Is it Stephane Dion or Dijon?

It’s amazing what you can be hammered for as a politician. Tom Young and Ezra Levant were just castigating Stephane Dion today on his Rogers call in show over Dion not wanting to give up his French citizenship.

In reality, that type of thing never crossed my mind but for Young/Levant, it will lead to ‘serious’ conflicts of interest over foreign policy, trade policy, international jurisdiction, etc.

I guess you might be able to streeeeetch things to reach this conclusion but in reality I think this is more of a Political salvo than a real issue.

The reality is that Canada allows dual citizenship. There are tens of thousands – maybe hundreds of thousands that carry two passports. Not because they are less Canadian but because they came from somewhere as immigrants and have kept their citizenship – as is their right.

Now the reality is that when it comes to Afganistan and other issues – Dion will likely side with the French view – but not because of a passport.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Is it Stephane Dion or Dijon?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, Tom Young should really be above that, but what can you expect. Stephen Harper’s american citizenship is far more a problem. Give me France’s foreign policy over Canada and the US’s anyday, but really they aren’t that different anyway. This will become more an issue because the ‘harpies’ just love to pick at any scab they can find. The vast majority of canadians despise Harper, and I almost think there should be a different vote count for that. Most people who vote against liberals do so because they don’t like liberal policies or the corruption thing. Of course Mulroney and Saskatchewan’s conservative party’s have proven that liberals are amateurs when it comes to corruption. However, everybody I know that votes against Harper-and really, when you’ve got a PM like Martin, you almost have to assume that most votes are simply votes against Harper-do so because conservatives just scare the living hell out of them. I had to tone down my presence at conservative blogs because these people just literally scare the living bejesus out of me and a conservative majority will either see me moving off the grid and becoming a mennonite with no attention to the outside world or else emigrating to Switzerland or Norway.

  2. scott says:

    Stephen Harper’s american citizenship is far more a problem.

    What? I believe he was born in Sackville/Moncton region and then his family moved to Toronto. My father’s friend’s [who just passed away] niece, Carolyn Stewart Olson, helped him gain access to Stephen’s father. He has one of his notes from Mr. Harper where he traced his roots back to our region.

    I don’t think any of them were born in the US.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I didn’t mean literally, I meant that its clear that that is where his heart is. It sure isn’t in the maritime region, no matter how much his ‘roots’ show. The only time he’s set foot in the province is to attend a $5000 dollar a plate dinner-and that money wasn’t for charity-although it is tax deductible.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I agree, anon 5:26 on the scariness of the Harper Conservatives. Try visiting and look at comments on any political article. You really have to see it to believe it.

    Ken Dryden, in my estimation, had the greatest words for the Liberal Convention–“I want my Canada back.”

  5. Spinks says:

    I think Ken wants his Holland back (which of course never existed).

    Dion’s dual nationality is an optics issue. This dual citizenship stuff is ridiculous as Lebabon proved. 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon? A Canadian passport is not a get out of trouble free card.

    Dion as a wannabe leader needs to give up the French citizenship unless he has plans to move there.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Saying something doesn’t make it true. HOW exactly did Lebanon prove that dual citizenship ‘doesn’t work’? That’s out and out crazy. If its an optics issue you’ve just proved that its NO issue. If your politics is only about optics then get out of the way, there are people trying to deal with issues here.

    Canada did in fact USED to exist, in the seventies there was virtually no poverty, education was practically free, and of course now we’re realizing the price of a lack of education, dimwits who barely can wrap their heads around an issue let alone discuss it. Rent control meant that people could actually afford to save something.

    Now, there is massive poverty catching up quickly to the states, the gap between rich and poor is accelerating. Canada played an active role in peacekeeping with the UN, and on and on. Canada did used to exist, now its simply the United State of Canada without the democratic tools.