The Wall Street Journal suggests that Vice-President Cheney might want to have a regime-change strategy in place in case his boss needs a helping hand next time he's north of the border. I don't know. The Canadians I know are pretty sensible and tend to be prudent and generous. I'm confident that Mr. Walkom doesn't express the will of the majority of the Canadian people. But just in case, maybe we want to make clear the amount it would cost to reimburse their 50 percent share of what it costs the U.S. to defend North America's borders. All in all, mutual good will might be worth preserving.
Oh, that was rude. I take it back.
How about this. If you give back Pres. Bush, we'll send you Michael Moore. We'll even fund a big bash at the Toronto Film Festival. We'll throw in Barbra Streisand, too.
Given their hate crimes legislation, couldn't the Pope be prosecuted due to his speaking out against gay marriage?
Actually, we'd owe 33 per cent -- we often forget Mexico is part of North America, too. And personally speaking, I'd rather we paid our own way, had our own defences and needn't use U.S. weaponry etc. That way, our foreign policy would not be open to bargaining. I agree, it's hard to take the high road when we suck up to the U.S. when it comes to dependence on its military might. I wish our government had the will to go it alone.
As to Mr. Walkom, I know him and he's a pretty good guy. He wasn't advocating the prosecution, he was merely noting that Mr. Bush might fit some of the criteria. In fact, our sadly outdated law in this area was updated in 2000 to correspond with those of the International Criminal Court.
It would take political will to prosecute; that will obviously does not exist. Also, no visiting head of state can be charged; in fact, only a private citizen visiting Canada could be charged. So Mr. Bush could only be charged if he were in Canada and no longer in politics AND if the government really felt he was guilty.
It's also worth noting that most of the Allied commanders in the Second World War would face a similar situation. In fact, there have been TV documentaries on this issue, assuming the war had ended in Germany's favour. A kind of "what if" scenario.
As to prosecuting the Pope, we separate church and state. That's why a few faiths and Christian denominations are allowed exemption when it comes to their exclusion of women in certain areas, ie women as priests. So, he would not be prosecuted.
You must remember that we have grown up under entirely different approaches. The U.S. model stresses personal freedom ie freedom of speech, assembly etc.
Our approach is more collective: the community is the key, not the individual. Minority rights, therefore, are also extremely important to us and so we protect them.
We have not had a civil war or a war for independence to alter our national psyche. Thus, our independence came much more gradually, and through evolution rather than revolution. That has made us very different as citizens.
Also, we have a tenth of your population, so I don't think we ever felt such a great need for individualism.
There are points to be made for both approaches, but I'm sure each of us prefers the one we live by.
Chacun a son gout, as the saying goes. :)