The ethics of questioning one's patriotism.


Machjo
Avatar
#1
I'd like your opinions on the ethics of quesitoning a Canadian's patriotism. To me patriotism is nothing more and nothing less than love for ones country. In short, if you love your country, however you define it, you're a patriot.

It seems to me some confound patiotism with nationalism, believing that unless you believe in the moral superiority of one nation over another and all that that entails, you're somehow less than patriotic.

to me it is absolutely disgusting to question a Canadian's nationlism because he's lived a broad, or has dual citizenship, etc. if he has made a contribution to his fellow man regardless of the citizenship of the people he's served. To judge a person's patriotism based on such criteria is insulting, incredibly insulting to me (and just for the record, though I have lived abroad before, I still have only one citienship and always have), and any politician or any otehr Canadian for that matter who questions a person's patriotism based on such criteria is merely showing a total lack of culture and decency. And for an MP or especially Pm to engage in such a dirty activity is shameful to say the least.

What are your view on the issue of questioning a person's patriotism based on such criteria?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
Avatar
+4
#2  Top Rated Post
I believe there are a fair number of 'citizens' who are Canadian's by convenience. The ones who don't do anything to or for Canada and who generally forget they are Canadian unless they require something from Canada (like a rescue). I feel as a free citizen of Canada, that I should have the right to question these individuals motives, patriotism, nationalism and their bathroom habits if I so choose.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#3
There's a bunch of a people in a border with rules exclusive to those people within that border.

Let's make life good for them without harming those outside the border.

That is the extent of my patriotism.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

I feel as a free citizen of Canada, that I should have the right to question these individuals motives, patriotism, nationalism and their bathroom habits if I so choose.

Did someone recently put duct tape over your mouth to prevent you from talking?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I'd like your opinions on the ethics of quesitoning a Canadian's patriotism. To me patriotism is nothing more and nothing less than love for ones country. In short, if you love your country, however you define it, you're a patriot.

It seems to me some confound patiotism with nationalism, believing that unless you believe in the moral superiority of one nation over another and all that that entails, you're somehow less than patriotic.

to me it is absolutely disgusting to question a Canadian's nationlism because he's lived a broad, or has dual citizenship, etc. if he has made a contribution to his fellow man regardless of the citizenship of the people he's served. To judge a person's patriotism based on such criteria is insulting, incredibly insulting to me (and just for the record, though I have lived abroad before, I still have only one citienship and always have), and any politician or any otehr Canadian for that matter who questions a person's patriotism based on such criteria is merely showing a total lack of culture and decency. And for an MP or especially Pm to engage in such a dirty activity is shameful to say the least.

What are your view on the issue of questioning a person's patriotism based on such criteria?

I'm not sure why a person would question another's patriotism, comes under the heading of "not minding one's own business"!
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'm not sure why a person would question another's patriotism, comes under the heading of "not minding one's own business"!


Bingo, JLM, thats generally the way I view it too.

However, being a generalization, there are some exceptions to the rule: namely those running for office. Like their moral belief code, this is another valid area of comparison for the public. I know what brought this on is that Machjo is all in a tizzy because people are critical of Mulclair's dual French-Canadian citizenship. Sorry, Machjo, but when someone wants to lead a national party, and potentially the country, the people of Canada have a right to question their loyalties, especially when dealing with dual citizenship. Dual citizenship defines a person as owing allegiance to two nations, and the public has a right to explore the possibility of a conflict of interest between those loyalties.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#6
My wife has been living in Canada for about 10 years now and she doesn't even have a Canadian citizenship. She has a dual citizenship with Hong Kong and Germany. She's lived in both countries, including England, then Scotland and now Canada.

She's well educated and takes part in many public initiatives that have benefited people here.

Her citizenship has never had any effect on that.

She only really lacks the entitlement to vote, which I think is perfectly fair.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

My wife has been living in Canada for about 10 years now and she doesn't even have a Canadian citizenship. She has a dual citizenship with Hong Kong and Germany. She's lived in both countries, including England, then Scotland and now Canada.

She's well educated and takes part in many public initiatives that have benefited people here.

Her citizenship has never had any effect on that.

Thats great. Your wife sounds like a wonderful person who believes in getting involved in her community and she deserves kudos for that. However that is a long way from being a part of a country's leadership and possibily facing a conflict of interest if she has to make a decision on an issue where her choice can affect the well-being of thousands of people in both countries. That is the difference that too many seem to be willing to gloss over. And conflicts with European nations like France (going back to Mulclair and Dion before him) don't have to be violent: they can be disagreements over economic policy like agricultural subsidies (which we have sharply disagreed with the EU nations on for decades) or things like the Kyoto "treaty" on greenhouse gases (which most of Europe supported while the issue was more divisive here).

And FYI voting isn't an entitlement: its a right and responsibility of a citizen, and should not be granted lightly.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

However that is a long way from being a part of a country's leadership and possibily facing a conflict of interest if she has to make a decision on an issue where her choice can affect the well-being of thousands of people in both countries.

If anything, a leader's dual citizenship is a strength for the country he is leading, considering he will be getting more scrutiny on sovereignty.

You can see this at work with the current situation of Mulcair and Harper. Mulcair is under scrutiny and isn't even elected as an opposition leader yet, while Harper, as a Canadian citizen PM, admits that he is giving away our economic sovereignty.

Stephen Harper I know some people dont like it It is a loss of national sovereignty - YouTube




Harper's single citizenship title did not bolster his patriotism or our sovereignty.

It's an illusory term.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Thats great. Your wife sounds like a wonderful person who believes in getting involved in her community and she deserves kudos for that. However that is a long way from being a part of a country's leadership and possibily facing a conflict of interest if she has to make a decision on an issue where her choice can affect the well-being of thousands of people in both countries. That is the difference that too many seem to be willing to gloss over. And conflicts with European nations like France (going back to Mulclair and Dion before him) don't have to be violent: they can be disagreements over economic policy like agricultural subsidies (which we have sharply disagreed with the EU nations on for decades) or things like the Kyoto "treaty" on greenhouse gases (which most of Europe supported while the issue was more divisive here).

And FYI voting isn't an entitlement: its a right and responsibility of a citizen, and should not be granted lightly.

Judging by her character, I'm sure she'd be a great leader of Germany or Hong Kong based on her description here. Generally speaking, a person who is capable of loving one country can love all people. A person incapable of loving another people is not likely to be able to love his country either.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Judging by her character, I'm sure she'd be a great leader of Germany or Hong Kong based on her description here. Generally speaking, a person who is capable of loving one country can love all people. A person incapable of loving another people is not likely to be able to love his country either.

Yes, but as a political leader you must sometimes prefer to love those within the borders over those outside the borders. What makes a good leader, is someone who can still provide the best for their own, while reducing as much as possible, the amount of harm that could be caused to other nations as a result of your actions.

This seems to be where patriotism and nationalism intersect.

And for the real mind ****, most people can't handle the idea that sometimes you have to allow your country to suffer in the short term in order to reap the long term benefit.

While I don't agree with much of Harper's principles, giving away some of our economic sovereignty is a good move because the economy is a global economy of interdependence.

Anyway.. we seem to have two threads discussing relatively the same ideas so I'm not sure what should go where, but on an individual level, I agree that you can see who really cares about their country by what they say and how they act.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#11
This is where I profoundly disagree. Whether from a humanistic, religious or pretty well any other ethical standpoint, an MP should think of himself as responsible for the wellbeing of mankind and not his own constituents only. As such, he should recognize that the wellbeing of one is dependent on the wellbeing of all. To look out for your own national interests at the expense of others, however small the price they pay, is bound to attract repercussions in kind.

Oh, yess, and I'm not saying this from a right or left point of view. Socialist or capitalist, i think this basic boy scout rule ought to apply.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

This is where I profoundly disagree. Whether from a humanistic, religious or pretty well any other ethical standpoint, an MP should think of himself as responsible for the wellbeing of mankind and not his own constituents only. As such, he should recognize that the wellbeing of one is dependent on the wellbeing of all. To look out for your own national interests at the expense of others, however small the price they pay, is bound to attract repercussions in kind.

I don't think we really disagree here.

I agree that the first order should be to ensure your actions as a leader, while beneficial to your own people, do not come at the expense (or harm) of others. In fact, I do also support measures that may temporarily cause a reasonable amount of pain and suffering in the short term, if it can ensure a greater benefit for more people in the long term.

It's a tricky game that requires a bit of utilitarianism.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Did someone recently put duct tape over your mouth to prevent you from talking?

Not currently. Certainly was suggested by OP.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

If anything, a leader's dual citizenship is a strength for the country he is leading, considering he will be getting more scrutiny on sovereignty.

No its not. Just because someone is under scrutiny doesn't mean they will do what they are supposed to do. That is not a strength at all, only an admission of possible issues... and only if they are willing to admit that France's interests in every issue are not identical to Canada's.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You can see this at work with the current situation of Mulcair and Harper. Mulcair is under scrutiny and isn't even elected as an opposition leader yet, while Harper, as a Canadian citizen PM, admits that he is giving away our economic sovereignty.

Stephen Harper I know some people dont like it It is a loss of national sovereignty - YouTube




Harper's single citizenship title did not bolster his patriotism or our sovereignty.

It's an illusory term.

Again you are being intellectually dishonest: Harper didn't give away our sovereignty as much as previous PMs possibly already have. All he did was speak to the reality we live in and spell it out to those who don't want to admit the facts. When you look at the way the economies of the world have evolved over the past decades, its debatable as to whether Canadian leaders have had much choice in what they really could do to affect the global picture and how it affects the country. Really about the most we could have done is put more severe limitations on foreign ownership and resource exports... but that would have severely retarded our development and growth.

I agree with some of the basic philosophy being expressed: that Canadian leaders should want to be good global neighbours to other countries but the reality is EVERYONE has disagreements sooner or later... and I expect that a leader should put the interests of his people above those of others in situations where mutually acceptable compromises are not possible. When someone owes allegiance to another nation it raises a question of their willingness to put Canada before that other nation.
Last edited by wulfie68; Jan 18th, 2012 at 10:38 AM..
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

My wife has been living in Canada for about 10 years now and she doesn't even have a Canadian citizenship. She has a dual citizenship with Hong Kong and Germany. She's lived in both countries, including England, then Scotland and now Canada.

She's well educated and takes part in many public initiatives that have benefited people here.

Her citizenship has never had any effect on that.

She only really lacks the entitlement to vote, which I think is perfectly fair.

10 years and not a citizen yet? Have to question her motives for being here then.
My wife came from Germany about 15 years ago and couldn't wait to get her Canadian citizenship of which she is extremely proud. Had to fight like hell with our wishy washy immigration bureaucrats to convince them she did NOT want dual citizenship.
If you are not a citizen you do not get to vote. And if you do not vote you have no right to complain about the government you get.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't think we really disagree here.

I agree that the first order should be to ensure your actions as a leader, while beneficial to your own people, do not come at the expense (or harm) of others. In fact, I do also support measures that may temporarily cause a reasonable amount of pain and suffering in the short term, if it can ensure a greater benefit for more people in the long term.

It's a tricky game that requires a bit of utilitarianism.

I understand your thinking here but don't fully agree. As I see it if you can do good for yourself (country) and help another, that is a best case scenario. However if it comes to a case of me or you I will look out for my own best interests first. Part of this is political philosophy and part survival training. On a personal level it works like this: If you are being carried out to sea in a riptide and in trouble I will not attempt to save you unless I am sure that I am capable of the task since otherwise there would be 2 dead bodies to recover. I will do everything in my power to effect a rescue short of causing more casualties.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

10 years and not a citizen yet? Have to question her motives for being here then.
My wife came from Germany about 15 years ago and couldn't wait to get her Canadian citizenship of which she is extremely proud. Had to fight like hell with our wishy washy immigration bureaucrats to convince them she did NOT want dual citizenship.
If you are not a citizen you do not get to vote. And if you do not vote you have no right to complain about the government you get.

Her argument against that is that she's quite fine with not being able to vote or complain about the government.

I have to say though, it really sucks to wait 6-7 months for an updated passport, whereas I can waltz in and out of the office.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
Avatar
#17
To question another's "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
- thanks to Samuel Johnson
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
Avatar
+4
#18
I don't know what Harper's bent is with the whole dual citizenship thing, but I once watched a sitting of the House of Commons where he basically alleged that anybody that ever lived outside of Canada was somehow less of a Canadian for it.

I was living in Germany at the time.

I've got to admit, it brings me a bit of shame to know that somebody like that is now ruling the country.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
Avatar
+2 / -1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

I don't know what Harper's bent is with the whole dual citizenship thing, but I once watched a sitting of the House of Commons where he basically alleged that anybody that ever lived outside of Canada was somehow less of a Canadian for it.

He "basically alleged"? I would rather read exactly what he said rather than take your word for it. Do you have a link?
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

He "basically alleged"? I would rather read exactly what he said rather than take your word for it. Do you have a link?

Yeah, -- happy hunting. It was during one of his first minorities, I believe it was in the summer time, it was during question period I believe, and it was related to the whole thing where the liberal opposition leader had spent all that time living abroad. (I can't even remember his name now.)

I'd actually try and find it for you, but it was just an anecdote. I was not trying to prove anything to anyone, so I really don't care.
 
WLDB
NDP
Avatar
#21
Patriotism is fine. Nationalism is rather dangerous. From the looks of things today there doesn't seem to be much of it around in Canada anymore. People seem to be far more into Regionalism than Nationalism.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

He "basically alleged"? I would rather read exactly what he said rather than take your word for it. Do you have a link?

Ignatieff ready to 'mess' with Harper over attack ads | CTV News

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" John 20:29
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
Avatar
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

He "basically alleged"? I would rather read exactly what he said rather than take your word for it. Do you have a link?

Actually, I got curious and went looking for it. --

Quote:

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of National Defence is a veteran of the Canadian Forces. He has served this country courageously in uniform for 32 years. When the Leader of the Opposition is able to stand in uniform and serve his country, then I will care about his opinion of the performance of the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember the Prime Minister's service record.
On Sunday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs foolishly called for the Russians to return to Afghanistan. He is the one responsible for our diplomacy.
On Tuesday, the Minister of International Cooperation declared that the Afghan people do not eat flour. She is the woman responsible for development.
This week, the Minister of National Defence has stumbled from one mistake to the other. He is the man responsible for defence.
Is it not time that the Prime Minister brought this triple crown of incompetence to an end?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I will just say that it is true I have never served in the armed forces. I consider that an experience that I have missed in my life, but I can say that I have always lived and worked and paid my taxes in this country.

The house then gets up in arms because Harper's tone insinuates this as a clear jab at Ignatieff and the fact that he lived outside of Canada for a while, so the Speaker of the House needs to call for order.

So yeah, Harper thinks he is better than me because I have left Canada for a time. Ignatieff called him on it, but it was quite hollow as the Speaker gave the floor to Mr. Duceppe.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" John 20:29

Please explain what this verse has to do with context of this thread topic.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#25
To paraphrase:
Grasshopper, an honest man does not question a honest man.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
Avatar
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

So yeah, Harper thinks he is better than me because I have left Canada for a time. Ignatieff called him on it, but it was quite hollow as the Speaker gave the floor to Mr. Duceppe.

No he doesn't. Were you attempting to become PM? Mr. Harper was being critical of Iggy specifically because he was a political opponent who wasn't just out of the the country "a little while" but was absent for 32 years. A person who lives outside of the country by choice and then reappears after half a lifetime to pursue the PM's office is called a snake, so the criticism is rightly deserved.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

To paraphrase:
Grasshopper, an honest man does not question a honest man.

That's not what that verse means in the least.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

No he doesn't. Were you attempting to become PM? Mr. Harper was being critical of Iggy specifically because he was political opponent who wasn't out of the the country "a little while" he was absent for 32 years. A person who lives outside of the country by choice and then reappears after half a lifetime to pursue the PM's office is called a snake, so the criticism is rightly deserved.

Big deal.

If someone had a partial citizenship for the country and was a good PM for this country, regardless of how long they were gone, no one in their right minds would give a damn.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#28
Are those who give a damn in their right minds?
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Are those who give a damn in their right minds?

Considering they think that a dual citizen PM will be making underhanded deals that favour their other territory.. it's debatable.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
Avatar
+3
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

No he doesn't. Were you attempting to become PM? Mr. Harper was being critical of Iggy specifically because he was political opponent who wasn't out of the the country "a little while" he was absent for 32 years. A person who lives outside of the country by choice and then reappears after half a lifetime to pursue the PM's office is called a snake, so the criticism is rightly deserved.

You forgot to carry the 1, I see. It was 22 years that he was in the UK.

Well, you're allowed to see it as you want. I see it as a slam on me, maybe I will want to pursue politics in Canada some day, I am very clearly still interested in Canadian politics. But Harper is doing his best to make me feel guilty about not being on unemployment.

I see it as a direct questioning of my patriotism.
 

Similar Threads

0
The One's That Get Away.
by Unforgiven | Sep 18th, 2008
15
Which one's better looking??
by Jersay | Jun 16th, 2006
26
This one's for Valentine's Day
by GreenGreta | Feb 1st, 2006
115
Questioning what happened on 9/11
by moghrabi | Dec 21st, 2005
no new posts