Justin Trudeau, King of Canada, has issued his first edict: the reinstatement of the long census form. Minister in charge of Canadian census Navdeep Singh Bains, will jail people who refuse to divulge personal information required by the long census form:
[The Liberal government] didn’t provide details on how it plans to make sure that people actually fill it out, although Navdeep Bains, the minister of innovation, science and economic development, said “the law is the law” and the Statistics Act hasn’t changed, which suggests penalties would include jail time. Bains said restoring the long form will mean a return to solid, high-quality data.
It seems lost on Bains that saying that “the law is the law” does not make any particular action of the government morally right. Putting old ladies in jail because they refuse to fill out a form is disproportionate to the alleged crime. That it is an invasion of privacy and a violation of universal human rights makes it all the more despicable. But the new Trudeau government seems to be carrying on the tradition of the elder Trudeau’s attitude towards law, as we discussed earlier (see, Burning down barns is not wrong because it is illegal; it is illegal because it is wrong).
In the past, the government found one woman guilty of refusing to fill out the long census form. She was 79-years old. I have seen how government persecution of senior citizens can lead to fear and sometimes premature death, as in the case of friend of the Isaac Brock Society Mark Pinetree, who lived out his final years in fear of the IRS. He was a psychiatrist who had moved back to Brazil after becoming a US citizenship, not realizing that the IRS would persecute him even though he no longer lived in the USA.
In any case, if we were hoping that the government of Trudeau the Younger would respect the privacy rights of citizens of Canada, we now have tangible evidence that the new King doesn’t really believe in privacy. This bodes ill for those hoping for the repeal of the FATCA IGA.
Petros says
November 8, 2015 at 7:49 am
@USX, yes, garbage data in leads to marshmellow science. It is similar to the bacon causes cancer headlines where health technocrats declare meat to be a carcinogen based on garbage data from food surveys. I despise our technocratic society.”
If you read USX statement you would realize it is not reasonable based on facts NDP & Green being for long form) being more corporate friendly than Conservative (against long form). If you attack your attacker for irrational attack you should also attack someone that defend you with an irrational defense.
Also if you do not want to answer any other questions answer this one
Would you destroy the Canadian economy just because some Canadians may receive nasty letters from IRS? Which the government has told you can ignore. Just do not cross the border.
“Hope and Change.”
Yes indeed, those are Obama’s words, and a newspaper article reported that Trudeau plans to work in even closer agreement with Obama than Harper did.
Well, Obama stopped the torturing (but continues to defend torturing in lawsuits) and replaced it by murdering by drones. Let’s “Hope” Trudeau won’t cooperate with that “Change”.
Speaking of political honeymoons, that’s how the murderer by drone got his Nobel Peace Prize.
KGIII,
We see that you are now and have for some time been using several different *aliases* at Brock. We tried to contact you by email about this but neither do you use a *real* email address.
Kindly pick one identity to use for your commenting so other commenters / readers here know you are one person. Thank you.
“Our new Prime Minister is so much Stephen Harper’s antithesis — young, open, charming — that it’s easy to ignore the fact that he is the personification of old world power, or the closest thing we’ve ever had to it in this country.
Yet even the fact that his ascension marks the beginning of our first familial dynasty in federal politics is treated like a charming footnote, instead of what it is. It’s no coincidence that Trudeau’s nickname before assuming office was the Dauphin. Margaret Trudeau is now marked with the rare public distinction of being both a mother and a wife to a prime minister, like some kind of democratic dowager queen.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-were-the-conservatives-right-to-hate-the-ottawa-establishment
@Petros
It isn’t that the new Liberal government has necessarily expressed strong anti FATCA sentiments. They haven’t.
It is that they are an unknown quantity and as such a request was made for a letter writing campaign to ask for Trudeau’s support to which I and many others responded.
To label Trudeau as a sociopath before giving him a chance to respond was wrong and a stab in the back to your supporters. You owe me and many others a personal apology.
@Dash, I should point out that the only thing that has changed about Justin Trudeau is his position in power, not his opinion about FATCA–which has been publicly recorded at Isaac Brock: “Despite its good intentions, the unfortunate consequence of FATCA is that Americans who hold dual citizenship still fall under its authority, and it requires access to their financial information through their banks.”
Now please parse this sentence: “Americans who hold dual citizenship” is an extremely interesting way to describe a Canadian living in Canada whose banking information is about to be subject of extraordinary rendition to the IRS of a foreign country. It shows a complete and utter contempt for international doctrines of dual nationality, including the Master Nationality Rule and the doctrine of Dominant and Effective Nationality. Canada has the right to treat a Canadian holding dual citizenship as a Canadian only–a citizen’s other citizenships are not any concern for Ottawa–unless that person resides in another country and has citizenship there. So it struck me when I read this that le Dauphin was a light weight intellectually, that he could so casually tell a Canadian pleading for his help that she really is under USA jurisdiction despite being a Canadian citizen living in Canada.
If Justin Trudeau rightly accused Mr. Harper of not treating Canadians equally–Harper only wanted essentially to rid this country of the vexing problem of people who made insincere oaths of citizenship or whose ties to their other nationality made them enemies of Canada–if Justin Trudeau rightly accused Mr. Harper of not respecting the Rule of Law, then I would say Justin Trudeau does not know what the Rule of Law is, and he has thus become a hypocrite by accusing Harper of doing something that he himself is quite ready and willing to do: He is ready to treat citizens of Canada as though they have no right to the protection of Canada and to treat them as though they were first and only US citizens. And this he will do despite pleas for help, that if he became prime minister, would he please correct this wrong.
So what I am doing is analysis. My position at Isaac Brock is one of a person with an opinion. Others have their opinions. See the Administrative Notice: “We welcome a diversity of opinions. Therefore, the views expressed in comments and articles belong to the individual writers and do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of the Isaac Brock Society.”
Those who called for letter writing are also entitled to their opinion. I do not think that a letter campaign will do any harm. I am skeptical as to whether it will do any good. But Trudeau has given an opinion about FATCA. So I do not think the new government is of an “unknown quality”.
So here is my response: I do not see why I owe you an apology because I expressed my opinion that the first edict of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister was a sociopathic act–and that it bodes ill for our hopes that he would rescind FATCA. I gave my reasons for believing that it was sociopathic. Others disagreed. I find their arguments unconvincing–e.g., that the information will be held secure–but that underscores my point that the government will be arbitrarily forcing private information from the citizens of Canada–instead of protecting the rights of the citizens of Canada, the government is the chief violator of those rights. Fining and prosecuting old ladies, which will be the inevitable result of a mandatory long form census, will only prove that the violation of privacy is sociopathic.
“To label Trudeau as a sociopath before giving him a chance to respond was wrong…”
I agree. Good people do bad things, often. Its part of being human. To label everyone a sociopath for it is overkill. And in fact, can have the opposite effect of what you are hoping for. Tell your kid they are bad every time they perform a bad act, and don’t be surprised if he/she doesn’t become what you criticize them for.
I said his first edict was sociopathic–because it will fine and prosecute old ladies for not revealing intimate details of their lives on the long form census. Was the young Prime Minister not aware that it would require the fear of fines and imprisonment to bring the recalcitrant into line? Should state terror be used to extract information that normally would be privileged?
Petros, I doubt Trudeau had really thought it out. I’m not defending what he said, I just really don’t think he got it at the time. Perhaps, like sooooo many others, he saw(sees) us as people having one foot in two different countries, popping back and forth, selfishly using each for what we could get – the stereotype that many have of dual citizens. It is our job to educate him as to who we really are. When/if he gets more informed as to the reality, if he still decides to throw us under the bus, then we can say he acted sociopathically (doubt he is a true blue sociopath).
“Despite its good intentions, the unfortunate consequence of FATCA is that Americans who hold dual citizenship still fall under its authority, and it requires access to their financial information through their banks.”
Could this be interpreted to mean that our Prime Minister would be receptive to a carve out for Canadians who hold US citizenship? There’s nothing in this statement that would lead Canadians to believe that we must accept the “unfortunate” – even with FATCA’s “good intentions”.
Petros, ooops, I am talking about what he said about Canadians with US person status, and you are talking about the long census, so my above comment is out of context.
@BB, I think it means Trudeau did not know what he was talking about when he made that statement. Remember, his EQ is higher than his IQ which could be good for us IF WE CAN MAKE HIM GET IT. Otherwise, we are screwed.
@Whitekat, if the young Prime Minister didn’t really understand that he was authorizing coercion to extract information from Canadians, are you saying he is a noodle?
@Bubblebustin: could plese explain what you mean?
Please note the following in Trudeau’s letter to Lynne Swanson: “The safeguarding of personal privacy has become an increasingly important issue to all Canadians. The government’s move to ensure that information is reported to the U.S. through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and not directly from the banks was a positive step; however, the implications of having the CRA report to a foreign government about Canadian citizens are still troublesome. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate.”
He calls the extraordinary rendition by the government of Canada to the IRS of the private banking account information of Canadian citizens “a positive step”, albeit “troublesome”. How can it be both positive and troublesome? Perhaps he is a noodle.
@Petros, I was talking about Trudeau’s FATCA remarks…sorry there are multiple potential sociopathic acts being discussed here which is leading to confusion. Lots of reasonably intelligent people have made dumb comments about FATCA, so no, not saying he is a noodle.
Peter, I would GUESS: most Brockers would agree that supporting FATCA is a sociopathic act, whereas most Brockers do not think that supporting the return to the long census form is a sociopathic act.
What you are saying is that those of us who, like Trudeau, support the return to the long form census are also acting sociopathically.
@Petros
Probably more politician than noodle, but then he comes by it honestly. Trudeau’s comments have no doubt been contradictory – but in all fairness, inconclusive IMO. Yes, the fact that he would refer to Canadians with US citizenship as “duals” indicates that he may have some cognitive dissonance around his belief that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” as it applies to Canadians deemed US citizens living in Canada.
He needs to wipe that vile word from his vocabulary. There’s no such thing as a Canadian-American hybrid.
*Dual* is such an accepted term in our Canadian vocabulary. Some of us here refer to ourselves as *dual* — it is easy to slip back into even for those of us who know better and reject the other part of that definition of *dual*. If it takes a whole lot of education for us to clearly see, it will be even more so for other Canadians and our government representatives. We must continue to communicate that we are NOT *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada* — except for those *homelanders abroad* who really do think of themselves as that. We reject that definition for ourselves or for the *duals* of any other nation.
I prefer and will continue to encourage Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Ministers and other Liberal MPs — and anyone other Canadian government representatives — to stand true to the words, *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*. Do they believe that — or our many of us in this country really second-class Canadians? If those words are true for other and our issue, there surely, with will, must be some way to negotiate a way for ALL supposedly *Canadians who are Canadians who are Canadians*, many with no meaningful connection ever to the US and with their consent, to be protected from the consequences of another country’s CBT.
As always, I am sad and discouraged that any person who comes to Brock for help or understanding, including any new government representatives, to see us arguing among ourselves. I can truly understand all the narrative and reasoning given. I, personally, don’t feel it is what we need to do right now, these real days of opportunity for positive discussion with the Canadian government. I’ve been in from the start of Brock. It is such a valuable resource that I want to see continue. It has helped so many of us. I don’t want one person to turn away.
Petros, the founder of this site, has most generously provided ADCS-ADSC a platform for our fundraising for which we would otherwise not have had such visibility. I think we all can appreciate that. Like I hate to see anyone turn away from a resource that I think they need as I needed, I as much hate to see efforts for this Canadian challenge adversely affected. To me, the litigation is critical.
For many of us, the most “meaningful connection” we have to the US is US taxation! They can suspend any benefits of taxation to us because of our non-residency, but taxation endures under a system of Taxation-Based Citizenship.
On Brock: any organization worth it’s salt has warts. Otherwise it’s just a sociopathic echo-chamber.
@Calgary, by all means encourage the new government to do what is the right thing.
I have revealed at Isaac Brock that I myself am victim of the sinister side of our Sociopathic Society–I did manage to save most of my money when it comes to US CBT, though I did not retain my right to return to reside in the land of my birth–I am still a victim. But as a I shared in Agency capture in Mordor, the most corrupt capital in the world, I am the victim of the revolving door between the government regulators and the pharmaceutical industry, as I suffer from what is now officially called FQAD (Fluroquinolone-Associated Disability)–though personally I do not much care for the appellation. After the FDA hearings the committee, rather than suggest the banning the drugs, will now call for more severe warning labels. Yet the sociopaths in the medical world, including many physicians and big Pharma, will continue to deny in the face of their patients the adverse drug reactions that we are experiencing. We are the victims of bioethics scandal of mega-proportions, because our right to informed consent has been denied us.
This experience of being legally poisoned by my doctors has made me pessimistic about reform of our society. If ever the governments treat us like human beings with rights, I will believe it only when I see it.
@Petros
I am a undocumented relinquisher– I visited Mordor and they refused to issue me a CLN. My attitude– fuck them. I travel to the US on my Canadian passport and enter as a Canadian.
As a relinquisher, the only thing I am pissed about being forced to give up is “right of return.” I consider myself otherwise checked out of the US. I find little if anything to admire about the place when I visit– guns, race issues, lack of universal health care, militarism, etc.).
I consider my right of return to have been stolen from me.
@BC_doc It may be hazardous to try to do an expensive cruise out of an American port, if you are one day whimsically denied entry because of your lack of a US passport. I personally would plan no expensive vacations like that.
Is this King Trudeau’s second sociopathic act?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-syrian-refugee-plan-1.3315554
@Petros Interesting point. Now from a logic standpoint, if the agent were to insist I’m an American even though I say I’m not, how could they then deny me entry? If the agent considered me to be American, wouldn’t s/he then be required to let me enter? S/he could threaten me and maybe even try to fine me, but if the border agent deemed me American, how could they refuse me entry?
P.S. Not a chance I’ll be crossing to catch a cross. Way to many Norwalk outbreaks on those cruise ships for me!
@WhiteKat
The Globe and Mail reported a couple of days ago that the Liberal government is looking at bringing 35,000 Syrian refugees into Canada (10K higher than the figure quoted in the CBC article).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/un-to-aid-canada-in-identifying-resettling-syrian-refugees/article27186014/
Given that the US has roughly ten times the population of Canada, quick math says it should accept about 350,000 refugees. How many refugees is the country who’s policy has done so much to destabilize the Middle East actually committed too? 10,000.
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/22/450937841/why-does-the-u-s-accept-so-few-syrian-refugees
Cheers,
BC Doc
@Bc_Doc,
Never expect logic from Neanderthals on the US border.