So I ask, what is or defines a Canadian?

[guyser]

And if you rationalize it down to "If you're a member then you're a member" you're basically saying that there is nothing distinctive, special or unique about being a member of any particular nation. Ie, that a Canadian is exactly the same as a Nigerian, who is exactly the same as a Pakistani, who is exactly the same as a Korean, etc. etc.

Exactly.

It aint hard to fathom. A CDN is one born here, a Nigerian was born in Nigeria. A Pakistani was born in Pakistan.

If you want to talk about culture, do so, but to be Canadian, one only has to have the luck of being born on CDN soil.

That is demonstrably false as all these groups have wildly different cultural traits, aspirations and value systems which often clash violently. People are not merely numbers in an accounting book. Taking them from one column and placing them into another is not that easy.

Culture, aspirations and value systems are different from what is a Canadian, and goes more toward what defines us as such, but even that is wildly disparate

Edited May 17, 2012 by guyser

[g_bambino]

A CDN is one born here...

A Canadian could be one born here. There are also Canadians who weren't born here: There are people born abroad to parents with Canadian citizenship. There are people who moved to Canada and gained Canadian citizenship. There are people who live as permanent residents in Canada and consider themselves Canadian. Our head of state and most of her family weren't born in Canada, live predominantly outside of Canada, and don't have Canadian citizenship, but are still considered Canadian by Canadian officialdom, as well as by themselves.

"Canadian" isn't singularly defined.

[guyser]

A Canadian could be one born here.

Agreed, but I addressed that in p#2.

[Michael Hardner]

Quebecers might but I've seen no evidence Albertans or anyone else does.

August1991 wrote about that a few times.

And if you rationalize it down to "If you're a member then you're a member" you're basically saying that there is nothing distinctive, special or unique about being a member of any particular nation. Ie, that a Canadian is exactly the same as a Nigerian, who is exactly the same as a Pakistani, who is exactly the same as a Korean, etc. etc. That is demonstrably false as all these groups have wildly different cultural traits, aspirations and value systems which often clash violently. People are not merely numbers in an accounting book. Taking them from one column and placing them into another is not that easy.

No, they live in *different* places. I can find people from these countries who are more like me than they are like other Koreans. Traits are traits but these aren't fixed attributes about being from these places. This is as it should be, and as it pretty much always ways.

[g_bambino]

Agreed...

Obviously. The question is, do you agree with any of the rest of my words above?

[guyser]

Obviously. The question is, do you agree with any of the rest of my words above?

Yes I do.

[g_bambino]

Yes I do.

Fair enough. But, that doesn't align with your earlier statement, "a Canadian is one born here"; by omission, it implies that anyone not born here is not a Canadian. Perhaps you meant "a Canadian can be one born here", or "one born here is a Canadian"?

[guyser]

Fair enough. But, that doesn't align with your earlier statement, "a Canadian is one born here"; by omission, it implies that anyone not born here is not a Canadian. Perhaps you meant "a Canadian can be one born here", or "one born here is a Canadian"?

Post #2, I said...Being born here.

or

Gettng citizenship status.

It was a response to a somewhat....nah make that stupid assertion by the OP and his thinly veiled rant against migrants and others who do not fit his pre-concieved stereotypes.

[Guest Peeves]

Post #2, I said...Being born here.

or

Gettng citizenship status.

It was a response to a somewhat....nah make that stupid assertion by the OP and his thinly veiled rant against migrants and others who do not fit his pre-concieved stereotypes.

Nothing veiled. I support immigration, selective not by race, creed or religion, but whether or not they will be productive members rather than a continued cost.

You are the one using name calling, a genetic weakness no doubt.

[dre]

Nothing veiled. I support immigration, selective not by race, creed or religion, but whether or not they will be productive members rather than a continued cost.

You are the one using name calling, a genetic weakness no doubt.

Thats already how our system works... We get very well educated and productive immigrants on balance compared to other nations.

[guyser]

I support immigration, selective not by race, creed or religion, but whether or not they will be productive members rather than a continued cost.

You are the one using name calling, a genetic weakness no doubt.

I will take the veiled out of the equation , but as for the rest, I leave intact. You have no idea if some most or any of the people are a productive member or if they cost the country.

Thens there is the part whereby you said "Are those that immigrate or claim and receive refugee status then return to visit or live for years on end in their former country of 'threat' Canadians?

Are those (immigrants -what ever),that only live in Canada frequently enough to gain benefits,,health care, rescue etc. really Canadians?'

For starters, the first part is pretty much impossible. Once they leave, they are no longer refugees and no access allowed back in unless they claim refugee status again.

As for the second part , why do you harbour ill will towards Snowbirds, the majority of whom have paid their bills for decades not to mention were born here?

Lastly, perhaps you could point out where I called anyone a name?

A genetic weakness . One best learn to read before that gets thrown around

[-TSS-]

As I have earlier pointed out, it is easy to understand why most Canadians have nothing against immigration as their immigration-system is based on the points-system which is a kind of cherry-picking the best immigrants on the grounds of age, education and skills.

[Argus]

August1991 wrote about that a few times.

And August is an authority on Albertans?

No, they live in *different* places. I can find people from these countries who are more like me than they are like other Koreans. Traits are traits but these aren't fixed attributes about being from these places. This is as it should be, and as it pretty much always ways.

That again, is so much drivel. We're not talking about individuals. You're talking about millions of people. Maybe you'd find a few individual koreans who'd not be out of place here, but bring over ten million of them, and guess what? It would change the place to be more like - KOREA! Shocking idea?

Bring over ten million Muslims, and what do you think that would do to Canada?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Thats already how our system works... We get very well educated and productive immigrants on balance compared to other nations.

Cite? How many are productive? How many pay income tax? How many are in prison or on welfare?

How do those numbers compare to 'other nations'?

I eagerly await your learned response.

[Argus]

Thens there is the part whereby you said "Are those that immigrate or claim and receive refugee status then return to visit or live for years on end in their former country of 'threat' Canadians?

Are those (immigrants -what ever),that only live in Canada frequently enough to gain benefits,,health care, rescue etc. really Canadians?'

For starters, the first part is pretty much impossible. Once they leave, they are no longer refugees and no access allowed back in unless they claim refugee status again.

True and completely false. They simply have to wait a few years until they get landed immigrant status, then they're free to 'go home' as many do. It's helpful that their government cheques get deposited directly into their bank accounts so they can access them abroad, and also helpful that the Canadian government does not keep track of people who leave Canada. Those cheques go a long way in some places, like, say, Lebanon.

[Argus]

As I have earlier pointed out, it is easy to understand why most Canadians have nothing against immigration as their immigration-system is based on the points-system which is a kind of cherry-picking the best immigrants on the grounds of age, education and skills.

Which is no doubt why every low, miserable job that requires no skills is filled by immigrants. Not to mention going a long way to explain their numbers in public housing and on police blotters.

[Guest Peeves]

I will take the veiled out of the equation , but as for the rest, I leave intact. You have no idea if some most or any of the people are a productive member or if they cost the country.

reall? I think I might, based on immigrant media coverage over the last few months the media acquired from the Immigration dept. I do recall our government specifically indicating that the majority of immigrants in the past have had a negative impact on our

societies costs through benefits paid being more than taxes contributed. So I suggest that while "I" personally don't have the specifics, there are stats that have indicated my referencing of 'productive immigrants vs those that are a negative factor, i.e. older parents that strain our medical facilities rather than young healthy immigrants with skills. Any time an immigrant is entered into our health system they take a niche from other tax payers/contributors. Isn't that obvious?.

Thens there is the part whereby you said "Are those that immigrate or claim and receive refugee status then return to visit or live for years on end in their former country of 'threat' Canadians?

Refugees have had their claims denied when it was found they claimed there were threats to their lives in their home country, then in fact returned to their home country while their claim was investigated. Also, there have been immigrants that applied as if they were living in Canada, but had never been here. Read In todays National Post. They actually were accepted and are now being hunted down as false claimants.

Potential Loss of Permanent Residence: A completely new provision, S. 19, changes the security of permanent residence status for refugees. Under the current law, once a refugee is accepted as a permanent resident, he or she cannot lose that status unless they obtained their status through fraud, they are convicted of a serious crime or they abandon their permanent residence. Under S. 19, the government will be able to apply to the IRB at any time for a decision that a refugee is no longer at risk in their home country. If the IRB grants the application, the refugee immediately loses both their refugee status and their permanent residence status. He or she has no right of appeal of the IRB decision and is immediately removable from Canada, no matter how long they have lived in Canada. The only legal shelter for refugee permanent residents will be to become a citizen as soon as possible.

There are many technical provisions within the new law that will impede the efforts of refugees to prove their refugee claims or to get on with their lives, once accepted as a refugee.

Are those (immigrants -what ever),that only live in Canada frequently enough to gain benefits,,health care, rescue etc. really Canadians?'

http://maytree.com/blog/category/refugee-process/

For starters, the first part is pretty much impossible. Once they leave, they are no longer refugees and no access allowed back in unless they claim refugee status again.

There are few means or records or 'flagged refugees' that would indicate to the refugee commission that they did indeed leave or return. Canada's laws are pretty lax that way. That might be hard to accept but the law is to be changed for that reason as I understand it. To wit;

As for the second part , why do you harbour ill will towards Snowbirds, the majority of whom have paid their bills for decades not to mention were born here?

Perhaps you might point out my ill will for snowbirds.

A snowbird takes winters or vacations in another warmer clime as an annual or periodic occasion. They are entitled, they return home on occasion (as did I from my Southern residence. However I still paid taxes here and maintained a residence and met the requirements for health care that I was contributing to.. On the other hand, an immigrant or refugee that moves home and hearth to Lebanon, pays no tax here then wants my tax dollars spent on rescuing them from a war zone are...hardly snowbirds are they?

Lastly, perhaps you could point out where I called anyone a name?

A genetic weakness . One best learn to read before that gets thrown around

I have responded above to your POSSIBLE misinterpretation in some cases and your apparent confusion in others.

I hope that clarifies my question(s) and position.

[Guest Peeves]

I will take the veiled out of the equation , but as for the rest, I leave intact. You have no idea if some most or any of the people are a productive member or if they cost the country.

Thens there is the part whereby you said "Are those that immigrate or claim and receive refugee status then return to visit or live for years on end in their former country of 'threat' Canadians?

Are those (immigrants -what ever),that only live in Canada frequently enough to gain benefits,,health care, rescue etc. really Canadians?'

For starters, the first part is pretty much impossible. Once they leave, they are no longer refugees and no access allowed back in unless they claim refugee status again.

As for the second part , why do you harbour ill will towards Snowbirds, the majority of whom have paid their bills for decades not to mention were born here?

Lastly, perhaps you could point out where I called anyone a name?

Sure.

make that stupid assertion by the OP and his thinly veiled rant

If you weren't implying above that I was stupid I retract my position.

A genetic weakness . One best learn to read before that gets thrown around

[Tilter]

what is or defines a Canadian?

A person with:

The ability to see hundreds of their fellow citizens murdered in cold blood after which the criminal is incarcerated in the relative luxury unaffordable by many Canadian taxpayers.

The ability to see thousands of their fellow citizens cheated by scam artists after which the scam artist is incarcerated in the relative luxury unaffordable by many Canadian taxpayers, especially the Canadians who have lost their life savings to said criminals.

The good nature to be able to see their governments inadvertently donating millions of dollars to the dictators of countries whose people are starving while lots of Canadian children go hungry.

The good nature to be able to see their government taxes being raised to one of the highest rates in the civilized world with only a whisper of complaint.

The ability to stand aside & applaud a crowd of rich, economically spoiled youths who are creating chaos in Canada's cities while accusing the Police of brutality when they try to prevent the trashing of the core of these cities.

The ability to see reason in the blackmailing by one province of petulant, biased, greedy citizens, working for the economic bleeding of the other provinces.

The weird sense of justice that revokes the right of the courts to execute the killers of their babies, infants, teens and adults because "We would be violating their rights" or "it would make us

murderers"

The ability to see "justice" in the release of a criminal who beheaded, ravaged and even cannibalized his victim a short time ago.

The ability to feel national pride in the belief of all of the above

[Guest Peeves]

The ability to see "justice" in the release of a criminal who beheaded, ravaged and even cannibalized his victim a short time ago.

The ability to feel national pride in the belief of all of the above

Interesting observations. A bit negative, but, I see your point

Add the person that works 14 weeks a year but draws E.I. for the rest, and does the same thing year after year.

Add the judge that restricts evidence only because he can.

Add the cop that refuses to testify while the 'force' asks for community witnesses.

Add the murderer out on parole that murders again without fear of capital punishment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7535795/Man-who-killed-again-while-on-parole-for-murder-will-die-in-prison.html

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2009/07/man-pleads-guilty-killing-form.html/

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/06/14/14388536.html

Criticism and controversy

The National Parole Board has been criticized for its perceived lack of judgment in the handling of certain cases. Notable examples include:

Conrad Brossard was serving two life sentences for a murder as well as two attempted murders, each of which was committed after being granted day parole. In 2002, the parole board granted Brossard day parole again, during which he raped and murdered Cecile Clement. An internal review of the Brossard case prepared by the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada stated that "the board does not have any criticism to make with respect to the general management of Brossard's correctional plan." Pierre Etoile, Clement's son-in-law, criticized the parole board, stating that "They tell us in this report that everything is wonderful, no one did anything wrong. Except my family is still grieving." Marc LaPierre, one of Brossard's previous victims, also criticized the parole board,[1]

Larry Takahashi received three concurrent life sentences in 1984 for sexually assaulting seven women (he was subsequently dubbed the Balaclava Rapist). In 1997, he admitted to attacking over 30 women and is suspected by police in 120 attacks. In 2003, Larry Takahashi was granted parole despite his own admission that he was at risk to re-offend. Randy White, a MP from the then Canadian Alliance, strongly criticized the parole board for releasing Takahashi, stating that "Is there something I don’t understand about protection of the public?" It was also noted that Takahashi's victims will not be told where he will live during his parole because of federal privacy laws.[1] In 2005, it was reported that Takahashi had repeatedly violated his parole by drinking, lying to his parole officer, and socializing with other sex offenders.[2] His parole was subsequently revoked.[3]

Eric Norman Fish was released to a half-way house in 2004 in Vernon, British Columbia. Fish had been serving a life sentence for a 1984 murder and had been deemed by the Parole Board to be a "high-risk to violently re-offend." Fish walked away from the half-way house and over a period of six weeks murdered two people; Jeffrey Drake, whose body was found on the shore of Okanagan Lake, and Bill Abramenko, a 75-year-old retired carpenter, who Fish beat to death with a crowbar. Public outrage led to the closing of the halfway house where Fish stayed, However, Abramenko's wife, Gladys stated that "The problem doesn't start with the Howard House. It starts with the National Parole Board. I think there should be a grand public inquiry — nothing hushed up." At a subsequent news conference, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police admitted that during the six weeks Fish was at large, no alert was issued by police or the parole board. Fish's arrest ignited a national debate on the role of the National Parole Board.[4]

Allan Craig MacDonald was paroled in late-1989 after serving only 12 years for murdering a police officer and a taxi driver. In April 1990, MacDonald beat, raped, stabbed, and murdered 21-year-old Linda Shaw and set her body on fire. (Although MacDonald was not convicted for this crime (he committed suicide in 1994), his guilt was confirmed by a DNA test in 2005).[5][6] [5][6][7][8]

Robert Bruce Moyes was granted day parole in 1995, even though he was serving a life sentence for multiple armed robberies and had a total of 36 criminal convictions, including three attempted murders and three escapes from prison. Moyes also had numerous previous parole violations. Within a year of being paroled, Moyes and an accomplice murdered seven people [7][8] A subsequent investigation by the Parole Board concluded that there was a "sound basis" for his conditional release from prison and that "it is unnecessary to offer any specific direction on change or amendment to policies, practices or procedures." However, the investigation did not examine how Moyes was able to fool the parole board into releasing him despite his numerous criminal convictions. When testifying in court, Moyes "happily admitted that he lied repeatedly to parole and corrections officials for the past 30 years." Moyes will be eligible for parole again in 2027 when he is 72.[9]

John Lyman Kehoe was paroled in 1986. He had been sentenced to life in prison for murdering his two children in 1972. In 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer attacked real estate agent Wendy Carroll. Carroll was choked and had her throat slit, although she did survive. Kehoe was subsequently deemed a Dangerous Offender and is unlikely to ever be released from prison again.[10][11]

Leopold Dion was paroled in 1963, despite being sentenced to life in prison for rape and attempted murder and previously violating parole by sexually assaulting a young boy. Within 18 months of being released, Dion molested 21 children and murdered four of them. Dion was subsequently killed in prison.[12]

Michael Hector received full parole after only serving half of a 13-year sentence, even though he had an extensive criminal history, had previously violated parole and had been described in psychological assessments as "a highly criminalized man." In early 1997, approximately 18 months after his release, Hector murdered three people, including a young boy.[13]

Kevin Humphrey was granted paroled despite being sentenced to life for robbing and murdering a man in 1983 before fleeing the country. Despite three previous parole violations, Humphrey was paroled again in 2006. In October of that year, Humphrey stabbed Richard Kent multiple times with a folding knife and then slit his throat in a crack house. Although Kent survived, he still has brain injury symptoms and memory problems.[14]

Denis Lortie was granted full parole in 1996 after serving only 12 years in prison for murdering three people and injuring 13 others. The decision went against the wishes of the victims relatives, although as of 2010, Lortie has not reoffended.[15][16]

Chad Bucknell was granted day parole in 2002, only 6 years after he received a life sentence for murdering four people. Bucknell subsequently disappeared until he was recaptured in 2004. Bucknell was granted parole again in 2006 and had so far not been re-arrested.[17]

Daniel Jonathan Courchene, a known gang member, was kept on parole even though the Board knew that Courchene was repeatedly violating his parole by using intoxicants. While on parole, Courchene and an accomplice attempted to kill a police officer by shooting him in the face, stole several vehicles, and committed a home invasion in which they attempted to kill the owner.[18] [19]

[Michael Hardner]

Bring over ten million Muslims, and what do you think that would do to Canada?

Canada is a country of change, and if you don't think so then it's strange that you're worried about others changing Canada.

Nobody is bringing 10 million here; if you use such examples, people will wonder why.

[-TSS-]

what is or defines a Canadian?

A person with:

The ability to see hundreds of their fellow citizens murdered in cold blood after which the criminal is incarcerated in the relative luxury unaffordable by many Canadian taxpayers.

The ability to see thousands of their fellow citizens cheated by scam artists after which the scam artist is incarcerated in the relative luxury unaffordable by many Canadian taxpayers, especially the Canadians who have lost their life savings to said criminals.

The good nature to be able to see their governments inadvertently donating millions of dollars to the dictators of countries whose people are starving while lots of Canadian children go hungry.

The good nature to be able to see their government taxes being raised to one of the highest rates in the civilized world with only a whisper of complaint.

The ability to stand aside & applaud a crowd of rich, economically spoiled youths who are creating chaos in Canada's cities while accusing the Police of brutality when they try to prevent the trashing of the core of these cities.

The ability to see reason in the blackmailing by one province of petulant, biased, greedy citizens, working for the economic bleeding of the other provinces.

The weird sense of justice that revokes the right of the courts to execute the killers of their babies, infants, teens and adults because "We would be violating their rights" or "it would make us

murderers"

The ability to see "justice" in the release of a criminal who beheaded, ravaged and even cannibalized his victim a short time ago.

The ability to feel national pride in the belief of all of the above

Does the bolded bit refer to abortion?

Edited May 20, 2012 by -TSS-

[Signals.Cpl]

Doesm the bolded bit refer to abortion?

How so? Someone like Rafferty can take away the rights of a little defenceless child while we have to make sure we safeguard all of his rights?

[bleeding heart]

How so? Someone like Rafferty can take away the rights of a little defenceless child while we have to make sure we safeguard all of his rights?

We aren't safeguarding all his rights. Some profoundly important ones are being taken from him, which is at it should be.

[Signals.Cpl]

We aren't safeguarding all his rights. Some profoundly important ones are being taken from him, which is at it should be.

He gets 3 square meals a day while Canadians from coast to coast go hungry.

He can have access to a computer

He has a bed to sleep at night

He could get an education, learn a second language

He will be protected from the general population, unlike the little girl he brutally murdered

He gets medical care, probably faster then the rest of us

He will get better dental care then most Canadians, at the expense of the people who can't afford the dental care for themselves

He will have access to books and other reading materials

He can vote, guess who will never get to vote

Prison sure looks like a horrible place to be...

He should be in jail, hard labour for life at the very least. Human rights can be given up, If I take someone else's rights, then I automatically should be giving my own rights up. What I see here is that the little girl had the most basic of human rights taken from her and we trip over ourselves to make sure we don't by accident violate the rights of the murderer who didn't seem so interested in protecting her rights.