O Canada, our home and native land filled with British undesirables
By Matthew Fraser, Opinions Editor
Australia was famously a British prison island; for decades only the most unruly and corrupted were sent to the British colony to serve out their days. Over time, these former royal subjects developed a system and identity of their own to distinguish themselves from their previous overlords.
Apparently, Canada will soon be the destination for many new British rejects and undesirables. This time, instead of bank robbers, rapists, murderers, and arsonistâCanada will have the honour of being the home to a useless royal, his oft criticized spouse, a jihadist⌠and his mother.
Why ascribe much worth or respect to royals? The theory that your claim to fame is coming out of a womb tied to an antiquated aristocracy that owns next to nothing and subsists off of tax dollars⌠you probably donât contribute anything to society most care about. Also, who cares for the spouses of famous people? If your claim to fame is sharing a marital bed with someone who did something, you probably donât contributes anything to society either.
In simple terms, Prince Harry is the son of a deceased millionaire who is popularly known for wearing a Nazi costume at a Halloween party, and his wife is an actress (in some things Iâve never seen) who is seemingly disrespected by British tabloids (and a few pundits) for being ever so slightly blacker than the average porcelain teacup. Given the proceeding lines, I have no choice but to consider the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to be useless normal people with more than their allotted share of fame and print time.
Truly, Prince Harry is a celebrity by happenstance and though Meghan Markle has not really ascended to a level that justifies her interceding into the daily news cycle. They are unwanted in the country that actually cares about their royal status⌠why should we care about their deconsecrated status if they move to Canada?
Now, its all fun and games for your grandmother to wave her favorite handkerchief at the passing royal carriage, but we should take the repatriation of a potential Jihadi much more seriously. Cue Jack Letts, better known in the media as âJihadi Jack.â In 2014 Letts traveled to Syria allegedly to join ISIS; shortly thereafter, he and a number of other western born ISIS members were arrested and have been held in Syria since.
At the time Jack held British citizenship via birth in the UK and Canadian citizenship via his father. After his identity was revealed, a massive public outcry prompted British parliament to rescind his citizenship. His mother, Sally Lane, has petitioned the Canadian government to bring her son to Canada for sentencing and punishment. However, before this (against the warnings of her own government), she sent her son money in the midst of his terrorist career.
In the court of law thatâs called aiding a terrorist organization. I certainly emphasize with the love of a mother for her child, but I donât emphasize with someone who would knowingly use their hard-earned money in a way that could benefit an organization directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. If Britain doesnât want him back due to his role in Syria, there is no reason to be excited for his arrival in Ottawa.
So where does that leave us, the lowly taxpaying Canadian? We certainly have little say in the ordeal. Well, in one situation, we have a couple who really donât deserve anywhere near their current level of fame, moving here with partial expense (potentially) paid by our tax dollars. The other is a situation where in the best light possible, a foolish young man and his mother want to move hereâwith some uncertain help from our tax dollarsâas their last available haven. In a worst light, a terrorist and his obliging mother want to move here as their last available havenâwith some uncertain help from our tax dollars.
Either way, Canada is now the home for British undesirablesâwith some uncertain help from our tax dollars.
