In other words, you think other countries should take our criminals with the thinnest of excuses. “Hey, your parents were born in Pakistan. So even though you were born and spent your entire life in Canada as a citizen, we’ve decided you’re Pakistan’s problem now.” Sorry that’s not a fair postion. You are just wrong.
Would you like it if, for example, Lebanon had a simar rule and they started stripping Lebanese Canadian criminals of their Lebanese citizenships and started exporting them to Canada?
I don’t think I’m wrong at all. I think a fair number of Canadians agree with me.
If they committed terrorist acts or acts of treason against the government, sure.
I think, like you until yesterday, they don’t have a clue about the laws implications.
Do you plan on committing any terrorist activities against Canada?
Do you know anyone who plans on committing any terrorist attacks against Canada?
Do you want convicted terrorists living amongst us in Canada?
I don’t see what the issue is.
On an emotional level, I’d be comfortable throwing them to the sharks. But on the level of reasoned logic, I’m not comfortable undermining our most basic Constitutional principles.
That sounds an awful lot like “no one should have a problem with government surveillance, warrantless wiretaps, or – let’s go the whole nine yards here – Orwellian two-way TV in every home” unless they have plans to be a criminal. Do you have plans to be a criminal? No? Then I don’t see what the issue is. :rolleyes:
Recall from previous posts that I’m pretty much a conservative-leaning hardliner on immigration issues. If I’m upset by this crap, I imagine pretty much everyone to the left of Harper’s jackbooted goons must be, too.
Both of you knock it off.
Taking offense at “insults” that were never aimed at one is counterproductive to discussion.
Replying to that unnecessary objection by going ahead and ascribing statements (or beliefs) to the poster who took offense, when that poster has made no such statements, simply makes the false inference into a true statement.
Step away from the personal comments.
[ /Moderating ]
I said to you last page that "well it won’t happen to me " isn’t a valid defense of this bad law. It breaks the concept of citizenship and also expects other countries to accept our criminals. It’s just bad and your response is who gives a shit, I’m not a terrorist. I am not going to bother trying to convince you anymore and I really can’t respect your opinion on this matter. It’s thoughtless.
So what exactly is so pant wettingly scary about terrorism? How, materially, does it differ from organized crime or general violence? If it doesn’t, then I would image you’d be on board for stripping citizenship from all criminals. Of course not all criminals are immigrants, or second generation Canadians so I suppose you’re also fine with removing citizenship from any Canadian accused or convicted or a crime. Oh, and to keep consistency with how the Conservatives operate, you’re fine with ministerial discretion when it comes to determining who is nasty enough and not “Canadian” enough to deserve being exiled.
I do, at least if the bill is something of interest to me personally or professionally. The Legisinfo section of the parl.gc.ca website provides the full text of all bills before Parliament including enacted ones, and also provides a TLDR legislative summary written by the Parliamentary research staff which explains the background, significant legal points, and expected impact of most bills. It’s worth looking at.
Thanks. I’ll look into that.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a document that is meant to be based on a popular vote. It exists and must exist whether you personally agree with it or not. Your approval is not necessary.
I just watched the VICE interview of Justin Trudeau in which he’s pretty thoughtful about the plight of the indigenous people not having proper drinking water for over 10 years. How is that possible in this country?
He also stated that it’s time for the young, the indigenous, the transgender, and others to get out and vote because Harper is fine if you don’t. That if you do not vote you are giving a vote for someone who does not share your interests and concerns.
I thought Justin is doing well for someone who some media thought was just a gay Shiny Pony. (the just not ready guy)
It feels like the Trudeau/Brazeau boxing match of a couple of years ago. It was 3-1 against Justin, until the match. Now Brazeau is the disgraced Conservative Senator and Trudeau? who knows come October 19. Justin Trudeau -- Patrick Brazeau Charity Boxing Match -- English Coverage of Complete Fight - YouTube
Yeah, I’m calling the election for Trudeau. I’m still voting NDP, but I think at the end of the day, Mulcair’s a bit hamstrung by his balance-the-budget-at-all-costs and the racism card played in the French debates (excuse me: I mean the niqab [non-]issue). As front-runner, the niqab thing has hit Mulcair harder, and I really do think Trudeau’s economic plan is stronger. We’ll see, though.
Pity that Mulclair and Trudeau are not willing to unite the left at this time.
Vote Compassis a very useful tool for anyone wondering how to vote this election. Essentially it is a series of questions, and you answer how you feel about the issue (Very strong for … very strong against)
It then shows where you are on a grid, compared with the parties. Somewhat unsurprisingly, I was mid-way between Green and NDP.
The interesting thing is how close most of the parties are together on the issues… with the notable exception of the Harper Conservatives, which show as a far right outlier.
The left REALLY NEEDS to unite, in order to properly represent the 70% of the country who are all like-minded.
Though obviously I’m not voting, it’s got me down as virtually a three-way tie between the Greens, NDP, and Liberals, in that order. I may have skewed it by marking all the leaders as highly competent, even the ones I don’t like.
Conservative 95%
NDP 75%
Liberal 50%
Green 40%
I think Mulcair is very competent and would actually be a good Prime Minister. I just don’t agree with a lot of his policies.
When I did it, after I did the “weigh your results” feature … I have all three major parties as exactly equal! :smack: