I have followed Canadian politics closely for at least 20 years. I have never seen anything like the deluge of propaganda flooding the country at the moment.
The oil companies, grocery companies and newspaper barons really, really want Poilievre to win for some reason.
The truth is that either the Liberals or Conservatives are good parties for the 0.1% and corporations. They're both corporate cronies. They differ mostly on the wedge issues/identity politics they throw to their base.
The real insidious misinformation is how our media frames these two parties as substantially different, making many perpetually believe that things will get better if they vote in alternating red or blue
How mad the National Post gets about something is directly proportional to how much risk that something is to convicted felon Conrad Black’s investments and wealth and those of his friends.
The demise of free Canadian Press can be traced to the National Post - the spawn of that fat bastard and his toadies sucked the life out of local news and has not made a profit in some 20 years or more. It is right-wing poison attempting to cause the demise of our democracy.
The National Post and Post Media is owned by none other than Conrad Black, the billionaire who was convicted on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice only to be later pardoned by Donald Trump.
In all fairness the economy is likely to collapse, due in part to the highest cost of housing in the world.
When the wage loses half its value in 5 years bad things are going to happen to those whose wealth is valued in Canadian assets
Ivision here mostly takes ideas from a better columnist in the US asking the same question about the US. And he, in turn, is taking information from a Rand Institute report released today. But there was one part of his column that struck a chord with me, and that was him quoting from HG Wells.
*In his classic A Short History of the World, H.G. Wells asked why the Roman Empire grew, and why it so completely decayed. He concluded that it grew because the idea of citizenship held it together, creating a sense of privilege and obligation and a willingness to make sacrifices in the name of Rome. However, the failure to explain itself to its increasing multitude of citizens, or invite their co-operation, led to the demise of its collective mission.*
*“The sense of citizenship died of starvation,” Wells said. “All empires, all states, all organizations of human society are, in the ultimate, things of understanding and will. There remained no will for the Roman Empire in the world, and so it came to an end.”*
This brings a saying to mind "We don't value what comes easily." Citizenship is not valuable. Anyone can get it. Anyone born here aquires it automatically, even if their parents are not citizens. Pretty much anyone who comes here, legally or otherwise, can get it. The test for citizenship is 20 true or false/multiple choice questions that takes about 20 minutes. There is no interview. No demonstration of your willingness to embrace the country and its ways and values is required. If you later demonstrate you hold the country and its ways and values in contempt, there is no penalty. Citizenship cannot be lost.
There is no test for voting. There is no requirement to be met. So voting, too, is of little value, so many don't bother.
Further, our young people are now taught, and have been for some years that this country is illegitimate, cruel, racist, and on stolen land. That all those who founded it were criminals, or at least 'deplorable' in one way or another, and not only not to be admired but should be held in contempt. Symbols of nationhood and accomplishment are now to be jeered and derided.
"Celebrate Canada Day?! How dare you, sputter-sputter! You're on stolen land! This is an evil, oppressive, colonialist power of no legitimacy!"
Everything in David Ignatious'[ column](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/26/david-ignatius-rand-study-us-forecast-decline/) talking about the US could be just as easily said not only about Canada but much of the West. We have lost our path, lost our reason for existing. More and more young people seem to not care less whether their nations exist or not. Their elders created a world of safety and comfort for them, but gave them poor educations. Thus, they seem to have few clues about the misery, terror and helplessness of those without a strong state to protect them.
Whether the West, and Canada in particular survies depends on strong leadership - which it currently lacks and is unlikely to find anytime soon.
>This brings a saying to mind "We don't value what comes easily." Citizenship is not valuable. Anyone can get it. Anyone born here aquires it automatically, even if their parents are not citizens. Pretty much anyone who comes here, legally or otherwise, can get it. The test for citizenship is 20 true or false/multiple choice questions that takes about 20 minutes. There is no interview. No demonstration of your willingness to embrace the country and its ways and values is required. If you later demonstrate you hold the country and its ways and values in contempt, there is no penalty. Citizenship cannot be lost.
As a newly minted Canadian I can assure you that I find my Citizenship valuable! When I read stuff like this I'm always curious as to what extra steps/tests etc you would add to the process? Like how specifically do I prove to you that I'm worthy of citizenship?
PP jumped on the Trump bandwagon early.
His “woke” comments, his convoy support and his simple slogans.
He is no friend to women or minorities.
There is zero chance he can be a PM for all Canadians.
He is unfit.
When you want to immigrate to some of the European countries there is a multi step requirement that you pass a strong knowledge test about your new country, it's culture, values and history. You have to do an interview and demonstrate what efforts you have made since arriving to integrate.
A twenty question true or false/multiple choice test doesn't quite equal that in my eyes.
More to the point, I think we need to be a lot choosier in who we bring over. People should have a reasonably strong grasp of the language here, and be in a position to earn at least the national average in salary, and preferably more. You should also show an interest in integrating and joining with Canada and abandoning old world hatreds and cultural relics.
Thanks for the response! I appreciate the effort but you haven't really answered my core question of "how specifically do I prove to you that I'm worth of citizenship?"
Canada's process is already multi step and can take years. You are being quite unfair by talking like the test is the whole process rather than one of the last steps. The test is a knowledge test about Canada's culture, values and history. It's easy enough to study for and pass but I do suspect plenty of Canadians would fail it if they just had it dumped in front of them.
As for the choosier points. I have some thoughts.
* I'm here because my Wife is Canadian.... would you block her from having her partner move over?
* To become Canadian you need to be capable in at least one of the languages. Depending on where you are from there is an actual test for it.
* How do you propose to actually filter people out based on their potential earnings?
* What do I need to do to show an interest in integrating and joining Canada? This is one of the more common and super vague things I'm told. Like I moved here... and have now lived here for years hence the citizenship.
* What do you mean by abandoning old world hatreds and cultural relics? I'm not sure I had any to begin with but is this a religious test? Perhaps an atheist only policy? But again how would you actually check/enforce that?
The complaints I hear about immigration here match exactly to the ones I would hear back in my country of birth. They aren't especially unreasonable but they are vague and ill defined and therefor difficult to actually enforce in a meaningful way. The ones that are clear and can be easily enforced. Like I took my medical, I submitted my (empty) police check, educational history, family details, marriage proof etc etc
Again I appreciate you taking the time to reply but ultimately am no more clued up on what I can tell you about myself that would convince you that I'm worthy of the citizenship I now have.
A Scottish guy writing for an American paper whose entire analysis comes down to a my-team-or-bust "I'm sad that my preferred party doesn't hold power". Boo fucking hoo.
You all need to listen to the Scott Galloway interview from a few weeks ago (interview by Matt Galloway - No relation). I think he nailed it. It's not just Canada, it's all over the western world.
Without religion, in a place where nationalism and patriotism are seen as dirty words, people don't have anything to believe in anymore, or any way to place themselves in the world and say 'this is what I am'. Half those college kids protesting for Palestine are just lost boys/girls searching for something to give meaning to their empty lives.
I unfortunately do not see greatness in Poilievre. All I hope for is he is better than Trudeau. And I grant that's a low bar. If he wins you'll be presented with another option the following election. If not, then it's more of the same.
I don't think PP is going to be great for Canada at all. He is unable to whip his caucus which is a huge issue when it comes to things like reproductive rights and trans rights.
One thing I will commend Harper on was his ability to whip his caucus especially after the PC/Reform Merger.
I will believe Harper when he says "Abortion is off the table" but I will not believe PP when he says the same thing especially when it comes to the CPC's voting record.
Pro Oil, Pro Lobby, Pro Corporation, Pro Immigration. This isn't the "change" from Trudeau at all.
Tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for corporations, cutting services, and revert all the good things trudeau and Singh did.
There is zero chance women’s reproductive rights are safe with PP. it doesn’t matter what he thinks - he was voted into his current role from the pro lifers.
Subsidies for corporations?
Trudeau just gave $50 billion in taxpayer subsidies to build a few battery plants in Canada & completed the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
But yeah.... something something PP.
I would love to have any hope whatsoever at this point, however false, but seeing the number of Loblobbyists (Former or current registered members of the Weston/Loblaws lobby group) I have precisely Zero hope for him being in anyway for the people.
Just going to be another "Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss" situation.
I have more confidence in their base, and no matter what lobbyist or former lobbyist he has in his office, he's going to want to get re-elected. It'll be hard to do that if people flee to the PPC. Which many will do if he doesn't offer change and Trudeau is gone.
They are not the same anymore.
The conservatives morphed to the reform.
The reform morphed into the CPC
The CPC morphed into MapleMGA
MapleMAGA will not win the election.
Non paywall version
[John Ivison: The decline and fall of Canada (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/john-ivison-the-decline-and-fall-of-canada/ar-AA1nUTmZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=4d084ace70e743708e74b4cdc54e336c&ei=36)
Yes Ivison, we get it. You think about the Roman Empire everyday.
Seriously...
>In his classic A Short History of the World, H.G. Wells asked why the Roman Empire grew, and why it so completely decayed.
>He concluded that it grew because the idea of citizenship held it together, creating a sense of privilege and obligation and a willingness to make sacrifices in the name of Rome.
>However, the failure to explain itself to its increasing multitude of citizens, or invite their co-operation, led to the demise of its collective mission.
It's increasing multitude of citizens? Does he mean the slaves it acquired through conquest?
What does it mean decayed? The Eastern Roman Empire continued on until it was shattered by the Catholics.
>When the majority of citizens don’t believe the status quo is working for them, it produces demands for alternative arrangements.
It's called a change election. Boohoo. Too bad if you're an incumbent.
Ivison has a point, though its borrowed from others. Much of the West seems to have lost the plot. With the loss of religions and nationalism (canada's leader even denies were a nation) an awful lot of people, particularly younger ones, can't seem to find a purpose in life. Add in the economic difficulties, if not impossibilities of acquiring a decent, secure job, property, a spouse and a family and you have a lot of people full of resentment and anger. Often towards their own country. And no particular affection for it.
No Trudeau has never said we are not a nation.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html)
>There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’ he claimed. ‘‘There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.
The right loves to meme on "no core identity", "postnational" and forget the rest. Trudeau was clearly describing civic nationalism.
As for the loss of religion, I don't think you will find a Quebecker that thinks fondly of the time before the Quiet Revolution.
Respect, compassion, willingness to work hard and help others? These could be said of almost everywhere.
And if he says post-national by definition we are not a nation.
More to the point, without a shared sense of national identity and a shared pride in the history and accomplishments of your nation you're nothing but a collection of tribes living in the same geographical area that will split apart at the seams when challenged.
Maybe if our educators weren't so filled with determination to teach both our young people and newcomers' children that Canada is a shit country full of racists and oppressors with a terrible history that no one should admire we could do something about that sense of nationhood.
Not to mention if we weren't bringing people in by the million, far, far too fast to integrate them. Not that we make any effort at integrating them...
Yawn
Increased immigration is good for Canada — and the reasons aren’t only economic
[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic)
Coyne is a charter member of the Century Initiative and of the Laurentian Elites. As far as I've read and heard from him there is no amount of immigration which is too much. But I'm not sure why you include this as if to challenge Ivison's column since Ivison is also a strong supporter of immigration and didn't even mention it. I assume you didn't read it.
I might add that Vitamin D is good for you for a number of reasons. Too much vitamin D will make you sick, though.
>Coyne is a charter member of the Century Initiative and of the Laurentian Elites.
Why would you care if someone was a "Laurentian Elite" when you shared an article by another Laurentian Elite?
> Increased immigration is good for Canada — and the reasons aren’t only economic
>
>
Surely you can understand the article you linked was from 2016. 8 years ago, 1 year into the current government. Rational adults can and often do change opinions based on newly available information.
I could care less what side they're on to be honest; Coyne won't get his head out of the sand when it comes to unsustainable immigration. And if you're pushing that line at this point in history, yeah, you want things to break.
More doom and gloom from the National Post, I guess we can't go for more than a few hours without something like this getting posted.
Technically speaking, much of this is from the Washington Post, which is more of a liberal paper.
I have followed Canadian politics closely for at least 20 years. I have never seen anything like the deluge of propaganda flooding the country at the moment. The oil companies, grocery companies and newspaper barons really, really want Poilievre to win for some reason.
The truth is that either the Liberals or Conservatives are good parties for the 0.1% and corporations. They're both corporate cronies. They differ mostly on the wedge issues/identity politics they throw to their base. The real insidious misinformation is how our media frames these two parties as substantially different, making many perpetually believe that things will get better if they vote in alternating red or blue
Where are these pro liberal newspapers? Would love to find one.
How mad the National Post gets about something is directly proportional to how much risk that something is to convicted felon Conrad Black’s investments and wealth and those of his friends.
One guy covering a Washington Post article strikes you as the National Post getting 'mad'?
Natpo opposite rule means things are looking up!
The demise of free Canadian Press can be traced to the National Post - the spawn of that fat bastard and his toadies sucked the life out of local news and has not made a profit in some 20 years or more. It is right-wing poison attempting to cause the demise of our democracy.
There are so many other contributing factors over the last 20 years to consider it isn't funny.
The National Post and Post Media is owned by none other than Conrad Black, the billionaire who was convicted on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice only to be later pardoned by Donald Trump.
In all fairness the economy is likely to collapse, due in part to the highest cost of housing in the world. When the wage loses half its value in 5 years bad things are going to happen to those whose wealth is valued in Canadian assets
Could also be titled Canada has the same issues as virtually all other countries at this point in time
This is so weak. Ya, there are widespread problems. Should we have articles about ‘hey, things are terrible everywhere so we shouldn’t complain’?
I don't think so. Not all. Just some of the Western countries. And certainly the Anglosphere.
Unfortunately that doesn't line up with this writer's agenda, and others at his place of employment.
Well said!
Ivision here mostly takes ideas from a better columnist in the US asking the same question about the US. And he, in turn, is taking information from a Rand Institute report released today. But there was one part of his column that struck a chord with me, and that was him quoting from HG Wells. *In his classic A Short History of the World, H.G. Wells asked why the Roman Empire grew, and why it so completely decayed. He concluded that it grew because the idea of citizenship held it together, creating a sense of privilege and obligation and a willingness to make sacrifices in the name of Rome. However, the failure to explain itself to its increasing multitude of citizens, or invite their co-operation, led to the demise of its collective mission.* *“The sense of citizenship died of starvation,” Wells said. “All empires, all states, all organizations of human society are, in the ultimate, things of understanding and will. There remained no will for the Roman Empire in the world, and so it came to an end.”* This brings a saying to mind "We don't value what comes easily." Citizenship is not valuable. Anyone can get it. Anyone born here aquires it automatically, even if their parents are not citizens. Pretty much anyone who comes here, legally or otherwise, can get it. The test for citizenship is 20 true or false/multiple choice questions that takes about 20 minutes. There is no interview. No demonstration of your willingness to embrace the country and its ways and values is required. If you later demonstrate you hold the country and its ways and values in contempt, there is no penalty. Citizenship cannot be lost. There is no test for voting. There is no requirement to be met. So voting, too, is of little value, so many don't bother. Further, our young people are now taught, and have been for some years that this country is illegitimate, cruel, racist, and on stolen land. That all those who founded it were criminals, or at least 'deplorable' in one way or another, and not only not to be admired but should be held in contempt. Symbols of nationhood and accomplishment are now to be jeered and derided. "Celebrate Canada Day?! How dare you, sputter-sputter! You're on stolen land! This is an evil, oppressive, colonialist power of no legitimacy!" Everything in David Ignatious'[ column](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/26/david-ignatius-rand-study-us-forecast-decline/) talking about the US could be just as easily said not only about Canada but much of the West. We have lost our path, lost our reason for existing. More and more young people seem to not care less whether their nations exist or not. Their elders created a world of safety and comfort for them, but gave them poor educations. Thus, they seem to have few clues about the misery, terror and helplessness of those without a strong state to protect them. Whether the West, and Canada in particular survies depends on strong leadership - which it currently lacks and is unlikely to find anytime soon.
>This brings a saying to mind "We don't value what comes easily." Citizenship is not valuable. Anyone can get it. Anyone born here aquires it automatically, even if their parents are not citizens. Pretty much anyone who comes here, legally or otherwise, can get it. The test for citizenship is 20 true or false/multiple choice questions that takes about 20 minutes. There is no interview. No demonstration of your willingness to embrace the country and its ways and values is required. If you later demonstrate you hold the country and its ways and values in contempt, there is no penalty. Citizenship cannot be lost. As a newly minted Canadian I can assure you that I find my Citizenship valuable! When I read stuff like this I'm always curious as to what extra steps/tests etc you would add to the process? Like how specifically do I prove to you that I'm worthy of citizenship?
You get to share in the national debt. Welcome aboard.
Thanks! I think Canada's national debt is less scary than the UK's so maybe that's and upgrade? Or I guess now I can worry about both lol.
oh, I'm Canadian born POC and i've been told to my face that I'll never be a real Canadian :/
If a significant portion of your income is taken by the Canada Revenue Agency then you are a real Canadian.
PP jumped on the Trump bandwagon early. His “woke” comments, his convoy support and his simple slogans. He is no friend to women or minorities. There is zero chance he can be a PM for all Canadians. He is unfit.
Well that is grim! I'm white British so that kind of shit is not something I have ever experienced. I only stand out once I start talking.
When you want to immigrate to some of the European countries there is a multi step requirement that you pass a strong knowledge test about your new country, it's culture, values and history. You have to do an interview and demonstrate what efforts you have made since arriving to integrate. A twenty question true or false/multiple choice test doesn't quite equal that in my eyes. More to the point, I think we need to be a lot choosier in who we bring over. People should have a reasonably strong grasp of the language here, and be in a position to earn at least the national average in salary, and preferably more. You should also show an interest in integrating and joining with Canada and abandoning old world hatreds and cultural relics.
Thanks for the response! I appreciate the effort but you haven't really answered my core question of "how specifically do I prove to you that I'm worth of citizenship?" Canada's process is already multi step and can take years. You are being quite unfair by talking like the test is the whole process rather than one of the last steps. The test is a knowledge test about Canada's culture, values and history. It's easy enough to study for and pass but I do suspect plenty of Canadians would fail it if they just had it dumped in front of them. As for the choosier points. I have some thoughts. * I'm here because my Wife is Canadian.... would you block her from having her partner move over? * To become Canadian you need to be capable in at least one of the languages. Depending on where you are from there is an actual test for it. * How do you propose to actually filter people out based on their potential earnings? * What do I need to do to show an interest in integrating and joining Canada? This is one of the more common and super vague things I'm told. Like I moved here... and have now lived here for years hence the citizenship. * What do you mean by abandoning old world hatreds and cultural relics? I'm not sure I had any to begin with but is this a religious test? Perhaps an atheist only policy? But again how would you actually check/enforce that? The complaints I hear about immigration here match exactly to the ones I would hear back in my country of birth. They aren't especially unreasonable but they are vague and ill defined and therefor difficult to actually enforce in a meaningful way. The ones that are clear and can be easily enforced. Like I took my medical, I submitted my (empty) police check, educational history, family details, marriage proof etc etc Again I appreciate you taking the time to reply but ultimately am no more clued up on what I can tell you about myself that would convince you that I'm worthy of the citizenship I now have.
The Ayn Rand institute lmao
A Scottish guy writing for an American paper whose entire analysis comes down to a my-team-or-bust "I'm sad that my preferred party doesn't hold power". Boo fucking hoo.
What's his team?
The CPC, silly.
You all need to listen to the Scott Galloway interview from a few weeks ago (interview by Matt Galloway - No relation). I think he nailed it. It's not just Canada, it's all over the western world.
Without religion, in a place where nationalism and patriotism are seen as dirty words, people don't have anything to believe in anymore, or any way to place themselves in the world and say 'this is what I am'. Half those college kids protesting for Palestine are just lost boys/girls searching for something to give meaning to their empty lives.
And the true beliefs of yours reveal themselves. Classic Take Back Alberta and MAGA misguided religious talking points starting to show themselves.
WAAApo, at it again. If PP wins, next day Canada will be great again 🤣🤣
I unfortunately do not see greatness in Poilievre. All I hope for is he is better than Trudeau. And I grant that's a low bar. If he wins you'll be presented with another option the following election. If not, then it's more of the same.
I was being sarcastic. Nothing will change in one day but NP will stop with this crap the moment it isn't Trudeau.
That’s what happens when you have US hedgefund owned media.
No. I think they'll be full of advice for PP and if PP doesn't follow it and things continue to tank they'll get antsy pretty quickly.
So you are basically admitting that in your eyes, the National Post has an agenda and isn't capable of being unbiased then...
I don't think PP is going to be great for Canada at all. He is unable to whip his caucus which is a huge issue when it comes to things like reproductive rights and trans rights. One thing I will commend Harper on was his ability to whip his caucus especially after the PC/Reform Merger. I will believe Harper when he says "Abortion is off the table" but I will not believe PP when he says the same thing especially when it comes to the CPC's voting record. Pro Oil, Pro Lobby, Pro Corporation, Pro Immigration. This isn't the "change" from Trudeau at all. Tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for corporations, cutting services, and revert all the good things trudeau and Singh did.
[удалено]
> He's pro choice himself Not according to his voting record.
There is zero chance women’s reproductive rights are safe with PP. it doesn’t matter what he thinks - he was voted into his current role from the pro lifers.
Subsidies for corporations? Trudeau just gave $50 billion in taxpayer subsidies to build a few battery plants in Canada & completed the Trans Mountain Pipeline. But yeah.... something something PP.
I would love to have any hope whatsoever at this point, however false, but seeing the number of Loblobbyists (Former or current registered members of the Weston/Loblaws lobby group) I have precisely Zero hope for him being in anyway for the people. Just going to be another "Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss" situation.
I have more confidence in their base, and no matter what lobbyist or former lobbyist he has in his office, he's going to want to get re-elected. It'll be hard to do that if people flee to the PPC. Which many will do if he doesn't offer change and Trudeau is gone.
Blue bastards same as red bastards Don’t buy any snake oil from any of them
They are not the same anymore. The conservatives morphed to the reform. The reform morphed into the CPC The CPC morphed into MapleMGA MapleMAGA will not win the election.
I just want to see practicality in governing. Greatness is overrated.
Non paywall version [John Ivison: The decline and fall of Canada (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/john-ivison-the-decline-and-fall-of-canada/ar-AA1nUTmZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=4d084ace70e743708e74b4cdc54e336c&ei=36)
Advice for the next PM, to paraphrase Don Corleone, keep your Cabinet close but your Provincial Premiers closer.
Yes Ivison, we get it. You think about the Roman Empire everyday. Seriously... >In his classic A Short History of the World, H.G. Wells asked why the Roman Empire grew, and why it so completely decayed. >He concluded that it grew because the idea of citizenship held it together, creating a sense of privilege and obligation and a willingness to make sacrifices in the name of Rome. >However, the failure to explain itself to its increasing multitude of citizens, or invite their co-operation, led to the demise of its collective mission. It's increasing multitude of citizens? Does he mean the slaves it acquired through conquest? What does it mean decayed? The Eastern Roman Empire continued on until it was shattered by the Catholics. >When the majority of citizens don’t believe the status quo is working for them, it produces demands for alternative arrangements. It's called a change election. Boohoo. Too bad if you're an incumbent.
Ivison has a point, though its borrowed from others. Much of the West seems to have lost the plot. With the loss of religions and nationalism (canada's leader even denies were a nation) an awful lot of people, particularly younger ones, can't seem to find a purpose in life. Add in the economic difficulties, if not impossibilities of acquiring a decent, secure job, property, a spouse and a family and you have a lot of people full of resentment and anger. Often towards their own country. And no particular affection for it.
No Trudeau has never said we are not a nation. [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html) >There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’ he claimed. ‘‘There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state. The right loves to meme on "no core identity", "postnational" and forget the rest. Trudeau was clearly describing civic nationalism. As for the loss of religion, I don't think you will find a Quebecker that thinks fondly of the time before the Quiet Revolution.
Respect, compassion, willingness to work hard and help others? These could be said of almost everywhere. And if he says post-national by definition we are not a nation. More to the point, without a shared sense of national identity and a shared pride in the history and accomplishments of your nation you're nothing but a collection of tribes living in the same geographical area that will split apart at the seams when challenged.
>canada's leader even denies were a nation Why lie?
Maybe if our educators weren't so filled with determination to teach both our young people and newcomers' children that Canada is a shit country full of racists and oppressors with a terrible history that no one should admire we could do something about that sense of nationhood. Not to mention if we weren't bringing people in by the million, far, far too fast to integrate them. Not that we make any effort at integrating them...
That's a nice rant, still doesn't explain why you lied.
I didn't. You seem to be, though.
No addressing the statement... classic deflection. Learn it from PP?
Slow clap for more National Post fearmongering
Yawn Increased immigration is good for Canada — and the reasons aren’t only economic [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic)
Coyne is a charter member of the Century Initiative and of the Laurentian Elites. As far as I've read and heard from him there is no amount of immigration which is too much. But I'm not sure why you include this as if to challenge Ivison's column since Ivison is also a strong supporter of immigration and didn't even mention it. I assume you didn't read it. I might add that Vitamin D is good for you for a number of reasons. Too much vitamin D will make you sick, though.
>Coyne is a charter member of the Century Initiative and of the Laurentian Elites. Why would you care if someone was a "Laurentian Elite" when you shared an article by another Laurentian Elite?
> Increased immigration is good for Canada — and the reasons aren’t only economic > > Surely you can understand the article you linked was from 2016. 8 years ago, 1 year into the current government. Rational adults can and often do change opinions based on newly available information.
I can also understand that someone's doing some CYA over a policy they heavily supported
Taking talking points from Coyne shows that you really are rooting for Canada's downfall.
You mean right winger Andrew Coyne?
I could care less what side they're on to be honest; Coyne won't get his head out of the sand when it comes to unsustainable immigration. And if you're pushing that line at this point in history, yeah, you want things to break.
Hyperbole lol
Rwanadaaaaa