Ignatieff clarifies foreign votes - Macleans.ca
 

Ignatieff clarifies foreign votes

Liberal leader’s spokesperson initially denied Ignatieff voted in Britain


 

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is being called upon to clarify past statements about his participation in local elections while living abroad. While teaching at Harvard, Ignatieff was quoted in the Glasgow Herald, saying “”I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November.” And in a 1998 book, Ignatieff claimed to have voted for Britain’s Labour party in 1997. While Ignatieff’s spokesperson, Michel Liboiron, initially claimed the Liberal leader had “never voted in a foreign election,” Ignatieff said on Monday he had indeed voted while living in Britain. “I’m a Canadian citizen. I’ve never been the citizen of another country. I’ve never voted —I can’t vote in the United States,” he said. “But I’m a Commonwealth Citizen, so I have voted in a British election.”

Toronto Sun

The Globe and Mail


 
Filed under:

Ignatieff clarifies foreign votes

  1. So did the Glasgow Herald misquote Ignatieff about his intention to vote for Kerry, or did this smart person misunderstand at the time that "citizen of the world" is only a figure of speech? Or did he figure that making a public pronouncement of his voting intention, even if it was a lie, might be enough to convince others who did have the right to vote? I would find that last bit (and that last bit only) a wee bit of a problematic reflection of character.

    And, beyond that, who cares? If he was a citizen of another country, and voted in elections in that country, but he is now a Canadian citizen still / again, that really ought to be enough. (I will save my expression of contempt towards dual citizenship for another day.)

  2. I'll go with the misquote…it's plausible, and there is an election on, right.

    I'm offended at the dual citizenship crack. I'm still one, although i haven't renewed by British passport in lord knows how long.
    Are you claiming some superior brand of patriotism over mine? Millions of Canadians hold on to their homelands nationality for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is for emotional comfort. Unless you've been there you haven't a clue how it feels. Where i think it stretches credulity is in allowing the situation to continue on for second generation Canadians; and even then speculation that it is merely a citzenship of convenience is very likely idle and not giving the whole picture.

  3. I'll go with the misquote…it's plausible, and there is an election on, right.

    I'm offended at the dual citizenship crack. I'm still one, although i haven't renewed by British passport in lord knows how long.
    Are you claiming some superior brand of patriotism over mine? Millions of Canadians hold on to their homelands nationality for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is for emotional comfort. Unless you've been there you haven't a clue how it feels. Where i think it stretches credulity is in allowing the situation to continue on for second generation Canadians; and even then speculation that it is merely a citzenship of convenience is very likely idle and not giving the whole picture.

    • Alas, I guess I can't wait for another day. (But for the record: kcm started it, nyah, nyah…)

      You need your former citizenship… why, exactly? And if your answer is "emotional comfort," or "fall-back position," or (in other circumstances) "this Canadian passport will get me outta Beirut in a hurry better than anything else," well, tough, offense or not, I shall claim my right of contempt.

      Pick a team, people. There may come a time when the national interests of one country will so seriously diverge from another. And when it comes to seeking national political office, even MINOR differences in national interests cry out for unambiguously picking the team you actually happen to be on.

      • Maybe TA is concerned he could arrested and thrown into some dank pit in Saudi Arabia; and the thought of the folks at Fort Pearson not lifting a finger to help doesn't bring comfort to him. After all, it was the Brits who pulled Bill Sampson out of his Saudi hellhole (minus his fingernails), not Canada's exalted dilpomatic corps. It's a good thing Bill kept his British passport.

      • Well i did suspect you wouldn't have a clue what it might feel like to fully cut one's ties with one's homeland. And i was right – you don't. Pick a team…it's always binary choices with folks like you who seem to be lacking in imagination or perhaps empathy at times. Interesting the only scenario you can come up with is Beirut. Anyway i'll happily ignore your advise, and your mis- placed contempt – we being a multi-cultural land. I simply have a much broader definition of patriotism and faith in the loyalty of my fellow citizens then you.

        • So it is emotional with you. And when you move on to another nation, shall you keep your two prior citizenships while you seek a third? What then of the fourth? fifth? Etc.? Just how emotional do you get over places you leave?

          Your sweeping generalization of "always binary choices" betrays your lack in imagination, friend, not mine.

          And, ahem, Beirut was AN example. I didn't realize you required three hundred examples in a comment war I sought not to start. But, yeah, dammit, if you're going to go and live permanently somewhere else, it's your right. But suddenly remembering your Canadian roots when it gets convenient makes me think a whole lot less of you as a Canadian. Beirut or otherwise.

          And if you seek to be part of the governance of this country, it behooves me to be satisfied that there are not any remaining loyalties — emotional or otherwise — with any other nation. And I have faith in my fellow citizens of THIS country that they might be free to put this nation's interests first, too.

          • "When i move on"…are you trying to be deliberately provocative and insulting? If so then GFY. I've been here 30 years and i don't need your approval, emotional or otherwise. Should i make similar assumptions about your background or lack of empathy/understanding i'd have to step in some deep doodoo…so i think i'll pass.

          • Feel free to substitute "if" for "when" in your specific case, but please retain the "when" for the generic globetrotting citizenship accumulator to help you understand where I am coming from in my apprehension toward globetrotting citizenship accumulation.

            You are right. You don't need my approval. Your prickliness over this concept suggests (for some inexplicable reason) that you want it, however. Sorry.

          • Precision is always helpful. I have no idea where i'll be going down the road, but it's certainly my intention to remain in a country that i do have first allegiance to, i have no real idea why it's difficult to cut the ties completely. Maybe it's just practial -i'm permitted to work anywhere in the EU – why would i throw that away, if i don't have to? But it is not my bolt hole.

            If you were an immigrant, no matter how long standing it seems, you would understand. For the record i have no time for those who use this country as an hotel. Perhaps as i said earlier, dual citizenship should not be an option for the children of immigrants. Although i suspect there would be a mighty howl of outrage should an attempt to limit this be made.

            Apology excepted. i come from Irish/Scots roots…say no more.

          • Perhaps as i said earlier, dual citizenship should not be an option for the children of immigrants.

            So help me understand, immigrant fellow Canadian. If you are willing to grant dual citizenship by self-interested conscious choice, why are you not willing to grant it by birthright? If it is wrong for the latter, why is it ok for the former?

          • Sorry. i can't get my head around your question. Probably too tired.

            I didn't claim my idea was a good one, consistent or even thought through.

            Ther are worse options. The Germans still grant cirizenship by blood regardless of where you are born in the world.[ as does Isreal i think?] Someone is automatically granted citizenship even if they never intend to set foot in Germany. Meanwhile a hapless immigrant who's kids are born in Germany may wait many years to obtain German citizenship.

          • I think I am catching your drift, but I am not positive. I suppose you see the granting of citizenship in the German / Israeli example you cite as the tyranny of forced obligations of citizenship (that's code, I suppose, for military service if you're ever dumb enough to land in said country that means so little to you).

            Whereas it's ok for a German who leaves the country with no intention of returning to retain the benefits (but not the obligations) of German (EU) citizenship as he or she starts a new life (including citizenship) elsewhere.

            If I am reading you right, and please correct me if I am wrong, it seems we have now reached this point: Ask not what you can do for your parents' abandoned country, ask rather what your abandoned country can do for you. I like the first half of that sentence.

          • Wow we have different thought processes. I don't know where you got the military service angle, although i do tend to think a little service at an earlyish age is unlikely to do anyone any harm, and probably a lot of good in terms of bonding with your fellow countrymen.

            Germans don't even have to leave the country. It is citzenship through the blood regardless or whether you ever intend to do anything for your "ethnic" country or not. Personally i find this more objectionable then anything we do here. I'm not so familiar with the Israeli citizenship. But i imagine it's more linked to the diaspora.

          • unlikely to do anyone any harm, and probably a lot of good in terms of bonding with your fellow countrymen.

            Unless these people who are not actually your fellow countrymen (because you were born elsewhere and had the misfortune of transferring flights in Munich) are, you know, AT WAR…

          • Ok you win bud. I haven't a clue what you're about with this one.

          • Canadian kid, born in Waterloo ON of Country X / Canadian parents, never sets foot in Country X until he is 21 years old. Upon landing in Country X: "Hey, you're one of us! We are taking you into custody for your compulsory military service now."

            Does that help with my reply to your "bonding with your fellow countrymen" bit?

          • Ok…see your point. Just trying to help. You have a better idea?

            Not everyone arrives here with a 21 year old. A significant number of immigrant kids could be successfully corralled. Best to start em young anyway. The Germans have an option – military or community service, or Education. I don't know if it works too well, there being a lot of anti military feeling among the young – understandably so.

          • Why would any sane person who has access to duel citizenship NOT accept the advantage that offers. For crying out loud. We live in a globalized economy where governments ship capital and resources around the world but refuse to provide the same freedom of mobility to their citizens — who are often being put out of work as a result of these economic policies. Of course we're going to hold onto the option to work elsewhere if need be. And I have to say, if you don't feel emotionally attached to the country of your birth, then I feel truly sorry for you. It must've been a horrible place that you would relinquish your ties to it so joyfully.

          • Did your ex let you keep the keys to his or her place even as you moved in with your current spouse or partner, too? You know, offered advantages, emotional attachment and all…

          • You got a problem [asMTB says] with labour mobility? I know you have no problem with monetary mobility. You need to get out more. The Europeans i know are having a great time. Poles in Ireland; Irish in Germany. They are perfectly able to handle divided loyalties and retain an appropriate sense of patriotism. Does it create problems and local resentment at times – sure. There's agood deal of double standards, racism too. But no European i know wants to go back to the days of passport controls and internal restricitions on mobility and work.

          • no European i know wants to go back…
            Then give Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain a little more time…

            Labour mobility is cool. You may note that Canada continues to be a magnet for the world's mobile people, and that's absolutely to this country's benefit. I would just like to see proof that our newcomer Canadians are fully committed to this country when they take the real plunge of citizenship. And if they want to reach the upper echelons of power in governing this country, I as a voter will insist on the candidate's undivided attention on this, my country.

          • no European i know wants to go back…
            Then give Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain a little more time…

            Pah…you're an incurable cynic. Europeans have embraced this model because they know only to well what the price of failed nationalism entails.

            . I don't think it's unreasonable to expect commitment to this country in order to govern ; and you have to be a citizen to vote anyway. But seriously that's abit of a straw man. I can't think of anyone who's in a governing capacity who already isn't a committed Canadian.

          • Europeans have embraced this model because they know only to well what the price of failed nationalism entails.

            Is that why all those referenda went soooo well for the EU. Feel the warmth of the great European embrace…

        • I've read through the exchange with interest; I work with quite a few immigrants. And as a NLer who moved to Ontario, I can somewhat understand how it feels to leave one's "homeland" to start a life elsewhere (Canada is my country, but I'm a first-generation Canadian, my parents having been born pre-Confederation – and consider myself ethnically to be a Newfoundlander).

          I find most of those who work with me and who have taken out their citizenship since I've known them to be quite proud of their new country; quite proud of their choices. And I am proud to know them.

          • Pt 2:

            But there are some hyphenate Canadians who make no effort to fit in; who self-ghetto-ize; who take pride in not speaking the language and being able to live in a displaced corner of their old country. I've met them; I've read about them in immigration cases. For them, the "-Canadian" part is purely convenience, and I have no time for such people. So I also appreciate where MYL is coming from. Remember a few years ago, when children of Croats and Serbs were going "home" and fighting against our troops? I was disgusted.

            So how do we get all immigrants to take pride, and put Canada first? I haven't a clue. Wish I did.

          • I think you put your finger on the nub Keith. It's a bad idea to generalize too much, but… There are simply put good immigrants, and those who only see what's in for themselves – users in other words. It's important not to tar everyone with the same brush. I wonder if you've noticed this trend worsening in more recent years. Due to IMO the different kind of immigrant who's coming nowadays? Not meaning to generalize myself but there seems to be a certain sense of entittlement that was not there with earlier, poorer immigrants, who were just profoundly grateful to be getting an opportunity to start a new life here – or, maybe they just didn't have all the options we seem to have today?

          • I think there have always been a percentage of immigrants who have had a sense of entitlement – but yes, my sense is that the number of immigrants with this attitude is on the rise. Still a minority of immigrants who think this way, though; my sense is most are still genuinely grateful for what Canada has to offer.

  4. Ignatieff was clearly lying to the Glasgow Herald when he told them that:

    A) He was an American democrat, and

    B) He was going to vote for Kerry.

    This is a man who seeks to become Canada's Head of Government, yet he is on the record several times calling himself an American. While in England, he voted in UK elections but not Canadian elections. He lived abroad for an unprecedented 34 years before coming back to Canada so he could try to govern it. It's understandable that voters might feel queasy about these inconvenient facts.

  5. Ignatieff was clearly lying to the Glasgow Herald when he told them that:

    A) He was an American democrat, and

    B) He was going to vote for Kerry.

    This is a man who seeks to become Canada's Head of Government, yet he is on the record several times calling himself an American. While in England, he voted in UK elections but not Canadian elections. He lived abroad for an unprecedented 34 years before coming back to Canada so he could try to govern it. It's understandable that voters might feel queasy about these inconvenient facts.

    • Its a good thing Iggy stopped voting in Canada. Anytime after the 1980 vote he would have been in violation of the Elections Act for doing so.

    • "Ignatieff was clearly lying to the Glasgow Herald when he told them that: "

      How the hell do you know that. People are misquoted all the time.

      What's wrong with voting in UK elections as long as he has the right to – which he clearly did.

      "He lived abroad for an unprecedented 34 years before coming back to Canada so he could try to govern it"

      More conjecture and idle speculation. Fine to argue the point in opinion pieces, and on blogs like this one. And ignatieff did have questions to answer. But he's been chastized and likely humiliated to some degree. The main point being he's come back, paid his dues, made his mistakes and now deserves a crack at it as much as you or i.

      But as a purported "truth" during an election it's contemptible.

      • If Harper were quoted in a newspaper making a demonstrably false statement like that, you'd be all over him for being a stinking liar. But Iggy is busted for making a demonstrably false statement to a newpaper reporter, and you want us to believe he was simply misquoted.

        Awsome.

        • How is it a demonstrably false ststement, when no one has yet demonstrated it yet? I don't want you to believe anything, your projecting bud. People are misquoted all the time – yes? That's all i said. If it is a proven lie then he's got some major backpeddling to do do.
          And don't assume. No i wouldn't automatically assume Harper a liar in the same situation. I might suspect it,i might think it, given his shaky record But i would hold out for evidence if any existed. Although if your pont is i wouldn't go out of my way to find it you might be right.

          • How is it a demonstrably false ststement, when no one has yet demonstrated it yet?

            Ignatieff isn't an American citizen, and he couldn't have voted for Kerry, so the quoted statement is demonstrably false.

            Maybe Ignatieff was misquoted, but I doubt it. If he was misquoted, don't you think he would say so?

          • I honestly don't know, perhaps he means to? I get the gotcha if the quote was true…my point is it isn't yet proven to be accurate. So, is there no a frantic race between team Iggy and team H to get that reporter to either recant or check his notes and fax em over pronto?

            Seriously i'd be more inclined to think it's more Ignatieff the ingratiator, the guy who needs to be the seen to be one withwatever it is he's currently associating himself with. It's a really odd stanceand not one to my taste and yes technically a lie. Is it an earth shattering one…i doubt it?

          • Ignatieff could have easily claimed he was misquoted. He chose not to. He's probably hoping that nobody checks that reporter's 6-year old notes, because if the reporter had an audio recording of his Iggy interview it would be devastating fodder for attack ads.

          • Possibly. I just find this obssession on behalf of a major political party petty and demeaning. Is that the direction you really want to see this go? Competing inane attack ads.

            MI lied, he didn't vote in US!!

            SH hates Canada. Calls us welfare bums!!

            I actually understand where Harper was coming from when he made that remark. He's entittled to that opinion. I'd rather it not be used in that way. The only legit way to use it would be to claim he is no longer consistent. Well, not the only. But the alternative gets into the highly personal and subjective.
            Oddly enough you could draw a parralel between that remark to a US republican audience ie., sucking up and bluster, and many of Ignatieff's remarks. It's why i thought AP's piece hit home on that point – neither man has room to brag. Even if AP's point is now almost certainly passe.

          • SH hates Canada and calls us welfare bums? Can you give me some links to that please?

          • It was exaggerated for effect…that speech is well known. Go look it up yourself. I have better things to do.

          • Fail.

          • There's a more sinister possibility: He is / was not an American citizen, but he got himself onto the voters' list and voted for Kerry.

            So maybe the statement is not demonstrably false, but rather a confession of electoral fraud.

          • I'm not defending the statement, by any stretch of the imagination. If an accurate quote, it lends even more credence to Harper's "Just Visiting" line.

            However, I can imagine certain hypothetical questions that might get me to answer with a similar response. Until we know the context of the reporters' question it would be hard to judge.

            This story is an interesting commentary on the need for journalistic ethics. I can imagine that reporter working hard to make a deadline, pulling out a quote from a nobody academic, moving on to the next story. And then, six years later, finding out that your quote could play an important role in a country's election.

          • I read the whole Glasgow piece (thanks, Crit!). I suppose it is possible that "I support Kerry" or "I will support Kerry" (which is in fact the quoted language later in the piece) was misconstrued by the author to turn into "I will vote for Kerry." Meaning there's really nothing there.

            An enterprising journalist might like to chase down the apparently unnamed journalist who wrote that — what is it, a book promo? An interview? An editorial? Its seems like a bit of all three.

            An enterprising journalist might like to loof for "IGNATIEFF, Michael" on the local voters' roll in MA or CT or wherever he lived at the time of the Bush-Kerry election contest.

            Mr. Ignatieff might like to reconcile his statement of his intention to vote to the Herald with his most recent statement of his ineligibility to vote.

      • As far as Ignatieff only coming back to try to govern it:
        I think we can all agree that Peter C. Newman has some good connections in the Liberal party. In the Jan 31, 2011 issue of Maclean's he wrote a piece about Keith Davey, who Newman claims invented the modern Liberal party. He basically writes of how Keith heard Ignatieff as a guest speaker, and told Rocco Rossi that 'that guy should be prime minister'. Rocci later told it to Ian Davey (Keith's son, who later became Iggy's chief of staff). Ian told it to Alf App, a liberal party bigwig. Ian to Alf "So I go, 'Michael Ignatieff'!?" "He goes, 'I like it.' "That's great. What do we do? He's at Harvard and doesn't know who we are.' "As only Alfred would do, he picks up the phone and calls him, gets through, we arrange to meet, and the rest is history."
        I think that speaks pretty plainly, as to why Ignatieff is here.

  6. Mr. Ignatieff always tells silly little lies–who knows why? Of course, I suspect that at heart he feels he is an American.

  7. Mr. Ignatieff always tells silly little lies–who knows why? Of course, I suspect that at heart he feels he is an American.

    • At least he is not an american puppet like Harper. Harper is a wannabe Republican.

      • Harper is futher left than Obama is.

        • I haven't quite figured out what Obama is.

          • besides self serving?

    • I'd say he thinks he is above nationhood, but if he had to pick, I think he is more British than American. That is the country where he lived for most of his adult life – and the country of his kids. Apart from his graduate work, he only lived in the US consistently from 2000-2005ish

  8. Alas, I guess I can't wait for another day. (But for the record: kcm started it, nyah, nyah…)

    You need your former citizenship… why, exactly? And if your answer is "emotional comfort," or "fall-back position," or (in other circumstances) "this Canadian passport will get me outta Beirut in a hurry better than anything else," well, tough, offense or not, I shall claim my right of contempt.

    Pick a team, people. There may come a time when the national interests of one country will so seriously diverge from another. And when it comes to seeking national political office, even MINOR differences in national interests cry out for unambiguously picking the team you actually happen to be on.

  9. Whether or not Iggy fibbed is not monumental, but it is concerning.

    Whether or not Iggy voted in other countries, is not monumental, but it too is concerning.

    What IS important, is that it is fairly clear that Iggy has self identified on a number of occaisions with being "an American". It is not just that he spent almost his adult life away from Canada, but that he considered himself a man, not of this country.

  10. Maybe TA is concerned he could arrested and thrown into some dank pit in Saudi Arabia; and the thought of the folks at Fort Pearson not lifting a finger to help doesn't bring comfort to him. After all, it was the Brits who pulled Bill Sampson out of his Saudi hellhole (minus his fingernails), not Canada's exalted dilpomatic corps. It's a good thing Bill kept his British passport.

  11. Its a good thing Iggy stopped voting in Canada. Anytime after the 1980 vote he would have been in violation of the Elections Act for doing so.

  12. At least he is not an american puppet like Harper. Harper is a wannabe Republican.

  13. How would he be in violation of the Elections Act, exactly?

  14. This is a stupid story. Who cares if he voted for Kerry or not?

    There is another more serious lie that Ignatieff told that is being glossed over. We were told that Ignatieff fired candidate Andre Forbes for his racist remarks about natives.

    However, he actually didn't. Because you can't fire a confirmed candidate, even before the nomination deadline. Elections Canada has confirmed that there is no legal basis for a party to remove a confirmed candidate. The candidate can resign of their own choice, but Iggy cannot fire him. However, he said he did, and everybody, including people who should know about this rule, is giving him a free pass on this.

    On May 2, despite what Iggy told us, the ballot will list Forbes as the Liberal candidate. And no one has questioned him on this.

  15. This is a stupid story. Who cares if he voted for Kerry or not?

    There is another more serious lie that Ignatieff told that is being glossed over. We were told that Ignatieff fired candidate Andre Forbes for his racist remarks about natives.

    However, he actually didn't. Because you can't fire a confirmed candidate, even before the nomination deadline. Elections Canada has confirmed that there is no legal basis for a party to remove a confirmed candidate. The candidate can resign of their own choice, but Iggy cannot fire him. However, he said he did, and everybody, including people who should know about this rule, is giving him a free pass on this.

    On May 2, despite what Iggy told us, the ballot will list Forbes as the Liberal candidate. And no one has questioned him on this.

    • The USA might care. From all I have heard, his own historical public pronouncements about "being an" American notwithstanding, the man is NOT (and has never been) a citizen of the United States. So if he did truly vote for Kerry, and I emphasize the "if," then this particular Canadian seeking to govern our nation has committed electoral fraud in another.

      So I think it would be more comforting to chalk this up to a misquote or to a hot-air blowhard.

    • That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying the libs have to run with him despite rejecting him publically?

      • I believe there was a candidate in the last election who was disowned "too late" as well, and the party leader had to publicly state that there was no way this individual would sit in caucus if elected, so please don't vote for this awful so-and-so running under our label. I just can't remember the party or the candidate. But I am sure someone will be able to fill in the details.

        • As I recall the Libs and the CPC each had one of those after the nomination deadline had passed last time. I can't remember who they were either, and neither candidate won.

          • Hopefully they don't have to fund him in any way.

    • The ballot may list him as a Liberal; I admit I'm not up on the arcana of Election Canada's rules for candidates. It's certainly true the Liberals can't stop him from running. But the Liberals don't have to let him sit as a member of their caucus should he win. I think that's the point here – the party has disowned him and will not recognize him as a Liberal.

      At best, you have a minor technical point; calling it a lie is a bit of a stretch.

  16. Canadians can vote in British elections as 'commonweath citizens'? News to me.

  17. Canadians can vote in British elections as 'commonweath citizens'? News to me.

    • And at one time Brits living here could vote in Canadian elections.

      • 1974 was the last federal election in which British subjects "ordinarily resident in Canada" could vote without being a Canadian citizen. The UK still allows "Commonwealth citizens" to vote in their elections.

      • I would think you have to have British residency these days. no? I still hold a British citizenship [ ithink? unless they changed the rules] I had no idea i could still vote there.

    • Apparently its true. My brother voted for Tony Blair (well…the Labour candidate) in the 2005 election. He had only lived in the UK for about two years by then. The parties sign up voters who they think might support them.

  18. And at one time Brits living here could vote in Canadian elections.

  19. Something about a 5 year rule apparently.

    Others may know for sure.

  20. Something about a 5 year rule apparently.

    Others may know for sure.

  21. To vote all electors need to have their name included in the list of electors for the polling division where he or she is "ordinarily resident". Those "ordinarily resident" beyond Canada can only vote under Part 11 (the Special Voting Rules) of the Elections Act:

    11. Any of the following persons may vote in accordance with Part 11:

    (a) a Canadian Forces elector;

    (b) an elector who is an employee in the federal public administration or the public service of a province and who is posted outside Canada;

    (c) a Canadian citizen who is employed by an international organization of which Canada is a member and to which Canada contributes and who is posted outside Canada;

    (d) a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident;

    (e) an incarcerated elector within the meaning of that Part; and

    (f) any other elector in Canada who wishes to vote in accordance with that Part.

  22. To vote all electors need to have their name included in the list of electors for the polling division where he or she is "ordinarily resident". Those "ordinarily resident" beyond Canada can only vote under Part 11 (the Special Voting Rules) of the Elections Act:

    11. Any of the following persons may vote in accordance with Part 11:

    (a) a Canadian Forces elector;

    (b) an elector who is an employee in the federal public administration or the public service of a province and who is posted outside Canada;

    (c) a Canadian citizen who is employed by an international organization of which Canada is a member and to which Canada contributes and who is posted outside Canada;

    (d) a person who has been absent from Canada for less than five consecutive years and who intends to return to Canada as a resident;

    (e) an incarcerated elector within the meaning of that Part; and

    (f) any other elector in Canada who wishes to vote in accordance with that Part.

    • So after five years absence, non-resident Canadians can no longer receive a ballot, according to the Act.

      Of course back when Iggy left, British subjects could still vote in Canadian elections. Maybe that's his dodge.

      • Here's Ignatieff's response to David Akin:

        Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas?

        Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can't remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

        http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

  23. So after five years absence, non-resident Canadians can no longer receive a ballot, according to the Act.

    Of course back when Iggy left, British subjects could still vote in Canadian elections. Maybe that's his dodge.

  24. A founder of a WHITE SUPREMIST PARTY

    is still running for the Liberals?

    Firstly, why didn't Iggy know of his past, or did he? A question the media dare not ask (scrutiny being reserved for only Harper and only the most important issues of our day, for instance whether Harper ate a communion wafer, or whether a Liberal may not have made it into a CPC campaign rally),

    and secondly,

    did Iggy know that he couldn't fire him, when Iggy said he did, and if not, why not?

    Again, the media dares not ask the most basic questions of Iggy.

    The refs have put away the whistle for the Libs, and are calling "penalty" on virtually every move by the CPC.

  25. "Ignatieff was clearly lying to the Glasgow Herald when he told them that: "

    How the hell do you know that. People are misquoted all the time.

    What's wrong with voting in UK elections as long as he has the right to – which he clearly did.

    "He lived abroad for an unprecedented 34 years before coming back to Canada so he could try to govern it"

    More conjecture and idle speculation. Fine to argue the point in opinion pieces, and on blogs like this one. And ignatieff did have questions to answer. But he's been chastized and likely humiliated to some degree. The main point being he's come back, paid his dues, made his mistakes and now deserves a crack at it as much as you or i.

    But as a purported "truth" during an election it's contemptible.

  26. A founder of a WHITE SUPREMIST PARTY

    is still running for the Liberals?

    Firstly, why didn't Iggy know of his past, or did he? A question the media dare not ask (scrutiny being reserved for only Harper and only the most important issues of our day, for instance whether Harper ate a communion wafer, or whether a Liberal may not have made it into a CPC campaign rally),

    and secondly,

    did Iggy know that he couldn't fire him, when Iggy said he did, and if not, why not?

    Again, the media dares not ask the most basic questions of Iggy.

    The refs have put away the whistle for the Libs, and are calling "penalty" on virtually every move by the CPC.

    • There may be some arcane elections rule that prevents the change of the candidate's status from Liberal to Independent (if there is, please provide the section). That doesn't keep the Liberals from refusing to accept him as a member of their caucus should he win. Parties have the right to eject members – just ask Guergis.

      So regardless what the election rules say, he will never sit as a Liberal – and so in that sense, he is most assuredly "fired".

      Nice try, chet.

      As for vetting the candidate: I'm not up on behind-the-scenes things like nominations, but doesn't vetting the candidate fall to the local riding association? In which case, the tie to Ignatieff is extemely tenuous. It's not like the guy was a key advisor or anything…

  27. Well i did suspect you wouldn't have a clue what it might feel like to fully cut one's ties with one's homeland. And i was right – you don't. Pick a team…it's always binary choices with folks like you who seem to be lacking in imagination or perhaps empathy at times. Interesting the only scenario you can come up with is Beirut. Anyway i'll happily ignore your advise, and your mis- placed contempt – we being a multi-cultural land. I simply have a much broader definition of patriotism and faith in the loyalty of my fellow citizens then you.

  28. If Harper were quoted in a newspaper making a demonstrably false statement like that, you'd be all over him for being a stinking liar. But Iggy is busted for making a demonstrably false statement to a newpaper reporter, and you want us to believe he was simply misquoted.

    Awsome.

  29. Harper is futher left than Obama is.

  30. Here's Ignatieff's response to David Akin:

    Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas?

    Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can't remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

  31. Here's Ignatieff's response to David Akin:

    Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas?

    Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can%E2%80%99t remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

  32. The man set the record straight. Period.

    I suppose a landed immigrants who voted in their country, prior to moving to Canada, shouldn't be allowed to vote here in Canada. Because they aren't really Canadians, or be allowed to run for office in this country. Why would we ever allow any person who hasn't lived in Canada all their life an opportunity to have a say in this countries policies. There not real Canadians, their pretend Canadians. Hmmm. Don't we have a lot of so called Canadians who vacation in the USA for months at a time each year, are they real Canadians. What about the people we send to live in other countries, such as diplomats, charities, armed forces. I suppose they aren't Canadians either.

    Well I suppose we can pick and choose who we think real Canadians are. But for me that is close to being a racist and bigot.

  33. The man set the record straight. Period.

    I suppose a landed immigrants who voted in their country, prior to moving to Canada, shouldn't be allowed to vote here in Canada. Because they aren't really Canadians, or be allowed to run for office in this country. Why would we ever allow any person who hasn't lived in Canada all their life an opportunity to have a say in this countries policies. There not real Canadians, their pretend Canadians. Hmmm. Don't we have a lot of so called Canadians who vacation in the USA for months at a time each year, are they real Canadians. What about the people we send to live in other countries, such as diplomats, charities, armed forces. I suppose they aren't Canadians either.

    Well I suppose we can pick and choose who we think real Canadians are. But for me that is close to being a racist and bigot.

  34. So it is emotional with you. And when you move on to another nation, shall you keep your two prior citizenships while you seek a third? What then of the fourth? fifth? Etc.? Just how emotional do you get over places you leave?

    Your sweeping generalization of "always binary choices" betrays your lack in imagination, friend, not mine.

    And, ahem, Beirut was AN example. I didn't realize you required three hundred examples in a comment war I sought not to start. But, yeah, dammit, if you're going to go and live permanently somewhere else, it's your right. But suddenly remembering your Canadian roots when it gets convenient makes me think a whole lot less of you as a Canadian. Beirut or otherwise.

    And if you seek to be part of the governance of this country, it behooves me to be satisfied that there are not any remaining loyalties — emotional or otherwise — with any other nation. And I have faith in my fellow citizens of THIS country that they might be free to put this nation's interests first, too.

  35. The remark is also revealing, as it is consistent with his desire to be considered a part of whatever group he currently finds himself with. When in the UK, when it was fashionable, he was a Blairite. When that became unfashionable, and his television career was on the wane, he re-invented himself as an American neo conservative supporter of the George Bush type of international activism. When that became unfashionable he returned here to re-invent himself as Jack Layton's taller brother. It isn't surprising he apes those whose affection he is trying to capture – whether the Brits or the Americans or the Canadians he is now trying to charm. It does make you wonder who he actually thinks he is?

  36. The USA might care. From all I have heard, his own historical public pronouncements about "being an" American notwithstanding, the man is NOT (and has never been) a citizen of the United States. So if he did truly vote for Kerry, and I emphasize the "if," then this particular Canadian seeking to govern our nation has committed electoral fraud in another.

    So I think it would be more comforting to chalk this up to a misquote or to a hot-air blowhard.

  37. Excuse me, but he definitely did NOT set the record straight — he didn't address the rather obvious fact that he lied his face off to that newspaper reporter when he claimed that he was an "American Democrat" and would be voting for Kerry that November. All he's said now is that "I've never voted — I can't vote in the United States." The obvious and common sense conclusion to be derived from that is that Ignatieff knowingly lied to that reporter. Ignatieff has offered no explanation whatsoever for that, so (a) we must conclude that he was lying, and (b) he has not "set the record straight" in that regard.

  38. "When i move on"…are you trying to be deliberately provocative and insulting? If so then GFY. I've been here 30 years and i don't need your approval, emotional or otherwise. Should i make similar assumptions about your background or lack of empathy/understanding i'd have to step in some deep doodoo…so i think i'll pass.

  39. 1974 was the last federal election in which British subjects "ordinarily resident in Canada" could vote without being a Canadian citizen. The UK still allows "Commonwealth citizens" to vote in their elections.

  40. Feel free to substitute "if" for "when" in your specific case, but please retain the "when" for the generic globetrotting citizenship accumulator to help you understand where I am coming from in my apprehension toward globetrotting citizenship accumulation.

    You are right. You don't need my approval. Your prickliness over this concept suggests (for some inexplicable reason) that you want it, however. Sorry.

  41. The point being that at the time he desperately wanted the Americans to think of him as being one of them. Almost all his public writing and speeches of the time indicate his desire to be accepted as an American intellectual (discarding his old BBC-2 persona). I suppose he felt the Americans wouldn't trust him as a pundit if he was too obviously "foreign" so he adopted the disguise of a flag-waving American. The issue in this story isn't whether he actually voted in a US election, but that he was quite willing to go to lenghts to make people think he was an American, just like them. Just as now he campaigns trying to make people think he is one of us. In fact he is probably not sure who he is.

  42. The point being that at the time he desperately wanted the Americans to think of him as being one of them. Almost all his public writing and speeches of the time indicate his desire to be accepted as an American intellectual (discarding his old BBC-2 persona). I suppose he felt the Americans wouldn't trust him as a pundit if he was too obviously "foreign" so he adopted the disguise of a flag-waving American. The issue in this story isn't whether he actually voted in a US election, but that he was quite willing to go to lenghts to make people think he was an American, just like them. Just as now he campaigns trying to make people think he is one of us. In fact he is probably not sure who he is.

    • The point being that at the time he desperately wanted the Americans to think of him as being one of them.

      That's probably true, but in this case Ignatieff lied about being an American Democrat who would vote for Kerry during a telephone interview with a Scottish journalist while he was at his "summer retreat in Provence".

      See the linked article below.

  43. How is it a demonstrably false ststement, when no one has yet demonstrated it yet? I don't want you to believe anything, your projecting bud. People are misquoted all the time – yes? That's all i said. If it is a proven lie then he's got some major backpeddling to do do.
    And don't assume. No i wouldn't automatically assume Harper a liar in the same situation. I might suspect it,i might think it, given his shaky record But i would hold out for evidence if any existed. Although if your pont is i wouldn't go out of my way to find it you might be right.

  44. That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying the libs have to run with him despite rejecting him publically?

  45. I would think you have to have British residency these days. no? I still hold a British citizenship [ ithink? unless they changed the rules] I had no idea i could still vote there.

  46. How is it a demonstrably false ststement, when no one has yet demonstrated it yet?

    Ignatieff isn't an American citizen, and he couldn't have voted for Kerry, so the quoted statement is demonstrably false.

    Maybe Ignatieff was misquoted, but I doubt it. If he was misquoted, don't you think he would say so?

  47. Precision is always helpful. I have no idea where i'll be going down the road, but it's certainly my intention to remain in a country that i do have first allegiance to, i have no real idea why it's difficult to cut the ties completely. Maybe it's just practial -i'm permitted to work anywhere in the EU – why would i throw that away, if i don't have to? But it is not my bolt hole.

    If you were an immigrant, no matter how long standing it seems, you would understand. For the record i have no time for those who use this country as an hotel. Perhaps as i said earlier, dual citizenship should not be an option for the children of immigrants. Although i suspect there would be a mighty howl of outrage should an attempt to limit this be made.

    Apology excepted. i come from Irish/Scots roots…say no more.

  48. Perhaps as i said earlier, dual citizenship should not be an option for the children of immigrants.

    So help me understand, immigrant fellow Canadian. If you are willing to grant dual citizenship by self-interested conscious choice, why are you not willing to grant it by birthright? If it is wrong for the latter, why is it ok for the former?

  49. I honestly don't know, perhaps he means to? I get the gotcha if the quote was true…my point is it isn't yet proven to be accurate. So, is there no a frantic race between team Iggy and team H to get that reporter to either recant or check his notes and fax em over pronto?

    Seriously i'd be more inclined to think it's more Ignatieff the ingratiator, the guy who needs to be the seen to be one withwatever it is he's currently associating himself with. It's a really odd stanceand not one to my taste and yes technically a lie. Is it an earth shattering one…i doubt it?

  50. Ignatieff could have easily claimed he was misquoted. He chose not to. He's probably hoping that nobody checks that reporter's 6-year old notes, because if the reporter had an audio recording of his Iggy interview it would be devastating fodder for attack ads.

    • Thanks for the find, CR. Interesting read, to say the least.

  51. Sorry. i can't get my head around your question. Probably too tired.

    I didn't claim my idea was a good one, consistent or even thought through.

    Ther are worse options. The Germans still grant cirizenship by blood regardless of where you are born in the world.[ as does Isreal i think?] Someone is automatically granted citizenship even if they never intend to set foot in Germany. Meanwhile a hapless immigrant who's kids are born in Germany may wait many years to obtain German citizenship.

  52. Possibly. I just find this obssession on behalf of a major political party petty and demeaning. Is that the direction you really want to see this go? Competing inane attack ads.

    MI lied, he didn't vote in US!!

    SH hates Canada. Calls us welfare bums!!

    I actually understand where Harper was coming from when he made that remark. He's entittled to that opinion. I'd rather it not be used in that way. The only legit way to use it would be to claim he is no longer consistent. Well, not the only. But the alternative gets into the highly personal and subjective.
    Oddly enough you could draw a parralel between that remark to a US republican audience ie., sucking up and bluster, and many of Ignatieff's remarks. It's why i thought AP's piece hit home on that point – neither man has room to brag. Even if AP's point is now almost certainly passe.

  53. The point being that at the time he desperately wanted the Americans to think of him as being one of them.

    That's probably true, but in this case Ignatieff lied about being an American Democrat who would vote for Kerry during a telephone interview with a Scottish journalist while he was at his "summer retreat in Provence".

    See the linked article below.

  54. I think I am catching your drift, but I am not positive. I suppose you see the granting of citizenship in the German / Israeli example you cite as the tyranny of forced obligations of citizenship (that's code, I suppose, for military service if you're ever dumb enough to land in said country that means so little to you).

    Whereas it's ok for a German who leaves the country with no intention of returning to retain the benefits (but not the obligations) of German (EU) citizenship as he or she starts a new life (including citizenship) elsewhere.

    If I am reading you right, and please correct me if I am wrong, it seems we have now reached this point: Ask not what you can do for your parents' abandoned country, ask rather what your abandoned country can do for you. I like the first half of that sentence.

  55. I've read through the exchange with interest; I work with quite a few immigrants. And as a NLer who moved to Ontario, I can somewhat understand how it feels to leave one's "homeland" to start a life elsewhere (Canada is my country, but I'm a first-generation Canadian, my parents having been born pre-Confederation – and consider myself ethnically to be a Newfoundlander).

    I find most of those who work with me and who have taken out their citizenship since I've known them to be quite proud of their new country; quite proud of their choices. And I am proud to know them.

  56. Pt 2:

    But there are some hyphenate Canadians who make no effort to fit in; who self-ghetto-ize; who take pride in not speaking the language and being able to live in a displaced corner of their old country. I've met them; I've read about them in immigration cases. For them, the "-Canadian" part is purely convenience, and I have no time for such people. So I also appreciate where MYL is coming from. Remember a few years ago, when children of Croats and Serbs were going "home" and fighting against our troops? I was disgusted.

    So how do we get all immigrants to take pride, and put Canada first? I haven't a clue. Wish I did.

  57. Horsepucky, we have an entire government (bullys nonetheless) that are feeding us nothing but lies and hoodwinking canadians. They have no concept of morality or accountability. OPEN your eyes and ears, the bullies cry "mommy, the bullies are after me" when the other leaders dare to stand up against them.

  58. Horsepucky, we have an entire government (bullys nonetheless) that are feeding us nothing but lies and hoodwinking canadians. They have no concept of morality or accountability. OPEN your eyes and ears, the bullies cry "mommy, the bullies are after me" when the other leaders dare to stand up against them.

    • We should open our eyes and see what? Which will make us vote for who?

    • Adjust that tinfoil hat – the evil Harper rays might still be able to get through.

  59. The ballot may list him as a Liberal; I admit I'm not up on the arcana of Election Canada's rules for candidates. It's certainly true the Liberals can't stop him from running. But the Liberals don't have to let him sit as a member of their caucus should he win. I think that's the point here – the party has disowned him and will not recognize him as a Liberal.

    At best, you have a minor technical point; calling it a lie is a bit of a stretch.

  60. I believe there was a candidate in the last election who was disowned "too late" as well, and the party leader had to publicly state that there was no way this individual would sit in caucus if elected, so please don't vote for this awful so-and-so running under our label. I just can't remember the party or the candidate. But I am sure someone will be able to fill in the details.

  61. The media will not care and have not cared one bit about what the Liberal Count has said in the past, or in the present. If anything, the media get angry and defensive when the self professed American is challenged about his past and present statements and declarations. Obviously, Iggo is a dubious character with a dubious agenda, but media scrutiny of the American candidate is non existent and will continue to be so. The media, like all Liberals will simply ignore the Counts statements or manufacture mushy headed excuses for Iggo having said them, while the media continue to carpet bomb the PM and the Conservatives with their manufactured, deliberately hysterical "scandal" of the day, "gotcha" moments. As much as I believe the American candidate and the coalition he leads are unfit, and unworthy of the office of the PMO, my real concern, and contempt is reserved for the corrupt, scandalous behaviour of the MSM. Perhaps the media are too busy preparing their stories of how American Iggo won the debates tomorrow.

  62. The media will not care and have not cared one bit about what the Liberal Count has said in the past, or in the present. If anything, the media get angry and defensive when the self professed American is challenged about his past and present statements and declarations. Obviously, Iggo is a dubious character with a dubious agenda, but media scrutiny of the American candidate is non existent and will continue to be so. The media, like all Liberals will simply ignore the Counts statements or manufacture mushy headed excuses for Iggo having said them, while the media continue to carpet bomb the PM and the Conservatives with their manufactured, deliberately hysterical "scandal" of the day, "gotcha" moments. As much as I believe the American candidate and the coalition he leads are unfit, and unworthy of the office of the PMO, my real concern, and contempt is reserved for the corrupt, scandalous behaviour of the MSM. Perhaps the media are too busy preparing their stories of how American Iggo won the debates tomorrow.

    • The Harper government is the most untrustworthy (and unaccountable) government I have observed since I started voting 39 years ago. And for your information I have voted conservative once or twice myself. I vote the person in my riding that I believe will serve with integrity and morality. I have never voted for a particular party but this time I might just vote for anyone but the conservatives. Remember, more people voted for others than voted for the PCs. Harper forced this election as much as the other parties (it is exactly what he wants while he still has a high popularity vote).

    • As I said, manufactured, mushy headed excuses for Iggo, the American candidate and unelected leader of the Libranos.

  63. There's a more sinister possibility: He is / was not an American citizen, but he got himself onto the voters' list and voted for Kerry.

    So maybe the statement is not demonstrably false, but rather a confession of electoral fraud.

  64. There may be some arcane elections rule that prevents the change of the candidate's status from Liberal to Independent (if there is, please provide the section). That doesn't keep the Liberals from refusing to accept him as a member of their caucus should he win. Parties have the right to eject members – just ask Guergis.

    So regardless what the election rules say, he will never sit as a Liberal – and so in that sense, he is most assuredly "fired".

    Nice try, chet.

    As for vetting the candidate: I'm not up on behind-the-scenes things like nominations, but doesn't vetting the candidate fall to the local riding association? In which case, the tie to Ignatieff is extemely tenuous. It's not like the guy was a key advisor or anything…

  65. The Harper government is the most untrustworthy (and unaccountable) government I have observed since I started voting 39 years ago. And for your information I have voted conservative once or twice myself. I vote the person in my riding that I believe will serve with integrity and morality. I have never voted for a particular party but this time I might just vote for anyone but the conservatives. Remember, more people voted for others than voted for the PCs. Harper forced this election as much as the other parties (it is exactly what he wants while he still has a high popularity vote).

  66. I'm not defending the statement, by any stretch of the imagination. If an accurate quote, it lends even more credence to Harper's "Just Visiting" line.

    However, I can imagine certain hypothetical questions that might get me to answer with a similar response. Until we know the context of the reporters' question it would be hard to judge.

    This story is an interesting commentary on the need for journalistic ethics. I can imagine that reporter working hard to make a deadline, pulling out a quote from a nobody academic, moving on to the next story. And then, six years later, finding out that your quote could play an important role in a country's election.

  67. I haven't quite figured out what Obama is.

  68. Thanks for the find, CR. Interesting read, to say the least.

  69. As I said, manufactured, mushy headed excuses for Iggo, the American candidate and unelected leader of the Libranos.

  70. As I recall the Libs and the CPC each had one of those after the nomination deadline had passed last time. I can't remember who they were either, and neither candidate won.

  71. I read the whole Glasgow piece (thanks, Crit!). I suppose it is possible that "I support Kerry" or "I will support Kerry" (which is in fact the quoted language later in the piece) was misconstrued by the author to turn into "I will vote for Kerry." Meaning there's really nothing there.

    An enterprising journalist might like to chase down the apparently unnamed journalist who wrote that — what is it, a book promo? An interview? An editorial? Its seems like a bit of all three.

    An enterprising journalist might like to loof for "IGNATIEFF, Michael" on the local voters' roll in MA or CT or wherever he lived at the time of the Bush-Kerry election contest.

    Mr. Ignatieff might like to reconcile his statement of his intention to vote to the Herald with his most recent statement of his ineligibility to vote.

  72. He and his second wife, Hungarian Zsuzsanna Zsohar, live in Mather House, where he is a resident scholar. http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/03/michael-ignati

    Mather House, Harvard University, 10 Cowperthwaite St., Cambridge, MA 02138

    • Making a Request for Public Records in Massachusetts:
      http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prereq/reqidx.htm

      Provided as a service to any enterprising journalist who might like to make a phone call or two in the morning…

  73. Making a Request for Public Records in Massachusetts:
    http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prereq/reqidx.htm

    Provided as a service to any enterprising journalist who might like to make a phone call or two in the morning…

  74. I think you put your finger on the nub Keith. It's a bad idea to generalize too much, but… There are simply put good immigrants, and those who only see what's in for themselves – users in other words. It's important not to tar everyone with the same brush. I wonder if you've noticed this trend worsening in more recent years. Due to IMO the different kind of immigrant who's coming nowadays? Not meaning to generalize myself but there seems to be a certain sense of entittlement that was not there with earlier, poorer immigrants, who were just profoundly grateful to be getting an opportunity to start a new life here – or, maybe they just didn't have all the options we seem to have today?

  75. Why would any sane person who has access to duel citizenship NOT accept the advantage that offers. For crying out loud. We live in a globalized economy where governments ship capital and resources around the world but refuse to provide the same freedom of mobility to their citizens — who are often being put out of work as a result of these economic policies. Of course we're going to hold onto the option to work elsewhere if need be. And I have to say, if you don't feel emotionally attached to the country of your birth, then I feel truly sorry for you. It must've been a horrible place that you would relinquish your ties to it so joyfully.

  76. Wow we have different thought processes. I don't know where you got the military service angle, although i do tend to think a little service at an earlyish age is unlikely to do anyone any harm, and probably a lot of good in terms of bonding with your fellow countrymen.

    Germans don't even have to leave the country. It is citzenship through the blood regardless or whether you ever intend to do anything for your "ethnic" country or not. Personally i find this more objectionable then anything we do here. I'm not so familiar with the Israeli citizenship. But i imagine it's more linked to the diaspora.

  77. Did your ex let you keep the keys to his or her place even as you moved in with your current spouse or partner, too? You know, offered advantages, emotional attachment and all…

  78. Hopefully they don't have to fund him in any way.

  79. unlikely to do anyone any harm, and probably a lot of good in terms of bonding with your fellow countrymen.

    Unless these people who are not actually your fellow countrymen (because you were born elsewhere and had the misfortune of transferring flights in Munich) are, you know, AT WAR…

  80. I think there have always been a percentage of immigrants who have had a sense of entitlement – but yes, my sense is that the number of immigrants with this attitude is on the rise. Still a minority of immigrants who think this way, though; my sense is most are still genuinely grateful for what Canada has to offer.

  81. I wish both sides on this issue would reconcile. It seems pretty clear that Michael Ignatieff was reconciled to never returning to Canada, until the possibility of being Prime Minister came up. And the phony umbrage about how this insults immigrants is an exercise in false equivalence. Immigrants want to live in Canada, generally without the offer of a fast-track to 24 Sussex.

    Ignatieff's path in life has been pretty consistent – he has put himself and his career ahead of others (for instance he wrote a book about his dying mom against the wishes of his family left his brother to sacrifice everything to take care of her, and later moved thousands of miles away from his teenaged kids when he moved from Britain to the US). In that sense the tone of the Tory ads are probably correct – Michael Ignatieff puts himself first in life.

    However, that is not mutually exclusive from his being a good Prime Minister. Why? Because most of our best Prime Ministers have been self-serving jackasses as well. In office, Michael Ignatieff would be putting himself first by seeking to get re-elected, and constructing a positive legacy. Our system of government works, not because angels govern, but because (at least in theory), democracies channel the selfish motives of selfish men towards positive ends.

    That is why "he didn't come back for you" isn't satisfying to me. It is just a reason to dislike Ignatieff, not a reason to believe he would make a bad Prime Minister.

  82. I wish both sides on this issue would reconcile. It seems pretty clear that Michael Ignatieff was reconciled to never returning to Canada, until the possibility of being Prime Minister came up. And the phony umbrage about how this insults immigrants is an exercise in false equivalence. Immigrants want to live in Canada, generally without the offer of a fast-track to 24 Sussex.

    Ignatieff's path in life has been pretty consistent – he has put himself and his career ahead of others (for instance he wrote a book about his dying mom against the wishes of his family left his brother to sacrifice everything to take care of her, and later moved thousands of miles away from his teenaged kids when he moved from Britain to the US). In that sense the tone of the Tory ads are probably correct – Michael Ignatieff puts himself first in life.

    However, that is not mutually exclusive from his being a good Prime Minister. Why? Because most of our best Prime Ministers have been self-serving jackasses as well. In office, Michael Ignatieff would be putting himself first by seeking to get re-elected, and constructing a positive legacy. Our system of government works, not because angels govern, but because (at least in theory), democracies channel the selfish motives of selfish men towards positive ends.

    That is why "he didn't come back for you" isn't satisfying to me. It is just a reason to dislike Ignatieff, not a reason to believe he would make a bad Prime Minister.

  83. SH hates Canada and calls us welfare bums? Can you give me some links to that please?

  84. besides self serving?

  85. We should open our eyes and see what? Which will make us vote for who?

  86. I'd say he thinks he is above nationhood, but if he had to pick, I think he is more British than American. That is the country where he lived for most of his adult life – and the country of his kids. Apart from his graduate work, he only lived in the US consistently from 2000-2005ish

  87. Apparently its true. My brother voted for Tony Blair (well…the Labour candidate) in the 2005 election. He had only lived in the UK for about two years by then. The parties sign up voters who they think might support them.

  88. Ok you win bud. I haven't a clue what you're about with this one.

  89. You got a problem [asMTB says] with labour mobility? I know you have no problem with monetary mobility. You need to get out more. The Europeans i know are having a great time. Poles in Ireland; Irish in Germany. They are perfectly able to handle divided loyalties and retain an appropriate sense of patriotism. Does it create problems and local resentment at times – sure. There's agood deal of double standards, racism too. But no European i know wants to go back to the days of passport controls and internal restricitions on mobility and work.

  90. Canadian kid, born in Waterloo ON of Country X / Canadian parents, never sets foot in Country X until he is 21 years old. Upon landing in Country X: "Hey, you're one of us! We are taking you into custody for your compulsory military service now."

    Does that help with my reply to your "bonding with your fellow countrymen" bit?

  91. It was exaggerated for effect…that speech is well known. Go look it up yourself. I have better things to do.

  92. no European i know wants to go back…
    Then give Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain a little more time…

    Labour mobility is cool. You may note that Canada continues to be a magnet for the world's mobile people, and that's absolutely to this country's benefit. I would just like to see proof that our newcomer Canadians are fully committed to this country when they take the real plunge of citizenship. And if they want to reach the upper echelons of power in governing this country, I as a voter will insist on the candidate's undivided attention on this, my country.

  93. Ok…see your point. Just trying to help. You have a better idea?

    Not everyone arrives here with a 21 year old. A significant number of immigrant kids could be successfully corralled. Best to start em young anyway. The Germans have an option – military or community service, or Education. I don't know if it works too well, there being a lot of anti military feeling among the young – understandably so.

  94. no European i know wants to go back…
    Then give Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain a little more time…

    Pah…you're an incurable cynic. Europeans have embraced this model because they know only to well what the price of failed nationalism entails.

    . I don't think it's unreasonable to expect commitment to this country in order to govern ; and you have to be a citizen to vote anyway. But seriously that's abit of a straw man. I can't think of anyone who's in a governing capacity who already isn't a committed Canadian.

  95. Europeans have embraced this model because they know only to well what the price of failed nationalism entails.

    Is that why all those referenda went soooo well for the EU. Feel the warmth of the great European embrace…

  96. Very astute, and very well said.

    You should say that more often…and elsewhere.

  97. Very astute, and very well said.

    You should say that more often…and elsewhere.

  98. Adjust that tinfoil hat – the evil Harper rays might still be able to get through.

  99. Fail.