I didn't mentioon anything about taxes...from my posts you can see I was talking about tourists...hence the term vacation....plus you sound scared about the Middle East...really you sound paranoid.....it kinda depresses me...if you dont want to go there...thats cool....saying people, and we are talking about Canadians. And you are Canadian?
Saying they should just stay, really sucks to hear, nice to know you feel that way about your neighbours....for me, if there were Canadians over-sea, or anyone for that matter, that were stuck over there and did not have the same opinion of me in this current matter and wanted a ride home to be safe in their own borders...I would definetly not fucking say they should just stay....get over your politics and be a human being before you get all uptight in this left/right wing nonsense....that should come first....
I am not scared, have no interest in the middle east, i figure if you go there and all hell breaks loose thats your problem, the problems in the middle east are no secret to anyone. They have problems over there, and these problems go back thousands of years. And most of these problems surround hate, and the bottom line is any historian will tell you that most of the Arab countries hate Isreal, and they will never admit the Isreal has the right be there. As long as you got that kind of hatred in your heart then the potential for major conflict exist.
Personally when I go on vacation I choose countries with good government, and as far as I'm concerned that is just being smart.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The thing about Lebanon, is it is unlike the other middle eastern countries. Although they have suffered warfare (Israel attacks '82, civil war, Syrian occupation etc) Lebanon is regarded as a safe, cosmopolitan and peaceful nation. Beirut was commonly known as the Paris of teh Middle East and was known for a highly diverse community of different ideas and ideologies. This is very much different from its neighbouring countries. Furthermore, it is a democratic country that has not ever acted aggressively outside its borders. People who go to Lebanon do not expect to face the same dangers as if they were to visit other Middle easter countries.
I can think of better spots to vacation than Lebanon, and as far as I'm concerned if there is not a travel advisory on when travelling to the middle east, there should be, and if you travel there it should be your responsibility to get out.
Obviously thousands of canadians, americans, french, swedish, _____, disagree with you about Lebanon since they choose that spot for vacation.
Clearly we must help our citizens and if we can we should also go help Lebanese civillians and pay for it by setting up refugees camp everywhere in Lebanon, i would support my government if they'd do so. I'd like my taxes to pay for that. I'd like our military to do just that, rescue and humanitarian mission.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I am not scared, have no interest in the middle east, i figure if you go there and all hell breaks loose thats your problem, the problems in the middle east are no secret to anyone. They have problems over there, and these problems go back thousands of years. And most of these problems surround hate, and the bottom line is any historian will tell you that most of the Arab countries hate Isreal, and they will never admit the Isreal has the right be there. As long as you got that kind of hatred in your heart then the potential for major conflict exist.
Personally when I go on vacation I choose countries with good government, and as far as I'm concerned that is just being smart.
Palestine govt. were just in the process of officialy admitting that Israel AND Palestine exist, but then all hell broke loose, sad...
Btw we've sent a warship in New Orleans when Katrina hits, were you against paying for that? I'm also bringing that up again, if someone SHOULD pay for canadians being evacuate, it's Israel, otherwise we're just helping our own country citizens, it just can't get into my mind that someone and a newspaper (post) are against helping our own citizens...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Sleep, shower and university applications priority for new arrivals Jonathan Montpetit And Nelson Wyatt, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, July 24, 2006
MONTREAL (CP) - Sleep, a shower and applying to university were among the priorities for the latest round of Canadians returning from Lebanon as the Mideast country remained in the crosshair of the Israeli military. ... http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f6038ec1-751c-47db-9e69-c3de043f7712&k=70444
Montreal to be gateway for all Lebanese evacuees
Max Harrold and Alan Hustak, CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette
Published: Monday, July 24, 2006
MONTREAL - Montreal has been designated as the gateway for all Canadians returning from war-torn Lebanon, the federal government announced Sunday.
Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, July 25, 2006
OTTAWA -- Strong support among Canadians for recent Israeli combat actions in Lebanon highlights the divide between Quebec and the rest of the country, a new poll has revealed.
The survey, conducted online by Ipsos-Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National, found that 64 per cent of Canadians believed Israel's military action in Lebanon was either somewhat or completely justified, while 57 per cent of Quebecers believed the Israeli response was "not at all justified."
"The only issue, really, is the stark divide between the two areas of the country, where Quebec -- and sometimes Atlantic Canada but mainly Quebec -- is at odds with the views of the majority of other Canadians," said John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos-Reid.
When asked which side of the conflict should make a major compromise in order to have a ceasefire, 63 per cent of Canadians said it was "those who kidnapped the Israeli soldiers," while 53 per cent of Quebecers said it was the Israeli government.
The poll surveyed 1,023 Canadians on July 20, before weekend demonstrations, including a large protest in Montreal, calling for peace in the Middle East and denouncing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance in support of Israel. There are as many as 50,000 people of Lebanese origin in Quebec, with Montreal being the home to about a third of all Lebanese-Canadians.
"When you look across the country, Mr. Harper has good support in every region on almost every measure of both foreign policy and his approach to this matter, except in the province of Quebec, where it tilts clearly to an Israeli compromise," said Wright.
Quebecers are also more likely to oppose having Canadian Armed Forces join a United Nations proposed international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border. While 56 per cent of Canadians, overall, supported this idea, 49 per cent of Quebec respondents in the poll were against.
"People in Quebec are following (the conflict) much more closely than other people in the country," said Wright. "They just, on all measures, have a contrary view on what Canada's position should be, what its response should be, and ... in terms of the Israeli government."
While the Conservatives have high hopes of turning their minority government into a majority by winning more Quebec seats in the next election, Wright said that Harper could still shift public opinion, depending on how he responds to changes in the conflict. But even if many people disapprove of his foreign policy with regards to the Middle East and the war in Afghanistan, he said the Conservatives still have room to gain some ground.
"This is a country where you can have 57 per cent of the people voting against you, and still win a massive majority," said Wright. "If six in 10 are not happy with your position, but four in 10 are, any politician who scores 40 per cent in the province of Quebec is going to be pretty well off."
The poll is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
told ya ... i've noticed the reporting varies by station ...
Louise Arbour is in Montreal and gave plenty of interviews, what a great woman, really i admire her work... I think she also gave english interviews.
Oh yes you were right, i know i know :( , i was so happy to post about how canadians disagree with Harper in the first place, now i had to correct myself, although it's still just a poll...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Louise Arbour is in Montreal and gave plenty of interviews, what a great woman, really i admire her work... I think she also gave english interviews.
Oh yes you were right, i know i know :( , i was so happy to post about how canadians disagree with Harper in the first place, now i had to correct myself, although it's still just a poll...
i think the better poll would be to see how many cdns were asleep on this issue ... how many actually know what is happening there at even a basic level? ... i would say a very low number ... most have tuned out already ... this is canada for ya ...
really - i am starting to develop a real hate for harper ...
how classless do you have to be to blame the UN observers for being there - when they were trying to do their job ... the canadian's wife who was there said he was proud of the job he did and he would never leave ... and our unfailing support of israel while shedding little sympathy for the plight of the lebanese shows how little he cares for suffering ... he should be pushing a stoppage to this war not promoting it ...
Attack in Lebanon sparks Montreal demonstration
Last Updated: Sunday, July 30, 2006 | 10:35 PM ET
CBC News
More than 3,000 people marched through downtown Montreal on Sunday, protesting Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Many of the demonstrators said they felt compelled to come out after hearing about Israel's attack on the village of Qana, which killed at least 56 people, mainly women and children.
Israel later agreed to a 48-hour suspension of air attacks in south Lebanon while it investigates the attack on Qana.
"Nobody is speaking, everyone is silent," one protester told the CBC. "I'm ashamed now of being Canadian. I'm proud to be a Quebecker because the Bloc Québécois is the only one who denounced what's going on."
On Friday, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and interim Liberal leader Bill Graham criticized the stance taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When the conflict erupted on July 12, the prime minister described Israel's response to Hezbollah militants as "measured" self-defence.
"We will push the government to return to a more balanced position in the conflict," Duceppe told a news conference.
Members of the rally on Sunday scuffled briefly with a pro-Israel supporter who addressed the marchers. The protesters marched down Ste. Catharine Street before stopping in the park across from the Israeli Embassy.
Hundreds of Canadians called for a ceasefire at protests held across the country over the weekend.
I would be in the 64% ... However, it would be important to note that I DO support a limited ground offensive in southern Lebanon. I DO NOT support bombing in civilian areas.
The poll doesn't seem to really tap into these distinctions.
And at risk of angering thankyougrandma (a risk I will take), people in Quebec simply veto ANY military action when asked. Every single time. This is a historical trend that has existed since the First World War, and perhaps before. Maybe some of them would support an offensive into English speaking Canada, but that's about the extent of it.
really - i am starting to develop a real hate for harper ...
how classless do you have to be to blame the UN observers for being there - when they were trying to do their job ... the canadian's wife who was there said he was proud of the job he did and he would never leave ... and our unfailing support of israel while shedding little sympathy for the plight of the lebanese shows how little he cares for suffering ... he should be pushing a stoppage to this war not promoting it ...
LOL. You hated the man since BEFORE he was elected. Can this starting to develop shit.
I would be in the 64% ... However, it would be important to note that I DO support a limited ground offensive in southern Lebanon. I DO NOT support bombing in civilian areas.
The poll doesn't seem to really tap into these distinctions.
Yes the poll has not taken into account the extent of what Israel should do. I have a feeling if it included the constant air bombings and that such we would see support fall below 50%....well I would hope so....also I have pasted an editorial from cbc.ca describing the Conservatives and their ideology with Israel...not bad considering the guy who wrote it is a Liberal but he does not bash Harper in the traditional way...just take a second to read it...
The standard charge against Stephen Harper's foreign policy is that it's a clone of the policies of U.S. President George Bush.
Harper, his critics say, has gutted the image of Canada as a neutral middle power and peacemaker, a nation with a pragmatic foreign policy. He has, they say, a foreign policy that is brand new for Canada: a one-sided defence of Israel.
These critics all focus on the so-called "golden age of diplomacy" as practiced by the Liberals under Lester Pearson: a tradition of studied neutrality in the Middle East that has been embraced in Canadian foreign policy under the Liberals ever since.
It's this foreign policy that Harper has scuttled. Harper is pro-Israel and has kept a close lid on the Foreign Affairs Department, lest it stray too far from his line on the Mideast.
The historically challenged small 'l' liberal media sees Harper as an unbalanced supporter of Israel and sees Israel as the aggressor in the present crisis in Lebanon.
The real model for Harper's stance
But a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.
In 1956, Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent condemned the European powers and Israel.
In 1957, the Diefenbaker Tories upset the Pearson Liberals in an election that directly challenged the traditional Liberal Pearson view of foreign policy and the Middle East.
Diefenbaker sharply attacked the St. Laurent-Pearson Liberals for their Suez policy. He dumped the idea of a moderate, neutral and pragmatic Canada in favour of taking a stand with the defence of Britain, France and Israel. And he won the election.
As prime minister, he created a pro-Israel, anti-Pearson and anti-External Affairs policy.
He was convinced that External Affairs (as Foreign Affairs was called at the time) was against both Israel and his government's foreign policy and he viewed the department with suspicion.
Mulroney echoed Diefenbaker's views
From the mid-1980s to the early '90s, another Tory prime minister, Brian Mulroney, echoed Diefenbaker in his distrust of Foreign Affairs and in his pro-Israel stance.
That's the tradition Harper is following.
His hands-on policy — and his one-man rule on foreign affairs and anything the Foreign Affairs Department does — is reminiscent of Dief's distrust of the department and bitter dislike of Pearson. Diefenbaker was convinced that External Affairs was anti-Israel and against the foreign policy of his government.
Harper, like Diefenbaker, also distrusts the media's stance on Israel.
Diefenbaker, a lifelong supporter of Israel, did not like the position the Kennedys and the American liberal media took on Israel and the Mideast. Harper is a disciple of William Buckley Jr., whose contempt of American liberals' and the media's stand on Israel is well known.
The liberal media argument that Harper is too pro-Israel and too pro-Bush is simplistic. And its criticism of Harper as a blundering, wrongheaded, rookie simpleton in the Middle East does not square with history.
Harper is not George Bush's toadie. His policy on Israel and the Mideast is part of a long Tory tradition.
Yes the poll has not taken into account the extent of what Israel should do. I have a feeling if it included the constant air bombings and that such we would see support fall below 50%....well I would hope so....also I have pasted an editorial from cbc.ca describing the Conservatives and their ideology with Israel...not bad considering the guy who wrote it is a Liberal but he does not bash Harper in the traditional way...just take a second to read it...
The standard charge against Stephen Harper's foreign policy is that it's a clone of the policies of U.S. President George Bush.
Harper, his critics say, has gutted the image of Canada as a neutral middle power and peacemaker, a nation with a pragmatic foreign policy. He has, they say, a foreign policy that is brand new for Canada: a one-sided defence of Israel.
These critics all focus on the so-called "golden age of diplomacy" as practiced by the Liberals under Lester Pearson: a tradition of studied neutrality in the Middle East that has been embraced in Canadian foreign policy under the Liberals ever since.
It's this foreign policy that Harper has scuttled. Harper is pro-Israel and has kept a close lid on the Foreign Affairs Department, lest it stray too far from his line on the Mideast.
The historically challenged small 'l' liberal media sees Harper as an unbalanced supporter of Israel and sees Israel as the aggressor in the present crisis in Lebanon.
The real model for Harper's stance
But a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.
In 1956, Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent condemned the European powers and Israel.
In 1957, the Diefenbaker Tories upset the Pearson Liberals in an election that directly challenged the traditional Liberal Pearson view of foreign policy and the Middle East.
Diefenbaker sharply attacked the St. Laurent-Pearson Liberals for their Suez policy. He dumped the idea of a moderate, neutral and pragmatic Canada in favour of taking a stand with the defence of Britain, France and Israel. And he won the election.
As prime minister, he created a pro-Israel, anti-Pearson and anti-External Affairs policy.
He was convinced that External Affairs (as Foreign Affairs was called at the time) was against both Israel and his government's foreign policy and he viewed the department with suspicion.
Mulroney echoed Diefenbaker's views
From the mid-1980s to the early '90s, another Tory prime minister, Brian Mulroney, echoed Diefenbaker in his distrust of Foreign Affairs and in his pro-Israel stance.
That's the tradition Harper is following.
His hands-on policy — and his one-man rule on foreign affairs and anything the Foreign Affairs Department does — is reminiscent of Dief's distrust of the department and bitter dislike of Pearson. Diefenbaker was convinced that External Affairs was anti-Israel and against the foreign policy of his government.
Harper, like Diefenbaker, also distrusts the media's stance on Israel.
Diefenbaker, a lifelong supporter of Israel, did not like the position the Kennedys and the American liberal media took on Israel and the Mideast. Harper is a disciple of William Buckley Jr., whose contempt of American liberals' and the media's stand on Israel is well known.
The liberal media argument that Harper is too pro-Israel and too pro-Bush is simplistic. And its criticism of Harper as a blundering, wrongheaded, rookie simpleton in the Middle East does not square with history.
Harper is not George Bush's toadie. His policy on Israel and the Mideast is part of a long Tory tradition.
Very interesting read, especially the Dief/Harper comparison. People like polaris are still going to hate the man, but at least they can't use the Bush comparison anymore.
And at risk of angering thankyougrandma (a risk I will take), people in Quebec simply veto ANY military action when asked. Every single time. This is a historical trend that has existed since the First World War, and perhaps before. Maybe some of them would support an offensive into English speaking Canada, but that's about the extent of it.
No offense taken although the english speaking canada thing is not of really good taste, no problem i get the wink guy, just that nobody would ever support that, (see FLQ). Quebec are peacefull nature, so yes historicly we're always against war, when the new USA invade Montreal, Montrealers just let them do it, no opposition, just let us live, just let humans live.
But just want to add one thing, in both WW, Quebecers were standing strong against the draft, not the military intervention. The opposition to the Boer war is also great in my opinion and was only heard in Quebec (from what i know).
Allons résistons mes frères
A la connerie des militaires
En chantant "une colombe"
Loin du sifflement des bombes
Et au nord de l'Amérique
Devant not' village d'Astérix
Ca sera marqué en français :
"Icitte, sacrez nous donc la paix"
La Sainte Paix !
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
No offense taken although the english speaking canada thing is not of really good taste, no problem i get the wink guy, just that nobody would ever support that, (see FLQ). Quebec are peacefull nature, so yes historicly we're always against war, when the new USA invade Montreal, Montrealers just let them do it, no opposition, just let us live, just let humans live.
But just want to add one thing, in both WW, Quebecers were standing strong against the draft, not the military intervention. The opposition to the Boer war is also great in my opinion and was only heard in Quebec (from what i know).
Allons résistons mes frères
A la connerie des militaires
En chantant "une colombe"
Loin du sifflement des bombes
Et au nord de l'Amérique
Devant not' village d'Astérix
Ca sera marqué en français :
"Icitte, sacrez nous donc la paix"
La Sainte Paix !
True, you raise a good point ... I think much of the opposition did stem from the draft issue, as opposed to a general view that military action should not be taken.
And I actually like Quebecers ... Thanks for not getting too offended.
LOL. You hated the man since BEFORE he was elected. Can this starting to develop shit.
that is not true ... we have had plenty of discussions and i always said i would wait and see ... when debating the merits of the party - i always went with what was given to us by the party ...
well, i've waited and i see what he is all about ...
as for harper and bush - just cuz that article said that its a long tory tradition to support israel then we can't compare the two??
look at the softwood lumber deal, look at the environment, look at his stance on the media, the middle east, our contributions to this "war on terror" ... they are running identical platforms ...
True, you raise a good point ... I think much of the opposition did stem from the draft issue, as opposed to a general view that military action should not be taken.
And I actually like Quebecers ... Thanks for not getting too offended.
but i was a bit wrong, i thought the opposition to the Boer war was only in Quebec, i think the opposition was also heard in Ireland, Ireland and Quebec history have some stuffs in comon, i wonder why nobody ever put that in a book or an article of some sort... anyway off topic...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
that is not true ... we have had plenty of discussions and i always said i would wait and see ... when debating the merits of the party - i always went with what was given to us by the party ...
well, i've waited and i see what he is all about ...
as for harper and bush - just cuz that article said that its a long tory tradition to support israel then we can't compare the two??
look at the softwood lumber deal, look at the environment, look at his stance on the media, the middle east, our contributions to this "war on terror" ... they are running identical platforms ...
I think he follow a hardline neo-con agenda, which makes him sound like an american on almost every account, but i doubt that he makes his policies just because of George Bush, he's just a neo-con like George Bush... Anyway who knows really.
Conservatives mp that was representing Canada at the Outgames ceremony, got booed out of the place (almost) ... again off topic.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I think he follow a hardline neo-con agenda, which makes him sound like an american on almost every account, but i doubt that he makes his policies just because of George Bush, he's just a neo-con like George Bush... Anyway who knows really.
I don't think Harper can be described as "hardline" at this point. Except maybe in reference to specific topics like Israel. The fact of the matter is that Harper's personal views on Israel have next to no impact on how this country is governed, yet people glom onto them as some sort of horrible travesty.
The fact of the matter is that Harper's personal views on Israel have next to no impact on how this country is governed, yet people glom onto them as some sort of horrible travesty.
Bigger picture is they have no impact on the world or getting the Middle East situation resolved. Canada is not a player on the world stage. They stopped being a player when we stopped having a military that was capable of undertaking peace-keeping missions on their own. Thanks Liberals.
It wouldn't surprise me if we got dropped from the G8. No one listens to us, no one cares what we say. We're like the neighbour whose kids your kids play with. Other countries feel obligated to invite us but don't care if we come. We go thinking it makes us important but we are wrong.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I don't think Harper can be described as "hardline" at this point. Except maybe in reference to specific topics like Israel. The fact of the matter is that Harper's personal views on Israel have next to no impact on how this country is governed, yet people glom onto them as some sort of horrible travesty.
But he's the PM, the one that give the official voice to the country, he does have responsabilities when he speak, what he did and said when he was not PM can't really be hold against him cause it was still a personal opinion, when he talk as the Prime Minister it's not a personal opinion anymore. It doesn't change how this country is govern, it change this country foreign policies...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
that is not true ... we have had plenty of discussions and i always said i would wait and see ... when debating the merits of the party - i always went with what was given to us by the party ...
well, i've waited and i see what he is all about ...
as for harper and bush - just cuz that article said that its a long tory tradition to support israel then we can't compare the two??
look at the softwood lumber deal, look at the environment, look at his stance on the media, the middle east, our contributions to this "war on terror" ... they are running identical platforms ...
I don't know, dude ... I was geared up to hate Harper if he did things like put our social programs in serious danger, send troops to Iraq, implement draconian Patriot Act-type legislation, etc. While I don't agree with everything he has done to date (e.g., ignore the environment, much like previous Liberal PMs), I think he's done an alright job of NOT turning us into America junior.
The thing is that we won't really see Harper's true colours unless he is able to get a majority gov't. He is too vulnerable to do anything too extreme at the moment.
In an ideal world we would be able to evacuate all Lebonese from danger, but we can't. A Canadian passport entitles you to a privilidge that we will be helped if situations like this arrise. We pay for it when we pay for our passport. I have friends in Lebanon right now. One made it out through Jordan (the highway was bombed the day after) and his parents fled Beirut into a smaller village in north Lebanon and are doing quite well there. They have no intention of being evacuated at the moment as Israel has stopped bombing the northern areas of the country.
It is unfair to lump Lebanon in with the rest of the craziness of the Middle East. Since the end of the civil war and the beginning of this mess, Lebanon was peaceful and they did not just live amongst the rubble but rebuilt the city and the economy. It is not a fundamentalist rogue state, but was a highly cosmopolitan, free thinking, well educated area that was known for its peace and stability. My point is that people travelling there could not have expected that this would have happened in the same way as if they were in Israel, Syria, Iran etc.
But he's the PM, the one that give the official voice to the country, he does have responsabilities when he speak, what he did and said when he was not PM can't really be hold against him cause it was still a personal opinion, when he talk as the Prime Minister it's not a personal opinion anymore. It doesn't change how this country is govern, it change this country foreign policies...
Yes and no ... I'd agree with you more strongly if he actually put some legislative muscle behind what he has been saying, in terms of foreign policy changes. And its not like he's saying things that are THAT radically out-of-sync with how many Canadians feel about the situation. What was that last poll stat again? Maybe its because I agree with him more than some of you guys do ... What exactly is so terrible about what he actually said? I agree that he should have put a stronger emphasis on Israel's misguided killings of Lebanese civilians. A huge error of omission, granted.
The thing is that we won't really see Harper's true colours unless he is able to get a majority gov't. He is too vulnerable to do anything too extreme at the moment.
In an ideal world we would be able to evacuate all Lebonese from danger, but we can't. A Canadian passport entitles you to a privilidge that we will be helped if situations like this arrise. We pay for it when we pay for our passport. I have friends in Lebanon right now. One made it out through Jordan (the highway was bombed the day after) and his parents fled Beirut into a smaller village in north Lebanon and are doing quite well there. They have no intention of being evacuated at the moment as Israel has stopped bombing the northern areas of the country.
It is unfair to lump Lebanon in with the rest of the craziness of the Middle East. Since the end of the civil war and the beginning of this mess, Lebanon was peaceful and they did not just live amongst the rubble but rebuilt the city and the economy. It is not a fundamentalist rogue state, but was a highly cosmopolitan, free thinking, well educated area that was known for its peace and stability. My point is that people travelling there could not have expected that this would have happened in the same way as if they were in Israel, Syria, Iran etc.
Well said.
One thing I'd like to see implemented is the losing of Canadian citizenship if you have dual citizenship and are out of the country for too long while not paying taxes. Too many people use a Canadian passport and citizenship for reasons of convenience. It has nothing to due with their life situation, allegiance or loyalty for too many.
I believe there is a two year residency rule required for Canadian citizenship. I think conversely if you hold dual citizenship you should lose Canadian citizenship and passport priviledges after two years out of the country and not paying Canadian taxes.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Comments
I am not scared, have no interest in the middle east, i figure if you go there and all hell breaks loose thats your problem, the problems in the middle east are no secret to anyone. They have problems over there, and these problems go back thousands of years. And most of these problems surround hate, and the bottom line is any historian will tell you that most of the Arab countries hate Isreal, and they will never admit the Isreal has the right be there. As long as you got that kind of hatred in your heart then the potential for major conflict exist.
Personally when I go on vacation I choose countries with good government, and as far as I'm concerned that is just being smart.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Obviously thousands of canadians, americans, french, swedish, _____, disagree with you about Lebanon since they choose that spot for vacation.
Clearly we must help our citizens and if we can we should also go help Lebanese civillians and pay for it by setting up refugees camp everywhere in Lebanon, i would support my government if they'd do so. I'd like my taxes to pay for that. I'd like our military to do just that, rescue and humanitarian mission.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Palestine govt. were just in the process of officialy admitting that Israel AND Palestine exist, but then all hell broke loose, sad...
Btw we've sent a warship in New Orleans when Katrina hits, were you against paying for that? I'm also bringing that up again, if someone SHOULD pay for canadians being evacuate, it's Israel, otherwise we're just helping our own country citizens, it just can't get into my mind that someone and a newspaper (post) are against helping our own citizens...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Published: Monday, July 24, 2006
MONTREAL (CP) - Sleep, a shower and applying to university were among the priorities for the latest round of Canadians returning from Lebanon as the Mideast country remained in the crosshair of the Israeli military. ...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f6038ec1-751c-47db-9e69-c3de043f7712&k=70444
Montreal to be gateway for all Lebanese evacuees
Max Harrold and Alan Hustak, CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette
Published: Monday, July 24, 2006
MONTREAL - Montreal has been designated as the gateway for all Canadians returning from war-torn Lebanon, the federal government announced Sunday.
The decision means as many as 32,000 more evacuees could be coming through Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport during the next few weeks to reach their homes or relatives across Canada...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=41ac06a5-b46a-49bd-853c-ecf40ba54dac
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, July 25, 2006
OTTAWA -- Strong support among Canadians for recent Israeli combat actions in Lebanon highlights the divide between Quebec and the rest of the country, a new poll has revealed.
The survey, conducted online by Ipsos-Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National, found that 64 per cent of Canadians believed Israel's military action in Lebanon was either somewhat or completely justified, while 57 per cent of Quebecers believed the Israeli response was "not at all justified."
"The only issue, really, is the stark divide between the two areas of the country, where Quebec -- and sometimes Atlantic Canada but mainly Quebec -- is at odds with the views of the majority of other Canadians," said John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos-Reid.
When asked which side of the conflict should make a major compromise in order to have a ceasefire, 63 per cent of Canadians said it was "those who kidnapped the Israeli soldiers," while 53 per cent of Quebecers said it was the Israeli government.
The poll surveyed 1,023 Canadians on July 20, before weekend demonstrations, including a large protest in Montreal, calling for peace in the Middle East and denouncing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance in support of Israel. There are as many as 50,000 people of Lebanese origin in Quebec, with Montreal being the home to about a third of all Lebanese-Canadians.
"When you look across the country, Mr. Harper has good support in every region on almost every measure of both foreign policy and his approach to this matter, except in the province of Quebec, where it tilts clearly to an Israeli compromise," said Wright.
Quebecers are also more likely to oppose having Canadian Armed Forces join a United Nations proposed international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border. While 56 per cent of Canadians, overall, supported this idea, 49 per cent of Quebec respondents in the poll were against.
"People in Quebec are following (the conflict) much more closely than other people in the country," said Wright. "They just, on all measures, have a contrary view on what Canada's position should be, what its response should be, and ... in terms of the Israeli government."
While the Conservatives have high hopes of turning their minority government into a majority by winning more Quebec seats in the next election, Wright said that Harper could still shift public opinion, depending on how he responds to changes in the conflict. But even if many people disapprove of his foreign policy with regards to the Middle East and the war in Afghanistan, he said the Conservatives still have room to gain some ground.
"This is a country where you can have 57 per cent of the people voting against you, and still win a massive majority," said Wright. "If six in 10 are not happy with your position, but four in 10 are, any politician who scores 40 per cent in the province of Quebec is going to be pretty well off."
The poll is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2006
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Louise Arbour is in Montreal and gave plenty of interviews, what a great woman, really i admire her work... I think she also gave english interviews.
Oh yes you were right, i know i know :( , i was so happy to post about how canadians disagree with Harper in the first place, now i had to correct myself, although it's still just a poll...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i think the better poll would be to see how many cdns were asleep on this issue ... how many actually know what is happening there at even a basic level? ... i would say a very low number ... most have tuned out already ... this is canada for ya ...
how classless do you have to be to blame the UN observers for being there - when they were trying to do their job ... the canadian's wife who was there said he was proud of the job he did and he would never leave ... and our unfailing support of israel while shedding little sympathy for the plight of the lebanese shows how little he cares for suffering ... he should be pushing a stoppage to this war not promoting it ...
Last Updated: Sunday, July 30, 2006 | 10:35 PM ET
CBC News
More than 3,000 people marched through downtown Montreal on Sunday, protesting Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Many of the demonstrators said they felt compelled to come out after hearing about Israel's attack on the village of Qana, which killed at least 56 people, mainly women and children.
Israel later agreed to a 48-hour suspension of air attacks in south Lebanon while it investigates the attack on Qana.
"Nobody is speaking, everyone is silent," one protester told the CBC. "I'm ashamed now of being Canadian. I'm proud to be a Quebecker because the Bloc Québécois is the only one who denounced what's going on."
On Friday, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and interim Liberal leader Bill Graham criticized the stance taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When the conflict erupted on July 12, the prime minister described Israel's response to Hezbollah militants as "measured" self-defence.
"We will push the government to return to a more balanced position in the conflict," Duceppe told a news conference.
Members of the rally on Sunday scuffled briefly with a pro-Israel supporter who addressed the marchers. The protesters marched down Ste. Catharine Street before stopping in the park across from the Israeli Embassy.
Hundreds of Canadians called for a ceasefire at protests held across the country over the weekend.
With files from the Canadian Press
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/07/30/protest-montreal.html
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The poll doesn't seem to really tap into these distinctions.
LOL. You hated the man since BEFORE he was elected. Can this starting to develop shit.
Yes the poll has not taken into account the extent of what Israel should do. I have a feeling if it included the constant air bombings and that such we would see support fall below 50%....well I would hope so....also I have pasted an editorial from cbc.ca describing the Conservatives and their ideology with Israel...not bad considering the guy who wrote it is a Liberal but he does not bash Harper in the traditional way...just take a second to read it...
The standard charge against Stephen Harper's foreign policy is that it's a clone of the policies of U.S. President George Bush.
Harper, his critics say, has gutted the image of Canada as a neutral middle power and peacemaker, a nation with a pragmatic foreign policy. He has, they say, a foreign policy that is brand new for Canada: a one-sided defence of Israel.
These critics all focus on the so-called "golden age of diplomacy" as practiced by the Liberals under Lester Pearson: a tradition of studied neutrality in the Middle East that has been embraced in Canadian foreign policy under the Liberals ever since.
It's this foreign policy that Harper has scuttled. Harper is pro-Israel and has kept a close lid on the Foreign Affairs Department, lest it stray too far from his line on the Mideast.
The historically challenged small 'l' liberal media sees Harper as an unbalanced supporter of Israel and sees Israel as the aggressor in the present crisis in Lebanon.
The real model for Harper's stance
But a closer look at history shows that Harper's stance on the Middle East is not aping Bush and the Americans. A careful look shows that the real model for Harper's present foreign policy and stand on Israel is John Diefenbaker.
In 1956, Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent condemned the European powers and Israel.
In 1957, the Diefenbaker Tories upset the Pearson Liberals in an election that directly challenged the traditional Liberal Pearson view of foreign policy and the Middle East.
Diefenbaker sharply attacked the St. Laurent-Pearson Liberals for their Suez policy. He dumped the idea of a moderate, neutral and pragmatic Canada in favour of taking a stand with the defence of Britain, France and Israel. And he won the election.
As prime minister, he created a pro-Israel, anti-Pearson and anti-External Affairs policy.
He was convinced that External Affairs (as Foreign Affairs was called at the time) was against both Israel and his government's foreign policy and he viewed the department with suspicion.
Mulroney echoed Diefenbaker's views
From the mid-1980s to the early '90s, another Tory prime minister, Brian Mulroney, echoed Diefenbaker in his distrust of Foreign Affairs and in his pro-Israel stance.
That's the tradition Harper is following.
His hands-on policy — and his one-man rule on foreign affairs and anything the Foreign Affairs Department does — is reminiscent of Dief's distrust of the department and bitter dislike of Pearson. Diefenbaker was convinced that External Affairs was anti-Israel and against the foreign policy of his government.
Harper, like Diefenbaker, also distrusts the media's stance on Israel.
Diefenbaker, a lifelong supporter of Israel, did not like the position the Kennedys and the American liberal media took on Israel and the Mideast. Harper is a disciple of William Buckley Jr., whose contempt of American liberals' and the media's stand on Israel is well known.
The liberal media argument that Harper is too pro-Israel and too pro-Bush is simplistic. And its criticism of Harper as a blundering, wrongheaded, rookie simpleton in the Middle East does not square with history.
Harper is not George Bush's toadie. His policy on Israel and the Mideast is part of a long Tory tradition.
Very interesting read, especially the Dief/Harper comparison. People like polaris are still going to hate the man, but at least they can't use the Bush comparison anymore.
No offense taken although the english speaking canada thing is not of really good taste, no problem i get the wink guy, just that nobody would ever support that, (see FLQ). Quebec are peacefull nature, so yes historicly we're always against war, when the new USA invade Montreal, Montrealers just let them do it, no opposition, just let us live, just let humans live.
But just want to add one thing, in both WW, Quebecers were standing strong against the draft, not the military intervention. The opposition to the Boer war is also great in my opinion and was only heard in Quebec (from what i know).
Allons résistons mes frères
A la connerie des militaires
En chantant "une colombe"
Loin du sifflement des bombes
Et au nord de l'Amérique
Devant not' village d'Astérix
Ca sera marqué en français :
"Icitte, sacrez nous donc la paix"
La Sainte Paix !
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
True, you raise a good point ... I think much of the opposition did stem from the draft issue, as opposed to a general view that military action should not be taken.
And I actually like Quebecers ... Thanks for not getting too offended.
that is not true ... we have had plenty of discussions and i always said i would wait and see ... when debating the merits of the party - i always went with what was given to us by the party ...
well, i've waited and i see what he is all about ...
as for harper and bush - just cuz that article said that its a long tory tradition to support israel then we can't compare the two??
look at the softwood lumber deal, look at the environment, look at his stance on the media, the middle east, our contributions to this "war on terror" ... they are running identical platforms ...
but i was a bit wrong, i thought the opposition to the Boer war was only in Quebec, i think the opposition was also heard in Ireland, Ireland and Quebec history have some stuffs in comon, i wonder why nobody ever put that in a book or an article of some sort... anyway off topic...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I think he follow a hardline neo-con agenda, which makes him sound like an american on almost every account, but i doubt that he makes his policies just because of George Bush, he's just a neo-con like George Bush... Anyway who knows really.
Conservatives mp that was representing Canada at the Outgames ceremony, got booed out of the place (almost)
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Except that George Bush isn't a neo con.
It wouldn't surprise me if we got dropped from the G8. No one listens to us, no one cares what we say. We're like the neighbour whose kids your kids play with. Other countries feel obligated to invite us but don't care if we come. We go thinking it makes us important but we are wrong.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
But he's the PM, the one that give the official voice to the country, he does have responsabilities when he speak, what he did and said when he was not PM can't really be hold against him cause it was still a personal opinion, when he talk as the Prime Minister it's not a personal opinion anymore. It doesn't change how this country is govern, it change this country foreign policies...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I don't know, dude ... I was geared up to hate Harper if he did things like put our social programs in serious danger, send troops to Iraq, implement draconian Patriot Act-type legislation, etc. While I don't agree with everything he has done to date (e.g., ignore the environment, much like previous Liberal PMs), I think he's done an alright job of NOT turning us into America junior.
In an ideal world we would be able to evacuate all Lebonese from danger, but we can't. A Canadian passport entitles you to a privilidge that we will be helped if situations like this arrise. We pay for it when we pay for our passport. I have friends in Lebanon right now. One made it out through Jordan (the highway was bombed the day after) and his parents fled Beirut into a smaller village in north Lebanon and are doing quite well there. They have no intention of being evacuated at the moment as Israel has stopped bombing the northern areas of the country.
It is unfair to lump Lebanon in with the rest of the craziness of the Middle East. Since the end of the civil war and the beginning of this mess, Lebanon was peaceful and they did not just live amongst the rubble but rebuilt the city and the economy. It is not a fundamentalist rogue state, but was a highly cosmopolitan, free thinking, well educated area that was known for its peace and stability. My point is that people travelling there could not have expected that this would have happened in the same way as if they were in Israel, Syria, Iran etc.
Yes and no ... I'd agree with you more strongly if he actually put some legislative muscle behind what he has been saying, in terms of foreign policy changes. And its not like he's saying things that are THAT radically out-of-sync with how many Canadians feel about the situation. What was that last poll stat again? Maybe its because I agree with him more than some of you guys do ... What exactly is so terrible about what he actually said? I agree that he should have put a stronger emphasis on Israel's misguided killings of Lebanese civilians. A huge error of omission, granted.
One thing I'd like to see implemented is the losing of Canadian citizenship if you have dual citizenship and are out of the country for too long while not paying taxes. Too many people use a Canadian passport and citizenship for reasons of convenience. It has nothing to due with their life situation, allegiance or loyalty for too many.
I believe there is a two year residency rule required for Canadian citizenship. I think conversely if you hold dual citizenship you should lose Canadian citizenship and passport priviledges after two years out of the country and not paying Canadian taxes.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley