Connect with us

conflict

As war looms in Lebanon, will Canada be forced once again to evacuate “citizens of convenience?”: J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon, but we must consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have.

Canada is preparing to evacuate Canadian citizens from Lebanon in case the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the well-armed, Iranian-backed terrorist organization, escalates into a full-blown war. Most of Lebanon’s southern border towns have been evacuated as have the kibbutzim and villages of Israel’s north. There are estimates that as many as 75,000 Canadian citizens may be living in or visiting Lebanon.

There is a precedent for an evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a 34-day war that killed some 1,300 Lebanese and 165 Israelis and displaced 1.5 million residents of the two countries. The war ended after Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which called for, among other things, an immediate ceasefire, and the withdrawal of all combatants from southern Lebanon.

There were as many as 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon at the time and Canada moved to get as many of its citizens it could reach – and who wanted to be evacuated – out to Cyprus or Turkey and on to Canada. Some 14,000 were evacuated by air or by sea at a cost that was later reported to be $94 million.

Almost no one asked in 2006 what were the obligations of the Canadian government to citizens living abroad. Many of these citizens had lived in Lebanon for decades, their only link to Canada being their passport. Consider Rasha Solti, who wrote in the Globe and Mail on July 22, 2006: “I hold a Canadian passport, I was born in Toronto when my parents were students there. I have never gone back. I left at age 2.” Solti’s passport was her escape route to Canada if she ever needed it. Did Canada owe her and others like her anything? And while there are no hard numbers, as many as 7,000 of the evacuees reportedly returned to Lebanon after the cessation of fighting.

Obviously, the government has some responsibility to assist Canadians caught up in a conflict. But what about citizens of convenience – those who renew their Canadian passports every five or ten years without visiting, let alone living, in Canada? What duty does Canada have to help Canadian passport holders who have not resided in or paid taxes to Canada for decades – if ever?

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studied the 2006 evacuation and its report in May 2007 touched on this issue. A Department of Foreign Affairs official responsible for consular affairs told the Committee that “Until further notice, within the framework of the consular service, a Canadian is a Canadian; the rule is very clear. However, you are right, the debate has been launched and the discussion will take place.”

Well, no real public discussion took place. There were, however, conversations within the federal government, and the nation’s Citizenship Act has been amended several times since 2006. But there are still no residency requirements to remain a citizen. Should there be?

An amendment in 2009 instituted the “first generation limitation” that restricted the scope of those eligible for Canadian citizenship for the future. Citizenship by descent would henceforth be limited to one generation born outside Canada. This law was subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023, and the government now has a bill before Parliament that will grant citizenship to eligible foreign nationals whose parent(s) have a substantial connection to Canada and are impacted by the first generation limitation.

In other words – unless the courts subsequently define “a substantial connection” very narrowly – Canadian citizenship can be passed on for generations to those living abroad.

This summer Ottawa is again preparing to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon. The government has bolstered its embassy staff in Beirut and deployed Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Cyprus where they are working with allied nations to coordinate evacuation planning. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canadian Embassy in Beirut have all urged Canadians to leave at once. It’s unknown how many people have taken this advice, but clearly Canada is preparing for a major evacuation if the fighting escalates.

Is it not long past time for Canada to consider what rights are appropriate for those who choose to live abroad? Many permanent residents living outside Canada, as in Lebanon, hold dual citizenship. Should they require genuine ties in or to our country to retain their citizenship and their passports?

Before 1977, Canadians who acquired another nation’s citizenship, except by marriage, lost their Canadian status. Until 1973, Canada required those who wanted its citizenship to renounce their former allegiance. A 1993 parliamentary committee questioned the meaning of loyalty when people held dual citizenship, and it suggested that this devalued the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The committee, in fact, recommended that a Canadian who voluntarily acquired another citizenship should cease to be a Canadian. What the courts might to say to efforts to implement such measures today is unknown.

Still, the Foreign Affairs official in 2006 was correct: A Canadian is a Canadian. But perhaps there is another way to limit the use of our passports as a public convenience. In the United States, all Americans, no matter where they live or how many passports they carry, must file an income tax return as a fundamental continuing obligation of citizenship. Essentially, the US says that those who want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship must help to pay the costs of running the government, and those who don’t want to pay must renounce their American citizenship. This applies to Americans living in Canada.

Washington’s regulation is both reasonable and right. Holding a US passport carries certain obligations. We need to find ways to impose similar obligations on Canadian passport holders living abroad.

In Yann Martel’s famous phrase, Canada is the greatest hotel on earth. He meant that as praise, but to many it has come to imply that they can enjoy the benefits of this country without sharing in the duties and obligations of citizenship. In other words, you can check in, enjoy the facilities, and then check out without paying the bill.

It is too late to interfere with the pending evacuation from Lebanon. But now it is time to consider what rights citizens living abroad in perpetuity can have. It’s time to fully examine whether dual (or triple or multiple) passport holders can remain Canadian citizens. Time at last for a hard look at what Canadian citizenship means in the 21st century.


J.L. Granatstein taught Canadian history for 30 years and was director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum. He sits on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Research Advisory Board.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Russia has sent the West a message: Don’t provoke us into escalating the war

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

The U.S., U.K., and NATO war alliance is desperate to provoke Vladimir Putin into expanded engagement prior to Donald Trump taking office. NATO members, sans Biden, met after the U.S. election to organize a strategy to Trump-proof their efforts.

Despite the diminutive Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky jumping around and shouting about Russians firing an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Thursday, they didn’t. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided his response to the U.S-led NATO group firing missiles into the Russian Federation would be to send a message with a multi-warhead intermediate range hypersonic missile. (Click here for background information.)

President Vladimir Putin said “one of the newest Russian medium-range missile systems was tested in combat conditions, in this case with a ballistic missile in non-nuclear hypersonic edition.” The missile has a range of approximately 3,500 kilometers, below the threshold for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) – that’s a reach throughout western Europe, and the hypersonic message is likely, “You have no iron dome system that can prevent this.”

From Reuters:

Russia fired a hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile at the city of Dnipro on Thursday in response to the U.S. and UK allowing Kyiv to strike Russian territory with advanced Western weapons, in a further escalation of the 33-month-old war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised address, said Moscow struck a Ukrainian military facility with a new ballistic missile known as ‘Oreshnik’ (the hazel) and warned that more could follow.

‘A regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character,’ Putin said in an address to the nation carried by state television after 8 pm Moscow time (1700 GMT).

A U.S. official said that Washington was pre-notified by Russia shortly before its strike, while another said they had briefed Kyiv and other close allies in recent days to prepare for the possible use of such a weapon.

Regardless of its classification, the latest strike highlighted rapidly rising tensions in the past several days.

Ukraine fired U.S. and British missiles at targets inside Russia this week despite warnings by Moscow that it would see such action as a major escalation.

The U.S., U.K., and NATO war alliance is desperate to provoke Vladimir Putin into expanded engagement prior to President-elect Donald Trump taking office. The NATO members, sans Biden, previously met in Brussels after the U.S. election to organize a strategy to Trump-proof their efforts.

Increasingly it looks like Great Britain will lead the provocation effort, with full support of the U.S. war machine. We previously said to watch Moldova closely, because that strategic position would be the most likely place of Western political influence to provoke Russia.

Indeed, as things are starting to unfold with increased urgency stimulated by the U.S. election outcome, now we see the U.K. entering a new agreement for military defense of Moldova being pre-positioned. From a U.K. government press release:

A new UK-Moldova Defence and Security Partnership has also been launched today, building on extensive cooperation between the two countries and strengthening Moldovan resilience against external threats. This partnership will bolster support for the sovereignty, security and stability of Ukraine, helping to strengthen national security at home in the face of increasing Russian aggression.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy said:

‘Moldova is a vital security partner for the UK, which is why to reinforce their resilience against Russian aggression and to keep British streets safe, I am deepening cooperation on irregular migration and launching a new Defence and Security Partnership.

‘With Ukraine next door, Moldovans are constantly reminded of Russia’s oppression, imperialism and aggression.[‘]

As the design of the strategy appears to be unfolding, Great Britain, with U.S. covert operational support, will position themselves inside Moldova. NATO troops are already on the ground there, much to the anxiety of the average Moldovan.

The intellectually honest people of Moldova, using the reference point of prior activity by the U.S. in Ukraine, clearly see themselves being set up as cannon fodder for Western military usefulness. The Great Britain/CIA/NATO team appears likely to use the geography of Moldova to provoke Russia into some form of response.

The baseline for the continued need to avoid any cessation of hostilities in Ukraine is financial. BlackRock and JPMorgan have exclusive rights to the “rebuilding” of Ukraine, with access to all the resources therein. Thus there is an alignment of interests between BlackRock, JPMorgan, NATO, the U.S. State Department, and the internal operatives of the Biden administration.

At the same time, the Deep State (those who control Biden), the Intelligence Community, in combination with the anti-Trump DOJ-NSD (National Security Division), are using the increased hostility to bait President-elect Trump into saying something contradictory about current U.S.-NATO policy – a Logan Act violation.

So far President Trump has remained quiet, as the provocation against our peaceful interests are ongoing. For his part, Vladimir Putin has remained reserved and careful in his response; however, as U.S./NATO missiles continue to land inside the Russian Federation, there is concern that Putin’s restrained responses may indeed escalate.

We hope there are backchannels between Moscow and Mar-a-Lago; however, without any doubt the Intelligence Community is looking to intercept any communication that might possibly be taking place. Everyone in and around the orbit of President Trump likely has national security surveillance on them.

The industrial war machine is attempting to defend itself against any peace effort.

“Troublesome” is an understatement.

Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.

Continue Reading

conflict

Colonel Macgregor warns of world war, urges Trump to ‘tell the truth’ about Ukraine, Israel

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Colonel Douglas Macgregor has warned that Biden’s authorization of long-range missile attacks by Ukraine has resulted in ‘the highest state of nuclear alert’ in Russia and that the U.S. faces ‘the storm of the century’ in the Middle East.

In a powerful, sobering appraisal of the escalating danger of world war, Colonel Douglas Macgregor has warned that Biden’s authorization of long-range missile attacks by Ukraine has already resulted in “the highest state of nuclear alert” in Russia, and that the U.S. faces “the storm of the century” in a direct conflict with Iran.

Following months of pressure by the U.K. government to permit the firing of NATO-guided and supplied missiles “deep into Russian territory,” outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden green-lit the strikes on Monday.

The following day, the U.S.-guided and supplied ATACMS missiles were fired 70 miles into Russia. Following this, despite U.K. government ambiguity on the issue, U.K.-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles were also launched into pre-2014 Russian territory for the first time.

Described as sign that “the West wants escalation” by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the strikes were followed by the use of a novel Russian hypersonic missile known as “Oreshnik” (“Hazelnut”). The previously unseen weapon delivered multiple warheads on its Ukrainian target and “cannot be countered” – as Russian President Vladimir Putin explained.

Putin has repeatedly warned that Russia will strike any military installation from which strikes on its territory originate, promising a “mirror-like” response to future attacks.

Putin also updated Russian nuclear doctrine following the Biden authorization. The revised doctrine now includes the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Russia by a non-nuclear power – but “backed by a nuclear power” – like Ukraine.

Macgregor said the moves by the U.S. were reckless and had resulted in the “highest state of nuclear alert” in the Russian military. He condemned a statement made by U.S. Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, which claimed the U.S. was prepared to fight – and even win – a nuclear war with Russia.

Such remarks “convince the Russians we are preparing for nuclear war,” said Macgregor, stressing that this U.S. officer could not have made this irresponsible and dangerous remark if his senior officer did not support it.

“Generals do not make policy,” he said, as he bemoaned the absence of visible leadership in the U.S. at a time of mounting crisis. “Who is in charge?” he asked, arguing that the Department of State – whose brief includes foreign and war policy – appears to be itself being led by “generals who act like Caesars.”

With NATO faced with a drawdown of U.S. commitments to European security under Donald Trump, moves towards war hysteria is one means of securing its future.

The entire liberal-global order faces a hard reckoning following defeat in Ukraine, as this promises to reveal the deep corruption, money laundering, human trafficking, and immense damage to the European economy partnered with the “hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians,” which Macgregor says the media is simply refusing to report.

“The media have never told the truth,” Macgregor said angrily.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on November 11 that “corporate media is a propaganda vessel for Big Pharma and the war machine,” summarizing his long-held position that the Ukraine war is a vast “money laundering scheme” involving the military industrial complex – and companies like BlackRock.

“The big military contractors want to expand NATO. Why? Because nations have to conform their military purchases to NATO,” he said.

Kennedy recalls Senator Mitch McConnell’s stunning response to the question of whether the U.S. can afford sending “$113 billion to Ukraine.” Kennedy explained, “He said, ‘Don’t worry,’” and then showed McConnell saying, “It’s going to American defense manufacturers.”

Kennedy’s claim that the media runs advertisements for the war machine is not a “conspiracy theory.” It is a matter of congressional record.

Kennedy has also stated that the United States blew up the Nordstream pipelines, destroying German gas supplies – and resulting in the destruction of the economy of the former powerhouse of Europe.

He said in March 2024, “It’s amazing how some refuse to admit that we sabotaged Nordstream even after Biden stated on camera that if Russia invades Ukraine, ‘there will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We will bring an end to it.’ This is a matter of public record.”

“There is indeed propaganda at play here. But it isn’t Russian and it isn’t coming from me. It’s the war propaganda of our own government and their collaborators in the media.”

This propaganda machine is now pushing the West towards a war with Russia which cannot be won. A nuclear exchange, as Putin, Macgregor, and Trump have said, would produce no winners. Conventionally, European nations have spent so little on defense that they have no effective counter-force to a Russian land invasion – which Macgregor says the Russians “have no intention” of launching anyway.

Dr. Sumantra Maitra, the author of the “dormant NATO” policy behind Trump’s move to scale down U.S. commitments, yesterday said the result is “a very, very risky moment,” saying “Putin argues that the line of ‘strict or qualified neutrality’ is now blurred” by the authorized NATO weapon strikes.

President Putin announced on November 21st that “we reserve the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”

“In the event of escalating aggression, we will deliver a decisive mirror-like response.”

 

Why is the regime escalating to a “blurred” line between proxy conflict and nuclear war?

It is an insane gamble to prevent the U.S. from drawing down from NATO in Europe, and to prolong a war whose end would reveal the deep corruption in and around the proxy war in Ukraine. Peace would spell doom for the liberal-global order.

Nuclear war for Israel?

Hopes for another payday for the war machine are still alive, however, in the strong U.S. backing of Israel.

In his November 21 appearance on “Judging Freedom,” Macgregor describes continuing U.S. support for a nation whose leaders are now named in arrest warrants linked to genocide as a “tragedy,” saying of the announcement of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant, “It’s a sad and tragic day for Israel and I think for the United States because we are complicit” in the charges made against both men.

Israel is another example of a leadership whose tenure can only be secured if the wars never end. Benjamin Netanyahu is accused by many, including his fellow Israelis, of keeping the wars going to avoid jail. Even Joe Biden agreed with this assessment.

With Netanyahu urging the U.S. into a war with Iran that Israel cannot win alone, Macgregor asks “four questions on Iran,” namely how such a disastrous war could ever be argued to be serving the interests of the United States.

It would, Macgregor said, see the “U.S. sleepwalking into disaster” so colossal as to be “the storm of the century” – and all to keep a criminal out of prison.

Macgregor has stated that all Trump has to do to stop the war in Ukraine is “tell the truth” about the corruption, lies, and reckless escalation which have sold this war to the West. On the grave matter of human losses, he said:

“We don’t know how many have died. The media have never told the truth. It’s 600,000, 700,000 dead Ukrainians at least and hundreds of thousands more wounded who will never recover. No one is telling the truth. It’s time for the truth. If President Trump does anything he’s got to tell the truth – and throw out anyone who doesn’t provide him with the truth.”

The same can be said of Netanyahu himself. If Trump were to tell even some of the truth about this man, neither Americans nor anyone else outside his influence would be willing to stand with him.

Netanyahu has urged all of the “regime change” wars which have driven mass migration into the West. The war in Iraq killed “a million historic Christians,” as J.D. Vance has said, adding that if Americans had been told this instead of WMD lies, they would never have supported Netanyahu’s call for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq.

Netanyahu has pushed the false line of Iraqi WMDs since 1990. He called for the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, whose demise smashed open the floodgates of African mass migration.

Regime change is the business model of neocons whom Trump vowed in February 2023 to remove from the U.S. government, and Netanyahu is the man who has urged regime change on the U.S. for at least 20 years. Trump made this statement almost two years ago in a video recently recirculated as if it were current news. It is to be hoped that Trump’s resolve on clearing out the “Deep State neocons …who seek confrontation” has not weakened.

Regime change has ruined the West, changing regimes at home into a permanent state of emergency governed by censorship and lawfare against critics of godless liberal-globalism. As a result, we are now morally and financially bankrupt, our isolation sealed by steadfast support of a nation whose leadership is now credibly accused of obvious war crimes.

At home, Netanyahu is accused of having backed Hamas for years, of ignoring precise warnings of the October 7 attacks, of relentlessly blocking every hostage deal – to prolong the wars which keep him in office.

His former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman also warned that “Israel will not exist in 2026” if Netanyahu remains in power, saying in June that the Netanyahu government is “only concerned with its political survival.”

Israelis themselves recognize that Netanyahu cannot survive the outbreak of peace, and “has never wanted peace,” as Donald Trump said of him in 2021. Netanyahu’s entire career is based on permanent war. He now wishes to drag Americans – and the rest of the world – into another.

To tell this shocking truth to Americans could not only save Israel from a coalition the former head of Mossad warned in 2022 was “leading Israel to self-destruction” – but also save us all from a devastating global conflict, which Macgregor says would be sparked by attacking Iran.

The U.S. faces a stark choice between oblivion and restoration. It cannot have both, as others have pointed out. So far, Trump has remained silent on Israel while Putin has signaled he is open to Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine.

With war being the lifeline of the Deep State that Trump has vowed to defeat, is he willing to tell Americans the truth to keep their dreams – and themselves – alive?

Continue Reading

Trending

X