Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Instead of complaining about people not engaging, maybe you should try engaging. I proposed we back the discussion up a bit and talk about what core problem council is trying to address and on what criteria the decision should be made.
Personally, I haven't heard a good rationale for why this issue should be explored beyond being nice to PR who have been here for a while, and I can't conceive of criteria that could be used to judge the decision, at least until we know what problem they're trying to solve. I also believe that making voting contingent on citizenship is an arbitrary line, not based on economics, inclusion or exclusion, loyalty or what have you. It's simply one of the few rights we reserve for citizens, to give a bit of meaning and distinction to being a Canadian citizen besides a blue passport. I don't understand why stating this means I'm not willing to have a discussion or justify my position. That is my position and justification.
What are your thoughts? How would you frame the issue to be explored and how would you define the decision-making criteria?
|
I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.
That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.
I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.
On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.