Do the Cons need a new leader?

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
gadar
Do the Cons need a new leader?

Dimple Boy Howdy Doody Andrew Sneer cant even keep his own party together. Maxime Bernier leaving is totally on him. The onus was on Sneer to give due respect to the man who finished first but was pushed to second. But what did he do? instead of giving due respect to his ideas he clashed with him. So if there is a party in need of a new leader it has to be the Cons, a party that is ready to split.

gadar

Can Bernier disrupt in 2019, you bet he can. Sneer should step down before he can do more damage.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-bernier-disrupt-in-2...

gadar

Where is Sneer, while the NAFTA negotiations are going on. No where to be seen. You know what, the job of the official opposition is not to just smile and delete old webpages which show your true personality, it is to provide constructive ideas. Or maybe he is waiting for Harper to whisper in his ear.

Singh will show how its done after the next election.

Dimple Boy must step down, Canada deserves better.

gadar

 Maybe there are plans already in place on how to disrupt the elections next time. They can maybe call people on election eve and tell the people that their polling booth has changed. Its not like it has not been tried before. Pierre Poutine is still around.

Howdy Doody's days are numbered. Gazebo Clement is probably already planning on his next leadership bid.

gadar
gadar

A combination of deep-seated racism and white superiority, together with Trump-like fear-mongering seems to be the current populist recipe for manufacturing hate and division for the purpose of political gain.

https://twitter.com/rabbleca/status/1036056875798863872?ref_src=twsrc%5E...

gadar

Bernier may not become PM but doesnt mean that the Cons can ignore him. Howdy Doody cant afford to ignore the division in his party. What a dud. Keep smiling, but those dimples wont help you much.

http://dailyhive.com/calgary/opinion-maxime-bernier-august-2018

gadar

With the Cons doing the dog whistle politics, it is not long before this sort of thing starts happening in Canada. If only the Cons had a new leader instead of the Harper Puppet they now have.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germany-far-right-march-sept1-1.4807949

gadar

If this is only half true, Salesman Dimple Boy is in deep trouble

One anti-supply management proponent who attended the Conservative convention says he's received interest in a Bernier party from almost two-dozen current and former MPs.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/08/29/anti-supply-management-proponent-sa...

gadar

Well the Cons thrive on a dose of bigotry and small mindedness

a small-minded resolution that would end birthright citizenship seems unnecessarily malicious in a country with declining birthrates and an economic need for immigrants.

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/08/29/bernier-may-not-lingering-challenge...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

gadar wrote:

Where is Sneer, while the NAFTA negotiations are going on. No where to be seen. You know what, the job of the official opposition is not to just smile and delete old webpages which show your true personality, it is to provide constructive ideas. Or maybe he is waiting for Harper to whisper in his ear.

Singh will show how its done after the next election.

Dimple Boy must step down, Canada deserves better.

Yeah, I like how Scheer is blasting Trudeau over the NAFTA talks but is nowhere to be heard from of what HE would do in this situation. The Liberals are carrying the blame while they are forced to deal with a nascissistic petualnt sociopath in the White House, What would the Cons do differently? Wait..I know, give the Americans EVERYTHING they want and more.

 THis orangutan in Washington needs to be eliminated. Most Americans hate him. His contempt and vindictiveness is driving to cripple us as a nation but who here is talking about that? It's almost as if the Liberals are being blamed for water being wet.

I hope the majority of Canadians realize this and not run to a party who will toss Ortange Hitler's salad. Sell us much more further down the river than the Mulroney PC's did 30 uears ago.

What can Canada do? Not much with a madman in Washington.

gadar

What does the party of flat earthers have to say about climate change. While BC has a hard time breathing, where is Sneer, and his climate change action plan.

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/catherine-holt-we-need-...

gadar

Well thats the Con game. And this is not from Postmedia. We need to be aware of what Sneer is trying to hide behind that smile.

The tendency on the right to try to criminalize dissent and dismiss fact as conspiracy, like forest fires in B.C. and California, is growing in intensity. |

https://twitter.com/rabbleca/status/1036089340475191298?ref_src=twsrc%5E...

bekayne

gadar wrote:

What does the party of flat earthers have to say about climate change. While BC has a hard time breathing, where is Sneer, and his climate change action plan.

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/catherine-holt-we-need-...

I prefer to call him Andy Pandy.

gadar

The Cons want to Promote Canadian history: Scheer also took aim at "extreme voices" who he said are erasing Canadian heritage. He said his party will celebrate the "giants" of Canadian history.

I am sure Howdy Doody wants to discuss the excesses that were perpetuated by these 'giants'. Or maybe there is a typo and he actually said "giant assholes" .

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/what-conservative-leader-scheer-pledged-...

 

gadar

Harper and his 'old stock canadian' xenophobic agenda is alive and well under Andy Pandy's "leadership"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/birthright-citizenship-1.4808044

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Elimination of birthright citizenship risks creating stateless children not only legally, but emotionally.

I don't think they would be "stateless".  If a Canadian couple travels to Japan and has a child, Japan does not consider that child a Japanese citizen, but doesn't Canada consider that child a Canadian citizen?

gadar

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Elimination of birthright citizenship risks creating stateless children not only legally, but emotionally.

I don't think they would be "stateless".  If a Canadian couple travels to Japan and has a child, Japan does not consider that child a Japanese citizen, but doesn't Canada consider that child a Canadian citizen?

I could be wrong. But this is my understanding.

Some countries do not recognise dual citizenship. Using your example, lets say that Japan does not recognise dual citizenship and Japanese law gives citizenship by birth. Now Japan would not give citizenship to somebody born in another country and the child becomes stateless because the country of birth, in this case Canada does not recognise the child as a citizen either.

gadar

Howdy Doody says that oil is the cleanest from of energy. Next maybe Orange Clown will call them and tell them that its number two the cleanest is coal.

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/08/31/news/andrew-scheers-office-t...

gadar

Are Sneer and Doug Dealer going to threaten YorkU with funding cuts because of this?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/education-is-key-toronto-university-makes-dream...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Some countries do not recognise dual citizenship. Using your example, lets say that Japan does not recognise dual citizenship and Japanese law gives citizenship by birth. Now Japan would not give citizenship to somebody born in another country and the child becomes stateless because the country of birth, in this case Canada does not recognise the child as a citizen either.

I'm not sure I understand your example.  But both Canada and Japan have jus sanguinus laws, so a child born to Canadian parents in Japan would still be a Canadian citizen, and a child born to Japanese parents in Canada would still be a Japanese citizen.

So it's still not clear to me how abolishing jus soli laws would create legions of stateless children.

And for what it's worth, jus soli laws in Canada aren't really used all that often, so I'm not saying "yes, we must strike them down", but neither would I support keeping them for a reason that makes no sense.

cco

There are loads of examples of countries that have expat communities in Canada whose citizenship laws, for one reason or another (sexism is the classic one), could leave children born in Canada stateless, particularly those who come from mixed-nationality marriages and those born to unmarried couples. My wife has a cousin who was born stateless for a similar reason. It's a much bigger problem than birth tourism, particularly given how long it takes for children to sponsor their parents for immigration.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Fair enough.  I used the example of Japan, because their citizenship laws are jus sanguinis only.  But evidently, even they make an exception for a child born on Japanese soil whose parents are stateless or unknown and confer citizenship on that child.

If Canada were to make a similar exception, would that satisfy concerns about stateless babies?

I think we can agree that no baby should be stateless, but it's much less clear to me why a child born of parents who are citizens of a country that would recognize their child's citizenship as well needs Canadian citizenship solely because they were born in Canada.

In other words, if your parents are both Italian, and you were born in Canada while they were here sightseeing, you need or should have Canadian citizenship why again?

cco

In your example, the child doesn't seem particularly in need of citizenship, because you specified sightseers from a stable and reasonably prosperous country. There are, no doubt, people with Canadian citizenship by accident of birth all over the world whose parents returned to Italy or Japan and who aren't even aware of their eligibility. The vanishingly small (300-odd) numbers of people born in Canada to non-resident parents (which doesn't necessarily even mean non-citizen parents -- they could be children of expats who returned home to give birth) every year suggests that that's not a huge problem in fact as much as it is in rhetoric.

The thing about citizenship, though, is that when you need it, you really need it. So try this example on for size: A Hindu Indian woman from the slums of Calcutta, working in Dubai, becomes pregnant in an abusive relationship with a Somali man, at the same time she gets the news she's been accepted to the University of Toronto. She comes to Canada on a student visa, gives birth, graduates, gets a temporary work visa, and raises the child until age 10, at which point she's arrested and goes to jail (we'll leave the actual crime ambiguous until the end of the story). The 10-year-old child, having spent his entire life in Canada, speaks only a few words of Hindi and none of Somali. The UAE doesn't give citizenship to children of expats, Somalia has no government to give citizenship at all (and the child has no relationship with his father or any of his Somali relatives), but since 1992, Indian women are allowed to pass citizenship to their children born abroad -- if the mother registered the birth at a consulate within a year. Since interreligious marriages are grounds for lynch mobs in India, she never got around to it. Nevertheless, when she's released, she's being deported back to Calcutta. Should her son have to leave with her, returning to a place he's never lived, where he doesn't speak the language, would be lucky to have citizenship after a prolonged bureaucratic fight, and his existence is likely to incite lynch mobs?

You're probably still wondering what the mother was arrested for. Why? Does the son deserve deportation more if she stabbed someone than if she simply overstayed her visa? Punishing children for the sins of the parent isn't something I'd characterize as a particularly Canadian value. And now that I'm a Canadian citizen, I get to say that.

Immigration isn't something anyone just does on a whim. The process is long and expensive under the best of circumstances. It's taken up years of my life and only ended last month, with naturalization. And I'm a white guy with good command of English and French, whose country of birth isn't a war zone. But hey, I knew the process was long and expensive when I started it. I made the decision and lived with the difficulty. That's something that cannot be said of someone who was born here.

And if my hypothetical seems a bit arbitrary and constructed, what with war zones and lynch mobs and all that, it's no more arbitrary and constructed than the examples of "birth tourism" with someone going on vacation from China, giving birth in Richmond, waiting 18 years, sending her child to a Canadian university, and having him undergo the 13-year process of sponsoring a parent to immigrate. Both are things that have certainly happened in one form or another (I dealt with more complicated constituent immigration cases working for an MP than the one I just made up). Is putting an end to the vanishingly small numbers of the latter worth opening up the former to deportation? Not to me.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So try this example on for size: A Hindu Indian woman from the slums of Calcutta, working in Dubai, becomes pregnant in an abusive relationship with a Somali man, at the same time she gets the news she's been accepted to the University of Toronto. She comes to Canada on a student visa, gives birth, graduates, gets a temporary work visa, and raises the child until age 10, at which point she's arrested and goes to jail (we'll leave the actual crime ambiguous until the end of the story). The 10-year-old child, having spent his entire life in Canada, speaks only a few words of Hindi and none of Somali. The UAE doesn't give citizenship to children of expats, Somalia has no government to give citizenship at all (and the child has no relationship with his father or any of his Somali relatives), but since 1992, Indian women are allowed to pass citizenship to their children born abroad -- if the mother registered the birth at a consulate within a year. Since interreligious marriages are grounds for lynch mobs in India, she never got around to it. Nevertheless, when she's released, she's being deported back to Calcutta. Should her son have to leave with her, returning to a place he's never lived, where he doesn't speak the language, and his existence is likely to incite lynch mobs?

That's your example of the problem, the paragraph after you refer to incidents of "birth tourism" as "vanishingly small"??

Quote:
Is putting an end to the vanishingly small numbers of the latter worth opening up the former to deportation? Not to me.

Again, I'm not busy painting my "Down with Birth Tourism" placard and planning my marching route and charging the batteries for my megaphone.

But I'm still not sure why there's evidently no possible way to differentiate between:

a) a woman from the slums of Calcutta, pregnant by a Somali man, studying in Canada, arrested for who-cares-what and deported and:

b) one or both parents with clear citizenship in another country having a child in Canada

Also, I wonder about this, just academically:

Quote:
Since interreligious marriages are grounds for lynch mobs in India, she never got around to it.

In your example, the woman was neither married to the father, nor living in India in the first year of the child's life.

And also this, I suppose:

Quote:
Should her son have to leave with her, returning to a place he's never lived, where he doesn't speak the language, and his existence is likely to incite lynch mobs?

Of course not.  He's ten.  With citizenship, he can stay and get a job, rent an apartment, buy groceries, pay taxes... all the things we citizens like to do.  Huh??

 

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That's your example of the problem, the paragraph after you refer to incidents of "birth tourism" as "vanishingly small"??

It's an example. I've seen weirder cases. I also started by pointing out that most of the cases of tourists giving birth in Canada don't end up with the child getting loophole citizenship and using it as a back door for the family into Canada.

Quote:

But I'm still not sure why there's evidently no possible way to differentiate between:

a) a woman from the slums of Calcutta, pregnant by a Somali man, studying in Canada, arrested for who-cares-what and deported and:

b) one or both parents with clear citizenship in another country having a child in Canada

The majority of cases are indeed clear-cut. But it doesn't appear that there's any evidence for the latter being so common as to necessitate changing the law. It's classic dog-whistle politics: "Somewhere out there, there are foreigners taking advantage of you. Vote Conservative and let's shut that down."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I also started by pointing out that most of the cases of tourists giving birth in Canada don't end up with the child getting loophole citizenship and using it as a back door for the family into Canada.

Then why would people do it?

I totally get that sometimes, someone gives birth (perhaps before they expect to) while on vacation and such.  But are there not people who go out of their way to travel to Canada in order to give birth here?  I'm open to hearing that this hasn't ever happened, but if it does then what, specifically, would be the point of all that if everyone just goes back to The Old Country and nothing comes of it?

Quote:
But it doesn't appear that there's any evidence for the latter being so common as to necessitate changing the law.

I agree.  This is not the crisis of our times.

But even as I think this is kind of frowned upon at babble, sometimes I like to look at the logic of something, rather than the emotions of it or the team sports of it. 

It's some "progressives" who like to call citizenship "an accident of birth", so it's somewhat odd to me that they might also be the ones suggesting that if an infant doesn't receive citizenship in the country they popped out in then a great injustice just happened.  I think it makes much more sense to assume that the child born to an Irish man and an Irish woman should also be Irish than it makes to say that if that child exited the birth canal in Spain then it should also be Spanish.  I hope this all makes some logical sense and isn't just an Andrew Scheer talking point.

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Then why would people do it?

I totally get that sometimes, someone gives birth (perhaps before they expect to) while on vacation and such.  But are there not people who go out of their way to travel to Canada in order to give birth here?  I'm open to hearing that this hasn't ever happened, but if it does then what, specifically, would be the point of all that if everyone just goes back to The Old Country and nothing comes of it?

Since the prime example community in this discussion is Chinese Canadians, one example that comes to mind is that there are between 300,000 and 550,000 Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong. It's not hard to see how that number happened; many of the wave of immigrants who came over before the British handover later chose to return, or had their children return, for better economic opportunities, or because they saw that Chinese Hong Kong wasn't one Tiananmen after another. (Again, births to non-residents doesn't imply births to non-citizens.) Suppose that, oh, 300 or so of those, having given birth to one child in Canada, decided to fly back to Canada to use the same obstetrician and a hospital they were comfortable with. Or, since Harper changed the law to prevent Canadians from passing on their citizenship to more than one non-resident generation, maybe a returnee's daughter -- born a Canadian citizen -- chooses to give birth in Canada to ensure her child has that citizenship, as well.

Now, I'm sure Andrew Scheer thinks those hundreds of thousands of Canadians in Hong Kong aren't "real" Canadians, except for the white ones who are over there working at the stock exchange, much as Harper described Lebanese Canadians living in Lebanon as "Canadians of convenience". He likely has a hierarchy in his head, with white people born in Canada who've never left Canada at the top, Chinese people who immigrated to Canada and returned to Hong Kong at the bottom, and Chinese people born In Canada who left somewhere in between.

Quote:

It's some "progressives" who like to call citizenship "an accident of birth", so it's somewhat odd to me that they might also be the ones suggesting that if an infant doesn't receive citizenship in the country they popped out in then a great injustice just happened.

Happened? No, not necessarily. But strongly possible, and indeed likely in more circumstances than injustices where people get more citizenships than they should have.

Quote:

I think it makes much more sense to assume that the child born to an Irish man and an Irish woman should also be Irish than it makes to say that if that child exited the birth canal in Spain then it should also be Spanish.  I hope this all makes some logical sense and isn't just an Andrew Scheer talking point.

The sense it makes is superficial, left over from an era where most people didn't do much in the way of international travel in their lifetimes, and the idea of having multiple national identities was considered, at best, suspicious or "hyphenated", if not outright treasonous. If that baby's born and raised in Spain, she may well be more culturally Spanish (or Catalan!) than Irish, or just a mix of both -- depending on whether she went back to Ireland summers, or alternated years after her parents split up, or whatnot. Those accidents of birth (and life) complicate things.

For instance, I have a friend in California who's ethnically Chinese. He speaks only English and Spanish. His parents were born in Toronto (though he's not a Canadian citizen), and his grandparents and great-grandparents were Chinese Jamaicans -- spoke patois, cooked Jamaican food at home, and all. When someone asks "Where are you from, originally, I mean?" the answer is "It's complicated" -- an answer more than a few of my friends can relate to. Donald Trump would say it makes more sense that he's Chinese, because of how he looks, no matter how many centuries separate anyone in his family from birth in China. That doesn't make much logical sense to me.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Or, since Harper changed the law to prevent Canadians from passing on their citizenship to more than one non-resident generation, maybe a returnee's daughter -- born a Canadian citizen -- chooses to give birth in Canada to ensure her child has that citizenship, as well.

Why would she want Canadian citizenship for that child if she doesn't want to live in Canada and doesn't want to raise that child in Canada?

Isn't that literally the sort of thinking that some call "birth tourism"?  The desire for a child to have citizenship in a country that you're not a citizen of and don't wish to live in, solely because it might be economically advantageous some day in the future?

If she can come back to push out an infant, why wouldn't she want to stay?

Quote:
For instance, I have a friend in California who's ethnically Chinese. He speaks only English and Spanish. His parents were born in Toronto (though he's not a Canadian citizen)

If his parents were both born in Toronto, and presumably Canadian citizens by that, why is he not a Canadian citizen?

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Why would she want Canadian citizenship for that child if she doesn't want to live in Canada and doesn't want to raise that child in Canada?

Isn't that literally the sort of thinking that some call "birth tourism"?  The desire for a child to have citizenship in a country that you're not a citizen of and don't wish to live in, solely because it might be economically advantageous some day in the future?

The same reason people don't automatically renounce their former citizenships when they become Canadian: so they and their children have the same choices open to them. A Canadian wanting to pass on Canadian citizenship despite not living in Canada isn't a "tourist".

Quote:

If his parents were both born in Toronto, and presumably Canadian citizens by that, why is he not a Canadian citizen?

Due to the laws at the time, either they weren't born citizens or they didn't get to pass it on to their foreign-born child (I forget which). I looked it up for him a few years back. The heritability of citizenship has changed several times since the 1940s, not just under Harper.

gadar

Globe and Mail has the Cons back as they have always 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editori...

gadar

Who's driving the Conservative Party of Canada?

Well of course it is Harper, Andy Sneer is just a puppet.

https://theprovince.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-whos-driving-the-cp...

gadar

17% open to supporting Maxime Bernier led party 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-finds-17-per-cent-...

gadar
gadar
gadar

But the LOO has his own problem: sheer invisibility

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplans-blog/2018/09/conservative-...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

gadar wrote:

But the LOO has his own problem: sheer invisibility

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplans-blog/2018/09/conservative-...

That was classic. It feels good to know the Cons have bigger problems among themselves. HA!

voice of the damned

That Caplan piece is pretty lame. About a dozen jokes about how no one supposedly knows Scheer's name, and something about him going to India and Brown being friend's with Modi.

Oh, and Doug Ford is like Trump. I'm sure Ford is quaking in his boots over that one.

gadar

Marine Le Pen ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Harper, Kenny, Sneer and cabal should also undergo psychiatric evaluation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-colombia-n...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Harper, Kenny, Sneer and cabal should also undergo psychiatric evaluation

I don't think psychatric evaluation should be used as a punishment for people we don't like.

gadar

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Harper, Kenny, Sneer and cabal should also undergo psychiatric evaluation

I don't think psychatric evaluation should be used as a punishment for people we don't like.

It could help them become more humane. It is not a punishment, rather a help. So that they can realize that they are sociopaths and then get help. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You're being a bit patronizing about mental illness.

Quote:
It is not a punishment, rather a help.

FWIW, remorseless lying is a symptom of sociopathy.

gadar

"We've already seen he's letting Indian government officials believe he's a minister representing the Alberta government. Is that arrogant, and dishonest?"

Thats pretty low, sociopath territory in my opinion.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/09/edmonton-and-ottaw...

gadar

From the above link

Quote:

Scheer has not yet released an itinerary, but what do you want to bet many of the officials he meets will be the same ones met by Kenney, associated with the far-right Hindu-nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which translates as Indian People's Party.

It is only a coincidence, presumably, that the BJP is a member of the Munich-based International Democrat Union headed by Stephen Harper, who as Conservative prime minister included both Kenney and Scheer among his acolytes.

Birds of a feather and all that.

King Con Harper never went away, he is still running the Cons from behind the scenes. 

Jenny Byrne is pulling the strings in Doug Dealers govt. 

 

gadar

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You're being a bit patronizing about mental illness.

My apologies.

voice of the damned

gadar wrote:

"We've already seen he's letting Indian government officials believe he's a minister representing the Alberta government. Is that arrogant, and dishonest?"

Thats pretty low, sociopath territory in my opinion.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/09/edmonton-and-ottaw...

It would be less sensationalistically(and offensively) described as hubris.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Conservatives ARE sociopaths. No denying it. Its a fact. They are people without empathy without a conscience. What else would you call them?

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

Conservatives ARE sociopaths. No denying it. Its a fact. They are people without empathy without a conscience. What else would you call them?

Well, maybe they're all sociopaths, assuming they all realize that their policies are harming people and continue with them anyway.

But a politician exaggerating his own importance hardly qualifies. And that's all Kenney is really accused of doing in India: going over and acting like he's more of a bigshot in Alberta than he really is. It's probably inappropriate, but so are a lot of things that politicians across the spectrum do.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Read the article.

tl;dr:  it's not about what Kenney did or didn't say (accompanied by actual quotes), it's about the author's imagination regarding Kenney.

Quote:
And Canadians can expect this entire production to be repeated next month when federal Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer makes his own unauthorized nine-day trip to India.

Huh.  Who authorizes (or has to) trips to India?  I always thought you could just go.

voice of the damned

^ I think "unauthorized" there is meant to stand in for something like "unofficial, but Scheer will be trying to make it seem official." Whether the adjectival upgrade is intentional, or just a case of slapdash writing, I don't know.  

Possibly because the media smelled blood with JT's "Mr. Dressup" debacle, but there does seem to be some minor movement afoot to nail Canadian politicians to the wall on India-related issues.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Most politicians have an unhealthy relationship with their ego. I think this is required to pursue the path despite everything.

I think some are outright sociopathic. But the test for that is very high and it is a continuum.

I think that the right wing is based on a refusal to consider the existence of a collective good despite evidence that it exists and is essential -- the air we breath is a collective good. You could say that the nature of libertarian thought is itself unhealthy, going against the necessary cooperation among people that is required to progress a civilization. However, if true, this is an unhealthiness that afflicts to some degree a large population.

There are studies about group psychology -- how people adopt views that on their own they would be repelled by due to group support and justification for them. We could try to break down where the boundaries are.

Alternately we could refer to the right wing movement in its extreme as "malignant selfishness." At its extreme it involves self harm.

Is it only a malignant pathology politically if it involves self harm? If it is unfair but sustainable is it an illness or garden variety greed?

So, some examples: taking two slices of pie off the dinner plate is selfish but while impolite and mean it is not malignant. The originator gets two slices and pays no price for that.

Now consider the environmental policies of companies and individuals that press for policies and behaviour that will destroy the earth. In the end this damages the originators as well. That involves self harm and is legitimately an illness in my view.

Consider tax policies that deliver so much in tax cuts to companies and individuals that others simply do not have money left to spend. At first glance this is just selfish but when you consider that this is on income and that for this income to exist others have to have money to spend, the extreme is self harm as even the originators are compromised.

Pushing people into hard lives is mean and selfish. But when you push a significant part of the population to desperation, then you have a society that is unstable and unsustainable. At that point even those who have suffer as societal structure and security of what they have selfishly hoarded is no longer feasible or affordable. That involves self harm and is legitimately an illness in my view.

So as much as you may dislike something and recognize that it is harmful to others, it may still be just greedy. However, once it compromises everyone, including the person holding that view it is necessarily a pathology.

Now comes a really interesting point: For conservatives to espouse right wing policies that are not to the point of ultimate damage to themselves, this may be just mean and selfish. However, those who are not wealthy and who support these at their own detriment -- their support may be self harm.

So for example (again) if a person gives his coat to a person who does not need it and they die -- the person who took the coat  may be just unthinking but not ill but the person who gave the coat has a pathology of self harm.

But while it is true that a person who commits self harm can be determined to be ill, what about harm to others?

Where does the behaviour leave the realm of policies we just do not like, that are greedy and fall into malignancy? What degree of harm and recklessness or knowledge of the harm do these policies have to reach for the support of those policies to be determined to be a pathology? The answer is less clear as it is based on the degree of responsibility each person has for the welfare of the other. Is it by intention to follow policies that harm others? Is it pleasure in the harm they cause? I think there is a social pathology here as well. You see right wingers delight in the suffering of others, or punishment of the poor for its own sake, without any economic benefit to themselves. We have heard from those who believe that people delight in the suffering of the poor becuase they in fact loath being at risk of poverty. That it is fear that drives this. The mass psychology of right wing views when it comes to attacks on immigrants, people of colour and poor people can range from nastiness to illness.

This is quite apart from the health of individual leaders in my opinion (although at times related).

 

Pages