Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star

2014/10/02 Leave a comment

Rick Salutin on the one-sided language and focus on revocation and similar measures, rather than helping families and communities on prevention:

But ensuring decent options isn’t a task that parents can take on alone. It’s for all of society, especially its leaders. And believe me, pious denunciations of evil at the UN, by leaders with their own hideous, ongoing records to be ashamed of, won’t cut it with the young. I have that on vivid recall.

This week an Alberta leader of Somali Canadians asked the Harper government to expand outreach programs for youth. Their only response was a promise to protect “law-abiding Canadian families” by stripping citizenship under their new law for “dual-nationals who engage in terrorism.”

Well, these are law-abiding Canadian families whose kids are at risk and any criminal acts, including treason, can be dealt with already. All revoking citizenship does is dehumanize its targets, since citizenship is a human right. Do we really want Stephen Harper or Chris Alexander to decide who counts as human and who to exclude as monsters? This is sheer incitement of more anger and alienation. I’m against revoking anyone’s citizenship but if you were going to do it for encouraging radical, violent behaviour, you’d start with these official, elected provocateurs.

Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen – Globe Editorial

2014/07/02 Leave a comment

Globe’s Canada Day editorial:

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has defended his bill by arguing citizenship is a privilege, not a right. He is wrong. It may come with responsibilities, but it is a right. And once legitimately acquired, by birth or naturalization, it cannot be taken away. Bill C-24 gives the government the kind of sweeping power that is common in dictatorships, not in a democracy built upon the rule of law, where all citizens are equal. The changes to the Citizenship Act erode those basic principles, creating a two-tier citizenship that dilutes what it means to be Canadian.

Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen – The Globe and Mail.

Rick Salutin in the Star:

Why did they do it? Here’s my guess: It’s not enough for them to merely run Canada. They want to define it, and they don’t want any backchat. Some people need to be right, not just powerful. So they’ve turned citizenship into a privilege, not a right, and since someone has to grant a privilege, it’ll be them.

But here’s my biggest problem. I don’t think loyalty — in any particular version — should have a thing to do with citizenship. The democratic core of citizenship is you get to challenge the values of the moment and can’t be shut up. It’s a license to disagree and debate which direction your nation takes, no matter what the majority thinks. Is that unpatriotic? It depends on how you see things. For many patriots, not going along has been the essence of patriotism. I’d say put people in jail for life if you insist — but don’t touch their citizenship.

Hello, you must be going: government waters down Canadian citizenship: Salutin

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , ,

Excerpt: Divine Interventions, on religion and government | Rick Salutin

2014/01/27 Leave a comment

Some interesting commentary by Rick Salutin on secularism and post-secularism:

That’s the real argument for post-secular tolerance: not just that it’s right but that everyone feels better; you’re no longer stifled by the monolithic, exclusive nature of an identity that, back home, defined and determined who you were, totally outside your will; here, in the Canadian blender with no dominant force, other possibilities jostle with it. Slowly, everyone gains access to new resources and the freedom to try them.

If not a definition, what about rules — or, as Captain Jack Sparrow says, guidelines. Here’s one for religion’s post-secular role, with thanks to Alia Hogben: in political discussions, no one may quote God. Why? Because it cuts off debate and tries to restore the pre-post-secular status quo. It’s like Godwin’s law about Internet debates: whoever mentions Hitler first loses.

This poses a challenge to religious people: they must find ways to make their point without quoting God. It forces them to express themselves in ways accessible to unbelievers. Not everyone will agree, but it’s easier than banning believers from the political arena totally — which will just alienate and frustrate them while depriving others of the benefit of their insights.

Besides, religion isn’t going to go anywhere. It’s more likely that other components of the post-secular public square, like Marxism, Ayn Randism, atheism, humanism or even, God willing, neo-liberal economics, will depart first. The point isn’t that religion in its many versions has answers that others don’t, but it’s one resource among others.

Excerpt: Divine Interventions, an ebook about religion and government | Toronto Star.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Newer posts →