BubberMiley Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) No, the oath of citizenship isn't ceremonial. Look what they call it. The "Citizenship Ceremony." http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-ceremony.asp It's not rocket science and yet you still get it completely wrong. Edited March 13, 2015 by BubberMiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Look what they call it. The "Citizenship Ceremony." http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-ceremony.asp It's not rocket science and yet you still get it completely wrong. I'm not completely wrong at all, you're just purposely being obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 I'm not completely wrong at all, you're just purposely being obtuse. You're arguing the citizenship ceremony isn't a ceremony, and I'm the one being obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 You're focusing on the wrong part of the quote and thus, missing the point of the comparison. He's talking about the current xenophobic rhetoric coming out of the CPC such as Harper's "not how we do things here" or John Williamson's "whites/brown people" gaffe. The point is about how xenophobic language contributes to a culture of intolerance, not about actual immigration. It's not the best way to illustrate the point, sure, as it suggests a slippery slope, but in the broader context of the speech and it's themes, it makes sense. First, I don't think you know what the term 'xenophobic' means. Second, while the language used by Williamson was politically incorrect, it was not inaccurate, and politicians from all corners of the political spectrum have complained about the temporary foreign worker program. Third, Harper's comment was fairly mild, in most respects, and if he's taking advantage of current sentiments during an election year, well, he's not doing it to nearly the degree the Ontario Liberals did two elections ago when they stoked public fear of schools for Muslim fanatics to keep the Tories out of power. And nobody seemed to find that at all objectionable. Then there's Quebec and it's Charter of Values. Again, Harper's comments were few and mild compared to anything coming out of Quebec. And yet, it's somehow Harper's fault if there is anti-Muslim sentiment. Mind you, nobody has actually shown that there is any great degree of anti-Muslim sentiment (outside Quebec, at least), or that if there is it's had any particular impact or effect on Canadian Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 No, no he didn't. He was comparing the rhetoric of the CPC WRT Muslims to the rhetoric that led to discrimination against Jews, not the groups themselves. Then it was a ludicrous comparison with nothing to support it, and it was insulting to those Jews who were suffering real persecution. To suggest Canadian Muslims are in any remote way comparable to the Jews in Nazi Germany is offensive and contemptible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I'm still trying to "go figure" how it's not about race. In what way IS it about race? Do you think Canadian would be happier if all the temporary foreign workers taking their jobs were Polish and Bulgarian? Edited March 14, 2015 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 The thread is drifting towards the content of the issue, versus the pure politics. I'm still looking for an answer: how can both parties see this same issue as a win ? Usually, one party will pick their strength, say the economy, and the other party will hammer on their weakness - say human rights... The Tories see their stand as a win for those people who are concerned about security. Such people rarely vote Liberal. The Liberals see their defense of Muslims as a win with their base which (outside Quebec) regards open immigration and multiculturalism as the heart and soul of Canada. Of course, they're conflicted because of the Quebec thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Regardless the comparison isn't apt. Comparing a pure religious ceremony to taking an oath of citizenship is completely different. Let's all try and use some logic and reason please.Marriage is not a purely religious ceremony. It has legal ramifications and the wedding license is sometimes signed during the ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Even when JT is attacking Harper, he comes off as an idiot. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-compares-harpers-muslim-immigration-policy-to-jews-in-second-world-war/article23379275/ Maybe JT can cite a CPC policy where it says that "No Muslim, is too many". Now who's playing with the politics of fear? Bill C-51 doesn't address immigration at all. AND JT supports it, so what is he getting at here? Is he just trying to compare Harper with WW2 Era Anti-Semitism. Goodwin's Law might just apply to JT here. Slow Clap JT, way to completely muddle your message! I heard an interview on CBC radio today. The host was interviewing Mike Godwin who actually came out and said he supported JTs remarks. He said it made complete sense and that his law need not apply. So there you go! Right from the horses mouth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) JT's mom thinks he's being bullied. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/margaret-trudeau-says-she-dreads-bullying-attack-ads-against-son-justin-1.3033482 "All that attacking, all that meanness, all the partisanship I have a bigger, peaceful view of life than aggressively breaking down other people. I try to build up people, not break them down, and in politics, it seems now the game is breaking down your opponents," she told host Robyn Bresnahan during an interview to promote her new book The Time of your Life. I'm not fan of bullying but dud'es in politics and wants to be PM. Will mommy come to his defense if God forbids he wins and has to stand up in QP and take abuse from the opposition? Edited April 16, 2015 by Boges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Going after a politician in any legitimate manner is part of the game. Going after the parents is a low, cheap shot. She is not running for office. I think there is a limit of how low one should go when criticising a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Going after a politician in any legitimate manner is part of the game. Going after the parents is a low, cheap shot. She is not running for office. I think there is a limit of how low one should go when criticising a politician. What politician is taking cheap shots at her? Seems it's the other way around and quite frankly, if she wants to step into the public arena with accusations, she'll rightly deserve a couple of retaliatory pokes from the press and the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Margaret Trudeau has been suffering from mental illness for many years, including during her marriage to Pierre. She now does hundreds of hours of volunteer work for various charitable organizations. She also gives numerous presentations on her struggles with being born bi polar and her difficulty adapting to political life under those conditions. I have had the pleasure of attending one of her presentations, met her and had an opportunity to spend a little time with her. She impressed me as being very transparent, intelligent and quite a survivor. I understand that she tries to stay out of the public eye and is currently promoting her most current book. Her problem is that she does answer questions truthfully and it gets her (and now her son) back into the public eye. Why someone would go after his mother to somehow demean Justin is foreign to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Margaret Trudeau has been suffering from mental illness for many years, including during her marriage to Pierre. She now does hundreds of hours of volunteer work for various charitable organizations. She also gives numerous presentations on her struggles with being born bi polar and her difficulty adapting to political life under those conditions. I have had the pleasure of attending one of her presentations, met her and had an opportunity to spend a little time with her. She impressed me as being very transparent, intelligent and quite a survivor. I understand that she tries to stay out of the public eye and is currently promoting her most current book. Her problem is that she does answer questions truthfully and it gets her (and now her son) back into the public eye. Why someone would go after his mother to somehow demean Justin is foreign to me. Again, who the heck is "going after her"? You haven't yet provided a cite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Why someone would go after his mother to somehow demean Justin is foreign to me. WHAT?!?!?! Who's the one who came out and accused the government of bullying? I didn't just decide to go after JT's mom because POLITICS! Bullying has become a way to try and silence someone you disagree with. Bullying is when someone is being harassed or abused and has no power to stop it. JT is a leader of a political party who wants to be PM. Short of outright slander, everything should be fair game. Especially when he releases sappy EMO radio ads where he says he'll use money saved by cancelling income splitting to help the Middle Class. . . without actually saying what he'd do to help the Middle Class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Marriage is not a purely religious ceremony. It has legal ramifications and the wedding license is sometimes signed during the ceremony. We would be better served if marriage was a purely religious ceremony and completely optional, reserved solely for those who follow a faith. Everybody that makes a formalized partnership of one of more partners of any combo of genders should be obliged to register a contract of union in a public civil ceremony, a binding domestic arrangement. It would have sections about shared finances, excluded finances, provision for maintenance of children, and satisfy the tax man as to the specific intentions of the parties. If you wish to also have some kind of church thing, have at it after the civil union is ratified. The state should stay out of the optional religious ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 We would be better served if marriage was a purely religious ceremony and completely optional, reserved solely for those who follow a faith. Everybody that makes a formalized partnership of one of more partners of any combo of genders should be obliged to register a contract of union in a public civil ceremony, a binding domestic arrangement. It would have sections about shared finances, excluded finances, provision for maintenance of children, and satisfy the tax man as to the specific intentions of the parties. If you wish to also have some kind of church thing, have at it after the civil union is ratified. The state should stay out of the optional religious ceremony. So Romantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Regardless the comparison isn't apt. Comparing a pure religious ceremony to taking an oath of citizenship is completely different. Let's all try and use some logic and reason please. They are both essentially ceremoies, however the wedding actually does have a legal aspect to it. The legalities of citizenship are already complete prior to that ceremony. So you kind of have it backwards. Edited April 16, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 So Romantic. Perhaps we wouldn't have such a high rate of divorce if we got Jesus and hormones and gender and love and the business aspects of what we now call marriage in their proper perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Is she or her supporters do not want people discussing her illnesses, then she should keep her mouth shut and stay out of politics. But once she steps into the ring, she is going to be fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Actually she goes out of her way to discuss mental illness giving hundreds of hours of her time to educate those who are afraid of the whole concept. It is interesting that her answering a question is read by you as "stepping into the ring". And still you feel this is fair game. Yet you have posted that reports on Mrs. Harpers relationship with her husband and/or other reports of her possible sexual excursions is abhorrent. Where do you draw your "line"? When the idea of common decency starts to clash with what is acceptable politically then I suggest that it is time to take a break, sit back, and review just what your personal limits are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Big Guy, I'm still a little confused as to who is "going after her". Do you mean the posters in this thread? She has a mental illness and speaks about it at functions and goes on to write books. Not exactly someone who is "hiding" from the public eye - quite the opposite in fact. Good for her. It should sell some of her books. Now if she wants to start supplying quotes to the press, that's "entering the ring". The woman was married to one of the most reviled people to live in this country, so you should expect strong reactions when anyone with that last name and that close of a connection to that bastard comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Big Guy, I'm still a little confused as to who is "going after her". Do you mean the posters in this thread? She has a mental illness and speaks about it at functions and goes on to write books. Not exactly someone who is "hiding" from the public eye - quite the opposite in fact. Good for her. It should sell some of her books. Now if she wants to start supplying quotes to the press, that's "entering the ring". The woman was married to one of the most reviled people to live in this country, so you should expect strong reactions when anyone with that last name and that close of a connection to that bastard comes up. Huh, do you know what a bastard is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Actually, yes I do. If I had called him what I really think of him, it would have had several words and I would likely have been banned from the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) Big Guy, I'm still a little confused as to who is "going after her". Do you mean the posters in this thread? She has a mental illness and speaks about it at functions and goes on to write books. Not exactly someone who is "hiding" from the public eye - quite the opposite in fact. Good for her. It should sell some of her books. Now if she wants to start supplying quotes to the press, that's "entering the ring". The woman was married to one of the most reviled people to live in this country ... Maybe in your world ... or province ... but that is not a true statement in general.11% consider P Trudeau the worst PM ever, but 26% said that about Harper. http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/1913250/slideshow/252794#slide-4 Edited April 18, 2015 by jacee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts