There has been some controversy lately on the Isaac Brock Society with some people posting and making comments that some others find just go too far. I’ve struggled with this myself, as I personally don’t agree with some of the parallels drawn, some of the wording used, and I am frankly uncomfortable with some of the thoughts expressed.
From what I understand, the Isaac Brock Society was formed as place of support and resources for US persons affected by the United States government, particularly as it pertains to the travails of the US model of citizenship-based taxation. And that certainly seemed to be the focus when I first found this site back in February. In the words of the founder, Petros,“The Isaac Brock Society started as an informal group of Canadians who began meeting in person and through email to discuss their US tax and citizenship problems.”
Scrolling back through all of the posts, past or present, I find they do manage a tie-in to either the plight of US persons abroad, or the issue of citizenship-based taxation. Over the last couple of months, in my opinion, the focus has become fuzzy, with some of the later posts using what I consider pretty specious reasoning in linking back to the original issues.
For several months, after I first found the site, I think I was almost addicted, visiting many, many times every day. Checking for updates was the first thing I did in the morning, and the last thing I did at night. Part of that was likely because I was still in shock and was in vacuum cleaner mode, hoovering up all the information I could find, and part of it was the relief in finding out that I wasn’t alone, and that there was a large group out there that understood, were empathetic and had much more information than I did. I will never forget what this site did for me in the first few months of finding out that the US probably still considers me a US citizen.
I haven’t been quite so engaged the last couple of months.
The shock has worn off and I’ve realized that this is going to be a long haul, with no quick, and certainly no easy, resolution. So, sure, that’s part of it, I no longer feel compelled to haunt the site looking for something that will magically make it go away.
I think the larger reason, though, is that I don’t always like what I read here. Frankly, way back in the early days, I wasn’t comfortable with the term ‘jihad’ being used in the context it’s being used at Isaac Brock. But, I learned to live with it and no longer find it as jarring as I once did, and I realized that I just mentally skip over it.
One of the more controversial issues lately has been the drawing of parallels to the Nazis and, in particular, the video of Hitler, with the subtitles. I do not equate what the US is doing to what the Nazis did. However, I have to guiltily admit I found the subtitled video very funny, and just didn’t read any subtext into it, political, racist or otherwise. Perhaps it wasn’t in the best taste, but then often humour just isn’t. (I love George Carlin, too.)
I’m a moderate, always have been, and suspect I always will be. I just don’t see anything wrong with moderation, with compromise, with tempering one’s words. I think that’s what it takes to live successfully in a society, to live (relatively) peacefully with other humans. And that’s how I speak, and I write, and pretty much how I live my life.
This site was founded because of censorship at another site, a perfect example of something good that can come out of something bad.
I fully support the right of people to express themselves as they see fit, even if I disagree with them, or the way they’re saying it. Sometimes the back and forth arguing over the controversial issues actually makes me think a little bit harder about my position, and my uncomfortableness, and where that might be coming from, and that’s not such a bad thing. A little self-analysis can be positive.
Do these radicalized posts and statements (as I see them) diminish the importance of the Isaac Brock Society to me? I can only be honest and say, yes, a little bit, but not very much.
Most of the people posting and commenting on the site are intelligent, articulate, empathetic, and well meaning. Those that I consider in that light will be the people I continue to read. I have my favourites, as I’m sure everyone does, and just the fact that they continue to post and comment will be enough to draw me back.
So, I will keep visiting the Isaac Brock Society. I may take exception to some of the posts. I may or may not find it worthwhile to comment on them. Depending upon the nature and tone of future posts, I may reduce the number of my visits, and I know I’ll just skip some of the posts, and I’ll skim read through some of the comments.
At the end of the day it’s my choice on whether I read them or whether I let someone’s words bother me. I’ve decided that I will just accept that we are simply not going to all agree with one another, and that the important thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, we all have a common cause, no matter how it’s expressed.
This started so well but I don’t think I like the direction it took. I am moderate also and think it’s time for me to leave.
Johnnb and I first entered Brock at the same time. It now seems we both are considering departing at the same time.
I very much value the information I have learned here, the support I have been given, the people I have “met,” the global camaraderie I have discovered, and the connections I have made. I hope others think I have contributed in some small way.
I was initially proud to be a member of Isaac Brock Society. More recently, I have become embarrassed. I don’t think I’m being overly sensitive, but the suggestion (even in jest) of a FATCA Star following Hitler’s example has left me completely nauseated.
I have noticed some other valuable contributors have also been less visible recently. I wonder if some of the shifts in discussion are why. I know, in fact, for one Brocker, that is definitely the case.
I will continue to try to make a difference on this issue by trying to work through Canadian politicians and organizations such as Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I have sent CCLA links to Brock in the past. Considering some new directions at Brock, I am no longer comfortable doing that, so I think it’s time for me to focus my attention elsewhere.
I am very sad to retreat, but discussions here seem to be spiraling in a direction which is a contradiction of everything the original Isaac Brock fought for and everything I believe in. I can no longer wear my Brock uniform with pride.
Hi Blaze,
I’m sorry if anyone feels they way they do. I’d be happy to step down, and you all can find someone else to moderate this discussion. Or perhaps we can start a new website without any nauseating comparisons to Nazis. But I will repeat, that there is nothing here that is extremist.
So let’s try this. You all appoint a new moderator, someone like Just Me. Then he can decide what fits into the conversation and what doesn’t. And I’ll go back to writing my commentary.
I have been stressing that we be vigilent. We shouldn’t allow astroturfers to get the upper hand on us. I suggested that no one make further comments comparing Nazis with the United States. But I was obviously not serious because I can’t control the conversation. Is it my fault that some Swiss infiltrators who are being barred from opening accounts make these comparisons? Also, I had a long conversation with Joe Smith. He is, to my knowledge, a real person and an upstanding member of the community. Am I supposed to censor him? Please note, that all I did was give him the right to post here, and he chose to put the Hitler spoof up. But I tend to agree that there is an analogy between identifying of Jews in pre-Holocaust period, or Tutsis in Rwanda, or aristocrats and royals in the French Revolution, or Japanese to intern during WWII; the first thing that must happen is that certain people must be identified and set apart.
If your uniform was intended to be a sign that you wanted to fight, which has been our purpose all along, then that doesn’t seem to me to be consistent with squeamishness over battle rhetoric. I’ve always used somewhat inflammatory rhetoric. I won’t change. But you all can get rid of me. You just have to inform the committee and they can easily make the change.
Wow, well, I figured this would cause a bit of controversy, but I thought that maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to get the issues out in the open and talk about them. However, maybe not.
ConfederateH, I am not extreme or radical, therefore I am moderate. That doesn’t mean I’ve lost my critical thinking skills and that I believe blindly what any government, any organization, any person says without question. I’d hoped I’d made it clear that I am in the fight against the US extraterritorial overreach, but misunderstanding is always the danger when all one has is words on paper.
Petros, I wasn’t surprised at your comment, but I was at your followup post. You just have to push things to the limit – well, I’ll stand by my stance that it’s your right to do so, and that’s all I’ll say about that.
@Blaze and Johnnb, I’m sorry it’s come to this, and I hope we’ll see you here again on my now more occasional checkins to see what is happening.
I’m going to continue to write and be a tiny burr to my government officials, and to browse the sites and news releases and articles and occasionally comment when I have something to contribute. I have not changed my position that I am outraged at what the US gov’t is doing, and that I am Canadian only. But now I will be on the hunt for some others who feel as I do, that the best tact to take is one of moderation in speech and words that will get people to listen to what I have to say with some empathy. I want to avoid being labelled as a crackpot. No one listens seriously to crackpots and the serious message is too easily dismissed along with the bizaare ideas.
Yes, that’s why I suggested Just Me to replace me. He is a compliant American who has returned to the United States. I’m sure he would be suitable to lead this moderate discussion.
I am pretty off the wall. I’ve renounced my citizenship. I’ve become pretty angry at the United States. I wish I could visit my family but I’m afraid.
But as I said, we shouldn’t become victims of astroturfing.
@Blaze, come to visit me in Switzerland, walk with me from one bank to the next and you’ll witness, first-hand, that they are turning me away. I have made no mention of “Nazis” or “stars”, but Petros’ post was going through my mind before he made it, and I didn’t even mention anything about it to him.
The situation is certainly very different and cannot be compared, but I am being singled out and discriminated against for being an American, a Jew, an African or whatever one chooses to call me. What Petros posted is the reality. Like it or not, that’s how it is and things won’t be getting any better, as mentioned in the latest news:
http://www.international-adviser.com/news/tax—regulation/fatca-creates-strategic-dilemma-for-wealth
My bank stated in the press that they are closing the accounts of “US Persons”. They reassured me that they will not be closing my account, but I asked them yesterday if they could segregate my finances from those of my “non-resident alien” spouse. I don’t want to risk the IRS threatening the Swiss government and my bank because I didn’t report my spouse’s income that doesn’t have to be reported. It’s all so stupid.
@Blaze — This site helped me through my initial, very steep, learning curve, for which I remain grateful, as I do for the advice posted by Mr. Mopsick. Lately, however, your posts have been among the only things bringing me back. If and when things move beyond a relatively quiet matter of individual letters to MPs and reach the point of a charter challenge to the banks or the government, I will be looking for a way to participate, and I so I will watch the public media closely for information. In the meantime, warmest gratitude and admiration for the battles that you are fighting.
*all
I fully understand the deep emotions involved in the issue as I share them myself. I guess I would be more sympathetic towards the direction the site is going in if there was less complaining and more doing. I admit to not understanding the exact personal situations of the various Swiss and other European Brockers however, in my opinion what is going in places like Switzerland should have long ago risen to the point of legal action. I do not for the life of me understand why no one over there is willing to go down that route. By refusing to bring action against the different banks they are being discriminated by one is simply acting as a doormat in my opinion. From the perspective of an individual US Person resident in Switzerland standpoint things the US Justice Department indicting your local bank should be of little or no concern. Its the banks problem not yours.
@Tim, doing versus complaining. Nice juxtaposition. How do people with modest means “do”. We don’t have millions of dollars to launch lawsuits. I can barely afford to change my will.
However, this is what I think. Complaining nicely isn’t going to work. “Oh, please don’t treat me like different than other Canadians, please!” Pointing out how the banks in implementing FATCA are committing extreme violations of our Universal Human Rights, screaming and shouting, walking out of meetings–that might have some effect. Even wearing a FATCA star to the bank might get people’s attention. But being nice and moderate, where is that going to get us? Where has it gotten us? The banks around the world are either isolating US persons against their rights, and/or they are still planning to implement FATCA.
We started this website under the premise that this is a war not too dissimilar from the War of 1812. Then a former IRS litigator–that’s right, a former member of the very organization that is persecuting us–don’t forget Steven still draws his pension from the US government, tell us to play nice. And we have been a victim of astroturfing. We should not allow our enemy to do this to us.
*
I guess what I am saying is that if you want to bring down FATCA as I do we need to find some type of mechanism other than complaining “louder” which isn’t going to work in my opinion. I believe FATCA has a huge blindspot in that it does not at take into account Canadian law. I also believe there are many Canadian lawyers that would jump at the chance to fight FATCA if the legal and constitutional issues were put in front of them. As I tried to show in one of my posts yesterday far more trivial issues have been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is also very telling that at all of these FATCA seminars put on by the banking industry none of the lawyer are Canadian
Whether or not Steven participates here anymore is up to him. I know he feels quite strongly that America does have the sovereign right to implement FATCA to stop what happened at UBS so I don’t expect him to want to get on the “Fight FATCA” bandwaggon. I on the otherhand feel quite strongly that Canada has the soveriegn right to fight FATCA to the end.
@ Tim, True, Steven is on the US payroll. Of course he desires compliance rather than all out battle with the US government. Your suggestion is awesome. But it will take more experienced fighters than I to take it to the next stage. Thus, I have only may ability to write at this time. Thanks for your efforts.
@OUtragecanadian:
How often have the “tea-party” been called “extreme” by extremely craven politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama?
The point I was trying to make is that one person’s “moderation” is another persons “extremism”. If you have been following the Chick-fil-A brouhaha you would know that having a non-LGBT approved opinion about gay marriage is now (since Obama flopped on gay marriage himself 3 months ago) an “extreme” opinion that can lead to the left trying to get your business shut down,.
Now it has been pointed out that making comparisons of US government unconstitutional actions to Hitler is considered “extreme” by the PC deputies who read this blog, like yourself. For some reason these people think that they have some “right” to not be “offended”. Well I find this PC self-agrandizement to be extremely inhibiting to my first amendment rights, and unlike your pseudo-offense at “extreme” statements, you are trying to abrogate one of my constitutional rights. It has gotten so bad that now noble Petros has had to offer his hat as moderator in sacrifice to your “moderate” PC gods.
I find it all completely disgusting. And I don’t think that statement is anywhere near as “extreme” as your expectations that people only discuss these expat issues within a framework that fits your biases and world view.
@CH, Above I said exactly what you are saying. There has been nothing extreme on this website. Some of the analogies have been put off limits by Steven Mopsick (a member of the opposing army), then sprinkle in a little astroturf, and soon we have stalwart members of our army saying that they’re gonna take their uniform off. Well, we’ve been had. Nous nous sommes faits avoir!
@Tim, I’m just an average Joe with limited finances who is clueless about legal matters. I contacted the Swiss commission against racism and they replied that it is not a case of racism and that the bank action is acceptable since it is a tax issue, with US citizenship being my problem. I contacted the Swiss department of Finance which stated the same, with banks complying with the laws and this being a US issue for Americans to resolve. So, I contacted the US department of Housing to report a case of discrimination, but got no response. So, I wrote to my representatives and senators but heard nothing back. So, all that I can do is to refinance my mortgage with my current bank and if that is not possible, then I can try UBS again, but they had already refused to finance my mortgage years ago. Thus, if no other banks will finance my mortgage, then I must renounce my US citizenship and the problem will be solved. If I renounce my US citizenship, then every single bank in Switzerland will be eager to profit from financing my mortgage. It’s as easy as that. I’m not complaining. Rather, I’m just pointing out how it is and what I’ve done while learning from others. If I must renounce, then I will renounce and the US government will be fully responsible for such. If someone thinks that it would make sense to spend money on this, then let’s hear it. I can take this to the press, to the courts or anywhere where anyone thinks that the end result will be something other than nothing.
This discontent seems new to me. I wonder what I missed?
At least to me, this is a place where everyone is an American or has an American connection, and has gotten the short-end of the stick in regards to US laws and expats. Of course everyone is going to have a different opinion on things.
There’re people here that are happy to keep US Citizenship, and fight for US terroritorial-based taxation. Me, on the other hand, I’m very doubtful that anything positive (for expats) will ever come of anything we do. After all, the US Government has to save face; I seriously doubt that anyone there is ever going to come out and apologize for making peoples’ lives so difficult.
Then there are other people that make some pretty controversial statements. Does it bother me? Nope. I see the difference of opinions as a reflection of the diversity that is here. Being in a club where everyone thinks alike is very boring.
*I do not think and have never thought what we are trying to fight for is extemist. It does make many people in general though quite uncomfortable. I guess one way to look at it is our fight is not one that bankers, government officials, and big time corporate lawyers are interested in fighting. It is simply not in the nature. There nature is compliance and don’t rock the boat. We are trying to capsize the boat. The type of people we need get on our side are the likes of Joseph Arvay, Richard Peck, and Alan Young. Look all of them up they are all good lawyer that represented people far more controversial than anyone here and represented them sucessfully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Young_(lawyer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Peck_(lawyer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Arvay
Latching onto any label — moderate, liberal, conservative, extremist, fundamental, radical — enshrouds the wearer in one-dimensional negativity. The essence of that presumed identity then becomes a tag that says: I don’t want to think any further; I don’t like the people who are not like me; I want to make everybody else be like me. If only I myself could have the power over others that the United States has over me! How cosy it feels to wrap self up in definitive logo and to buy into the company of clones. The real punk knows that effective branding requires hot metal searing deep into flesh, the physical correlate of vacant commodity fetish naming. Tattoo is only skin deep, hair is today and gone is tomorrow, metal is only alien removable appendage. Dialectic makes it inevitable that insane situations engender weird displays and severe discomforts. Diogenes knew that daylight needed a lamp. Ezekiel fooled around in the streets of Jerusalem with a brick and skillet. The most irrational gesture is to preset personal response limit at upperlip rigidity and serfish civility and then to hike off in a snit when things get messy — or far worse, to hang around at the fringe and mouth whiny threats of departure. Petros, you de bro!
It’s unfortunate that people react so viscerally at the mention of Hitler or the Nazis. After all, Godwin’s law states that this _will_ happen to any on-line discussion that goes on long enough. It’s practically a given. 🙂 Perhaps we should endeavor to say Stalin or Mao instead. I doubt those two would elicit such venom, even though they were mass-murderers who exceeded Adolf in their crimes.
Admittedly, the comparison to Stalin is obviously a ridiculous exaggeration when relating to US tax law, but that certainly isn’t the case when you look at US foreign policy. The President has declared he may kill anyone, anywhere, without due process or accountability. I don’t say that to specifically attack Obama, as I don’t expect Romney would be any better. So for a government which has such low regard for civil liberties and human life, the comparison to a totalitarian regime is more appropriate than some of you care to admit.
That said, I value everyone’s input to this site, whether conservative, moderate, or radical. And yes, I’m definitely in that last camp.
*@Blaze, I hate to see you go! You were one of the Shining Star’s of IBS, I will miss your comments. I am sorry you have been offended by the remarks here. I hope you will re-consider and join us again in the future.. You will be greatly missed by ALOT of us!!
@ Blaze
I agree with Saddened. I always look forward to your insight and it will create a void here. I know things are spiralling out of contol a bit but I don’t think it will last for long as at the end of the day, we all realise that IBS is meant for support and information sharing, much of what you provide.
@ ALL
I think its time for everyone to take a step back, breathe, take your mind off IBS for a few hours and live your life. Then we can come back and start on new topics or continue on with the enjoyable discussions IBS is known for. Dealing with the US burdens are serious matters enough.. we don’t need to be tearing each other apart on top of it. I can tell you, it’s pretty lonely on the outside, imagining its just you vs. Uncle Sam. This site has done a lot for each and every one of us, so let’s get back on track.
I have just been checking back in to ensure my gravatar has been changed as I am no longer comfortable having my photo appear at Brock. I think blazing maple leaves in autumn reflect my spirit and my great love for the only country of which I am a citizen–Canada.
@usxcanada: I have not “hiked off in a snit.” You yourself suggested if people are offended, they should find another sandbox to play in. Sadly, that is what I have decided to do. I outlined my reasons clearly and respectfully. I need to do what gives me the most peace of mind, body and soul. To do that, I will focus my efforts and energies where I feel I can be most effective.
@janenb, saddened and newb: Thank you for your kind comments. I will miss many Brockers I connected with here. I am glad I was able to make a difference to some in my own small way. I hope to continue to do that through other channels now proudly using my real name
Lynne Swanson
*Blaze
Just out of curiosity did you make a Budget submission? I made one finally completing it 20 minutes before that deadline. Unfortionately it wasn’t that good but I hope it brought to attention than many issues being discussed here.
@All . . . After lurking for some time – on this web site as well as on the issues that bought me here – I got up the cojones to start posting and start acting.
I disagree with some things that are said. For example, @ConfederateH
“How often have the “tea-party” been called “extreme” by extremely craven politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama?”
I can easily reply “How often have Barack Obama and Harry Reid been called ‘extreme’ by extremely craven politicians like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jim DeMint?” But doing so solves nothing, doesn’t advance the dialogue.
I need to make it very clear that I am not a water carrier for the current president and will not vote for him. Nor will I vote for the other guy.
While I disagree with some comments that disagreement has not caused me to lose sight of why I came, and keep, coming here. To learn. I came here and have stayed (so far) because I have learned there are many, many other people in my position. That knowledge as well as the practical knowledge I’ve gained has been an enormous boost to my confidence and gumption.
Dealing with these issues is very important, obviously. It’s become a very big part of my life, will remain so for some time, and why I came here. And yet these issues aren’t my life, they don’t define me, they aren’t me, they don’t rule me or my life, the same as the work that I do to earn my paltry salary isn’t my life, doesn’t define me, isn’t me, and doesn’t rule my life. I am the sum of being an American in Canada, doing the work that I do, being married to a most marvellous Canadian, owning three dogs, living a simple life, and so much more.
It’s about 82 degrees (or 28C), the humidex is 99 (or 37) and I am willingly sitting on the deck, drinking a beer, enjoying watching a thunderstorm roll in. Now it’s time for me to move on to my other interests, the other things that make me what I am.
@Blaze, I am also very sad to see you go. You mean a lot to me, as one of the early people who began to make significant contribution to this site. I wish I could understand your reasons for withdrawing better, but I respect your choice and your freedom to leave. I am happy to hear that you will continue to work in your own way to make a difference and I wish you well. I for one will always welcome your participation if in the future you decide differently.