There is a lot of ideology in the economic profession. I think that many economists have a view of markets which is not only idealistic and naive, but they are defending the views that markets are working efficiently. For ideological reasons, economists spend a lot of time doing complicated mathematical models, trying to pretend that markets are efficient - they do that also to try to impress others in other disciplines to look more scientific. I'm not sure this is working but this is certainly part of their strategy. I think we should be very modest. I view myself more as a social scientist than as an economist. I think the frontiers between economics, history, sociology, are not as clear as what economists try to pretend. Economists try to pretend sometimes that they have developed a science so sophisticated that the rest of the world cannot understand. I think this is a joke.
67 years ago, my Mom, her folks and all but her oldest sister (who had reached the age of majority--but that's another story) came to BC by train after a sea voyage from Europe as refugees, sponsored by a cousin who came here 20 years earlier.
How many Canadians reading this have similar stories in their family background?
She spoke German, so her family was looked on after World War 2 with some suspicion (as anyone from the Middle East is now) but she grew, became a citizen, married, had three kids and continues here to this day. But if refugee laws had been then what they are now, her family would have been kept out in the name of "stream-lining" the process.
About that little Syrian boy who's picture has gone viral? We, Canadians have his blood on our hands. His aunt lives in my home town, Coquitlam, and tried to sponsor his family but failed because the "stream-lining" involved making the door so hard to open that another family like my Mom's, fleeing from their war-torn home didn't get here intact--may still not get here, even what's left of them.
And that's wrong. Their blood is on our hands, and especially on the hands of this Conservative government who have done what we ought not to have let them do in locking our doors to our neediest neighbours (yes, I know they're 10 time zones away).
Let me resort to parliamentary language: Shame, folks. Shame! Shame on us all.
The "good" parts of that bill aren't good enough to balance off all the "bad"
parts of the bill. And in the presence of C-24, it's even worse.
Folks, my citizenship is in danger and maybe yours is, too -- although born in
Canada, my Mother was born elsewhere, so even I, if someone for political
reasons decided I was a terrorist, could be stripped of my citizenship and
deported to the country of her birth. That is a country whose language my
mother didn't even speak in the first two years she lived there (in a minority
community there). And that is a language for which I can do little more than
recite the alphabet, count and say hello in -- and even that much is
considered odd by my friends.
The Liberals are not an option. They supported C-51 and want to do no more
than tinker with it. It needs repeal, full and complete. And C-24 needs to be
recognized for the unconstitutional pandering and hate-mongering that it
Even the NDP aren't a very good option. Go back and re-listen to that first
leaders' debate and vote for the party whose leader sounded the most sensible,
the least wooden, the least frenetic for the whole debate.