Should we let foreigners fund activist groups in Canada?

[Argus]

We've read a lot over the last year about how the Russians interfered with American politics, how they fun anti-Clinton propaganda or pro-Trump media, how they set up social media accounts which are alternatively pro racism or anti-racism to pit Americans against each other, and I'm sure we all think that should stop.

But what about foreigners who fund Canadian activists to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in order to change government policy the way THEY want? Should that be allowed? 

By Krause’s estimate, U.S. foundations and their Canadian branches have directed more than $600 million over the years to fund scores of Canadian activist groups, Indigenous organizations and green political manipulators. hey have also run successful political operations at the provincial and federal level. Dogwood, for example, had more than 20,000 supporters in the riding won by B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver — now an influential force in the province’s pipeline-troublemaking government.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-ugly-pipeline-war-is-no-accident-it-was-the-plan

[Queenmandy85]

I agree. Weaver is the best argument against foreign political contributions and proportional representation.

[dialamah]

An interesting article, but it doesn't answer the basic question of why 'green extremists' from the States want to rip up Canada's economy.   What is the upside of such a campaign, or who benefits if it's successful?  Without that question answered, it just sounds like fear-mongering to me.   I could accept the premise that these groups are sincere, if misguided, in their campaign and that they simply don't think the economy will suffer.   But the statement at the start of the article that "The Trans Mountain constitutional meltdown is the product of an aggressive radical campaign by green extremists to rip up the economy" makes no sense to me if the end game isn't explained.

I know it may make people doubt my extreme progressive leanings, but I think the transition to green energy will take a long time, that the economy is worth protecting while the transition takes place, so I don't support a 'no pipelines' approach as advocated by some people.

Edited February 9, 2018 by dialamah

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

But what about foreigners who fund Canadian activists to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in order to change government policy the way THEY want? Should that be allowed?

Yes, like the many foreign owned petroleum companies that fund initiatives to influence public policy.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

An interesting article, but it doesn't answer the basic question of why 'green extremists' from the States want to rip up Canada's economy. 

I don't think that is their goal, but I also don't think they really care if stopping the 'tar sands' damages our economy. The mindset is similar to David Suzuki, who basically has said the environment is far more important than an economy and he doesn't give a damn what addressing CO2 does to it.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

What is the upside of such a campaign, or who benefits if it's successful? 

If environmentalists see the 'tar sands' as a great and awful danger to the planet (if the tar sands go ahead it's game over for the planet!)  then they benefit by stopping the development there, of course. On the other hand, we don't know who ultimately is funding this. Who makes billions of dollars keeping things the way they are? Well, US oil interests who don't want more competition, especially the ones who get to buy Canadian oil at a $30 a barrel discount to the world price because of a clogged pipeline. You don't think they're thrilled at that? It would be ironic if they were discretely helping to fund such groups, but it would make perfect business sense to do so.

 

[Argus]

54 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, like the many foreign owned petroleum companies that fund initiatives to influence public policy.

So we should ban all foreign money coming into Canada to influence government or to agitate or fund activism.

[eyeball]

Quote

Should we let foreigners fund activist groups in Canada?

Of course we should, I have no objection whatsoever to Earthlings trying to protect or conserve the Earth or make it a better place wherever its needed.

I'd feel the same way about Martian money for the same reasons.

[CITIZEN_2015]

It depends on what you mean by foreigners. I consider those who are not born here but immigrated and assumed citizenship as Canadians with same/equal rights as Canadians. Yes they will have that right. But I don't think non-citizens (on visa or even landed immigrants) should influence Canadian politics and political parties same as they are not granted the right to vote either. Non-citizens however, should be allowed to be active for matters related to their own countries while here as far as it is non-violent, like fund raising to fight and expose their dreadful regimes and lobbying the government to impose sanctions and similar actions.

Edited February 9, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

We've read a lot over the last year about how the Russians interfered with American politics, how they fun anti-Clinton propaganda or pro-Trump media, how they set up social media accounts which are alternatively pro racism or anti-racism to pit Americans against each other, and I'm sure we all think that should stop.

 

Nope...we don't all think it should stop.  Canadians do the same thing for their own interests, including usage of American social media platforms.

 

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nope...we don't all think it should stop.  

You don't get a vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You don't get a vote.

 

Nor do I want one....but that doesn't stop Canadian "foreigners" from trying to influence policies in other nations through "activist groups".

 

 

 

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nor do I want one....

Good g'bye.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Good g'bye.

 

Sure...but never goodbye to foreign money...that's the Canadian way.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure...but never goodbye to foreign money...that's the Canadian way.

I thought you'd left already...

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Argus said:

I thought you'd left already...

 

I really can't leave....this forum is hosted in the United States !

...more foreign money.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

this forum is hosted in the United States !

On computers Made in China.

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It depends on what you mean by foreigners. I consider those who are not born here but immigrated and assumed citizenship as Canadians with same/equal rights as Canadians. Yes they will have that right. But I don't think non-citizens (on visa or even landed immigrants) should influence Canadian politics and political parties same as they are not granted the right to vote either. Non-citizens however, should be allowed to be active for matters related to their own countries while here as far as it is non-violent, like fund raising to fight and expose their dreadful regimes and lobbying the government to impose sanctions and similar actions.

Well, I think if this became a legal matter involving the with-holding of a right, you'd pretty much have to target the right of Canadians to accept that funding.  Classifying the activism as terrorism would probably be the first step.

It doesn't take much thought to realize this idea would need a long long runway before it even came close to getting off the ground.  

[GostHacked]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

You don't get a vote.

Yeah no kidding, I agree 100% here.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Classifying the activism as terrorism would probably be the first step.

Yes, in the 1950's we had unAmericanism as the boogey man that we could slap on somone and then all chant how unpatriotic they were and justify taking away their rights, property, and everything else to hide our pure political motives. Today we use the label terrorism to accomplish the exact same political goals.

Intentionally flying a plane into a building is terrorism.

Expressing your thoughts is not terrorism.

We need to stop those who pushing that label on those closer to the second end of the spectrum; they are the true terrorists.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, ?Impact said:

We need to stop those who pushing that label on those closer to the second end of the spectrum; they are the true terrorists.

Yep, the rest of them should simply be told to get a grip.

Probability of Getting Killed by a Refugee Terrorist Is One in 3.6 Billion

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yep, the rest of them should simply be told to get a grip.

Probability of Getting Killed by a Refugee Terrorist Is One in 3.6 Billion

Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the one.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the one.

I doubt it, they'd probably demand another couple or three trillion be spent on giving the tools our brave men and women need to keep us safe.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I doubt it, they'd probably demand another couple or three trillion be spent on giving the tools our brave men and women need to keep us safe.

They've kept me safe so far, and I'm worth every penny.

[bush_cheney2004]

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yep, the rest of them should simply be told to get a grip.

Probability of Getting Killed by a Refugee Terrorist Is One in 3.6 Billion

 

Oh no...more American data influencing Canada !

 

[cannuck]

19 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

Intentionally flying a plane into a building is terrorism.

Expressing your thoughts is not terrorism.

 

I would expect that if one's expression is inciting someone to fly that airplane into a building, it is indeed terrorism.   Pretty tough to find where that line is between merely exercising a right to free speech and inciting an illegal act - after all, many people are inspired to do a lot of illegal and immoral things being spoken by texts such as the Old Testament,  Quran, Tora, etc.   Now that I think of it, we need to lock up God (whatever the hell THAT is supposed to be).