primroseburrows | why yes, I am an idealist, thanks for asking.

Current Mood: quixotic
Current Location: south of 49

Entry tags:

why yes, I am an idealist, thanks for asking.

So. At 3 p.m. today (in about twenty minutes), Parliament will be voting on whether to allow U.S. war resisters stay in Canada. I remember reading last year that their petition had been denied. I hadn't realised that the case was still open.

The thing is, even if the vote DOES pass, it might not mean anything, since the resolution is non-binding and the Harper government can ignore it. Which? They probably will.

My opinion doesn't matter a bit, but I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed for these guys.

If you're interested in watching the vote live (or if you just like to watch politicians yelling at each other in two languages), go here at 3 PM EST (anytime after that you'll still get stuff, but it'll be other stuff). Don't everyone all rush at once. ;)

N.B.: I wholeheartedly support the troops in Iraq (and hope they come home ASAP), but I equally support those who make a conscientious choice not to fight in an illegal war.

ETA: Well, the vote passed, so now it's up to the government. *sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I suspect they're ignore it. But maybe they'll ignore the resisters, too.

I'd bet money that they'll ignore it. Jury's still out on the resisters.

Also? House votes R boring, even on Important Matters. I'd rather see them yell at each other. Congressional votes are probably also boring, only without the added fun and verbage beforehand.

Damn right it's boring. That's why we wait for the post-game analysis. Was the vote along party lines?

The hollering is fun times.

I don't know the names of every. single. MP (is there actually anyone THAT dorky?), but the ones I did recognise (Dion, Flaherty, Baird, Layton, yadda) were definitely along party lines.

Ah, were you watching or just listening? You can tell y which side of the floor they're on...

I assume it was Opposition vs. Tories. That's the way most thing's get passed.

Hmm. Apparently I didn't think of that while I was watching. Also, Olivia Chow, who sponsored the vote, is NDP and I did notice a giant cluster of Yes voters in her section.

So the official Opposition and the government sit on opposite sides--I knew that part, but where do the other parties sit, with the Opposition? Or is it like Gilligan's Island and there's this "...And the Rest" section? I can never tell from looking at the visuals because I suck at visualising things. Which is why my sense of direction also sucks.

Edited 2008-06-03 20:47 (UTC)

All the non-ruling parties are on the right, AFAIK. The NDP sit up near the throne, the Libs in the middle and the Bloc nearest the door, I think. I'm only sure about the NDP, though. I'm sure there's a seating chart somewhere. I could be wrong. This is only my impression from cursory watching.

Edited 2008-06-03 20:50 (UTC)

This makes my brain hurt. This is a little better but doesn't give specifics.

Here we go. I was sort of close. There are some other categories I didn't know.

See above. :)

Am I unsympathetic for reading this:

"I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work," he said in pleading to be allowed to stay in Canada.

And thinking, "Oh, poor you?" I mean, he signed up. It's not like during Vietnam, when people were being drafted against their will. He knew that the National Guard can be deployed overseas, he signed up, he was going to be deployed overseas, and he ran away. Not much sympathy, there. I don't like the war any more than anyone else does, but jeez.

I'd feel the same way if I hadn't heard story after story (in RL as well as in print) of how recruiters outright lie to prospective applicants.

Bravo, irinaauthor. These are not draft dodgers; these are cowards. I realize they're scared, but it's called personal responsibility and common sense. Even if recruiters do lie (and I've no doubt some do), for God's sake, you're signing up for the ARMED FORCES during a time of war (and I refuse to believe that people who walk through a recruiter's door looking to sign their name on the line don't know we're at war). If young men and women cannot connect those dots, or are so dewy-eyed that they accept everything they're told as complete truth without a single moment of hesitation, then God help my beloved country.

These cowards are more than willing to accept all the benefits this country offers, but when it comes time to do the job they volunteered for, they run away. They are a disgrace to themselves, their families, and to this country. Every day that they shirk their responsibility, they spit in the faces of those men and women who trod unfriendly soil in their place(and are doubtless just as scared as they are), and I do sincerely hope the faces of every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman who has perished or been wounded in the line of duty haunts their nightmares.

Their citizenship should be forfeit.

Also? If they refuse to honor their responsibility because they believe they are being told to participate in an illegal war, let them (and/or their families and/or friends on their behalf) pursue that in the courts of their own country.

The way I look at it, these guys pretty much started out dewy-eyed (except the one who'd already completed a deployment), and then by the time they realised exactly what KIND of war they were going into, it was too late. I think there are definitely cowards in wartime (just like peacetime), but I don't think it's always cowardice that makes people walk away from a war--sometimes it's epiphany. And I'm not completely antiwar, either, but I'm definitely anti-this one (which I know, I know, is a whole 'nother debate. *g*)

Also, I'm not so sure the courts of this country are as trustworthy as they used to be (although I'm not really qualified to say since I've never really had to argue my case in front of one).

Edited 2008-06-04 00:17 (UTC)

...these guys pretty much started out dewy-eyed...

I don't buy that for a second. The word war doesn't exactly set images of humanitarian service in one's mind no matter how naive one is. Which leads me to...

...then by the time they realised exactly what KIND of war they were going into, it was too late

You mean they thought it was the happy, funtime kind of war like in the video games, and not the blood and death and destruction and getting wounded and killed kind of war? Do you think these folks possess so little intelligence??? I'll at least give them enough credit to believe they understand that war is messy, nasty, dangerous business, if for no other reason than they know how to watch TV and perhaps have seen a news report or two in the past five years.

Also, I'm not so sure the courts of this country are as trustworthy as they used to be

Considering what the California courts recently did to California voters, I may have to agree with you here. But that's a whole different debate. ;)

You mean they thought it was the happy, funtime kind of war like in the video games, and not the blood and death and destruction and getting wounded and killed kind of war?

No, but they might have thought it was the legally declared kind, with Congressional approval and all that.

Parliament passed the vote 137-110, and now it's up to the Harper government to decide, which means the whole exercise is likely moot.

At any rate, it's a Canadian matter, not a US one, so I can't even write my Congressman. The measure does seem have a bunch of support from the Canadian public, however, at least from what I've read.

No, but they might have thought it was the legally declared kind, with Congressional approval and all that.

A few years back, Jim begged me to go with him to a movie he really wanted to see. When I asked him what it was about, he said it was about some people who get themselves into a desperate bind and struggle to get themselves out of it while the bad guy messes with their heads. I hadn't heard of the movie, but it sounded okay, so we went. It was "Saw," I hated it (as I do all horror movies), and I had nightmares for nights after. Yeah, Jim was an ass for doing what he did (which wasn't exactly lying), but ultimately, I had no one to blame but myself because I didn't question him further.

Fortunately, he doesn't have the power to send you to prison for five years.

You went to see SAW? Eeeeeew. You shoulda asked me, I would've told you to run like the wind in the other direction.

I HATE horror films. Which is not true about books. Hmm.

...I don't think it's always cowardice that makes people walk away from a war--sometimes it's epiphany.

I sympathize with that, but again, it comes down to personal responsibility. If they have any sense of honor and integrity, they'll see it through. Once they've fulfilled their obligation, they can do what they feel they must.

I really do see your point, but I also understand that when the government has lied to you once, it must be hard to put your fate in its hands.

Edited 2008-06-04 01:10 (UTC)

Q: How can you tell when a government is lying?

A: When it exists.

*hugs*

Then there's the whole thing about how progress is the opposite of Congress. ;)

Am at work. Still don't want to be here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

why yes, I am an idealist, thanks for asking.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Google is your FRIEND.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Also...

Re: Also...

Re: Also...

Re: Also...