Duel Citizenship? yes or no…
December 5, 2006
Conservative Reporter
Tags: Uncategorized
When a new Liberal leader has the distinction of duel citizenship it is cause for concern. It is a question of loyalty. Remember Lebanon and the fact that thousands who were evacuated made their way back to Lebanon within a month or two? Meanwhile, Canada has a huge huge bill to pay for that evacuation. Is it not time for Canadians to be Canadian? Mr. Dion is leading a Canadian opposition. What possible ties does he cherish so much with France? Perhaps his ancestry ties?
On the other hand many of us have seen some marriages done for the convenience of canadian citizenship. What is worse is some seem to continue the duel citizenship tie with the country they came from.
Canada is made up of many languages and cultures. Most of them totally embrace Canada and become full and bonafide citizens.
Lebanon was a “wake up call”. Because of Lebanon, I understand the present government is looking more seriously at the duel question. Thought I heard that. Certainly hope so.
Is it not time for a decision, Mr. Dion?
Other articles on this subject:
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed
1.
Spinks | December 5, 2006 at 11:36 am
It’s about pride of being a Canadian. If you’re alaos a citizen of another country wehere do your loyalties lie? I don’t know, but for a PM it has to be clear.
2.
scott | December 5, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Spinks is definitely right, it is all about pride in our country [Nationalism].
But as I reinterated on his blog, it seems to me that, assuming Quebec is still part of Canada, equal representation is just not on and therefore we will never be able to move towards the type of patriotism that spinks speaks of above [Canadian pride].
The brand of federalism which exist in Canada does more harm than good when it comes to Canadian unity. It seems that our country is more preoccupied with and focused on the narrow interest of it citizens. And I believe that one has to recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has, on the whole, made things much worse. The Charter has not exacerbated regional interests, but it has exascerbated the focus on the individual interest. Which unfortunately trumps any pro-unity or patriotic discussion like the we are having at the moment.
Don’t get me wrong, there are still some great things that come from the Charter, but one has to recognize, I think, some of the problems it has created. It has increased intensity of focus on individual or group interest, as opposed to general interest. For example, multiculturalism is one aspect of the focus on a particular interest instead of the general interest [nationalism]. I think more discussions, such as the one we’re having, will gradually force us to appreciate that the focus on individual or group interest can go to far, and that there has to be greater weight given to the total social interest of the whole country.
And when this transformation occurs, our nation as a whole will reject the idea of a leader, or potential leader, holding personal sentiments towards two countries like what is currently being demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition.
3.
Spinks | December 5, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I remember when young Liberals were running around about SSM, they famously said the reason (talk about trying to simplify a complex subject) was that “It’s the Charter, Stupid.” Someone wisely retorted, “It’s the stupid Charter.”
The Charter is okay but we’ve allowed activist Judges to interpret it however they want. Clearly a bad idea.