For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”

Posted on by
For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”
 
 
By Tim Murray
  A Giant Toy Rubber Duck: Canada’s Symbol for its 150th Anniversary.

The Demolition of a Nation, One Step At A Time (revised)

On July 1, 2017, Canada will observe 150 years of Confederation. But as this bulletin points out, is there a nation still to celebrate?

“…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 1st, 1947

“It is rare for a nation… to turn in a completely new direction. It is unusual for a democracy take such a turn. People are therefore entitled to inquire whether the distinctive character of their nation—and some of its greatest achievements—will remain if people from very different cultures are encouraged to come and, as far as possible, to maintain their own cultures. “ Geoffrey Blainey (“All for Australia” p. 154)

Demolitions, if viewed in slow motion, are revealed to be a sequential process. They begin with the destruction of the ground floor, and work their way up, until the entire building “suddenly” collapses. Viewed in hindsight, it may appear that the collapse of Canada’s identity was almost instantaneous. But in fact, it did not happen overnight. Our cultural, ethnic and environmental edifice was brought down incrementally, by a series of policies and laws that spanned some forty years. Let’s start at the beginning, in 1962, at the “ground floor” of implosion, and then follow the chain of disintegration up to 2006 and our present predicament, with Canada teetering on the edge of complete colonization and assimilation.

1962 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families would be admitted to Canada from everywhere in the world. However, while the Tories said that all comers were welcome, it was successive Liberal governments which set up the machinery to get them.

1965 In response to a global mood to support the movement for colonial independence and repudiate the history that made the Holocaust possible, Canada signed the “United Nations International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. This post-war shift in attitude served to discredit principles that were used to legitimize exclusions in existing immigration policy. The signing of this UN Convention, a seemingly innocuous action, came to have a profound impact on subsequent immigration policy-making.

1966 The Pearson government’s White Paper on Immigration Policy advocated a universal admissions policy. The country was to be cut from its cultural moorings, as European immigrants would no longer be given preference. This change in immigration selection criteria constituted a crucial change in direction for the country. It was a confluence of two beliefs. One, that Canada should cast its immigration net widely to capture “the best and the brightest”, and two, that Canada was morally obligated to embrace immigrants from across the world without reference to their ethnic, racial, religious or cultural origins. No longer would the nation’s cultural cohesion be a consideration in deciding who gets in and how many.

1967 The “point system” was introduced. As T. Triadafilopolous of the University of Toronto put it, “Through the points system, Canada would select immigrants according to a set of universal criteria, including educational credentials, language competency in English and/or French, and labour market potential. Applicants’ ethnic and racial backgrounds were no longer to be considered in determining their eligibility for admission to Canada. The result of this change …was precisely what (Prime Minister Mackenzie) King tried to avoid: the diversification of immigration and consequent transformation of Canada’s demographic structure. Whereas immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ source regions …comprised only a small fraction of Canada’s total immigration intake from 1946 to 1966, by 1977 they made up over 50% of annual flows. Changes in immigration policy shattered the foundations of ‘white Canada’ and created the conditions for Canada’s development into one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. (from “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights and the Origins of the Point System”)

1967 The Immigration Department was ordered to no longer list immigrants by ethnic origin but rather by “country of last residence”. This allowed the government to conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada via traditional source countries like the UK.

1971 Multiculturalism is declared official state policy. Henceforth, Canada was no longer to be perceived as consisting of our two founding cultures, English and French, but as mosaic of equivalent ethnic fragments. Canada was to become the helpless victim of a social engineering project whose sweeping scope was yet to be comprehended.

1974 Biologist Jack R. Vallentyne of the Fisheries and Marine Service called for a national population policy. His call was ignored. Vallentyne, a former professor at Cornell University, was made leader of the Eutrophication (pollution) Section of the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. It was in that capacity that Vallentyne became alarmed at the extent to which overpopulation and over-development was promoting eutrophication of our water resources.

1976 The Science Council of Canada released its report number 25, “Population, Technology and Resources” which concluded that perpetual population growth would stress Canada’s limited non-renewable resources. It advocated restricting immigration and stabilizing Canada’s population. Another forgotten report.

1976 Voluminous anecdotal evidence had come to challenge the claim that European interest in emigrating to Canada had diminished, as prospective skilled and educated immigrants from Britain and the Continent with immediate family were being turned away in droves. Immigration officials in 1976 conceded that as many as 60% of British applicants were being rejected while unskilled third world immigrants with poor language skills were welcomed with open arms. The vision of the 1966 White Paper was being fulfilled. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased from 34% in 1966 to 47% by 1973.

1976 Canada’s first separatist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected. By this action, Quebec Francophone voters indicated that they were not prepared, as English Canadians were apparently were, to see their unique culture dismembered by a multicultural globalist agenda. Quebecers were not willing to go down with the English Canadian ship.

1980 English Canada got its second wake-up call when Quebec held its first referendum on separation. After it was defeated, English Canada went back to sleep, and the global “out-reach” to non-traditional sources of immigration continued with Official Multiculturalism still in place.

1980-1983 In response to a recession, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau cut immigration levels from 143,000 to 89,000. It was the only time in recent decades that a federal administration reduced immigration quotas in deference to tougher economic times and the need to defend jobless Canadians. Thereafter, immigration policy would be the prisoner of political imperatives, most specifically ethnic vote-seeking.

1982 The “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—forming part of the Constitution Act—was signed into law. It relegated Parliament to a secondary role—and through it diminished the ability of a majority of the population to influence the direction of the country. It allowed the courts to strike down provincial and federal statutes to satisfy individual rights. Consequently, as writer Frank Hilliard observed, it achieved Pierre Trudeau’s goal of altering our British Parliamentary system and replacing it with a model that divided society into ethnic communities, each with its own cultural norms. It is noteworthy that the Charter’s Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a ‘multicultural context’.

1986 Employment Equity Act—allowed a staggering number of recently-arrived immigrants to leap-frog over resident Canadians to secure jobs in the federal public sector. The Act became a template for similar legislation in other provinces which also affected the private sector.

1986-89 The Health and Welfare department of the federal government completed a report “Charting Canada’s Future” which concluded that Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada’s age structure. Moreover, increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have, in the long-term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 would have little long-term impact on Canada’s overall age structure. That message continues to be ignored to this day.

1988 The Multiculturalism Act—institutionalized the policy of multiculturalism begun by Pierre Trudeau.

1988 Breaking with Trudeau’s belief that Canadians should not apologize to ethnic lobbies for alleged past injustices, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized and compensated the Japanese-Canadian community for the federal government’s internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The apology began an era of grovelling which can be seen for what it was, not a sincere desire for redress, but a naked grasp for the ethnic vote.

1991 The Intelligence Advisory Committee, with input from Environment Canada, the Defence Department and External Affairs produced a confidential document for the Privy Council entitled “The Environment: Marriage Between Earth and Mankind”. The report stated that “Although Canada’s population is not large in world terms, its concentration in various areas has already put stress upon regional environments in many ways.” It added that “Canada can expect to have increasing numbers of environmental refugees requesting immigration to Canada, while regional movements of the population at home, as from idle fishing areas, will add further to population stresses within the country.” The document was apparently buried.

1991 The Economic Council of Canada, in a research report (“The Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration”), concluded that immigration has been of no significant benefit to the economy. Once again, it was a message that is still forgotten.

1991 Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney launched the policy of mass immigration, which greatly increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. Like the Liberals’ White Paper policy of 1966, which was engineered by Tom Kent to defeat “Tory Toronto” by recruiting immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ sources, the McDougall policy was designed as a political stratagem to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberals by earning their gratitude. Mass immigration then must be seen as primarily a political weapon to defeat rival political parties rather than a policy that confers a legitimate economic or demographic benefit to Canada.

1994 July 6 Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, with Policy 1.1.4, declares that its mandate requires that its programming should “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”. “In fact”, the CBC continued, “by the reasons of the ethnic diversity of the audience, the Corporation has long practiced a policy of cultural pluralism in its programming, and intends to continue to reflect the multicultural richness and multiracial characteristics of Canadian society in keeping with the Corporation’s obligation to ‘contribute to shared national consciousness and identity’. Schedule planners and programs staff are expected to demonstrate continuing awareness of and sensitivity to this aspect of CBC/Radio-Canada role.” In so doing, the CBC in effect became the voice of immigrant ethno-cultural lobbies and power blocs, while the views of the full cross-section of mainstream Canadian society were largely excluded.

1995 A second referendum on separation was held in Quebec. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 0.8%. Many would argue that the 1995 referendum was hijacked by the federal government, which poured in a ton of money in publicity largely exceeding the amount authorized by the referendum laws. The Gomery commission subsequently found many key Liberal figures guilty of fraud. In addition, for good measure, the federal government fast-tracked the citizenship process for all new immigrants in Quebec in the months leading up to the referendum . This action was timely, as it allowed these immigrants to vote and tip the scales to victory for the “No” side.

Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately blamed the loss on the ethnic vote, which had grown with mass immigration. Failing to see that their own society was being undermined by the very same forces that were undermining Quebec, English Canadians rejoiced. However, the result clearly illustrated that since 1980, an increasing proportion of the Francophone population were opposed to the multicultural makeover of their society.

1997 The $2.4 million federally commissioned Fraser Basin Ecosystem Study, led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC, was released. It stated that BC’s Fraser Basin was overpopulated by a factor of three. Healey later urged all levels of government to develop a Population Plan for the country. The study was ignored by the government that funded it.

2001 The Population Institute of Canada made a presentation to the House of Commons Committee on Immigration which recommended that the government develop a Population Plan for Canada, as called for by Dr. Michael Healey. The presentation fell on deaf ears.

2005 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, released a report that challenged the provincial government’s plans to accommodate an additional 4.4 to 6 million people for Ontario over the next 25 years. In introducing this annual report, Miller issued strong cautions. “One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario’s population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. ” He added that the area did not have the water resources to support the population increase, nor the ability to handle sewage created by the increase. Miller was vilified for his comments.

2006 Following Mulroney’s precedent of apologizing and compensating Japanese-Canadians for the wartime actions of Mackenzie King’s government, Prime Minister Harper compensated Chinese-Canadians for federal laws that were enacted before the First World War to protect Canadian jobs from the importation of cheap Chinese labour. The compensation came with a profuse apology.

2006 The C.D. Howe Institute reported that immigration levels would have to be raised to impossibly stratospheric levels to have any effect in slowing the rate of Canada’s aging population.

2013 Canada’s most famous environmentalist, Dr. David Suzuki, said that Canada was overpopulated and that immigration levels should be reduced. Like Gordon Miller, Suzuki was vilified by everyone except the general public, who evidenced their approval in the comments section of newspapers across the country which carried the story.

2013 Reacting to growing ethnic enclaves and the threat of the emergence of a parallel Islamic society, the Parti Quebecois government introduced a Charter that would re-establish the secular nature of Quebec society, a hard won achievement of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Recognizing that support for the Charter would represent a clear repudiation of the multicultural agenda, the political class and the English media denounced the proposal.

2014 The fact that the Charter enjoyed the support of a majority of Quebecers—and apparently a majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada– the media and the political establishment attempted to discredit the Parti Quebecois government by raising the prospect of another referendum on sovereignty. This was (and is) a ploy to shift the focus away from the Charter.

2015 Two months following his electoral victory, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, essentially confirmed that the mission of cultural and ethnic fragmentation conceived five decades before had been accomplished. In fact, it had gone beyond that. Canada was no longer even a multicultural state—or a nation—but something the world had never seen before. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, Trudeau proudly observed, “There are (just) shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” A state, in other words, that has been cast adrift, cut from its cultural, ethnic and moral moorings.

In reviewing these policies , pronouncements and laws, it is apparent that the promotion of official multiculturalism and quota hiring (“employment equity”) were conceived to work in tandem with mass immigration, so that immigrants would be made to feel fully integrated and at home with their new country. This great “multicultural experiment” then, was essentially an immigration project which changed the ethnic profile of the nation and grew the population by 25%. It was an experiment conducted by a political class on ordinary Canadians without the consent of ordinary Canadians. It had no electoral mandate. The result is that most Canadians feel like lab rats living in an environment they no longer recognize. They bear witness to the demolition of a nation.

ENOCH POWELL’S RIVERS OF BLOOD SPEECH, APRIL 20, 1968

Posted on by
ENOCH POWELL’S RIVERS OF BLOOD SPEECH, APRIL 20, 1968
ENOCH POWELL
https://youtu.be/mw4vMZDItQo

U.S. Border Agents Warned of ‘Open Warfare’ with ‘Grenades’ in Mexico at Texas Border

Posted on by

U.S. Border Agents Warned of ‘Open Warfare’ with ‘Grenades’ in Mexico at Texas Border

[]

by Brandon Darby & Ildefonso Ortiz22 Jun 2017 602

Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) of South Texas are being warned about risks posed to them on the border by “open warfare” including grenade attacks occurring on the Mexican side. The warning echoes Breitbart Texas’s Cartel Chronicles reports on the bloody war occurring at the border between a faction of the Mexican Gulf  Cartel and Mexican authorities.

The warning was issued by the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) to agents in the RGV Sector. It reads:

WARNING ADVISORY TO BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN RGV SECTOR

Recent events in Tamaulipas, Mexico, specifically in and around the city of Reynosa, pose a special risk to U.S. Border Patrol agents working in the region.

The Reynosa faction of the Mexican Gulf Cartel recently lost its leader and the group is engaging in open warfare with Mexican authorities and possibly with rival factions or other transnational criminal groups. Open source reports indicate gunbattles and use of grenades and other explosives in the fighting.

Border Patrol agents working the line in any station’s area of operations immediately across the largely open border from Reynosa, Mexico, are advised to employ extra caution in the performance of their duties. Stray rounds from firearms have previously injured U.S. law enforcement personnel on the border.

The majority, if not nearly all of U.S. media outlets have ignored and refused to report on the violence that has broken out along the U.S.-Mexico border immediately south of the RGV Sector. The Reynosa faction of the Gulf Cartel lost its boss, Comandante Toro or Juan Manuel Loaiza Salinas aka Julian Loiza Salinas. The death sparked violent infighting and clashes with Mexican authorities. Residents in the area were forced to live under complete control of Toro, with even the news outlets having to answer to him.

Border Patrol agents and other U.S. law enforcement working on the border are indeed at risk when clashes occur between the paramilitary transnational criminal organizations in Mexico and Mexican authorities. As recently as November of 2016, one U.S. Border Patrol agent and one Texas State Trooper were shot while patrolling the border in the same sector.

Brandon Darby is managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

(Disclosure: Breitbart Texas sponsored the Green Line podcast for the NBPC in an effort to provide a platform for agents to inform the public about the realities on the border and what Border Patrol agents face. Director Brandon Darby received an award from the Laredo chapter of the NBPC for his work in helping to defend and bring a voice to Border Patrol agents. Breitbart News assisted in covering funeral costs for a slain Border Patrol agent previously.)

David Atkinson’s Argument Against Martin Collacott is Pure Defamatory Trash

Posted on by
David Atkinson’s Argument Against Martin Collacott is Pure Defamatory Trash
Martin Collacott, Old School Canadian, Facts and Analysis


David Atkinson’s article, “White supremacists ideas revived in Collacott oped,” spews out one defamatory label after another against Martin Collacott’s June 5 editorial, “Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness,” without caring to offer one single fact-based, analytically constructed argument.

Collacot effectively condensed in his article the following empirically oriented claims:

  1. that according to professor Eric Kaufmann, “almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.”
  2. that the cost of mass immigration “is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually.”
  3. that Vancouverites have been “crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals.”
  4. that “the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.”
  5. that “we are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.”
  6. that we should consider the fact that those who advocate mass immigration may be doing so for their own personal or political benefits rather than Canada’s economic and cultural well being. The “benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base.” 
  7. that these beneficiaries also include “leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence,” as well as “developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level”.
  8. that Canada did benefit in the past from periods of high levels of immigration, and that “a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant” [but] — “it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population”
  9. that “many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.”
  10. that “Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups.”

Atkinson, who is an academic at Purdue University, does not tackle a single one of these empirically oriented claims, but instead unleashes one vitriolic claim after another, starting with the title which identifies Collacott as a “white supremacist.” The first sentence then calls Collacott’s argument “chauvinistic” and “white supremacist” again. The second sentence says that Collacott’s argument is nothing but a “thinly veiled invocation of ‘Yellow Peril’ rhetoric”. The third sentence dismisses all the claims by Collacott as “antiquated racial ideas”. The fourth and fifth sentences accuse Collacott of reviving arguments for a “White Canada” in the manner of the “anti-Asian exclusion movement in B.C. (and elsewhere) during the early 20th century.”

 
The sixth sentence equates Collacott’s argument with those who warned in the early 1900s of a “rising tide of oriental immigration.” In each of the next three sentences all we find are the phrases “widespread fear of impending white elimination,” “the irrational fear of an overwhelming Asian influx,” ” Komagata Maru.” The tenth sentence brings up again the word the never heard phrase “white supremacists,” and the eleventh sentence accuses Collacott of using a label, “white genocide,” “derived from the writings of convicted murderer David Lane”. The same eleventh sentence claims that Collacott is merely trafficking in “alt-right… simplistic meme-driven distortions of history, ethnicity, and identity.”

Cultural Marxist School Canadian: Facts and Analysis don’t matter; only defamatory labels do.


Professor Atkinson, how about one argument against the claims of Collacott? Well, in the twelfth sentence he finally brings up one argument  (#9 above), but only to dismiss it as the “same kind of disingenuousness favoured by alt-right activists.” The next sentence accuses, again, Collacott of echoing “his predecessors and the modern alt-right in blaming” those who benefit from mass immigration.

Strange yet true: academics today don’t like it when you blame political leaders, bureaucrats, developers, and special interest groups. Atkinson, it should be noted, has made a a career out of promoting immigration and calling anyone who disagrees with him a “racist.” His “forthcoming book” is entitled The Burdens of White Supremacy: Containing Asian Labor Migration in the British Empire and the United States.

The last three paragraphs of his article more or less repeat the same labels while identifying Collacott with the “white supremacist” exclusionary activists of a century ago, “defending the whiteness of British Columbia.” His conclusion is more of the same: “in reality, Collacott’s commentary squarely reiterates these previous champions of white supremacy.”

There you have it, ladies and gentleman, this is the trash that passes for scholarship among leftist professors who can’t think for themselves, who can’t engage in analysis, in open inquiry, but only in accusations and defamatory statements.

The little bit that can be categorized as historically minded in Atkinson’s article is fundamentally wrong. Essentially, what Atkinson tries to do is equate any objections with immigration today with objections a century ago, which is rather odd for a supposed historian to do, since one of the cardinal lessons in the historical profession is to learn how to judge each historical period on its own terms, to be aware that history is not static, and that immigration patterns, and cultural settings, over a hundred years ago cannot be equated with immigration realities today. Collacott distinctly makes this distinction, stating that he understands that Canada has benefited from immigration in the past. Collacott is only asking for our elites to take seriously the 10 points outlined above. He knows that Canadians are not being allowed to debate this issue openly.

It is truly a disgrace that a professor who is supposed to be a firm believer in freedom of expression and critical thinking, has decided to close off all debate with the extremist use of one defamatory label after another.

Atkinson writes that “Collacott nostalgically yearns for an imagined homogenous past that only ever existed in the minds of the province’s most obstinate white supremacists.” This criticism is common among our poorly educated academics. It is flat out wrong, as late as 1971, Canada was over 96 percent White! Deceiving your students is not a good thing. Let’s have an open debate based on historical facts and empirically verifiable statements, rather than rely on trashy labels.

Civil War in Europe is Imminent

Posted on by

 

Civil War in Europe is Imminent

The EU is spiraling out of control. With 30 million non-Europeans poised to enter the continent over the next eight years, a blood bath for survival is guaranteed,

The EU is spiraling out of control. With 30 million non-Europeans poised to enter the continent over the next eight years, a blood bath for survival is guaranteed. .Will the liberal governments arm the invaders to exterminate their own native European populations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVEN2ktYPA

Resisting the Third World Invasion, Mississauga Woman Demands a White Doctor

Posted on by

Resisting the Third World Invasion, Mississauga Woman Demands a White Doctor

Canadians have never been asked whether we want to be replaced by Third Worlders. The insanely high immigration numbers — 85 per cent from the Third World — agreed to by all major parties will result in the  European founding/settler people of Canada becoming a minority by 2050 or before. We have never been asked or consulted as to whether that;s what we want.
 
But people are beginning to push back. On Sunday, June 18, a woman entered a Mississauga, Ontario walk-in clinic seeking assitance for her son who has chest pains. The waiting room was choc-c-block with Third Worlders. The CBC (June 19, 2017) reported breathlessly  that the “woman made several demands for a ‘white doctor’ who ‘doesn’t have brown teeth’ and ‘speaks English. …A woman asks clinic staff several times for a ‘white doctor’ to treat her son who she says has chest pains. When staff tell her that no such doctor is available, the woman gets angry and at one point says ‘being white in this country I should just shoot myself. …  ‘I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?'” 
 
A  busybody immigrant named Hitesh Bhardwadj who was visiting the clinic filmed the incident on his cellphone and gave it to the CBC. He pronounced pontificated: “This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed.”
 
The lesbian premier of the province, Kathleen Wynne, joined in the chorus of denunciations.
 
But why? If the woman had wanted to exterminate her son any time just up to the moment he emerged from the womb, the Left would have angrily insisted on her right to “choose”. But, apparently, she has no right to choose who will care for her son. We hear endlessly of the need to provide “culturally sensitive” services and medical care for immigrants who chose voluntarily to come to Canada.
 
What about culturally sensitive medical care for the European founding/settler people who were born here?
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE 

Video shows woman demand a ‘white doctor’ treat son at Mississauga, Ont., clinic

‘This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed,’ says witness who shot video

By Nicole Brockbank, Lisa Xing, CBC News Posted: Jun 19, 2017 7:32 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 20, 2017 8:56 PM ET

In a video, a woman (left) makes several demands for a "white doctor" who "doesn't have brown teeth, that speaks English" at a walk-in clinic in Mississauga, Ont., on Sunday.

In a video, a woman (left) makes several demands for a “white doctor” who “doesn’t have brown teeth, that speaks English” at a walk-in clinic in Mississauga, Ont., on Sunday. (Hitesh Bhardwaj)

A Mississauga, Ont., man is stunned after witnessing and filming a woman make several demands for a “white doctor” who “doesn’t have brown teeth” and “speaks English” at his local walk-in clinic on Sunday.

Hitesh Bhardwaj recorded the incident while waiting for his own appointment at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont. He shared his video with CBC News.

Poster of video clip

00:00 04:13

Woman demands a “white doctor” treat son at Mississauga, Ont. clinic4:13

Over the course of four minutes of video, a woman asks clinic staff several times for a “white doctor” to treat her son who she says has chest pains. When staff tell her that no such doctor is available, the woman gets angry and at one point says “being white in this country I should just shoot myself.”

“I saw a doctor that was not white that did not help my kid,” says the woman in the video. “I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?”

‘I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?’- Woman in video captured at walk-in clinic in Mississauga, Ont.

CBC Toronto tried to identify the woman to give her a chance to respond to the video, but was unsuccessful as of Monday evening.

We’ve obscured her face in the video to protect the identity of her son.

Bhardwaj says that he started filming the incident after a woman sitting next to him asked the agitated woman why the doctor had to be white.

“I couldn’t help but record the video,” said Bhardwaj. “This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed.”

Hitesh Bhardwaj shot video of racist incident

Hitesh Bhardwaj recorded the incident while waiting for his own appointment at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont., and shared his video with CBC News. (CBC)

Bhardwaj said, as an immigrant to Canada himself, he’s really proud to live here and “couldn’t believe” what he saw.

“I couldn’t stop thinking about it,” Bhardwaj said. “The whole episode kept on repeating in my head, I was very upset. You know I can’t even define the feeling.”

‘Everyday racism’ resurfacing

Cheryl Teelucksingh, a sociology professor at Ryerson University, sees the incident as an example of the kind of “everyday racism” that is “beginning to resurface” in Canada.

She said some people are pointing to the election of U.S. President Donald Trump making people feel more comfortable saying things they normally wouldn’t. But Teelucksingh thinks there’s a more important factor: perceived multiculturalism, or the assumption by some Canadians that racial minorities are already treated equally across the country.

Cheryl Teelucksingh, sociology prof

Cheryl Teelucksingh, a sociology professor at Ryerson University, sees the incident as an example of the kind of “everyday racism” that is “beginning to resurface” in Canada. (CBC)

“I think people are feeling that there’s a little bit more space now to question who’s in positions of power, who’s actually getting the jobs, those sorts of things,” said Teelucksingh.

In response, Teelucksingh believes, non-white professionals will probably revert to demonstrating their credentials by saying things like “look I went to school this long and did this sort of speciality.

“They’re legitimizing not just their place in their profession and workplace but their place within Canada. To say, look, I actually belong here and I have the right to practise my profession.”

Witnesses at clinic step up

In addition to Bhardwaj, other people in the waiting room also confronted the woman in the clinic. In the video several of them try to get the woman to go to the hospital, to which she responds, “I was there and they only have brown doctors.”

One female witness in the video, tells the woman that, “Your child clearly has more issues with you being his mother than him needing to see a doctor. You are extremely rude and racist.”

witness standing up to woman at clinic

The woman on the right is one of the witnesses who argued with the woman demanding a “white doctor.” (Hitesh Bhardwaj/CBC)

Later in the exchange the woman accuses the witnesses of “attacking me because I’m white.”

The fact that witnesses in the clinic stood up and spoke out against what the woman was saying is a good sign, Teelucksingh said.

“That sort of shows the broader societal values and that offers some hope,” Teelucksingh told CBC Toronto.

Police respond to ‘disturbance’ at clinic

Peel Regional Police said they were called to the clinic just after 12:30 p.m. on Sunday for a “disturbance.”

walk-in clinic mississauga

The incident happened at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont. (CBC)

Const. Mark Fischer said a police officer spoke to “all involved” and afterward the woman’s son was treated by a doctor at the clinic.

No allegations of threats or assault were brought forward by anyone involved and the matter is closed, according to police.

In a statement, Rapid Access to Medical Specialists said it “is proud of the quality of medical care provided at this clinic,” but that “no one in the clinic has any comments for the media.”

FRISKING NUNS

Posted on by

frisking nuns

The insanity marches on.

We don’t want to insult a hijab clad Muslim woman by a search,

but it’s OK to search a nun.

 

Yep, makes sense to me!

You can’t make this stuff up!

 

Airport security (Detroit Metro Concourse A).

A Catholic nun being frisked by a Muslim security agent!

Excuse me?

Did you say a MUSLIM security agent 

screening for suspected terrorists?

Political Correctness is out of control.

Please pass this all around the USA & Canada

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness, says former Ambassador Martin Collacutt

Posted on by

Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness, says former Ambassador Martin Collacutt

Vancouver , B.C.  July 1,  2013 Colourful way to celebrate as thousands take in the  Canada Day parade  in downtown Vancouver on July 1, , 2013.  Here the crowds at Burrard and Georgia wave to the parade performers on Georgia Street.    Mark van Manen/PNG Staff    Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories  and WEB stories     Trax    #  00022168A  Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories  and WEB stories     Trax    #  00022168A [PNG Merlin Archive]
Canada Day in Vancouver. Commentator Martin Collacott says that while a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant, it’s different when it develops to a state where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population. MARK VAN MANEN / PNG

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

According to University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be “visible minorities” within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.

Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.

Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.

While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population. Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie. The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.

Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however. We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.

Those who seek to benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base with policies designed to make it easier to come here from abroad and acquire the full benefits of citizenship. Also active are leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence. Another important influence has been contributions from developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level.

In this regard, it is worth noting that not too long ago, leading politicians in Vancouver on both sides of the political aisle — such as former mayors Art Phillips and Mike Harcourt — were readily prepared to identify high immigration intake as one of the leading causes, if not the main cause, of rising house prices. Now, however, no Canadian politician has the guts or integrity to connect the two.

RELATED

This is not only because they are so heavily indebted to the real estate industry in one way or another, but also since criticism of mass immigration is treated in many quarters as xenophobic, if not racist, since newcomers are overwhelmingly visible minorities. While a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant — and my own family is an example of this — it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population, particularly when there is no good reason for allowing this to happen.

With current policies, we will have to find room for tens of millions of more newcomers, most of whom will settle in the already densely populated areas of the country where most of the employment opportunities as well as their relatives are located.

We will also have to contend with the fact that many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.

If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.

Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.

And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of wilful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.

Are we prepared to do something about it? Sadly, it appears that most Canadians are too supine or short-sighted to do so — at least at this juncture.

Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups. Without this we cannot expect our descendants to inherit a country that is anything like the Canada of today.

Martin Collacott lives in Surrey and served as Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East. He has testified on numerous occasions before parliamentary committees as an expert witness on immigration, refugee and security matters

Be Careful What You Wish For

Posted on by

A BAD IDEA

Where have all the flowers gone?

Posted on by

Where have all the flowers gone?

T
Where have all the flowers gone?
This is a traditional Pakistani dress… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/133.jpg
  

and it’s not this… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/226.jpg
  

These are Bangladeshi dresses… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/320.jpg
  

Not these… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/421.jpg
 
  
These are Afghani dresses… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/510.jpg
  

Not these… 

https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/68.jpg
  

  
This is an Indian dress…
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/72.jpg
  

Not this… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/81.jpg
  

These are Iranian dresses… 

  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/91.jpg
  

Not these… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/101.jpg
  

  

This is a Malaysian dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/1110.jpg
  


Not this… 

https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/1211.jpg
  

  

This is an Indonesian dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/134.jpg
  

Not this… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/141.jpg
  

  
This is an Iraqi dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/151.jpg
  
Not this… 
 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/161.jpg
 

This is a Syrian dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/171.jpg
  
Not this… 
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/181.jpg
  
This is a Moroccan dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/191.jpg
  
Not this…
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/20.jpg
  

  
This is a Tunisian dress… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/2110.jpg
  

Not this… 
  
https://etribuneblogs.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/22.jpeg
  
Clearly, once upon a time, these colorful dresses were part of their respective cultures.
So what has changed?
What has changed is that a vile, criminal, stone-age ideology that attempts to control all aspects of life is taking over much of the world while the weak leaders of the Western World say we have to respect it… because they claim it is just a religion.