|
|
|
|
|
|
Our society is suffering from an alarming disconnect: minority groups in Canada and the U.S. are sharing their experiences of being targeted or intimidated by bigots, yet their testimonies in news reports are drawing the ire of critics. How on earth did we get here?
That comment garnered almost 200 “likes.”
Minorities, by nature, are sensitive about being exploited, standing out or being excluded.
Here in Canada, Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch captured headlines by stoking fears about improper screening of immigrants.
Lately, what has minority groups in Canada feeling unsafe is the unpredictable nature of such occurrences. According to Barbara Perry, a criminology professor and lead author of the study, no one knows when a right wing extremist will “lash out.”
We in Canada should heed these signs. Ideologies that incite hate crimes easily transcend borders, especially when they’re laid out online or given free air time by the news media.
Minority groups are absolutely justified in feeling that their safety is being threatened.
About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are
demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their
children from music and co-ed physical education programs for religious
reasons. The families believe music is un-Islamic ~ just like the
Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of
Afghanistan and that physical education classes should be segregated
by gender even in the elementary years.
The school division is facing the music in a typically Canadian way –
that is, bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these
demands, even though in Manitoba, and indeed the rest of the country,
music and phys-ed are compulsory parts of the curriculum. Officials
say they may try to have the Muslim children do a writing project on
music to satisfy the curriculum’s requirements. The school officials
have apparently consulted the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and
they have also spoken to a member of the Islamic community suggested
by those very same Muslim parents. In any event, the school district
is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of
these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school
and Canadian culture.
Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says he has
a better idea. “I’d tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach
music and physical education in our schools. If you don’t like it,
leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole
country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives
under sharia law,” said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of
sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary.
That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us
would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing
about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country.
“Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way
around,” he argues. If they did not like these things in Canada, why
did they not go somewhere else? If they want Canada to be like their
homeland why don’t they go home?
Kanwar, who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan via England and then
the United States in 1966, says he used to buy into the “mosaic,
official multiculturalism” (nonsense). He makes it clear that, like
most Canadians, he is pleased and enjoys that Canada has citizens
literally from every country and corner in the world, as it has
enriched this country immensely. But it’s official multiculturalism –
the state policy “that entrenches the lie” that all cultures and
beliefs are of equal value and of equal validity in Canada that he objects
to.
“The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian
values – not Muslim values – with British and French rule of law and
traditions and that’s why it’s better than all of the other places in
the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea
of sharia law a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely
incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada,” says Kanwar, who in
the 1970s was the founder and president of the Pakistan-Canada
Association and a big fan of official multiculturalism.
Kanwar says his views changed when he started listening to the people
who joined his group. They badmouthed Canada, weren’t interested in
knowing Canadians or even in learning one of our official languages.
They created cultural ghettos and the Canadian government even helped fund
it.
“One day it dawned on me that the reason all of us wanted to move here
was going to disappear if we didn’t start defending Canada and its
fundamental values.” That’s when Kanwar started speaking out against
the dangers of official multiculturalism. He has been doing so for
decades. So, it’s no surprise that Kanwar is delighted with the recent
speech British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered to the 47th
Munich Security Conference on Feb. 5.
“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism,” said Cameron, “we
have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to
belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving
in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds
objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.
But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from
someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even
fearful, to stand up to them.
This hands-off tolerance,” said Cameron, “has only served to
reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some
young Muslims feeling rootless and … can lead them to this
extremist ideology.”
Kanwar actually credits German Chancellor Angela Merkel for being
among the first of the world’s democratic leaders to take the
courageous step in October to say that official multiculturalism had
“failed totally..” It appears leaders are getting bolder. During an
interview with TFI channel on Feb. 10, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy declared: “We have been too concerned about the identity of
the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the
country that was receiving him.” Cameron ended his speech by saying: “At
stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.That’s why this is a
challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet.”
That democratically elected leaders are at long last starting to sing
a different tune on official multiculturalism is sweet music to Kanwar.
Here’s hoping those poor kids in Winnipeg will get to hear some of it.
Licia Corbella is The Herald’s Editorial Page Editor
 |
| What diversity lobbyists hate: Canadian family life in 1950. |
It has often been argued by the talking heads of the multicultural and immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.
Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call “settlers”, occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here — even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not “discover” or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans even conceived of it.
These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.
Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from this same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?
There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first — even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians”, the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is, “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship — or cultures — or there should not. But the multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit — recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.
The multicultural “Party Line” needs to be de-constructed.
Yes, the ‘land’ was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the “land” is not the nation. The “land” is not “Canada”. And one can’t credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called “Canada”. It should also be noted that the newcomers from “non-traditional” sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this “nation” of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed “White settlers” and their descendents didn’t do such a bad job of building this nation after all.
Multiculturalism is a social engineering project that turns Canada into a country resembling those that immigrants to Canada have fled fromYet it is the multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks like they are half way there. In 1981, there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, “Is this really a good thing?” “Diversity”, we are constantly told, is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the multicultural lobby assures us that there is “unity in diversity”. A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.
You don’t believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Ruandans. Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don’t even have to look far. Take a look at America’s experiment with “integration” right now. Look how it is descending into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of “whites” sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated “apartheid”, but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King’s dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and “Coming Apart”, as Charles Murray’s book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, “The United States is the most fractured society on earth — the most fractured culture.”
The make-believe world that the media presents and the unrelenting torrent of state propaganda will not long conceal these facts. The spin-machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the “Diversity Illusion”, as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.
Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: That so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracized or even punished for spreading “hateful” messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division that exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as divisive!
The communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: That they were insane. That they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: That the socialist state was a Workers’ Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.
But suddenly in the late 1980s and early 1990s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn’t working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.
The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. “In-group” favouritism, a manifestation of which is “ethnic nepotism”, is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of Genetic Interests, Frank Salter, might say, we are “hard-wired” to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests.
One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadian wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the mandates of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially, the CBC.
Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada’s European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That’s why many of these multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers — nothing more, nothing less.
It’s time that Canadians know the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.
by The New Observer
February 2, 2016
http://newobserveronline.com/and-now-the-new-german-multicultural-toilet/
“Refugees” in Germany still find European toilets a “mystery,” cannot use them despite being given pictogram instructions, are continuing to leave human excrement on bathroom floors and showers—and this is why Germany has to introduce a new “multicultural toilet.”
Although this might sound as if it is from some bizarre TV comedy sketch, it is not. Right now, German engineers are working on a “multicultural toilet” at the Global Fliegenschmidt toilet manufacturers in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, and news of their first design has appeared in the German media.
As reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), in an article titled “A Toilet that Everyone Can Use” (Ein Klo, das jeder benutzen kann), the new toilet has been necessitated by the fact that the 1.5 million nonwhite invaders just simply cannot learn how to use ordinary European toilets—and that, after many months of failure, they have given up trying to teach them how not to foul up a bathroom.
According to the remarkable FAZ article, “German toilets are a mystery to many refugees and this has already led to problems. A new mobile multicultural toilet should remedy this—and along the way teach something about the coexistence of cultures.”
It goes on to describe some of the many problems which German sanitary engineers have had to face after being overwhelmed with the nonwhite invasion: “Many of the refugees have no experience of such toilets in their culture.”
It says that all efforts to educate the nonwhites as to how a toilet works have failed, even though detailed instructions have been provided in pictogram and in Arabic script.
“Many refugees, especially those from poorer classes,” FAZ continues, “only know of the concept of latrines. The toilets have indeed been used as such, but certainly not the way they were originally intended. They have stood on the toilet bowl when they were supposed to have sat there, and more often than not, the bowl has broken.”
Or, the FAZ tastefully informs its readers, the invaders have “done their business anywhere in the house, except in the designated place.”
Furthermore, the newspaper continues, “showers have in this regard also been misunderstood”—in other words, used as toilets.
“Added to all of this, is that many of the Muslim refugees do not know what toilet paper is,” the article continued, adding that they “clean up with the left hand, the unclean hand.”
Largely because of these “problems,” as the FAZ politely calls them, these “cultural differences have been an unbearable addition to an already difficult situation” in the invader centers.
“Employees of mobile toilet rental companies have refused to work at the shelters anymore because they no longer want to clean the centers,” FAZ said.
“And because many of the refugees did not even know what to do with the toilets, they make their way straight into the bushes. And that is why the mayor of the municipality Hardheim im Odenwald, in his much-maligned guide for refugee etiquette, stated inter alia that ‘Our call of nature is done exclusively in toilets, not in gardens and parks, and not even in hedges and behind bushes.’”
Other challenges being faced by the German sanitary engineers include “different latrines for different cultures,” the fact-filled article goes on to tell its readers.
“For Muslims, it is important that when using a toilet, one’s back does not face Mecca. In addition, latrines for men and women have to separate from each other, and the floor cannot be green in color, because that is the color of Islam.”
Therefore, FAZ says, the new “German toilet manufacturers are working to arrive at a solution to this problem. Thus, at the mobile toilet manufacturer Global Fliegenschmidt in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, they had been working on a so-called oriental toilet, consisting of a hole with two foot stands on either side of it.
“But even that did not work, because there are enough refugees who still use it differently,” the article continued, necessitating the development of “multicultural toileting.”
This new “multicultural toilet” allows for both sitting and squatting, the FAZ proudly informs its readers.
It is not yet known when the new toilets will be deployed, but, going by the problems being faced in the invader centers, the Germans had better hope that it is relatively soon.
