Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 8yrs agoActive 1wk ago

Should it be illegal to burn our national flag?

Should it be illegal to burn the Canadian flag?

Flag desecration is any act that is carried out with the intention of damaging or destroying a national flag in public. This is commonly done in an effort to make a political statement against a nation or its policies. Some nations have acts that ban flag desecration while others have laws that protect the right to destroy a flag as a part of free speech. Some of these laws distinguish between a national flag and those of other countries.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Ideology:

Political party:

Province/Territory:

15 Replies

 @9P8NRFMNew Democratic from Alberta  answered…10mos10MO

If the flag is a piece of public property, personal property of someone else, or government property, burning it would be an act of vanadalism & therefore illegal. However, if a flag is bought, it is considered private property and burning it would not violate any government polices/laws as it is the property of the individal who purchased it.

 @93CSFRDNew Democraticfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

No it’s just a piece of clothe

 @8W22KZSfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but I do not respect someone who does it.

 @8VJJQ54New Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

No flag cremation is a respectful way to retire a flag

 @8VHBB7WNew Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

DO whatever you want with the Canadian flag I don' t care. Just don't hurt the pride flag.

 @8TWQNLMNew Democraticfrom Newfoundland  answered…4yrs4Y

Occasionally as a form of protest

 @8QRFD55New Democraticfrom Northwest Territories  answered…4yrs4Y

No, because it’s not a big deal

 @92GZ5LTfrom Quebec  answered…3yrs3Y

Neither support, nor endorse

 @92GZ3LZfrom Quebec  answered…3yrs3Y

Neither support, neither endorse

 @BobyouroncleNew Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but it should be done privately and not be politically motivated.

 @8P3ZQ4P from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

It should be illegal to burn it but not if it was an accident.

 @8VC2Q88 from Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but citizens should be encouraged to deter someone from this.

 @8QDSNZY from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

No, not unless it's someone else flag or public property

 @8X286J5 from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

No, I should be a nation Pride.

 @8Q9PRKM from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

No, I don't think it should be illegal. I'm sure that if someone were to do it, they would have a reason. I don't think that it goes against the right to free speech since it's an action but I wouldn't do it.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies