The Tories have now announced they’re setting up a “tip line” for people to report “barbaric cultural practices.”
I don’t remember a more obvious racist dog whistle in federal politics since, well, ever.
How do you explain s. 10.4 (2) of the Citizenship Act and the Gaya matter?
What’s the number? I’d like to report a fellow who keeps singing “I just need someone to love” out of key throughout Canada and around the world.
More seriously, we have police to look into illegality. Encouraging people to report each other for not living the way the complainer wants, rather than for violating the law, is just plain nasty. Again, McCarthy comes to mind, encouraging hatred in society, rather than dealing with genuine issues.
I haven’t read the act, and even if I did, not being a lawyer, I probably wouldn’t grasp it in its entirety.
I would hazard to guess that very, very few Canadians actually read these acts and simply form their opinions from news stories. I’m definitely guilty of that myself.
Muffin quoted the relevent section of the act. It’s hardly dense legal speak.
Or maybe you could read the article Muffin linked above?
Tories move to revoke citizenship of convicted terrorist born in Canada - The Globe and Mail which contained:
Or read what I quoted and linked last page?
Will this be the same number we use to report our neighbours who hide muslims in their attic? Or will that be a separate line?
Being an immigrant does not give you some kind of automatic pass on being a bigot. And it does not somehow give you more authority to speak on the subject, particularly since you have admitted that you simply form your opinions from news stories.
I can assure you with absolute certainty that I am the furthest thing from a bigot you could possibly imagine and I’m not going to keep repeating that because as I do you seem to take pleasure in suggesting that I am in fact a bigot. You don’t know me. Stop with the absolutely false allegations please.
I doubt I’m the only Canadian to form opinions based on news stories. Who the fuck reads all the bills in their entirety put before parliament? No one. That’s who, unless you’re a lawyer, a member of parliament, or a senator directly involved with the legislation.
So now that you’ve seen a news article that people born in Canada can indeed have their citizenship taken away, do you have a different opinion on the new law?
Not really.
So your support of the law was based in part by not knowing what it said, and you defended it on that basis. That basis having been proven wrong, you don’t care?
Did you know the law, to my admitted amazement, is an ex post facto law?
Did you know that in fact the government need never have the case go to court at all, and that a born and raised Canadian can be exiled purely by ministerial fiat?
Don’t believe me? Read the law. It’s not that hard.
The law is fucking preposterous. It’s unnecessary, pointless, and obviously caters to bigots, whether or not you’re one. Your ongoing “it doesn’t matter if someone’s rights are taken away as long as it isn’t me” position is just baffling.
I have never been more disappointed in the Conservative Party. When they came to power they were doing their level best to reach out to ethnic minorities and turn the Tories into a big tent party. Now they’re picking stupid little battles with minorities - seriously, no rational human being with an IQ above a marmoset thinks the niqab is a consequential problem in this country - in a desperate effort to do nothing more than scrape out 170 seats in an election. There is no issue of public safety at play here; if the Tories gave a shit about national security they wouldn’t be underfunding and mismanaging the armed forces. (Duh.) All that matters is turning out the scared old white person vote so they can remain in power. They’re even more morally bankrupt than the Ontario Liberals by now, and that is truly a nadir.
It seems we simply are using different definitions of the word “bigot”.
Yours seems to be along the lines of:
“I’m not a bigot, I just think all Muslims are naquib-wearing terrorists, and should all be removed from the country.”
Sort of a variation on the old “I’m not racist, I just don’t think black people should have the same rights as the rest of us”
You have hit the nail on the head.
And you can thank Harper’s newest Temporary Foreign Worker (Lynton Crosby) for that.
Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t judge me from a few posts on a message board. You don’t know me.
Your judgement of me is completely wrong.
ETA: Have I ever mentioned Muslims or niqabs in this entire thread?
I haven’t been involved in this latest exchange, but I will just say this. This isn’t – or shouldn’t be – about whether you are or are not a bigot and I’m quite willing to grant that you’re not. The more relevant question is whether Harper and his minions are bigots. That would be Stephen “old stock Canadians” Harper, and the minions of the niqab phobia, those who would take away the citizenship of a native-born Canadian and potentially leave him stateless, the ones who just set up a tip line so bigots can report cultural practices that they disapprove of.
Whether those folks are bigots is the pertinent question. Whether they’re willing to trash the Constitution as readily as they’ve trashed science and the environment is the question. They’re certainly practicing the politics of cultural divisiveness, and what sort of adjective one should apply to those who, in possession of all the facts, place themselves on Harper’s side of this divide is also a pertinent question.
I haven’t been happy with the Conservatives for a while, so I have protest voted for the Green Party in past elections. This time I’m angry at the dog whistle bullshit and personal insults. I wish I wasn’t in Alberta so my vote could actually have some impact. Maybe enough other Canadians are angry too and Harper will reap what he’s sown. I live in hope.
This election I’ll be voting for the Liberal candidate, even though it won’t make a dent in my riding. It may not be a difference with a distinction, but I’ll be voting for the lesser of three evils rather than making a protest vote this time.
Hmmm. I’m not quite sure that’s my position. My position is more like “If you become a Canadian citizen while holding dual citizenship, and commit acts of terrorism, treason, or take up arms against the Canadian Forces then you deserve to be deported after you’ve served your sentence in Canada.”
I’m comfortable deporting people committing these types of heinous crimes.
Remember, many of us dual citizens are Canadian by birthright, not by naturalization.
The gist of your and Harper’s position seems to be that No True Canadian could commit acts of terrorism or treason; therefore, any person who does commit these acts isn’t really Canadian, and thus it’s okay to strip them of citizenship.
I hold that once someone is in the family, no matter what they do, they are our responsibility. If we’ve made someone a Canadian and they turn around and blow up Manitoba, that is inexcusable. Nonetheless, we need to figure out how a Canadian could do such a thing, and see if they can be rehabilitated, not just kick them back to Latvia.
That’s a fair position and I understand it. My position is that we should have the option of kicking them out.
Who’s is this them Leaffan? They are citizens aren’t they? Are only dual citizens capable of being bad enough to be kicked out?
It’s the same as this “barbaric cultural practices” attack. There’s no list as far as I’m aware. Perhaps they mean running puppy mills or using leg traps on mink. Maybe it means male circumcision?