What kind of arse does that to children? It’s like kicking puppies and equally likely to be understood.
And in a language policing line (sorry) “aboriginal” is supposed to be an adjective. Every time I see it hanging and not describing a noun, I twitch. Uncontrollably. Which is really awkward when visiting Australia.
Well, yes, the speech would only be compelled if the state was forcing (through enforcement of an law or ruling abridging free speech) someone to speak.
I suppose a traitor or treasonist may also refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem. And a perjuror might not want to swear on a bible that his testimony will be true. Forcing someone to apologize—especially as a form of punishment, since it is only punishment if it is distasteful to them—is not a ruling I would ever expect a judge to make.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which do not necessarily produce good policy.
Is that really a thing? Are Americans really expected (compelled, but I’m trying not to use the word too much) to recite the pledge of allegiance on pain of some kind of punishment? I thought that was some kind of exaggeration by media wishing to make Americans look a little fascistic.
I don’t have too keen an insight into the mind of a committed racist but I would think that apologising would be less distasteful to jail time or a fine. Well, in a sane person’s estimation. Which, perhaps, racists are not.
I did make an assumption it was a done thing but had to google to actually make sure. It seems it is. But maybe you just mean you wouldn’t expect a judge to exercise that power, rather than to actually just have it available.
A US judge does not have the power to constitutionally force someone to apologize. She may offer an apology as an alternative to punishment, or as a way to reduce punishment, but the government may not compel speech.
Not publishing controversial cartoons is less distasteful than being killed, too.
Some patriots refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance on principle.
That’s an interesting differentiation. I suppose one could argue that ordering a person to apologise or face jail time constitutes compelling them to make the apology.
As for publishing cartoons, why stop there? Fighting for your life is less distasteful than being killed. As are many actions. Whether or not making cartoons is in some way fighting for freedom is a matter for discussion.
I did assume that the pledge of allegiance couldn’t be an enforced requirement but more along the lines of conformity behaviour; expected. I’m too lazy to look and see if there have been examples of unfair treatment for those who refuse. Well, lazy and tired, it’s 3am where I am.
This has been interesting. I will endeavour to at least not be ‘rubbed the wrong way’ in future.
I agree that it does seem to become tantamount to compelled speech in some circumstances, and I suspect that the decisions are often the result of stupid (and possibly elected) state judges whose sentences aren’t challenged.
I wouldn’t stop there; I would stop before. The mere preferability (to most) of compelled speech isn’t a good reason to compel it. The preferability of not doing something to a possible consequence isn’t always a good reason to sanction that consequence or choice either. Some things are done for their symbolic value, be it republishing offensive cartoons or declining to salute the flag.
Some states still require the pledge of allegiance in school, and the interpretation of the pledge under the free-exercise clause of the first amendment has been spotty.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/pledge-of-allegiance-fast-facts/
If I have to say the one nation under god bit I’m never going to become a citizen.
Edit: looks like I could ask for a modified one.
If you are unable or unwilling
to take the oath with the
words “on oath” and “so help
me God” included, you must
notify USCIS that you wish
to take a modified Oath of
Allegiance. Applicants are
not required to provide any
evidence or testimony to
support a request for this type
of modification. See 8 CFR
337.1(b).
Although the whole thing doesn’t make it sound like they’re too keen on dual citizenship:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
In Canada the oath you have to take for citizenship contains a promise of your loyalty to the Queen.
No, no, not the rock band of yore, even though that would make sense. Instead they mean the Queen of the Brits.
But most people mumble that part nowadays, so the Conservative government is cracking down, advising people to enunciate clearly or else.
Of course, the point is that even if the US ask me to renounce allegiance to the UK, the UK doesn’t give a shit about that.
I don’t really want to be an American citizen anyway, but since I pay taxes here I’d like to vote. I think they should just let green card holders do that.
There is a movement up here to allow all persons to vote in municipal elections regardless of status, which makes hella good sense
Wasn’t there some kind of party held in the US over just that issue? 
You mean the queen of Canada, who also happens to be the queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.
[quote=“daneel, post:50, topic:50995”]
I don’t really want to be an American citizen anyway, but since I pay taxes here I’d like to vote.
[/quote]Just move to DC…
… did your mom sew you a cape with a big letter O on it at some point or did you make it yourself?
An “OU,” actually, since I was raised in Canada and we’re taught the Queen’s English.
I like the conclusion of the article because I would like to use an inoffensive word that is at the same time (notionally scientifically) descriptive of the people who were originally there, in the realm of thousands or tens of thousands of years before (mostly) white settlers showed up.
So ‘first nations’ or ‘originals/original peoples’ does seem to make the most amount of sense, being descriptive without engendering any kind (I hope) of racially charged undercurrent.
How “great” is one’s life, really, when it’s built on top of the dispossession and emiseration of other people?
I sometimes wonder what all that repression and oblivion does to a society and the people living in it.
That would be a silly way to pronounce Obvious, Captain Obvious.
One of the many problems with monarchists, some of the world’s most pathetic throwbacks, is their constant need for revisionism.
Take this example,
After mistakenly believing there was an opportunity to point out some needless fact of the nature of the Commonwealth, the sense of false superiority lent them by the thought caused them to miss a Captain Obvious reference.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the revisionism kicks in, causing them to temporarily believe that they were taught the Queen’s English, possibly by virtue of residing in a Commonwealth country, namely Canada.
But Canadian schools teach Canadian English, which is that nations own Standard English and which shares more with it’s neighbour to the south than with it’s colonial forebearers in every aspect except spelling. This is usually quite obvious to most people since the Queen’s English includes Received Pronunciation, yet Canadians do not speak with an accent even remotely resembling such.
Stupid Monarchists, always bowing and scraping but when they aren’t always haughty and self-important.
I thought that would be obvious, as was the reference. I also thought it was stupid, and thought that if we were trading juvenile insults I would tweak you in return.
I’m not a monarchist, but it seems (obvious) to me that those who would seek to deny our British heritage and our commonwealth status would be the revisionists.
This isn’t an argument that it’s a good thing that we remain a monarchy, just that as a nation we haven’t taken steps to stop being a monarchy. It’s revisionist to pretend we have attempted to become non-monarchic, or that the Elizabeth II is only the queen of the Brits and not the queen of many Commonwealth countries.
In Canadian English the term “the King’s/Queen’s English” generally refers to correct and proper English usage and pronunciation—or at least that was the meaning where I was raised. The concept and obsession with received pronunciation is a uniquely British concern with little relevance in Canada. I believe my reference was correct within the context of Canadian English.
Why would you want to subject those poor kids to such ordeal?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
