Marc Garneau was an astronaut. Either they didn’t allow him to touch any of the instruments or it is only recently that he has been attending the school of Liberal logic to come out with such gems.
So, a few scenarios come to mind:
Russia invades Canada. US decides to help (after about 2 years of Canada fighting alone. About right for the US). US decides to use cluster bombs to save Winnipeg from the invading hordes. Canada is outraged and decides to:
A. Not play anymore and go home.
B. Tell the US to go home.
C. Join the Russians in kicking the US out of Canada.
Which one will Marc pick?
Major genocide happening in Africa (in other words, business as usual). Canada decides to help. US also decides to help, but needs to use cluster bomb to stop rampaging hordes slaughtering thousands of children in village. Canada decides to:
A. Not play anymore and go home (leaving thousands of innocents to die in the hope that some future person may not step on an unexploded mine).
B. Tell the US to go home (allowing thousands to die due to no help because Canada’s army is no where near capable of stopping the slaughter).
C. Join the rampaging hordes in driving the US out of Africa.
Which one will Marc pick?
Look, you can object that Marc Garneau’s position on C-6, that exceptions to the convention effectively gut its intent, is naive but your characterization is ridiculous. C-6 says:
So what are in sections 11 and 12 (9 simply states a minister may revoke an exception)
Section 11 (Exceptions — military cooperation or combined military operations)
Section 12 (Exception for peace officers, etc.)
Garneau’s position is, essentially, if you are against something for moral reasons (cluster munitions are inherently immoral) then having proxies use them for you, or on your behalf, is hypocritical. That’s not a particularly staggering thought.
What is weird is that the conventionitself reads as follows:
So Garneau’s position is that the Canadian government, by applying the conventions standards, is undermining the convention. I’m not sure he realizes that what he’s arguing isn’t that C-6 is a bad bill, but that Canada should be an advocate for a stronger convention.
You can’t see a situation where both Canada and the US think military intervention is required, but Canada will choose not to act because its ally, the most powerful military in the world, is involved?
You can’t imagine a scenario where action trumps feel good laws?
I can think of numerous ones. The editorial however speaks to taking a consistent moral approach to cluster munitions similar to land mines.
Principled opposition in an Opposition Critic isn’t the worst thing we could be dealing with. Imagine if we had to explain to children that criminal behaviour and associations aren’t a deal breaker when you get into political office.
Pair of convicted pedophiles can’t be deported back to Iraq, to be released in Canada.This article says what I’m thinking - if Iraq is known to refuse to allow deportation of Iraqi criminals from Canada, then we stop immigration from Iraq. If Iraq won’t play by the rules, we’ll just take immigrants from every other country in the world, and Iraq can go to hell.
A moral approach that is only relevant because it is unlikely to be questioned unless there are extreme circumstances. But when it happens many could be at risk while we dither over an ill conceived moral stance.
It demonstrates that reality and theory are two different things to people who should know better and want to run the country. If they said, we want to follow this moral principle, but we know that there might be areas where we can’t, then fine. I understand that there can be a difference between theory and practice. I have to deal with it every day. But it is usually the Left accusing the Right of their Black and White world view and here they are doing it themselves.
Not immigration - why punish Iraqis that have done no wrong - but I could agree with preventing Iraqi citizens from entering Canada. So if you’re Iraqi and are passing through or coming to Canada you get turned back. Actual immigrants would be fine.
I’m not sure there’s a monopoly on political parties accusing the other of moral turpitude.
But if we want legislation we’re happy with both pragmatically and morally I want an opposition critic to take that stance. So when we get someone, say Lyod Axeworthy, going on about the supremacy of soft power we have a critic to point out that being the stern handmaiden of god and not actually bringing anything to the table is next to useless.
I’m not sure how you’d qualify that; I agree that punishing good people who legitimately want to immigrate to Canada because of their government’s policies and because of some bad apples might be extreme, but if their government wants to make our risk too high, then we can eliminate the risk. Iraqis can blame their government for being assholes in the international community.
Perfect. Your government won’t accept you without the paperwork you won’t sign? Adios, amigo. You’re not our problem any longer.
I think what’s bugging me the most is the convicted pedophile and his family’s attitude that Canada owes them something - if you wanted to stay in Canada, you should have not committed heinous crimes. That’s working for thousands of other Iraqi citizens.
Raping a seven year old for a couple of years and then blaming him. He should be put away for a lot longer (ideally as a dangerous offender), but given the penalty allowed by law and as applied through the sentencing guidelines, I understand the sentence given. I would support the raising of the max (10 yrs I believe) to life with tight parole conditions for kiddie rapists. The judge said his evidence was “so illogical and preposterous as to lead to the conclusion it was concocted in an effort to explain away very damning evidence.”
On a completely unrelated topic, this Dread Pirate fully endorses the level of piratism displayed tonight by our very own Spoons on stage in Lethbridge. Well done, ye scurvy dog!
