The Foreigner leading the NDP

[herples]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

You're wrong.  All of that makes him a foreigner!

 

He may be born here (I don't know).....but he claims he is born in India (by calling India his homeland). 

Homeland is defined as the country you were born in.

 

To reject Canada as his homeland (if he's born here)....what more can we say about that?

 

Here are the definitions by Merriam.

Foreigner:

a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country

chiefly dialectal : one not native to a place or community it

 

 

He claims India to be his homeland.  Therefore....he is a foreigner.

None of that is relevant since you know he was born here. It flies in the face of the definition you posted since a.) he doesn't belong to india and b.) he does not pledge allegiance to it. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

[betsy]

59 minutes ago, herples said:

None of that is relevant since you know he was born here. It flies in the face of the definition you posted since a.) he doesn't belong to india and b.) he does not pledge allegiance to it. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

Of course it's very much relevant!  That's the DEFINITION of foreigner!

If he fits it....he's a foreigner!

Edited March 25, 2018 by betsy

[cannuck]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

Of course it's very much relevant!  That's the DEFINITION of foreigner!

If he fits it....he's a foreigner!

I have another word for him, but I can guarantee that would get me banned.

[August1991]

In 1896, Laurier spoke perfect English and had a federal cabinet composed entirely of WASPs - including Clifford Sifton. Laurier was the sole Catholic Francophone around the cabinet table.

Huh?

John Thompson was Canada's first Roman Catholic federal PM (not Laurier); Indeed, protestant John A MacDonald had many Catholics around the table with him.

John S. MacDonald, a Roman Catholic, was Ontario's first premier - elected in 1867. Imagine.

Canada has a long history of being Catholic; and being tolerant.

====

IMHO, we Canadians are tolerant but we generally dislike a federal politician who shows his religion.

Laurier didn't.

Thompson didn't.

Trudeau Snr didn't.

Even in modern Canada, I reckon, a federal politician must obviously represent all Canadians. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by August1991

[August1991]

On 3/25/2018 at 1:21 PM, herples said:

None of that is relevant since you know he was born here. It flies in the face of the definition you posted since a.) he doesn't belong to india and b.) he does not pledge allegiance to it. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

Whether he was born here or there, wherever someone belongs to this or that, and what is allegiance? Marriage?

 ======

I happen to belong to the tribe of the Enlightenment.

I generally defend your right to say nonsense.

I like the guys who wrote the US Constitution.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

IMHO, we Canadians are tolerant but we generally dislike a federal politician who shows his religion.

But some religions include garments, so how are we to embrace the gift of the constitution - incorporating pluralism, and allowing for peace between people of different faiths - if we can't stand to see a kippah or kirpan ?  

It's like saying "we are very tolerant of cultures, as long as they are English or French"

[PIK]

What is the love affair with sikhs in this country. They hold a lot more power than their population numbers say.

[Centerpiece]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But some religions include garments, so how are we to embrace the gift of the constitution - incorporating pluralism, and allowing for peace between people of different faiths - if we can't stand to see a kippah or kirpan ?  

It's like saying "we are very tolerant of cultures, as long as they are English or French"

You cannot legislate Kumbaya. It takes time - as history continues to prove all over the world. That's why people get their backs up when politicians carelessly use the term "racist" to describe an undefined swath of Canadians. Sure there are a few die-hard racists......but there is a large portion of society who prefer their own "kind" - and many, perhaps even most - are newer Canadians - that's not racism - it's a natural tendency. Why do you think there are huge enclaves of hyphenated Canadians in major cities. I prefer to believe that most Canadians  (if they are not from that somewhat fictitious Kumbaya group -   living in perfect harmony... color-blind, non-biased, and all-inclusive) subscribe to the "live and let live" doctrine. Canadians are doing just fine, thank you. We don't need to be lectured and shamed - we need to celebrate how far we've come and understand that we are already on a noble path. From Buddhism: "The obstacle is the path".

Edited April 5, 2018 by Centerpiece
clarity

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But some religions include garments, so how are we to embrace the gift of the constitution - incorporating pluralism, and allowing for peace between people of different faiths - if we can't stand to see a kippah or kirpan ?  

It's like saying "we are very tolerant of cultures, as long as they are English or French"

Do you want us to be tolerant of cultures which believe gays should be imprisoned and women can be beaten at will?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you want us to be tolerant of cultures which believe gays should be imprisoned and women can be beaten at will?

No.  We have our own culture.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

You cannot legislate Kumbaya. It takes time - as history continues to prove all over the world.  

This is a bit of drift IMO. I didn't say anything about racism. 

August himself refers to us as civilized, because we moved forward - progressed - from a society of warring religious tribes to one of plurality.  But he can't simultaneously claim that we are so civilized and then say we shouldn't trust people with strange hats that he doesn't like.

 

 

 

[OftenWrong]

A "Post-National State" has no foreigners.

[PIK]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  We have our own culture.

Trudeau says we don't.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, PIK said:

Trudeau says we don't.

Quote or it didn't happen.

[Tribal_wayz]

On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎25 at 1:21 PM, herples said:

None of that is relevant since you know he was born here. It flies in the face of the definition you posted since a.) he doesn't belong to india and b.) he does not pledge allegiance to it. You are grasping at straws at this point. 

The vast majority of countries, in fact some 198 out of ~200 do not grant citizenship on the basis of where you were birthed. (We need to stop the Chinese birth tourists). But perhaps the concept of citizenship must rely on something more than happenstance, for surely the baby is not aware of any geographic enlightenment due to him/her being born on this apparently Sacred Soil.

Perhaps citizenship should reflect common cultural values, common views ... commonness.

Justeen and our hostile elite prefer the instruments of cultural Marxism to create good global citizenry not of multicultural values but of ONE cultural - the peaceful cuk. This is only one reason why we must send this foppish charlatan, this cartoon of a leader packing - along with the party which spawned such nation defeating trash. Our elites are indeed hostile.

 

Begone Justeen and take your globalist firsters with you! 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Tribal_wayz

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Quote or it didn't happen.

He said, it not in those exact words

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Trudeau said, concluding that he sees Canada as “the first post-national state.”

If Canada has no core identity or mainstream then it has no culture. Mind you, I'm sure he was only referring to English Canada. He would certainly never make that claim about his Canada - you know, Quebec.

https://www.truenorthinitiative.com/candice_malcolm_trudeau_says_canada_has_no_core_identity

Edited April 7, 2018 by Argus

[August1991]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:17 AM, PIK said:

What is the love affair with sikhs in this country. They hold a lot more power than their population numbers say.

While Sikhs are about 2% of India's population, they are about 40% of all Indian immigration to Canada.

Like dairy farmers, Sikhs are a well-organised minority.

[Tribal_wayz]

What a conundrum for a middling intellect like Justeen's - Does a multi cultural country have in fact no culture or many cultures? And if that is so, then why does our gov't keep "cultural institutions" off the free trade table? It seems they want their cake and to eat it too.

[August1991]

On 3/15/2018 at 11:45 PM, herples said:

Jagmeet Singh was born in Ontario, Canada so it is very strange to call him a foreigner. 

Yet he seems to refer specifically to his religious roots.

Laurier, Trudeau - never did. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

He said, it not in those exact words

Very kind of you to step up and help your lesser team-mates.  I'll bet you lay your coat down over mud puddles for blushing ladies too.

Anyway, the point is made and I didn't doubt that he said something similar.  It would be nice if these clumsy posters (who have been posting for years, by the way) knew how to back things up on their own and ride the bike without Argus training wheels...

[PIK]

16 hours ago, August1991 said:

While Sikhs are about 2% of India's population, they are about 40% of all Indian immigration to Canada.

Like dairy farmers, Sikhs are a well-organised minority.

Slowly building a sikh home land in canada.

[August1991]

On 4/6/2018 at 11:22 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Very kind of you to step up and help your lesser team-mates.  I'll bet you lay your coat down over mud puddles for blushing ladies too.

Anyway, the point is made and I didn't doubt that he said something similar.  It would be nice if these clumsy posters (who have been posting for years, by the way) knew how to back things up on their own and ride the bike without Argus training wheels...

Argus/Hardner,

In defense of the Official Bilingualism Act of 1968, Trudeau Snr (can I refer to Trudeau "Snr"?) once stated that while Canada is a federal State with two official federal languages - it has no official State culture.

Huh, Canada has no official State culture? Canada is a federal State with two official languages - by our Constitution, the central government must communicate with citizens in both English and French. That's it, that's all.

Multicultural? I agree with Trudeau Snr; we have no official State culture. IMHO, Section 27 of the Charter merely re-affirms this obvious fact.

========

Now, whether taxpayers should give millions of dollars to others merely because they're different, that's another question.

Or, more seriously, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was once a "multicultural society". Is such a society sustainable?

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Now, whether taxpayers should give millions of dollars to others merely because they're different, that's another question.

We can provide $1M to a definable ethnic group at the cost of just under 3 cents per person.  If you want to promote a Canadian "culture" then that seems like a pretty efficient way to do it.

 

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Or, more seriously, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was once a "multicultural society". Is such a society sustainable?

Leave out the quibbling over words: "melting pot" , "multicultural" and such distinctions aren't important.  Go back to Mesopotamia, and the cradle of civilization that was sparked on different cultures trading to mutual advantage.  It's beyond sustainable, it's fuel for growth and progress.  

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We can provide $1M to a definable ethnic group at the cost of just under 3 cents per person.  If you want to promote a Canadian "culture" then that seems like a pretty efficient way to do it.

A nation's culture needs no government assistance. If the government stays out of it a national culture will form on its own as people mix and meld and work and live together. Most government aid seems to be designed to prevent that happening.

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Leave out the quibbling over words: "melting pot" , "multicultural" and such distinctions aren't important.  Go back to Mesopotamia, and the cradle of civilization that was sparked on different cultures trading to mutual advantage.  It's beyond sustainable, it's fuel for growth and progress.  

Ah, may I point out that not a single nation survives from that time? They all went down amid war and slaughter.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

A nation's culture needs no government assistance. If the government stays out of it a national culture will form on its own as people mix and meld and work and live together. Most government aid seems to be designed to prevent that happening.

That's what I keep saying.  Cut immigration departments, and simply require people to have jobs before they move to Canada.  We don't need immigration laws, right ?

I know you actually want lots of government control over immigration and expect them to change their ways to "Canadian" . So, since we will always have immigrants, we might as well spend 3 cents per person to sow some cohesiveness around customs, laws and so on.

 

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Ah, may I point out that not a single nation survives from that time? They all went down amid war and slaughter.

Pretty high bar there, Argus.  Mesopotamia (Ubaid) is just over 6000 years old.