Saturday, August 14, 2010

That's Being Canadian

I'm tired of people saying these people from Sri Lanka should be sent back or our immigration laws need to be changed to prevent this situation from happening again. We're Canada, we're not short on space. We're Canada, we're not in want of food or money. We're Canada, we don't turn our backs when people need our help.

Those who say our immigration laws need to be changed to prevent people like this from coming into our country miss the mark, it's not our immigration laws that need to be changed, but our citizenship requirements.

These refugees travelled in the worst conditions to get to Canada while those who wish their return have done nothing even comparable to demonstrate their passion to be here in this great nation.

How can it be that these refugees who have gone through so much to be here are not welcomed, when those who wish the refugees return to war and strife can call themselves Canadian?

I imagine very few opponents of these refugees would go through the long arduous journey, in a cramp, germ-ridden, disgusting cargo hold in a dilapidated ship, risking their lives just for the chance of being a refugee in Canada. Yet these opponents still make some high and mighty claim as if they know what morality is, what is good for Canada, all the while doing nothing to prove they are even worthy of being here.

Being Canadian is more than a care card or a birth certificate it's actually doing the things that Canada is. Being Canadian is helping, not hurting; welcoming, not deserting; caring, not ignoring. People should stop thinking of who should be in Canada, because they'll quickly find they themselves aren't on the list.

For those who are finding any argument to justify their xenophobic opinions, they are not just justifying why these refugees shouldn't be here, they're justifying why they themselves shouldn't be here. But they and the refugees have no need to worry, because Canada has and always will help those in need. That's being Canadian, we care.

16 comments:

Michael said...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/100696419.html

Ignatieff dismissed calls that Canada should have followed Australia’s policy on refugees and turned the Tamil refugee boat away.

“This is Canada, not Australia,” Ignatieff said. “That means Canada has principles, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our international obligations.“


So Canada has principles but Australia doesn't. Canada respects international obligations but Australia doesn't. Way to spit in the eye of one of our closest allies. *SIGH* What an idiot.

Eugene Forsey Liberal said...

well said.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Michael, if I say I have two arms does that mean you don't? If I say I have principles does that mean you don't?

But I guess you seek refuge in that kind of logic as you call Ignatieff an idiot in the vain attempt to suggest you aren't one.

marie said...

Michael: So Canada has principles but Australia doesn't. Canada respects international obligations but Australia doesn't. Way to spit in the eye of one of our closest allies. *SIGH* What an idiot.

I suppose it takes one idiot to know one huh Michael?

WesternGrit said...

Great post Scott.

Michael said...

I suppose it takes one idiot to know one huh Michael?

So if you think I am, does that not mean that Ignatieff is still an idiot? What was that about "logic", Scott? ;)

But I guess you seek refuge in that kind of logic........

It is actually really simple, Scott - according to Ignatieff, "Canada has principles." Canada is not Australia. That means Canada has principles." Which means what, Scott? Pretty straightforward and inconvenient as that is and has been for you guys.

The minister said there was no truth to reports the ship had originally intended to travel to Australia but had changed course after Canberra made it clear they were not welcome. He said the ship’s destination was always Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Smugglers+have+made+more+than+million+from+Tamil+ship/3400745/story.html

Ooops. So looking foward to another Ignatieff "clarification". I knew that the LIB Xpress was on it's tire rims, but I didn't expect the wheels to come off of the bus near the end again. Awwwwwwwwkard. :D

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Michael, I apologize, clearly your ranting denotes the highest form of logic, that which goes by the name of capital "c" conservatism.

I and others are so below you because what we say has to make sense where you can say one thing and justify it by merely repeat a quote out of context without any explanation

Australia does not have a bill of rights or charter of rights and freedoms, therefore does not have a legal set of principles comparable to Canada. So in saying Canada is not Australia, Canada has principles, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is like me saying for emphasis, "Scott is not the commentator Michael, Scott has eyes, Scott has open eyes."

Australia has principles, but they aren't enshrined in a bill of rights or a charter like Canada. In no grasp of logic does Ignatieff suggest Australia doesn't have principles, well other than the logic of conservatism.

Michael if you're going to respond enlighten me about my example, am I therefore suggesting you have no eyes? or that they are just merely closed?

Platty said...

If I say I have principles does that mean you don't?

Uh, did ya miss the part where Iggy said, "This is Canada, not Australia"??

Try spinning that any harder and your frikkin head will come off....


==

Brent said...

The only Canadians who aren't immigrants are the people whose land the immigrants stole, and I'm not sure how many of them would call themselves Canadians.

This is about racism, pure and simple.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Platty how about explaining this example, "Scott is not Platty. Scott has eyes, Scott has large brown eyes." Does that mean you don't have eyes? No, it's a way of speaking.

Fred from BC said...

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Platty how about explaining this example, "Scott is not Platty. Scott has eyes, Scott has large brown eyes." Does that mean you don't have eyes?


Actually, yes...in that case, the clear implication IS that Platty has no eyes. If you had left out the "Scott has eyes" part and just gone with "Scott has large brown eyes", then it would have worked.

Like he said, this attempt at 'spin' is simply ridiculous, and the harder you try the worse it looks for you. Sorry...

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

I'm sorry Fred simply saying it does not make it so. You can see what you want to see, but there is no logical necessity that connects Ignatieff words to your interpretation.

Furthermore it is quite a ridiculous claim that Ignatieff beleives Australia doesn't have principles, or I could be wrong and it's been making all the Aussie headlines...

Fred from BC said...

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

I'm sorry Fred simply saying it does not make it so. You can see what you want to see


No. I see what you wrote (EXACTLY what you wrote), and there is no other way to interpret it unless English is a second language for you (if so, I apologize and withdraw my complaint).


Furthermore it is quite a ridiculous claim that Ignatieff beleives Australia doesn't have principles, or I could be wrong and it's been making all the Aussie headlines...


They probably didn't even hear about it, but that doesn't mean that Ignatieff didn't say it. Wouldn't it be funny if the Conservatives used that in a surprise election attack ad? Run the ad, alert the Australian media, sit back and watch the fun unfold...:)

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Right on Fred my brother fight the power. Michael Ignatieff really said Australians have no principles, oh I wonder what else we can make his words say

Fred from BC said...

On second thought, first we would have to explain to the Australians who Michael Ignatieff is. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper had insulted them, the Australian news media would be all over this...Michael Ignatieff, however, they've never heard of. He's a nobody.

Cancel the attack ads. It's just not worth the effort.;)

Lance said...

Are you suggesting that all those who want them returned to Sri Lanka are xenophobes?

Because based on the Leger poll, that implies that 49% of fellow Liberal supporters, 52% of NDP supporters, and 62% of Green party supporters are all xenophobes.