I hear you. But given recent political controversies regarding revoking citizenship, are you not a little concerned about the precedent set by revoking someone's citizenship, even if it is honourary? Seems like a back door way to cheapen the value of citizenship itself.
Pressure Builds to Revoke ASSK's Honourary Citizenship
- Thread starter links18
- Start date
Not really, as honourary citizenship has no meaning in law. They could just as easily have made her the honourary citizen of Pizzaland, and revoking it has about as much meaning.
But bowing to popular pressure to revoke her honorarium based on a misunderstanding of her position vis-a-vis the Myanmar government shows up just how craven our politicians can be.
Correct, she is the main advisor to PM, and a Nobel Peace Laureate has MORAL responsibility to speak up against genocide in any part of the world, let alone in HER OWN COUNTRY......moral/ethical responsibility does not mean you have to be in a formal government position.....Nobel PEACE Laureate who keeps silent!!!!!!.........She is not elected but is considered the de facto leader of the country because of her reputation as an opposition leader and peace activist' her party has majority in parliament
While it is possible her silence is because she does not oppose the racial cleansing campaign, it is also possible that her public silence may be so that her private whispers are louder and stand a greater chance of getting through. Perhaps the bigotry against the Rohingya is so strong in Myanmar, that publicly coming out against the racial cleansing might undermine whatever moral authority she has to change things. We just don't know. Rushing to judgement without the necessary facts does not secure justice.
My statement that she holds no government position was in error, she is a member of the cabinet (Foreign Secretary). She may, therefore, not be at liberty to speak out on this issue publicly.
She also holds a position that was created just for her, which may give her executive power. If she is truly the executive and is unable to control her military; she is not likely to make that publicly known at this time. (She is also unlikely to say things that may lead to her house arrest or banishment -- they must've been very rough years for her!)
I understand your point, but a Nobel Peace Laureate who is silent in face of ethnic cleansing, is not worthy of the prize.....this is not only my view, but the view of all people of integrity.....you say what you have to say regardless of prison or banishment...prison or banishment will even make her even more famous and loved in that case....a human being of integrity does not fear anything......enough said.
Human beings of integrity have fears just like anyone else -- someone who lacks fear is probably a psychopath. It is easy to think that fame and love are sufficient payment for years of house arrest if you have never experienced it. But once experienced, I imagine she would do just about anything to avoid repeating it -- that's human nature. We do not know that she has been silent, we only know that she has not spoken out "publicly". We have insufficient information at this time to judge her actions, or lack thereof.
I am thinking more in terms of the effect of "revoking citizenship" on the Canadian public. Whether its honourary or not, it establishes a kind of precedent in the public's mind that citizenship is something that can easily be revoked or that it is reasonable to revoke citizenship when people do bad things. I think they should tread carefully.
I see where you're going with this. I think the whole idea of handing out honourary citizenships, with no meaning in law, is problematic. And revoking them, especially based on nothing more than popular demand, is even more worrying. One look across the border should be a sharp rebuke against embracing that sort of popularism. But alas, it is a failing of democratic republics that popular opinion be consulted from time to time, while the very nature of democratic republics almost guarantees that the populous will be ill-educated, misinformed and ill-prepared to have an opinion worth consulting when the need arises, as evinced by British Google searches the day after the Brexit vote.
Perhaps a new honour should be invented, something like The Temporal Order of International Sociopaths Admired By Canadians for Dubious Services Rendered Humanity. I think I could get behind such an addition to the Canadian system of orders, yes? The word Temporal clearly indicating that the honour is less than permanent and may be revoked with the slightest change in public opinion.
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Canadian_citizenship
It is a symbolic honour; the recipient does not take the Oath of Citizenship and thus does not receive any rights, privileges, or duties typically held by a Canadian citizen.
But most Canadians are unlikely to remember the bits about "symbolic", "not real", "honourific" -- they're only going to remember "citizenship was revoked by popular demand" and start a campaign against Justin Bieber or something. (There have already been several White House and Congressional petitions to have his U.S. visa revoked by popular demand, that's why I chose him as an example. No offence to Beliebers was intended!)
To further illustrate my point, I think many of us will remember the CIC strike several years ago that slowed down processing for many people (visa, PR and TRP applicants especially). A Canadian judge ruled that the strike was caused by the Harper Government and their negotiating "in bad faith" with the union -- pretty strong words for a Canadian judge! It was a stinging rebuke against the Harper Government. But ask around today, and what most Canadians remember is that greedy union members went on strike to demand private school educations for their children and better benefits than most Canadians enjoy.
It's the same with the Canada Post strike, another case where the Harper Government was sternly rebuked for not acting in good faith -- Canadians overwhelmingly remember Government propaganda instead of the actual facts of the case, blaming union members for being lazy, greedy graspers.
Another case is the woman who was burned by McDonald's coffee so badly that she suffered third degree burns and required skin grafts and plastic surgery -- McDonald's spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a PR campaign to make sure she was seen as a greedy, gasping no-gooder out to make a quick buck; never mind that the courts ruled that McDonald's had it as its policy to make coffee way too hot to drink so as to reach the perfect temperature to have the smell waft through the store and entice customers to make larger food purchases -- the jury made the fine and damages large enough so that it could not be absorbed by McDonald's as a cost of doing business, but would force it to change it's habits to safeguard the safety of their customers. But to this day, the case is cited in the USA as a prime example of a frivolous law suit. The third degree burns, pain, skin grafts and plastic surgery were anything but frivolous, I'm sure.
I think links18 is making a good point, though it took me a while to get on board with him.
Aung San Suu Kyi has spoken out publicly. Her speech has said the right things (only just?), yet, in its lack of specifics, raised questions (as any well crafted political speech should):
- Does she, in fact, know what's going on in Rakhine State?
- Does the civilian government have any control over the military?
- Are civilian leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, controlled by the military, and to what extent?
- Are military leaders accurately reporting the facts to the civilian government?
- Does she, and her government, genuinely disapprove of the actions the armed forces are taking against the Rohingya?
- Does she, and her government, want to extend citizenship to the Rohingya?
- Is she, and her government, wholly, or in part, responsible for the ongoing racial cleansing campaign?
- Will the government intervene to help the Rohingya or unconditionally support the actions of the armed forces?