“The tragic photo of young Aylan Kurdi and the news of the death of his brother and mother broke hearts around the world,” Alexander said in a statement Thursday morning. “Like all Canadians, I was deeply saddened by that image and of many other images of the plight of the Syrian and Iraqi migrants fleeing persecution at the hands of ISIS.
“…I am meeting with officials to ascertain both the facts of the case of the Kurdi family and to receive an update on the migrant crisis.”
So it’s not like he’s accepting anything resembling responsibility – in fact, that statement deflects like nothing else in an attempt to do anything EXCEPT accept responsibility – but he’s obviously not entirely ignorant to the fact that the situation needs to be assessed and that his policy contributed to a massive failure here.
Justin Trudeau is not impressed, true; his emphasis is on the Conservative burden of responsibility here, but he does not really call for anything resembling progress. His aim is to villify the Conservatives, not necessarily to immediately strive to rectify the massive humanitarian crisis going on here:
“You don’t get to suddenly discover compassion in the in the middle of an election campaign. You either have it or you don’t,” Trudeau said Thursday morning in Montreal.
“This government has ignored these pleas of Canadian NGOs, of opposition parties and of the international community…. All believe that Canada should be doing more, should have been doing more.”
Trudeau did articulate a plan to support the entry of 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada – up from the Conservative figure of 10,000 – but only if elected. Y'all decide if that’s adequate. While forcing the Conservatives to take responsibility for this event is important, Trudeau’s response does not acknowledge that people are losing lives today and that something needs to be done about that rather beyond partisan politics.
Mulcair was closer to the mark:
“Chris Alexander has a lot to answer for, but that’s not where we are right now,” he said. “We’re worried about how we got here — the collective international response has been so defective, and how Canada has failed so completely.”
Still, there is no call to action on how to fix the present and future lives that continue to be at risk. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP are coming close to articulating proposed policies on how to help the situation right now, as it’s happening.
Our politicians need to articulate a plan – more convincing than temporarily suspending a campaign to “look into” the issue, more convincing than blaming the Conservatives and saying what you’ll do if elected, and more convincing even than acknowledging the heart of the issue and then failing to articulate a plan to help people right now, today. Lives are being lost. None of this is enough.
Chris Alexander put his foot in his mouth yesterday on CBC:
“I think Canada remains a model of humanitarian action,” Alexander said, adding that Canada has received “approximately 2,500” Syrian refugees and “over 20,000 Iraqi refugees” so far.
“We are the most generous country to refugees in the world. We take one in ten resettled refugees annually,” he said. “The numbers grow quickly through private sponsorship and government assistance.”
Alexander went on to blame the media for not drawing enough attention to the refugee crisis.
The media has fuck all to do with this. Let’s hope this break from his re-election campaign gives him some clarity on what his literal job is.
If you are eligible to vote in this years federal elections (October 19) and you’re not sure who to vote for, Maclean’s Magazine has a feature on their website called “Policy Face-Off Machine”
What is it?
It’s an entertaining and educational tool, and a jumping-off point for your own conversations about the ideas that will decide the coming federal vote. The tool doesn’t offer any opinion about the merits of each idea and won’t offer advice about which political party deserves your support.
How does it work?
The Policy Face-off Machine pits two policies against each other at random, and you’re asked to choose which you prefer. The parties pitching the policies are not identified when you make your pick, but every party has the same number of policies in the machine. Sometimes, you’ll be forced to choose between two policies offered by the same party. That’s okay. It’s all part of the fun. When you have no opinion about both policies in front of you, simply hit the “pass” button and we’ll randomly generate a new face-off. Pick at least 20 policies and we’ll present you with some analysis of your choices.
It’s super simple to use and all the choices are completely objective, so when you pick it is based solely on your opinion of the issues, not any predispositions you may have regarding a party or their policy! I encourage all first-time voters to check this out, or anyone who may not know what party they stand with. It is time that we as young Canadians become interested in our countries issues and start to educate ourselves and make a change! We cannot survive another four years under a government chosen by our parents/older generations!
Even if you’re not Canadian, I beg you to share this post with your followers and encourage all Canadians to get involved in our next federal election!
And to our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community, Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual cooperation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. We will walk forward together, not apart.
Justin Trudeau won’t say if Bill C-51 — the controversial anti-terror bill introduced by the Conservatives — is constitutional, even though the Liberals backed it in Parliament.
At a morning campaign event Thursday, he said his party will always defend the Charter of Rights, enacted when his father was prime minister in 1982.
But the Liberal leader would not clearly weigh in on the constitutionality of the anti-terror legislation, which has been questioned by some legal experts and the New Democrats who refused to support the bill.
In little more than a month, Canada is going to have a federal election, and I have no. idea. what. is. going. on.
The problem that i have with Canadian politics is that it feels horribly closed off. Most campaigns are attack-based, you’ll rarely see a politician on TV discussing their platforms - let alone at times people watch, and there is next to no effort to summon the youth vote. If I recall, the NDP did a youtube ad campaign… once… In like 2011??
So other than a unit in elementary school and a course in high school that roughly teaches structure but NOTHING on current politics (that are unbiased). The average Canadian doesn’t have much to go on.
Which is why I want to help give Canadian politics a bit of a… makeover. I’m planning on making a trilogy of videos that’ll act as a crash course in CanPol.
For any Canadians or curious on-lookers out there, what topics would you like to see covered in this series?
someone replied to your trudeau photo op post by saying trudeau wasn't sexist and i'm just like 'eggs n bacon ur mistaken' because he's literally sexist garbage
I wouldn’t go that far, but it is problematic to show up with your slew of candidates representing this region in Quebec and not have a single woman. It flies in the face of what he’s trying to represent himself as, and as he admits in the article only about a third of his candidates are women. We need to do better than this (by comparison the NDP has ~43% female candidates)
Nice Hair? Harper Flew makeup artist around the world courtesy of the Canadian tax payer
The Conservatives have a bizarre obsession with Trudeau’s hair, but the truth is, neither Justin Trudeau nor Tom Mulcair have makeup artists. In fact, the only leader who does is Stephen Harper.
The Toronto Star recently reported that “In fact, the taxpayer has picked up bills in the past for another Harper stylist, and around the same time period. Michelle Muntean traveled around the world with Harper, applying makeup, styling hair, selecting clothing and trimming nails.“
The story goes on to say, “Department of Foreign Affairs paid her travel expenses, including flights, meals and accommodation. The records for 2009-2010, for example, show she traveled with Harper on 13 different trips.“
I would submit that Canadians are not getting good value for our money here.
Among the many embarrassing things that the Mike Duffy trial has highlighted is the prime Minister’s vanity. You can read the whole story here.
So this article is clearly strongly biased, but I really want to adress this notion of “bilingual privilege” and the misconception that it is actually a thing, because many Anglophones seem to believe it.
First of all, it fails to adress who will truly benefit from having bilingual judges: the French population present in every single province and territory of this country. Even bilingual francophones might be more comfortable defending their case in their mother language and better able to express themselves clearly.
It also fails to adress that the ones who benefit from the way things are at the moment are Anglophones, who, believe it or not, benefit from linguistic priviledge in all areas because they constitute the dominant group. Requiring a handle of individuals in high positions of power to be able to exercise their duties is, in fact, a way to rectify this situation of English priviledge by giving equal status to both official languages.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not a shortage of highly qualified bilingual individuals. Also contrary to popular belief, people who are raised in bilingual households didn’t become bilingual with no effort. Research shows that children exposed to two languages at the same time take more time to develop their language skills. They also have, like everyone else, to continuously work on their language skills over time to gain more vocabulary, refine their communication skills and grasp of grammar. The reason bilingual individuals are fluent in two languages is because they use both languages and constantly work to maintain their fluency. Because it takes work, bilingualism should be viewed, and thus valued, as a skill.
To put it this way, this article is saying that hiring bilingual judges would privilege bilingual individuals, but having all (or most of) the judges be unilingual Anglophones won’t be privileging anyone?
The strong possibility of missing out on first-tier judges (which would
include the admirably well-endowed new appointee, Russell Brown, if he
is not bilingual) for the sake of linguistic correctness, or what
Trudeau père so vigorously resisted, “cramming French down the throats”
of every Canadian, whether or not 99.9% of them will ever need it.
According to the 2011 census, 30,1 % of the Canadian population is Francophone. That’s almost a third of the population. Also, no one is asking every single Anglophone to learn French and become fluent in the language, Francophones just want equal status in the judicial system.