DrCaleb DrCaleb:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Brenda Brenda:
Hi, I am Brenda, I am Dutch and live and pay taxes in Canada. I cannot vote in Canada.
I can vote in the Netherlands.
Read Khar's post. It explains quite clearly why Sutherland and other ex-pats can't vote.
For example, come time to vote, how do you differentiate between a genuine ex-pat and some worthless plastic Canadian without resorting to "racial profiling"?
I think Sutherland meets the criteria to vote; he is a citizen, he owns property in Canada, and he pays taxes in Canada. Brenda is not a citizen, nor does she choose to be. Sutherland
chooses to remain a Canadian citizen.
Khars' and the Governments point about whether a voter is 'engaged' enough while living outside Canada I think it moot. How is voter turnout for those living inside Canada? 60%? So there is no guarantee that living inside Canada means the voter is engaged or not. Nor do I think that living outside Canada disinterests one from following Canadian Politics.
I don't agree with your use of "engaged." My post talked about someone being entirely disengaged from the Canadian way of life and existence by essentially being enveloped by the American entertainment industry. That is fairly different from people who do have to engage with the Canadian system by the reality of living here, but don't have to engage with the political system, a by far more narrow aspect of "engaged" than I was looking at.
Even if we go by your use, however, I find it really hard to buy that people from abroad will be sufficiently engaged; already a very small minority of ex-pats engage in the process (likely because many only got their Canadian citizenship through the most basic process, mind) and there are risks for basic citizenship being used as a main identifier for all aspects of voting; take, for example, "plastic Canadians" that this law was originally designed to effectively disenfranchise.
The idea of voting is being able to partake in a system that impacts all of us by giving us representatives to do the tasks of governing; if we are not governed by these people, likely won't be during their tenure, and will not spend time being held accountable to the conditions we are voting in, I think it skews incentives and is unfair to those who do have to live with their decisions on a daily basis.
Archten Archten:
I think there are a few different takes on the idea of whether or not a Canadian citizen should be permitted to exercise their right to vote in a Canadian federal election. The first is whether or not a sitting government should be able to define the scope of that right. If the right to vote is not constitutionally defined but subject to a governmental decree, that in itself is very dangerous for a democratic regime and I would even say is the bigger picture.
Attempting to maintain a neutral stance on the Sutherland question: ignoring aspects of privilege, wealth or ownership, should a natural Canadian citizen (vs. 1st generation immigrants or ‘new’ Canadian) be permitted to vote if they have been out of the country more than 5 years? I would have to say yes based on the following reasons:
1- I don’t like the state being able to manipulate the voting rights of natural Canadian citizens. That is a recipe for fascism.
2- The current state of information media makes a Canadian living abroad just as capable of making an intelligent electoral decision as anyone living in Canada, or at least Ontario...
3- Living abroad has the potential of viewing our country and government from a broader perspective. As Canadians we should consider simplistic exclusion over inclusion as cowardly, small minded and selfish.
4- Mr. Sutherland’s position is of a patriot. He is probably a better ambassador for our country than many of our recent ministerial appointments.
5- The fact Mr. Sutherland has refused dual citizenship is important: to become a dual citizen would be to declare Canadian citizenship secondary to American citizenship as the Americans do not recognize it (but do tolerate it, for now).
6- Can Conrad Black vote in the next election? Can Brian Mulroney? I mean, seriously people, what is the issue here?
Going to respond with a little devil's advocate.
1 - Recognize first and foremost that this law has and will again pass muster at the highest levels of the checks and balances of the court, inclusive of the Constitution. This law is viewed as an acceptable breach of rights due to the first section of our Constitution, where an abrogation of rights is acceptable if there is compelling and proportional reason to do so. There is some legitimacy to a law passing several levels of government, as well as successive governments of various leanings and orientations.
Secondly, I think you should be comfortable with law changes in a fundamentally democratic society, including those for voting (especially given that, over a longer period, every person on this forum supports some change in voting law). Any "immutable" law would be damaging in that it is inflexible, and I'd rather we not go down the path of the American system on that front.
As an aside, even if you held the law immutable, we'd end up with a situation very much like America, where we creatively interpret an old immutable set of laws. So far, neither our system nor the Americans has lead from the devolution from democracy into fascism, although they have achieved greater enfranchisement in general. Further, in-so-far as democracy is defined as a government being voted in by those who shall be governed, giving the vote to a slew of those who shall not be governed by that government seems a questionable reduction of the rights of other Canadians in general.
2 - Sure, I know enough about German, Israeli, British, American and Australian governments to probably be able to engage in the democratic system there. However, I personally know that the way I vote would be reflective of my existence enveloped within Canadian society. I know that if I moved to another country, after several decades I'd likely have a very different viewset that still would more meet the views I derive from living in that country than the ones I am voting in.
As an example, I'd probably vote against the German CDU due to their policies against gay marriage, against the current Israeli government due to their actions against Canadian interests, and probably for Australian labour because I think Abbot is an irritating dickhole. I know their policy, but because I'm not hindered by having to live under it it's a lot easier for other, less relevant issues to day to day governing drive my vote. Of course, there's every chance that my massive shallowness isn't reflected by your average ex-pat voter.
After multiple decades outside of the country, I really do have to wonder if Mr. Sutherland would seriously vote on the basis of what is best for him as a Canadian citizen or if he would vote on what's best for other Canadians in his view as a member of the American acting community.
3 - Sure, but I don't buy either that this is simplistic exclusion. Rather, I view it as a nuanced answer to our issue of hundreds of thousands of people holding Canadian citizenship by simply doing the absolute minimum to achieve it through our immigration process, as well as a way to ensure that votes being counted are from people who really are going to be governed by the government voted in.
If you, as a person, are not going to be governed, I think it's an abrogation of Canadian rights for those who live here; my vote should not be held in equal value to those who refuse to be governed and will not be governed by whichever government is voted in in the next election. We simplistically exclude people from other countries voting for the reason that they are from other countries; after a significant period of time (in this case, decades) and a clear commitment not to return, I don't view Sutherland as at-risk of being governed by anyone he votes for.
Canadians consider a lack of civil responsibility cowardly, small minded and selfish. Those abroad who have a different perspective (I must point out, that is a rewrite of my concerns to comment 2) can return to Canada if they so wish to vote and exercise that new perspective in a nation under which they are governed.
4 - Mr. Sutherland's announcement that he is a Canadian who wants the vote is mostly met with surprise that Mr. Sutherland is a Canadian. As an actor he doesn't represent Canada, for he is an icon of Western media and our multinational (largely American) entertainment industry.
Calling him a better ambassador than those ministers of a dozen governments who have existed since he left is, frankly, a pithy remark for the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of our ambassadorial and government staff, and is a sample of that "simple exclusion" you were so quick to say Canadians condemn in strong terms in comment 3.
5 - There are reasons, however, not to become an American citizen for various economic factors, including tax burdens and restrictions or requirements Americans place on their citizens. I think it's presumptuous to say that his choice to remain solely Canadian was done for purely altruistic reasons.
Frankly, I'd have preferred he become engaged in local processes as well to ensure he is doing his duty as part of that community to ensure those governing his day to day life and those of his coworkers were being held to a suitable standard.
6 - Conrad Black doesn't hold a valid Canadian citizenship, so no, he cannot vote even if he resided in Canada. He has likewise been removed from most Canadian bodies of recognition as a result. His situation is not analogous to that of Sutherland.
As for Brian Mulroney, I don't know if there is anything special with his current status?
Forum Junkie 
CKA Uber 
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
