35--
Excuses, excuses, excuses
Once again, I apologize for an almost two months-long interruption. Life sometimes becomes too hectic for me to cope. I take on too many responsibilities or obligations and then find I need to temporarily change course. This time around it was a trip to Ibadan, Nigeria, where I was invited to deliver an annual lecture about Muslim law or sharia in Nigeria. My title was “Re-tooling Our Approach to Sharia: A Wholistic and Pluralistic Perspective.” Readers interested in that issue may contact me at < boerjf@hotmail.com > for an electronic copy. If you do forward this request to me, please be sure to mention this blog post and tell me what province or state and what country you are from. Of course, if you are interested in such issues, you would do well to also turn to my other blog: < Christian-Muslim World.blogspot.com >.
Trudeau: The State Has No Business....
If there is one statement by Canada’s “philosopher-king,” former Federal Minister of Justice later to become Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that lingers in the collective memory of the Canadian people, it is probably that “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” According to a CBC transcript, the context was his response to a reporter’s question. It seems that it was not a carefully thought out statement but, rather, an off-the-cuff remark without official backing. He bumbled his way through as follows:
“I think the, the view we take here is that, uh, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think that, uh, you know, what's done in private between adults, uh, doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public, this is a different matter."
Mclean's: The State Has No Business....
Whatever the statement’s official status, it has been quoted left and right—and been used as a takeoff for parallel statements about other concerns. Recently the editors of Canada’s Maclean’s captioned an article about obesity among kids with this: “The state has no place in the lunch bags of a nation” (May 2, 2011). They explained, “In the name of fighting obesity, schools everywhere are taking away the freedom of students and parents to make their own lunchtime decisions.” After giving a number of examples just how far this can go, the editors insist that “Eating remains a personal responsibility, not a government mandate.” Proper diet, they affirm, “is a matter for the family, not the authorities.”
Mutual Responsibility
Well, yes, in an individualistic world this may be true, but Canada is not a nation of rugged individualists. The nation has decided that the people are responsible for each others’ health and enforces this responsibility by means of a mandatory socialized medical regime to which everyone, except the very poorest, contributes through taxation.
Christian Responsibility
Of course, Christian tradition has always upheld mutual responsibility and concern for each other. Some Christians, usually more liberal ones, would extend this expression of mutual care by involving government, while others, often more conservative, may insist that this responsibility must be handled by both individuals and by the community, including the church, but not by government. Kuyperians like me cannot be placed in such boxes. Our criteria are different. Sometimes we sound like the one and sometimes like the other, sometimes we sound totally different. This is not due to a wavering posture of uncertainty—Kuyperians are hardly known for that!—but to our different criteria.
Mutual Accountability
Put bluntly, if I have to pay for your health problems, then I also demand a degree of accountability towards me on your part. And if we communally pay for each other’s health problems through government, then we, through government, also have a right to responsible living, including eating. Trudeau’s statement also includes the rider, “When it becomes public, this is a different matter." Through the national health care system to which we all contribute, we have become our brother’s and sister’s keepers via the government. It does not make sense to insist that it is purely your own business to eat as you like and then, when obesity or other problems set in, the public has to pay for your folly? Then it suddenly becomes a public concern—while you probably continue to consume mountains of junk food?
Radical Solutions vs Bandaids
The Maclean’s editors are right that it is hard to control dietary restrictions of students. Attempts to do so, they clearly show in their article, have not worked. However, one way of getting at it that the editors have not mentioned is control at the manufacturing and distribution level. A soft attempt at control would be heavy taxation on all problem foods. A hard approach would be to simply outlaw the production, importation and marketing of such foods. In the end, this latter approach may be the only one that could work.
When our health care system is overworked and underfunded and when the citizenry refuses responsibility, why do governments hesitate to apply the radical solutions needed? Is it the old democratic saw of powerful lobbyists and corporate finance? If democracy cannot fix things at their root or radix level, does it then doom us to patchwork solutions and limping along while our problems intensify?
Responsible Parenting
Of course, the other radical solution that is also desperately needed is responsible parenting. But who can imprint that on a secular population that rejects the teachings of stewardship, responsibility and accountability, the sacredness of the human body, etc.—all the classic teachings of Christianity? With the church sidelined in the lives of many and the government prevented by ideologies from enforcing responsible parenting, what do we have left? Things look kind of hopeless, I am afraid. Do an irresponsible citizenry and irresponsible parents call for some form of dictatorship? Perhaps our secular irresponsibility has driven us beyond the limits of democracy towards a new governing model? Perhaps--and now hold on to your seat!--we need to take another look at God and His guidelines as found in His revelation. Now that would be radical--going to the root of things, our spiritual roots.
Responsibility of Christians
I am not suggesting that Christians do not share in the responsibility for our derailed dietary habits and addiction to junk foods. Christians are often more influenced by their society and culture than by their religion. Too bad. Seeing that they are familiar with Christian thought and values, they should be among those providing formulae for solutions, not simply adhere to the dictates of pop culture or to middle class values and ambitions. It is time for churches to prepare their members to make hard-nosed decisions with respect to family diets and eating habits. Yes, it is first all of all a parental and family responsibility. Secondly, the church has an important task here. Thirdly, if both of these fail to function properly, the government may have to wade in and either insert strong nudges towards solutions like taxation or force the issue by legislation.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Transparency in Government (2)
Post 27—
I have for some time planned to do a post on transparency in government but was not quite ready for it. Then the WikiLeak issue sprang up and suddenly the entire (media) world is up in arms about a deluge of government documents flooding cyberland with promises of more to come. So I felt forced to jump on the bandwagon now rather than look like a Johnny-come-late.
The reason I have been planning to write on the subject is my growing annoyance with the BC Government for making it so difficult for people to access information. Vancouver newspapers regularly feature stories about the obstacles, the time and the money it takes to obtain information that should easily be accessible to the public. Government may need to keep some issues and documents secret, at least temporarily, but after all is said and done, Government has no interests beyond the interests of the people it governs. It has no interests of its own; even less, interests that clash with the interests of the people. Well, it shouldn't have.
I have been out of BC for most of my working life and so have to rely on written history. One thing I have learned is that government opposition leaders, like Gordon Campbell, frequently berated the government of the day for refusing to divulge information and even promised that if elected, the would make access to archives easy in the name of democracy. A subsequent premier, also by the name of Gordon Campbell, and his underlings have made it almost impossible and expensive, especially for reporters and journalists, to get the info they need for their research. I feel absolutely annoyed, cheated, humiliated and despised as a citizen. Downright angry and ready to punch those responsible for such high-handed treatment of info in the nose. Who do they think they are?! Please don't expect me to be polite in such an environment.
I am no expert on this issue of transparency versus secrecy in government, but when citizens, including journalists, routinely run into serious obstacles such as lengthy delays and high charges, if not outright refusal, then you know they are not served right. Then you also know, or at least, have good grounds to suspect that the government is up to something that cannot see the daylight.
Although I could reference many articles on the subject from various Vancouver newspapers, I restrict myself to a recent article by Vincent Gogolek, “Province Loses Fight to Keep IBM Deal Secret” (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 3/2010, p. A13). Gogolek reports that it took his organization, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association six years—yes, six years!—to obtain a copy of the Government’s workplace agreement with IBM. Six years! Imagine that. Gogolek rightly argues that transparency of government contracts “is the best possible way to guarantee these arrangements are honest, free of conflicts of interest, and the best possible use of public dollars.” Both parties, Government and IBM, “fought tooth and nail to keep the contract from being released.” It was only the ruling by an adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that forced the issue. And then I wonder why they took so long to act.
This one particular paragraph is written and inserted into this post a day later. Things are getting worse. After I wrote that post, I came across an article in 24th News Vancouver by Mike Klassen under the title :City's Chokehold Tightens on Info." The city he refers to is my city, Vancouver and its Mayor, the man who campaigned on such a populist platform. The info screws have become increasingly tight over the life of the current administration, according to Klassen.
With my apologies, this paragraph is inserted a few days later still. The issue is getting more serious. I've talked about the BC Government and that of Vancouver City, but now I'm running into stories about Canada's Federal Government (FG) as well. So, here's another insertion. Glen McGregor of Postmedia News reports that the FG took four years to release a requested expense report about Prime Minister Stephen Harper flying from Ottawa to Edmonton with six Members of Parliament along with some staff members in order to attend a Stanley Cup hockey game there. If you know Canadian geography, you will realize that this was a long trip. This lag of four years, according to McGregor, "is emblematic of the long delays that critics say are weakening Canada's open-records law." It is "unclear why the department resisted releasing the records." A member of the opposition commented that "most Canadians would have trouble with the idea that you load it [the plane] up with your friends and head off to a playoff game." Harper's office in due time provided some explanation of the adventure, but I will tell you about that four years from now, at least, if I get an official request for information. What's the hurry? [For your interest, I am member of the PM's party, but not sure I will remain there. Too many disappointments.] (Glen McGregor, "PM's Stanley Cup Expenses Released, 4 Years Later," Vancouver Sun, Dec. 20/2010.)
Gogolek and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham both ask why the public should have to file such requests for info to begin with. Why not make them routinely available proactively? It would be in line with a constant theme of legislative committees dealing with the issue.
To that I can only shout a loud, “Amen!” The people need to know and be assured their taxes are spent justly and judiciously. Obstacles that prevent the flow of legitimate info only serve to undermine the credibility of government. It is these obstacles that finally called for WikiLeaks. The latter is a reaction to unhealthy secrecy.
Authorities who resist transparency have things to hide and are not to be trusted. They should be booted out at first chance and never voted for again. As you can see, nothing strong or bullish about my opinions!
I have for some time planned to do a post on transparency in government but was not quite ready for it. Then the WikiLeak issue sprang up and suddenly the entire (media) world is up in arms about a deluge of government documents flooding cyberland with promises of more to come. So I felt forced to jump on the bandwagon now rather than look like a Johnny-come-late.
The reason I have been planning to write on the subject is my growing annoyance with the BC Government for making it so difficult for people to access information. Vancouver newspapers regularly feature stories about the obstacles, the time and the money it takes to obtain information that should easily be accessible to the public. Government may need to keep some issues and documents secret, at least temporarily, but after all is said and done, Government has no interests beyond the interests of the people it governs. It has no interests of its own; even less, interests that clash with the interests of the people. Well, it shouldn't have.
I have been out of BC for most of my working life and so have to rely on written history. One thing I have learned is that government opposition leaders, like Gordon Campbell, frequently berated the government of the day for refusing to divulge information and even promised that if elected, the would make access to archives easy in the name of democracy. A subsequent premier, also by the name of Gordon Campbell, and his underlings have made it almost impossible and expensive, especially for reporters and journalists, to get the info they need for their research. I feel absolutely annoyed, cheated, humiliated and despised as a citizen. Downright angry and ready to punch those responsible for such high-handed treatment of info in the nose. Who do they think they are?! Please don't expect me to be polite in such an environment.
I am no expert on this issue of transparency versus secrecy in government, but when citizens, including journalists, routinely run into serious obstacles such as lengthy delays and high charges, if not outright refusal, then you know they are not served right. Then you also know, or at least, have good grounds to suspect that the government is up to something that cannot see the daylight.
Although I could reference many articles on the subject from various Vancouver newspapers, I restrict myself to a recent article by Vincent Gogolek, “Province Loses Fight to Keep IBM Deal Secret” (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 3/2010, p. A13). Gogolek reports that it took his organization, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association six years—yes, six years!—to obtain a copy of the Government’s workplace agreement with IBM. Six years! Imagine that. Gogolek rightly argues that transparency of government contracts “is the best possible way to guarantee these arrangements are honest, free of conflicts of interest, and the best possible use of public dollars.” Both parties, Government and IBM, “fought tooth and nail to keep the contract from being released.” It was only the ruling by an adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that forced the issue. And then I wonder why they took so long to act.
This one particular paragraph is written and inserted into this post a day later. Things are getting worse. After I wrote that post, I came across an article in 24th News Vancouver by Mike Klassen under the title :City's Chokehold Tightens on Info." The city he refers to is my city, Vancouver and its Mayor, the man who campaigned on such a populist platform. The info screws have become increasingly tight over the life of the current administration, according to Klassen.
With my apologies, this paragraph is inserted a few days later still. The issue is getting more serious. I've talked about the BC Government and that of Vancouver City, but now I'm running into stories about Canada's Federal Government (FG) as well. So, here's another insertion. Glen McGregor of Postmedia News reports that the FG took four years to release a requested expense report about Prime Minister Stephen Harper flying from Ottawa to Edmonton with six Members of Parliament along with some staff members in order to attend a Stanley Cup hockey game there. If you know Canadian geography, you will realize that this was a long trip. This lag of four years, according to McGregor, "is emblematic of the long delays that critics say are weakening Canada's open-records law." It is "unclear why the department resisted releasing the records." A member of the opposition commented that "most Canadians would have trouble with the idea that you load it [the plane] up with your friends and head off to a playoff game." Harper's office in due time provided some explanation of the adventure, but I will tell you about that four years from now, at least, if I get an official request for information. What's the hurry? [For your interest, I am member of the PM's party, but not sure I will remain there. Too many disappointments.] (Glen McGregor, "PM's Stanley Cup Expenses Released, 4 Years Later," Vancouver Sun, Dec. 20/2010.)
Gogolek and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham both ask why the public should have to file such requests for info to begin with. Why not make them routinely available proactively? It would be in line with a constant theme of legislative committees dealing with the issue.
To that I can only shout a loud, “Amen!” The people need to know and be assured their taxes are spent justly and judiciously. Obstacles that prevent the flow of legitimate info only serve to undermine the credibility of government. It is these obstacles that finally called for WikiLeaks. The latter is a reaction to unhealthy secrecy.
Authorities who resist transparency have things to hide and are not to be trusted. They should be booted out at first chance and never voted for again. As you can see, nothing strong or bullish about my opinions!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Thomas Jefferson Quotes
Post 24--:
The past few posts have been a bit heavy and, for some, perhaps a bit dull. Let me redeem myself with something "light," quotations from Thomas Jefferson (1746-1826), one of the authors of the American "Declaration of Independence." In reality, there is nothing light about these quotes. Every quote is worthy of time and serious consideration. But here is an internationally highly revered historical genius who, let's face it, sounds like today's Tea Party in the US, the group that today is highly "irrevered," at least in Canada, as something akin to a bunch of crackpots not to be taken seriously.
I must confess that I have not done research into the accuracy of each of these statements. I have decided to simply assume they are genuine quotes from Jefferson. Given today's discussions and arguments, I think they are extremely interesting and, to me at least, surprising. I present them here for your edification, reflection and debate, but not because I agree with all of them. You will find parenthetical comments from yours truly under each quote.
Before I proceed, here is a relevant Kennedy story--or myth?
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
The Quotes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
(Jefferson should know: He spent many years in Europe as American
diplomat. To make it more contemporary, an Al-Jazeera article of December 2, 2010, makes claims of serious corruption and wastage on the part of the European Union.)
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
(Do please note that he wrote "would not," not, "could not," a slight
difference.)
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
(Do we routinely contract trans-generational debt because we have
grown in wisdom, understanding and economic knowledge since
Jefferson's days? Just a question!)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
(Though I would hardly reject all government responsibility for
supporting the poor and vulnerable in society, try applying the quote
to our current practice in Canada and see where you end up.)
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
(I could not agree more.)
No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms.
(I could not agree less, especially in view of the next one.)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
(Do we really expect a situation in North America where we feel so
threatened by our governments that we need arms to keep them at
bay? Under normal circumstances, we do not need that. When circum-
stances demand it, we will have reached such chaos that law no longer
is in effect. Of course, Jefferson lived during the American revolution.
There was war and chaos.)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
(This may be a trend in history, but to assert this as a historical law
is unacceptable to me. Liberty under threat has more than once been
released by public leaders who amassed the power of the people to force
change and refreshment without resort to bloodshed. I am the heir to
such a revolution started in The Netherlands by Abraham Kuyper.)
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
(A modern example in many North American provinces and states is where
your tax money goes to schools run on basis of secularism, even though
you disagree with that philosophy. Another is when governments spend my
tax money on abortion.)
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
(Why does this quote sound so contemporary?!)
Enjoy your reflections and debates.
I do hope that the Jeffersonian origin of these quotes will never prove to be a hoax!
The past few posts have been a bit heavy and, for some, perhaps a bit dull. Let me redeem myself with something "light," quotations from Thomas Jefferson (1746-1826), one of the authors of the American "Declaration of Independence." In reality, there is nothing light about these quotes. Every quote is worthy of time and serious consideration. But here is an internationally highly revered historical genius who, let's face it, sounds like today's Tea Party in the US, the group that today is highly "irrevered," at least in Canada, as something akin to a bunch of crackpots not to be taken seriously.
I must confess that I have not done research into the accuracy of each of these statements. I have decided to simply assume they are genuine quotes from Jefferson. Given today's discussions and arguments, I think they are extremely interesting and, to me at least, surprising. I present them here for your edification, reflection and debate, but not because I agree with all of them. You will find parenthetical comments from yours truly under each quote.
Before I proceed, here is a relevant Kennedy story--or myth?
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
The Quotes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
(Jefferson should know: He spent many years in Europe as American
diplomat. To make it more contemporary, an Al-Jazeera article of December 2, 2010, makes claims of serious corruption and wastage on the part of the European Union.)
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
(Do please note that he wrote "would not," not, "could not," a slight
difference.)
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
(Do we routinely contract trans-generational debt because we have
grown in wisdom, understanding and economic knowledge since
Jefferson's days? Just a question!)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
(Though I would hardly reject all government responsibility for
supporting the poor and vulnerable in society, try applying the quote
to our current practice in Canada and see where you end up.)
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
(I could not agree more.)
No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms.
(I could not agree less, especially in view of the next one.)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
(Do we really expect a situation in North America where we feel so
threatened by our governments that we need arms to keep them at
bay? Under normal circumstances, we do not need that. When circum-
stances demand it, we will have reached such chaos that law no longer
is in effect. Of course, Jefferson lived during the American revolution.
There was war and chaos.)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
(This may be a trend in history, but to assert this as a historical law
is unacceptable to me. Liberty under threat has more than once been
released by public leaders who amassed the power of the people to force
change and refreshment without resort to bloodshed. I am the heir to
such a revolution started in The Netherlands by Abraham Kuyper.)
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
(A modern example in many North American provinces and states is where
your tax money goes to schools run on basis of secularism, even though
you disagree with that philosophy. Another is when governments spend my
tax money on abortion.)
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
(Why does this quote sound so contemporary?!)
Enjoy your reflections and debates.
I do hope that the Jeffersonian origin of these quotes will never prove to be a hoax!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Tamil Refugees (3)
I do want you to realize that I am not talking about refugees or refugee programmes in general. I am talking only about the specific case of the Tamil boat people that recently arrived on Canadian soil. Well, sort of.... Should Canada accept them or send them packing? And what should she do about any future such arrivals?
Canadians reacted differently to their arrival, all the way from a warm embrace to a cold “send them back.” What is the real reason behind that negative attitude that I, as you will have noticed from the last two blogs, share? To dismiss the negative response haughtily as tribalism as did Stephen Hume is nonsense. That explanation is cheap and, it seems to me, represents mere political correctness that refuses to face a tough issue. But Hume did force me to examine myself as to the reason for my negative attitude in this situation.
Before I read his column, I came to the same conclusion about myself and others as did Jon Ferry. It is disgust with the Canadian federal bureaucracy more than with our uninvited guests. Ferry said it well. “But what really seems to annoy many Canadians is the feeling they’re being played for suckers by slick immigration lawyers and coerced into paying millions in legal fees, welfare payments and health benefits to migrants who, at least by their home country’s standards, appear to be quite well off,” since they reportedly paid a handsome price for their journey.
Yes, all that largess to strangers, needy strangers to be sure, while the citizens complain about the resources they require for their ordinary needs are not available. The ordinary tax payer works hard but is given the run around when she “hits a rough patch.” The system has been bled dry, according to one writer. He does not identify the culprits, but, if I may insert my own two cents worth, they are not refugees so much as members of the bureaucracy that cow tow to all too many citizens with their culture of human rights and entitlement without a proper balance of human and citizen responsibility.
I live in Vancouver’s West End and meet, see and hear all too many people who are indeed sucking the system dry. When you see with your own eyes strong, tall young men with heavy backpacks strapped to their backs, pick up rent checks from some whimpy bureaucrat, then you know something is amiss. When people who regularly travel the entire world, ride our transit system with nearly free annual passes, you know we are bled. When people who annually traverse the continent by Amtrack but have their rent subsidized and pay no MSP, you wonder who approved the cozy arrangement. And now another 500 of these refugees forcing themselves upon the already emaciated system! When is this blood letting of the system going to end?
Ferry writes, “…the overall cynicism among Canadians about the system is now so great, it needs a complete overhaul.” There we have the real reason. If this blood letting of the system, its abuse by our own entitlement “citizens” were not so rife, the country would be more relaxed. And if our bureaucracy developed the necessary spine to stop this local blood letting, people, myself included, would not be so upset about our Sri Lankan guests. And, not the least, if our politicians dared to clamp down on these bureaucratic wimps and our entitlement champions with tougher legislation, we might even embrace them with open arms. But as it is, we are tired of it all. Hard working tax payers need a break. They want some accountability in quarters where it now seems totally lacking
And if the Toronto Sri Lankan community wants to retain its reputation and respect at all with the Canadian people, it should take the bull by the horns as I suggest in the previous blog. Put your money where your mouth is. Practice being responsible Canadians instead of a tribalistic enclave. Demonstrate that your citizenship certificate is genuine, not just one of convenience and entitlement.
One final logical comment: The logic of the Sri Lankan situation could lead to the demand that Canada take in the entire Tamil tribe. Isn’t the situation basically the same for all of them? Why stop at this boat load? Most of those left behind do not have the $45,000 our current crop paid for the passage and are thus in greater need. Yea, and while we’re at it, why not all southern Sudanese as well? We have the room! But perhaps there are other issues besides those of logic?
Tomorrow, I promise, I will broach another subject. Don't know yet what it will be, but the media will bring up something of interest, if not significance. Enjoy your day in God's Kingdom.
Canadians reacted differently to their arrival, all the way from a warm embrace to a cold “send them back.” What is the real reason behind that negative attitude that I, as you will have noticed from the last two blogs, share? To dismiss the negative response haughtily as tribalism as did Stephen Hume is nonsense. That explanation is cheap and, it seems to me, represents mere political correctness that refuses to face a tough issue. But Hume did force me to examine myself as to the reason for my negative attitude in this situation.
Before I read his column, I came to the same conclusion about myself and others as did Jon Ferry. It is disgust with the Canadian federal bureaucracy more than with our uninvited guests. Ferry said it well. “But what really seems to annoy many Canadians is the feeling they’re being played for suckers by slick immigration lawyers and coerced into paying millions in legal fees, welfare payments and health benefits to migrants who, at least by their home country’s standards, appear to be quite well off,” since they reportedly paid a handsome price for their journey.
Yes, all that largess to strangers, needy strangers to be sure, while the citizens complain about the resources they require for their ordinary needs are not available. The ordinary tax payer works hard but is given the run around when she “hits a rough patch.” The system has been bled dry, according to one writer. He does not identify the culprits, but, if I may insert my own two cents worth, they are not refugees so much as members of the bureaucracy that cow tow to all too many citizens with their culture of human rights and entitlement without a proper balance of human and citizen responsibility.
I live in Vancouver’s West End and meet, see and hear all too many people who are indeed sucking the system dry. When you see with your own eyes strong, tall young men with heavy backpacks strapped to their backs, pick up rent checks from some whimpy bureaucrat, then you know something is amiss. When people who regularly travel the entire world, ride our transit system with nearly free annual passes, you know we are bled. When people who annually traverse the continent by Amtrack but have their rent subsidized and pay no MSP, you wonder who approved the cozy arrangement. And now another 500 of these refugees forcing themselves upon the already emaciated system! When is this blood letting of the system going to end?
Ferry writes, “…the overall cynicism among Canadians about the system is now so great, it needs a complete overhaul.” There we have the real reason. If this blood letting of the system, its abuse by our own entitlement “citizens” were not so rife, the country would be more relaxed. And if our bureaucracy developed the necessary spine to stop this local blood letting, people, myself included, would not be so upset about our Sri Lankan guests. And, not the least, if our politicians dared to clamp down on these bureaucratic wimps and our entitlement champions with tougher legislation, we might even embrace them with open arms. But as it is, we are tired of it all. Hard working tax payers need a break. They want some accountability in quarters where it now seems totally lacking
And if the Toronto Sri Lankan community wants to retain its reputation and respect at all with the Canadian people, it should take the bull by the horns as I suggest in the previous blog. Put your money where your mouth is. Practice being responsible Canadians instead of a tribalistic enclave. Demonstrate that your citizenship certificate is genuine, not just one of convenience and entitlement.
One final logical comment: The logic of the Sri Lankan situation could lead to the demand that Canada take in the entire Tamil tribe. Isn’t the situation basically the same for all of them? Why stop at this boat load? Most of those left behind do not have the $45,000 our current crop paid for the passage and are thus in greater need. Yea, and while we’re at it, why not all southern Sudanese as well? We have the room! But perhaps there are other issues besides those of logic?
Tomorrow, I promise, I will broach another subject. Don't know yet what it will be, but the media will bring up something of interest, if not significance. Enjoy your day in God's Kingdom.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Tamil Refugees (2)
Yea, that refugee question—a tough one. I am dealing with the issue kind of as stream of consciousness, considering various aspects that must be taken into account. Right now, I am glad I am free to write about it without having to make the final decisions. I happily leave that to our unfortunate Government. I recognize that this is kind of cheap and easy, but flatter myself into thinking that, cheap and easy as it may be, all such writings by citizens high and low, may help a government if it is inclined to listen. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Maybe my input on the subject will be read, if they realize I am a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, albeit a disappointed one. Mr. Harper & Co., yoho! I am here! Your member! I voted for you—or would have if you had a candidate in my riding!
Tough as the issue is, Canada must respond to it and solve it to a degree that we can live with as a nation--and do so on the side of compassion and justice. At the same time, she should do so on her own free will, not forced by cheap majority votes at the UN. Free will does not mean considering only our own Canadian interest. Canada has a reputation, among its own citizens at least, of a helpful, caring nation that sacrifices for the sake of others. That tradition needs to be incorporated in that free will. As a TV commercial puts it, “because it’s the right thing to do.” Certainly the Calvinist thing. Erring on that side even. That’s why I pleaded in my letter to accept these people and not turn them back into the Pacific.
But there’s also a tougher side to my letter. While accepting the present group for refugee processing, Canada should let it be known loud and clear that she will simply force the next ships to turn around as soon as they reach Canadian territorial waters. Potential refugees in Sri Lanka should know that, $45,000 or not, they will not be allowed to land on Canadian soil. It has been suggested that any boat heading for Canada should be diverted to some isolated island for refugee processing. Those accepted could proceed to Canada; those not accepted must find their own way out. That should discourage those who know themselves to be risky for whatever reason or come with hidden agendas. It would be similar to the US’ operating immigration posts at foreign airports with the explicit aim of sorting out risky travelers away from US borders, before they get there. Diverting them might also separate the sheep from the goats. That is, those inclined to respect our laws and procedures and those who don/t. Not a bad way to go, I believe.
Jon Ferry, another Province columnist, has his heart in the right place. Like me, a former immigrant himself, he is full of compassion for the new Tamil arrivals, especially the women among them. Perhaps a tinge of chauvinism? They should be treated “as humanely as possible while they’re in our care.” Does that last clause suggest they should be rejected humanely? Even if Canada should dare do that, it would not be experienced as “humane” by them.
Then Ferry gets tough. He has no “sympathy at all for unscrupulous people smugglers and queue jumpers who come to our country by the back door. Their exploitation of our absurdly lax immigration rules is unfair to other would-be immigrants waiting patiently….” Canada is in a pickle, according to Ferry. If she accepts the group, she will be seen as a soft touch and encourage others to follow. If she rejects the group, she will “risk losing our reputation as a big country with a big heart.” Perhaps. She may also gain the respect of those honest enough to recognize what is really going on. Should Canada even worry about that? Once again, just do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think it will be a disaster, though the nefarious of this world may try to turn it so.
The Toronto Tamil community and their lawyers stubbornly defend the new arrivals. Some will no doubt have siblings and other relatives among them. They insist that they be admitted, even those they do not know. They totally disregard the Government’s suspicion of Tamil terrorists among them, possibly even knowingly are mute about them. After all, this is a tribe and tribal sentiment demands that, in response to outsiders, you close rank, regardless of the issues or individuals involved. Canada has already more tribalists than it needs. It shows up every time a nation with a sizable group of its citizens in Canada finds itself in turmoil. All the immigrants from that country will band together and make this or that demand on the Canadian government. They may even turn against each other on basis of home country divisions, as we have seen in some Asian immigrant communities.
I challenge the Tamil immigrant community. Put your money where your mouth is. If you want these people to be accepted so badly, then offer to put up substantial bail for each individual. In addition, put them up in your community, provide them with jobs and teach them English. Your first priority should be to keep them off Canadian welfare rolls. Prove yourself. Demonstrate your seriousness as Canadians first of all who have the welfare of Canada at heart! We don’t need your tribalism. That’s destructive to the nation.
To be continued in the next blog. See you there.
Tough as the issue is, Canada must respond to it and solve it to a degree that we can live with as a nation--and do so on the side of compassion and justice. At the same time, she should do so on her own free will, not forced by cheap majority votes at the UN. Free will does not mean considering only our own Canadian interest. Canada has a reputation, among its own citizens at least, of a helpful, caring nation that sacrifices for the sake of others. That tradition needs to be incorporated in that free will. As a TV commercial puts it, “because it’s the right thing to do.” Certainly the Calvinist thing. Erring on that side even. That’s why I pleaded in my letter to accept these people and not turn them back into the Pacific.
But there’s also a tougher side to my letter. While accepting the present group for refugee processing, Canada should let it be known loud and clear that she will simply force the next ships to turn around as soon as they reach Canadian territorial waters. Potential refugees in Sri Lanka should know that, $45,000 or not, they will not be allowed to land on Canadian soil. It has been suggested that any boat heading for Canada should be diverted to some isolated island for refugee processing. Those accepted could proceed to Canada; those not accepted must find their own way out. That should discourage those who know themselves to be risky for whatever reason or come with hidden agendas. It would be similar to the US’ operating immigration posts at foreign airports with the explicit aim of sorting out risky travelers away from US borders, before they get there. Diverting them might also separate the sheep from the goats. That is, those inclined to respect our laws and procedures and those who don/t. Not a bad way to go, I believe.
Jon Ferry, another Province columnist, has his heart in the right place. Like me, a former immigrant himself, he is full of compassion for the new Tamil arrivals, especially the women among them. Perhaps a tinge of chauvinism? They should be treated “as humanely as possible while they’re in our care.” Does that last clause suggest they should be rejected humanely? Even if Canada should dare do that, it would not be experienced as “humane” by them.
Then Ferry gets tough. He has no “sympathy at all for unscrupulous people smugglers and queue jumpers who come to our country by the back door. Their exploitation of our absurdly lax immigration rules is unfair to other would-be immigrants waiting patiently….” Canada is in a pickle, according to Ferry. If she accepts the group, she will be seen as a soft touch and encourage others to follow. If she rejects the group, she will “risk losing our reputation as a big country with a big heart.” Perhaps. She may also gain the respect of those honest enough to recognize what is really going on. Should Canada even worry about that? Once again, just do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think it will be a disaster, though the nefarious of this world may try to turn it so.
The Toronto Tamil community and their lawyers stubbornly defend the new arrivals. Some will no doubt have siblings and other relatives among them. They insist that they be admitted, even those they do not know. They totally disregard the Government’s suspicion of Tamil terrorists among them, possibly even knowingly are mute about them. After all, this is a tribe and tribal sentiment demands that, in response to outsiders, you close rank, regardless of the issues or individuals involved. Canada has already more tribalists than it needs. It shows up every time a nation with a sizable group of its citizens in Canada finds itself in turmoil. All the immigrants from that country will band together and make this or that demand on the Canadian government. They may even turn against each other on basis of home country divisions, as we have seen in some Asian immigrant communities.
I challenge the Tamil immigrant community. Put your money where your mouth is. If you want these people to be accepted so badly, then offer to put up substantial bail for each individual. In addition, put them up in your community, provide them with jobs and teach them English. Your first priority should be to keep them off Canadian welfare rolls. Prove yourself. Demonstrate your seriousness as Canadians first of all who have the welfare of Canada at heart! We don’t need your tribalism. That’s destructive to the nation.
To be continued in the next blog. See you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
