Canadians have a reputation as being tough fighters in war. Peace keeping is bullshjt.
Conservatives blame Media for Canada's failure to address Refugee Crisis
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
TODAY'S QUESTION
How can Canada best address the migrant crisis?
Accepting more refugees
981 (24 %)
Fighting Islamic State
2113 (51 %)
Sending aid 1010 (25 %)
Total number of votes: 4104
CTV News | Top Stories - Breaking News - Top News Headlines
Oh, and it turns out the family hadn't applied to come to Canada, after all.
Don PeatVerified account @reporterdonpeat
Statement from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the Kurdi family #cdnpoli
https://twitter.com/reporterdonpeat/status/639504550517440513/photo/1
Stephen Taylor @stephen_taylor
The tragic thing is that after the election, politicians and the media will stop caring about these refugees. Political impact fueling this.
Between 2003 and 2013, Canada ranked #2 in the world accepting refugees resettled by UNHCR.
> Why Does Canada Accept Refugees?
Please don't confuse the libtards with the facts.
Amid what has been called the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, the immigration minister says Canada has been taken in by "approximately 2,500" Syrian refugees to date.
eh?
eh?
And we were advised by UN to take in 10,000 over a year ago.
We could have easily matched that.
So we have the social network and revenues to accept 10,000? Or if they did would libtards such as yourself complain about deficits etc.?
And let us not forget the particular family in question was not even coming here. They made no attempt. His sister had filed a claim for his brother which was returned "incomplete" (meaning she didn't fill the form correctly). There is no story here other than a made up one by libtards like yourself who would have us believe Harper personally went over there and capsized the boat and held the kids head under water.
You seem to be making several jumps which I am afraid I do not follow. Perhaps if you applied logic it would be easier? But anyways how did Iraq get into this?
If this is the case then there are two missing points and that other one is the innocents care about their own lives a lot more than you do.
I seem to have ended up blaming the death of the 3 year old Syrian child onto the shoulder of the ones who are behind the scenes of creating a situation that makes escape by rickety raft as being the better odd than if he had stayed at the home that is probably now in ruins. You seem to have also missed the point that the instability is fired by the US, the UK, France, Germany and a few other bit players like Canada rather than the 5 Arab Empires that are given credit for the instability. 9when you look at their own track record they should have been overrun a long time ago.
להבין; להסיק (understand)
Most likely only the professionals and rich. Maybe a few rebels that were leaders and are getting shelter from prosecution at the ICC. Cream of the crop so to speak.
When you get 3M people (or so)as refugees why not include them? Add them up from all the 'West inspired' uprisings that create the refugees in the first place it is probably equal to a high percent of Canada's whole population.
Think of Canada getting an ice-storm that downs the power-lines and then 6 years later they still are down. Welkome toe Kandaharhar
War is no longer fought by military vs military, both sides target civilians and the support system that keep them healthy like power and water facilities, things that create a lot of refugees then the food is targeted. Are those the tough fighters you are referencing? (the last Canadian soldier that I heard about was within 100 yards for a forward spotting location, spotting for smart bombs if that part is confusing you at all)
You probably start complaining if your street isn't plowed within a week of a heavy snowfall.
WE shouldn't be taking in any refugees from the muddle east. Send them to Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Dubi. WHere ever but not here. NOT our problem. Let them settle their own conflict.
But when it is not as much as the left wants it is a cut.
We should be taking in as much refugees as possible and giving them mandatory language training.
It's the biggest boon to the economy that we can ask for.
Reid: Chris Alexander just the latest example of how politics debases even the best of us | Ottawa Citizen
ottawacitizen.com
What ever happened to Chris Alexander?
The once promising boy-wonder of the Canadian foreign service has become a cautionary tale about what happens to those who fall in with the wrong crowd. It’s a remarkable story not only because of his obvious promise but because, in this instance, the wrong crowd happens to be the hard-cases who run our country’s governing party.
Blessed with Jimmy Stewart posture and an accompanying aw-shucks charm, the Oxford-educated Alexander won early attention as Canada’s first resident Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2003. He was only 34 years old. After an additional stint in the war-ravaged country as a UN Special Representative, earning him deserved plaudits at home and abroad, he returned to Canada to take up the higher calling of public office, winning his way into Parliament in the 2011 election. Two years later he was named Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
It’s a story that provokes comparisons to the likes of Lester B. Pearson, almost smacking of an individual manifest destiny – the diplomatic prodigy who rises right to the top and one day leads our politics toward a more enlightened and understanding place. The inclination to like him, to believe in him, was strong. He stirred interest even among those who don’t usually vote Conservative – maybe for this guy someday they would. Maybe he was special.
Unfortunately, Alexander has often disappointed.
Instead of bringing diplomatic grace to the practice of politics, he has frequently proven himself a devoted student of the poison-tipped partisanship that so thoroughly defines the Harper Conservatives. During his time in Ottawa he has done what it takes to get noticed, win advancement and gain the favour of a prime minister who prefers spear-throwers to problem solvers. The former ambassador has conquered Ottawa by becoming a foot soldier, another suit of armour in Harper’s Talking Points army. It’s been a shame to see.
The most recent and strident example came this week with his early handling of the Syrian refugee crisis. The limp, lifeless image of a little boy whose family hoped to escape tyranny has seized the attention of people around the world — a haunting snapshot that shreds the gut of any parent. As the father of four boys, I admit to succumbing to emotion on the matter. It clouds my mind and makes me rage to do something to help. I’d like to see our government do more to help also.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to make policy by way of Instagram. Maybe it’s right to say that this crisis has been brewing for years and that thousands of other boys have been lying abandoned and dead on beaches. Maybe it’s kneejerk and unfair – improvised and impetuous. Maybe. Or maybe past indifference is no excuse for an inadequate ongoing effort. Maybe a single searing image is what’s sometimes required to jolt people out of their lethargy, galvanize public interest and brew popular demand for a fuller response.
Our government’s policy to date, championed by this minister, has not been sufficiently robust – taking in too few people in need, relying too much on private sector sponsors in the place of direct government action and permitting domestic politics to infect our humanitarian response. Of course we can’t save every life at risk. But we can do a lot more than we have been doing.
In fairness, it is complex and unforgiving territory. Immigration ministers have been striking the wrong balance, playing to the political bleachers and screwing up our refugee policy for decades, in governments of every stripe. On top of all that, let’s keep in mind that Alexander has a boss. He serves at the pleasure of the prime minister. So perhaps we’re expecting too much to expect much different.
Harder to excuse was the petty, nasty tone that accompanied Alexander’s initial defence of the government’s refugee policy. He scolded critics, deflected responsibility, questioned others’ commitment and, when backed into a corner of his own making, attacked the media as being to blame for it all. It came to a head on the Wednesday edition of CBC’s Power and Politics. Alexander grew hostile as he struggled to explain his position, eventually challenging the show’s host, Rosemary Barton. In full bluster, he tried bullying her, saying that the network had never discussed the issue before (not true) and had certainly never before interviewed him on the topic (only true because he had refused to participate in such broadcasts).
Barton would have none of it. On live television, she corrected Alexander’s mischaracterizations and then put the boots to him hard. At least the next night, after suspending his campaign to concentrate on the crisis (which critics were wrong to dismiss as an empty gesture, it was the right thing to do) he redeemed himself slightly with a more composed performance.
But it’s not the first time he’s played the part of the unthinking partisan. Watching Wednesday night’s spectacle, one had to wonder what’s gone wrong. Where did that original Chris Alexander go? Up there on the screen that might as well have been Paul Calandra or Pierre Poilievre, government spokespersons that we’ve come to associate with transparent posturing.
That’s the really troubling thing. Alexander, a knowledgeable, talented and presumably well-motivated person, someone whose history and abilities once inspired sincere hopes for great things has allowed himself to become just another one of “them.” A snapping, snarling partisan.
Not because he’s a bad person. Not because he’s taken this particular stand on this particular issue. But because that’s what politics – specifically politics as it’s currently practiced on Parliament Hill – does to people. It brings them low.
If the Conservatives lose this election, don’t underestimate how much this sort of thing contributes to their downfall. When even the likes of Chris Alexander can be so diminished people can see that something about our politics simply has to change.
Scott Reid is a principal at Feschuk.Reid and a CTV News political analyst. He was director of communications for former prime minister Paul Martin. Follow him on Twitter.com/_scottreid.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...e-of-how-politics-debases-even-the-best-of-us
It's the biggest boon to the economy that we can ask for.
Reid: Chris Alexander just the latest example of how politics debases even the best of us | Ottawa Citizen
ottawacitizen.com
What ever happened to Chris Alexander?
The once promising boy-wonder of the Canadian foreign service has become a cautionary tale about what happens to those who fall in with the wrong crowd. It’s a remarkable story not only because of his obvious promise but because, in this instance, the wrong crowd happens to be the hard-cases who run our country’s governing party.
Blessed with Jimmy Stewart posture and an accompanying aw-shucks charm, the Oxford-educated Alexander won early attention as Canada’s first resident Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2003. He was only 34 years old. After an additional stint in the war-ravaged country as a UN Special Representative, earning him deserved plaudits at home and abroad, he returned to Canada to take up the higher calling of public office, winning his way into Parliament in the 2011 election. Two years later he was named Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
It’s a story that provokes comparisons to the likes of Lester B. Pearson, almost smacking of an individual manifest destiny – the diplomatic prodigy who rises right to the top and one day leads our politics toward a more enlightened and understanding place. The inclination to like him, to believe in him, was strong. He stirred interest even among those who don’t usually vote Conservative – maybe for this guy someday they would. Maybe he was special.
Unfortunately, Alexander has often disappointed.
Instead of bringing diplomatic grace to the practice of politics, he has frequently proven himself a devoted student of the poison-tipped partisanship that so thoroughly defines the Harper Conservatives. During his time in Ottawa he has done what it takes to get noticed, win advancement and gain the favour of a prime minister who prefers spear-throwers to problem solvers. The former ambassador has conquered Ottawa by becoming a foot soldier, another suit of armour in Harper’s Talking Points army. It’s been a shame to see.
The most recent and strident example came this week with his early handling of the Syrian refugee crisis. The limp, lifeless image of a little boy whose family hoped to escape tyranny has seized the attention of people around the world — a haunting snapshot that shreds the gut of any parent. As the father of four boys, I admit to succumbing to emotion on the matter. It clouds my mind and makes me rage to do something to help. I’d like to see our government do more to help also.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to make policy by way of Instagram. Maybe it’s right to say that this crisis has been brewing for years and that thousands of other boys have been lying abandoned and dead on beaches. Maybe it’s kneejerk and unfair – improvised and impetuous. Maybe. Or maybe past indifference is no excuse for an inadequate ongoing effort. Maybe a single searing image is what’s sometimes required to jolt people out of their lethargy, galvanize public interest and brew popular demand for a fuller response.
Our government’s policy to date, championed by this minister, has not been sufficiently robust – taking in too few people in need, relying too much on private sector sponsors in the place of direct government action and permitting domestic politics to infect our humanitarian response. Of course we can’t save every life at risk. But we can do a lot more than we have been doing.
In fairness, it is complex and unforgiving territory. Immigration ministers have been striking the wrong balance, playing to the political bleachers and screwing up our refugee policy for decades, in governments of every stripe. On top of all that, let’s keep in mind that Alexander has a boss. He serves at the pleasure of the prime minister. So perhaps we’re expecting too much to expect much different.
Harder to excuse was the petty, nasty tone that accompanied Alexander’s initial defence of the government’s refugee policy. He scolded critics, deflected responsibility, questioned others’ commitment and, when backed into a corner of his own making, attacked the media as being to blame for it all. It came to a head on the Wednesday edition of CBC’s Power and Politics. Alexander grew hostile as he struggled to explain his position, eventually challenging the show’s host, Rosemary Barton. In full bluster, he tried bullying her, saying that the network had never discussed the issue before (not true) and had certainly never before interviewed him on the topic (only true because he had refused to participate in such broadcasts).
Barton would have none of it. On live television, she corrected Alexander’s mischaracterizations and then put the boots to him hard. At least the next night, after suspending his campaign to concentrate on the crisis (which critics were wrong to dismiss as an empty gesture, it was the right thing to do) he redeemed himself slightly with a more composed performance.
But it’s not the first time he’s played the part of the unthinking partisan. Watching Wednesday night’s spectacle, one had to wonder what’s gone wrong. Where did that original Chris Alexander go? Up there on the screen that might as well have been Paul Calandra or Pierre Poilievre, government spokespersons that we’ve come to associate with transparent posturing.
That’s the really troubling thing. Alexander, a knowledgeable, talented and presumably well-motivated person, someone whose history and abilities once inspired sincere hopes for great things has allowed himself to become just another one of “them.” A snapping, snarling partisan.
Not because he’s a bad person. Not because he’s taken this particular stand on this particular issue. But because that’s what politics – specifically politics as it’s currently practiced on Parliament Hill – does to people. It brings them low.
If the Conservatives lose this election, don’t underestimate how much this sort of thing contributes to their downfall. When even the likes of Chris Alexander can be so diminished people can see that something about our politics simply has to change.
Scott Reid is a principal at Feschuk.Reid and a CTV News political analyst. He was director of communications for former prime minister Paul Martin. Follow him on Twitter.com/_scottreid.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...e-of-how-politics-debases-even-the-best-of-us
Had to be tough. The equipment is usually old and worn out. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out sounds a bit heartless - and just as traditional in some parts of the world
Who's 'WE ' champ?
Besides, the UN is as useless as teats on a bull... Other than you, no one gives a crap about what they have to say
We should be taking in as much refugees as possible and giving them mandatory language training
WHO PAYS?
WHO PAYS?