Game of Thrones Meets Canadian Politicians

GotI recently found an article portraying election party leaders as The Game of Thrones characters. Needless to say, the comparison was brilliant! I decided to expand on the article by supporting some of the statements with corresponding legislation and my own thoughts. If you aren’t up to date with the show, there are some spoilers.

Harper; Joffrey Baratheon

Harpers government has been known to swiftly remove individuals who oppose their regime and ideals. One may argue Bill C-51: The Anti-terrorist Act, Bill C-24: The Citizenship Act and the niqab debate have resulted in an “us vs. them” mentality. The article states that Harper is largely disliked by many. Some women argue that Harper’s government lacks respect for women. For instance, many Aboriginals argue that not enough has been done to protect and find missing Aboriginal women. Finally, opposing politicians have argued that Harper (much like Joffrey) has disgraced the global perception of Canadians due to his choices. Nevertheless, unlike Joffrey, Harper still has a strong following.

Jon_Snow_and_Ghost Trudeau; Jon Snow

Trudeau has a famous father and aims to bring a new approach to politics. Like Snow, Trudeau was underestimated by his seniors but has become a leader to many of his followers. Trudeau portrays himself as a teacher, advocate and leader – all of these qualities are possessed by Snow. Trudeau claims to be concerned about climate change, like Snow, he too acknowledges “winter is coming”. Trudeau argues that supporting the Anti-terrorism Act was a means of survival; he felt forced to support the legislation to protect Canadians against ISIS but claims he will amend the bill once in power. Similarly, Snow had worked with the opposing group (the Wildings) for survival as he took up arms against the white walkers to protect others.


May; Khaleesi

Khaleesi: a powerful woman with great plans for empowering the vulnerable members of society. She advocates for the homeless, displaced and marginalized individuals in society. She wants to provide homes, a safe environment and protection for Canadians by improving the National Housing Strategy and implementing her Guaranteed Liveable Income. She is creating a strong and loyal following based on her social policies. However, much like Khaleesi, she is overlooked by her male counterparts.

TyrionMulcair; Tyrion Lannister

Mulcair has considerably more political experience than his opponents. He has demonstrated opposition to the throne (Harpers government) by opposing bills such as the Anti-Terrorism Act. He has compassion for marginalized individuals within the community and is often close to but never on the throne – however, that can change in this election. He claims to be willing to work with the green party to create the change he believes Canada needs. Similarly, Tyrion is willing to work with Khaleesi to create as well. Finally, if Mulcair doesn’t win the election, much like Tyrion, this probably won’t be the last you hear of him.

Did you enjoy this piece? If so, please press “like” and subscribe! Share this post with other Game of Thrones fans.

Points of Discussion:

  1. Are these characters a good fit?
  2. What else would you add to each of these characters?

The original article link:


What Does a Canadian Citizenship Mean To You?

There is an ongoing debate surrounding what constitutes a Canadian citizenship. Is it a privilege or right? Has Canadian citizenship become a two-tier system? Many have conflicting attitudes when answering these questions. Media has portrayed the new Canadian citizenship act (Bill C-24) to be a two-tier system. Many individuals, especially immigrants are outraged to be considered “less Canadian” than their Canadian born counterparts. Zakaria Amara’s case highlights this issue.

Zakaria Amara is a convicted terrorist for his part in the Toronto 18 group. The group had planned to plant three bombs throughout Toronto which could have potentially killed hundreds of individuals. He was sentenced to life in prison in 2010 with a chance of parole. He has resided in Canada for most of his life but was born in Jordan. However, due to Bill C-24, his citizenship has been revoked. Consequently, he will likely be deported upon parole.

Some individuals argue that deporting Amara is a sign of xenophobia and only feeds the idea of a two-tier citizenship model within Canada. Many are perturbed by the idea that only individuals with dual-citizenships, largely immigrants, are subjected to this kind of treatment as another Canadians without a dual –citizenship would not have their citizenship revoked. These individuals argue that citizenship is a right and not a privilege; thus, his citizenship should remain intact and he should serve his sentence in Canada.

In addition, many individuals have begun questioning why citizenship revocation hasn’t been extended to other criminals including rapists and serial killers. The idea is other criminals with citizenships are tried within the law and they do not have their citizenship revoked and neither should terrorists. Terrorists should not be sent to their parent’s homeland as a result of their criminal conduct.

In opposition, Amara’s choice to partake in a premeditated terrorist plan to bomb Toronto shows he has no respect for his fellow Canadians. Consequently, terrorists should not be considered Canadian as they have failed to uphold their allegiance to the country and its values. Hence, anyone involved in a terrorist attack should have their citizenship revoked, regardless of if their parents are immigrants or not. Some individuals also feel that if you are born in Canada only then citizenship is a right and if born elsewhere it is a privilege.

FlagThis case has highlighted the question, what is a Canadian citizenship worth? Canadians and politicians are conflicted and divided in their opinions and sentiments. In the recent Munk debate, Trudeau and Harper stood on opposite ends of this issue. The Harper government put in place Bill C-24 while Trudeau wants to address its shortcomings and believes that terrorists should not have their citizenship revoked.

Where do you stand?

Did you learn something new? Did you like this piece? If so please press like and subscribe!

Points of Discussion:

1. What are your thoughts?

It’s Election Time!

Now some of you may be wondering why TSP is writing about political matters in a legal forum, but the reality is that the two realms are closely linked; many legal developments take place for political reasons especially during election periods.

TSP is not aiming to sway your vote for one party over another but rather to highlight the legislation that has helped shape the competing political parties. The candidacy for Prime Minister is compelling but the support/lack thereof for certain legislation has impacted how voters view the candidates. The competition currently seems to be strong between three parties: The Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Here are some legal decisions which may impact your vote. Since most individuals are familiar with the Conservative party, this post will focus more on the Liberal party.

The Conservatives

The Conservatives have received considerable backlash due to their recent legal proposals including Bill C-24 Citizenship Act and Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act. Each of these legislations is discussed more at length on the TSP as individual pieces. Many Canadians feel betrayed by these decisions and find the acts to be unconstitutional and unnecessary.

The Liberals

Justin Trudeau chose to support Bill C-51 but since then has suggested amendments to the act. Trudeau claims that while preventing terrorism is essential, he believes Canadians’ rights should not be compromised. However, many Canadians are weary of his words due to his choice to support the legislation in the first place.

Trudeau has also put forth the Transparency Act in Parliament which proposes keeping the public informed about how their money is spent. How? By providing the public access to the dealings of the Board of Internal Economy in the House of Commons; this board decides how money is spent. Trudeau also suggests he’d like to amend the Access to Information Act to require government information to be open to the public by default. This legislation would also allow the Information Commissioner to order the release of information to the public. Furthermore it would limit the cost of an access to information request; if the information is not provided within the specified time, then the government should provide a refund. Trudeau wants the Access to Information Act to be reviewed by all parties and consistently reviewed every five years to ensure it is up to date.

Trudeau has also suggested that he would support abortion until point of birth. Many Canadians are discontent with this proposal as they believe it is a violation of the Charter to prevent a fetus from coming into this world.

Canada Post was asked to distribute flyers of a graphic picture of an aborted fetus accompanied with a picture of Trudeau stating a vote for Trudeau was a vote for abortion. Some Canada Post employees have since refused delivering the flyers and are now suspended. You might be surprised to learn that Canada Post does not have a right to determine what materials are distributed.

These developments are merely the tip of the iceberg but provide a little more insight into what the legal implications of voting for a party may look like. Did you like this article? If you want more information about the elections going forward, make sure you like, comment and share! Based on the response, I will write additional pieces on the rest of the parties.

Points of Discussion:

1. Has this post provided some additional insight to the legal implications of voting for a particular candidate?

2. Would you like to read more about the legal implications of voting for each candidate?