myata

Ah, but we all know, by or bi, what it's all about. The big prize next time around. What's magical about that number I don't know. Maybe what it's the simpliest after one?

I think it's very much the essence of our problem. Bi. Harper or Ignatieff. Ignatieff or Harper. Well yes there's another way and here's what we should do, get rid of "Bi" and accept "PR" as most of the world around us.

Some 200,000 manage somehow, every year. But of course, everybody simply loves to voice in for the J guy.

Well, unless your name happen to be Jesus, how do you know what's "fairly and squarely" for that particular individual, who shows up on your doorstep? Do you know their sins? Can read their minds? What if their (original) name happens to be Bin Laden, Mladic, etc? We're trying to extend a kind of fairness. By allowing people who we can reasonably expect to be able to make living here, and not cause trouble, settle in. As well as by keeping those we suspect couldn't or wouldn't, out. Short of omniscience and omnipotence of Jesus and his family, it's probably the best we can do. If we drop reasonable barriers, or set an impossible test for the state to satisfy each time application is rejected, it would mean, in all practical terms, opening the borders to everybody. Should we do that? Can we provide safe, stable and prosperous living for every single (claiming to be) prosecuted, threatened, denied, disenfranchised, underpaid, undereducated, etc, in the whole world? Or, if we did that, we'd be more likely to descend into the same kind of chaos that people are trying to flee from in the first place?

This is the last time I try. Is there a fundamental right for you to come and settle e.g. in Germany, regardless or even against what Germans would think about it? If yes, then there should be a fundamental right for everybody to walk and live in your house, why no? Yet every single point is true. There're thousands, maybe millions criminals, crooks, terrorists, etc in the world and probably no more than a few Canadian police stationed outside Canada. With very limited rights to do work on foreign territory btw. Which means that the requirement to put together a solid legal case against anybody who comes under suspicion, is impossible, by any practical standard. So if you're saying A (state has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect is a terrorist, criminal, crook, etc), it in fact means B (don't bother to do any security check because in 99.99% cases it won't stand in the court anyways and it'll just be a waste of time and money). So just say B, with no unnecessary tearful allusions, and we can proceed with discussion from there. OK the risk of harm from terrorism isn't high after all. Should we still bother with security checks? What about crime? I'm glad you're so optimistic, still waiting to hear some practical ways in which we can start (to track vigorously and to the full extent of legal requirements, every single terrorist, crimnial and other threats from foreign nationals to Canada). Unless I misunderstood, and no tracking is necessary because we're going to let everybody in anyways? And while we're at it, with our newfound potency on the world scale, why wouldn't we just go and fix the problems of the world wherever they are?

Thanks, but outside of recanted, reluctant or belated, there doesn't appear to be much. Only the position on Afghanistan, that still appears to be standing. For now. I didn't look into academic or journalistic writings, as those can (and happen to have been) reversed on a tip of a pen.

Nope, no deprivations (other than of X boxes) or torture, and the detentions, unlike Gitmo or secret prisons, aren't forced but self inflicted by the recepient's own choice to insist on staying in Canada. Unlike any of the detainees of Gitmo, they can be free in an instant, as soon as they agree to leave Canada. Sure it's not 100% absolute freedom (to go and do whatever they like) but still about 100 lightyears ahead of Gitmo's version of personal liberties. No those weren't pretty ... and were clearly wrong. Again, we're confusing application of arbitrary practices restricting freedoms of citizens in the country and (still quite arbitrary though aiming at at least some degree of fairness) standards of admitting non residents into it. As soon as we realize that we don't have an automatic right to go just anywhere (and stay in, whether welcome or not) the confusion settles itself, naturally.

Not in the least. Somebody's showing at the border with papers from ABCgeria, or with no papers at all. How can you know that he isn't a Bin Laden? There're some 5,000 police force in this city of Ottawa of some 700,000, and probably a hundredth of that in the rest of this wide, 6 billion strong and multi continental world. Who's going to keep tabs on every single terrorist, criminal, crook, and such, and be able to present rock solid, beyond any reasonable doubt case for each and every one of them, the moment they decide to show up at the door? Wait, what if witnesses for the "accused" happen to reside on the other end of the globe in XYZlandia? Wouldn't we have a moral (smoothly transforming into financial) obligation to fly them in and provide all reasonable accommodations, just so that the fairness of the "trial" isn't affected and the integrity of our obligation to the world is retained gloriously intact? No, it's a no starter from any practical point of view, so what you're saying in fact is "don't bother with any checks, and just let everybody in". Which is OK with me (i.e saying it), as long as it's stated as meant, with no irrelevant allusions to terrible deprivation of X boxes, or Jesus himself.

I have no idea what Ignatieff stands for, other than becoming PM, and it's pretty clear that Harper'd do pretty much anything to remain one. Such are the choices, we're facing. Yes I have to add my voice to the PR forum. How can we go on like this? If we have to have these mirror mask politics, at least, it should represent political makeup of the electorate. I can just visualize Ignatieff describing my tired, last minute and very last resort vote as a triumph of democracy, mandate for a change and blah.

Most obviously they aren't the same. Detaining people abroad, confining them and bringing by force to another place, where they are subjected to arbitrary detention, deprivation of basic needs, interrogations bordering on, or even constituting, torture, and so on, as per our learned friend's "traffic in evil" doctrine, has nothing to do with the right of any state to keep the unwanted would be residents out. Only our good friend here would argue against that right. He's still going to demonstrate how it's going to work in some (any) practical sense.. or why he wouldn't apply the same generous principle to his own home. Between the evils or terrorism (which is nothing new under the sun) and the Bush/Blairlike crusades, there's enough room for practical, working strategy to ensure our safety. It hinges on keepeng clear sense of reality though, i.e not giving in to neither fearmongers, nor daydreamers of the day.

Let who try? Anybody? Let Bin Laden try? Hitler? (if he was alive)? Why this, then? Where's the logic: Or, if you meant giving them fair consideration, it was tried. At least twice. By reviewing their application and by federal judge confirming the security case. How many more times / ways should we still try? Should we do it for anybody, or only those cases that happened to come to the attention of the media? Should other applicants wait in line, patiently, while we're being tied up trying, or we'll just open our bottomless purse and get everybody in the country busy processing and rerevewing immigration cases from anybody who'd like to try?

Nice quote! I'm surprised it's not being brought up and discussed more widely (by who though? the PM appears to be no less likely to "traffic in evil"). No I don't subscribe to "dealing in evil". In my view, there's still a couple of miles distance between active trafficking in wars, in terms described by our now recanted would be PM, and the policy of exposing the other cheek to be slapped on by just about anybody who'd feel like it. That territory, where I believe we should stay as a self respecting and peaceful nation, is to help others only when asked, and with non violent means, never make war on other's lands, but to hold our own if we must.

Correct. Their "want" becomes their "right" which is the same as our obligation to roll out a welcome carpet. Sure, they have the right to come, as our ancestors, etc. But do we also have the right to not let them in though? Do you have the right to not let in anybody who shows up on your doorstep?

No, I think even that (Declaration) does not require of a state to accept just about anybody as its resident. And that's the only (non existent in the first place) "right", "libertry", etc that's at stake here. These folks can be free in a flash - just as long as, physically, they aren't in Canada. Of course I may be wrong, and then you certainly wouldn't mind pointing out my mistake.

And that's the source of your confusion. They aren't presumed guilty, only not wanted, here. And they aren't being punished, only advised to move on. There's no case for any trials. A stranger shows up on your doorstep, and you don't like the look of them. Do you have an obligation to open the door anyways?

Let's clarify that the court did not proclaim the practice of detaining threatening non-nationals unconstitutional, only the current procedure of it in the law. And gave the state time to adjust the law. And that is why the citizens of this country enjoy protections against such practices. These people aren't citizens, they asked for a right to stay and were denied on security grounds. They aren't being detained arbitrarily because they can be free any moment by leaving this country and trying their luck somewhere else. What you seem to be assuming is that everybody in this wide world has a presumption of right to stay in Canada, and you forgot to explain where does that assumption come from. If you believe that we have an obligation to accept anybody who claims a refuge for any reason, just state it clearly without allusions to hearbreaking cases or Jesus himself. And it would also help if you could at least outline some practical ways in which it could work. By opening our boarders far and wide to anybody who'd care to drop by? By letting terrorized people practice and resort to ways they were used to in their lawless lands? Can I propose that before making such drastic changes we try it somewhere on a smaller scale, e.g. in somebody's private home. After all, we aren't exactly problem free even here, in this blessed land. I prefer to speak for myself. I am for a solution that would give genuine claimants a fair and realistic chance to settle, while keeping the unwanted folks away.

It's all in the ideology, i.e the point of view. From Harper's, and gun lobby's viewpoint, there're good people (ie. eternally forever good) who turn whatever they touch, guns and bullets included, into pure gold, and the baddies (who are pretty much born into it, as a punishment for some future sins probably). The goodies should be entitled to fill their dwellings to the lid with handguns, semi auto guns submachine guns and any other kind of gun imaginably, to the benefit and glory of us all, while baddies should rot in jails which we should get busy building. See, the amount of guns is irrelevant, as long as they are held firmly in good, righteous hands.

Thanks. I understand that Jesus could feed 10,000 with one loaf, but where shall we find the resources to run another 10,000 "trials"? Annually. I'm not sure what you mean. The liberty to apply for a refuge and have it considered fairly is addressed by 1) immigration official reviewing security case presented against him, and 2) an independent federal judge reviewing the same. Is there a liberty for anyone to come and stay in Canada no matter what? I wasn't aware of that Yet life isn't always the way it's portrayed in kindergarten. A criminal can and will pretend to be a victim. A terrorist will have a cover story. Anybody giving it a second's honest thought should be able to grasp that these people come from foreign, often lawless lands, and to require our, Canadian services to present a 100% solid, bulletproof case against their "evidence" is nothing short of a lunacy. It's tantamount to saying that we should drop every concern or information, and simply believe everybody on their word. Open the doors and let everybody in. Is that what we should do (why hide behind Jesus, he isn't with us to speak for himself)?

Right. And I wonder how likely would he to focus his entire attention squarely on Mr Mahjoob's case, out of tens or hundreds thousands of applications that are rejected? So, do we need to run a full "trial" for each and every rejected application? In the light that "government" evidence can never be trusted? Yes or no? Do have the right to not accept those who we deem unwanted here, or do we have a godly obligation to take in everyone and everybody who knocks on the door? Prosecutors and persecuted alike? Crime victims and gang members? Those flying violence and those planning to perpetrate it? Go figure. And the saddest part is that Jesus isn't with us at this time, so he can only speak through intermediaries and interpreters.

Sure. With the economy in firm hands, it's time to spare some attention to the old (but never forgotten or given up) ideological priorities.

Still, though, which one it is (please pick): 1. Open the borders and do no security or any other check whatsoever (if any decision on any such check can be reversed at any time, it becomes a big waste of time and money). 2. Run a full "trial" every time an immigration request is rejected. 3. There's a reasonable process to establish that would be immigrant does not represent a security threat for this country, and the outcome of the process (complete with any due reviews and/or appeals) is respected and enforced. If choice is 1 or 2, continue. If it's 3, what is to be done with those who are, through a due process, deemed to be a threat (or otherwise unwanted) in this country, but refuse to move on? Let them go -> see #1. Review their "evidence" one more time, publish it in the media, create interest groups, etc, yada, demand a full trial with laweyrs and evidence -> see #2. Any other, original ideas? BTW if I recall it correctly, the court did not declare detaining of immigrants deemed to represent security threat unconstitutional, only the current process of it.

Well, yeah. The real problem is, as it happens, in the detail, i.e that they still have to kept somewhere. Where? - Hello, I'm on your doorstep, and I want in, can I? - No you can't. - I'll help myself in anyways, thanks. If that's what we want, just say it, openly and clearly, what the heck with hiding behind this (or any other) ostensibly emphatic case? If a process can be ignored on a whim, what's the point of having it, and let's just open the doors wide and let everybody in. Not that I make any presumptions about the process being perfect, and needless of change, but pointing out flaws (and improving) it is a far cry from what we have here.

No, you still do not understand. He was deemed inacceptable to this country, via a due process. Should we ask the same question (why? ... evidence... lawyers .... trials.... appeals... more trials... more lawyers .... yada ... etc) for every single one of the x ,000 of other applications that are rejected annually? Or something makes this Mahjoub case special in your view? Should the process be improved? Most certainly, if you demonstrate that it is flawed, and a way to improve it. Should we throw up hands every time somebody's application is rejected? This is synonimous to "should we just open the borders and let everybody in". And you happen to have something to substantiate your fears? There's 1) the outcome of a due process (security check of a refugee application); and 2) conclusion of an independent judge, that Mahjoub is a threat and shouldn't be in this country. Why do you think that he should, nonetheless? And, secondly, if security check and decision of a judge can be questioned at will, what would be the point of having an admission process?

Yes. This is one rare case in which I'll agree with Argus, and even with PM Harper himself. They committed no crime (here), so they don't need no "trials" (at our expense), the only thing they need is to move on.

You don't understand. Each year, Canada receives some 200,000 immigrants, including some 0,000 refugees. How many of applications are rejected? Should each rejected applicant merit a "trial", with "evidence" and "lawyers" (at our taxpayer's expense, granted), and blah and yada, and bells and whistles? After all, the only difference between all those people and Mahjoub is that they remain "there", invisible (and therefore, non existent, right?) for us, while Mahjoub was dropped right here on our doorstep. Does it mean that he's got stronger case though, than all those left behind? But wait. What about all those uncounted millions or even billions, who's never even made the claim, because they didn't have access to consular facilities, or even weren't informed that it's available? Surely they shouldn't be forgotten either? So, can we afford to run another 0,000 or 00,000 or even 000,000 "trials", annually? Is it realistic in any way, or plausible or even not dumb right crazy? Don't get me wrong. I am all for a fair process, including some form of a review of to reverse wrong decisions. But the process must be 1) efficient; and 2) finite; for the sake of the same genuine refuge seekers, so that limited resources aren't boggled and waisted on countless reviews and appeals of a handful of cases. And once the process has run its course, there has to be a way to get those who are deemed to be unwanted here, out. Or, they are free to hang around in jail for as long as they want to, and I have no problem with that whatsoever (but I wish there was a way to charge them for the cost of accommodation, as it too is coming from no, not infinite budget for immigration, thus denying somebody maybe with a more pressing need much needed resources to obtain a shelter here). No process is perfect and for those who feel that they are rejected unfairly, there's about 200 other countries they could try their luck with. Those who deliberately refuse to move on have only themselves to blame, and "fascist" state has little to do with it.