Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism “HARMING Canada” Says Muslim-Canadian Journalist

Posted on by

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism “HARMING Canada” Says Muslim-Canadian Journalist

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism “HARMING Canada” Says Muslim-Canadian Journalist

“Unfortunately, when multiculturalism becomes the foundation of politics, the very essence of debate gets relegated from the common good of the country to the medieval instinct OF THE TRIBE.”

What!?  Who made this statement– the leader of a white supremacy party in Canada? Not at all–these words come from Tarek Fatah, conservative Muslim and Canadian social critic.

This fellow is on the right track. CAP commend Mr. Fatah for this statement. The man is non-white, and non-Christian. Do we therefore default to the position that he is a trouble-maker within our society? No, we do not. Yet, organizations such as ours are constantly branded racists and bigots. Whatever–CAP do not give a damn.

Liberal MP Ramesh Sangha, who represents Ontario’s Brampton Centre riding, dropped a bombshell during a recent Punjabi-language television interview where he was quoted as saying: “There cannot be two opinions that the Liberal party is pandering (to) Khalistan supporters.”

The interviewer asked Sangha – himself a Sikh – if he thought the party had a “soft corner” for Khalistanis(Sikh National separatists. Sangha replied that “it does.”

Multiculturalism is Canada’s most overlooked social ideology, as well as  the most profound vehicle for social change in the history of Canada. Amount of press dedicated to the subject? In 40 years, almost NOTHING at all.

Canada happens to be one of the very few nations on earth with a policy of multiculturalism referenced within its constitution. The related piece of government legislation is the Multicultural  Act of 1988.

As an aside, within Chinese numerology, the number “8” means wealth and financial prosperity. Did government plan in advance to pass the legislation in the year 1988? Would not surprise CAP in the least– Multiculturalism is a product of Trudeau-family Liberal-Globalism, after all.

What is it about the “multicult,” or diversity which has been held back from the purview of millions of Canadians for the past forty years? Let’s take a quick look:

For one thing, Multicult policy from a financial view is a giant-sized transfer of Canadian tax-dollars. Hundreds of million– BILLIONS over the decades, has been passed to Third World immigration, multicultural, and refugee non-profit organizations.

This is how Chinese, Sikh, and Muslim organizations succeeded in establishing themselves as “power-players” within Canadian society. One organization, SUCCESS Immigrant Services of Vancouver, BC, receives $23 Million per year from the provincial government alone. They are funded by all three levels of government–municipal, provincial and federal.

Despite their appearance at present, for at least 30 years this group focused exclusively on migrants from China. One group, one focus, one mission--to import Chinese migrants to Canada. A report from their website(they removed it) boasted about the percentage of European migrants they have assisted– a whopping 1% of their clientele.  There’s multiculturalism for you– SUCCESS for decades was 100% uni-cultural. 

There are thousands of groups like this in Canada. Then, we turn to the b-side. CAP once worked with a Polish-Canadian non-profit. We viewed one request for government funding for their non-profit. $8,000 dollarsdenied

 

Darn, that multicult stuff really leads to social equality, eh? The whole affair is a farce. CAP will tell you why: Because there is NOTHING multicultural about Canadian multiculturalism.

Huh? What is this guy on? Let us explain. This concept means “multi”— as in, “many, manifold, a variety. Now, the fact is that the ideology is in no way inclusive of European Canada. No pride in being a Canadian of Ukrainian, German, or Polish Canadian. No money either.

Okay, so whitey is OUT. That’s a big segment of society, no? Then we consider the communities who are a component of this anti-European diversity movement. Does this adhere to authentic diversity? After all, that was the goal of the program after Pierre Trudeau FORCED the policy on Canada in the first place.

Not really. The main players are three: Sikh, Muslim and Chinese-Canada. What is so diverse about this? Not much. Rather, what we have here is a license for these wealthy and powerful communities to battle it out for power and control within society. Under Justin Trudeau, this is what is occurring as we speak.

Then, Trudeau puts on a Silk Sikh outfit, does a few Bollywood dance moves, and shouts “Diversity Is Our Strength.”

CAP will amend this by one word- “Diversity is A strength.” Big difference.  Yes, it is a strength–for some. Who are the “some?” They are the most well-funded, organized, wealthy and powerful special interest ethnic communities in Canada. The ones with the hundreds of multicult organizations sucking up the most tax dollars.

This is Multicult in the real world. It is not Trudeau, Hussen, Butts, Morneau and Khalid multiculturalism. This brand is a giant LIE. A deception designed to empower some, and DISEMPOWER others.

Multiculturalism as a political ideology began in 1971— a full 47 years ago. Think back–have you ever ONCE read anything like this within Canadian media? CAP knows that the answer is “no”–because we have followed these issues for the past 37 years.

We have now discussed who benefits. Now, let’s look at who suffers. Anglophone Canada, because we are being trans-itioned into minority status by government. Christian Canada, because Justin Trudeau is dedicated to one religion only-Islam. Nationalists, Patriots, Conservatives, Francophones– white people, basically.

To add insult-to-injury, PM Trudeau has personally trans-itioned Anglophone Canada into a motley gang of racists, bigots and xenophobes. Would this be anywhere near as extreme if Papa Pierre had not unilaterally forced the policy upon society?

Yes, much less–in fact the branding-like-cattle racist tag of Trudeau, may not have occurred at all.  This is the story of multiculturalism in Canada. It is NOTHING like the manner in which the ideology is portrayed by government and media.

It is, in fact, a stone-cold deception of the people of Canada. Those portrayed as victims are in reality, the privileged. Those branded as oppressors are in reality the victims.

Canada–you have been hood-winked. Multiculturalism is destructive for specific segments of society. The policy was founded by Pierre Trudeau, and hit out of the ball-park by Justin Trudeau.

Then, Justin gets elected for a second term. Insane, isn’t it?

— BRAD SALZBERG

 

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.

Somalian-Canadian MP Ahmed Hussen Pushes For Refugee Intake Increases DESPITE Public Backlash

Posted on by

Somalian-Canadian MP Ahmed Hussen Pushes For Refugee Intake Increases DESPITE Public Backlash

[What an insult when the Trust Fund Kid appointed this Somali, Moslem, refugee, immigration lawyer as minister of immigration. Might as well appoint a serial rapist to run a women’s shelter. His native land is a failed state and knows nothing of democracy. Hence, his arrogant “fuck you” to the majority of Canadians who do not want waves more of phoney “refugees”.– Paul Fromm]

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen says he would like to see Canada welcome more refugees than it currently accepts and believes more of them should be able to enter through economic immigration programs.

As someone who arrived in Canada as a refugee himself, Hussen spoke with passion about the need for Canada to do more.

Yes–the need to DO MORE. Anyone else out there in reality-land expect something different? You shouldn’t, because political figures such as Ahmed Hussen ALWAYS DEMAND MORE.

The term for this is “insatiability”–a lack of ability to reach a level of satisfaction. In Canada, this is the heart, soul and pulse of the politically correct social justice movement–NEVER be satisfied. For as long as he can, drop-in dual citizen from Somalia Ahmed Hussen will push for Canada to be transformed into his PERSONAL VISION of what Canada MUST become.

The vision is for Canada to shift on its social and political axis. This began with Pierre Trudeau, and by way of son Justin Trudeau, has become more and more of a reality. In Hussen’s Canada, Canadian of European Heritage are not to be considered in any capacity. Nor are Christian Canadians.

For Hussen, Canada exists for a singular purpose: to be transformed into a dumping ground for as many of his Third World brethren as humanely possible. That’s it, and nothing more. Mr. Hussen cares not if these so-called refugees are legal or illegal. Nor is it a concern whether or not they are legitimate refugees.

Suggesting economic migrants be accepted into Canada as refugees TRANS-cends the definition of the United Nations Declaration On Refugee Status, which Canada foolishly signed post- WW2. PM Hussen must be thrilled with this, particularly as  few Muslim and African nations signed on the dotted line.

The outcome? Canada– and NOT Islamic nations– are responsible for millions of  “refugees” from Third World nations. PERFECT- for Ahmed Hussen that is. For the rest of us, we are stuck PAYING THE BILLS for these new arrivals.

READ MORE: Canada Becomes World Leader In Refugee Intake, Majority Of Citizens Are Opposed

Winners: Ahmed Hussen, United Nations, Immigration and Multicultural non-profit organizations, immigration and refugee lawyers, Third World Citizens.

Losers: English Canada, Anglophone and Francophone Canada, Christian Canada, Nationalists and Patriots.  Please do tell– is this not ALWAYS THE WAY with the Trudeau government?

recent poll states that a majority of Canadians are OPPOSED to increases in quotas for immigration and refugee intake. What impact does this have on Ahmed Hussen? NOTHING. Instead, he is pushing for non-refugee status people to enter Canada under the economic program.

Ever heard of such a thing before? Most likely not, as this recommendation appears to be UNPRECEDENTED.  Has establishment media pointed this out? Of course not.

Again and again, Canadians witness a ruling government wholly detached from the will of the people. This is NOT supposed to occur within a liberal democracy. Conclusion? Canadian citizens do notlive in a liberal democracy. Rather, under King Justin of Canada, we are living in an elected DICTATORSHIP.

Who better than pseudo-totalitarian Ahmed Hussen to lead a destructive agenda not a single Canadian asked for. Cold hearted, calculated, bereft of emotion, Mr. Hussen is the ideal figure to finish off what began with the advent of multiculturalism some forty years ago.

This is the exact reason Justin Trudeau appointed a half-Canadian Somalian refugee to lord it over the people of Canada.

— B. SALZBERG

Somali Gangs In Canada Set Up Nation-Wide Drug Dealing Circuit

Posted on by

 

Somali Gangs In Canada Set Up Nation-Wide Drug Dealing Circuit

 

 

Somali drug gangs appear to be highly organized without the hierarchy of traditional criminal gangs, says Staff Sgt. Jim Peebles of Edmonton city police. These gang members work a circuit — Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary to Fort McMurray and Ottawa,  moving drugs and guns around the country. “The group is in Edmonton one day, then they turn up in Ft. McMurray and next week we see them in Toronto or Ottawa,” he said. 

And here Justin Trudeau claims  diversity is Canada’s strength. Incidentally, so does our dual citizenship immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen–a refugee from Somalia himself. Police forces across the country  worked closely together in the last couple of years to identity core Somalian gang members, uncover their movements and follow the shifting leadership. This costs money. So does the inordinate amount of Somalians receiving taxpayer-funded welfare checks in Canada.

Yet, to call these people out would inevitably result in the calling out of the accusers as so-called “Islamophobes.  It’s simply the “Canadian way” under the ruling Trudeau government. When in doubt, play the race card–then watch as those questioning the circumstances scamper back behind their keyboards for fear of being branded racists.

Since when has an identifiable Canadian community been indemnified from criticism in this manner? The answer, of course, is NEVER. Dual citizen MP Iqra Khalid saw to this when she successfully advanced M103, the Pakistani national’s motion to elevate Islam above other religions in Canada.

In the USA, the city of Minneapolis experienced a sudden increase in the Somali population similar to Edmonton’s early in the decade– as well as  a similar spate of gun violence. The idea the Edmonton situation is unique can thereby be put to rest. The purpose of  immigration policy within western democracies is to create a benefit to their respective societies. To facilitate drug gangs and gun runners falls outside the purview of this ideal. Yet, in Canada, Third World migrants have transitioned to our nation’s protected communities–regardless of the number of illegal migrants, their status as Islamic militants, or any other relevant factor.

What a curious state of affairs. Present-day political correctness is so stringent that Canadians live in fear of condemning Somalian dope dealers.  They could loose their jobs, or having their reputation smeared. In truth, it is the Trudeau government that deserve the smearing. Despite pit-bull refugee pusher Ahmed Hussen’s prostrations about the so-called benefit of mass Third World immigration, common sense Canadians know better.

Now, if only Liberal Canadians would follow suit, Canada could rid itself of the damaging forces of left-wing political correctness. This begins, of course, with ridding our nation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Follow this up with removing Ahmed Hussen from holding the demographic destiny of Canada in his hands, and perhaps our nation can return to a state of political sanity lost the day Justin Trudeau became prime minister.

 

 

Canadians Are Tired Of Footing the Bill For Racist Anti-White Propaganda

Posted on by
Canadians Are Tired Of Footing the Bill For Racist Anti-White Propaganda
 
[Why don’t rich Chinese or Arabs dip into their wallets to fund the anti-White, guilt mongering, mind bending propaganda, instead of expecting the beleaguered White taxpayer to do so? — Paul Fromm]
 
April 15, 2019
 
 
Cry me a river.
 
So the Left is in a tizzy because the Ford government has cut off funding to “Harmony”, one of hundreds of “anti-racist” organizations putatively dedicated to “equity”, diversity and inclusion, and a range of other goals whose benefits they assume to be self-evident.
 
But, as one can easily discern from the comments that follow articles that trumpet the dubious merits of increasing cultural and ethnic fragmentation and new found sexual identities, a lot of taxpayers don’t buy into the scam. They pay for it but it is a classic case of ‘taxation without representation” . Many if not most Canadians have a dim view of organizations who flock to the inexhaustible bird feeder which is the government grants. And they have a dimmer view of the politicians who provide them. First in line at the trough are a consortium of Ethnocultural and Immigration lobbies who together with government patrons form a Canadian version of Orwell’s Minitrue (Ministry of Propaganda).
 
Whenever ordinary people are given the mic, one gains the impression that organizations like “Harmony” only succeed in creating “acrimony”. What Minitrue regards as “equity”, the silenced majority regards as inequity or reverse discrimination. And what they call diversity “awareness” programs are seen by many as mandatory mis-education workshops designed to make students or employees less aware of the politically incorrect facts of Canadian history.
 
Grievance mongering in Canada is a lucrative business. In fact, it is an industry. If you want to get a sense of the monstrous scale of this millstone, just visit government sites like this Click here for anti-racism article or this. Click here for Ontario anti-racism plan or this Click for Alberta article  The latter site, which outlines the Alberta government’s anti-racism community grant program, targeting small advocacy groups, informs supplicants that they may receive up to $25,000 of government funding, plus an additional $5,000 in some cases. Multiply that by a hundred and pretty soon you are talking “real money”. Keep in mind that these are only three examples of the scam. Grievance mongering in Canada is a lucrative business.
 
We talk about the outrageous scale of corporate welfare, but we can only imagine how much public money is spent on this vast propaganda apparatus when we look at the books of just one of its constituent parts.
 
“Since 2011, Harmony Movement received between $200,000 and $300,000 annually — funds tied to the former Liberal government’s inclusive education (sic) strategy. It funded interactive workshops covering topics such as Islamophobia, LGBTQ issues and anti-Indigenous racism.”
 
$200,000-$300,000! That’s a lot of money to train kids how to employ Alinsky tactics in the service of a mission founded on falsehood and treason. Imagine what we could do with that money. We could deprogram the victims of these “interactive workshops” for a fraction of that kind of money. All we would need do is give them 30 minutes of the truth and hand them a copy of “Canada in Decay” on their way out.
 
But “Harmony” is but one star in a galaxy of social justice panhandlers with begging bowls at the threshold of every government, provincial or federal, in the land.
 
 A year ago, when the Trudeau cabinet wet its pants over the growth of what Public Safety Canada called “right wing extremism”, it earmarked $23 million over two years for “multicultural programs” and national consultations on racism, that is, consultations with grievance identity groups. Whenever a progressive government calls for a national conversation on race, they mean a monologue on race, where they do the talking and Joe Taxpayer does the listening. The 2018 Budget document stated that diversity was a cornerstone of Canadian identity which is threatened by the rise of “ultranationalist movements and, protests against immigration, visible and religious minorities. “ But this year’s 2019 Budget upped the ante by assigning $45 million to the noble cause, including $17 million this year and next for an “Anti-Racism Strategy” that will underwrite community projects to fight racial discrimination. And if that doesn’t take your breath away, the budget also sets aside $25 million over five years for projects to celebrate “Black Canadian” communities, which of course have withstood decades of withering white racism. All of this adds up to what, almost $100 million in two years?
 
That’s a stiff price to counter a movement which, according to “far right specialist” Barbara Perry of the Ontario Institute of Technology consists of only around 125 groups. Forgive me if I get the feeling that if there was no “far right” extremist movement in Canada, the government would have to create one. Otherwise a lot of useless bureaucrats and crusaders would be out of a job. Perhaps the government should consider funding us as well. I mean, we have to eat too. They could frame it as a public works program to prime the pump of a flagging economy. Maybe they are already doing that by employing moles and informants in our ranks. As Lenin said, the best way to fight the opposition is to lead it.
 
Keep in mind that all of the aforementioned grants are not inclusive of the grants given to ethno-cultural organizations in the name of multiculturalism which in English Canada totaled an estimated $1 billion per year in the two fiscal years of 2012/2013 and 2014/2015, and over $920 million in 2013/2014. In 2014/2015 it was $720 million. In 2015, Quebec received $340.6 million under the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration. There are more than 65 organizations on this gravy train which is picking up steam (and dollars) as the years go by. One of them, “S.U.C.C. E. S. S. , a Chinese immigration advocacy group, has received so much government money that it operates 20+ offices in Metro Vancouver. Click for article No wonder there are so many organizations, including post-secondary schools and churches that are grasping for hand-outs. As immigration analyst Dan Murray observed, “Most Canadians do not have a million to a billion dollars to throw around, but Ottawa does.” No kidding. And Doug Ford is channelling the anger of Canadians.
 
In reporting Ford’s cuts, HuffPost scribe Mohamed Omar laments that this news “comes as the spectre of extremism haunts communities in Canada and around the world.” But the extremism that Mr. Omar refers to is the extremism of those who are attempting to oppose his brand of extremism, aka globalism, the most extremist agenda that any totalitarian movement ever conceived.  Nothing in modern human history can match the extremely rapid and profound demographic transformation of Canadian, American and European societies wrought by globalism in the past quarter century —aided and abetted by globalist politicians and media hacks who now soil their trousers as they behold the ‘extremism’ of a broad swathe of ordinary people who won’t get with the program.
 
Omar notes that ” Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told the UN Security Council that neo-Nazis, white supremacists and “incels, nativists, and radical anti-globalists” threaten the stability of the country.” Seriously? Nothing has been more destabilizing than globalism. Globalism took a wrecking ball to this country. Globalism destroyed our manufacturing sector and out-sourced a million jobs. Globalism imposed an annual net fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers of $20-35 billion, the difference between the taxes paid by low-skilled immigrants and the cost of social services provided to them. Globalism eroded our national sovereignty and cut the nation from its traditional ethno-cultural moorings. Many would maintain that we are not even a nation anymore, but a ‘post-national’ state, as Justin Trudeau once boasted. Telling us that the people who fight this most transformative and destabilizing process are destabilizing the country is like blaming firefighters for the water damage they caused in trying to save the building while letting the arsonist off the hook. It is like comparing the harm caused by the violent actions of deranged individuals inspired by an ideology you don’t like to a KT asteroid event. Get real Freeland! The problem is not “radical” anti-globalists but radical globalism!
 
 The extremism of hyper immigration is not a “spectre” but an ongoing event of mind-blowing scale, and the Great Replacement is not an optical illusion or a conspiracy “theory” but a reality. No “anti-racist” workshop can disguise it. No infusion of taxpayer funding can hide it. Despite their most determined efforts to make people disbelieve what they see, despite a thousand hours of classroom indoctrination, and the subliminal messaging of TV commercials, movies and popular music, the political elite cannot keep the blinders on us forever. Eventually reality breaks through like a battering ram, and scales fall from more and more eyes. Reality is making converts every day.
 
The truth is that the archipelago of organizations which form the “progressive” alliance– the political parties, the environmental NGOs, the SJW advocacy groups, the CBC, the molly-coddled arts community, liberal arts academia—all feed off the taxpayer tit in one way or another. These instruments of Cultural Marxist subversion can therefore be regarded as hot air balloons kept aloft only by the injection of conscripted money from the very people they wish to marginalize, displace or punish. Without this money, without subsidies and/or tax deductions, the Canadian “Left” would be a paper tiger, and the political class exposed for what it is, a fringe group. The tail that wags the dog. Take the fledgling “Canadian Anti-Hate Network” (please). Or is it “The Anti-Canadian Hate Network? They needed a start-up grant from the (U.S.) Southern Poverty Law (Lie) Center just to get online resource set up. Any race-baiting smear group worth its salt in Canada needs our tax dollars to survive. Soros and the SPLC have deep pockets but they can’t support every quisling Tom, Dick or Harry who comes along wanting to undermine Western civilization.
 
Good riddance “Harmony”. Let you be the first of a hundred other anti-Canadian parasites to feel the blade on your neck. Good luck in finding a real job.
 
Tim Murray
 
BTW, Thank you Doug Ford!
NEWS

04/09/2019 15:13 EDT | Updated 04/10/2019 09:48 EDT

Harmony Movement, Anti-Racism Group In Ontario, Shutting Down After 25 Years Due To Funding Cuts

But the provincial government claims it never applied for funding.

Harmony Movement, an Ontario-based organization that facilitates equity and anti-racism workshops across the province, says provincial funding cuts are forcing it to shut down.

COURTESY HARMONY MOVEMENT
Harmony Movement, an Ontario-based organization that facilitates equity and anti-racism workshops across the province, says provincial funding cuts are forcing it to shut down.

TORONTO — An Ontario organization that has been providing anti-racism education programs to teachers and students across the province says funding cuts are forcing it to shut down its operations.

Toronto-based Harmony Movement will have to lay off 11 full-time staff, Cheuk Kwan, the group’s executive director, told HuffPost Canada. Founded in 1994, the organization facilitated equity-focused, anti-racism workshops for 59 out of 60 English school boards in the province.

The Ontario government informed the group last December that it would no longer be receiving provincial funding, Kwan said.

The news comes as the spectre of extremism haunts communities in Canada and around the world. Last month, a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand killed 50 people, many gunned down while in silent prayer. The shooter posted a manifesto online before the attack claiming he wanted to create “an atmosphere of fear” against Muslims, according to The Guardian.

COURTESY HARMONY MOVEMENTCheuk Kwan, the executive director of Harmony Movement, says his group was told to hold off on applying for provincial funding last year and wait until after the provincial election.

“This is unfortunate, because if you look at the [2017] Quebec mosque shootingand then now you look at [Christchurch], more and more … we are under the threat of white supremacy. We need to deal more with this kind of threat beyond the three Rs and getting your math and English right,” Kwan said.

According to Statistics Canada data released last November, hate crimes in 2017 were up 47 per cent compared to the year prior, with most of the incidents targeting Muslim, Jewish, and black populations. Most of that jump was seen in Ontario and Quebec. Before that, StatCan data pointed to a 253 per cent increase in police-reported hate crimes against Muslims between 2012 and 2015, according to Global News.

Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told the UN Security Council that neo-Nazis, white supremacists and “incels, nativists, and radical anti-globalists” threaten the stability of the country, according to the National Observer.

Regular funding process wasn’t followed: Kwan

Since 2011, Harmony Movement received between $200,000 and $300,000 annually — funds tied to the former Liberal government inclusive education strategy. It funded interactive workshops covering topics such as Islamophobia, LGBTQ issues and anti-Indigenous racism.

Beyond standard lectures, program manager Rima Dib said some were two-day long events that gave students and educators tools and practical advice, rather than just raising awareness about discrimination or oppression.

“Everything from how to respond [to discrimination,] how to interrupt, how to challenge stereotypes to how to lead an initiative in your school that challenges an injustice,” she said.

COURTESY HARMONY MOVEMENTYouth participants are photographed at a week-long equity camp organized by Harmony Movement in partnership with the York Catholic District School Board.

The funding process generally started in the spring when the government would ask Harmony Movement and other groups providing similar programs to apply for funding.

That didn’t happen last year.

Kwan said the group was told to hold off applying because no funding decisions could be made until after the provincial election and budget priorities were set.

But in December, the group received a letter that said because the province’s $14.5 billion deficit is “a significant concern,” the government had to make “necessary decisions to reduce spending wherever possible”

COURTESY HARMONY MOVEMENTRima Dib, a program manager at Harmony Movement, said some of the group’s anti-racism workshops are intensive, two-day events that go beyond standard lectures on discrimination.

A spokesperson for the Ontario education ministry told HuffPost in an email that the group did not “submit a proposal for funding to the ministry for 2018-19 or 2019-2020.”

“That’s their narrative. They said ‘well, they didn’t apply for funding.’ That’s a … hypocritical way of saying it,” Kwan said. “That we didn’t get it because we didn’t apply.”

While the ministry did not clarify if it would fund any workshops like Harmony Movement’s in the future, it said that “inclusive education connections” are already baked into several parts of its curriculum.

There’s strong demand from schools for these types of workshops, especially after incidents like the Christchurch mosque attacks, according to Toronto-based writer and activist Sidrah Ahmad.

It’s almost like people don’t believe [Islamophobia] or want to think about it or address it unless there’s some horrific massacre.Toronto writer and activist Sidrah Ahmad

This increase in hate crimes and a more “in-your-face form of Islamophobia” led her to develop a toolkit for educators and students called Rivers of Hope. It contains definitions and research on Islamophobia and anti-black racism, as well as stories and poetry from survivors of anti-Muslim violence.

Last year, Ahmad and other activists launched a collective to develop and facilitate free, interactive anti-Islamophobia workshops for high school students.

But Ahmad said she doesn’t want to see demand for anti-Islamophobia education spike only after a tragedy.

“That’s what we’re trying to show people at these workshops, the everyday nature of [Islamophobia] and how this stuff is happening every day. People are being harassed, bullied in school … this is all happening on a regular basis, but it’s almost like people don’t believe it or want to think about it or address it unless there’s some horrific massacre.”

COURTESY RIVERS OF HOPEMembers of the Rivers of Hope collective develop and facilitate anti-Islamophobia workshops for high school students in the Greater Toronto Area.

Aima Warriach, a Muslim student who wears the niqab and hijab, helps facilitate the interactive workshops. She says Muslim students can experience “constant emotional labour” in schools and at times might feel pressured to justify or explain if any violence incidents happen to be carried out by a Muslim.

“What the Rivers of Hope kind of does is alleviate that type of labour from students and puts the responsibility on teachers educating themselves and other students educating themselves.”

Rivers of Hope received a one-time grant last year from a non-profit to help develop its workshops and pay its facilitators an honourarium, Ahmad said.

The group is now fundraising to develop a new program aimed at elementary school students, but Ahmad said she wants to see the province take a more active role in funding anti-racism education programs.

“Ideally we shouldn’t need to exist,” Ahmad said. “All of this should be taken care of within the school. We’re kind of like a Band-Aid coming in and being put on because there’s a problem..”

COURTESY HARMONY MOVEMENTStudents from Maple High School in the York Region District School Board plan ways to make their school more inclusive at a workshop organized by Harmony Movement.

For Dib, Harmony Movement’s work is essential because it can work as a proactive measure to fight against the “alienation” that led to the Christchurch shooting.

“We talk about [tragedies like Christchurch] and wish there’s something [to do], and in fact there really is. We’ve been doing it. Our organization has been around 25 years. Last year alone we worked with 5,800 students and there’s a real connection between education and attitude and behaviour,” she said.

“What our programs are based on is [that] our ideas inform our attitudes and our attitudes inform our actions. If our ideas are based on stereotypes and biases, our attitudes are prejudiced and are our behaviours are discriminatory.”

Harmony Movement is set to close on June 30.

Canada lawmaker says Trudeau’s warning against white supremacy is ethnic attack

Posted on by

Canada lawmaker says Trudeau’s warning against white supremacy is ethnic attack

 By Steve Scherer,Reuters Mon, Apr 15 6:27 PM EDT

PM Justin Trudeau walks in Vancouver Vaisakhi parade after reference to Sikh extremism deleted

Posted on by

PM Justin Trudeau walks in Vancouver Vaisakhi parade after reference to Sikh extremism deleted

 

 

 

[There was the Prime Minister, complete with a yellow headscarf or junior turban, with some sort of saffron scarf thrown over his shoulder, embracing a grinning fat Sikh in a fetching bright rose turban. There sheer diversity of the moment would be enough to make a citizen of the world swoon.  Well, the Clown Prince was in Vancouver April 13 at the Vaisakhi Sikh parade, playing Mr. Dressup as usual. Referring to the Sikhs, he proclaimed: “Let us also celebrate all the incredible contributions of this community.” Would he have marched in a European pride parade and hailed the even more “incredible contributions” of the European founding/settler people of this country, which build a land to which, by hook or by crook, Sikhs would flock to? I didn’t think so!

As part of the sanitizing of history and deliberate obfuscation to purge the public record of anything critical of the foreigners the replacement policies of our immigration system have brought to this country, the Liberal government in a shameful retreat from reality April 12,  agreed to Sikh demands. For all the yapping about equality, Sikhs, at less than one per cent of Canada’s population occupy 16 per cent of the federal cabinet seats. It’s White who should be demanding equality!

Trudeau’s morning speech came just hours after the federal government agreed to remove a reference to Sikh extremism from a report on terrorism. The Vancouver Sun (April 13) explains: ” The language was changed late Friday to remove any mention of religion, instead discussing the threat posed by ‘extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India.’ The 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada drew the ire of the Sikh community when it was released in December. For the first time, the report listed Sikh extremism as one of the top five extremist threats in Canada. Although the objections were largely about the inclusion of Sikhs at all, because of the report’s lack of evidence to back it up, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said he would at least ask for a review of the language the report used.”

But the independent homeland backed by the violent extremists — remember the bombing of Air India — is to be a Sikh homeland in the Punjab, which is mostly in India, but part in Pakistan. It is not to be a Hindu or Jain or Buddhist or multicult homeland!

 

Goodale is a master at obscuring reality. If you can’t name the problem, how can you deal with it? Back in late 2016, as the invasion of illegals began trickling across the Manitoba and then the Quebec border, he chose to rename them as “irregular migrants” as if they’d somehow been strolling around Central Park, with their bulging suitcases, of course, and then, somehow taken a wrong turn and ended up a couple of hundred miles north at the Quebec border. By not calling these enabled invaders illegals, he can slip into bureaucratic mode and seek to regularize them through some paper shuffling.]

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Trudeau’s morning speech came just hours after the federal government agreed to remove a reference to Sikh extremism from a report on terrorism

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, poses for a photograph with Gurmukh Singh after marching in the Vaisakhi parade, in Vancouver on Saturday. DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS 

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau touted the strength and contributions of Canada’s Sikh community as he celebrated the religion’s holy day of Vaisakhi in Vancouver.

“As we celebrate Vaisakhi, let us also celebrate all the incredible contributions of this community,” he said in a speech after he walked in a parade Saturday organized by the Khalsa Diwan Society in Surrey. The society formed in 1902 and built the first Sikh Gurdwara in Canada several years later.

Trudeau joined other politicians and community members in walking amongst floats and performers. On the sidelines, people handed out free food, including snacks and full meals to passersby.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, centre, Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan, front left, and MP Sukh Dhaliwal, centre right, march in the Vaisakhi parade in Vancouver on Saturday. DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS 

Sikhs have helped to build Canada for more than 120 years, Trudeau said, adding there are now Sikh entrepreneurs, politicians, artists and true leaders in every field.

He said the values celebrated during the holy day, like equality and social justice, are values that make Canada stronger.

Before the parade, Trudeau visited one of the largest Sikh temples in the country, Vancouver’s Ross Street Gurdwara, where he delivered a speech with similar sentiments. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also attended the festivities.

Attendees at the morning ceremony sat on the floor, many of them in colourful turbans, as speeches by several political leaders were broadcast on two massive screens.

Trudeau’s morning speech came just hours after the federal government agreed to remove a reference to Sikh extremism from a report on terrorism.

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan speaks at the Khalsa Diwan Society Sikh Temple before marching in the Vaisakhi parade in Vancouver on Saturday. DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS 

The language was changed late Friday to remove any mention of religion, instead discussing the threat posed by “extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India.”

The 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada drew the ire of the Sikh community when it was released in December.

For the first time, the report listed Sikh extremism as one of the top five extremist threats in Canada.

Although the objections were largely about the inclusion of Sikhs at all, because of the report’s lack of evidence to back it up, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said he would at least ask for a review of the language the report used.

He said entire religions should never be equated with terrorism.

There are roughly half a million Canadians who identify as Sikh, most of them in the Greater Toronto Area and suburban Vancouver.

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

Posted on by

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

I am, as you may be aware, neither a fan nor a friend of either liberalism or the left. If forced to choose between the two, I would pick the classical, nineteenth century, form of liberalism – individual rights, economic freedom, limits on government – over the left any day, but my instincts have always been conservative, that is to say, inclined towards order, tradition, and institutions that have been tested, proven, and honoured by time. A Tory is a specific kind of conservative, for whom the most cherished of time-honoured institutions are royal monarchy in the political sphere and the Apostolic Church in the religious sphere. Politically, I have been a Tory all my life, and as my theology has developed in a high church direction over the years, I have become so religiously as well. Unlike liberalism and leftism, neither conservatism nor Toryism, properly understood, is an ideology – a formula that purports to provide the political solution to all our problems. Indeed, the conservative and Tory are fundamentally anti-ideological, respecting the lesson of the past, that institutions, tested and proved by time, are to be trusted, over the formulations of intellectuals, however well-intentioned, for these never deliver the Paradise on earth they promise and more often than not do a great deal of harm in the name of doing good.

The non-ideological bent of the conservative and Tory allows him both to reject the foolishness and nonsense of liberalism and the left and to acknowledge the rare occasion when an idea coming from those quarters has merit. While, as indicated above, in my eyes nineteenth century liberalism produced more such ideas than any form of leftism then or since, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. While I disagreed with the late editor of Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn on the vast majority of matters, I thought he was dead on right when it came to his opposition to American military interventionism in the Balkans and the Middle East. The late Gore Vidal had a lot of sensible things to say on such matters as well. Although I don’t agree with much that Noam Chomsky has to say when it comes to politics, his analysis of how the mass media shapes and limits thought in democratic societies is essential reading and I have always respected the consistency of his stand for free speech. Whereas most liberals and leftists switch from free speech mode, when they are defending subversives and terrorists, to become censorious witch hunters when anyone touches their sacred cow, the Holocaust, Chomsky, a consistent advocate of free speech, defended French professor Robert Faurisson, braving the wrath of loud mouthed fools on both the left and right to do so.

Admittedly, I find it easier to give credit to leftists for good ideas when those ideas are left over from a Tory upbringing. The Honourable Eugene A. Forsey, although raised a MacDonald-Meighan Conservative, was for the most part of his life a man of the left, a social democrat who, before accepting a seat in the Senate as a Liberal, had worked for both the labour movement and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Despite this, and through all of this, he remained a man of deep Christian principles, and a patriotic defender of our country’s constitution, parliamentary monarchy, Common Law legal system, and traditional heritage and symbols, for which I admire and respect him. Other prominent Canadian social democrats who to one degree or another shared Forsey’s residual conservatism included Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, and even, at least on the point of the monarchy, the late Jack Layton.

I say all of this by way of introduction to the following essay, which looks at an early twentieth-century leader of the Canadian left, who expressed sensible views that are completely verboten among the left of the present day, on the subject of immigration. Consider this quotation:

When it has become necessary in the United States to form an Immigration Restriction League, it is surely high time that we examined closely the character of our immigration, and shut out those whose presence will not make for the welfare of our national life.

These words are the opening paragraph to chapter twenty-one, entitled “Restriction of Immigration”, in Strangers Within Our Gates: Or Coming Canadians, originally published in 1909, the author of which was the Rev. James Shaver Woodsworth, a Methodist minister who at the time was superintendent of All People’s Mission in Winnipeg, an outreach ministry that worked with the poor and especially new immigrants. Woodsworth would later be elected to Parliament as the representative of Winnipeg North. He ran as a socialist, initially for the Independent Labour Party, later for the CCF of which he was the first leader. The CCF was a party that combined prairie populism with social democracy, and which was undergirded by the theology of the Social Gospel. While that theology is not sound from the perspective of historical, traditional, and Scriptural orthodoxy, the CCF outlook was much to be preferred over the hard-left, secular Marxist, ultra-politically correct perspective of its successor, today’s NDP.

Woodsworth went on in the next paragraph to quote approvingly two American Presidents, including Roosevelt (Theodore) who said “We cannot have too much immigration of the right kind, and we should have none at all of the wrong kind. The need is to devise some system by which undesirable immigrants shall be kept out entirely while desirable immigrants are properly distributed throughout the country.”

Can you imagine Jagmeet Singh or anyone in the party he leads quoting anything that sensible approvingly today?

Woodsworth contrasted the way Canada “eager to secure immigrants, has adopted the system of giving bonuses” with the way the United States “levies a head tax that more than defrays the cost of inspection.” In other words, we were paying for our immigration, the United States was making it pay for itself. He then quoted extensively from the Immigration Act of 1906, specifically clauses 26 through 33. Clauses 26 through 29 prohibited the immigration of anyone who “is feeble-minded, an idiot, or an epileptic, or who is insane, or who has had an attack of insanity within five years…is deaf and dumb, blind or infirm, unless he belongs to a family accompanying him or already in Canada”, “who is afflicted with a loathsome disease, or with a disease which is contagious or infectious, and which may become dangerous to the public health or widely disseminated”, “who is a pauper, or destitute, a professional beggar, or vagrant, or who is likely to become a public charge”, “ who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or who is a prostitute, or who procures, or brings or attempts to bring into Canada prostitutes or women for purposes of prostitution.” Clause 30 authorized the Governor-in-Council to further prohibit “any special class of immigrants” when deemed necessary, and clauses 31 to 33 specify the procedures whereby all of this is to be enforced. After quoting all of this material Woodsworth commented:

No one will quarrel with the provisions of this Act, but it should go further, and provision should be made for more strict enforcement.

Among his suggestions for improving the Act, are the prohibition of other classes that were then barred from immigrating to the United States – “polygamists; anarchists, or persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials” etc., – and “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants.” Take note of the latter, which he says “is of the greatest importance.” Rather than prohibit or carefully select assisted immigrants, the new immigration regulations of 1967 do the exact opposite of this and make the sponsorship of immigrants into a backdoor by which the requirements of the points system that these regulations introduced can be bypassed altogether.

As far as provision “for more strict enforcement” goes, Woodsworth says the following:

The trouble is that we are working at the wrong end. The examination in every case should be not at the ports of entry, but at the ports from which the immigrants sail – or better still at the homes from which they come. Such a course would be at once kinder to the immigrants and much safer for our country…Again, the examination where the people are known is the only effective method. Diseased, paupers, criminals, prostitutes and undesirables generally are known in their home neighborhood…The Canadian Government should insist on the immigrant presenting a satisfactory certificate from the Government officials of his own country. If the foreign governments would not co-operate, if they are too despotic or corrupt to make such an arrangement practicable, then we should appoint our own agents in Europe who would make most thorough investigation.

As with the careful selection of assisted immigrants, a major problem with the post-1967 immigration system is that we have gone in the exact opposite direction of what Woodworth proposed. Until then, a prospective immigrant had to go to a Canadian visa officer in one of our embassies, consulates, or High commissions abroad, and apply from outside of Canada. In October of 1967, a regulation was passed waiving this requirement and allowing legal visitors to Canada to apply from within the country. Charles M. Campbell, who served on the Immigration Appeal Board for ten years, eight as vice-chairman, explained that this, together with the establishment of the Immigration Appeal Board and the right to appeal a negative decision, led to the situation in the early 1970s where the system was completely swamped. Since this change had been made by regulation and was not part of an actual Immigration Act it was easily repealed in 1973, about the time that the Liberal government passed a general amnesty to deal with the backlog. It was only on paper, however, that we went back to the old rules. Today, the right to apply from within Canada is supposedly limited to select groups, like spouses of Canadians, but in reality, this is nullified both by the absurdity that “outland applications” can be made from within Canada and by the policy of making broad exceptions for “humanitarian and compassionate” reasons.

Woodsworth’s ideas would make him persona non grata today in the successor to the party he once led, as well as in the Green, Liberal, and, sadly, Conservative Parties. They are, however, basic plain sense. Governments are established for the common good of the countries they govern, not for the common good of all people, everywhere. Until quite recently, only American liberals with their naïve notion of their republic as the “first universal nation” were foolish enough to think otherwise. Governments, therefore, owe it to the countries they govern, and the people who already live in those countries, to be selective as to who they let in. It is their duty, not just their right, to allow desirable immigrants in and keep undesirables out. Those who disagree with this will try to argue that “desirable” and “undesirable” are entirely subjective and based upon irrational prejudice, but it is pretty obvious that the classes Woodsworth speaks of as undesirable – those who are subversive of government, law and order, criminals, or who because of poverty or mental or physical conditions are more likely to be public expenses than contributors – are objectively undesirable from the standpoint of a government looking out for its nation’s interests.

Today, the first, and usually only, response of the liberal-left to those who call for selective, restrictive, immigration that lets the desirables in but keeps the undesirables out is “racist.” This is their response even if the immigration restrictionist has gone out of his way to avoid bringing race, ethnicity, and culture into his arguments. Rev. Woodsworth had the following to say about this aspect of the immigration question, speaking specifically to immigration from Asia:

The advocates for admission argue that we ought not to legislate against a particular class or nation, and that the Orientals are needed to develop the resources of the country. Their opponents believe that white laborers cannot compete with Orientals, that the standard of living will be lowered, and white men driven out, and they claim that a nation has the right to protect itself… Perhaps, for some time, the presence of a limited number of Orientals may be advantageous. But it does seem that the exclusionists are right in their contention that laborers working and living as the Orientals do, will displace European laborers. It is generally agreed that the two races are not likely to ‘mix.’ Ultimately, then, the question resolves itself into the desirability of a white caste and a yellow, or black caste, existing side by side, or above and below, in the same country. We confess that the idea of a homogenous people seems in accord with our democratic institutions and conducive to the general welfare. This need not exclude small communities of black or red or yellow peoples. It is well to remember that we are not the only people on earth. The idealist may still dream of a final state of development, when white and black and red and yellow shall have ceased to exist, or have become merged into some neutral gray. We may love all men, and yet prefer to maintain our family life.

These words, written a hundred and ten years ago by the man who went on to lead the Canadian left for the first half of the twentieth century, would immediately bring down the charge of racism upon their author’s head today. Thirty years ago, the ideas contained in those words were enough to get people kicked out of the Reform Party of Canada, and indeed, as far back as 1972, when the University of Toronto Press put out the reprint edition that I have been quoting, they saw a need to stick an introduction by Marilyn Barber, explaining away Woodsworth as a product of his times.

While there are those who would say that this is a positive development, showing that we have come a long way as a society, and are so much more enlightened now than we were a century ago, the reality is that accusations of racism have, since the late 1960s, been primarily a means for stifling discussion, discouraging rational thought, and silencing dissent to ideas that could not bear up under scrutiny for a second.

Is it racist to take questions of race, culture, nationality, religion, and ethnicity into consideration in selecting immigrants?

Before giving the knee-jerk answer of “yes”, note that there is more than one way in which these questions can be taken into consideration. A government could make it its policy to preserve its country’s ethnic status quo and so refuse to admit immigrants that would alter that status quo. A government could make it its policy to ignore these matters altogether in selecting immigrants. A third possibility is that a government could make it its policy to deliberately and radically alter its country’s ethnic status quo by discriminating in favour of immigrants who differ from the majority of its population and bringing as many of them in as fast as it possibly can. Let us call these Options 1, 2, and 3.

Option 2 is the only policy that is racially and ethnically neutral. It is, therefore, the least susceptible to the charge of being racist. Option 1 is the policy that is most frequently condemned as racist. Of the two non-racially neutral policies, however, it is the only one that can be defended morally. The known negative effects of altering a country’s ethnic status quo include a weakening of social cohesion and communal feeling, a decrease in confidence in one’s neighbours, fellow citizens, government, and society, and, perhaps ironically, an increase in racial and ethnic negative feeling, hostility and strife. When, just over ten years ago, Harvard political scientist, Robert D. Putnam, published a paper, originally a lecture, that interpreted data that he had gathered in a study on the relationship between diversity and social capital as saying that “In the short run…immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital” and that in diverse neighbourhoods “residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’” and that “Trust, (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” he was not telling us anything that had not already been known and recognized from time immemorial. If you introduce one or two newcomers into a homogenous community who differ from the majority ethnically, they may indeed have the much lauded effect of improving the community in the way that is often expressed in the cooking metaphor of adding flavor or spice. This effect decreases, however, in inverse proportion, as the diversity increases. There is a relatively low saturation point – decades ago, Daniel Cappon of York University’s Department of Environmental Studies told the Globe and Mail that the “critical mass” was ten percent – beyond which, the negative effects of ethnic diversification take over. The larger the change and the faster it is accomplished the greater will be these negative effects. The wish to avoid these negative effects is sufficient reason and justification for Option 1, the policy of preserving the status quo. It requires neither irrational racial prejudice nor some ideological notion of racial purity – just plain, old-fashioned, sense.

Over the course of her history, the government of the Dominion of Canada has gone through three basic phases with regards to these policy options. From 1867 to 1962, Option 1 was reflected in federal immigration policy. This was true regardless of which party was in power, Conservative or Liberals, and, as we have seen, it had a supporter in the first leader of the CCF as well. In 1962, Ellen Fairclough the Minister of Immigration in the Cabinet of the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, introduced what was basically a combination of Options 1 and 2. Racial, cultural, and ethnic preferences were eliminated for individuals applying to immigrate to Canada, but the rules which prohibited people from countries other than traditional source countries from sponsoring their extended families were retained. This reflected the thinking of the Prime Minister at the time, who wanted to be fair and non-discriminatory to individuals, Option 2, without radically changing the country’s demographics, Option 1. This, arguably the best of the phases, was also the most short-lived. It lasted until 1966-1967. In 1966 the Liberal government put out a White Paper recommending a new Immigration Act that would radically overhaul the immigration system. In October of the following year that overhaul took place, albeit through a change of regulations by Order-in-Council, as Diefenbaker’s changes had been, rather than through the new Immigration Act, which came nine years later. Thus began the phase of practicing Option 3 while pretending that it is Option 2 that has continued to this day. If Diefenbaker’s policy combined the first two options in the best possible way, this was and is the worst possible combination.

Here is how this was accomplished. The new regulations in October 1967, first, established the points system by which individuals now apply to immigrate to Canada, and second, eliminated the remaining racial and cultural restrictions so that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture could sponsor the same number and range of relatives. On paper, this looks like pure Option 2. The points-system, on its own merits, is quite fair. The prospective immigrant is awarded points towards entry for his ability to speak English and/or French, his level of education, his skilled experience in a trade for which there is a need of labourers, his age (maximum points for 21-49), his having an offer of employment in Canada, and miscellaneous similar factors. The problem is that two large back doors were put in place by which the points system can be bypassed. This is how Option 3 was snuck in and disguised as Option 2.

One of those backdoors is the sponsorship of relatives. Assisted or sponsored relatives, do not have to meet the strict requirements of the points system like individuals who apply on their own merits. In traditional source countries, the trend for the last couple of centuries has been towards the small, nuclear, model of the family. Couples have fewer children than before, and their ties to extended family – relatives beyond the nuclear model – are much weaker than they were before the Second World War, let alone prior to the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, in non-traditional source countries, the tendency is still towards large families, with many children, and strong, binding, ties to the extended family. This is not said by way of criticism of those cultures. Indeed, as I have argued in the past, in the modern transition to the nuclear model we can see the early stages of the social unravelling of the West and the “war on the family.” The point is that people from non-traditional source countries will be far more likely to want to bring a huge number of relatives over with them than people from traditional source countries, and both the Diefenbaker Conservatives and the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals, knew this. This is why the former, not wanting the country to be radically and rapidly transformed, retained racial and cultural restrictions on sponsoring relatives when they removed the other racial and cultural preferences. This is why the later, removed those restrictions. It is not that they wanted to be fully racially and ethnically neutral in their policy. They wanted to make Canada as diverse as they could, as fast as they could – Option 3 – while pretending to be neutral – Option 2. When they passed their new Immigration Act in 1976, the emphasis was on “family reunification”, by which wording Canadians were sold a bill of goods. A streamlined immigration application process for the purpose of family reunification makes sense when we are talking about bringing in the spouses and children of Canadians who have married abroad. What the Trudeau Liberals meant by it was making it easier and quicker for people from the Third World to bring their entire extended families into the country so as to change the country’s demographics – or, as the Liberals themselves put it, “change the face of Canada” – as fast as possible. This is not a racially neutral policy, nor is it a policy that has Canada’s interests at heart.

Remember that Rev. Woodworth said that “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants is of the greatest importance.”

The other backdoor is the refugee system. We had foolishly signed the United Nations’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, giving that body, established by an evil and insane American President as a monument to his own ego, the General Assembly of which exists only to provide a soapbox for the voices of every tin-pot dictatorship, military junta, kleptocracy, and failed state on the planet, the Security Council of which exists merely to rubber stamp the decisions of the American government, the right to dictate our refugee policy. Unlike the other signers, however, we have used the Convention as an excuse to make ourselves the laughing stock of the world, by pretending that illegal aliens are asylum seekers who have a “right” to cross our borders without going through the proper channels, and accepting a high percentage of “self-selected” refugees, of whom only a very small percentage are actually fleeing for their lives. Chapter seven, “How Canada Fails Refugees”, of Toronto writer, Daniel Stoffman’s, Who Gets In, is a must read on this matter. Stoffman shows how our corrupt refugee system, which primarily serves to line the pockets of immigration and refugee lawyers, actually makes it harder for real refugees to get in, by showing preference for the fakes and frauds. Reforms were made after this book was published but these all went out the window when Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister in 2015 and the system is now worse than it ever was before. Trudeau, a supporter of the previous American administration’s policy of intervention in Syria that produced a Civil War that has killed half a million people and displaced millions of others, insists that we have a responsibility to bring those who have been displaced over here. Sensible people would question the sanity of bringing thousands of people, whom you have helped murder and displace with your irresponsible interventionism, and who would have cause to hold a grudge against you even if they were not predominantly of a religion in which holy war is one of the core tenets, over to live in your own country. Especially, when you promise to bring them over in such large numbers and such a short period of time that you cannot possibly vet them properly. The folly of all of this has been matched only by its corruption – the Trudeau government did not go to actual refugee camps to find the “asylum seekers” it brought over, but rather found the majority of them in apartment buildings in cities in Turkey, Jordan, Oman, and Lebanon where they had been living for years and bribed them to come over and get their picture taken with Trudeau before being put into refugee camps here!

Through these two large back doors, Option 3 became Canada’s official immigration policy, under the guise of practicing Option 2. While it was the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals who started this, it has remained the policy of our government ever since, even in the periods in which the Mulroney and Harper Conservatives were in power. That Option 3 was intentional on the part of the Grits is evident from the results. At the start of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership, English Canadians, French Canadians, and white ethnics, taken together, compromised over 95% of Canada’s population. If trends continue, they will be a minority in Canada in 2050. A change that large does not happen that fast unintentionally. Perhaps those who introduced this phase of Canadian immigration policy did not foresee the scale of the change but demographic transformation was their intention.

This policy has never been popular. Polls conducted, from the beginning of this phase until the present day, have shown that the majority of Canadians do not and have never wanted immigration that radically changes the ethnic makeup of the country. Now, let me be clear, the modern democratic dogma that “the majority is always right” is false – it would be more accurate to say the majority is usually wrong – and government has a duty to do what is right, even when this is not what the majority wants. In this case, however, majority opinion corresponds with what we know to be true about large scale, rapid, demographic transformation being bad for established communities and countries, and the reason for this correspondence is clear – the majority are those who have to live, every day, with the results of immigration policy, whereas the politicians who make that policy, and their academic and media supporters, have largely isolated themselves from the consequences of their ideas, living in controlled, largely homogenous, communities, just as they have isolated themselves from all criticism of their ideas, by shrieking “racist” whenever anyone questions – or even dares to take notice of – the transformation that is quickly taking place before their very eyes.

Today, the Canadian left is all on board the “let’s make Canada as diverse as we can, as fast as we can” train, even though the brunt of the negative consequences must be borne by working class Canadians, the poor, and basically all those for whom the left until fairly recently professed to speak. The Canadian left of the twenty-first century would have no room for the likes of the Reverend J. S. Woodsworth. Indeed, if he were still ministering in the Winnipeg of the current year, expressing the same views as he did in 1909, in all likelihood Mayor Duckie would wring his hands in despair and order a police investigation, Helmut-Harry Loewen would seize the opportunity to get his name in the newspapers on a regular basis by warning of the imminent threat he posed, David Matas would consider initiating legal proceedings against the “Hitler of the North End” on behalf of Binai B’rith, and the ironically-if-unawarely-named Fascist Free Treaty One would seek to prevent his views from being heard through crude intimidation tactics, whereas I, on the other hand, would find myself in the odd and unusual position, of having to cheer the old socialist on.

Works Referenced

Charles M. Campbell, Betrayal & Deceit: The Politics of Canadian Immigration, West Vancouver, Jasmine Books, 2000.

Daniel Stoffman, Who Gets In: What’s Wrong with Canada’s Immigration Program – and how to fix it, Toronto, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002.

J. S. Woodsworth, Strangers Within Our Gate: Or Coming Canadians, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1972 (original edition 1909)

Reality is Now Racist

Posted on by

Reality is Now Racist

 

We live in a strange time.

The truth has become relative.

Reality is now something to deny and criticize.

Or, more accurately, reality is now racist, according to some people.

Earlier this week, the Conservative Party of Canada tweeted this image:

cpc-twitter.jpg

The image is of an actual illegal border crosser walking into Canada, placed overtop of Justin Trudeau’s infamous #WelcomeToCanada tweet.

The usual suspects on Twitter accused this ad of being “racist” because it included a picture of a border crosser. If you look closely, the man is African. (We didn’t even notice at first).

Like the overwhelming majority of border crossers, the man depicted — tastefully, without showing his face — is African.

This makes sense, since the top two source countries of asylum seekers entering Canada are Nigeria and Haiti.

What would these critics — including well-known and respected journalists — have preferred to see? That the skin colour of a migrant gets altered, so as not to offend politically correct sensibilities?

The allegation that this post is somehow racist is bewildering enough on its own.

But what happened next makes it worse.

After the slightest bit of pressure, the Conservative Party of Canada caved and took down the ad — tacitly admitting there was something wrong with it.

Seriously.

So now I ask: why do identity politics, political correctness, and the hyper-sensitive and out-of-touch liberal media get to dictate the Conservative playbook?

Justin Trudeau is no Friend of Canada

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018

Justin Trudeau is no Friend of Canada

 
I, as long time readers will be well aware, am a Canadian and a patriot of my country. Many Canadians seem to think that being a patriotic Canadian means being anti-American but I like to quote one of my two favourite Prime Ministers, (1) John G. Diefenbaker, who said “I am not anti-American, I am very pro-Canadian.” Of course, for a Tory like myself, being a Canadian patriot does involve a firm belief in my country’s own institutions and traditions rather than those of the United States. I believe in parliamentary government, reigned over by a king or queen, rather than republican government presided over by an elected president, and have argued this point at length. I have a very low view of sedition, rebellion, and revolution, which history demonstrates almost always produce a worse and more oppressive government, and so cannot share the common American belief, born out of their founding mythos, that these are the well-spring of liberty. I say rather, with the long-neglected Canadian conservative John Farthing, that “freedom wears a crown” and believe the tradition of loyalty upon which our country was founded and which led us to stand by Britain from the beginning of the Second World War to be a virtuous tradition worthy of honour. I trust that you can see the difference between this attitude and the juvenile, left-wing, anti-Americanism that the Liberals, NDP and Greens seem to think is part and parcel of Canadian patriotism.

I see, therefore, no patriotic reason to come the the defence of Her Majesty’s First Minister in Ottawa simply because he has been on the receiving end of a barrage of insults from the American President and members of his administration. Frankly, he deserved them. While I have no problem with a Canadian Prime Minister standing up for our country – it is his job, after all – Justin Trudeau, in his choice of time and place to say that Canada “will not be pushed around” displayed a stupidity far in excess of that for which his reputation is already well-established. When the G7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, commenced, a trade war was already impending between our two countries. Somehow, the leaders had managed to come to an agreement of sorts and an official communication of this had been sent out before Donald Trump took off to Singapore to negotiate what will hopefully be the end of hostilities on the Korean peninsula with Kim Jong-un. It was then that Trudeau called a press conference and uttered his now infamous words, which, given at that particular moment, could only be understood as gloating at having won one over on Trump. This earned him, as was undoubtedly his intention, the admiration of anti-American leftists around the world, but, as with so much other of his grandstanding, it is ordinary Canadians who will have to pay the price in the upcoming trade war which our country simply cannot win. Trudeau has shown his contempt for the teachings of the Holy Scriptures on many occasions but it would have served him well to have read over Luke 14:28-32 before he shot his mouth off and applied its literal meaning even if he continued to ignore the intended spiritual application.

Not only was it the wrong time and place for Trudeau to boast about standing up for Canadians, he was the wrong person to do so. He might have thought that he was simply imitating Trump’s Mr. Tough Guy nationalist rhetoric but there is a huge difference. Trump, for as long as he has been in politics has taken his stand on a hard core, America First, Buchananite, populist-nationalist platform. Trudeau, on the other hand, has worked hard to establish the reputation of being the same kind of left-liberal, cosmopolitan, globalist citizen-of-the-world that his father was. The idea that he would ever put the interests of Canadians ahead of whatever inane brain rot is the latest fashion among liberal intellectuals (2) is laughable.

Consider his track record. His biggest concern in picking the Ministers to fill his Cabinet was not their competency but that the levels of estrogen and testosterone be equal. Feminist ideology and the adoration of the multitudes of young people who have been brainwashed by universities into swallowing that mindless tripe, took precedence for him over the interest of ordinary Canadians in the Ministries of Her Majesty’s government being competently administered. One of the very first things he did in office was to take Canadian taxpayers’ dollars, use it to bring large numbers of the economic migrants invading Europe under the pretence of being refugees from the Syrian Civil War over here, and then take more of the Canadian taxpayers’ dollars to bribe Canadian employers into giving the “refugees” jobs instead of Canadians. He then bullied anyone who objected to this by accusing them of racism. (3)

Trudeau’s attitude towards the Canadian energy industry can only be described as one of arrogant hostility and while this might earn him brownie points with the green gang it does not benefit the average Canadian and works against the interests of all the Canadians employed by the energy industry directly but also those who depend upon the jobs available in an economy that itself is heavily dependent upon affordable energy to survive. He has shut down most of the pipeline projects that would have benefited Canadians across the Dominion, constantly sided with anti-pipeline agitators that are funded by foreign energy interests, and, rather than use force to protect the rights of the petroleum company that had jumped through all sorts of ridiculous loops to obtain legal permission to expand an existing pipeline, opted to buy out the pipeline at the taxpayers’ expence. He has imposed a carbon tax upon the country, driving the cost of gas through the roof, for absolutely no good reason, (4) hurting the most those who were already just barely getting by on the wages from jobs that require vehicular transportation to get to. He has imposed massive debt on future generations of Canadian taxpayers with his runaway defecits, which include large amounts of spending on global projects that do not benefit Canadians, and has increased the cost of living, while reducing the ability of most Canadians to pay through tax increases.

If Canadians have only recently begun to feel the impact of Trudeau’s green agenda on their pocketbooks, we have so far been shielded from the full impact of his anti-business agenda on Canadian employment by the relatively free trade that has existed between our country and the United States, thus allowing us to benefit from economic boom the United States has seen since the election of Donald Trump. That will no longer be the case if Trudeau has gotten us into an unwinnable trade war. Note that I say this as an economic patriot not as a doctrinaire free trader. The basic idea of economic patriotism is that of doing what is best for the economic interests of your country. (5) It is not in your country’s best interests to piss off your largest trading partner, especially if that partner has much more economic clout than you do. Neither, however, is it in your country’s economic best interests to sign free trade agreements that make your country that vulnerable in the first place. Trudeau’s foolish words today would not have the potential to harm us today if Brian Mulroney had not betrayed his party’s historical platform (6) thirty years ago and signed the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement that later evolved into NAFTA and which plunged us into three decades of addictive dependency on free trade.

What will eventually come out of all of this only time can tell. What we do know is that we have no reason whatsoever to be proud of our lousy Prime Minister who serious needs to learn to keep his hubristic tongue in his mouth.

(1) The other, of course, being Sir John A. MacDonald.

(2) When I use the word “intellectuals” I have in mind the way Paul Johnson uses the word in his book of that title (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988) and the following quotation from the late, great, Tom Wolfe: “We must be careful to make a distinction between the intellectual and the person of intellectual achievement. The two are very, very different animals. There are people of intellectual achievement who increase the sum of human knowledge, the powers of human insight, and analysis. And then there are the intellectuals. An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out only in others. Starting in the early twentieth century, for the first time an ordinary storyteller, a novelist, a short story writer, a poet, a playwright, in certain cases a composer, an artist, or even an opera singer could achieve a tremendous eminence by becoming morally indignant about some public issue. It required no intellectual effort whatsoever. Suddenly he was elevated to a plane from which he could look down upon ordinary people. Conversely — this fascinates me — conversely, if you are merely a brilliant scholar, merely someone who has added immeasurably to the sum of human knowledge and the powers of human insight, that does not qualify you for the eminence of being an intellectual.”

(3) Berkeley professor and former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich maintains that blaming economic stress on immigrants is the sign of an ascending tyrant. This is nonsense. A much more reliable observer, Aristotle, noted almost two and a half millennia ago that a tyrant, unlike a true king, prefers and trusts foreigners over his own people. Politika, Book V.

(4) A carbon tax is an idiotic notion dreamed up in hell by the devil himself. A) CO2 is not a pollutant – it is naturally exhaled by all human and animal life and the more of it in the atmosphere, the better for plant life. B) Over 90% of the Greenhouse Effect is produced by water vapour and CO2 is only a fraction of the remainder. C) The Greenhouse Effect is a good thing not a bad thing – without it the earth would be a lifeless ball of ice. D) Climate has been constantly changing throughout all of history and until all of the causes of this are understood and taken into account – and climate science is not even remotely close to starting to have done this – there can be no way of telling how much recent climate change has been caused by human factors. E) The modern warming trend that is blamed on the burning of fossil fuels actually began with the end of the Little Ice Age decades before the industrial boom and included a forty-year period of cooling after World War II which coincided in time with a large rise in CO2 emissions due to accelerating industrialism. F) The “proof” for the theories of climate-change alarmists is not evidence from real world observations but the simulations of computer models. G) The global warming/climate change scare has been a deliberate fraud since day one. The day on which it was presented to a US Senate Subcommittee in 1988 was consciously chosen to be the statistically hottest day in summer, the summaries of the UN’s IPCC’s reports on climate change were written by environmental bureaucrats and released prior to the science reports which were then redacted to fit the summaries. H) “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period” – Michael Crichton. I) Scientists funded by governments and international agencies like the UN are just as likely to provide the results they are paid to provide as scientists funded by petroleum companies.

(5) Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s theories of absolute and comparative advantage ought to be considered, when determining what is best for your country, but they ought not to be treated as outweighing all other considerations.

(6) The Conservative government of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, introduced its “National Policy” to the public in 1876 (they had been discussing it internally since the 1860s), campaigned on it in 1878, and put it in practice in 1879. The policy was similar to that adopted by the new Republican Party in the United States a decade earlier and that which would be adopted by the government of the newly unified Germany – protecting domestic manufacturers with tariffs and the use of government revenue on internal infrastructure improvements, which in Canada’s case meant the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The policy worked quite well in developing the manufacturing base of all three countries, by contrast with the free trade practice introduced in England, the birthplace of industrialism, at the behest of the Manchester manufacturers. While it was agricultural tariffs (the Corn Laws) the latter sought to repeal, their practice of free trade in this same period that America and Germany were practicing economic nationalism led to their falling behind the USA in industrial development. The Canadian Conservative “National Policy” was something of a last-option-available measure initially, but it worked for Canada for almost a century, and it became a fixed plank in the Conservative platform until Mulroney removed it. The old Conservatives believed it to be necessary, not only for the protection of Canada’s own industries and resources, but for her political and cultural protection as well (at least the cultural protection of English Canada, the Victorian-era British culture of which did not have the built-in protection against Americanization of a language barrier like French Canada). The Liberals were the party that wanted free trade and Americanization. Today’s Grits are not likely to admit to being the party of the latter, although they obviously base their policies on what the craziest trend in Hollywood is at any given moment, spewing left-wing anti-Americanism of the sort that Jean-François Revel so ably exposed as irrational in his 2004 monograph of that title. Nevertheless, it was openly admitted by Liberal thinkers of the past such as Goldwyn Smith and John Wesley Dafoe. Their economic arguments and historical interpretations in favour of the Liberal project of undoing Confederation and moving Canada into the American orbit were fully rebutted by Harold Innis, Donald Creighton, and Eugene Forsey.