Tag Archives: NDP

The Night My Mother Lost Her Faith — in Socialized Medicine for Immigrants

Posted on by

The Night My Mother Lost Her Faith — in Socialized Medicine for Immigrants

Early Morning in Toronto Hospital Immigrants start lining up to collect Socialized Medicine

Aged hospitals, atrocious wait times, fewer cutting edge treatments, fewer new drugs, a shortage of doctors, a paucity of acute care hospital beds, unfunded liabilities that constitute 46% of the national economy, a middling performance about among countries with universal medical access—yes, the truth is out about Canada’s acclaimed health care system.

You know, the one that American progressives love so much from afar. The one that Canadians ardently loved too—until the 1990s. Then two things happened.

One was a dramatic shift in immigration policy taken by the then Brian Mulroney government at the end of the 1991, when it was announced that annual immigration intakes would virtually double. The second thing to happen was that wait times for necessary surgical procedures grew longer. And longer—until today, the median wait time today of over 21 weeks is twice as long as it was then.

Coincidence? It would stretch credulity to the extreme to deny a connection. The greater the number of patients, the greater demand that is placed on the system, and immigration-driven population growth has added more than 7 million medical consumers to the queue since the departure of “Lyin’ Brian”.

Last year, Canadian taxpayers spent roughly $250 billion on health care, an expenditure equivalent to ll.5% of Canada’s GDP. That works out to over $6,600 per person. Now, one would think that that would be enough to provide us with the comprehensive care we crave. But it’s not. Ours is not an integrated system. Unlike the British National Health Service for example, physiotherapy, dental care and vision care are not covered. Neither are ambulance rides, plus a host of other out-of-pocket expenditures, including, for most of us, the crippling cost of drugs. If the Trudeau government delivers on the promise of a national pharmacare program, you can add another thousand bucks to the $6,600. A figure that’s been growing 4% a year of late.

That $6,600, however, is just an average. What of elderly parents sponsored by adult children under the rubric of “family reunification”? What of the unskilled migrants from “non-traditional” sources who don’t earn enough income to offset the cost of the social services provided to them? Migrants who impose a net fiscal burden of approximately $35 billion a year on Canadian taxpayers? And what about the many tens of thousands of refugee claimants whose settlement costs anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 a pop? It would be reasonable to assume migrants from Less Developed Countries come with a backlog of unattended medical problems.

Already the big ticket item in every Provincial budget—accounting almost half of all program expenditures—health care spending in this country is on an unsustainable trajectory. The reasons are many. Rising drug costs, the price of new medical technology, over-centralization, the lack of community health clinics, a failure to shift toward preventive and holistic medicine, a failure to implement economies, the under-funding of home care and the refusal of many Canadians to take responsibility for their own health—all factor into the conversation. But the elephant in the hospital room, immigration policy, is a no go zone.

This is not just an issue of financial impositions. There is a human cost as well. The cost born by Canadians who must endure acute pain while waiting in a long line up to get a CT scan or see a specialist, only to join another long line up to have the actual operation. If you want to gauge their suffering think not in terms of faceless millions, but of individuals you may know who suffer in silence or turn to pain killers to get them through the night, and the many months ahead. When I do that, I think of my late mother and the hardship she endured in her final years. I think of the evening when, at age 86, had a medical event in a Vancouver suburb.

Hallway medicine is a reality in many Canadian hospitals


Mom was rushed to hospital only to have to spend the night lying in a gurney in the hallway. All beds were taken. According to protocol, the paramedics who carried her in from the ambulance had to stand around until she was admitted to the emergency ward. They had a long evening. So did I. When morning broke we all knew each other’s life stories.

There was a lot of talking done that night, and at least half of it was in languages other than English. The signs posted near the waiting room and receptions were multilingual. English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and another from the Indian subcontinent. Our other official language—French—was not on the menu. Quite telling that. At times the scene was chaotic because staff were running around trying to make themselves understood.

That’s a common problem in Lower Mainland hospitals. Hallway medicine, stressed out nurses, and very long surgery waits—that’s the reality of our much vaunted health care system, a system that was not designed to cope with the crushing demands now made upon it, never mind the demands which the immigration and refugee lobby would further add. It is confounding that many of the people who grumble about having to wait 6 months to see a specialist or 8 months to get a hip replacement are the same people who favour open borders policies. They don’t connect the dots.

Thankfully, my mother survived the night, but her lifelong socialist convictions did not.

My parents were among the founding members of Canada’s democratic socialist party in 1933, the CCF, re-branded as the NDP in 1961. They fought for the establishment of a welfare state—a 40 hour week, unemployment insurance, government auto insurance…and of course socialized medicine. When the NDP finally formed the government in British Columbia in 1972, they were elated, like most working class people of their generation. Having met the brutal challenges of the Depression and the War, it seemed then that their sacrifices would be rewarded with a worry free future. They would never have to worry about getting the kind of care they would require in their golden years.

But like the loyal working class supporters of labour and social democratic parties in Britain, Europe and Australia, they were betrayed by the politicians who claimed to be their advocates. They worked hard and paid their taxes, only to see people who had never put a nickel into the system bumped to the head of the queue. It was sad to see their bodies fail, but it was heartbreaking to witness their disillusionment. Their God had failed them.

Mom and Dad never left the NDP. The NDP left them.

Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said that you can have mass immigration or you can have the welfare state. But you can’t have both. The NDP chose mass immigration.

Jenny Kwan’s World

Posted on by

Jenny Kwan’s World

 

JENNY KWAN

 

Meet Ms. Perpetually Outraged. Meet Jenny Kwan.  Jenny is the archetypical Social Justice Warrior.  A champion of the downtrodden, the marginalized, the excluded, The Other. Her C.V. is impressive.

 

Jenny was born to be the Immigration critic for the New Democratic Party. Especially now, when we all bear witness to an unfolding global migration crisis that threatens to worsen by several degrees of magnitude in the coming decade.  This is her time.

 

Jenny’s world is full of victims.  She sees victims —and perpetrators—everywhere. And if she can’t meet her quota of victims in Canada, she will look for victims in 194 other countries. And all of them, apparently, have a right to seek refuge in Canada.

 

For Jenny, and all of her parliamentary colleagues, Canada is a land of infinite capacity.  It is a big place with lots of room for lots of people. A treasure trove of resources that need only be tapped to fund a social safety net for all of humanity.  We can be the soup kitchen of the world.  The hospital for all who are sick.  An counselling centre for all those who have been traumatized.  The words “carrying capacity” are beyond her comprehension. If there is no food in the kitchen, we need only extend the table.

 

In Jenny’s world, there are no limits. No financial limits. No limits to ethnic fragmentation. No limits to the ability of a nation like ours to assimilate or integrate a multitude of ethnicities. No limits to growth in a finite world. The only limits Jenny can imagine are the limits that she wants to set on free expression, on the speech of people who disagree with her vision of utopia.  Every dissident view is inherently “hateful”.  Even the mildest criticism of diversity or God forbid, immigration and refugee policy, is intolerant and unacceptable.  There is no place in Jenny’s world for opinions like that.

 

Jenny never met a refugee claimant—or a potential refugee claimant—that she didn’t like.  She can’t conceive of an asylum seeker who doesn’t deserve a hearing.  Or whose tale of woe is less than credible.  A migrant on the run must always be believed.  A CBS agent who pursues him must be inhibited.  A city that offers him sanctuary must be praised.  In Jenny’s world no one is illegal.

 

Jenny’s victim list is endless. New categories of humanity are added each day, with no end in sight.  Nor longer is refugee status to be exclusively conferred on those who fear political, racial or religious persecution or flee from war.  The 1951 Refugee Convention is a strait jacket that no longer applies.  In Jenny’s world legitimate candidates for refugee status can be anything.  They can be battered women, gay men, transgendered people, men nagged by their wives, children with club feet, teenagers with acne, office workers with B.O., southpaws, midgets, the obese, girls who can’t get dates and of course, anyone who lives in Trump’s America, where no one is “safe”.  According to Jenny.

 

Jenny’s world is a scary place. But not half as scary as Canada will be if she and her like come to control the government. Think of Justin Trudeau to the tenth degree.   Think of Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints”. Think of Orwell’s 1984, or Sweden on steroids and you will get an inkling of the kind of nation Canada would become. Of course, it really wouldn’t be a country because nations imply borders.  Strip Jenny’s  arguments down to its rudiments and your suspicions are confirmed.  Jenny simply does not believe in sovereign nations.  She opposes free trade agreements, but she believes in the free movement of people.  Migrants have rights. But not the people whom they would displace.  Go figure.

 

I don’t want to live in Jenny Kwan’s world.  I don’t want refugees to make a refugee out of me.  Where do I run? Where do I hide? Where and when do I make a last stand?

 

I am white and there is a bounty on my head.  My tribe is on the hit list, slated for cleansing.  A disease that must be eradicated. The bane of human existence.  A perpetrator who has it coming.  At least, that’s what they tell me, in Jenny’s world.

 

Tim Murray

September 1, 2018

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.

WILL JAGMEET AND THE NDP SOON BE DOG MEAT?

Posted on by

 

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

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

Posted on by

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

by Tim Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

Posted on by

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONCE AGAIN THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION TO VANCOUVER’S HOUSING CRISIS GOES UNMENTIONED

Posted on by

ONCE AGAIN THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION TO VANCOUVER’S HOUSING CRISIS GOES UNMENTIONED

 

In every election campaign, political parties engage in a bidding war of absurd promises that fail to stand up to scrutiny. British Columbia’s May 2017 provincial election is no exception.
In an effort to out-do the governing Liberals—consummate liars in their own right—NDP Leader John Horgan presented the party’s plan to provide Vancouverites affordable housing by ,you guessed it, increasing the SUPPLY of housing units. 114,000 over ten years to be exact.

Sounds impressive. But how far would that go?

According to the 2011 census, the average number of persons per household in Vancouver was 2.2,  a number confirmed by the City of Vancouver Housing Characteristics Fact Sheet 5 years later. However, since the occupancy rates of detached houses are rolled into the averaging, it is reasonable to assume that non-market housing, the kind proposed by the NDP plan, would house fewer people than that.  Nevertheless, we’ll go with 2.2 to put the best face on Horgan’s vision as we can.

That means that 114,000 social housing units would likely harbour roughly 250,000 people, or 25,000 residents each year. That’s less than the 30,000 off-shore home-seekers that come through YVR airport during the same period.

To be sure, an equal number of newcomers would be arriving from other provinces, but of those, about 6,000 (20%) will be foreign-born. That means that in the course of a decade, we can expect 360,000 immigrants arrive in the city to compete for housing stock, in addition to the 240,000 out of province Canadian-born arrivals. From wherever their source, there will 600,000 new arrivals in Vancouver while the construction industry is busy framing up the units for the 250,000 winners of Horgan’s housing lottery.

The truth is, then, that in the best of circumstances, Horgan’s wet dream of 114,000 ‘affordable’ units will still leave 350,000 people out in the cold.  In the context of unending population growth, even the most ambitious and costly housing mega-project will fall far short of its objectives. Yet Horgan felt no shame in assuring low income voters that “help is on the way”.

Most critics have called the NDP plan highly unrealistic for a number of reasons, one of which is the scarcity of available crown land, land which local governments must be willing to donate.  The NDP apparently didn’t get the memo from Mark Twain that land is something they don’t make anymore. One cannot increase the supply of land ad infinitum. There are limits to growth.

Now that’s a concept. A concept that developers and politicians—particularly immigration ministers—have never heard of.  We tried to tell them, but our comments were moderated. Those of us who understand that everything, from motels to stadiums to swimming pools, to camp grounds, to nations and cities has a carrying capacity realize that there comes a point when you can’t shoe-horn any more patrons, customers or residents into a finite space.  If demand keeps growing, there comes a time when policy makers must ask: “Then what?”. Build 114,000 social housing units and then what? Build another 114,000? How? Subdivide and densify until what point?  At what point will demand for more housing cease? Answer: It’s won’t. Not if politicians like Mayor Moonbeam (Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson) are intent on making Vancouver a “Welcoming”, “sanctuary” city open to the world.

Lets conduct a thought experiment and pretend that with the use of a magic wand, enough crown land would be found for John Horgan’s temporary fix, and 114,000 units could be built on it for $15-27 billion (best vs. worst case scenario). Voila, during the decade, 42% of the 600,000 new Vancouverites expected to arrive over that period would find affordable shelter. Whoopee. Does he expect the migrant flow will then come to a halt? Does he expect ten years hence that he would be able to pull another $15-27 billion out of the hat when aging infrastructure, health care and education will cry out for that same money? CHINESE IMMIGRANTS
Of course, there is an obvious solution to the insatiable demand for affordable housing in Vancouver.  The elephant-in-the-room. Reduce the DEMAND for housing (Duh).

And how do you do that? TURN OFF THE IMMIGRATION TAP. REDUCE IMMIGRATION INTAKES, Turning off the tap would relieve more pressure on the housing market  than dumping billions into a bottomless pit.

There is a reason that this solution is off the table of course. Too many people are making too much money in the immigration-driven population ponzi scam, and too many politicians lack the courage and the insight to call for a sane immigration policy. Immigration is the sacred cow of political discourse. It is a given. Part of our cultural DNA.  To make critical mention of the ugly “I” word is tantamount to inviting social ostracism and political suicide. Yet it is on almost everyone’s mind.

The most conspicuous feature of Horgan’s press announcement was not his speech, but the people who surrounded him. Every single one of the people who flanked him holding their NDP signs had Chinese faces, an irony that was lost on the media. But it was not likely lost on TV viewers, the majority of whom I’m sure are quite capable of connecting the dots. We are talking here of the muzzled majority of course.  The people whose views are beyond the pale, finding expression on the Internet under the cover of pseudonyms.

If you think that those who wish to slash immigration levels represent a ‘far right’, ‘racist’ fringe, just check out the comment sections that follow articles pertaining to immigration. It seems that the “fringe” is now mainstream, and it’s all reality’s doing. In this housing market, there is a thought criminal born every minute.

Tim Murray

May 4, 2017