1st of July

[LilRed]

How'd we get into bashing America over slavery on what I thought was the Canadian Independence Day, i.e., independence from the Brit monarchists?

Didn't these same fading monarchists "end slavery" by creating "indentured servants"? I do believe the histories of India (includes East and West Pakistan), Nepal, Ceylon, Singapore, and, Malaysia, describe it as "defacto slavery"... Clever Brits, again... Or, perhaps I am being slow, again, in thinking that "slavery" and "identured servitude" are both terms used to describe the bondage of human beings?

A - Being a Doctor, in your field, and having had special training in the Queen's English, I believe you likely understand the substantive differences btween "slavery" and "indentured servitude"? Please explain them to us, briefly.

LYM - Does Canada still have debtor's prisons, as the Brits do?

I am also familiar with American point of view of the War of 1812, which differs from you all's, because we had/have freedom of speech, he, he, he... Have the Brits legalized Freedom of Speech yet?

We have been friends and allies since the French and Indian Wars. Canada is our biggest trading partner, and, the monarchists are our largest foreign investors. You Canadians have helped us save the Brits twice that I know of. Perhaps we could try and get along a bit better here locally?

Happy Birthday, Canada!


ATB

[Astana]

You are laughable in your sweeping generalizations, lets take one "he, he, he... Have the Brits legalized Freedom of Speech yet?"

Bill of Rights 1689 Ratified December 16, 1689 Parliament of England.

The Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689. It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".

These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.

Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect. It is one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom and—following British colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence—to the thrones of those other Commonwealth realms, by willing deference to the Act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm's constitution. Since the implementation of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards) the Bill of Rights cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament, and then, by convention, and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and the Human Rights Act 1998 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution, which many claim to be of better quality than a codified object.

A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.

Today in short form... United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including compassing or imagining the death of the monarch or advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted), sedition,obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges, time, manner, and place restrictions, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

I can't laugh with you as its easier to laugh at you!

Britain doe not have debtors prisons.

It took until 1865 for America to outlaw slavery and another 100 plus years for equality under the law so guaranteed under the codified constitution.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

How'd we get into bashing America over slavery on what I thought was the Canadian Independence Day, i.e., independence from the Brit monarchists?

Happy Birthday, Canada!

Khun LilRed, if you mean total independence from Great Britain, well, that happened in 1931 under the Statute of Westminster when Britain could no longer legislate laws for any of its Dominions so that the Canadian Parliament was now on equal terms with the British Parliament.

Canada, by the way, is a constitutional monarchy in which Queen Elizabeth II us our Head of State. Canada has two official flags, one of which is the Union flag. We have two national anthems one of which is, God Save the Queen.

I am not bashing the United States over slavery or anything else. We are good allies.

[Quanteen]

What with Canada's interdependence with Britain (history and monarchy) France (language) US (defense and economy) they seem well prepared to celebrate everything! Happy Birthday Canada.

[Quanteen]

Independent? A commonwealth state. Please explain the role of GG to us. Specifically as it pertains to the constitution.
It's amazing how entire populations can live in absolute denial.
"The monarch retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada." Is that your definition of independence?

Put a Moosehead on ice for me ....

[Laan Yaa Mo]

If you know anything about constitutional monarchy, it is very easy to understand. Canada is a nation, not a state, and an independent member of the commonwealth. The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen, the head of state, in Canada. Canada, like Britain, Australia, New Zealand, has responsible government; therefore, the Queen or her representative follows the directions of Parliament, the House of Commons, and does not act as an absolute monarch. She is a constitutional monarch. That's how it works in the Great White North.

I don't drink alcohol so a Moosehead does not interest me in the least. If you want one, you have to buy your own! 555+

Canada is a large country in area but small in population. We did well in both World Wars; however, we are basically a middling power if that. Prior to the Second World War, we looked to Britain for protection. After the war, we joined NATO. However, we feel dependent for defence on the U.S. if we were attacked by China, for example.

Thanks for the birthday congratulations.

P.S. Please explain what your sentence, 'It's amazing how entire populations can live in absolute denial' means?

By the way, if your user name is supposed to mean what I think it does, you should be writing, 'Kwanteen'. 'Teen' refers to the bottom of the foot, and 'kwan' is the soul, the essence of a person or spirit.

[BigRick808]

The distribution of slaves between 1519–1867 to the so-called new world doesn't does not support your idea.

Portuguese America 38.5%

Your data is correct. Students of history (and instructors) know that the Portuguese were far and away the greatest importers of slaves from Africa.

Yes, I also believe this data to be correct, but this is what he was replying to:

"Virtually all the slaves in North America were brought over by British merchants. Their trade route saw them buying slaves in Africa, trading them for rum in the Caribbean and returning to Britain where they sold the booze."

How many were brought to Portuguese America or the entire New World isn't really relevant. Do you disagree?

[BigRick808]

What with Canada's interdependence with Britain (history and monarchy) France (language) US (defense and economy) they seem well prepared to celebrate everything! Happy Birthday Canada.

Come on, man. You don't really need to do that. I know it may be tempting at times, but don't others drag you down to their level. By doing so, you may be offending some very nice people.

Sincerely, all my best to Canada =D>

[the-monk]

Laan Yaa Mo wrote >>>. However, we feel dependent for defence on the U.S. if we were attacked by China, for example. >> Laan Yaa Mo

Where have you been ? You must be from Toronto … 55555, i love Toronto , hate the LEAFS...
Attack by China is that what Mr S. Harper has been telling you in GTA ?
No wonder why Mr Harper is so reluctant to deal with China…
NATO and in particular NORAD were created to <, so called > Ptotect the USA from surprise
attack from the Eastern Block i.e Russia… not to protect Canada ..
The USA has never had any intention of protecting Canada ,
Canada was considered to be a buffer zone for the USA period.
Most Canadians today feel that they have nothing to envy to their southern neighbour
and that their protection is not needed at all..
The same goes for the QUEEN get rid of her...
VIVE LE CANADA LIBRE..

[farlong68]

congrats to our friends to the north... have served with the Can. air force in the middle east fine lot, true pros if only our leaders were...with friends like you we only need more friends like you cheers john

[trubrit]

First let me say again. To all my Canadian friends including those in Quebec Have a great day on the !st doing whatever turns you on .Drink a toast to the Queen or which ever President you prefer. :-" You are lucky, not only to have the choice but the freedom to choose.Thanks to the brave men of many Nations.

[LilRed]

Doctor A,

Thanks for your succint history of freedom of speeh in the UK. I, and, I am sure others, would appreciate something similar on the debtor's prison issue, and your thinking on what the difference between "slavery" and "indentured servants" is...

I, am, tho, confused by your assertion that you have freedom of speech in the UK, but, with the following exceptions:

"However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including compassing or imagining the death of the monarch or advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted), sedition,obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges, time, manner, and place restrictions, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising."

Uh, frankly, that's an awful lot of exceptions to freedom of speech. Maybe you could enlighten us on how all of these exceptions still allow freedom of speech?


We have all been allies for years. With the way the world is now, that's a good thing. So, maybe we could lay aside some of the badmouthing?

LYM: I, too, am a teetotaler. I can heartily recommend it for those of us that are "angry or boorish drunks".

Happy Birthday, Canada.

Oh, and, not to worry, if the godless Chinee take down Russia, and, Alaska, and come after you all, we will be right beside you defending Canada's sovreignty.

ATB

[Astana]

As I said but you chose not to include in your use of quote... United Kingdom citizens have and recognize a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, in other words your right to freedom of expression is based on the trust you are given by law to express yourself in a way that is non-offensive or aggressive to others so that they may rebut assertions in similar fashion. These obligations may be of either a legal or of moral character.

What you fail to understand is that speech in the US is free only if it's within approved limits, in a codified system such as America's the First Amendment does not confer ANY absolute right of free speech. What it does is place a limit on the power of one branch of government to control speech, the legislative branch. And even that limit is more myth than reality.

For example... The military, an arm of the Executive Branch, has total control over the speech of its members, freedom of speech ends at a line beyond which it's called libel and slander, free speech can put you in jail if it's "fighting speech." You can be prosecuted and jailed for provoking someone, free speech can end in a jail cell if it can be called "inciting to riot." It can end in a cell if it's called "reckless endangerment." the list is quite endless and considerably longer than the common law exceptions that I have illustrated in a previous post.

All you seem to offer is conjecture with no real substance.

The only reason America would protect Canada would be to serve its own defense and nothing else.

Happy Canada Day!

[Astana]

Debtor's prisons in the UK were abolished in England in 1869.

See British Parliamentary Papers: Prisons 8, p. 356, cited in Philpotts 1991; and Young 1932, also cited in Philpotts 1991.

More pertinent is the revival of debtor's prison in America...

Debt collectors in states including Missouri and Alabama are using legal loopholes to lock up poor citizens who can't pay their debts. Illinois' Attorney General Lisa Madigan has attacked the revival of the 'debtors' prisons' - something most people associate with Dickens novels.

'Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they're too poor to pay their debts,' Madigan said. 'We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue.'

The United States abolished debtors' prisons in the 1830s, but more than a third of states allow borrowers who can't or won't pay their debts to be jailed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2XDj04GYB

Debtors' Prison Is Back -- and Just as Cruel as Ever

by Ross Kenneth Urken Aug 30th 2012 12:25PM
Updated Aug 30th 2012 1:28PM

To most of us, "debtors' prison" sounds like an archaic institution, something straight out of a Dickens novel. But the idea of jailing people who can't pay what they owe is alive and well in 21st-century America.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/ ... l-as-ever/

[LilRed]

A -


Very nice riposte.

I'll have a look a bit later.


FDK has suggested a public show down 'twixt me and WBU.

As I said, you'd be a far more interesting match up for me.


Interested?


ATB

[WBU ALUM]

FDK has suggested a public show down 'twixt me and WBU.

That's not what he suggested at all. He suggested changing the title of the thread to LilRid vs WBU.

Hardly public. Hardly a showdown. But if they allowed Ebonics, you would win for sure.

[Astana]

Canada Day celebrations will be held in Trafalgar Square under Nelson's watchful eye on the 1st July from 10:30 to 22:30, see link below for details:

http://www.canadadayinternational.com/london/

Canada Day 2013 - The Biggest in Australian History is being held in Sydney over the weekend to celebrate Canada's special day, see link below for details:

http://whatson.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ ... an-history

As I have not found an American equivalent, here's a 'how to celebrate Canada day' primer for you... http://www.wikihow.com/Celebrate-Canada-Day


The difference between "slavery" and "indentured servants" is...

Indentured servants were individuals who agreed to work without pay for another person for a set amount of time, often several years. Indentured servants by law were still free in that they had basic civil rights. Often times debt, or desire for passage to America, would provoke people to this kind of an agreement. After their time of service was concluded, indentured servants were free to continue their lives. In real life, the distinction between slavery and indentured servitude often blurred. Some people treated their servants as basically slaves, beating and threating them, forcing them to work long hours and perform backbreaking work. Others held up their contract admirably and treated their servants well.

By contrast, slavery was the formal ownership of persons by an individual. Enslaved people had no rights and were considered their owner's property, rather than human beings. They could therefore be killed legally, for no reason whatsoever, or abused however their master saw fit. Slaves were basically slaves for life, unless their master saw fit to free them (if this was even legal, in various times and places it was not).

Further reading.

Abramitzky, Ran; Braggion, Fabio. "Migration and Human Capital: Self-Selection of Indentured Servants to the Americas," Journal of Economic History, Dec 2006, Vol. 66 Issue 4, pp 882–905,
Ballagh, James Curtis. White Servitude In The Colony Of Virginia: A Study Of The System Of Indentured Labor In The American Colonies (1895)
Brown, Kathleen. Goodwives, Nasty Wenches & Anxious Patriachs: gender, race and power in Colonial Virginia, U. of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Hofstadter, Richard. America at 1750: A Social Portrait (Knopf, 1971) pp 33–65 online
Jernegan, Marcus Wilson Laboring and Dependent Classes in Colonial America, 1607-1783 (1931)
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. (Norton, 1975).
Salinger, Sharon V. To serve well and faithfully: Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800. (2000)
Khal Torabully and Marina Carter, Coolitude: An Anthology of the Indian Labour Diaspora Anthem Press, London, 2002, ISBN 1-84331-003-1
Zipf, Karin L. Labor of Innocents: Forced Apprenticeship in North Carolina, 1715-1919 (2005).
Whitehead, John Frederick, Johann Carl Buttner, Susan E. Klepp, and Farley Grubb. Souls for Sale: Two German Redemptioners Come to Revolutionary America, Max Kade German-American Research Institute Series, ISBN 0-271-02882-3.
Marion, Pascal. Dictionnaire étymologique du créole réunionnais, mots d'origine asiatique, Carré de sucre, 2009, ISBN 978-2-9529135-0-8

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Laan Yaa Mo wrote >>>. However, we feel dependent for defence on the U.S. if we were attacked by China, for example. >> Laan Yaa Mo

Where have you been ? You must be from Toronto … 55555, i love Toronto , hate the LEAFS...
Attack by China is that what Mr S. Harper has been telling you in GTA ?
No wonder why Mr Harper is so reluctant to deal with China…
NATO and in particular NORAD were created to <, so called > Ptotect the USA from surprise
attack from the Eastern Block i.e Russia… not to protect Canada ..
The USA has never had any intention of protecting Canada ,
Canada was considered to be a buffer zone for the USA period.
Most Canadians today feel that they have nothing to envy to their southern neighbour
and that their protection is not needed at all..
The same goes for the QUEEN get rid of her...
VIVE LE CANADA LIBRE..

Well, whatever happened to this little thread about Canada Day?!?

You do not have to be so serious about this, Khun Monk. As I mentioned, China was only used as an example. Other extreme examples could have been Turkey, Mexico, Ghana...whatever.

Where have I been? Hmmm, most of my life has been spent in Toronto, but I have lived in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Wisconsin, England, Thailand and Malaysia.

I am indifferent about the Toronto Maple Leafs as I am not a hockey fan. I prefer the Argos and Varsity Blues in football and the Detroit Tigers in baseball.

What are you on? Harper, to his credit, has tried to remind Canadians a little bit about their history with his highlighting of this, the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.

I believe you better re-visit the raison d'etre of NATO, and there you might realise that other nations came under the umbrella of protection from the eastern bloc.

Of course, Canada is a buffer for the U.S., and if that means protecting one of their buffers in the interests of self-preservation, they will do so. You might note that Canadian economic and defence policy has shifted from its centre of the U.K. to the United States over time. Why is that?

Oh, Canadians, like many others around the world are still mesmerized by the opportunities, potential and sometimes sheer audacity of the United States. We follow their fashion, language, music, sports teams (i.e. NFL over CFL, which was not the case when I was a lad) movies, tv programmes and many other things.

Why would we ditch the Queen, when a majority of Canadians prefer our constitutional monarch to republican forms of government? You just mentioned yourself that we do not envy the United States, yet you suggest that we replace our disticntive for of government with something that might be more in tune with our friends and neighbours to the South.

You seem out-of-touch with Canadian sentiment, history and values.

Thanks trubrit.

[parrot]

Jason Jones compares the Canadian and American banking systems at
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... ing-system

Happy July 1st!

[jackspratt]

Jason Jones compares the Canadian and American banking systems at
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... ing-system

Happy July 1st!

Clearly straight out of the Marxist Playbook.