Let Us Speaks Of Dog And Cat Fur

As reported on CTV's Vancouver News, a MP is proposing legislation to prevent the importation of dog and cat fur. Good for him! It is important to keep one's priorities straight. There are millions of refuges wandering around Europe and the Middle East- desperate to find a safe place to exist, in developing countries an even larger number of children do not have access to even the most basic levels of education and in more countries than I can count, women are denied the right to make choices. Closer to home - women still have to fight to gain equal access to all opportunities, in some regions of the country women don't have access to the full complement of health care needed that will allow them to remain in full control of their bodies, thousands of Canadian children go to bed hungry every night, our mental health system is woefully inadequate in the south and even more so in the north, and our economy in some parts of the country is in serious trouble. But yes - let us protect the dogs and cats of the world.

Forgive me if I sound harsh but the hypocritical, sanctimonious  and disingenuous attitude around animals and their rights is more than a little bit irritating. I understand that people who are cat and dog lovers (or know someone who is) feel that some cute little things should be treated differently than other animals. North Americans also think that eating horse meat or cute little Bambi (a fawn for those not up on old Walt Disney cartoons) is proof that such a person must be something just the other side of a barbarian. Of course it is okay to eat a calf (veal) or to wear fur coats made from animals either painfully trapped or raised on what are called farms but are really just out door factories. As a general rule we have no problem eating eggs that come from chickens who are raised in either cages that isolate the hens from each other or in such crowded conditions that they can barely move. It is perfectly acceptable to eat bacon that comes from pigs that have been raised in crates that fairly mimic anyone's worse definition of hell  or to munch away on some fish stick manufactured from whatever species was dragged from the ocean floor, potentially destroying coral reefs and fish habitat as well as killing and throwing away fish that are caught up in the drag lines or huge nets and are not wanted. 

I fully understand that the thought of some animal that one can relate to (e.g. a dog or cat) being hurt, confined or abused is offensive. It should be.  We need to have laws in place in our country that ensure that these animals are protected from people who seem to take some delight from either inflicting pain or having an overwhelming need to being in control of something. If  people need to eat meat or to wear fur - that is up to them. It is none of my business . However if they choose to do so, and knowingly ignore the suffering their desires cause then I wish they would explain to me how their moral stance as to the sanctity of animal life is any better than those who kill dogs and cats for their fur or their meat.

For those who argue that they only eat ethically raised meat and are therefore free to criticize others, let me just say that their argument reminds me of some slave owners from the American South (or for that matter British, Dutch, or Spanish slave owners). Those owners would argue that they were "good" slave owners because they avoided punishing their slaves too much. They also would praise themselves for providing adequate accommodation, clothing  and food before sending them out the fields to work. I am not too sure if there is an ethical continuum.  You can't be a little bit ethical around an issue.

We need to stop judging others before we judge ourselves. If you want to stop the importation of items that use cat and dog fur - just stop buying it.

Dual Citizenship

Last week one of the big Canadian news stories (as decided by the major media outlets and their respective talking heads) was the decision of the Canadian government to do away with legislation that allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of Canadians convicted of terrorism and other serious offences.  Canadian citizens that is, who hold dual citizenship.   The Liberal government has argued with some validity that once a Canadian - always a Canadian. The government does not have right to strip someone of their nationality - perhaps especially if that same government has awarded that nationality. Taking away someone's right to be a Canadian only means that the criminal will, after serving their sentence, get deported to their country of origin. This process is problematic on a number of levels. It just dumps the problem onto another country. It treats the individual as someone unique rather than the criminal they are and  it in the language of the government creates two levels of citizenship. One for those who were born here and cannot have a dual citizenship and one for those who were born elsewhere.

While I agree with the government's direction, there is something that I do not understand about the whole discussion. I don't understand dual citizenship. I don't understand why someone who decided to leave their country of birth and move to Canada would want  to retain their previous citizenship. It quite frankly feels as if that person wants the best of both worlds. They want to have all of the advantages of being Canadian - health care, educational opportunities and  a vibrant, beautiful country relatively free of strife etc. I also suspect that there is some security in carrying a Canadian passport in terms belonging to a country that will, at least on paper protect your rights, while traveling abroad. At the same time that holder of a dual citizenship gets to use their other passport while traveling if it is advantageous to them. I also suspect that it enables that person to reap whatever economic or social advantages of still appearing to be a citizen of their country of birth. That feels unfair. I don't think one can have it both ways.

Canada needs immigrants. We need to continually improve our capacity to welcome to our country people who want to live here. Canada has historically had a very high percentage of people who come here, becoming Canadian citizens. But we need to do more to ensure that those recent Canadians become full and active participants in what John Ralston Saul has referred to as an "old experiment, complex, and in worldly terms, largely successful " (one of my favourite quotes as given by his wife the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson  Governor General of Canada - it goes on to say "Stumbling through darkness and racing through light, we have persisted in the creation of a Canadian civilization) .  However, in spite of my enthusiasm for Canada to become a place where people want to live, I remain unconvinced that we need to encourage people to come here by offering the right to dual citizenship.

It seems to me that being a Canadian citizen should require everyone (not just new immigrants) to make an unconditional commitment to the our country. Dual citizenship does not suggest to me such a commitment but rather an attempt to hedge one's bets.

The government at the same time also suggested that rather than people waiting six years to become a Canadian citizen (and only having to be in Canada for four of those six years) that the waiting time be reduced to five years - but only actually being in Canada for three years. Again I don't understand. While of course people might need to travel to visit family etc, why, if they want to make Canada the permanent home ,would they be out of the country for up to two years during the process of becoming Canadian?

Perhaps it is far too easy for all of us to be Canadians. Perhaps we all need to demonstrate both some knowledge of our country, its history and laws as well as the capacity to be engaged in our communities. Perhaps we should all stop taking our citizenship for granted. Then perhaps we would be able to demand more from those who want to live here.