Apparently the role of government is to prevent elections. Maybe I am reading the situation wrong, but Harper is saying that the attack ads the Tories are running did Canadians a favour. I still don’t understand how it is a problem for someone to spend 30 years outside of Canada and then return. Especially since those 30 would have meant he had built up a large circle of friends and set down some roots. Obviously he has some kind of connection which Canada and so he wants to help make/keep it a great nation.
Harper also says that Ignatief will have to account for his time and words spoken about Canada. Why doesn’t harper have to do the same? What about the speeches he has given while the Reform was still kicking around? Harper’s modus operandi seems to be that he just wants people to look at Canada they way they look at the US.
We’ve just become increasingly irrelevant to a country [ the U.S.] that has a lot of priorities. (CBC Newsworld, July 11, 2003)
Criticizing someone for living outside of Canada for an extended period does not seem like a good way to increase relevance among other nations.
It does not make any sense in any way, shape or form that a new citizen would have to swear an oath to the Queen when all Canadian-born citizens have no allegiance whatsoever to her.
I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.
I have no loyalty to the Queen. What I do have is loyalty to those around me. I trust them. I rely on them. The laws which are passed, then upheld and then, possibly, contested in court are decided by people who were elected by myself and those around me. The Queen has no role whatsoever in my day-to-day life. The oath should represent the reality which Canadians live. As should our entire system.
I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to my friends and family, to Canadians living at home or abroad, to all those residing within Canada whether resident or alien.
Or something like that. Chew it up. Rip it apart. But come up with something better than the pithy and utterly ridiculous oath we have now.
Saying nothing about my opinions about abortion … here is what confounds me about Tiller’s murder. He was in a church, performing duties as an usher, when he was killed by a, presumably, right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Besides the obvious cognitive dissonance required to perform such a violent and barbaric act (i.e. using murder to stop murder), there is another problem. Christians look at the church, I think rightfully so, as a sanctuary and they use it as such. Not only on Sundays but also when people are likely to be deported.
Tiller, no matter what you think about his career or his perspective on life, was in a supposedly safe place. A sanctuary even. And someone else violated that sacred place.
The second thing confuses me greatly is the idea that killing someone ever solves anything. From the small scale (killing an abortion doctor) to the large scale (war).
I have my own perspective on abortion and it is my own. I do not wish to, at this time, discuss it. I only want to know how killing someone solves anything (putting aside whatever procedure or act was performed on an operating table).
