Ann Counter Fails to Prove Canada Suppresses Free Speech

Several Canadians have expressed concern about the stifling of Ann Coulter by the University of Ottawa.

"The costs of free speech may be high, but the costs of doing without it are even higher to our democracy."

From the Toronto Star
Nathalie Des Rosiers
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

---------------------------------

"Was it her potential message that Canada found unpalatable? If so, what are the RWB[*] approved messages that might lead other nations to a high press-freedom rating like Canada's?"

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs North Vancouver
Vancouver Sun *Found it strange that Reporters Without Borders rated press freedom higher in Canada than in the USA

And I'm sure there was a lot of similar hand wringing from coast to coast. Relax, people, let me explain. First let's take a measure of the intellectual level of what is being said here. I'm going to go with just one example. Ann Coulter says Arab students should be barred from flying on any airplanes due to the danger they pose. An Arab student asks what alternative they have. Ann Coulter says "Take a camel".

I could go on for hundreds of examples if I cared to take the time, but this would not be the first time that someone is judged by one isolated statement. And, actually, this statement is fairly representative of the type of statements that made Ann Coulter famous and even loved by the racists in the USA and Canada.

Only a Nazi would say that Hitler's call for the gassing of the Jews was a "contentious view". To Jews it goes far beyond contentious, all the way to threatening extermination. Calling a black man a "Nigger" is not a contentious statement, in my opinion, it is a racial slur. Ann Coulter's camel statement is not really a "contentious view" either. It is an ignorant and racist insult designed to threaten and provoke rage. It belongs on Fox News, or on an American Hate Radio program. If the University of Ottawa had not invited Ann Coulter to speak, their students would have been none the dumber for it. On the other hand, by inviting her and finding out how they got played for suckers by the racists, I hope those U of O people learned a valuable lesson. Don't play with fire unless you have asbestos underwear.

We do not need the presence of Ann Coulter in Canada to prove that we have free speech. So by logical extension:
If it does not deny free speech to NOT invite her, it is not suppressing free speech when the affair is cancelled.

Now to deal with the question of who has the greater freedom of the press: Canada or the USA? I will explain this with a simple parable, without mentioning any names. Please do not try to fill in the names for me, because this is a logic exercise only to prove a point. Just keep an open mind and follow the logic.

There once was a country filled with hate, run by one party, the party of hate. All peace loving, tolerant reporters were fired, only the hateful reporters kept their jobs, and they are monitored constantly to make sure they continue to spew hate against the oppressed minorities. Nearby, there was another country of peaceful, tolerant people, who never fired a reporter for their views, even if that reporter sometimes said hateful things. That's because that country was "tolerant" and valued freedom of the press.

One day, at a university in the peaceful country, it was decided to invite a reporter from the hate filled country to give a speech, the better to understand their hate-filled neighbours. A protest was staged, and the speech was cancelled.

So, logically, does that mean the tolerant peaceful country has no more freedom of the press than the country of hate?

The answer is no. Because freedom of the press involves much more than people sitting quietly and listening to hate speeches. And freedom of the press should never be mutually exclusive to freedom of public protest.

I am not trying to make a point about either Iran or Canada. Simply that "Freedom of the press" is not necessarily at stake with one protested speech by a guest reporter. Freedom of the press is a measure of how many reporters fear for their jobs in a given country, based on their views. Or how much pressure is put on reporters to stick with a "party line" in that country, on the average. It is also a measure of whether or not one party line had predominance over the other.

I think the Reporters without Borders probably believed that in Canada, there was less of a tendency to force reporters to conform to one side or another of a political discussion. And there was less tendency for reporters to be fired for disagreeing with their bosses. I'm not sure they would even factor in the Ann Coulter controversy in this measure, as she is not a Canadian reporter and does not normally report on Canadian affairs. Recently there have been several right wing pundits fired for not being right wing enough in the USA. Just last week it was David Frum. I remember during the last political campaign it was right winger Christopher Buckley, son of William F Buckley who came under fire.

And naturally, when you suggest taking away the rights of certain groups of citizens, you may expect them to protest, and not sit quietly and listen to you. The freedom to protest without fear for your life is a part of free speech, and that seems to be doing well in Ottawa.

A Multicultural Society Makes Better Decisions

Recently a teabag party speech got into the subject of immigrant voters, and how they could not even spell "vote",and were responsible for the stupid decision to put a "committed socialist" in the white house.

This reminds me of another rant some years ago by the separatist Parti Quebecois, who narrowly lost a referendum to separate Quebec from Canada. Parizeau blamed the immigrants.

Canadians are far ahead of Americans in understanding that having plenty of immigrants helps the country as a whole to not make stupid voting decisions.

You might argue with me on this one, then how come Canada, with more immigrants than the US, has the misfortune to elect Harper as Prime Minister, yet the US, with far fewer new immigrants per capita, has elected one of the greatest presidents ever. (for those of you who believe the opposite is true, the rest of this blog is going to make no sense at all, I recommend you go back to an earlier blog and work your way up: try these

Obama Criticized by Some Leftists

Is Bush or Obama More Like Hitler

The reason we have Harper as Prime Minister is not because of the vote, which went clearly in favour of the anti conservatives. It is the nature of the multi-party parliamentary system, where in this case we have only one conservative party, but several left wing parties splitting the votes. We actually need a runoff election system to decide who leads, not just the biggest block of members on the first round. The second round is easy to do, just put a second choice on each ballot.

While Obama was elected in a two way vote, it was not totally overwhelming, and he is having trouble carrying out his agenda because of the opposition of rabid (non immigrant) teabaggers. And can you remember the Bush years still?

I think it's pretty obvious that Canada benefits from its immigrants, who seem to have a better grasp of the sweep of history, and the complexity of the world. i.e. the recent immigrants help balance our stupidity and closed mindedness.

Better decisions at the polls is one of the many benefits of the Canadian version of multiculturalism.

Mythbusting for Haiti

It is pretty overwhelming to see what is going on in Haiti. But absolutely revolting to see the heartless attitudes some people take toward this tragedy. I especially despise Rush Limbaugh saying that nobody should give a penny to the Haitians. 

I saw some comment like:
"What do they expect, they live in little tin roof shacks, of course they are going to be killed in an earthquake"

Fact: You are actually far less likely to die in an earthquake when you live in a miserable shack held up by broomsticks and twine, than you are to be killed when a larger multi story cement structure, probably built during the American occupation, collapses on your head.

Pat Robertson made a lot of errors in his condemnation of Haiti. The "Pact with the devil" they made to get free from France? I have gone over the pact with the devil contract before, it does not hold up to any scrutiny. I don't expect any truth from someone who believes in Adam and Eve anyway. But please, they were not fighting to be free of France. They at first wanted to remain a colony of France, and only to be free of slavery. Toussaint Louverture, their early and successful leader, wanted to negotiate for the end of slavery and remain a colony of France. But he was captured at the official negotiation, by the French, and sent to France where he died of disease in captivity. He was actually lucky, almost every other leader who stood up to the French was burned alive or tortured to death upon capture. It was only after these talks broke down, that the Haitians were forced to choose new leaders and decided to fight again for complete independence, against the treacherous French.

Another big question Pat raised, why are Haitians so poor, when right next door in Dominican Republic people are wealthy and happy? He reasons it's all about the "pact with the devil" which I actually find an improvement over many of the racist slurs other people make to explain the poverty.

Why is Haiti poor? After Haiti's independence, the French refused to trade with Haiti, and no other country would or could trade with them either. Either for revenge, or because of the so-called pact with the devil, of for pure racism. Anyway, no trade, no money. After a number of years of near mass starvation, the Haitians negotiated with the French, who were also hurting a little by this time, as Haiti had been a major source of wealth for them. The French offered a deal, take it or leave it, that the Haitians would have to repay France for every bit of land they took (the entire island of Hispaniola), and the full market price for every slave on the island who was freed by the rebellion, (almost the entire population) and all damages cause by either side in the rebellion. Ask yourself how this compares to the terms England gave to America after the war of independence. You may have to read up on that history again, but I'm sure you will not find reparations or trade embargoes. The Haitians were saddled with paying off a staggering debt, including extremely high interest rates from 1826 to 1879. So don't make disparaging comments about Haitian poverty if you don't know anything about their history.

Is there more? Of course. The entire Island of Hispaniola, for a time was under one government, but in 1844 considering the burdensome deal made with France, half the island split away, leaving the people in the Western half of the island (today Haiti) to pay the entire war reparations to France without the help of the Eastern half, now called Dominican Republic. That's the "wealthy" part that Pat Robertson compares to Haiti to "prove" there was a pact with the devil. Apparently, in Pat Robertson's eyes, poverty proves you have a pact with the devil, even when people are taking money from you unfairly. And by the way, the Dominican Republic is not actually paradise on earth either.

Another myth to dispel is this: That the people of Haiti are congenitally incapable of running a decent country. Either through stupidity, or pacts with the devil or whatever, the myth is, the Haitians just can't do it. Well just read up on their history, and you will find there was a period of time (approximately 1867 to 1911) when the Haitians actually were turning their little country into a nice place to live, even with with a growing intellectual class, arts and literature. Peace and stability were the norm. But after about forty years of this, the Germans thought Haiti might be a possible colony in about 1911, and the Americans retaliated by invading and brutally occupying the Haiti. Since then it has been either outright American control, or American puppet dictators, more or less steadily. Later in this dictatorship phase (especially in the last 20 years), many of the most wealthy and educated Haitians emigrated to Canada or the USA, leaving the rest to deal with it. Not the best of conditions to try to run a good country.

Then this earthquake, and all of a sudden racists pop out of the woodwork with their opinions that do nothing but show their own ignorance and lack of either education or heart.

Now I see a video on CBC News  of a Canadian teenage girl in Haiti crying. Why? Because she and a group from her church were in Haiti during the earthquake, on one of these volunteer trips, doing some humanitarian work while visiting a developing country. She was crying, overcome with emotion of seeing all the dead bodies, hearing the screaming people trapped in the buildings, and yet in the middle of all this, their Haitians hosts were still doing their very best to make sure the Canadian guests were safe and taken care of.

How about if we just give these people a break for once?

Top picture: Haiti, taken from a travel blog here:

http://jeffandlauratravel.wordpress.com/category/travel/haiti/

Are Liberal Universities Brainwashing Students?

Most American universities are accused by the right wing conservatives of being too liberal. Certainly, polls of professors etc. substantiate the opinion. For example, only 5% of scientists claim to be Republican while about 40% claim to be Democrat. Similarly, fundamental religious groups feel excluded from power at Universities, where most professors, if they are religious at all, are not usually evangelical. The Christian religious fundamentalists have lately been strongly supporting the right wing agenda politically.

Extreme statements have been made about liberal universities brainwashing students, and not just in normal classroom lectures. As first year students arrive, orientation programs have been set up that also provide a liberal bias. "Affirmative Action Offices" are there to enforce liberal attitudes such as tolerance of non-Christian religions, and to prevent racial harassment.

There is a controversy about the non profit group "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" or "FIRE". I first heard of FIRE in connection with two cases. The first case was at the University of Delaware. Freshman students were being subjected to an indoctrination program that promoted multiculturalism. FIRE tried to stop the program, citing in particular a sentence in the workbook stating "All white people in America are racists." and "Black people cannot be racist". The second case at Purdue in Indiana, where a student was reading a book about the KKK in a janitorial lunch room, and was accused of racism. An apology was made by the University after it was learned that the book was not racist, and actually came from the Purdue University library, and of course after FIRE (and the ACLU) defended the student.

After viewing the two videos about these cases, without knowing anything about FIRE, I simply concluded that FIRE was a right wing organization defending white students, Christians, or Republicans against harassment charges from minority groups, feminists, or liberals. Well it turned out to be far more complicated than that. So either they are hiding their agenda extremely well, or they are in fact an even handed and balanced organization.

(Delaware video) I have to comment on the slick propaganda in this production. Using the phrase "diversity" of opinion to attack multiculturalism and it's "Diversity" of cultures is clever word transposing. And you would never imagine Delaware has a very low 5% black student population, from the random campus shot at 3:11. It's also offensive to have the students chuckling at 3:17 while discussing black women and "All the oppression". Maybe those students really needed this program in order to have their eyes opened.

(Purdue video) Keith is portrayed as the sweetest guy in the world. It is never really explained in the video why an illiterate black woman on the janitorial staff would have taken offense at his book.

Is FIRE a front organization set up to appear as neutral and independent while it actually is carrying out a right wing racist agenda?

FIRE has vigorously defended it's status as an independent organization whose only interest is to protect students exercising their freedom of speech. They point out that they have also defended Prof. Ward Churchill, who made derogatory statements about Jews. (He still got fired, though, but for plagiarism, not Jew hating) They were founded by, and still have as CEO, Harvey A. Silvergate, who defended students for protesting the Vietnam war back in the sixties. Some of FIRE's top people claim to be Democrats, and "classical liberals".

But the reality seems to be that FIRE is attracting a lot of support from the right. They say it is not their fault. Most of the universities are very liberal, so naturally most cases of students (and faculty) being reprimanded, will probably be for expressing points of view that are conservative, racist, homophobic, or Christian. Apparently students are rarely reprimanded for making anti-Republican, anti-Christian, or anti-white race comments. Although FIRE claims to have defended a student newspaper for printing a story with the headline "Fuck Bush".

FIRE's logic actually kind of makes sense, but mostly as good propaganda. Because I am a liberal myself, I see universities as being the natural place of liberal values. Any university that encourages freedom of thought is naturally going to be liberal, is going to favour broad mindedness over narrow patriotism, should favour multiculturalism over white privilege. A university is of course going to question stories like Noah, and Adam and Eve, and support the Theory of Evolution against Christian creationism. Some American freshmen arrive at university unaware that their country was stolen from the Indians, don't know the world is billions of years old, are not aware that America still has racism, believe America singlehandedly saved the world at least three times, in some cases don't even know that George Washington was the first president, and some can't find America on a world map.

So to millions of patriotic, racist and fundamentalist Americans, first year at university can be an experience like being "brainwashed" into hating their country. And some of these students are naturally going to complain, especially if organizations like FIRE are offering $5000 scholarships for any videos of them having their "freedom of speech" curbed.

The jury is still out on whether "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" is a front group for the right wing or not. I think the larger point is that as American culture becomes more right wing in general, led by anti-intellectual organizations like Fox News, there is going to be a bigger disconnect between places of higher learning, and the general American public. FIRE's supporting donations are increasingly going to come from conservatives. And as that happens, I believe it is inevitable that FIRE will increasingly defend conservative students against liberal university values, while trying to maintain the cover of neutrality as long as they can.

Here is a typical (I guess) FIRE case being discussed in a blog, how the University of Minnesota is brainwashing K-12 teachers into hating America. All the people commenting seem to be conservative, and the rhetoric is all at a typical Fox News anti-intellectual level, including the original blog and the readers comments. Unfortunately, those are the people most likely to donate to FIRE. I sure wouldn't.

Picture: I photoshopped (Actually using Gimp in Linux, I just use photoshop as a generic word) a girl's head with soap in the hair to represent brainwashing on to a "property of liberal university" T-shirt. Too subtle?

Canadian Symbolism Part 3: Who is a Real Canadian

The US election popularized the question: What is a real American? Now, somebody says that one of the "Canadian, Please" performers is not, and never will be, a "real Canadian". The simple fact is, you do not have to be born in Canada, or be white, to be a real Canadian. I don't even think you need to live in Canada or have a Canadian citizenship. Lots of American tourists slap a Canadian flag on their backpack to travel the world. Lots of Canadians live in the USA. I think anyone can be Canadian just by their beliefs. Kind of like religion: Accept Canada into your heart and you're Canadian! Just don't put a loaded gun in the backpack.

My grandchildren attend a public school in Waterloo where students have come from 40 different countries. No, it's not some UN sponsored experiment, it's just a regular neighbourhood primary school. Their residential neighbourhood is similarly mixed with people of different races and religions living side by side. No, I don't mean side by side in ghettos. I mean the neighbourhood is mixed randomly house by house, seemingly with no pattern at all of ethnicity. The one thing they all accept is multiculturalism, that is, the right of all people to live together in peace and security, without fear and hatred. It is the Canadian dream, not the American dream of wealth and power. The American dream may not be dead yet, but it is old and tarnished. The American dream is now just for the very few, with unlimited tax-free wealth, guns and gated communities. For the rest, foreclosed homes, shuttered factories, and health care beyond their means.

The video "Canadian, Please!" gives a clue. "Step one, lose the gun" "Step two, buy a canoe" "Step three, live multiculturally". Based on that three-step plan, plus demographics, we can project that by 2050, half the world could be Canadian. Even people who don't want to be Canadians, will be buying canoes as the waters rise due to global warming. When oil reaches $1000 per barrel, Hummers will be useful only as underwater reefs for the fish. The old planet Earth is over, where privileged people could keep others away who "look different", while wasting all the Earth's resources. The world is too crowded for war and racism. We will either all live multiculturally like Canada or we will all be strapping on suicide bombs like the rest. Eventually most people will opt for the former.

The great majority of Moslems want to move into the modern world, a small minority of religious extremists want to drag it back to the dark ages. This is also true in America, except the extremist religion in America is not Islam, it is a pro-war form of Christianity.

The dream of the modern world is changing. Forty years ago, America was the dream for the future. With George W. Bush, that dream died, and even Barack Obama cannot revive it. Now Canadian multiculturalism is becoming the preferred model for the future. The dream of Canada is kind of like what America was, but without the hate, without the world domination. Canada is the American dream, but more appealing, more multicultural, more realistic, less fearful, less belligerent, more cooperative, less ignorant, with fewer religious lunatics.

I can't prove that the future belongs to multiculturalism. But now Canada now has one of the world's highest rates of immigration. There is still a small chance the world may yet descend into the dark ages. But in the next fifty years, billions of people will be making choices about the kind of world they want to live in. Despite imperfections, Canada is an example that is available to all. Many people wish the whole world was made up of 192 Canadas instead of 191 other countries and only one Canada. But without the weather, of course.

There are people who don't even know they're Canadian. Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev. I would be happy if Jesus came back, and for his first trip sewed a Canadian flag on his backpack.

In the next fifty years, to echo the words of Mark Steyn "It's the end of the world as we know it". Except that it's not because the Islamic Jihadists are coming for us, it's the because Canada will show a better way to live together.

Canadian Symbolism Part 2: Canada is the New America

Is the Canadian dream of multiculturalism realistic? Not only does it seem to be working in Canada, it is the only way things can ever work. The idea of multiculturalism was first hinted at by Jesus 2000 years ago. Love your neighbour, love your enemy. Christianity fumbled the ball, and today Canadian multiculturalism is about the closest thing we have to the teachings of Jesus. The religious fundamentalists who call themselves Christians, but believe in war, faith healing, torture, and witchcraft are not even close.

Living in Canada, I don't see the Canadian dream so idealistically. I know we have gun nuts and racists and warmongers. One man died after being tasered by the Mounties. But for most of the world, Canada has become a symbol, which is what America used to be. Like most dreams, the American dream was always more illusion than reality, and now it has proven itself unsuitable for the modern world, even as a dream. You only have to watch the hateful (but very popular in the US) American Fox News to know the American dream is gone, replaced by ignorant bullying.

Forty years ago, when I was in Sierra Leone, Canada was almost invisible internationally. America was what everyone talked about and dreamed about. Even with the Vietnam war, America was still the country that sent a man to the moon, the streets of America were paved with gold. Canada was at best unknown, or maybe a part of the USA according to some opinions.

In 1990, America was handed world leadership on a platter, and instead of rising to the challenge, within no more than a dozen years, rejected international cooperation and made a play for world domination. And don't blame 9/11, because the "Project for the New American Century" strategists were already on record as looking for "something like Pearl Harbour" to kick off the military domination of the world. If it wasn't 9/11 it would have been something else.

Today the American Dream has faded in the wake of an unjust war and terrorism. On the other hand, Canada is now well known all over the world as a functioning multicultural country. America is the tired old superpower that tried for world domination through torture and unjust war, and was easy prey to religious extremism (both Christian and Muslim). Although their weapons are still potent, the American dream has shrivelled like the heart of a Fox news announcer.

Canada is a new dream, not based on wealth and military power. Not even based on forcing people to live somewhere. Canadian style multiculturalism eventually could exist anywhere on earth. In the American dream, the starving masses gave up their home country, their traditions, and language. They left everything behind to start at the bottom in America, and hopefully within a few generations work their way to the top and fit in.

Canadians don't care about world domination. We don't need to put our flag on everything, or be the boss of everyone. Apparently, to be Canadian, you don't need to give up your old country, and you certainly don't need to stay in Canada and freeze your ass off. Even we aren't stupid enough to do that.

Whether our new celebrity status in the world is deserved or not, there are people from Canada who reject it. Mark Steyn decided he had to move to the USA because he couldn't stand Canadians any more. Conrad Black renounced his Canadian citizenship so that he could become an English Lord. Both are just helping define what is uncanadian. Hatemongers like Mark, and class snobs like Conrad Black, are not "real" Canadians any more, if they ever were. It is especially interesting that both Mark Steyn and Conrad Black were famously involved in trying to redefine Canadianism in their own narrow minded image, but so far have failed. Mark is still bitter about run-ins with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Conrad is in jail in the USA, and probably wishes he was still a Canadian citizen at this point.

I understand that many old fashioned Canadians still want nothing more than for Canada to be another state of the USA. They want our soldiers to be fighting and dying for American foreign policy even though we don't have a vote in their elections. This includes our current Bush-like Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. But it seems the tide of multiculturalism is unstoppable in Canada. One thing you can say about having a lot of immigrants, it makes the country as a whole, a lot smarter.

Canadian Symbolism Part 1: A New World Citizen

Enough of trying to expose propaganda for the narrow minded bigotry it is. Sometimes, no matter what you do, you cannot dislodge the image that has been placed in your head by propaganda. You have to substitute something better, and more realistic.

So I have decided to wipe out the image Mark Steyn proposes of the Moslems taking over the world by procreation and demographics. In this three part blog, I will substitute an entirely more reasonable future scenario to his world full of genocide and terrorism.

I want to start off by making some observations that to me, at least are common sense. Not all Moslems want to become suicide bombers, in fact only a tiny fraction. On the other hand, almost everyone in the world would like to be a Canadian, especially if they didn't have to freeze their asses off actually living here. On these simple truths, I will construct a more plausible view of the future than "America alone: The end of the world as we know it" by Mark Steyn.

I have observed that lots of Canadians don't really like living here either. In the winter they take off for the USA and live there up to six months a year. A few years ago I noticed another strange phenomenon. During the Lebanese/Israeli "war", we discovered hundreds, if not thousands of Canadians, living in the middle of the war zone in Lebanon, that had to be evacuated. What were they doing there? They were actually Lebanese who had simply applied for Canadian citzenship, filled in the basic requirements then buggered off back home to live where it was nice and warm, albeit prone to bombing. Well that's an interesting new development. Now I find out that Chinese are doing the same thing. They get a house in Canada much like Torontonians get a cottage in Muskoka, but go back to China to amass their fortunes. The Canadian government admits it has no statistics on the number of Canadians who live out of the country on Canadian citizenships.

It's kind of a new concept, or at least an old concept that seems to be gaining popularity. Maybe because travel is so easy now, and world globalization is increasing. But it's the Canadian passport that everybody wants. Even the Israeli secret service uses Canadian passports. Everybody and their uncle wants to be a Canadian, apparently. Just listen to all the Americans who threaten to move to Canada when the Democrats lose an election.

Is this idea of a Canadian dual citizenship bad or good? Some people hate it, for sure. Recently we have even had the US border closed to Canadians who don't have passports, because the Americans think we let too many people have passports (I know it doesn't make sense, but said it was an American idea didn't I?)

At first I was alarmed by the development of a new type of international citizenship under the Canadian flag. But the more I think about it, the more I see it is inevitable, and the beginning of something new and maybe better. In other words the end of rabid warmongering nationalism and the start of citizenship of the world.

I'll bet if the UN handed out world passports, people would want them. Google "world citizen" and see how much you find. The UN doesn't have a passport, but Canada does, and Canada has the closest thing in the world to a UN passport. A passport from a nice country that welcomes immigrants, espouses multiculturalism, hands out passports like candy, supports the UN, doesn't attempt to conquer the world, and has a charter of human rights to boot.

People see the Canadian form of multiculturalism as the way of the future, which it probably is. Mankind has tried everything else already and we know what doesn't work. We have tried war, slavery, religious extremism, imperialism, colonialism, communism, genocide, world domination. All failed. Maybe multiculturalism can succeed. Canada is making it succeed. Almost everybody in the world wants it to succeed, except maybe some understandably fearful Canadians and some suicide bombers.

People want to have a Canadian Passport, because it's like a world citizenship passport that guarantees human rights and justice no matter where they choose to live. I know there's not much Canada can do, really, to enforce these rights for all Canadians outside our borders. But it's not so much the reality, it's the symbolism. Nobody wants to be at the total mercy of some local despot. Everybody needs hope. One day in the next fifty years, although they may not be living here, half the world could be Canadian.