Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Canadian Politics Controlled By Ethnic Hustlers: Jagmeet Singh And Jenny Kwan   BY DAN MURRAY NDP Jagmeet Singh and Jenny Kwan:

Posted on by

Canadian Politics Controlled By Ethnic Hustlers: Jagmeet Singh And Jenny Kwan

 

by Dan Murray

NDP Jagmeet Singh and Jenny Kwan: ‘White Racists Need to understand that we Asians are the Future of Canada!’

As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population, who would?

However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?”
 All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.

As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become.

Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants.

Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed.

Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.

Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.

‘White Supremacists have no right to complain about Chinese millionaires controlling the real estate market: get used to it, Vancouver now belongs to the Chinese!’

Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”

As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.

‘Nothing gives me more pride than my Sikh heritage in my country Canada…There is no place in Canada for EuroCanadian Pride!’

In his 1909 book,  Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. :

The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare. (P.208)

Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (= violence), localism (= the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (= an overall lack of social cohesion).

In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes.

Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat

Posted on by
​​​​​Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat
 

Dan Murray,
Immigration Watch Canada
 
 
 
As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population. who would?
 
However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?” All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.
 
As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become. 
 
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants. Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed. Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.
 
Jagmeet Singh
Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.
 
 Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”
 
As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.
 
In his1909 book, Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. : “The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare”. (P.208)
 
Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (violence), localism (the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (an overall lack of social cohesion).
 
In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes. 

Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC

Posted on by
Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC
 
 · 

BREAKING WOW! India Report On Justin Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism In Canada Feb 20, 2018 You will NEVER see this on the CBC!!!
Sikh Radicalism in Canada is a clear and present danger! Trudeau has more Sikhs in his Cabinet than India President Modi! Cabinet Minister MP Sohi was Jailed in India under anti terrorism laws! And it gets worse….

He just closed a deal that will give India 500,000,000 Canadian Dollars! But no money for vets!

https://www.facebook.com/StandupforCanada/videos/571422059879265/?t=0

WILL JAGMEET AND THE NDP SOON BE DOG MEAT?

Posted on by

 

WILL JAGMEET AND THE NDP SOON BE DOG MEAT?
 
Dan Murray
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jagmeet Singh’s acceptance speech revealed three key things about about him.
 
 
(1) He is arrogant and loves to repeat the cliches of Canada’s immigration lobby. For example, Singh began his acceptance speech at the NDP LEADERSHIP CONVENTION by saying that everyone in the hall should acknowledge that the NDP Leadership meeting was being held on Aboriginal land. Most Canadians will agree that Canada has to settle Aboriginal land claims and reconcile other matters. However, most do not appreciate being lectured to by members of aggressive, power-hungry immigrant groups like the Sikhs who have arrived here relatively recently. In particular, Canada’s majority European-based population does not like to be told that they have no right to be in Canada. Furthermore, Canada’s majority population also does not like to be told that recently-arrived immigrants (a) have a status identical to that of the builders of modern Canada and (b) that Canada’s majority population also should have no privilege in hiring and in defending itself from an inflow of Sikhs and other immigrant groups whom it clearly never needed and who have engaged in extensive immigration fraud to get here. In fact, several years ago, one senior government official described the Canadian consulate in Punjab’s Chandigarh as the virtual fraud capital of all Canadian Consulates and Embassies. Obviously, Singh’s words are extremely insulting. If he really thinks this is a good way to launch his political campaign for 2019, he suffers from delusions. Here is some advice for him : Loosen your turban so that a normal blood flow gets to your brain.
 
 
(2) He likes to play the role of victim. In his acceptance speech, he said that while driving, he had been profiled by police and stopped. In his view, that happened because he wore a turban and had brown skin. He should know that Sikhs are disproportionately represented in drug dealing in places like Metro Vancouver and elsewhere. Almost every week, Canadians hear news reports of Sikhs shooting one another and endangering the lives of non-Sikhs who happen to be nearby. He conveniently neglected to say that the police have not just a right, but a clear obligation to stop people who fit the demographic profile of those who are clearly guilty of a large amount of criminal activity. Hard as it may be for Jagmeet Singh to grasp, most Canadians would like to see all of these Sikh drug dealers rounded up and deported.
 
 
(3) He seems to believe that the NDP and all Canadians think there is nothing wrong with Sikh electoral tactics. Singh proudly boasted about getting over 50% of the vote at the leadership convention. In imitation of the late Jack Layton, he gushed to his supporters with declarations of love. The big questions he did not answer were these : (A) Who exactly voted for him so that he could achieve over 50% on the first ballot ? Such a result has seldom occurred. Anyone who has observed Canadian politics knows that the Sikhs, probably more than any other group, are notorious for buying large numbers of PARTY memberships before conventions and nomination meetings and busing new members to fill meeting halls. It is quite likely they did that at the NDP LEADERSHIP CONVENTION. (B) How many of those voters were checked to see whether they were even in Canada legally? It is well known in Sikh circles that many Sikhs have entered Canada through fraud marriages, phoney TFW applications, fake visitor visa applications and many other kinds of fraud. Canadians who do not know much about immigration numbers may be shocked to hear that close to 400,000 Sikhs recently showed up for a Sikh parade in Metro Vancouver. (C) How did such a number get into Canada? Most NDP insiders and honest Sikhs probably feel very uncomfortable about this very crude Sikh activity, but they hesitate to state the truth : that a significant number of recently-arrived Sikhs probably voted for Singh and that the tactics that were used were questionable at the very least. The other NDP leadership candidates and a large number of non-Sikh veteran NDP members have probably already begun whispering among themselves about this. The key thing they will be saying is this : Singh managed to get large numbers of fellow Sikhs to vote for him, but the big problem now is whether Singh will be able to convince large numbers of Canadians to vote for him—especially since it seems quite probable that Singh’s supporters won by “playing most foully” for the prize he now holds.
 
 
Former NDP leader Mulcair made a colossal mistake in the 2015 election when he naively supported an arrogant Muslim woman who demanded to be allowed to wear her face-covering niqab for a citizenship ceremony. Has the NDP made a big mistake again? Mulcair’s blunder cost the NDP a large number of ridings in Quebec. Mulcair refused to accept that Quebec had become fed-up with aggressive, recently-arrived Muslims who demand that Canadians accept Muslim customs. In addition, a significant percentage of the rest of Canada’s population is fed up with recently-arrived immigrants demanding that Canada re-engineer itself so that it looks like the envir Jagmeet Singh’s acceptance speech revealed three key things about about him.
For sensible immigration policies for the 21st century.

Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Which Is The Most Inclusive Political Party Of Them All?

Posted on by

Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Which Is The Most Inclusive Political Party Of Them All?

by Tim Murray

Slick Suit Singh
Jagmeet Singh, seen above wearing an NDP orange turban, announced his bid for the federal NDP leadership in Brampton on Monday night amid cheering party supporters

Finally it’s official. The dynamic deputy leader of the Ontario NDP, Jagmeet Singh, has formally thrown his “hat” into the ring of the federal NDP leadership contest. His mission: to build a Canada where “nobody should be made to feel that they don’t belong.”

Singh’s announcement lends credence to the impression that the NDP is determined to win the “who is the most inclusive” derby. Sikhs, Muslims, First Nations, and the LGTBQ community are all to be prominently featured in the shop window. Every identity group must be appeased. Every group that is, except the White working class, which as we all know from watching the CBC, is inherently racist, xenophobic, parochial and ignorant. We only keep them around because, well, somebody has to pay the taxes.

Electing a Sikh to lead the federal party would come with a cost I would think. Most New Democrats would be electrified but some would not. I mean, in a pluralistic society, you can’t please everyone, can you? The dream candidate would be a transgender aboriginal who has converted to Islam, but then that would make Blacks and Punjabis feel marginalized. How about a transgender Black Muslim with a Sikh partner? But that would leave out First Nations. OK, then how about a gender-fluid Black aboriginal hybrid Sikh who celebrates Ramadan? No? Let’s see what party strategists can come up with.

It is obvious that as our society continues to unravel according to the Frankfurt School plan, and the pace of cultural fragmentation picks up speed, recruitment of diverse atomized individuals across the full spectrum of contrived identities will become increasingly challenging. How does a political party represent each one of 624 emerging identities when they are only 338 seats in the House of Commons? It can’t.

The only recourse is for our inclusive parties to exclude dozens of victim groups, each clamouring for attention. Perhaps they can put their heads together and agree to carve up the pie so that no grievance group will be left out. Much like Chicago mob bosses carved up the city’s drug trade.

In that case, we shall need electoral reform so that 30 different parties can win seats, and a grand coalition of 15 of them can form the government. This means that another 102 cabinet posts would need to be created to ensure that every ethnic/gender/religious faction can joust for attention at the very summit of our democracy. NHL referees would be called in to control the fracas. Or UN peace keepers. Since Diversity Is Our Strength, and there is Unity in Diversity, I am sure that they would work things out and come to a peaceful consensus. Just because ‘diversity’ is a spectacular failure across the globe is no reason to believe that it can’t work here. We are Canadians after all. We are exceptional. Even the Law of Gravity doesn’t apply to us.

But the institution of proportional representation will not suffice. Canada is a nation of regional as well as ethnic, gender and linguistic differences. Where you live can determine how you view the country. A Vancouverite and a Torontonian often see things quite differently. So it should be apparent that to reach the right decisions, any effective national lawmaking assembly must include ethnic, religious and gender axe-grinders from every corner of the nation.

It is important, for example, that Albertan transgender immigrant women of colour be represented in Ottawa. We can’t have the transgender immigrant women of colour in Ontario hogging the mic. Non-White Western trannies have a unique perspective that deserves a hearing too. They bring something to the table that Eastern queers can’t. Ditto for aboriginal Muslims in northern Quebec. Their voice must not be appropriated by First Nations jihadists out West. And of course, Sunnis and Shiites must be represented in numbers proportional to their presence in the community. I think a Triple E Senate is the answer.

Try as we might to find a formula for total inclusion, however, we must admit that we will fall short of the ideal arrangement. It’s a fact of life. Some Canadians will be left out. Some will have to content themselves with being seen and not heard. There is simply not enough room in the legislatures and town council rooms for all of us. Not for all splinter groups, who are busy splintering away from themselves as we speak. The tent can only grow so wide.

Regrettably therefore, if only in the interests of economy, we must continue to leave the White working class on the outside looking in. In that regard, the NDP can show us how that can be done. They have had five decades of experience in excluding the very people whom they claim to speak for, and I think it is high time that we yielded to their expertise. Social Democratic and “Labour” parties in Europe can also be of service, if need be. Their splendid showing in recent elections demonstrate that.

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

Posted on by

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Jagmeet Singh
Slick Suit Singh — Future Prime Minister of Canada?

Every social movement has its heroes. Within the spectrum of Canadian political correctness, this role is currently fulfilled by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. His incessant promotion of all-things multicultural — in particular a fervent dedication to our Islamic and LGBT communities — has advanced a globalist agenda to the extent that to even question its motives draws the wrath of social justice warriors from coast to coast.

Yet, being a most insatiable collective of hyper-aggressive globalists, this social dynamic is incomplete. What is required, of course, is a leader to emerge from one of Canada’s coveted Third World communities.

This is not Justin Trudeau, but it is NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh. Clad in slick suits and designer turbans, Mr. Singh recently became official poster-boy for Canada’s diversity industry. It is indeed a privileged position, as the standards held for “traditional” Canadian politicians do not apply to “multicultural” politicians such as Mr. Singh.

Recently, a protestor interrupted an NDP event in Brampton, Ontario. A woman got onstage and began to aggressively question Mr. Singh regarding his position on issues relating to Islam, and Sharia law in particular. Granted, the approach was ill-advised, as the spontaneity of her inquiry was not a proper platform in which to address sensitive issues of this nature.

Within a democratic political environment, however, a candidate running for office is required to address the concerns of their constituents. Jagmeet Singh did nothing of the sort. Rather, he waxed philosophical regarding the need for all Canadians to “love each other.” A noble thought, yet one which entirely evades the issues. Recently, Mr. Singh released a public statement that he opposes a motion put forth by the provincial government of Quebec requiring public servants to reveal their face when administering services to clients. After months of inquiry, our protestor wanted answers — yet none ever arrived.

The result of her interruption of the meeting was universal condemnation. Media attacked her. Liberal politicians vilified her. All of a sudden, Singh was catapulted to a position not unlike that of globalist messiah. He had single-handedly defeated the bad, bad racist. Victory was assured, and Mr. Singh was declared a hero.

Canadian “identity” politics have changed the nature of political discourse in Canada, and not for the better. Time was when the main issue within politics were issues — for example addressing public concern, as well as one’s duty to constituents. Times have changed. Today, after a forty year program of diversity indoctrination, the main issue is the identity of a politician.

Within contemporary society, Third World political figures are depicted as vital and brimming with benevolence. Conversely, Anglo-Canadians politicians — save Justin Trudeau — are old and tired. At present they are something of a political dinosaur. On the other hand, Singh and others like him are rendered untouchable. If one dares speak against them, prepare to be branded a racist.

What privilege! Protected by a teflon-coating of political correctness, identity politicians are accountable to no one but their own particular community. As for the Anglophone minority in Mr. Singh’s riding of Brampton, Ontario — a riding where over 90% of constituents are of Third World origin — these people have no choice but to grin and bear it. Any dissent amongst the ranks will bring the inevitable accusations of bigotry, and the rest. Talk about being placed in social straight jacket.

Since gaining office, Justin Trudeau has been a pin-up poster boy of culture-eroding globalism. Naturally, this is not good enough. For Canada’s diversity-bandits, nothing ever is. What is required is the real deal. A non-Anglophone, Third World Canadian leader of the variety we find in Jagmeet Singh — the NDP’s answer to their political failings of the past decade.

Singh is a social justice weapon-in-waiting. It is he the liberal left is placing on a political pedestal as an example to all Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, and the message is: do not mess with us, because we hold the most powerful weapon in modern-day Canadian politics — a “silver bullet” known as the accusation of racism. As for social and political issues, let them go gentle into that good night along with all forms of traditional Canadian identity. Canada now has a globalist messiah in the form of NDP candidate Jagmeet Singh. The post-modern promised land of Justin Trudeau’s “new” Canada await