"So little knowledge of what our true history is". Nice. Attack me verbally and don't leave a name. That is not a debate. For the record, I do know what our heritage is like. My grandmother was one of the interned in the "Japanese" camps in BC. I'm have a minor in Canadian History in University, so please don't assume that I have "little knowledge" of Canadian history. I am not saying I am an expert on the subject, but I do not have "little knowledge", nor am I ignorant of our history.
The "once a Canadian, always a Canadian" statement was generalized - that's why it was placed in quotations. It in no way implied that Canadians all have the same beliefs so I don't know how you came to that conclusion. We are all citizens of the same country, and you would think that because we are all Canadian, we would at least be unified under that one notion. Of course Canadians have different beliefs; it would be ignorant to think otherwise. This country is known for its diversity. For you to assume that I meant we all share similar beliefs is incorrect. What I said was that we are all Canadian, meaning we all come from Canada, and no matter where we moved to around this globe, we would still know our origins are Canadian. It's fine to disagree with our politicians, to disagree with other Canadians, but the bottom line is, it is not the fault of Canada as a country what a few people do/say. It's national unity because of our citizenship, and not our beliefs, that I am talking about with that statement. One can disagree with their country all they want, but they are still a citizen of that country.
I dislike that fact that you are putting words into my mouth by assuming many things in your reply. For example, "you have also implied that as Canadians we treat each other with respect and without ageism, sexism, or racism". This is untrue. I did not, in any way, imply anything about racism, sexism, etc. By "freedom from persecution", I meant people were free to have their own ideas, own beliefs, and not be killed for it. My boss fled the Middle East when he converted to Christianity. Why? Because he would have been killed for converting from Islam if he stayed. I know there is persecution in Canada, but I know there is more tolerance than anything. You won't be killed by the government in this country for having different beliefs than the majority. Living in Toronto, I see this every day. Nothing is 100%, but I know that homicides in Canada are not a majority of hate crimes. And yes, everyone in Canada has access to a safe place to grow up compared to other countries, and almost everyone has access to shelter and food. How can you argue against that?
You said that I'm implying that everyone "living in Canada has equal opportunity and enjoys the same benefits as everyone else", and again this is not at all what I said, by any means. We are a capitalist society, with people living in a wide variety of lifestyles, but even the homeless have shelters where they can go to get food and a sheltered sleep. Your question "At the end of the day can you guarantee that those arrested truly had the benefit of the food, shelter, education and health care that you referred to?" Yes, I can guarantee they have had the benefit of food, shelter, and education (I did not refer to health care), because all are provided through the government, charitable organizations, etc. No, there is no equality in these benefits, I never said that, but everyone has the option of food and shelter.
And here is where you mention historic cases. Yes, they all were (and still are) horrible events against Canadians by Canadians, but to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) Natives and interned Canadians have never went through with a plan to blow up central Canadian landmarks.
"Any person who is willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither."
I agree. I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I said though. As for my apparent statement that terrorism, as you say, "just arrived in Canada"? Well, your assumption again is incorrect. I never said that there had been no terrorism in Canada before this, I said we have been added to the list - the current list, the one that the USA and Britain are on, the one that has to do with al-Qaida (or in this case, inspirations thereof). I meant in this day and age on an international level. The FLQ was a completely Canadian conflict. There were no international events that led to the crisis.The FLQ Crisis is what could have been repeated if the alleged plans of the 17 Canadians arrested had not been foiled.
By the way, being concerned and "complaining" are two totally separate things.
"It seems to me that you have seen the word terrorism next to their arrest and automatically assumed their guilt."
Far from it. It's the fact that the police, CSIS, the RCMP, and the government all had a hand in this operation. It's the fact that they were actually arrested and taken to prison. It is the fact that the police confiscated a large quantity of ammonium nitrate from the 17 people who were arrested. Am I politically correct in assuming guilt? No, as everyone is innocent until proven guilty (and even then there are mistakes at times), but this is my opinion. Not all of them may be guilty, but there is a reason as to why they were singled out and arrested, and it is not due to race/culture. You can go ahead and label me "naïve" as you have already done, but do not for one moment think that "terrorism" has led me to assume their guilt. Do not assume that I am similar to, or share the beliefs of, a "pro-Bush conservative" just because of some quotes you misread… or read in to.
As for myself having a poor attitude? Maybe you shouldn't assume things so much and call others "naïve" and other such names when responding to a comment in their personal journal. To me, that shows more of a poor attitude, especially when it's done anonymously.
5 comments:
I am sorry to see that you took the commentary so personally, especially considering that you didn't know who the person was that posted the comments. Your opinions have been challenged, not 'attacked', and they have been challenged by a person who has decided to exercise their very Canadian right to free speech and anonymity. It was hardly verbal as well, considering that you never heard my voice. But I suppose that I'm just nit-picking on that one.
Considering that your full name, address and phone number is not present on your blog, am I truly any more anonymous than you? Also, I would assert that a true debate should largely be defined by the content, as opposed to the personalities. The vitriolic nature of debates is often fuelled by the question of 'who' is talking, but the ultimate quality of an argument can only be as good as its content.
In a related matter, I noticed that your reply to my commentary was much more detailed than your original post, and I appreciate that. In taking the time to fully explain the actual meaning behind your initial statements, you have certainly clarified your position.
I won't rehash most of what I said, as I cannot deny they were assumptions of what your statements were messaging. In the absence of any other detail from your entry, I did not have anything else but assumptions to make. In fact, most of my sentences were prefaced with "I think", "I do not think", "I feel", "Perhaps", etc. because I was only interpreting what I read. I never sold my statements as the gospel truth.
Considering that I could only interpret what was in front of me, I find it intriguing that you would reference your minor in Canadian history. You could have had a PHD in history, and I still would have assessed your statements in the same fashion.
Perhaps it would be more expedient to start examining your clarifications. Now that I have a better understanding of your 'once a Canadian..." statement, I can give a more proper comment. I don't understand how 'being unified under one notion' is supposed to be any guarantee against violence from one Canadian to another. Every second, Canadians injure, rob, vandalize, and rape each other with impunity. Why would an act of terrorism be exempt from that list? It certainly didn't stop Timothy McVeigh from vaporizing many of his fellow citizens in Oklahoma city. It is not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that I don't understand why you are shocked that a bunch of people would be planning to do this. There is precedent.
I was also surprised to see that the definition of 'persecution' was changed. The last time I checked, it meant "The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor. The condition of being persecuted." So, when I concluded that your statement of "freedom from persecution" meant that we treat each other without 'ageism, sexism, or racism', I was only doing so based upon what I believed to be the official definition of persecution. I respectfully stand by my original interpretation of your statement. In your reply to my comment, you stated that you were aware of persecution in Canada, but that there was more tolerance than anything. That sort of avoids my original point, doesn't it? Let's say, for the sake of argument that those arrested were actually all Islamic and in league with Al Queda (which hasn't even been confirmed yet). It is quite likely that they have had to deal with persecution and bigotry post 9-11, so 'not being killed for their beliefs' doesn't quite make up for it. Does it excuse their supposed actions? No, but it does help offer an explanation to their question of "what the hell did we ever do to them..."
You are correct, it is better here in Canada than most of the world, but your original post seemed to focus more on the theme of "what did we ever do to deserve this", and "how could any Canadian want to anything to other Canadians". I know that those weren't your exact words, but the meaning was pretty clear. Without any further detail than the other paragraphs you inserted, what else could I have interpreted? If I recall, most of my comments were geared toward trying to answer those types of questions.
You also said: "It's the fact that the police, CSIS, the RCMP, and the government all had a hand in this operation." I'm wondering how the fact that all of those jurisdictions were involved makes this case so airtight. All that I am saying is that your original blog entry seemed pretty content to assume guilt in absence of a verdict delivered through the legal process. The fact that they were "arrested and taken to prison" guarantees nothing. Our government has been holding a number of people in prison on "security certificates", without even pressing charges. You'll forgive me if I feel a bit sceptical on the overall subject of North American authorities and proper arrest.
"Yes, I can guarantee they have had the benefit of food, shelter, and education (I did not refer to health care), because all are provided through the government, charitable organizations, etc." You are correct, you never referred to health care, my mistake. Though I must say that I am glad that someone is finally able to stand up and guarantee that everyone has had the benefit of food, shelter, and education, because I don't know of a single politician who would walk up to the homeless in Toronto, the Natives on reserves, and some of the poorer areas of all cities, and make that statement. Are we better than most of the rest of the world? Yes. Does that mean you can say that 'these people' who were arrested didn't ever fall under any of these circumstances that I just outlined, in which Canada has not done that well? I doubt it.
At the end of the day, my central point remains. It is erroneous to assume that 'these people' have received food, clothing, education and a persecution free environment from the benevolent Canadian society. We should be holding our breath just a little bit more, and waiting for more of the facts to come out. You took offence to the manner in which I interpreted your blog entry.... I imagine that 'these people', if there were innocent, would have taken equal offence to the assumptions present in your original statements.
One last thing. This is not a personal journal. It is a publicly accessible blog that is a host to your personal opinions. I would suggest that there is a big difference. Our conversation is the result of your courage to post your opinions in a public forum. I'm just glad that we can have this conversation with words and not guns. Cheers to that.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/04/mosque-vandalized.html
Whoa...Missed soething there...
Word to the wise, anonnymous, don't scrap with Sarah. You won't come out on top.
Anyways, I noticed that you and Tabetha had or have a book club going... I was wondering if I could join up?> It might motivate me to actually work through some of my books in the que.
ttyl
Lacey
Hard to see how a lively discussion peppered with logic and fact can be construed as 'messing with' someone. Also, Sparky, what exactly did you miss?
I miss a lot of things... :)
Ginny, my love, could you please post your book list? The one on the Nipissing site is only good if you know the course code, so all I have of your list is the Kid Lit books. I think I have the Jane Austen ones, but I"m not sure. I'd very much like to see what "the English Gentleman" is all about... And 200 years of Popular Song? What the devil is that??
I'm Currently reading "A Million Little Pieces", then onto "My Friend Leonard", so no rush, and I'll try and pick up some of the Jane Austin books whenever I leave the house next.
Miss Ya!
Post a Comment