W Kandzie mieszka 700 tys. obywateli z podwojnym obywatelstwem. Takich jak ja. Ale wylaniaja sie takze sily polityczne na prawicy i na lewicy, ktore chcialyby zrobic z tych 700 tys. wolnych ludzi obywatelami drugiej kategorii. Na to nie mozemy pozwolic.
EDITORIAL
One class of citizen
The fuss about Stephane Dion's dual citizenship is an insult to thousands of loyal Canacians
The question raised this past week by opponents of the Liberal Party on both the left and the right: should the fact that Stephane Dion is a dual citizen of Canada and France alarm Canadians? Should he be forced to renounce his French citizenship if he wants to become prime minister? Does hes French citizenship raise questions about his loyalty?
The answer, on all counts, is no. Specifically, the new Liberal leader's loyalty is not an issue. As minister of intergovernmental affairs in the 1990s, Dion was Jean Chretien's most ferocious separatism fighter. He maid a staunch , clear defence of Canada, coolly exploding the dearly held mythology of separatism. He then became the author of the Clarity Act on secession, a legal bomb that wreaked havoc on the Parti Quebecois.
An attack like that levelled by right wing yapper Ezra Levant last week - "When it comes to making decisions ... will Dion be unduly influenced by France...?" - is absurd on its face. That Dion is a Canadian patriot is unquestionable.
What's left, then, is a question of symbolism, and we were surprised to hear Jack Layton say "I would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenshp, because one represents many Canadians, and for me that means it's better to remain the citizen of one country."
This concern about properly representing Canada and Canada only is presumably what led to Michaelle Jean's renunciation of her dual French citizenship when she became Governor General.
Dion has publicly contemplated grudgingly doing the same thing. "I'm born like that. It's part of me," he said of his French citizenship. "It's my mother who gave that to me. And like all sons, I love my mother and I love what she gave to me. And so to remove that from me, I'd be sad. That being said, if I see that it's a liability to our winnability, I will do it."
There are elements of this discussion that are interesting precisely because of their symbolism. Canada is a country that is built on its openness to the world. Our society is peopled - and has been from Confederation - overwhelmingly by immigrants who have come here to join in the Canadian project.
They bring the best elements of their homelands into this country and make those traits a part of Canada. And they, too, love what their mothers and fathers gave to them. At least since the 1970s and the dawn of official multiculturalism, we have encouraged Canadians to retain their links to the wider world, and to make those links a part of the cultural mosaic of Canadian identity.
There are nearly 700,000 Canadian citizens who hold dual citizenship. What are those who forced Michaelle Jean to renounce her dual citizenship and would now do the same to Stephane Dion saying to those Canadians? That their citizenship is second class? That they are entitled to only some of the rights and privileges of being Canadians?
It may be worth noting that if he were to win a general election, Stephane Dion would not be the first dual citizen to be a prime minister. Most recently, John Turner - who served as PM in 1984 - was a citizen of England.
Speaking of England, perhaps now would be a good time to mention that our head of state, Her Majesty the Queen, is not only a citizen of several other countries but also rules over them. Those who see no problems with that bit of symbolism should hardly raise questions about what Dion's dual identities say about Canada.
If and when a candidate seeks to become prime minister whose loyalty is actually in question, let that question become an election issue. But this sideshow about dual citizenship is insulting to many thousands of loyal Canadian citizens. We should move on (EYE WEEKLY, Dec. 14 2006).
Do dyskusji na forum usteckim pt. "Historia zada sprawiedliwosci!" (http://www.ustka.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14817#14817) wlaczyl sie szlachcic szanowny Pan Edward Zajac, to i wartosc merytoryczna debaty o szlachcie sie polepszyla. Mam nadzieje, ze ci ktorzy "zagluszaja" debate w koncu zrozumia, ze odkrywanie prawdy o szlachcie jest fascynujace, wartosciujace i samoidentyfikujace dla kazdego Polaka.
A tak na marginesie kilka slow do Pana Edwarda Zajaca.
Panie Edwardzie,
Historia szlachty jeszcze nie jest spisana. Wszystkie dotychczasowe sa interpretacjami z punktu widzenia historiografii zaborcow. Z wielkim naciskiem na zabor rosyjski. Nie zapominajmy, ze Europa Zachodnia byla momentami zafascynowana Rosja i jej "dusza slowianska". Tylko nie dodaje sie malego faktu, ze bez Polski nie powstalaby taka panstwowosc jak Rosja. Kiedy narod rosyjski zaczal sie tworzyc, polski juz istnial ponad 500 lat. 500 lat wolnosci narodu polskiego = szlacheckiego = slowianskiego.
Przyjdzie czas, ze polski historyk spisze prawdziwa historie Polski, ze szczegolnym uwzglednieniem stanu szlacheckiego i wytworzeniem przez niego politycznej filozofii libertarianizmu szlacheckiego tz. "zlotej wolnosci szlacheckiej".
Jak dotychczas historie polskiej szlachty pisza obcy historycy. Ale i oni maja swoje skrzywienia interpretacyjne spowodowane roznymi wplywami ideologiczno-historycznymi. Najlepszym obecnie jest brytyjski historyk walijskiego pochodzenia Norman Davies (mialem okazje sie z nim spotkac). Ale jego spojrzenie jest lekko lewicujace. Traci brytyjskim socjalizmem wywodzacym sie z mysli chrzescijanskiej, ktorej wyrazem byl magazyn "The Economist".
William graduates from Sandhurst (BBC NEWS - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6181761.stm).
No comments:
Post a Comment