Politics in 2017

[jollyjacktar]

Nazi's with Canadian citizenship are a no-no but terrorists are a fat payout and  "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian"...  :

Former Nazi stripped of citizenship for the 4th time

 

[gryphonv]

"There is one condition in which citizenship can be revoked, and that is when it was acquired based on fraud, misinformation and not representing clearly who one was,” Trudeau said while visiting Waterloo.

“And that is at the core of this case I’m sure . . . Canadians are rightly proud, not just of our citizenship, but of the values that are articulated by that citizenship, and we have to make sure that we’re doing everything to defend the principles and values that it mean to be Canadian.”

How convinent for him to tout this when it is in his favor.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm glad we removed speaking about honour killings, FGM and crimes. That's just racist. We're highlighting the real important stuff; taxes, census and archaic and broken indigenous treaties.

As broken as they may be, those treaties are constitutional documents.  There's little chance of changing them.  There's also little desire on the part of one if the interested parties.

 

[Kirkhill]

The thing is Chris, I'm an actual infidel.  I don't hold the beliefs of my having a soul or meeting my ancestors when I shuffle of this mortal coil, to borrow from the Bard.  My swearing to God, would be false and therefore not ethical.  Just because I don't share the belief in a higher power as other Canadians who do doesn't make me unethical or untrustworthy.  You just need to have me make my oath in another manner that is as binding and trusted.  The end result is still the same and honestly that is the desired goal, is it not? 

I would be happier about someone swearing an oath in a manner that holds the same weight to them as an oath would mean to you.  I want your word as your bond, not just empty words that have no meaning to you as a measure of your integrity. 

Just as torture is not actually effective in learning intelligence from your subject.  He's going to say anything to get the bad man to stop, even if it's total bullshit.  The man may think he's ahead of the game and might even really enjoy playing the game with his new friend, but is it of value? 

So OK, you're not keen on a citizen not making this oath.  What to do then for those Republicans out there or other non-Monarchists?  Tell them to swear or the deal is off?  If they recant like this Israeli,  instantly take the citizenship back?  If the Government doesn't have the balls to strip it from terrorists,  that won't happen for oath breakers, you can bet.  At the very least, I could see no end of litigation against said Crown.  At $10.5M terrorist hush money type of bonanza will be a common event, I'd wager.

As much as an oath option rots you, as K money burns my ass.  Maybe we both need to get with the times as with all the snowflakes and SJWs out there, the times, they are a changing.

Jack, the oath option doesn't "rot" me.

I respect the fact that you respect the oath enough to take the words seriously.

In my opinion the oath, or any oath, was not just a matter of the individual promising to obey the terms of the oath being sworn but it was also a matter of that individual putting up surety for his or her actions and agreeing to be judged for his or her actions.

The surety being given was the individual's soul and the judge a higher power that had the ability to deprive the individual of the benefits of their soul and the promise of meeting their ancestors.

Whether the soul, or the supreme being, exists is entirely beside the point.  The oath was effective when the oath takers believed, and believe, they exist.

What do modern "oath takers" value as highly?

I don't know the answer to that.  And I don't know that there is an answer.  Swearing on "my mother's eyes" or "my first born" comes close but doesn't really cut it any more than Shylock's "pound of flesh".  Nobody really expects to be held to those agreements.

I remember being quite taken with the chants of the Iraqi's under Saddam - something along the line of "we pledge to you our blood and our soul".  That, for a believer, is quite the undertaking - not just this life but the afterlife. And in a society of men beating their backs bloody for their beliefs I'm inclined to think that those oath takers were fully cognizant of the implications of their words and the consequences if their judge determined that they and Saddam were in the wrong.

I do know that I don't respect anybody who enters into an agreement fully intending to breach the agreement before the ink is dry.  That person is demonstrably untrustworthy. 

With respect to the individual that took the oath not intending to honour it I am strongly of the opinion he should never have been allowed to take the oath and never been admitted in the society of Canadians. 

My children, born and raised in Canada and thus here without choice, have the right to set the terms of the society in which they live.  They are within their rights to ditch the crown and elect a president if that is their wish and they can convince their fellow Canadians to agree with them.

But me, and the individual referred to above, and all the other immigrants to this country, we should have no such rights.  We are guests in this country and of Canadians.  It is not our right to adjust the house rules.  Our only right is to agree to abide by the house rules or relocate.

I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.

 

[gryphonv]

:facepalm:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/justin-trudeau-canadian-prime-minister-free-worlds-best-hope-w494098

 

[Loachman]

My children, born and raised in Canada and thus here without choice, have the right to set the terms of the society in which they live.  They are within their rights to ditch the crown and elect a president if that is their wish and they can convince their fellow Canadians to agree with them.

But me, and the individual referred to above, and all the other immigrants to this country, we should have no such rights.  We are guests in this country and of Canadians.  It is not our right to adjust the house rules.  Our only right is to agree to abide by the house rules or relocate.

I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.

Why?

My status as a citizen is no different from that of anybody who was born here. Forty-three years of military service should also count as something. I've got a stake in this place, at least as much as anybody else, many of whom have no clue about the value of this Country.

And one does not have to swear an oath. Those with no religious beliefs can make a solemn affirmation, which has the same legal standing.

Americans swear allegiance to their flag. I can sort of understand that, but it is an inanimate object.

We have a living symbol that embodies us all. I prefer that. Most of those who object do not understand our system of government and our history.

They still have a choice - follow our customs and rules for citizenship or do not achieve that status. They can still live here, but cannot vote or obtain a Canadian passport. Renounce an oath or solemn affirmation, then relinquish their citizenship as well. If they commit a terrorist act, then, as far as I am concerned, they fibbed on their application and did not take the oath seriously, and don't deserve that citizenship, or residence, once their sentence is up.

 

[Loachman]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/07/26/payette-scramble-highlights-a-serious-trudeau-flaw.html

Payette scramble highlights a serious Trudeau flaw

Every political office struggles with scandal. What should be worrying for Trudeau is that his highest profile struggles have been in response to known bad news. They weren’t bolts from the blue.

By Andrew MacDougall

Wed., July 26, 2017

What will it take to beat Justin Trudeau?

That’s the question bubbling through Conservative and NDP minds as the Liberals, despite the Omar Khadr mess, continue to rate 43 per cent in the polls. It must feel like, to paraphrase Donald Trump, Trudeau could shoot someone on Yonge St. and not lose voters.

Despite his apparent Teflon coating, Trudeau does have an Achilles heel. Or at least his office does: its ability to navigate scandal.

The prolonged fumble over future Governor General Julie Payette’s expunged second degree assault charge and involvement in a fatal traffic accident is just the latest example of the Prime Minister’s Office giving a bad story legs.

Had Team Trudeau confirmed the obvious with Payette - that a background check had been done and that it did turn up these incidents, and that they were comfortable enough with the explanations given to proceed anyway - the story would have come and gone in a day.

Lessons are clearly not being learned.

Earlier this month the Prime Minister’s Office took five long days to figure out its story on the Omar Khadr settlement, putting them, for the first time in their mandate, massively offside with public opinion. They still haven’t confirmed the precise amount paid out to Khadr, or why that amount is appropriate.

The PMO took a similar amount of time to come up with their lines on the prime minister’s ritzy Christmas vacation to the Aga Khan’s private island. And last summer’s response to the brouhaha over the six-figure moving expenses for key PMO aides was no better.

Now, every political office struggles with scandal. What should be worrying for Trudeau is the struggles listed above have been in response to known bad news. They weren’t bolts from the blue.

The moving expenses were submitted in response to a Parliamentary question with a known tabling date. The prime minister’s vacation was obviously planned. The Khadr settlement didn’t pop out of thin air. Nor did the appointment of Payette.

Equally troubling is the political importance of the people implicated in these scandals: the prime minister himself; his two top aides; and Her Majesty’s representative in Canada.

These are five-alarm fires. And yet, in each instance, the prime minister and his office struggled to put out a coherent story and get their arms around its poor reception.

If Justin Trudeau and his team put as much effort into defence as they do their offence they would govern Canada for the rest of the century. Perhaps the thinking is they will always be able to outscore their opponents.

There is certainly no one I’d want more to build a political image in the 21st century than Team Trudeau. They are digital ninjas, the swamis of selfies, and magical with memes.

But every government, no matter how successful, eventually grapples with an existential crisis. An “unknown unknown” that strikes out of the blue. And unless the Prime Minister’s Office shapes up it won’t be able to get out from under it when it finally arrives.

I’m not familiar with the intimate details of how this PMO operates, but it seems the issues management team (defence) is out of sync with their colleagues in communications (offence).

In the normal run of business this isn’t a problem. The communications team’s focus is on putting the prime minister out to frame the government’s positive messages, while the issues management team keeps an eye on the niggling daily fires that need putting out.

It’s when these two worlds collide that serious trouble lurks. Something, whether it’s a process or the personalities involved, is preventing the government from responding effectively.

If Justin Trudeau wants to keep his exalted position in the polls he’ll need to devote some of his summer holiday to sorting this problem out.

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based columnist and commentator. He was director of communications for prime minister Stephen Harper.

 

[Jarnhamar]

As broken as they may be, those treaties are constitutional documents.  There's little chance of changing them.

Why not? There's provisions to change them in part V of the Constitution Act of 1982.

There's also little desire on the part of one if the interested parties.

Ya I can't imagine why.  Lets just keep dumping millions of dollars into those black holes and pretend we're helping and not making a select few rich.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.

That's a bit hard core, CP.  If this were the case, First Nations would be setting the pace over the rest of the "settlers". 

Also, if this it true, you shouldn't be able to vote, either - what stronger tool is there, after all, than the vote to help guide laws?  And methinks you think about the impact of your vote more than many. 

How democratic is a system where not every citizen can affect what's happening in their country?

... My status as a citizen is no different from that of anybody who was born here ... I've got a stake in this place, at least as much as anybody else, many of whom have no clue about the value of this Country ...

:nod:

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's a bit hard core, CP.  If this were the case, First Nations would be setting the pace over the rest of the "settlers". 

Also, if this it true, you shouldn't be able to vote, either - what stronger tool is there, after all, than the vote to help guide laws?  And methinks you think about the impact of your vote more than many. 

How democratic is a system where not every citizen can affect what's happening in their country? :nod:

How so ?  There is no first nations person who's been in Canada any longer than any other Canadian ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Are we talking about enforcing first Nations style law pre-settling of Canada?
Or give the law making  over to  someone like Teresa Spence present day?

 

[Kirkhill]

Why Loachman? 

I guess my short form answer is: on conservative principles - to manage the rate of change.  And to prevent rapid changes of the polity resulting from politicians bussing in supporters from other nations to support the agenda of the politicians.  There is widespread belief that Labour in the UK had an explicit policy based on that concept.  And it is arguable that similar policies have been followed elsewhere.

I can see how it might be taken as a hard core position Tony but I stand by it.

And Halifax Tar has the right of it - I am not arguing that one race or one people have rights in perpetuity.  I am arguing for change at a measured pace and at a pace that respects the sensibilities of the hosts that have invited strangers into their home.

Should I have the right to vote, as an immigrant?  Or should I be restricted to the privileges of a landed immigrant for life?  It is an arguable position.  I know of people that spent their lives in this country as landed immigrants - living here, making money, paying taxes, enjoying social benefits and the freedom to complain - and never became citizens.  That change in status didn't appear to disadvantage them greatly.

I am grateful that Canada and Canadians have offered me membership in their society - but it is still their society.  It is their gift to give.  It is my privilege.  It is their prerogative to set the terms under which the gift is given.

Just as it is my prerogative to decide who I invite into my house and on what terms.  Visitors, guests, are entitled to nothing other than civility and hospitality.

On the other hand, people born here, they have no choice in how they got here.  Anybody born here, regardless of origin, should be a full and equal member of the society and should have an equal say in setting the terms of their relationships with other Canadians.

And ultimately, I believe, that this would clarify and improve the relations between immigrants and the host society.  It would give notice to the immigrants that they should limit their expectations and agree to conform to the norms of the society they are being invited to join.

Is there room for Canadians to be more generous?  Offering accelerated acceptance and privileges in return for service to Canada?  Certainly.  But that, like citizenship itself, is in the gift of Canadians.  We can't expect it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How so ?  There is no first nations person who's been in Canada any longer than any other Canadian ?

I wasn't clear -- I meant that if you accept that only people born here, but not those who moved here, should be able to change the system, the First Nations were here before any "newer" Canadians, so they'd set the rules.

Are we talking about enforcing first Nations style law pre-settling of Canada?
Or give the law making  over to  someone like Teresa Spence present day?

Strangely enough, I'd bet there's even debate in Indigenous circles re:  whose "rules" are acceptable - not to mention likely different approaches for different Indigenous cultures ...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wasn't clear -- I meant that if you accept that only people born here, but not those who moved here, should be able to change the system, the First Nations were here before any "newer" Canadians, so they'd set the rules.

Strangely enough, I'd bet there's even debate in Indigenous circles re:  whose "rules" are acceptable - not to mention likely different approaches for different Indigenous cultures ...

I still don't understand you point.  I was born in Napanee, Ont, Canada, Feb 2, 1979.  My family has been in the Erinsville - Verona Ont area since the Irish potato famine.

Am I suddenly not as much a Canadian because I am not of first nations blood and heritage ?  Never mind the fact my family has been here since before confederation.

I say again, there is no first nations person who has been a Canadian any longer than anyone else. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I say again, there is no first nations person who has been a Canadian any longer than anyone else.

I was responding to this ...

... I disagree entirely with first generation immigrants, myself included, setting the laws for Canada.

... saying that if this was the case (and I don't think it is), First Nations could have a better case for making changes than any other "settlers", which I also don't agree with.  If you're a citizen, you have a stake in the game, so should have a voice in said game, period.

 

[Kirkhill]

A couple of points:

I am talking about individuals - not groups. 

The distinction that I would make is between those born within the boundaries of Canada - and thus by accident of birth, and through no fault or choice of their own, Canadians - and those who voluntary choose to become part of Canada.

I am also talking about the terms of citizenship.

I don't disagree that all citizens should be equal.  I am suggesting that citizenship should be harder to acquire.  Conversely I think that landed immigrant status should be broadly accepted and not just a three year hiatus on the way to automatic citizenship.  The landed immigrant status meets the needs of economic migrants.  Citizenship meets the needs of Canada.

 

[Loachman]

So you inherit your family home, in which you were born.

Subsequently, you enter into a conjugal relationship sanctioned by both Church and State.

Your bride is now a member of your family and resides with you in your family home.

She has, however, no say in how it is run.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That is exactly the case in our household, my wife is a PR and likely to remain one as Malaysia does not allow dual citizenship and their healthcare is better and cheaper than ours.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>first generation immigrants

Simply means "not born here".  Even if we distinguish between birth citizens and non-birth citizens, length of residence in Canada of ancestors is (should be) irrelevant to status of citizenship and rights/responsibilities/privileges, whether N-1 or N-1,000 generations.

 

[Kirkhill]

So you inherit your family home, in which you were born.

Subsequently, you enter into a conjugal relationship sanctioned by both Church and State.

Your bride is now a member of your family and resides with you in your family home.

She has, however, no say in how it is run.

The relationship between you and your bride is entirely up to yourselves and what you choose to negotiate between you.    If she doesn't like the terms of the agreement she is under no obligation to marry you.  Equally she should have no expectation of entitlements except as the law permits - and the law is changeable.

Now, in my case, my wife has negotiated favourable terms:  What's mine is ours and what's hers is hers.  And the house is run on her terms.