The ethics of questioning one's patriotism.
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
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
Actually, I got curious and went looking for it. Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 161 (Official Version)
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.
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.
That's not what that verse means in the least.
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.
Considering they think that a dual citizen PM will be making underhanded deals that favour their other territory.. it's debatable.
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.
The whole Iggy vs Harper debate is a tangent, nothing more, but I will add this to it: having been in the US now for 2 1/2 years (which is far less than 22 or 32!) I do find it grows increasingly difficult to stay in touch with Canadian issues, even though I still talk to friends and family back home regularly and I still get some of my daily news/information from Canadian and other international sources. I don't think Iggy is any smarter than I am (no I am not a professor at Havard but never felt the desire to go down that path either), so for him to be in touch (which recent political history does bring into question) he would have had to devote considerable resources to maintaining that conscious effort. Its almost an osmotic process, the way that we pick up on the concerns of those who surround us and being removed from the country, that process is slowed if not halted.
All this really means is that one's citizenship status does not automatically indicate how committed one is to their country.
This is something that the right really need to get over. It's pretty naive.
That's a real good generalization that takes no facts into mind. When did you become a mind reader ... or did you appoint yourself as thoughtsperson for anyone whose opinion differs from yours?
So the criticism was directed towards one individual specifically which means it's also an attack on you?
Makes perfect sense.
You really don't understand how passive agressive insults work. The House of Commons doesn't allow making direct comments towards other members, so of course the statement applies equally to anybody that fits the negation of his comment. In fact, in order not to be in contempt of the rules of the House it is necessary that he actually mean the comment to be as general as he said it.
So yes, he is indeed implying that because I live outside of Canada (you imply I need to for another 16 years before I am a snake), that I am somehow less qualified to be a politician. But the qualifications for being a politician are merely citizenship. So yes, the basis of his statements rests on premises that would lead one to conclude that I am less of a Canadian for living outside of Canada.
lol
I'm sure there is some legitimacy for voters to voice their concerns over the Canadian membership of those who represent them, but ultimately, as long as they have a citizenship (even if it is dual) then they've already satisfied their requirement of commitment.