The ethics of questioning one's patriotism.

[Machjo]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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"! :smile:

 

[wulfie68]

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

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]

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]

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]

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 don't 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Not currently. Certainly was suggested by OP.

 

[wulfie68]

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.

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 don't 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.

 

[taxslave]

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.

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]

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]

To question another's "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
- thanks to Samuel Johnson

 

[Niflmir]

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]

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]

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

Yeah, Parliament of Canada Web Site - Site Web du Parlement du Canada 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.