Category Archives: Uncategorized

Shameful Lack of Action When Canadians Killed BY ALQaeda Terrorists in Burkina Faso

Posted on by

TRUDEAU AND TERRORISTS

Category: Uncategorized

$elling Diversity

Posted on by

$elling Diversity

 

Gravol Alert:  This article contains barf-bag buzzwords in potentially lethal doses. Diversity and Inclusion levels exceed their RDAs. Parental supervision is advised.

 

What makes the soft totalitarian state distinct from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is that it is the private sector which acts as the water carrier for government sponsored social engineering. It is the private sector which does much of the work in the trenches, conditioning people to accept the government agenda.

 

But then that is only fair, because upon closer inspection, this government agenda looks very much like the corporate agenda.  Let’s just call it a happy confluence of interests, where government contracts out multicultural propaganda to those who can use it to cloak their mercenary purposes.  Selling diversity for profit is a Public-Private Partnership . Social cohesion, civic trust and participation can go to hell.

 

There is no better illustration of that than the latest TV commercial put out by Van City, the financial arm of the social justice crusade. https://www.youtube.com/user/vancitycu  It’s laced with all the robotic jargon that issues out of the mouths of programmed Millenials and status-seeking Gen Xers desperate to cling to their positions on the PC pecking order.  Words like “Homophobia” and “Islamophobia”.  You know the script.

 

One might be given to wonder, would all of these words—all of these sins—even exist had our society not been hijacked by Cultural Marxists? If there had not been mass immigration from third world countries? Would an ethnically homogeneous European Canada consist of young people chanting  “homophobia”, “racism” and “Islamophobia” like Red Guards with IPhones , tattoos and ear piercings? Can you imagine how people 50 years ago would have reacted to this commercial? They wouldn’t recognize the language or the country that this claptrap was spoken in. Canadian  English? You have got to be kidding.

 

Alas, Van City is not alone in its quest to be the company that it wants the world to be. In fact, it is just  one of a herd of Canada’s  “Best Diversity Employers”, half of whom are privately owned institutions. Companies like the Amex Bank of Canada, one of whose employee resource groups (ERGs) is “HOLA” for employees of Hispanic origin.

 

Or CIBC which has a “Mosaic Mentorship Program” and a partnership with ACCES Employment which offers “speed mentoring for New Canadians”.

 

Or the TD Bank where there is a “Tropicana/United Way Youth  Employment and Mentorship Initiative to support “youth, newcomers and people of Black and Caribbean heritage”. That’s the same bank that requires all managers to take “diversity and inclusion” training (not uncommon these days).

 

Or Home Depot with an ERG called “Orange Mosaic” which publishes a monthly newsletter for 350 multicultural employees.

 

Or Telus which maintains a ‘diversity and inclusiveness’ report, and teams up with the Toronto and Edmonton Immigrant Employment Councils.

 

Or Kivuto Solutions Inc. which dumbs down English so that New Canadians will not misunderstand interview questions.  Like Vancity, the accent is on the improvement of diversity awareness of their recruiters so that the road to inclusion and advancement is made clear for New Canadians.

 

Or Epocal which encourages employees to pin their names to their home countries on a map of the globe so that the company can proudly demonstrate its global outreach.

 

Or Shell, or Cargill Ltd or Jazz Aviation L.P., which introduced diversity awards to recognize employee contributions in the promotion of workplace diversity. Or Xerox Canada which offers training in inter-cultural and ‘inclusive’ communication as well as ‘bias-free’ selection training.

 

Or Starbucks Canada, which recently announced that it would hire 1000 Syrian refugees.

 

Or Pepsi , made famous by its kumbaya commercials that put a happy face on globalism, which joins diversity focused partnerships with groups like the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council and the Canadian Council for Diversity and Inclusion.

 

Or  dozens and dozens more who even blackmail suppliers to go with the program or risk losing their business.

 

The list is endless, as is the monotonous recantation of ‘ inclusion and diversity’. But I can’t let you leave without giving special mention to Canada’s number one bankster, RBC, whose motto is “Diversity Works for Us.”   You remember RBC, don’t you? They’re the corporation whose rock star CEO Gordon Nixon lobbied for a 60% hike in the government’s annual immigration intake because in his words, “International experience is an asset to business.”  Yep, it takes a lot of international experience to serve coffee and donuts at Tim Horton’s for the minimum wage.

 

However, Saint Nixon also argued that governments needed to work to improve immigrant labour force participation, as he did when he had his Canadian IT workers train the Temporary Foreign Workers who would replace them.  One must admit that it took an impressive mix of business acumen and chutzpah to get  RBC employees to dig their own graves. Yes, Diversity certainly works for RBC all right.

 

Now it becomes clear what RBC means in their “Diversity and Inclusion Blueprint 2020”. As the current   CEO Dave McKay said, “Diversity is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do.” That’s smart as in “profitable”.  Repeating what has become the mantra and core rationale for ‘affirmative’ discrimination and employment ‘equity’, the RBC document states that “to serve our market we must reflect it.” But are commercial social engineers really reflecting the market—or are they anticipating it?

 

It is significant that of the 35 faces that can be seen on the RBC site devoted to “Diversity”, 15 or 43% are non-white even though visible minorities presently account for less than half that number . That seems to be very much the rule in the span of TV commercials as well, from offering mortgages to selling furniture. The number of visible minorities which corporations like RBC or Van City put in the shop window are substantially larger than their numbers in society as a whole.

 

In this respect then, these ads and brochures are more prescriptive than descriptive, or as Dan Murray said of multiculturalism, they are a prescription of what Canada should become rather than what It contemporaneously is—whether Canadians want to go there or not.  Employers feature disproportionately MORE minorities in their commercials and brochures because they are trying to get ahead of the curve, trying to appeal to a growing market share in urban Canada, where 9 major cities have already succumbed to a majority non-white population. In so doing, they help the government in its quest to prepare the public for what is to coming down the pike. The message is “This is where we are heading, and there is nothing you can do about it, so accept it.” Or, ” If have the population are not yet non-white they soon will be. The die is cast. So grow up.”

 

Their injunction to accept our multicultural non-European Canadian future is akin to the old adage about rape. If you are going to be raped, you might as well sit back and enjoy it. So spread your legs and lie on your back Canada, and enjoy getting shafted by diversity.  Again and again and again. Who knows, if you put your mind to it, demographic displacement might grow on you.  You may be marginalized, but rest assured you will be enriched.  Never fear, they will serve sushi at the back of the bus.

 

Just remember. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. And Diversity is Strength.

 

Tim Murray

April 9, 2017

— “There’s nothing more dangerous than a shallow-thinking compassionate person.” Garrett Hardin

The Coming Civil War in Europe

Posted on by

The Coming Civil War in Europe

by Clare Ellis

Immivaders
The Diversity establishment views these migrant children as harbingers of racial harmony

The Leftist-Liberal demographic engineering project of the European Union violates the rights of indigenous European peoples, goes against global trends towards the territorial partition of ethnic groups, and contradicts expert research on conditions that create ethnic and political conflict. The continuous practice of settling large numbers of non-Europeans into regions already inhabited by European indigenous populations but who have very low fertility rates inevitably alters the ethnic compositions of European nation-states, renders Europeans demographic minorities in their own homelands, affects the distribution of political power and the relations between ethnic groups, and causes a variety of other conflicts and problems, including civil war.

Engineering Multi-Ethnic States through Immigration

In this article I will be drawing on the existing research on the factors that have brought about ethnic conflict in history and in recent decades in the Third World to show that the same factors are being reproduced in Europe as our current elites go about engineering European nations into multi-ethnic states through mass immigration.

According to Myron Weiner and Sharon Stanton Russell, demographic research has found that countries with low fertility rates that also experience large-scale international migration tend to suffer from “violent ethnic conflict and political instability,” an erosion of national identity and sovereignty, as well as “radicalism, terrorism, religious fundamentalism, environmental degradation, and economic growth and stagnation.”1 According to Frank Salter, research shows that “ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties.”2

According to Tatu Vanhanen, “two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity” and according to Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt “large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace.”3 According to Michael Teitelbaum, “large-scale population movements across borders by refugees or other migrants can affect the cohesion of societies and generate social and political conflict both within and between countries.”4 And according to Monica Toft, multiethnic states are “the most violence prone settlement pattern” of distinct ethnic groups.5

Toft explains that demographic balances are key to ensuring stability and peace in multi-ethnic states but violence and civil war can result from a shift in these ethnic balances. What causes these shifts? “Differential birth/fertility rates and economic immigration,” “deliberate state manipulation,” and “[m]ass migration and resettlement.”6 Toft also describes the five main theories for why conflict and civil war occurs between ethnic groups: “ancient hatreds;” “modernization;” “relative deprivation;” “security dilemma;” and “elite manipulation.”7

In brief, the demographic engineering of sovereign nations with low fertility populations by high fertility in-migration shifts the ethnic composition of said populations (creates multi-ethnic states) and long-standing ethnic rivalries, competition, grievances, and territorial boundaries between immigrants and the native population, as well as hostile political leadership, can make violence between ethnic groups, and between the native population and the political elite, more likely.

In European nations, contentious relations between ethnic minorities and indigenous Europeans are due, in part, to cultural and ethnic differences (i.e. Muslims, Africans, Arabs compared to Christian, secular, atheist, Europeans), past and present grievances (e.g. slavery, colonialism, wars, hegemony), and the rapid growth of distinct non-European immigrant populations. And the tensions between native Europeans and their political elites are based, in part, on hostile demographic policies that alter the ethnic compositions and undermine the distinct ethno-cultural identities, political cultures, and institutions of European peoples and homelands.

Power Transition and the Likelihood of Civil War

According to the logic of “Power Transition Theory,” large-scale non-European immigration in the form of settlement in low-fertility European nation-states leads to a shift in the size of ethnic minority populations (the creation of multiethnic states) creating a “tipping” point whereby ethnic majorities become a demographic minority. According to the democratic principle of majority rule, when an ethnic majority becomes an ethnic minority they lose their legitimacy to govern the state. Just before, during, or after such a power transition occurs, power becomes contested and violence and civil wars are likely to break out, particularly if the migrants do not intend to integrate and/or are engaged in a war of opposition (Third Worldists, Islamists, and cultural Marxists).8

However, alterations to the notion of political community and national identity in Europe through cosmopolitan constitutional citizenship, as well as the replacement of ethno-European political institutions with multicultural organizations that are decidedly non-ethnically European in nature, means that such a power transition can occur earlier because majority rule becomes defined by political qualifications rooted in non-European ethnic identity political groups and pro-immigration Left-Liberal political parties.

In terms of majority rule based on ethnic rather than political groups, according to Tanja Ellingsen “wars are more likely to occur when the largest group is less than 80 percent.”9 In some European nations foreign-born populations already exceed 20 percent of the national population and demographers are predicting that Europeans will become full minorities in the latter half of the 21st century. This means that civil wars in Europe are likely to occur in the near future.

Homeland Territory is a Survival Issue for Ethnic Europeans

Immigrant riots in Sweden
Immigrant riots in Sweden

An additional “key” reason as to why violence and civil war between ethnic groups occurs is how ethnic groups and the state view territory.10 According to Toft and Dominic Johnson, almost three quarters of all ethnic wars between 1940 and 2000 were “centered on the control of territory.” The ownership and defense of bounded territory and homelands is necessary for sovereign states and is also central to international laws that emerged in the era of decolonization and post WWII ethnic group independence movements that involved “the gradual partitioning of the globe into self-determined territories.” According to evolutionary theory, territoriality or the “partition” of “living space” (a universal behavioural trait) and its defence (a conditional or contingent trait) is prevalent among both humans and the animal kingdom and can ensure relatively peaceful relations between distinct groups. In terms of human territoriality, the material resources of the territory such as “water, food, and shelter,” the “human contents” of the territory such as “the family, relatives, friends, allies, and ethnic group to which one belongs,” and the immaterial or symbolic factor of territory, are “key” to why “territory [is] worth fighting over” for human ethnic groups.11

The symbolic or non-material factor of territoriality is the “shared history” and attachment of ethnic groups to their historic and traditional land, seen as a common home or homeland, which provides “in-group/out-group psychology” and group identity.12 Toft explains that a homeland is “an indivisible attribute of group identity,” it is “inseparable from its past and vital to its continued existence as a distinct group” as it contains the very “fundamentals of culture and identity” that have developed over millennia and cannot be exchanged for another homeland. Homelands are geographically “bounded” and they sustain “cultural boundaries;” such “boundedness” is endangered by the ‘other,’ by ethnically distinct immigrants who threaten the integrity, sovereignty and security, the very survival of distinct ethnic groups in their homelands. As such, Toft clarifies that “Ethnic groups rationally view the right to control their homeland as a survival issue, regardless of a territory’s objective value in terms of natural or man-made resources” and will engage in fighting to protect and preserve control over their symbolic territories and thus secure their collective group identities. Losing control over a homeland means the “dilution of the national group, its loss of power, and consequent diminution of national identity” as well as a loss of control over the distribution of “economic and political resources,” immigration, and the cultural content of the society.13

The deep connection between homeland and the survival of distinct ethnic group identity is a key distinction between ethnic groups and states. According to Toft and Johnson,

[H]omeland territories are imbued with historic significance and their boundedness allows communities of individuals to maintain distinct identities and cultures. These unique properties mean that people and states behave differently in conflicts over homeland territories.14

For states, power and survival are seen in terms of control over material and physical territories and resources, and not in symbolic terms. Although a central duty of the state is the protection and survival of its citizens in the long-term, their focus on their own survival may trump the survival of distinct indigenous groups “who view territory as [indivisible and] inextricably bound up with their identity and thus ultimately with their survival as a group.” This difference in territorial control for survival between states and ethnic groups can result in violent conflicts.15

European nation-states may rationally calculate that their survival, in terms of the preservation and enhancement of economic and political power at the global level, depends on the mass-importation of foreign migrants as a ‘replacement population.’ But mass-immigration of foreign ethnic migrants leading to the creation of multiethnic cosmopolitan states based on multicultural immigrant rights and an ethnically neutral abstract European identity is not conducive to the long-term survival and sovereignty of indigenous Europeans who inhabit the European nation-states as homelands. In other words, nation-state survival at the global level is overriding indigenous European survival at the homeland level.

Pro-immigration European and EU elites are engaged in the promotion of large-scale non-European in-migration, in the decoupling of European ethnic identity from political power, and in propaganda campaigns that aim to belittle European concerns and discredit their distinct identities and sovereignty over their traditional homelands, projects that have defined various Leftist-Socialist EU integration models since the time of Coudenhove-Kalergi, as such, they may be perceived as hostile to European indigenous peoples and thus illegitimate as elected political power. They no longer represent the interests, provide secure homelands, or protect the survival of distinct and indigenous European peoples. In this situation, indigenous ethnic groups may “rationally calculate” to enter into conflicts, including political struggles and violent conflicts leading to civil war with both immigrant-settler ethnic groups and the state.16

Concern, Exposure, and Action is Legitimate

Since WWII indigenous European concern over international migration and cosmopolitanism has been discredited as right-wing extremism, Nazism, and racism. In reality, anti-immigration and anti-cosmopolitan sentiments are a legitimate response of native Europeans who are being displaced of their numerical majority position, replaced by non-European migrant-settlers, and dispossessed of their political power and sovereignty over their homelands by these ideologies and practices. Such a situation has led to the rapid rise of populist and alternative right anti-immigration and anti-Islamist political parties, social and political Identitarian movements, and numerous authors and political figures that expose the agenda of hostile European elites and the threats posed by immigration, Islamism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

Thilo Sarrazin: Deutschland schafft sich ab

Thilo Sarrazin wrote one of the most widely read and controversial books ever published in Germany, Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab (Germany Abolishes Itself, 2010). In this work he argued that “Islamic immigrants threaten Germany’s freedom and prosperity because they are unwilling to integrate and rely overwhelmingly on welfare benefits.”17 He has also said of Islam:

No other religion in Europe makes so many demands. No immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime. No group emphasizes their differences so strongly in public, especially through women’s clothing. In no other religion is the transition to violence, dictatorship and terrorism so fluid.18

Although condemned by leading elites in Germany, 89 percent of German readers of the Bild newspaper would choose to elect a party headed by Sarrazin.19

In January 2016 the chief of the Swedish army, General Anders Brännström, told his troops to prepare for a war in Europe and defend Sweden against skilled opponents that was expected “within a few years”20 and in February 2016, Norwegian Army Chief Odin Johannessen remarked that Europe “must be prepared to fight, both with words, actions — and if necessary weapons — to preserve the land and the values ​​we have in common” against the threat posed by radical Islam.21 In reaction to the ‘migrant crisis’ in Europe, in April 2016 Swiss People’s Party (SVP) member of parliament Roger Köppel stated that “Europe is about to abolish itself” due to a “megalomaniac” open border policy, and such “overconfidence is at the root of all evil.” He further stated that “The basic problem today is Islam” and that “It is an illusion to believe that politics can cope with this mass migration.”22

While it is true that Europe is overwhelmed with the migrant crisis and increasingly subject to the activities of radical Islamism, the situation in Europe is not just about Islam, the migrant crisis, and the protection of cultural values; it is also about the decades-old deliberate transformation of ethnic European homelands into multi-ethnic cosmopolitan states through the mass-influx of non-Europeans and the hostile alteration of the political identity, institutions, and culture of indigenous Europeans, a situation that is creating the conditions for civil war in Europe.

This is a situation that has been deliberately created by the EU project of Leftist-Liberal and neoconservative elites and is exploited by anti-European alliances between naïve or treasonous Leftist-Socialists, NGOs, and non-European settlers. All of these groups aim to overthrow the existing political institutions and traditions of European nation-states, render Europeans minorities in their own homelands and dispossess them of their territorial and political sovereignty, eventually replacing them demographically. In 2015, Renaud Camus explained that

The Great Replacement is not a concept, it is not a notion, and it is not a theory: it is only the coining of a name for the most important phenomenon to affect Europe in the last fifteen centuries: namely, the replacement of its population and the changing of people.23

This is in direct contradiction to international laws that protect against the destruction, “in whole or in part,” of distinct national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. What is really at stake is the actual survival of European indigenous peoples as distinct and numerical majority ethnic groups in their own nations and the preservation of the historic European homeland.

Follow our ongoing coverage of the migrant invasion of the West.


[1] Myron Weiner and Sharon Stanton Russell (eds.), Demography and National Security, New York, Oxford, Berghahn Books, 2001, p.1
[2] Germany’s Jeopardy, YouTube video, 30:50, posted by Frank Salter, January 5 2016; Frank Salter, Germany’s Jeopardy: Could the Immigrant Influx “End European Civilization”? Council of European Canadians, January 15 2016
[3] Salter, Germany’s Jeopardy
[4] Michael Teitelbaum, “The Role of the State in International Migration,” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 8, no. 2, Winter 2002, 157-167, p. 158
[5] Monica Duffy Toft, “Indivisible Territory, Geographic Concentration, and Ethnic War,”Security Studies, vol 12, no. 2, Winter 2002/2003, pp. 82-119 (82, 117)
[6] Monica Duffy Toft, “The State of the Field: Demography and War,” ECSP Report, no. 11, 2005, pp. 25-28 (p.26); Myron Weiner and Michael Teitelbaum, Political Demography, Demographic Engineering, New York, Oxford, Berghahn Books, 2001, pp. 32-33, 46
[7] Toft, Indivisible Territory, pp. 82-84
[8] Monica Duffy Toft, “Population Shifts and Civil War: A Test of Power Transition Theory,”International Interactions, vol. 33, no. 3, July 2007, pp. 243-269 (243-244, 248)
[9] Ellingsen as cited in ibid., p. 247
[10] Toft, Indivisible Territory, p. 84
[11] Dominic D. P. Johnson and Monica Duffy Toft, “Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict,” International Security, vol. 38, no. 3, Winter 2013/2014, pp. 7-38 (15, 37, 8, 18, 31, 16)
[12] Ibid., 16
[13] Toft, Indivisible Territory, pp. 86-87, 84, 90
[14] Johnson and Toft, Grounds for War, pp. 12-13
[15] Toft, Indivisible Territory, pp. 87, 84, 88
[16] Toft, Indivisible Territory, p. 114; Weiner and Teitelbaum, Political Demography, pp. 61-64
[17] Peter Martino, Will Germany Abolish Itself and France Commit Suicide? Gatestone Institute, December 3 2014
[18] Thilo Sarrazin, Bei keiner anderen Religion ist der Übergang zu Gewalt und Terrorismus so fließend, Bild, August 26 2010
[19] Franz Solms-Laubach, Würden Sie eine Sarrazin-Partei wählen? Bild, September 6 2010
[20] Oliver Lane, Sweden’s Army Chief Warns Of World War 3 Inside Europe ‘Within a Few Years’, Breitbart, January 26 2016
[21] Dagens Nærinsliv, Hærsjefen: Vi må være beredt til å kjempe, Dn.no, February 1 2016
[22] Roger Köppel, Terrorismus und Migration: Wir produzieren Heerscharen von Entwurzelten und Unzufriedenen, Die Weltwoche, August 13 2016
[23] John Lambton, The Great Replacement — Part I, Right On [now altright.com], December 10 2015

‘Child Refugees’ Rampage, ‘Demolish’ Housing in Germany Over Lack of Game Consoles

Posted on by

‘Child Refugees’ Rampage, ‘Demolish’ Housing in Germany Over Lack of Game Consoles

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER


Young Somalis in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania have “demolished” their kitchen and living quarters during a violent “rampage” in which they demanded PlayStations and more pocket money.

Four teenagers have been separated and sent to other residences for ‘unaccompanied minors’ after their violent rampage forced a staff member of the facility to flee to his office, where the 44-year-old locked himself in and called for police help.

The migrants had only been in Germany for two weeks when they became violent, threatening to beat the member of staff tasked with their care unless he fulfilled demands including giving the teens game consoles, more pocket money, and moving them to accommodation in a bigger city.

The Somalis, who are reportedly between the ages of 15 and 17, destroyed most of the furniture and “demolished” the kitchen in their taxpayer-funded living quarters.

According to Parchimer Zeitung, the youths were still rioting when police arrived, forcing police to put them in handcuffs while the situation could calm down.

The German newspaper stated that the four unaccompanied minors will be held responsible for the property damage caused, and attempted blackmail of officials.

Jan Buchholz, who runs the accommodation in Dargelütz, was reportedly taken aback by the violence as the Somalis had only been living there for two weeks, having been sent back to Germany from Scandinavian countries under the Dublin agreement.

The migrant housing operator said the outburst came as a surprise, noting the young men had been participating in a carpentry workshop in the region. “As long as they are busy, they don’t cause us much stress,” said Mr. Buchholz.

However, police had to intervene at the accommodation for so-called unaccompanied minors in Dargelütz just a few days prior to the Somalis’ rampage over what the migrants believed to be insufficient pocket money.

Officers in the operation seized more than 40 grammes of cannabis from a 17-year-old Syrian, who then proceeded to violently resist arrest.

Breitbart London reported on how migrants in Germany last year burned down a conference hall during Ramadan, causing £8.6 million in damages, because they feared Christians and other non-Muslims would eat all the gummy bears and Nutella chocolate spread during the daylight hours in which Muslims choose to fast.

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada by Tim Murray Canadian Shield Canadian Shield To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources. Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests. No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support? Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs. The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby. It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.” “Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that …farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways. Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population. The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production. And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.” Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’ It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay. Climate There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate. The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north. Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north? I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission. Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

Posted on by

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada

by Tim Murray

Canadian Shield
Canadian Shield

To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests.

No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn

The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support?

Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs.

The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby.

It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.”

“Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage

Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that

…farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways.

Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population.

The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production.

And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.”

Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’

It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay.

Climate

There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate.

The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north.

Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants

Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north?

I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission.

Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

Those Who Call Themselves Refugees Are Not Necessarily Refugees

Posted on by

Those Who Call Themselves Refugees Are Not Necessarily Refugees

March 28, 2017

http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2017/03/28/call-refugees-not-necessarily-refugees/

In the past few months, Canadians have heard of hundreds of so-called “refugees” crossing Canada’s land border with the U.S. and making claims for refugee status in Canada.

Canadians have good reason to be suspicious of the validity of such claims. To make this point clearer, we are re-publishing the confession of an Israeli citizen who entered Canada in 2007 from the U.S. with his wife and children. With the complicity of refugee advocates in Toronto and experienced fraudsters who had duped Canadian immigration/refugee authorities and succeeded in getting refugee status, he and his family were also granted refugee status.

After living off Canada for several years, he became tired of lying and returned to Israel. This bulletin is his confession of the fraud that he and his family committed.

This confession should remind Canadians of the extensive fraud that has occurred in Canada’s refugee system. It is happening again on a very visible stage.

This is a very large problem for a number of reasons.

(1) Since 1989, the year that the Mulroney government failed to institute a Safe Country law to prevent fake refugees from making claims, well over 1,000,000 people have filed refugee claims here. We’ll say that again: Over one million!!! If Canada had not instituted its Safe Country list and its Safe Country agreement with the U.S., Canada would have had to deal with at least tens of thousands more fake refugee claimants. (See the link to the list and the year when the safe country approved of its name being added to the list: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp)

(2) Canada’s immigration lobby, (immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, immigration advocates and ethnic groups) sabotaged 1989 safe country legislation and eventually diverted billions of dollars from helping real refugees overseas to filling the pockets of the lobby. It is now pressing to have Canada’s Safe Country Agreement with the U.S. repealed. Critics have described the lobby as a veritable cesspool which has have repeatedly duped our immigration system.

(3) Canada (along with the U.S.) has one of the highest refugee claim acceptance rates in the world. Yet, the immigration lobby is trying to portray the U.S. as a country with a high refugee applicant refusal rate.

(4) Canada’s right to defend itself from fraudsters who have used loopholes to abuse Canada is being assaulted again. As a result of the notorious “Singh Decision” in 1985 in which six citizens of India named “Singh” and one from Guyana successfully challenged a section of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Refugee claimants subsequently became eligible to receive Canadian health and social assistance benefits. This decision meant that Canadian taxpayers eventually had to pay about $2 to $3 Billion per year for benefits provided to people who made refugee claims. At the peak of the abuse of Canada’s refugee system, about 30,000 to 40,000 claims were being made here every year.

(5) While Canada’s quasi-judicial refugee system provided huge profits for the immigration lobby, it ignored the spirit of the law. According to the Supreme Court, “The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the refugee determination process existing at the time was invalid because it did not necessarily provide the claimant with an oral hearing. The judges’ greatest concern with the Immigration Act was the lack of opportunity of the claimant to state his case and know the Minister’s case against the claimant. At that time, an application before the Immigration Appeal Board (IAB) was usually rejected before the refugee claimant had an opportunity to discover the Minister’s case against him in the context of a hearing. The Court therefore found that the refugee determination procedures established in the Immigration Act, 1976 did not accord the refugee claimant fundamental justice and violated section 7 of the Charter.” The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the word “person” in the Canadian charter meant that a ‘person” in Canada did not have to be a Canadian citizen in order to receive health and social assistance benefits.

(6) The impact of refugee claimants has been enormous. Our Department of Citizenship and Immigration has not revealed the number of relatives that accepted refugees have sponsored, but that figure is probably the major percentage of several million Family Class immigrants who have come to Canada since 1989. In fact, family re-unification has become village re-unification. For example, as we have pointed out before, one Somali man has brought 100 “family” members to Canada. Many well-publicized cases of fraud (the Laibar Singh case) demonstrate the cheating that has occurred in Canada’s refugee system. Laibar Singh was eventually deported to the Punjab, and admitted there that his claim was fraudulent. However, hundreds of thousands of other fraudsters remain in Canada and laugh at Canada.

(7) A full list of the reasons given for claiming refugee status has never been published, but it would probably show how far Canada has traveled from Canada’s early intentions to help real refugees. For instance, people have claimed they needed refugee status because they were fat, gay, being called names, subjected to spousal abuse, etc. The amazing thing is that they have had a significant number of Canadians actually believe that these are legitimate reasons for these people to be granted refugee status. Some refugee claimants are genuine, but as the the case of the Israeli man shows, the sympathy and star status that is given to almost all refugee claimants is not deserved.

LYING OUR WAY INTO CANADA—–PART 1

November 23, 2011

http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2011/11/23/nov-23-2011-lying-our-way-to-canada/

I am writing from Tel Aviv in Israel. The major characters in the following story are me (Innocent Kwarteng—a fake name I used in Canada), my ex-wife, and my two oldest children. We are all Israeli citizens. My wife is an Ethiopian Falasha Jew who was brought to Israel under a project which allowed Ethiopian Jews to return to Israel as new Immigrants. I am not Jewish originally. I married my wife in 1996 in Israel and as a result, I received Israeli Citizenship. My two oldest children were born in Israel and they are Jewish, based upon the fact that their mother is Jewish.

On May 21, 2007, after I, my wife and two oldest children had traveled from Israel to Orlando, Florida for a family vacation at Disney World, we drove a rented car from Florida to Niagara Falls, Ontario to visit Israeli friends who lived in Toronto. At the time we entered Canada in 2007, I did not think that I would be staying in Canada for long. However, after visiting with these friends in Toronto who had claimed refugee status as Ethiopians, my wife also wanted to stay in Canada. These friends explained how we could make the same claim that they had made. We lived in Toronto for about two months, during which time my wife and I argued about whether or not we should make a refugee claim. On the 24th day of August 2007, we made a false refugee claim. We pretended that we had just landed from Africa (Ethiopia/Ghana). To prevent the truth from being discovered, we hid our Israeli passports at someone else’s house.

In the 4+ years between the time we filed our refugee claim and the time I left, Ontario social services paid for our stay: our accommodation at a cost of $1,100 per month and basic needs. In December 2007, my wife had a new baby (our third of the four children we now have) in Toronto’s Scarborough General Hospital. That child became a Canadian by birth. We gave her a name to suit our fake name, not our original names as registered on our Israeli Passports. At our refugee claim hearing on August 10th, 2009, we were accepted as convention refugees based upon the fact that we were Africans. The Hearing officials did not know that we had Israeli Citizenship because we had not disclosed this fact. We also did not reveal that we had never lived in Ethiopia.

In our refugee application, we also claimed that we had been victims of abuse and torture in Ethiopia. But, in fact, that was a lie because we had never lived there.The whole story we gave the officials in Canada was a pre-arranged story written by people who had already lived in Toronto and who knew how the refugee system worked and how it could be abused.

We had fake identification sent from Ethiopia by my wife’s sister who lived in Ethiopia and to whom we paid money for this service. Among the fake false pieces of identification sent by her were Personal Information Forms (PIF). The names of our siblings, et al were changed to suit my wife’s PIF. Other fraudulent identification consisted of Ethiopian birth certificates for the kids who actually had legitimate birth Certificates from Israel as well as a fake birth Certificate for my wife, and other fake ID cards for me and my wife. My wife also got a fake Ethiopian Driver’s License which she later tried to exchange for a Canadian Driver’s License with the help of an Ethiopian translator who gave her signals during the theory exam about the answers she should give. After the theory test, she tried twice to pass the practical exam and failed. The truth is she had never driven in her life. She did take a few courses in Toronto, but they could not help her to pass the practical test.

My wife badgered me to stay in Canada with her and our children (two of them at that time). While I did not want to stay, I had little choice because I did not want to lose my kids by going back to Israel alone. A year after our arrival, other family members joined us from Israel in the same way that we had come. They also filed Bogus refugee claims by doing the same things we had done.

For details on the Laibar Singh case, see the following: http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2007/08/16/stand-on-guard-for-canada-ms-finley-and-canada-will-stand-on-guard-for-thee/

This is a continuation of the story I told in Part 1. I am an Israeli Citizen Who filed a Fake Refugee Claim in Canada.

LYING OUR WAY INTO CANADA—–PART 2   LIES REVEALED

November 29, 2011

http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2011/11/29/nov-29-2011-lying-our-way-to-canada-part-2/

In July, 2009, after residing in Toronto for about 2 years, I discovered why my wife so badly wanted to stay in Canada and thus was badgering me to remain in spite of the fact that I wanted to return to Israel where I had my permanent job and home. On July 3, 2009, an old neighbor in Israel contacted me and alerted me of news that my wife had had an affair in our family home in Israel. In the end, she aborted that man’s child.

That news broke in our Israeli neighborhood while we were on our vacation in the USA and Canada. Even before this, she had decided not to return due to the shame she felt. But she kept all of this to herself. When I told my wife what our neighbor had reported to me, she confessed and explained to me that was why she did not want to return to Israel.

Around this time, my wife started attending a church and the pastor started counseling us knowing that we had lied to stay in Canada. I insisted on returning to Israel so she decided (to herself) that her chances of staying in Canada would be better if she claimed that I was abusive towards her and our kids. When I finally decided to return to Israel without her approval, she again refused to leave Canada. But now she added that if I ever revealed the secret of how we got to stay in Canada, she would tell the police that I was an abusive husband and I would be sent to jail while she stayed in Canada. All of these lies in our marriage and news of her affair resulted in our marital breakdown. I realized she was using the kids as a tool because she knew I was a father who loved his kids. I was advised to let her move to an Abused Women’s Shelter so that we could get subsidized housing to help us with our accommodation and to enable us to save some money, but I declined. I did so because I felt guilty about lying even more.

None of us worked in Toronto all the time that we lived there. On December 26th, 2010, when she saw that I still wanted to move back to Israel, but that I would not move back without alerting Citizenship and Immigration Canada of our fraud and apologizing, she went to the church she had been attending. The pastor had advised her to go to the Abused Women’s Shelter the next day and all arrangements were made for her to do that. She had decided that she would be better off financially by doing this. I do not know what expenses were covered and what income she was receiving at the Abused Women’s Shelter. But I do know that she would have subsidized housing and aid from social workers, lawyers, and counselors. I also know that our two youngest children would be able to attend day care there in the shelter and that this would be paid for by the Ontario government. I have no information whatsoever about what goes on in the shelter. She offered to take our two older kids together with our two much younger ones to the shelter. However, the two older kids refused to go with her.

Because my wife had claimed to be a battered woman, a claim which was never true, the Children’s Aid society (CAS) now entered our lives—with the potential to remove the two older kids from their home with me. All this was happening because my wife had told the CAS that the two older children were not safe with me. But after the CAS interviewed the children and me, and concluded that my wife’s statements were not true, the CAS left the children with me. Eventually, the CAS closed their file and, upon my request, sent me copies of everything they had investigated.

There was no Police involvement in our family until I found out that my wife had come to my house one day and taken the two oldest of our children to the Abused Women’s Shelter in Toronto. I contacted the Toronto Police at Scarborough (Eglinton East) and spoke to Officer Omsby. My wife was apprehended. She informed the police that she was going to remain in the shelter and that the two older kids could leave and return to me.

However, not long after this, a new phase began in my life. I started getting invitations to court about custody and support. I knew what was going to happen since the Canadian system favors women. Upon contacting the Police who saw her lies about my alleged abuse, etc., I decided to come clean and leave.

I therefore contacted the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency), CIC (Citizenship and Immigration), and IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) and willingly vacated my refugee status. I told them my true identity and that I wanted to return to Israel. I was scrutinized thoroughly. Eventually, CBSA allowed me to leave with my two older children. The CBSA wouldn’t allow the three of us to leave while we were still classified as convention refugees. It’s now been five months since we left Canada.

I went through hell going to and from GTEC (the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre). In addition to my vacating hearing, CBSA interviewed me and my two older kids to make sure they really wanted to return with me instead of staying with their mother. I now live peacefully in Israel with those two oldest kids. The CBSA currently has my wife’s original Israeli Passport.

At this point, Legal Aid Ontario is paying for a proceeding in Toronto Family Court on whether our two youngest kids (who were born in Canada) can come and join those with me already in Israel. My ex-wife is fighting to keep them in Canada. She hopes that she will succeed in filing a Humanitarian and Compassionate application based upon the fact that she is afraid of coming back to Israel because of me and that she has two Canadian-born kids with her. The Family Court proceedings are still going on due to the fact that Canada’s Department of Immigration and the Ontario government are not doing their job effectively and thus allowing her to use the system to keep the kids there even though those kids are entitled to Israeli Passports and to go to Israel. I have recently heard that she vacated her refugee status in mid-October.

I have read many reports about Immigration and refugee fraud in Canada and regret every bit of fraud that I committed. I apologize to Canada. During the hearing at which I vacated my status willingly, I gave a letter of apology to the panel member and to the CBSA officer (Ms. Sharon Thomas, the CBSA officer). The files on my ex-wife and I were separated that day.

To give readers an idea of how much Canada was paying for our stay, the following will provide a good picture: At the time I and my two oldest children left, I was receiving $589.26 in CCTB (Child tax benefits), $256 in GST and $354.56 in OST benefits. I also received $1,656 from the social services for basic needs and shelter. Last but not least, we received free medical.

The amazing thing is that although I left Canada on May 7th 2011, when I went online at the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) website about a week later, I found out that the CCTB would be depositing the child tax benefit on the 20th of the month as usual. “O my God”, I said to myself. “They are going to do that even though I am not even living in Canada anymore.” I e-mailed a very respectful woman who was at my vacate hearing and asked her what to do. She told me to call the CRA which I did. The man I talked to asked me many questions because he did not believe that I was out of the country till I hit hard. Finally, he agreed to cancel all three of the benefits (CCTB, OST and GST) that the CRA was responsible for. In the next few days when I went online, I found out they had been cancelled.

I also called and faxed my Social worker in the Ontario Social Services office. Because she knew me, she agreed to cancel the benefits (Shelter, Basic needs and medical ) that I and my two oldest children were receiving.

My point here is that the left hand in Canada does not know what the right hand is doing. When my status was vacated, no one from anywhere alerted all the offices (which had been giving financial assistance to us) to cancel the assistance and therefore it continued coming!!!

The Conservative Leadership Race

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

The Conservative Leadership Race

As one whose lifelong Toryism is a matter of principle and conviction rather than partisan allegiance the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada has been of only tertiary interest, if that, to me. The party has compromised, sold-out, and otherwise betrayed the principles and ideals to which its name alludes time and time again.

Unfortunately, while the Conservatives cannot be trusted to live up to their own principles you can always count on the Grits to live down to our worst expectations of them as they do everything in their power to impose the latest version of their ever-changing insane ideology upon our country while feathering their nests, enhancing their power, and displaying the utmost arrogance and contempt for ordinary Canadians. The Liberal Party of Canada began its sordid existence as the party advocating selling out the heritage of honour and loyalty upon which our country was built for filthy American lucre and has spent a century and a half trying to undo Confederation, strip us of our traditions and legacy, rob us of our rights and freedoms and turn Canada into a pathetic, third-world, police state that hides the sheer nastiness of its politically correct oppressiveness behind a thin outward veneer of toxic niceness. Now, under the leadership of an intolerably arrogant, empty-headed and black-hearted coxcomb, the Grits have placed an onerous debt burden upon the backs of future generations of Canadians for centuries to come with their present extravagance, taken a gigantic first step towards the subjection of Christians, Jews, and all other non-Muslim Canadians to dhimmitude by passing, against widespread objection, a motion condemning Islamophobia, while seeking to shove the most recent gender insanity down all of our throats and, in complete disregard for the safety, well-being, and wishes of Canadians, thrown out the welcome mat to all those who pose enough of a security risk to be rejected as immigrants and asylum-seekers by our southern neighbour.

Therefore, while it is too much to hope that the Conservatives, returned to power, would actually put Tory principles into practice in their governance, such a return is to be wished if for no other reason than to rid the country of the disastrous misrule of the vile and loathsome gang of miscreants presently holding office. For a number of reasons – several decades worth of neglect in the teaching of Canadian civics in our schools and our having been swamped by Yankee pop culture in the same period being the chief two – the Canadian electorate treats our general elections as if they were the equivalent of American presidential contests and votes according to who the party leader is. Who the leader is, therefore, matters and so this race demands our attention.

Sadly, the quantity of the candidates seeking the leadership is far more impressive than the quality. Indeed, it is much easier to decide which candidates ought not to be allowed anywhere near the leadership than to pick one who stands out as deserving to win. Foremost among these is Kevin O’Leary. The Dragon’s Den star has been compared to American President Donald Trump but the comparison is cosmetic and superficial and has nothing to do with policy matters. O’Leary is a free trader and an immigration enthusiast, as well as being the most socially liberal candidate to ever seek the Tory leadership. He is most like Donald Trump in his personality – in his policies he is much closer to Justin Trudeau. It is hard to imagine a worse combination in a prospective Conservative leader.

The other Irishman, Erin O’Toole is also disqualified in my books. A Kisaragi Colour, the founder of the blog The Maple Monarchists, has surveyed the leadership candidates on their views of Canada’s constitutional monarchy. All who replied, either personally or through their staff, indicated their support of the institution to some degree or another, except O’Toole and Lisa Raitt, both of whom declined to indicate their position. This is a disqualifier. Royalism is a sine qua non of Canadian conservatism and someone who refuses to commit publicly to support of the monarchy has no business even running as a Conservative candidate much less for the leadership.

If the leadership were to be decided on that sole issue alone, Andrew Scheer would clearly be the best candidate as he indicated the most enthusiastic support for the royal institution by far of all the candidates in his response.

There are other issues to be considered, however, and here things become complicated because different candidates stand out as being the strongest on different sets of issues.

Take “social conservatism” for example. This commonly denotes the sort of moral and social positions that evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox, and other religious conservatives would support. This would include being pro-life, i.e., opposed to abortion and euthanasia, a supporter of traditional one man/one woman marriage, and an opponent of the alphabet soup gang agenda, of feminism, and often of the legalization of recreational drugs such as marijuana. For a couple of decades the conventional wisdom has been that no party running on a socially conservative platform stood a chance of winning because Canadians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. In fact the opposite is the case. Opposition to moral and social breakdown will always be more popular than tightening the purse strings and anybody with an ounce of sense knows that. The conventional wisdom exists to browbeat the major parties into not putting it to the test by running a socially conservative campaign. On social conservatism, the strongest of the candidates would be Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-University. Trost is an evangelical Christian, who has been outspoken on socially conservative issues throughout his political career, and who has opposed the shift towards social liberalism taken by the party under the interim leadership of Rona Ambrose.

On culture and immigration there is no good candidate. A good candidate would be one who takes the position that immigration, legal and illegal, should not be allowed to change the character of the country, that our government and not the immigrants themselves will select who is allowed in and that it will place the needs of our country first in doing so rather than those of the prospective immigrants, that we will not admit large numbers of either immigrants or refugees in periods of high unemployment and economic recession, that illegal immigration will not be tolerated and will result in the permanent disqualification of the queue-jumper for even legal immigration, and that our refugee admission policies need to be reformed to recognize the reality that the vast majority of asylum seekers are frauds. A good candidate would denounce the toxic cultural atmosphere of ethnomasochism and oikophobia that liberalism spent much of the last fifty years creating. No candidate dares to take this position, of course. The closest thing to it is Kellie Leitch, who is not close at all but who merely wants prospective immigrants to be screened for values that conflict with Canadian values, by which she means the values of the multicultural, feminist, progressive, liberal, left that has been denouncing her as a bigot for wanting newcomers to hold to their values. On this, as with social conservatism, a platform much further to the right that provided Canadians with a real alternative to liberalism for a change would garner much more support than the conventional wisdom would acknowledge.

On fiscal and economic policy if any of the candidates stands out it is probably Maxime Bernier.

Ideally, the next Conservative leader would be strong on all of these issues, but such a person does not appear to be present among the current candidates. Practically, the next leader will also have to be someone around whom the party can unite and who can generate enough popular support to oust the Liberals. Although this quality is harder to gauge, here too there is no name jumping off of the candidates list as the obvious choice.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever the Conservatives choose as their leader will win by default simply because everyone will finally be sick to death of Justin Trudeau.

Why Don’t We Screen Immigrants for Cultural Compatibility?

Posted on by

Inline image 1

Trudeau’s “No Visas Needed for Mexicans” Policy Puts Canadians at Risk

Posted on by
 
 Trudeau’s “No Visas Needed for Mexicans” Policy Puts Canadians at Risk
In 2009, our Conservative government introduced the Visa policy to stop the flow of increased bogus refugee claims by Mexican citizens.

But in late 2016, the Trudeau Liberals reversed that decision.

This was an early Christmas gift for Mexico’s drug cartels.

A Canada Border Serves Agency report says lifting the visa makes it easier for Mexican drug cartels to do business right here in Canada:

In the next three years, Mexican drug cartels are expected to expand their presence in Canada by sending operatives and recruiting local airport or marine port workers with ties to Mexico,” the report states.

In other words, Justin Trudeau has put the lives of all Canadians at greater risk.

With the lifting of this Visa policy, Canada has now been forced into combating an onslaught of new asylum seekers.

The Canadian Border Services Agency has already detained almost 450 Mexican migrants this year. That number is already higher than the entire total for all of last year.

And when asked about what actions the Government intends to take, Trudeau’s Immigration Minister said “it would be premature to speculate.”

>> Help us protect Canada’s borders <<

Fact: there was no formal review of the Mexican visa policy reversal.

The decision to lift the visa requirement is short sighted and poorly thought out.

And it also comes with a hefty price tag. Canadians could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years to cover the costs of this decision.

It is clear that Justin Trudeau’s only policy goal is to undo the hard work of the Conservatives.

Help us stand up for strong borders and safe communities – donate today!

Sincerely,

Michelle Rempel
Calgary Nose Hill

 

The Cult of the Immigrant: Oh Canada, We Came to the Hockey Game for Thee

Posted on by

Oh Canada, We Came to the Hockey Game for Thee

 
News item : March 18, 2017:The federal government and the Edmonton Oilers partnered to welcome 12 new Canadian citizens at Rogers Place Saturday afternoon as part of Canada 150 celebrations. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Amarjeet Sohi and Mayor Don Iveson attended the swearing-in ceremony at Rogers Place.

oilers
As an introduction to Saturday night’s NHL hockey game in Edmonton on March 18th, a dozen “New Canadians” were honoured after their swearing-in ceremony by being called out on to the  ice wearing bright orange Edmonton Oilers’ jerseys. They waved to the applause of the crowd, and then joined in on the singing of our national anthem. How stirring.

Message: We are a land of immigrants, and no matter where immigrants come from, they will become good ordinary Canadians like you and me, eager to share their ‘diversity’ by partaking in ours. I mean, what could be more Canadian than wearing the home town’s hockey jersey at a hockey game?

 

“This is a special one because Rogers Place is a hallowed ground for hockey,” Edmonton Mayor Iveson said. “It’s such an important part of Edmonton’s story and history, so to know that these Edmontonians and new Canadians will always associate their citizenship with this place and the heart of our city is just an exciting memory for us to all carry.”

Thus the myth of Canada as a welcoming country that needs more and more and more immigrants is firmly cemented into the mentality of all those in attendance, and the viewing audience at home as well. The fact that people from India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Somalia are so happy to settle here in this largely cold wasteland flatters us. It is as if we were the owners of a restaurant who regard the line-up of patient customers outside as a compliment to our fine cuisine.

But there is a difference. Restaurant owners know that their restaurant has a limited seating capacity, just like Rogers Place.  Neither Canadians nor their political representatives understand that there are limits to growth. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we have limited resources. Even drinkable water is in short supply, never mind arable farmland.  And as far as affordable urban land goes, well, as Mark Twain would have said, “they’ve stopped making it.”  http://womenmakenews.com/content/story/myth-canadas-underpopulation-lay-it-rest)

Now don’t get me wrong. I think we are right to honour the immigrants who helped to build this country. Just as I am right to be grateful to the carpenters who built my house. But guess what. My house is built. Done. With little room or need to grow.  And while it needs ongoing maintenance, it doesn’t require that I bring in an army of carpenters every year, especially if they are going to wake me up in the wee hours by praying in the direction of Mecca.

The Cult of the Immigrant is an absurd anachronism for a mature nation that may well see robots doing half the work by mid century. The smokestack era and family farms are gone. We have no need for 300,000-450,000 extra bodies each and every year.  Unless of course it is to fill the seats of our hockey arenas.  Still, I don’t recall getting a dividend cheque from NHL hockey team owners for having to put up with rising house prices, unconscionable  rents, appalling traffic congestion, deteriorating infrastructure,  lower wages and sprawl that comes with growing the population and increasing their fan base.

potential fans

Above:  Potential Edmonton Oilers hockey fans,  just one swearing-in ceremony away from becoming full-fledged Canadian citizens.  Complimentary Liberal Party membership cards to be part of the Welcoming Package.

 

 

Tim Murray

March 19, 2017

PS We can always outfit our androids with Toronto Maple Leaf hockey sweaters and program them to watch mediocre hockey at atrocious ticket prices for 50 years without a championship in sight.

— “There’s nothing more dangerous than a shallow-thinking compassionate person.” Garrett Hardin