).

Interference in this matter is VANDALISM by you and AndyL.


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 07:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you interpret that passage as meaning that the Red Ensign was an official flag for all people of New Zealand? - SimonP 08:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


New Zealand Red Ensign was COMMONLY used by the people of NEW ZEALAND

More to come,


History of the New Zealand flag

1902- present The Current Flag


http://www.nzflag.com/history1902.cfm


Operative Passage (offical Civil usage on land 1902-1981 AD)

"The New Zealand Government therefore agreed to specifically limit the use of the Blue Ensign at sea to those 'vessels owned and used by the New Zealand Government', or where a warrant to fly the Ensign had been obtained from the Admiralty."


Officially the flag with the Southern Cross was for maritime purposes only but it gradually came to be used on land, even though the Union Jack remained the legal flag of New Zealand. Further confusion was caused by the introduction of a new International Code of Signals, which instituted a new signalling flag in 1899. The signalling flag was identical to the Southern Cross flag, except for the addition of a white disc surrounding the red stars. It too was for use at sea or in foreign ports; however, its use spread on shore to public buildings and commercial advertising, causing much consternation in the House of Representatives. During debates in Parliament it was harshly described as being 'mutilated' or 'an abortion' or more curiously, as 'a Hennessy's brandy capsule'. With the outbreak of the South African War in 1899 and its associated patriotism and flag-waving, the confusion surrounding the correct flag was an embarrassment to Premier Seddon.
Making the flag official
Seddon's response was to introduce the New Zealand Ensign and Code Signals Bill in 1900 to make the Blue Ensign with the stars of the Southern Cross the legal flag of New Zealand. The Bill received general acclaim in the House, but met with opposition when it reached Sir Robert Stout, who was acting as Governor in the absence of the Earl of Ranfurly. Stout disapproved of the Bill as he felt the clause reserving the Act for Her Majesty's approval trampled on the Governor's right to decide an appropriate course of action. Seddon disagreed, and refused to alter the offending clause, as he considered a constitutional principle to be at stake. In the end, the wrangling all came to nothing as the Admiralty had concerns entirely unrelated to the mechanism by which the Bill was set aside for Her Majesty's assent.
The Admiralty objected to the proposed use of the Blue Ensign 'for all purposes', as set out in the preamble of the Act. In the United Kingdom, the privilege of flying the Blue Ensign was reserved for Government ships, and other distinguished vessels. It was feared that this distinction would be watered down should the New Zealand Bill be approved, as all New Zealand-registered merchant ships would be automatically granted the right to fly the Blue Ensign under its provisions. The New Zealand Government therefore agreed to specifically limit the use of the Blue Ensign at sea to those 'vessels owned and used by the New Zealand Government', or where a warrant to fly the Ensign had been obtained from the Admiralty.
The Bill was replaced by another modified New Zealand Ensign Act, which was passed by the House on 5 November 1901, after debate as to whether the Southern Cross ought to include 5 stars as the Victorian flag did. His Majesty The King approved the Act on 24 March 1902 and His Excellency the Governor's proclamation to this effect was published in the New Zealand Gazette on 12 June 1902. A description of the flag followed on 27 June 1902, detailing alterations to the size and position of the stars. The Act was replaced by various Shipping and Seamen's Acts, including those of 1903 and 1908, but the provisions concerning the New Zealand flag remained effectively unchanged until the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 came into force.


XXXX


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 13:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That passage says nothing about the use of the NZ Red Ensign on land. Rather it states that The Blue Ensign was to be used 'for all purposes' on land, and the Red confined to the sea. - SimonP 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Explaination of UK Navy Jacks: The Blue, Red, and White Ensigns and their Meanings

The Blue, Red, and White UK Navy Jacks (aka Ensigns) originated in the Blue, Red, and White Fleets, respectively. As the overseas Colonies of the UK developed, the UK Ensigns took on specific meanings.


(i). The Blue Ensign denoted Government Ships that supplied Government Colonies.

(ii). The Red Ensign denoted Commerical Ships that supplied Commerical Colonies.

(iii). The White Ensign denoted Warships Ships that protected ALL of the UK and its Colonies,Possessions, and Territories.


Thus, the most specific of these in the White Ensign, know as the War Ensign, as it is typicallly used for Warships. Note, the White Ensign was used on Land, for some Colonies that were primarily a NAVAL BASE.


The USA, and Canada were Commerical Colonies thus they had Red Ensigns.

Whereas Australia, and New Zealand were Government Colonies thus they had Blue Ensigns.


Now with regards to USAGE of ENSIGNS.

Commercial Colonies had Red Ensigns for CIVIL USE (the people) on Land, and Blue Ensigns for VISITING HEADS-OF-STATE, and the Governor-General,


Government Colonies had Red Ensigns for CIVIL USE (the people) on Land, and Blue Ensigns FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, and REPRESENTING the NATION abroad, and at FORMAL FUNCTIONS.


XXXX


SimonP,

You wrote,

Where is this information from? I have never before heard of this "commercial colony"/"government colony" distinction. - SimonP 16:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


How long have you studied Flags? What standard texts have you read?

Question:

Why do most USA State Flags have a BLUE BACKGROUND?

Do you know why?


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 16:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note the Australian Red Ensign

The Australian Red Ensign, is a red version of the Australian Flag and is a reserved civil ensign. From 1901 to 1954 the flag was used as a civil flag, to be flown by private citizens on land, while the government used the Blue Ensign reflecting British practice


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 15:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Evidence? - SimonP 16:34, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


SimonP,

You wrote,

Evidence? - SimonP 16:34, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

First off this is on the Wikipedia Red Ensign page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ensign#Canada

Please the Wikipedia page AGAIN.'


This has not been challenged, why are you challenging me? Just because I posted a very similar entry on New Zealand?


Why the beef?


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 16:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did considerable research into the questions you raised about the Ontario flag. I found that you were utterly wrong about it being commonly used before 1965. I thus question the accuracy of your additions to other articles about flags. - SimonP 18:48, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP: Where did you get this "entry" on the Ontario Red Ensign

SimonP,

Whilst we are on the subject, you wrote this about the Ontario Red Ensign, right after I said that there was an un-offical (1868-1965 AD) Ontario Red Ensign that existed, and was used by the people of Ontario.


Where did you get these "Ontario Red Ensign Anicodotes", and this Elmer Sophia, "Flag of Revenge" comment..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ontario

"...The only opposition came from Sudbury Liberal MPP Elmer Sopha who was fervently opposed to the flag, arguing that it failed to reflect Ontario's diverse character and that it was "a flag of revenge" against the new national flag,..."


Where?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of the information I added to the Ontario flag article comes from contemporary newspaper accounts. - SimonP 18:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Talk%7ERed_Ensign_Archive_2_7a1a.html"