Pressure Builds to Revoke ASSK's Honourary Citizenship

[links18]

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.

So what? Many different things affect the public discussion about Canadian citizenship, including--believe it or not--Honourary Canadian citizenship. Similarly, we could have a discussion about other countries citizenship policies as a point of comparison to Canada. What is wrong with any of that? If you are bored by the topic, you don't have to participate, but I don't think this is the first time you have seen the need to make unsolicited editorial comments without making any substantive contribution to the discussion. What's up with that?

 

[bbssmm88]

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.

We know for sure that she is silent so far, and politicians speak publicly that is for sure-----fear is not an excuse for a Nobel Prize of peace laureate....you are missing the point here

 

[Natan]

We know for sure that she is silent so far, and politicians speak publicly that is for sure-----fear is not an excuse for a Nobel Prize of peace laureate....you are missing the point here

I am not missing the point. I am making the point that it is an unreasonable burden to require people you admire to be fearless in the face of their fears. Who are you to demand of perfect strangers that they must meet your definition of Nobel Peace Prize laureates? Placing laureates on such a high pedestal objectifies them -- they are not objects for your veneration, they are just human beings like the rest of us, and to make them out to be super-humans is as much a disservice to them as it is to yourself.

 

[keesio]

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.

It is true that she is playing politics and has a delicate balancing act here. But the fact that she is playing politics at all is disappointing given what she (used to) represent. She won a Nobel Prize because of her refusal to stay silent and because she challenged the military leaders. She is not supposed to be a politician but is turning out to be one. That is the disappointment.

 

[keesio]

I am not missing the point. I am making the point that it is an unreasonable burden to require people you admire to be fearless in the face of their fears. Who are you to demand of perfect strangers that they must meet your definition of Nobel Peace Prize laureates? Placing laureates on such a high pedestal objectifies them -- they are not objects for your veneration, they are just human beings like the rest of us, and to make them out to be super-humans is as much a disservice to them as it is to yourself.

Yes and because she is shown to be more human than envisioned, people are disappointed. People are always looking for heroes and in a bit of a fantasy world. Governing is hard. It reminds me a bit of the unrealistic expectations that people placed on Obama (another Nobel Prize winner) and the disappointment when he didn't follow through on their unrealistic ideals.

However, when she was getting all this adulation, she sure accepted it willingly with a smile. If she liked the fame of being on a pedestal, the expect to deal with the blowback when you fall from it.

The Nobel Prize is a bit of a sham anyway. I mean look at some past winners like Kim Jong Il.

 

[Natan]

It is true that she is playing politics and has a delicate balancing act here. But the fact that she is playing politics at all is disappointing given what she (used to) represent. She won a Nobel Prize because of her refusal to stay silent and because she challenged the military leaders. She is not supposed to be a politician but is turning out to be one. That is the disappointment.

Wasn't she always a politician? Now that she's been freed from house arrest, she may be frightened of the military putting her away again -- I know I would be! It must be hard to contemplate being punished again after having had a taste of freedom. Of course, she may have her own opinion on the situation in Rakhine State, one at odds with our own.

 

[Natan]

...look at some past winners like Kim Jong Il.

Did he win for original hairstyles?

 

[keesio]

Wasn't she always a politician? Now that she's been freed from house arrest, she may be frightened of the military putting her away again -- I know I would be! It must be hard to contemplate being punished again after having had a taste of freedom. Of course, she may have her own opinion on the situation in Rakhine State, one at odds with our own.

It is always different when you have to actually govern then when you are an opposing politician not in control. Just think about right here in Canada. It is always easier for the opposition parties to be critical of the government in control and make promises. The Liberals said all sorts of stuff and made all sorts of promises. But once they came into power, note how things changed. It's why people always get disappointed like people are starting to get with Trudeau. Similar to all the HOPE AND CHANGE that Obama promised but he ended up fairly moderate. Though Obama is still quite popular, some of his once strongest supporters further on the left are the ones most disappointed and it is that disappointment of the progressives that led to the rise of Sanders. It would have been interesting if Sanders won - just to see if he stays true to his roots or actually tries to govern to get things done.

Anyway, AASK was a politican and quite the martyr when she was persecuted by the government. Now that she is in the government, even if she does not have much control over the military, she is finding that trying to govern is tricky and it is harder to stick to your guns so to speak.

 

[keesio]

Suchi doing the right thing for majority of her people , which is the right thing to do . Does Nobel prize means , care for minority only when you can only care one group ? If Canada PM gets Nobel and then make change on c-6 and make it 8/10 instead of 3/5, I bet there will be post and blog to take away his nobel . Lol

AASK's issue is that she became a darling for progressives around the world. Many celebrities rallied to her cause. I went to a U2 concert and Bono dedicated a song to her and had her face on the big screen the whole time. Celebrities wore T-shirts, wrote songs, etc about her. She was up there with Gandhi, Mandela and the like. She became a victim of people's expectations because of that.

Remember that Kim Jong Il won a Nobel Prize. But no one gave a crap when North Korea violated the treaties he signed because heck.. was anyone surprised? Other than some hardcore left-wing and anti-american supporters, people where not celebrating Kim Il Jong. He was not celebrated like AASK. That is the difference.

 

[alphazip]

I know it's confusing, but although Canadian English generally retains the spelling of "honour" as used in England, the adjective in all the English-speaking countries (even England itself) is "honorary."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/honorary

 

[Natan]

I know it's confusing, but although Canadian English generally retains the spelling of "honour" as used in England, the adjective in all the English-speaking countries (even England itself) is "honorary."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/honorary

My country, a former British colony, uses the "honourary" spelling. I consider it a correct, if archaic, spelling, as does Merriam Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honourary

Btw, there are 54 sovereign nations where English is an official language, each of them having their own official variant dialect of the language (e.g., British Standard English, American Standard English, Jamaican Standard English, Australian Standard English).

 

[Natan]

It is always different when you have to actually govern then when you are an opposing politician not in control. Just think about right here in Canada. It is always easier for the opposition parties to be critical of the government in control and make promises. The Liberals said all sorts of stuff and made all sorts of promises. But once they came into power, note how things changed. It's why people always get disappointed like people are starting to get with Trudeau. Similar to all the HOPE AND CHANGE that Obama promised but he ended up fairly moderate. Though Obama is still quite popular, some of his once strongest supporters further on the left are the ones most disappointed and it is that disappointment of the progressives that led to the rise of Sanders. It would have been interesting if Sanders won - just to see if he stays true to his roots or actually tries to govern to get things done.

Anyway, AASK was a politican and quite the martyr when she was persecuted by the government. Now that she is in the government, even if she does not have much control over the military, she is finding that trying to govern is tricky and it is harder to stick to your guns so to speak.

Anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention to Obama's career before he became President would have noticed that he was a right of centre (American spectrum) politician far more interested in compromise and bipartisanship than ideology. His pro-big-business, pro-big-bank, pro-wall-street agenda was absolutely predictable from his career. Obama's bigger problem was the race based obstructionism he received from the Republican Party and the way the Republicans were able to leverage that racism so that even Democrats didn't want to be seen as pro-Obama. This racist obstructionism was also predictable and should have been expected."Hope and change" is a meaningless platitude that older voters should have seen through.

While Conservatives are very quick to talk about how unpopular Justin Trudeau is and how he has kept none of his promises, I happen to like him a great deal, as do all the liberals (e.g., NDP, Liberals, Greens) I know. This much ballyhooed disappointment of Trudeau is, in my opinion, mostly wishful thinking by the conservative press. He's doing a great job in a difficult world and I'm proud to have him as our P.M.

Sanders would have faced an even worse backlash than Obama had he have won the Presidency (the only thing worse than being a black man in America is being a "red" one). Almost every special interest and lobbying establishment in America would have fought him tooth and nail. Billions and billions of dollars would have poured into media advertising to prevent the scary "Communist" from getting any legislation passed. If Americans compared Obama with Hitler for signing legislation that provided adequate, affordable healthcare to tens of millions of Americans, I can imagine Sanders being compared with Attila the Hun and Chinggis Khan for providing universal healthcare, free college/trade school educations and higher minimum wages. Unfortunately, it's unlikely he could get anything done as President.

(For the record, I think quite highly of both Chinggis Khan and Attila the Hun, as political leaders go. I am simply recognizing their negative, and largely undeserved, reputations in the West.)

 

[Natan]

Suchi doing the right thing for majority of her people , which is the right thing to do . Does Nobel prize means , care for minority only when you can only care one group ?

One could use that argument to justify Hitler's persecution of minorities, while keeping the majority of Germans quite happy. One could also use it to justify Apartheid South Africa, where governments were keeping their white electorates happy at the expense of their nonvoting, black populations. It's a dangerous argument.

 

[alphazip]

Anyone who had been paying the least bit of attention to Obama's career before he became President would have noticed that he was a right of centre (American spectrum) politician far more interested in compromise and bipartisanship than ideology. His pro-big-business, pro-big-bank, pro-wall-street agenda was absolutely predictable from his career. Obama's bigger problem was the race based obstructionism he received from the Republican Party and the way the Republicans were able to leverage that racism so that even Democrats didn't want to be seen as pro-Obama. This racist obstructionism was also predictable and should have been expected."Hope and change" is a meaningless platitude that older voters should have seen through.

While Conservatives are very quick to talk about how unpopular Justin Trudeau is and how he has kept none of his promises, I happen to like him a great deal, as do all the liberals (e.g., NDP, Liberals, Greens) I know. This much ballyhooed disappointment of Trudeau is, in my opinion, mostly wishful thinking by the conservative press. He's doing a great job in a difficult world and I'm proud to have him as our P.M.

Sanders would have faced an even worse backlash than Obama had he have won the Presidency (the only thing worse than being a black man in America is being a "red" one). Almost every special interest and lobbying establishment in America would have fought him tooth and nail. Billions and billions of dollars would have poured into media advertising to prevent the scary "Communist" from getting any legislation passed. If Americans compared Obama with Hitler for signing legislation that provided adequate, affordable healthcare to tens of millions of Americans, I can imagine Sanders being compared with Attila the Hun and Chinggis Khan for providing universal healthcare, free college/trade school educations and higher minimum wages. Unfortunately, it's unlikely he could get anything done as President.

(For the record, I think quite highly of both Chinggis Khan and Attila the Hun, as political leaders go. I am simply recognizing their negative, and largely undeserved, reputations in the West.)

I agree with most everything you wrote. Of course, I favoured Obama's election over his Republican opponent, but once in office, he seemed to suffer under the delusion that Republicans would compromise with him! He continued with this delusion, even as his opponents mounted a racist campaign of disrespect and unbridled hatred toward him. For this reason, I don't think the Obama era met many of his supporters' expectations in terms of advancing progressive ideals, with the possible exception of gay rights.

One would think that being a "red" politician in the USA would be fatal to one's career, but what then are we to make of Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin? Russia and communism are synonymous to most Americans, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. So, how is it that the right (always the most vehemently anti-communist) doesn't seem to be bothered one bit by Trump's coziness with Russia? Of course, for Trump, it's not Putin's political philosophy that he admires, but his "strong man" (dictatorial) persona. He has praised Duterte and Erdogan for the same reason.

As to Trudeau, I'm in an NDP town (all MPs and MPPs are NDP), and I definitely do hear negative remarks about Trudeau from the "liberals" I know. Most of the ire here is directed at Premier Wynne, however.

 

[Natan]

I agree with most everything you wrote. Of course, I favoured Obama's election over his Republican opponent, but once in office, he seemed to suffer under the delusion that Republicans would compromise with him! He continued with this delusion, even as his opponents mounted a racist campaign of disrespect and unbridled hatred toward him. For this reason, I don't think the Obama era met many of his supporters' expectations in terms of advancing progressive ideals, with the possible exception of gay rights.

One would think that being a "red" politician in the USA would be fatal to one's career, but what then are we to make of Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin? Russia and communism are synonymous to most Americans, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. So, how is it that the right (always the most vehemently anti-communist) doesn't seem to be bothered one bit by Trump's coziness with Russia? Of course, for Trump, it's not Putin's political philosophy that he admires, but his "strong man" (dictatorial) persona. He has praised Duterte and Erdogan for the same reason.

As to Trudeau, I'm in an NDP town (all MPs and MPPs are NDP), and I definitely do hear negative remarks about Trudeau from the "liberals" I know. Most of the ire here is directed at Premier Wynne, however.

Gay rights, reproductive rights, and the issues that the right tends to write-off as "identity politics", are mostly the "divide-and-conquer" issues that the two parties in the USA use to differentiate themselves from each other -- the truth is, they are both controlled by the same people and have broadly the same exact policies, but with these "unimportant" differences, they can be pawned off on the American electorate as an actual choice. (Note, the "unimportant" issues can prove quite important to the people negatively impacted by them, but they are not "real" policy issues, their primary purpose is to divide the electorate.) I consider almost all "social" issues to be in this vein. Obama must've known the reaction he was going to get from Republicans -- he was, perhaps, the perfect first black President, because he's so cool under pressure and never loses his temper in public. I also don't think Obama opposes most Republican policies: Obamacare is really RepublicanCare, it was authored by the medical insurance lobby and taken directly from the Heritage Foundation's recommendations; Obama fully supported international trade pacts and other trading institutions, just like the Republicans; he tried to implement a Keynesian solution to the financial crises, just like his Republican predecessors have done for decades; he fully supported Israel (much more than any other president in history has), which Republicans love; he had majour problems with Russia and Putin, despite "reset" efforts, which is exactly how Republicans would have reacted; he took a hardline with Iran and cut a deal that his Republican predecessors would have salivated to sign; he took a hardline with North Korea..., etc., etc., etc. In my view, Obama is easily the most conservative American president since before World War II. He was NEVER going to meet his supporters expectations in terms of advancing progressive ideals ("hope and change" is not a set of specific policies, or even a general framework, that can be implemented, simply empty rhetoric completely devoid of meaning -- a vessel for every dimwit to pour their hopes into) -- but he could lay all the blame of his failure to do so on Republican obstructionism.

It is the nature of political factionalism that when your faction does something it is the height of wisdom, and when the opposing faction does the exact same thing, it is the height of folly. This is especially true of politics south of the border.