We should ask Paul Martin. He says that his party is the only one to stand up for Canadian values. We figure out what the Liberals stand for, we know what Canadians stand for. Easy peasy.

I think the point that is missed is our need to educate newcomers as to what laws and values we stand for before they get here. To them they just see freedom and riches not rights, obligations and standards of behaviour. They need to know we believe in racial and sexual equality, that douries,forced arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, funding foreign issurgents and blood feuds are not acceptable. Once we give them citizenship the rights they recieve make it impossible to strip them of citizenship. We are then too late and saddled with the expense of incarceration or the social turmoil created by “Canadian” ingrates.

Instead we need a new process for citizenship. Citizenship should be broken down into probationary and full citizenship. Probationary Citizenship would last for 5 years, If you can prove yourself law abiding and employable in those 5 years you stay permanent, if not , bye bye.

I don’t think an oath is needed just a clear cut contract between the goverment and potential immigrants. “These activities are condsidered to be incompatible with Canadian law and social standards and such activities will result in removal of the rights and priveliges of citizenship”
While an oath is a verbal contract I don’t think most people believe they have the value of a written contract that spells out the penalties of non compliance.

An oath is just words, actions speak louder, on that point I do not mind the suggestion this weak that enlistment in the armed forces would give a applicant a fast track to citizenship, but I’d like to see 2 terms of service requirement, professional armies need long term soldiers not the 4 year and out type who waste too much training money

“Are you not the least bit interested in helping these people out…”

No, not really. Without getting into a lengthy dissertation of who “deserves” help, I offer what I can and when I can. I’ve never listened to Lowell Green, so can’t say if I agree with his points of view or not. Therefore, he’ll get no help from me, unless my viewpoint and his just happen to align.

As far as Canadian values go, I haven’t a clue what they are. As far as I’m concerned, they are no more discernable and definable than Calgary values. Or Calgary weather, for that matter.

“What is the weather like in Calgary?” Well, in the summer it’s generally warm. In the winter, it’s generally colder, though not necessarily below freezing. But is today. And there’s been snow the last few days, but most of the winter there wasn’t. Sometimes it snows in summer.

I mean, I could come up with median temperatures for the four seasons, but that no more solidifies “Calgary weather” than listing a bunch of values embodied by our laws and calling them “Canadian”.

I would think that, by and large, Canadians value freedom. But freedom of what? Well that will vary from person to person. Just as it is largely impossible to get a group of twenty together and try to happily agree what ONE charity is deserving of your help (was forced into doing that once), you can’t get a group of individuals who each have their own experiences, pet interests, and colored goggles through which they view the world both near and far to happily agree on what they specifically value.

This is why I find it disingenuous when Paul or Jack or Stephen (though in his defence, I don’t specifically recall him using the phrase “Canadian values” during the election, though he may certainly have) talk about their party representing Canadian values. It’s as indefinable as Calgary weather, never mind Canadian weather.

So, my earlier point was not meant to be a deflection. I think it’s ridiculous to ask people to swear an oath to Canadian values, though I suspect that’s not what the writer had ultimately intended. Their language implies colloquialism, to me, and that the recommendation is presented as a broad theoretical proposal, rather than an actual proposal in form. I would support their swearing an oath to the constitution and laws, or some such performance. I would also support the withdrawal of citizenship and extradition of sigificant or repeat offenders under Canadian law.

I was moved to comment based upon the manner of your presentation suggesting that it is conservatives (and Conservatives) who are bandying this “Canadian values” phrase about. Some (or many) may well be, but your implication that it is “(Right)WingNut”s’ exclusive domain is as disingenuous as those who use the phrase for their own benefit.

Paul and Jack seem to know what ‘Canadian values’ are. Infact, they bandied that term around more than anyone during the election. What do you suppose ‘they’ meant, stageleft?

Jeff: They used the term as a tool to divide the country along party lines, “our” values verses “their” values… “ours” (of course) being good, theirs (of course) being “bad”; it is the only reason for trotting out such a completely ambiguous statement.

Having said that I’m not sure how it ties into the topic at hand, if you’ve got some sort of connector in there I’m not seeing feel free to pontificate a bit.

er, kirpan.

“they should be screened very closely for extremist views” - wow, there’d be no bloggers left if that was applied to all Canadians, not just newcomers. My father is 2nd generation Canadian & his views are,um, rather extreme. They are, to a degree, both ‘c’ & ‘C’onservative but some of them are far more extreme than that. Archie Bunker might blush at some things he says.

So while I might agree with the sentiment, Jeff, it would be hard to define (unless you mean “no ties with terrorists” which is pretty straightforward) and probably harder to enforce.

I don’t think “Canadian Values” is that abstract, while the east and the west the conservatives and the liberals all have different beliefs the vast majority are law abiding and support the rights supplied in the Constitution.(With some slight interpetational differences) The problem is however, the people we let in often do not understand how our laws and rights relate to their beliefs and cultural behaviour. They may not know that a forced marriage is considered a crime and could be related to both kidnapping and slavery in our collective minds. This is about education and screening before we bestow the rights of a Canadian to them. Millions want in and we take only a fraction of them. We have the right and the obligation to current citizens to make sure we decide in a manner that will enrich Canada not add to the gangs and violence or to extremism and hate.
for example
I’m not saying “you are muslim you can’t come in”. I’m saying “you are an extreme muslim who spouts anti semetic retoric and does not give your wife the personal freedoms or rights we as a nation do, you can’t come in”.
I’m saying, “as a rastafarian your religion tells you to smoke up, as Canadian law at this point does not support the non medical use of pot you are not welcome.”

Another thing is why do we take parties from both sides of a civil war country. There are many countries taking refugees or immigrants make a deal with one of them, we take one sides people you take another. Without the contact with the enemy side the youths are more likely to work to excell rather than join a gang and fight their old enemies. This is exactly what is going on in the Sri Lankan community in Toronto because we took both sides in their war.

“I think we could all agree that terrorism is not a Canadian value, no?”

I hate to drag out the old cliche about one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter. But Nelson Mandela was, at one point in his life, a terrorist under Canadian law, as have several people I (and most of us) view as heroes because they used armed struggle against oppression. That’s where big, broad statements against “terrorism” break down: we generally end up making a distinction between “terrorists doing things for ends we condone” and “other”. That’s a hard distinction to write into law.