• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.R. Campbell said:
...yes to helping to train anti-Daesh forces...
As a naif - good opportunity to gain influence/contacts/persistent presence in the less crazy circles in that part of the world, without the you-bombed-a-hospital/wedding party/whatever risks of the aerial campaign? Hasn't the UK made a long-standing practice of advisory and exchange personnel with various east-of-Suez states, as well as running their officer candidates through Sandhurst?
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
...I am with ERC on this one, you youngsters out there may not remember this but in the early 60's, a new Finance minister made an innocuous reply to a question about the value of the Canadian dollar in a scrum in Ottawa and answered "Personally, I'd like to see it lower", or words to that effect, and the dollar plunged by almost 10 cents overnight. What ministers of the crown say matters. It matters to those charged with carrying out policy (remember the line from the documentary Yes Minister!: You can't change government policy once it's been announced.) and it matters to those who have their fingers on the Canadian economy...

...and the corollary: A decision's a decision, isn't it? (around 2:30, but the lead up is rather good.)
 
And now the MND joins in, enunciating government policy. CTV's Question Period is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's Real Time show on a US cable network, and the MND is closer to this sort of policy issue (Assad must go) than International Trade Minister Freeland is to the very broad social issue of tolerance and socio-cultural values.

We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~ Assad must go ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).
 
George Wallace said:
That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada.  No Lessons Learned there.

Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,

In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.

Little Mogadishu
It is well known that Toronto's Somali population clustered in the Dixon Road and Islington Avenue area of Etobicoke which was referred to as “Little Somalia.” What is not well known is that the six condominium buildings on Dixon Road were targeted by the City of Etobicoke.

City officials need housing for the large influx of Somali refugees so they contacted all the condo owners who were renting their units for approximately $900 a month and promised them $1200 a month f they would rent to the Somalis refugees. An added sweetener was that the owners would receive their rent money directly from the city so the monthly rent payments were guaranteed.

The owners dumped their existing tenants as quickly as they could to make room for the refugees. A large number of Somalians moving into these three condominium buildings. This immediate area, named Dixon City, provided a sense of community for the Somali immigrants.

They did not mix well with the established owner-residents who resented their presence.

Social tensions
The low-income Somalis shared their apartments with extended families and other immigrants so that an estimated 4,500 Somalis were living in a third of YCC #42s almost 900 apartments.

The three buildings which were designed to hold 5000 grew to 9000 residents. The children played in the hallways and the Somali community would gather in the open courtyard in the late evenings to socialize.

There were complaints of noise, vandalism, petty crime and overcrowded elevators. Owner-residents complained that the Somalis were urinating, defecting and smoking khat in the staircases.

In return, the Somalis complained of harassment, based on racism, which they felt was intended to drive them out of the area.

A Place Called Dixon
The social and economic tensions within YCC #42 were recorded in a CBC documentary, "A Place Called Dixon" that was aired on television in 1993.

While it is true that there was a deep divide between the original white, European owner-residents and the brown skinned, Muslim newcomers, the documentary was criticized for showing extremists on both sides and unfairly portraying the owner-residents as racists.

Economic costs
The overcrowding and led to complaints from building managers and property owners. The common element fees soared as the condo corporation had to pay for huge increases in utility bills, garbage pickups, maintenance costs, vandalism and repairs and replacements to the common areas.

Security was increased and the guards had two police dogs, which they claimed were needed for their safety but were seen as an affront by the Somali residents.

The unexpected economic burden created by the over-crowded units had to be shared by all of the unit owners. Property values plunged.

I contend that the real problem at YCC #42 was not racial, cultural or religious but economic. The condo was overwhelmed by a low-income population who needed inexpensive housing. The absentee landlords, who rented their units, accommodated them. The owner-residents who had their life savings tied up in their units and could not afford to cut their losses and sell, would never be happy with how their dream homes turned out.
http://www.condomadness.info/YCC42-Dixon-City.html
 
mariomike said:
Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,

In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.

Little Mogadishu
It is well known that Toronto's Somali population clustered in the Dixon Road and Islington Avenue area of Etobicoke which was referred to as “Little Somalia.” What is not well known is that the six condominium buildings on Dixon Road were targeted by the City of Etobicoke.

City officials need housing for the large influx of Somali refugees so they contacted all the condo owners who were renting their units for approximately $900 a month and promised them $1200 a month f they would rent to the Somalis refugees. An added sweetener was that the owners would receive their rent money directly from the city so the monthly rent payments were guaranteed.

The owners dumped their existing tenants as quickly as they could to make room for the refugees. A large number of Somalians moving into these three condominium buildings. This immediate area, named Dixon City, provided a sense of community for the Somali immigrants.

They did not mix well with the established owner-residents who resented their presence.

Social tensions
The low-income Somalis shared their apartments with extended families and other immigrants so that an estimated 4,500 Somalis were living in a third of YCC #42s almost 900 apartments.

The three buildings which were designed to hold 5000 grew to 9000 residents. The children played in the hallways and the Somali community would gather in the open courtyard in the late evenings to socialize.

There were complaints of noise, vandalism, petty crime and overcrowded elevators. Owner-residents complained that the Somalis were urinating, defecting and smoking khat in the staircases.

In return, the Somalis complained of harassment, based on racism, which they felt was intended to drive them out of the area.

A Place Called Dixon
The social and economic tensions within YCC #42 were recorded in a CBC documentary, "A Place Called Dixon" that was aired on television in 1993.

While it is true that there was a deep divide between the original white, European owner-residents and the brown skinned, Muslim newcomers, the documentary was criticized for showing extremists on both sides and unfairly portraying the owner-residents as racists.

Economic costs
The overcrowding and led to complaints from building managers and property owners. The common element fees soared as the condo corporation had to pay for huge increases in utility bills, garbage pickups, maintenance costs, vandalism and repairs and replacements to the common areas.

Security was increased and the guards had two police dogs, which they claimed were needed for their safety but were seen as an affront by the Somali residents.

The unexpected economic burden created by the over-crowded units had to be shared by all of the unit owners. Property values plunged.

I contend that the real problem at YCC #42 was not racial, cultural or religious but economic. The condo was overwhelmed by a low-income population who needed inexpensive housing. The absentee landlords, who rented their units, accommodated them. The owner-residents who had their life savings tied up in their units and could not afford to cut their losses and sell, would never be happy with how their dream homes turned out.
http://www.condomadness.info/YCC42-Dixon-City.html

Back to the Future IV.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~ Assad must go ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).
And another practice under our system is that if a Minister of the Crown speaks out of turn, or speaks outside the government's lines, sanctions follow.  We'll see if such sanctions follow ....

Also, methinks she wouldn't have done that without Team Red's "child soldiers with Crackberries"* giving the nod.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
.... In the present case, however, I note one thing: She was introduced as a "member of parliament" only ....
I thought the yellow bit, too, but I now stand corrected.  I listened to the whole segment this morning, and she was introduced as MP (first) and Minister (second). 

She doesn't sound bad (although I'm guessing media would have jumped on her more-than-hinting at Americans being dumb a LOT more if she was from Team Blue), but she's far from ministerial yet.

* - A term I've heard people far more cynical than me apply to political staff.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
And now the MND joins in, enunciating government policy. CTV's Question Period is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's Real Time show on a US cable network

In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.
 
jmt18325 said:
In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.


Fair enough and, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. She's now a minister of the crown: that's a HUGE change in status and responsibility and appearing on a US cable channels political-news-comedy programme shows, in my view, again, poor judgement on her part and on the part of the PMO. I have never thought much of Minister Freeland ~ not as a "journalist" and not as a politician: she is a very well educated and 'smart' woman but I think her instincts are wrong. I suspect that Minister Freeland really might not understand that what she's doing is wrong, but the PMO needs to reign her in ... or move her to the back-benches where, I think, she belongs.
 
jmt18325 said:
In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.

Hate to say it; but that is NOT A DEFENCE. 
 
People old enough to know better are losing their grasp of propriety.  Being modern doesn't mean being a teenage buffoon searching for popular celebrity.  There is much to be said for the deportment and circumspection of earlier generations.
 
Greg Perry, drawing in the Ottawa Citizen, got the issue of bombing IS**/Da'eah, in particular, and the new Liberal foreign policy in general, just about right:

no-iptc-info-found16.jpeg

Source: http://ottawacitizen.com/gallery/editorial-cartoons-2
 
Certainly
“The recent incident does not fit our world view and party platform. We really have not thought about it and we love turkey, because yes well it’s yummy and filling, oh right yes we love that Turkey as well. We don’t really know what happen and still don’t know what to do other than move forward on a political promise made in a vacuum, I know I just smile and hope you notice the hair…..”
 
It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish
 
PPCLI Guy said:
It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish

Relatively fine? Good lord, that was the most rambling attempt at a response I've heard in a long time.

 
He was just like the rest of us -- he had absolutely no idea how that sentence was going to turn out once he started it.
 
Pardon me for butting in. Did the PM say (at the end) that we are in a "mission to stabilize Syria" ?

My understanding (albeit obviously limited) was that we were part of a coalition that is intent on "degrading ISIL's fighting capability with a view to ultimately defeat them".

Did I miss something ???
 
Canada now walking the centre line between Russia and Nato with a view to stabilizing Syria.  It is his dad's policy revisited.  Better a stable dictatorship than an unpredictable regime.

He and Junckers will get along famously, I am sure.
 
Well we can't de-escalate Russian style since we ditched the Starfighters.

... Russia's embrace of what it calls a "de-escalation" nuclear strike in the case of a conventional military conflict that poses an existential threat to the country. The doctrine calls for Russia to respond with a nuclear strike. Russia's answer, in the case of such a conflict, is to drop a single nuclear weapon — one from the family of smaller, battlefield-use nukes known as "tactical" weapons, rather than from the larger, city-destroying "strategic" nuclear weapons. The idea is that such a strike would signal Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and would force the enemy to immediately end the fight rather than risk further nuclear destruction.
 
The Economist, in an article from the print edition (which is free to read) suggests that "we" need to fight IS**/Da'esh "on every front."

The Economist says:

    First: know your enemy; and it suggests that ~

          The starting-point for a safer world is at home, with the right legal powers. Jihadists are often radicalised online, in small groups. They communicate electronically. When they travel, they leave a trail. The intelligence services need
          controlled access to these data. Terrorists thrive on secrecy, yet the security services may abuse their powers. The solution is a legal framework subject to political and judicial scrutiny.


    Don't scapegoat real, legitimate refugees ~

          The logic of turning away refugees is deeply flawed, practically and morally. Clearly, there is a risk of infiltration, and Europe should monitor new arrivals. But at least five of the Paris terrorists were European citizens, not refugees.
          Someone determined to blow himself up in a terrorist attack could always pay a people-smuggling network to get him in. Some of the refugees arriving on Greek islands were themselves the victims of jihadist violence, occasionally
          at the hands of Europeans who went to Syria to join IS. For Europe to put up a wall to Muslims would suggest that, as IS says, Europeans despise them all. That could be a pathway to terrorism, too.


    Fight IS**/Da'esh where it lives ~

          The case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow ...
          ... [but] the case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow.

    Finally, "Talk, too" ~

          Military force is not enough on its own, though. It will make the rest of the world safer in the short run, but the critics are right that Islamic terror will end only when the Middle East lives in peace. The parallel aim, therefore,
          must be for regional powers to stop fighting through their proxies ... The diplomacy will not be easy and military action should not be forestalled by its lack of progress. But the pursuit of political settlements must be earnest and
          involve all the parties, including Russia and Iran.


By that measure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's emerging foreign policy is only half right. It appeals to the left wing part of the Liberal base but it is out of step with geo-strategic reality in 2015.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top