The promotion of institutions such as the United Nations and its various agencies and conventions as guardians of a higher law than that of mere states is neverending. Wars are somehow illegitimate if not approved by the United Nations Security Council; social legislation must conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; environmental law must be framed around the Kyoto accords, etc., etc.
The claims of mere national loyalties, to those such as Dion, are irrelevancies or annoyances at best, dangerous obstacles at worst, to the ultimate goal of a single world government.
But in the meantime, national citizenship can be used as a convenient method to get the benefits and protections of one state while avoiding the pains and penalties of another.
Understand that, and you'll understand why Stephane Dion has reacted as he has to the suggestion that he renounce his French citizenship:
"I'm born like that. It's part of me. 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,” Mr. Dion said.
“This being said, if I see that it's a liability for our winnability, I will do it.”
The idea of a single national loyalty and identity seems quaint to cosmopolitans such as Dion. He and his ideological cohort consider themselves citizens of the world; why should they be tied down to being citizens of one nation?
But if the plebes on whose votes he unfortunately depends insist, Dion will bow to their prejudices, for the moment. Once he and his cohort rule the world, citizenship will hardly matter anyway.
Source: Globe and Mail
5 comments:
Leave it to the blogging tories to use the language of Stalinist antisemites to condemn dual citizenship.
http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/3fried.htm
I am well aware of how the Stalinists used the phrase as an anti-Semitic pejorative.
Nonetheless, it neatly describes the objective of so many cultural liberals: the dissolution of national identities into an amorphous "citizenship of the world."
So what exactly is wrong with cosmopolitanism? I consider myself a liberal-cosmopolitan and believe in breaking down national boundaries. I do not support compelte global governance for a variety of reasons (I am not against the state, the state has a role) but at the same time we need to work together to transcend the nation-state as a barrier. What exactly is wrong with this? I have yet to hear a good answer.
If you're worried about identity, identity is something we get but also we build. I am Canadian but am much more beyond Canada too. Limiting identity at the nation state is to limit our understanding of a collective humanity and our ability to learn and take from others to shape ourselves.
That's very Utopian of you Vicki and a few others...but here's a thought... Have you ever been to a third world nation where thousands of people die of starvation and dehydration every day?
Add to that nations that would like to see nothing better then for all westerners dead or non-existant so they can in turn perpetuate and proliferate their own stone age thinking...
Their own beliefs are such that the end justifies the means and if they die to accomplish their goal it's worth their life...
Now go take the utopian ideals and try rationalizing with extremists...
After you're dead and burried along with say half of your like, maybe then you'll wake up and smell the coffee... Human nature is what it is... the only way to change it is to introduce education and bring thniking and nations like that out of the stone age ... you can't try to reason until you bring them up to your own level of education... otherwise they'll sit back and thank you for your money which they are then in turn using to set themselves up as dictators or absolute rulers in their own nations and to crush anyone who has a free though that might be contrary to their own plans. Not to mention funding subversive causes to take advantage of all your socialist processes while they work to undermine you and ultimately take you out... Maybe it's time Canada follow Austrailia and England and ditch multiculturalism as the lame duck that it is...
I know I went off on a rant... but Cosmopolitan views don't typically see past the lint in their collective navals unless you point out the hard facts of the world outside their cosmopolitan views...
But it does go to point something out to you that you and everyone else seems to be missing... The whole arguement regarding dual or multi citizenship and Dion is really, really silly. Mr Dion opted to run for a leadership position in potentially the highest seat in Canada. If he wants the seat he should be 100% a representative of Canada. Leaving the entire question open for the amount of garbage that's been spouted off about it goes to show he's very short sighted. It will be interesting to see how he, the liberal party, and the Liberal run media spins this once France sends him notice that he's no longer got the option of applying... By the laws of France no citizen of France can hold office as a head of state in another nation.
'the dissolution of national identities into an amorphous "citizenship of the world."'
'I consider myself a liberal-cosmopolitan and believe in breaking down national boundaries'
It's funny reading comments from those in the left who feel we should be people of the world and it shouldn't matter if Dion has dual citizenship.
These are the same people that brought us SoCan, CanCon and regulate what we see on TV, and continuously say that we are losing our cultural identity to America.
So which is it, does national identity matter or not?
Post a Comment