Tag Archives: Pierre Trudeau

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

The last time the old Conservative Party was led by someone whose political philosophy I would feel comfortable acknowledging as my own was almost a decade before my birth.  The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, who became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in Opposition in 1956, led it to victory (a minority government) in the 1957 Dominion election, shortly before winning the party’s largest majority in percentage of seats ever the following year.   Reduced to a minority government again in 1962, Diefenbaker’s government fell in 1963 when Tommy Douglas’ socialists and the right-wing Social Credit Party both supported Liberal leader Lester Pearson when he called for a vote of no confidence because of Diefenbaker’s refusal to allow Washington D. C. to dictate policy in Ottawa on the matter of the nuclear arming of the Bomarc missiles.  

Pearson, who had betrayed his country to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union when he was attached to our Washington embassy in World War II (see the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley before the American House of Un-American Activities Committee), and betrayed the entire Commonwealth to both the Soviets and the Americans when he sided with these powers against the alliance of Britain, France, and Israel in 1957 as a Minister in the government of Louis St. Laurent, was here acting on behalf of John F. Kennedy’s government in the United States.   Diefenbaker continued to lead the party in Opposition for the next four years, which saw the shining moment of his entire career, when he led the Conservatives in fierce opposition to the new flag of 1965, the first major step taken by the Liberals during the long period in which they were led by Lester Pearson and his successor Pierre Trudeau to radically re-invent the country, and strip it of the most visible symbols of its Loyalist heritage and identity.   In 1967, Diefenbaker was replaced by Robert Stanfield as party leader in a leadership convention that was the culmination of two years’ worth of effort on the part of Dalton Camp, then the party president (which is not the same thing as party leader) to oust him.

While I admit that Diefenbaker’s performance in the office of Prime Minister was far less stellar than his performance in the office of Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, his political philosophy was what I admire most about him.  He was a fierce defender of Canada’s Loyalist history and heritage, the traditional institutions derived from these such as the monarchy, Parliament, and the Common Law, and the symbols of all of these, such as the old flag.   While most if not all of his successors have paid lip service to much of this, it has never been with his passion.  He opposed all threats to Canadian freedom, whether it was the external threat posed by increasing American cultural and economic influence – or, as in the case of the Bomarc missiles incident, political influence – or the internal threat posed by the subversion of Parliamentary tradition, the exponential growth of the civil service, and the alarming way in which the government was increasingly treating the latter as a means of bypassing the former to govern by bureaucratic regulation rather than Parliamentary legislation.   His views are best stated in his own words in the speeches collected in his Those Things We Treasure (1972).  

This book and John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown (1956 – posthumously edited by Judith Robinson) are the two classic texts of the political philosophy associated with the old Conservative Party from Sir John A. MacDonald to John G. Diefenbaker, a Canadian version of classical British Toryism.  Sadly both books have been out-of-print for years, although Diefenbaker’s has been fairly easily and inexpensively obtainable through used-book stores.   (I first obtained a copy from Black’s Vintage Books in Winnipeg, sadly no longer around, when I was still a theology student in college.   I had to send away for Farthing’s book when my attention was drawn to it by Ron Dart several years later.)   The classic text of the religious philosophy underlying this political philosophy, expressed as a jeremiad over the latter’s failure, was George Grant’s Lament for a Nation (1965), which remains in print.

After Diefenbaker was ousted, the leadership of the Progressive Conservative fell alternately to people who were more-or-less socialists in Conservative garb, like Stanfield, and had little-to-no problem with increasing bureaucratization and its threat to Canadian freedom, or to people who were basically big business liberals in Conservative garb, like Brian Mulroney, who promoted free trade with the United States, which throughout Canadian history had been a Liberal Party policy, and who had little-to-no problem with increasing American economic and cultural influence over Canada.     It was while Stanfield led the party that a “conservative movement” outside of the party began to form to oppose what Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals were doing and lobby for conservative causes, obviously because it was felt that the Party was failing to do this.    While the organizations and publications that made up this movement fought for good things for the most part – to give one example, Colin Brown founded the National Citizens Coalition in 1975 to fight for government fiscal accountability against Trudeau’s huge deficits – it lamentably tended to ignore the classical texts of Canadian Toryism mentioned in the previous paragraph and look for inspiration to the American conservative movement.   

This led to a blindness in the Mulroney years.   They could perceive that Mulroney had little interest in combatting the sweeping social, moral, and cultural changes that were quickly being introduced as a result of Pierre Trudeau’s having given the Supreme Court powers similar to its American counterpart by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the constitution (although to give credit where credit is due Mulroney was the last Conservative leader to attempt to pass legislation restricting abortion after the newly empowered Court struck the existing laws down in 1988) and thus in that sense was way too far to the Left like Stanfield,  but failed to recognize that the problem stemmed from unnaturally grafting an element of the American republican system onto our system of Crown-in-Parliament where it neither belongs nor fits (a mistake Tony Blair would later make in the United Kingdom) and to see Mulroney’s reversal of traditional Conservative opposition to free trade with the United States for the betrayal it was.   It was during the Mulroney years that the conservative movement allied itself with a populism that had been growing in the Western prairie provinces in response to the exceedingly arrogant way in which they had been treated by Ottawa under Trudeau and how Mulroney had offered little in the way of redress.   Together they formed a new party, the Reform Party of Canada.

This was not the first time conservatism and populism had been united in Canadian history.    John G. Diefenbaker, as explained above, was the last Conservative leader to fully represent in a way that did more than lip service, authentic traditional Canadian Toryism, but he was also a prairie populist reformer, a role that arose naturally out of his early career as a defence lawyer in Saskatchewan.   W. L. Morton, who was head of the history department at the University of Manitoba and the author of the Kingdom of Canada and a Canadian historian second only to Donald Creighton was, like Creighton, a traditional Tory, and, unlike Creighton, a strong advocate for fairer representation of the West in the Dominion government.   Diefenbaker and Morton, however, combined traditional Toryism with Western populism.   The Reform Party combined a neoconservatism that looked for inspiration to the United States with Western populism and this was not a good mix.   Ironically, they gave their party what had originally been the Confederation era name of their despised foe, the Liberals.   Also ironic, but in a less amusing way, their dividing the right-of-centre vote with the Progressive Conservatives kept the Liberals in government from 1993 to 2005.

Realizing that their division would only keep the Liberals in perpetual power, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party began “Unite the Right” discussions in the late 1990, partially merging into the Canadian Alliance in 2000 and then fully uniting into the present Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.  They have had four leaders since then.   The first of these was Stephen Harper, who became Prime Minister with a minority government in 2006, won a majority government in 2011, and served as Prime Minister until 2015.   When Captain Airhead led the Liberals back into government in the Dominion election of that year, Harper stepped down, was briefly replaced by Rona Ambrose as an interim leader, before Andrew Scheer was chosen as the next leader.   Scheer performed incredibly poorly in that role, being initially too cautious as Opposition Leader, then essentially throwing away an election that was practically being handed to him by Captain Airhead with his self-destructive heaping of scandals upon scandals, with his, that is Scheer’s, one shining moment coming in March of last year, when he resolutely opposed the Liberals’ attempt to use the pandemic to escape Parliamentary oversight for two years.   At this point, however, it was too late to salvage Scheer’s leadership, and Erin O’Toole was chosen as the next leader.

Erin O’Toole has now set the record for the shortest time it has ever taken for a Conservative leader to so disgust me that I vowed never to vote for anyone in the party as long as he led it.   It took Stephen Harper until the last year of his premiership, when he introduced legislation to enhance the powers of government to invade the privacy of Canadians and spy on them, to do that.   Erin O’Toole has not even been leader for a full five months yet and he has already managed to do so.

On Monday O’Toole announced that he would be seeking to kick Derek Sloan out of the party caucus.   Sloan is the Member who represents the Upper Canada riding of Hastings-Lennox and Addington in the House of Commons.   Although he is a quite young MP – he is in his mid-thirties and was elected for the first time in the Dominion election of two years ago – he was one of O’Toole’s rivals in the leadership race last year.   He had become a target of the Left earlier that year when he asked the question of whether Theresa Tam, the federal chief medical mandarin, was working for Canada or China.  The Left assumed this to be a racist question based upon Tam’s ethnicity, although the question naturally arises out of the possible conflict of interests between her position in Canada and her role in the World Health Organization over which Red China has held an inordinate amount of influence, especially under its current director.   Sloan, a Seventh Day Adventist, is also a strong social conservative who opposes abortion, gender-identity discrimination legislation, and the Liberal government’s current attempts to ban conversion therapy.   O’Toole’s announcement was based upon the revelation that Sloan had received a donation from Paul Fromm.   On Wednesday the party voted to expel Sloan from the caucus.

Sloan’s response to this, appropriately, was to call out O’Toole for his blatant unfairness and hypocrisy.   Sloan could not have been reasonably expected to have known that the donation came from Paul Fromm since he had used his first name, Frederick, in making it, nor, would I add, is it reasonable in a free country to expect people who receive donations to vet their donors to make sure they are not guilty of some sort of crimethink.   That is the unfairness – the hypocrisy is in the fact that the party took a cut from the same donation and had sold a membership to the donor. 

This incident illustrates the biggest problem I have with the post-Diefenbaker leadership of the Conservative Party whether of the Left-leaning Stanfield variety or the American neo-liberal Mulroney variety.   They have all been terrified of being labelled “Far Right” and since they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to define the “Far Right” and attach this label to whomever they wish without serious challenge, this has meant that they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to dictate the acceptable parameters of thought within their own party.   Back in the period alluded to earlier, when discontent with the performance of the Progressive Conservatives had led to the creation of first a conservative movement and then the Reform Party of Canada, Dalton Camp, the party official who had orchestrated the backstabbing of Diefenbaker, was a regular commentator on the CBC.   He was frequently part of a panel with Erik Kierens of the Liberals and Stephen Lewis of the NDP as the Conservative representative to create the false impression of balanced commentary (like Kierens he very much represented the Left wing of his own party).  

Camp shared with his Liberal and NDP colleagues an abhorrence of social conservatism or “the Religious Right” as he called it, and regarded the phenomenon as both an import from the United States and the next thing to fascism.   This was utter nonsense, of course – most of the things that the Religious Right railed against – abortion on demand, the relaxing of laws and liberalization of attitudes towards sexual morality, the driving of the Bible and Lord’s Prayer out of schools – came to Canada much later than they did to the United States and consequently what social conservatives wish to return to had remained the status quo here much longer and had been the status quo much more recently(1).    Indeed, the first issue in the Culture War between the Left and the Religious Right in which the Left’s triumph in Canada preceded its victory in the United States was same-sex marriage, and Camp could hardly have claimed the Religious Right’s stance on this issue as an American import because he died of complications from a stroke the year prior to the first court-ordered alteration to the status quo of 1 man + 1 woman = marriage and three years before the Liberals introduced the bill in Parliament that generalized the change.    The leadership of the Conservative Party, however, was terrified of the accusations coming from the Liberals, the NDP, the Left-dominated mainstream media, and their own Dalton Camp, that the social conservative ideas of  the conservative movement and the new Reform Party were dangerously” Far Right”.

That by taking this stance they were helping to move the centre of the Canadian mainstream dangerously close to the “Far Left” never seemed to occur to them.

Everything I have just said with regards to the social, moral, and religious issues of the Culture War also applies to the issues pertaining to immigration, nationality, and race except that with these issues, the Progressive Conservative Party leadership was even quicker to concede to the Liberals and to the Left the right to define a consensus and the acceptable parameters containing that consensus from which all dissent would be excluded. The capitulation was more complete.   Furthermore, the leadership  of the Reform Party joined in this concession with regards to these issues.

What is the consensus that the Liberals and their further-to-the-Left allies, given this free reign, imposed upon Canada?

It amounts to this: if you are white, discriminating against someone who is not is about the worst thing you could do, and the law must protect others against your discrimination by giving the government the power to punish you with complete and total economic and social destruction, but you yourself must have no protection under law against discrimination, because you, being white, are incapable of being discriminated against, and if you complain about or even notice the unfairness of this then you are an evil, prejudiced bigot, a racist, a Nazi, who must either be re-programmed or completely excluded from society.

The Liberal Party worked hard at establishing this double standard which is utterly repugnant morally and completely indefensible intellectually as consensus, or rather state-imposed dogma,  during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   In 1970 Parliament passed a bill introduced while Pearson was Prime Minister that added sections 318-320 to the Criminal Code which created several new offences each having to do in some way with “hate propaganda”.   This was entirely unnecessary because anything criminalized by these sections that really ought to be against the law was already against the existing laws against inciting crime and violence.   The existing laws were superior in every way because they protected all Canadians alike.   In 1977, Trudeau’s Liberals rammed the Canadian Human Rights Act through Parliament.   Despite the title, this bill had nothing to do with ensuring that such basic rights as life, liberty, and property were guaranteed to all people in Canada or in protecting anybody in Canada from the abuse by the state that is the first thing that pops into most people’s minds upon hearing “human rights violations”.   The Act was entirely about dictating to Canadians that they could not discriminate against each other on the grounds of race, sex, etc. in their private lives.   It established an investigatory body to look into accusations of discrimination, and a tribunal to hear the charges.   Since it is considered “civil law”, the accused are denied the rights they would have as defendants under criminal law.   The reality, however, is that it punishes the “crime” of wrongthink.   Although the law is written in such a way as to make the offence reside in the act of discriminating rather than the race/sex/whatever of the complainant and the accused so that in theory, the white person turned down from a job by an employer who only hires people from his own Asian or African nationality ought to have just as strong a case as someone in the reverse situation, that is not how it works in practice.   The Commission that investigates and the Tribunal that hears these cases operate on an Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others” basis, which is, of course, how the Trudeau Liberals instructed them to operate from the beginning.   In the few instances when anybody has ever bothered to question the uneven way in which this law is administered, the answer has always been to point back to the intent behind the law, to protect “vulnerable minorities”.    It is, of course, incredibly bad practice to allow the intent behind a law that is worded in such a way as to suggest that it protects everybody from racial discrimination to overrule the wording and turn it into a law that protects people from some races and not others, but then, the law itself is bad because it unnecessarily extends government control into the private lives of Canadians to the point of telling them what they can and cannot be thinking when interacting with others when all that was really called for was for the government to lead by example in not practicing colour discrimination itself.   That, however, would have required going back to the policies of John G. Diefenbaker, the Conservative Prime Minister who  militantly opposed racism and whose vision for the Dominion of Canada was one of national unity, which he believed in so strongly that he made it the title of his three volume memoir One Canada, instead of following the bad example of the Americans, who at least had the sense to call their earlier and equivalent law a “Civil Rights Act”. 

The protecting “vulnerable minorities” justification for all this bad legislation and practice has grown in its rhetorical force from then until now and Pierre Trudeau’s foul offspring has just trotted it out again in support of his upcoming efforts to seize even more control over what Canadians are allowed to think and communicate to each other.   Its rhetorical force should have shrunk.   At the time it was first evoked, 96% of Canadians were white.   This is no longer the case today, indeed, we are at the point where whites becoming a minority is on the near horizon, but the voices from the Left telling us that everybody else belongs to a “vulnerable” or “disadvantaged” minority that needs increased government protection against whites are becoming louder, more stringent and more hysterical by the day.   Don’t expect  those same voices to come to the defence of whites when they become a minority and one far more vulnerable than any other in Canada has ever been due to decades of this anti-white propaganda.   The demographic transformation just alluded to is the direct result of immigration changes introduced by Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   I don’t mean the points system introduced by Order-in-Council in 1967.   It is itself an admirable and fair way of processing applications based upon individual merit, although the Pearson Liberals do not deserve the credit for eliminating racial discrimination from immigration policy that the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History – what Donald Creighton dubbed “the Authorized Version” – assigns them because Diefenbaker had already done that in 1962.   I refer rather to a number of changes introduced quietly, unannounced, and with no fanfare, whereby the civil servants charged with processing applications were told to give priority to applications from non-traditional source countries over those from traditional source countries with the result that “traditional Euro-British sources of immigration were effectively shut off in favour of migrants and their extended families from the Third World” (Kenneth McDonald, A Wind in the Heath: A Memoir, Epic Press, 2003).  

Instead of opposing all of this, as they ought to have done, the Progressive Conservatives whether the socialist Stanfield types, the moderate Joe Clark types, or the neo-liberal Brian Mulroney types embraced it.   Indeed, when Brian Mulroney took over the leadership of the party he basically sent out the message that opposition to the Trudeau agenda on these issues would not be tolerated and that discrimination against whites would be continued.   As Prime Minister, in fact, he set out to out-Trudeau Trudeau himself with regards to immigration.   Perhaps some of the Conservative leader were dense enough to think that Pearson and Trudeau had been continuing Diefenbaker’s “One Canada” vision rather than subverting and inverting it.   For the most part, however, they were terrified of being labelled “Far Right” by the Liberals and the press.   The Liberals, in the Pearson-Trudeau period had attempted the frighten the public into accepting their measures as necessary to fight a non-existent “Far Right” threat, by creating a fake “Canadian Nazi Party”, which their media allies then splashed all over the headlines and the television news.   The Mulroney Conservatives, having received the message, proceeded to pass it on when they gained competition for the right-of-centre vote in the Reform Party.   They ordered CSIS, the spy agency created in the last month of the Trudeau premiership, to create another fake neo-Nazi group, the Heritage Front, which the media again went wild over.   This was in 1989, two years after the Reform Party was formed.   The purpose seems to have been to smear the Reform Party by association, a goal towards which they received assistance from lawyer, activist and Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella in his 1997 book Web of Deceit, which, in my opinion ought to be categorized as fiction, under which genre it might actually deserve an award for its creative plot about the imminent threat of  a neo-Nazism working through the  conservative movement  and  the Reform Party to take over Canada.   Note this is the same Warren Kinsella, who should not be confused with the late novelist W. P. Kinsella (W. P. stood for William Patrick, Warren is, I think, a middle name), but who was, according to a Globe and Mail article conveniently timed to come out just before the last Dominion election, hired by Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives to sling mud of a similar nature against Maxime Bernier, Scheer’s chief rival in the previous Conservative Party leadership race, and his new People’s Party of Canada.

Erin O’Toole has now followed the shameful examples of Mulroney and Scheer.   His motive is obvious enough – only a few weeks ago he was jumped on by Captain Airhead, for giving an interview to Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media.   Captain Airhead, who thinks that only media that he subsidizes and which express views of which he approves, should be allowed to exist, condemned the Rebel as being “Far Right”.   If he had Ludwig von Mises’ concept of “Left” and “Right” as a spectrum moving from total government control on the Left to an absence of government on the Right, he might have had a point, as The Rebel is quite libertarian, but I very much doubt he has read Mises or that he possesses the capacity to do so.   The interview, however, came shortly before the incident on Epiphany when, as Donald the Orange was addressing half a million of his supporters before the Washington Monument, a smaller group entered the Congress building on Capitol Hill, took selfies and, unfortunately in a handful of cases, got into violent skirmishes with the Capitol Hill Police, all of which was blown up by the same media that supported the BLM and Antifa anti-white hate riots that produced far more destruction, violence, and death all across America, into the ludicrous lie of “Trump incites insurrection”.   O’Toole, pissing himself, immediately proceeded to proclaim how much he and the party he leads are against “white supremacists”, by which the media seems to mean anyone who opposes anti-white racism and certainly everyone – all 75 million American voters of them – who supported Trump.   He also took the opportunity to throw his own rival from last year’s leadership race under the bus and out of the party.

Well, perhaps he can instruct his party to stop soliciting me for funds.   I have not received a campaign contribution from Paul Fromm, as I have never stooped so low as to run for office, but I have donated to the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, all of which were founded or co-founded by said Paul Fromm, whom I have known for years.  The first mentioned, which is also, I believe, the oldest is “a group of aid reformers who eschew guilt and believe that population control and free enterprise are the key to development”.   I took that definition from the Glossary in my personally inscribed copy of Down the Drain? A Critical Re-examination of Canadian Foreign Aid written by Paul Fromm and James P. Hull and published by Griffin House, Toronto in 1981.  Fromm and Hull’s approach to foreign aid has always made more sense to me than the Liberal policy of taxing poor people in rich countries to subsidize rich people in poor countries, never more evident than under the current Prime Minister.   The Canadian Association for Free Expression was founded shortly prior to when Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister which was also around the time that Canada’s two most publicized trials for crimethink began, those of Ernst Zuendel, the German born graphic artist and publisher who resided in Toronto and James Keegstra, the school teacher and mayor from Eckville , Alberta.   CAFE is committed to the classical liberal view of John Stuart Mill that speech, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in between, ought never to be suppressed.   While there are many who would think that the cases of Zuendel, whose publications included The Hitler We Loved and Did Six Million Really Die?, and Keegstra, who taught his students that the Jews were behind a conspiracy to dominate the world, stretch that principle past its breaking point, these are, in my opinion, wrong.   Cases like this are not the breaking point of freedom of speech, they are its test.   Only those willing to stand up for freedom of speech, when it is opinions that the vast majority find loathsome that the government is trying to suppress, can truly be said to have passed that test – men like Paul Fromm and the late Doug Christie, who was the lawyer in both of these cases.   If the state is allowed to get away with suppressing extremely unpopular opinions, it will move on to suppressing less unpopular opinions.    In Canada we have moved from the government persecuting a man for saying that Hitler’s victims were significantly less than six-million in number all the way to where the government is trying to tell us that we cannot say that someone born with a penis and testicles and who has XY chromosomes is a man if he self-identifies as a woman.   Give the state censors an inch and they will take a mile.   Pastor Martin Niemöller said “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a socialist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me”.  It astonishes me that there are those familiar with this poem and the story behind who miss the point completely and will get offended at the application I am about to make.  In 1984 – a rather significant date don’t you think – they came for Ernst Zuendel and James Keegstra, and Doug Christie and Paul Fromm spoke out!   Everyone who values the freedom our country was built upon – Richard Cartwright famously expressed the spirit of Confederation by saying that he preferred British freedom over American equality – and for which we have always been told our country went to war against Hitler, would do well to look to that example.

The progressive media, of course, in their lust to help O’Toole crucify Sloan, has been calling Paul Fromm such names as “white supremacist” and “neo-nazi”, as have those members of the neo-conservative press who have defended Sloan on the same grounds on which he defended himself.   Mr. Fromm has never applied such terms to himself, which the media have thrown against him for decades, but has always eschewed and disavowed them (I once witnessed him do so to someone who actually was a self-proclaimed National Socialist).   He has referred to himself as a “white nationalist” but I remember that when he started doing this the term had not developed the connotations it now has and simply meant something along the lines of an advocate for the rights of white people, similar to what groups like the NAACP are for black people in the United States, and I have never gotten the impression that he meant it in any other way.   He should, perhaps, have foreseen the way the term would evolve.   I never liked the term, although I believe that now more than ever, open advocates for the rights and liberties of white people, who are demonized by racist hate groups such as BLM and Antifa with the full support of the media and the politicians and who are officially discriminated against, are needed.   It confuses “race” with “nation” for one thing.   

For another, nationalisms of any sort tend to conflict with my Tory political philosophy.   One’s monarch is the proper object of political allegiance, not a people, race, or nation, and in association with one’s monarch, one’s country, which is a place, one’s home writ large, although not merely in the sense of a location on a map, but a place vested with tradition and history, expressed in its institutions, and including, of course, those who live there.   This is what the old patriotic cry “for King and country” meant.

This brings me back to Diefenbaker.   

Diefenbaker, because he was the last Conservative leader – and the last Canadian Prime Minister – to really embrace “King and country” or “Queen and country” Toryism in a wholehearted way, was the last Conservative leader and Prime Minister capable of taking the strong stand against racism that he did, without replacing it with racism of another sort, as the Liberals who governed after him did.   This is precisely because “Queen and country” is the only object of allegiance which can truly provide civil unity and harmony.   As W. L. Morton put it “Any one, French, Irish, Ukrainian or Eskimo, can be a subject of the Queen and a citizen of Canada without in any way changing or ceasing to be himself.” (The Canadian Identity, University of Toronto Press, 1961, 1972)   If that sounds like Pierre Trudeau’s “mosaic” vision of “multiculturalism”, understand that Trudeau’s doctrine is actually a mockery of this.  Instead of uniting diverse people in loyalty to their Royal Sovereign so that they can all participate in the country over which she reigns in a way that makes the history, traditions, and legacy of freedom of that country their own, Trudeau’s doctrine turned diversity itself into an object of cult worship that keeps them divided so that bureaucrats can increasingly manage their lives and rob them of the freedom that is the property by right of all Her Majesty’s subjects.   If Erin O’Toole really believes that “racism is a disease of the soul” then he would do better to lead his party back to what it was when Diefenbaker led it rather than to win Captain Airhead’s approval by repeating his totalitarian rhetoric about “It has no place in our country” and opportunistically ejecting a rival from the party’s caucus, over his unknowingly having received a donation from the man who has for decades been the most courageous opponent of the only racism that is truly a problem in Canada today, the racism that has been enshrined in law since 1977, anti-white racism.

(1)   This also shows how utterly absurd the expression “Red Tory” is.   Originally, Gad Horowitz coined the term to refer to traditional Tories like George Grant who had some positive views of socialism.   Grant, a strong social conservative who warned that in the legalization of abortion the essence of fascism was coming to North American under the guise of liberalism, did not like having this label applied to him.   Dalton Camp, who was a Mulroney Conservative until Mulroney became a free trader – it is to Camp’s credit that he abandoned the Mulroney camp over this – embraced the label.   Grant wrote his Lament over the fall of the Diefenbaker government, Camp was responsible for ousting Diefenbaker from the party leadership.  Any term coined to refer to the one and appropriated by the other cannot possibly express anything meaningful.    Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 2:02 PM Labels:

Dominion Day Dolour

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Gerry T. Neal

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Dominion Day Dolour

It has been my custom for Dominion Day over the last few years, to write either sketches about specific individuals who exemplified the Canada of Confederation and her traditions or jeremiads lamenting the present state of the Dominion. I had not realized, until I checked the last six years, that this has followed an alternating pattern, in which this would be a year for a jeremiad. This suits me as the next individual I had on deck for a sketch was the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton, and while I read Donald Wright’s biography of him as recently as last year – I much prefer the chapter on him in Charles Taylor’s Radical Tories, since Wright’s political correctness infuriates me as much as it would have his subject – I would need more time than I had available to re-read Creighton’s own books in order to do him justice. So a jeremiad it is.

There is plenty for someone from my point of view to lament. There have been two traditions of thought that have borne the rather inaccurate label “conservative” in Canada. There is the old Tory tradition of Loyalism and royalism, which is monarchist rather than republican, holds the Westminster system of Parliament to be the best form of government ever to evolve on the face of the earth, dissents from the narrative of the rebellion of 1776 and is suspicious of the United States, utterly rejects socialism without fully embracing capitalism, and is socially, morally, and culturally traditionalist. Then there is neo-conservatism, which is very pro-American, holds to the basic political and economic views of nineteenth century liberalism, and regards anything from outside eighteenth to nineteenth century liberalism which has been traditionally associated with conservatism as dispensable. While the extent to which the official Conservative Party has ever really stood for either of these traditions is questionable, it was associated with the first until 1967 and the latter from about 1983 on, especially after the merger with what began as the Reform Party. I have belonged to the first tradition from the moment political thoughts first formed in my head, and am very much a representative of its right wing. Most other surviving members – David Warren is a very notable exception –speak for its left wing. In other words, I speak for a point of view, which the Liberal Party, egged on by the further left parties, and aided and abetted by the Conservatives, has striven to make as unwelcome as possible in Canada.

Earlier this year, our provincial governments, with the full backing and support of Ottawa, essentially eliminated what was left of our most basic freedoms. These freedoms are part of the Common Law tradition which we inherited when we became the Dominion of Canada on this date in 1867. They are not something which Pierre Trudeau gave us in 1982, despite the fact that our lying schoolteachers and our lying newsmedia commentators, most of whom sold their souls to the Liberal Party and its true leader in hell at the beginning of their careers, have been instilling that impression among the younger generations ever since that year. Although the Charter did not give us those freedoms, it does name four of them in its second section. The freedom of conscience and religion is the first named. The third and fourth named are freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. There is no freedom of conscience and religion when the provincial government forbids us from going to Church for four months. There is no freedom of peaceful assembly when the same government tells us we cannot gather in groups larger than five or ten or whatever number. There is no freedom of association if the government tells us we must be six feet apart from each other in public at all times. The provincial governments got away with this totalitarian power grab with the help of a media-generated panic over the spread of a virus with a low fatality rate that produces mild to no symptoms in the vast majority of those who contract it, information which has been available all along to anybody willing to check out the facts.

In the meantime, the Liberal Party which was reduced to a minority government in last year’s Dominion election, took full advantage of this situation to seek, in an underhanded attack on the Magna Carta and the foundational principles of Parliament, unlimited tax and spend powers, and to prevent Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition from doing their job of holding the government accountable in Parliament.

Then, about a month ago, when Marxist organizations in the United States found a pretext for launching a race war against white people, the Prime Minister, despite his own hands being far from clean when it comes to matters concerning race as we discovered in the election campaign last year, jumped on board the bandwagon. Even though the public health restrictions at whatever stage of easing they were at from province to province remained in effect for everybody else, they were lifted completely for the anti-white hate rallies that were organized in Canada’s major cities. The Prime Minister, who has never given the slightest indication of sincere contrition over his many personal failings, but who is always ready to give an apology on behalf of the entire country to whatever designated victim group happens to feel the most offended at any given moment, showed up for a photo op of himself “taking the knee” in a gesture of false humility at the rally in Ottawa. A few days later on his syndicated morning television show he berated our country over its supposed “systemic racism.” This was the cue for everyone else to ritually acknowledge this systemic racism, whether they understood the concept or, more likely, did not, and for the “woke” to start “cancelling” anybody who failed to participate in this now mandatory ritual.

This requirement that everybody accept this ridiculous narrative, taken from the neo-Marxist Critical Theory, is, of course, an assault on yet another of our basic freedoms. As with the others, this too is a freedom from the Common Law tradition which is named in the second section of the Charter, where it is called the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” If all Canadians are now required to confess the neo-Marxist narrative that our country is systemically racist, upon threat of being cancelled if we dissent, then it is a joke to say that we have freedom of thought, belief, opinion or expression. If the Crown broadcaster and all of the other news stations and newspapers that have been subsidized by this government are pushing this same narrative, while the government has been applying pressure to big tech social media companies to censor dissent, then there is no “freedom of the press and other media of communication.” The assault on this basic freedom has been going on since the premiership of the first Trudeau. It has been carried out in the name of combatting prejudice and promoting diversity, even though the most essential kind of diversity for a free country is the diversity of thought that is under attack.

All of Western Civilization is now threatened by these neo-Maoists who wish to raze history to the ground and bring us to Year Zero. They have the support of most of the mainstream media, the corporate world, academia, celebrities and a wide assortment of elected officials, civil servants and even the police forces they wish to see “defunded”. In Canada, they have demanded that the prestigious McGill University disown its founder and namesake. Worse, they are demanding that our country disavow the leading Father of Confederation and our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Hilariously, they managed to get a newspaper or two to put trigger-warning labels on the flag. The reason this is so funny is because the flag in question is not the traditional, historical, flag of Canada, the Red Ensign, but rather the bland Maple Leaf which the Communist traitor, Lester Pearson chose to replace it with in 1965 precisely because it said nothing about Canada’s history, heritage, and legacy. Indeed, the Liberal Party’s assault on the traditional symbols of the Canada of Confederation during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, starting with the old flag and ending with Dominion Day, could pretty much be said to have been the first wave to which the present wave of neo-Maoist, Year Zeroism is the second.

The Liberal Party rejected our country’s traditional symbols and was determined to replace them with ones bearing its own stamp. Today’s neo-Maoists demand a wholesale repudiation of our country’s founding and history. Symbols and history are important. Almost a century ago, the Mackenzie King Liberals attacked the Crown’s legitimate and necessary right to refuse an improper dissolution request (see Eugene Forsey, The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament, 1943). This undermined Parliament’s right to hold the Prime Minister accountable and set the stage for Prime Ministerial dictatorship (see John Farthing, Freedom Wears a Crown, 1957). This year, we have seen the largest assault on Parliamentary prerogative since then, and on the part of a minority Liberal government to boot, while all the provincial governments ran roughshod over our most basic Common Law rights and freedoms. If we had valued our traditional symbols and our history more, we would not have so willingly acquiesced in this.

While I weep for my country, I wish you all a Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the Queen!
Posted by

Trudeau Senior & the Monster Mao

Posted on by

 Trudeau Senior & the Monster Mao

Stéphane Courtois et al.
P 493 f, Wei Jingsheng, a witness of famine in China, 1968:
“Before my eyes, among the weeds, rose up one of the scenes I had been told about, one of the banquets at which the families had swapped children in order to eat them. I could see the worried faces of the families as they chewed the flesh of other people’s children. The children who were chasing butterflies in a nearby field seemed to be the reincarnation of the children devoured by their parents. I felt sorry for the children, but not as sorry as I felt for their parents. What had made them swallow that human flesh, amidst the tears and grief of other parents – flesh that they would never have imagined tasting, even in their worst nightmares? In that moment I understood what a butcher he had been, the man ‘whose like humanity has not seen in several centuries, and China not in several thousand years’: Mao Zedong and his henchmen, with their criminal political system, had driven parents mad with hunger and led them to hand their own children over to others, and to receive the flesh of others to appease their own hunger.”
TRUDEAU AND MAO
Most researchers into the history of famine say that famine in China under the Great Leap Forward (1958-61) of Mao Zedong was the greatest in history. Probably about 30 million people died of hunger there, and there were about 33 million “lost births,” meaning that, because of the weakness caused by hunger, the number of births was reduced by 33 million. (The Soviet Union had famine deaths of about 5 million in 1932-34, largely because of misguided political policies.)

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

Posted on by

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Omar Khadr

Arecent payout of $10.5 million dollars to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr represents a watershed moment in the history of political correctness in Canada. As endorsed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mr. Khadr has hit the jackpot and can now settle into a life of luxury upon Canadian soil. Not bad for a terrorist convicted of murder.

While there isn’t a politician past or present who has disgraced our country with the vigour of Justin Trudeau, the road to the loss of our national dignity did not originate with our current prime minister. This we can attribute to the founder of Canada’s collective self- loathing — his father.

Pierre Trudeau is the most misunderstood figure in Canadian history. A maverick political figure from day one, Trudeau Sr. thumbed his nose at western institutions of his day while embracing socialist ideology discovered during his travels as a student in Asia.

Some where between the opium smoking and the communist manifesto, Pierre discovered his true ideological calling — as an irreverent intellectual with a pre-disposition toward his political nemesis — British colonialism, and the institutions created in its image.

From his first term as prime minister in 1968 to his final curtain call in the early 1980’s, Pierre worked to erode Canada’s connection to Britain and the Commonwealth. For the purpose of empowering minority communities — as well as the legal industry who support them — Trudeau introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In an effort to advance the rights of special interest groups, Trudeau created the Court Challenges Program, enabling these entities to take legal action based upon perceived social injustices.

The outcome was a fundamental transformation within society. Power and influence shifted away from the Canadian majority and into the hands of tax-payer funded interest groups, multicultural organizations, human rights tribunals and other leftist institutions. Thus, a new Canada was born —though it would take decades for the general public to understand exactly what had occurred. It is arguable most still do not comprehend the full picture.

To understand the roots of the re-imagining of our nation, we look to the fateful day in 1971 when Pierre Trudeau introduced multiculturalism to Canada. Without any form of mandate or approval from the Canadian people, Pierre Trudeau cancelled our bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity and replaced it with multicultural policy. Few at the time were aware of the pending side effects—namely, that multiculturalism would not be inclusive of Anglophone or Francophone identity. Indeed, it was and remains the exclusive domain of migrants from Asia and the Middle East.

As decades passed and Third World immigration began to alter our demographic make-up, a powerful diversity industry came into existence. This collective of immigration pundits, academics and media — as well as government itself — began to alter our national destiny. By way of an accusation of historical racism toward Third World and First Nations communities, our diversity warriors were able to convince the Canadian majority to question, and ultimately dislike, the heritage of their own nation.

At present, we see this manifested in Prime Minister Trudeau’s litany of apologies to our LGBT, Chinese, Muslim and Sikh communities. Never mind the fact that Italian, German and Ukrainian- Canadians were sent by the thousands to internment camps under the War Measures Act. Racism in Canada is an exclusive of the Third World, and these forces intend to keep it that way. Waving a collective finger at the descendants of the founders of our nation, we are informed by politically-oriented new arrivals that Canada is built on “stolen land,” and if we don’t cooperate — or perhaps even if we do — they will work to steal it back.

Naturally, Justin Trudeau is all-in on this campaign. Raised within an environment of malevolence toward English Canada, as well as within ear shot of father Pierre’s admiration for communism, Justin is the perfect pitch-man for what he refers to as a “post-modern” Canada — which really means a Canada devoid of Anglophone identity.

Canada has seen its share of the Trudeau family’s disdain for both democratic process and the will of the majority. Multiculturalism, which became official policy in 1988, was a unilateral decision on the part of government — if not on the part of Pierre himself. Both father and son share an affinity for believing their personal will equates with public will — a personality trait bordering on the delusional.

Pierre Trudeau began Canada’s long day’s journey into cultural demise, but it is son Justin who will finish off Anglo-Canada for good. By way of mass immigration — another nation-changing policy devoid of public input — Justin is leading us down a path toward a complete societal inversion. By way of measures such as “Islamophobia” motion M103, our so-called minorities are today the preferred communities of choice, while “Old Stock” Canadians are rendered perfunctory at best. “Out with the old, in with the new” appears to be the maxim of PM Trudeau and his sunny gang of cultural eradicators.

Recently, Trudeau Junior informed us Canada belongs more to immigrants than Canadian-born citizens, as the latter “take Canada for granted.” This reveals what general society should have understood decades ago — that the concept of equality for all Canadians by way of multiculturalism is a myth. The true diversity agenda is not unlike what is found in George Orwell’s classic political treatise on communism, Animal Farm — “all are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

If and when Canadian-born citizens wake up to the fact that an injustice of grand design is at the heart of the Trudeau agenda, perhaps the dignity lost in a whirlwind of diversity and political correctness can then be returned to the descendants of those who built our country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Trudeau on Castro’s Death- a PM without Common Sense

Posted on by
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadain Association for Freedom of Expression gloats with talk show host Brian Ruhe about How Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stuc…
Published on Dec 2, 2016

Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadain Association for Freedom of Expression gloats with talk show host Brian Ruhe about How Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stuck his foot in his mouth by overpraisingFidel Castro in his eulogy. Brian and Paul discuss the theory that Justin Trudeau is the son of Fidel Castro!

Below is a FAIR USE of an article by PAUL WELLS, National Affairs, Tues., Nov. 29, 2016, at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2…

I want to talk about the rest of Canada’s weird, hesitant relationship with Cuba. But first, since I’m just getting to it now, a few words about Justin Trudeau and Fidel Castro.

We haven’t seen Justin Trudeau mourn like this since his dad died. In expressing his “deep sorrow” at the death of Castro, a “larger than life” figure whom Trudeau lauded as “a legendary orator” —

Sorry, let’s just pause right there. Legendary orator? On Sept. 26, 1960, Castro addressed the United Nations General Assembly for four and a half hours, a record unchallenged to this day in the most boring room on earth. In 1998 in Havana, he spoke for seven and a half hours. Calling Castro a great orator is like calling porn legend Ron Jeremy a romantic: it confuses volume with quality.

Onward. Trudeau lauded Castro’s “tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people,” whose speech and dietary protein Castro rationed, by law, for decades. I guess it was tough love.

To be sure, Trudeau balanced his praise with criticism. “During Castro’s rule, thousands of Cubans were incarcerated in abysmal prisons, thousands more were harassed and intimidated, and entire generations were denied basic political freedoms,” the prime minister wrote. Just kidding! No, that last quote isn’t from Justin Trudeau at all. It’s from Human Rights Watch. As for the PM, in a communiqué overflowing with praise for Castro, he could find room for only one word about the Cuban dictator’s human rights record: “controversial.”

Nor can the PM’s defenders long sustain the notion that his statement must have been penned by some careless lackey in the Prime Minister’s Office. No, the communiqué is too solidly in line with the entire Trudeau family’s record on the man to be anything but an honest reflection of Justin Trudeau’s thought.

Castro was a pallbearer at Pierre Trudeau’s funeral. The PM’s brother Alexandre Trudeau wrote in this newspaper a decade ago that Castro was “something of a superman,” whose “intellect is one of the most broad and complete that can be found.” Alexandre Trudeau wrote that he “grew up knowing that Fidel Castro had a special place among my family’s friends,” even if ordinary Cubans “do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father.”

One notes family similarities in prose style.

Justin Trudeau is defending the statement he made following the death of former Cuban president Fidel Castro. The prime minister says he never shies away from addressing human rights issues.(THE CANADIAN PRESS)
So a prime minister who claims to prize evidence-based policy was caught putting family connections ahead of the exhaustively documented abuses of a man whose death marks a crucial step in his own people’s long-delayed march toward freedom.

But the rest of us — we cold and bashful Canadians — will probably continue to watch Cuba as we have for decades, unsure or divided in our response to events in the land Fidel Castro leaves behind.

Exhibit A in the theatre of ambivalence is Justin Trudeau’s predecessor. Stephen Harper met Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother and still the president of Cuba, only 19 months ago, attending what would be Harper’s last Summit of the Americas in Panama City. The two men sat smiling awkwardly at each other in hard-backed chairs next to a little round table.

Probably most Canadians not named Trudeau have long known that Cubans did not have the government Canadians would want for them — and, indeed, not the government Cubans would choose, were they granted the freedom to change their minds about the revolution. But that knowledge doesn’t tell us which mix of engagement and isolation is wisest.

Most Canadian leaders have fallen back on a policy of doing a little less than the Americans. It’s a deeply unsatisfying policy. John Diefenbaker resisted putting Canadian forces on a war footing during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Harper let Obama decide on a change in stance, providing only conference facilities and plausible deniability.

Having blown some political capital by saying what he thinks, Trudeau is now going to skip Fidel Castro’s funeral. It’s a retreat to ambivalence dictated by a public outcry that must have astonished the prime minister, who grew up with a photo of Fidel Castro in his family’s home and thought, perhaps, that everybody does.

Paul Wells is a national affairs writer. His column usually appears Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

Honouring Both Sides on Remembrance Day

Posted on by
Honouring Both Sides on Remembrance Day 

11 Nov 2016 4:33

https://youtu.be/kEZNkOnCXGQ

Honouring Both Sides on Remembrance Day

Paul Fromm discusses the meaning of Remembrance Day. He honours ALL brave Europeans who fought for ideals. He notes that these wicked wars, WW I and WWII, were a genetic catastrophe for European man. 

Inline image 1

November 11 is also the 51st anniversary of UDI, Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence. [In 1979, they were betrayed and backstabbed by the U.S. (arch-conspirator Henry Kissinger), Britain, South Africa and Canada.

Inline image 2

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity

Posted on by

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity  

by Brad Salzberg, April 2015

 

For nearly three decades I have pondered the origin, meaning and impact of Canada’s official multicultural policy. During this period, certain conclusions have crystallized in my mind, and yet at the same time, many unanswered questions remain.

 

It is well known that the founder of multiculturalism is former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. What is not so well known are the circumstances under which this maverick prime minister formulated multicultural ideology, and it’s eventual legislation.

Trudeau was the first western leader to meet with Mao Tse Tung, founder of the People’s Republic of China, in the year 1970.  Subsequent visits to China would follow, including a walk along the Great Wall, during which the Prime Minister did a ballet pirouette, subsequently explained as a way to break the formality of the occasion.

 

Less than one year after Trudeau’s first visit to China, he introduced multicultural ideology to Canada. His intention, as he publicly stated, was for multiculturalism to “function within a bi-lingual framework”. It would take seventeen more years for multiculturalism to achieve “official” status. In 1988, the policy was entrenched in our constitution as the Multicultural Act of Canada. By 2008, largely due to the influx of foreign money, the “function within a bi-lingual framework” component had all but disappeared.

'Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity    
by Brad Salzberg, April 2015

For nearly three decades I have pondered the origin, meaning and impact of Canada’s official multicultural policy. During this period, certain conclusions have crystallized in my mind, and yet at the same time, many unanswered questions remain.

It is well known that the founder of multiculturalism is former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. What is not so well known are the circumstances under which this maverick prime minister formulated multicultural ideology, and it’s eventual legislation.
Trudeau was the first western leader to meet with Mao Tse Tung, founder of the People’s Republic of China, in the year 1970.  Subsequent visits to China would follow, including a walk along the Great Wall, during which the Prime Minister did a ballet pirouette, subsequently explained as a way to break the formality of the occasion. 

Less than one year after Trudeau’s first visit to China, he introduced multicultural ideology to Canada. His intention, as he publicly stated, was for multiculturalism to “function within a bi-lingual framework”. It would take seventeen more years for multiculturalism to achieve “official” status. In 1988, the policy was entrenched in our constitution as the Multicultural Act of Canada. By 2008, largely due to the influx of foreign money, the “function within a bi-lingual framework” component had all but disappeared.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious this unprecedented policy was a major game-changer. To this day, it is arguable the majority of Canadians are unaware of the policy’s full impact, and its implications for the future of our country. 
One significant but largely overlooked factor is to be found in the area of funding. The Act explicitly states that ethnic cultural organizations are to receive government funding for the promotion of cultural events, language and holidays. 

In practical terms, this scenario played out whereby the largest and best organized ethnic communities received the lion’s share of the funding. Basically, it was a “snooze and you loose” situation. Indeed, many non-profit groups hit the snooze button. The outcome was an inequitable distribution of funding, with a few select communities receiving tens of millions, and smaller communities receiving little, or nothing.

Times change. Demographics change, and no where in the world has this change been more profound than in Canada, a nation with the highest per-capita immigration rate in the world. Interestingly, until Australia adopted constitutional multiculturalism, Canada was also the only nation in the world with official multiculturalism. Pretty special, yet in all the excitement and fanfare, few seemed to notice or care that the general public had no input in the implementation of the policy. The public did not ask for or endorse this policy in any manner. It was a purely unilateral government decision, entirely devoid of the democratic process. 
Only with the dawning of the 21st century did the true impact of this policy begin to reveal itself. With mass immigration transforming the ethnic make-up of our nation, the demographic change became increasingly profound. In 2012, a Statistics Canada study pronounced that caucasians will become a minority in Toronto and Vancouver by 2031. 

As a result, Canadians of European origin today find themselves in a curious situation. Our government says white Canadians are headed for minority status, yet as an identifiable group, this diminishing segment of Canadian society lack a defined communal identity. This is all quite understandable, as in the past there was no need to even consider the issue of identity. Historically, Euro-Canadians were a well entrenched majority, and there was no reason to believe this would change, at least not to the degree that a re-thinking of identity would be necessary.

Multiculturalism mandates that minority groups have the right to promote their ethnicity, and to receive money to do so. We see this manifested, for example, in Vancouver’s two week celebration of Chinese New Year, complete with taxpayer-funded social events, dragon parades, and colourful community centre displays. The Viksaiki parade, largely government funded, is the largest festival of the year in Surrey, B.C., a city with a population on par with the municipality of Vancouver.

Let’s be frank- present-day multiculturalism has resulted in a number of oddities, inequities, and downright curiosities. Our society has arrived at a situation whereby the white Canadian are a “pending” minority, yet they lack in a communal voice or identity. When attempts have been made to create an identity on par with our larger “minority” communities, these actions are met with cries of xenophobia, racism, and other nastiness.

Why the double standard? How did we arrive at a situation where the only identifiable group prevented from organizing, receiving funding, and promoting their traditions are those whose ancestors founded our country? Take the holiday of Christmas for example. Within contemporary society, the religious components of our biggest holiday are disappearing- basically, politically correct forces want the “Christ” taken out of Christmas. At the same time, Muslim and Sikh holidays have been elevated to the highest level of multicultural sensibility.
Is it therefore reasonable to say that multicultural policy is largely responsible for a cultural “inversion” unprecedented in the history of our country?   Questions therefore arise- has multicultural policy become a tool to promote all ethnicities except that of Canadians of European heritage? What will happen come 2031…will caucasians be the only minority without the ability to promote their ethnicity? Will their behaviour as a minority community still be labelled as oppressive when they attempt to establish an identity for themselves within our multi-ethnic society? Are there special interest organizations and individuals who would prefer this be the case? After three decades of personal involvement and education on these matters, my answer to the latter question is yes.

Let’s face the facts: the multicultural ideal originally put forth by Pierre Trudeau no longer exists. Toward the end of his life, when asked his feelings on multiculturalism during a parliamentary visit, Trudeau indicated his sadness, stating that “this was not what he wanted”. In 2015, it is apparent that what was once a policy is today an INDUSTRY, comprised of multicultural organizations, civil libertarians, legal professionals, Charter of Rights advocates and immigration consultants- not to mention our top post-secondary institutions. 

Those of us who have been around a while may recall a time in our history when things were very different. During the “cold war” of the 1950’s, Russian-style communism was presented by government and media as a danger to society, capable of undermining the freedom and democratic rule so cherished by our nation. In the 1960’s, a wave of anti-Americanism swept through Canadian society. Events such as the Vietnam War stimulated a desire for a separate identity from our neighbours to the south. Our federal government, sensing public discontent, launched a program entitled the Royal Commission on Arts, Letters and Sciences to analyze “the degree of English-Canadian dependence on the United States”. 

Fast forward to 2015. Today, we find our government bending over backwards to ingratiate the desires of communist governments, and their economic interests. Trade deals, foreign currency hubs, foreign student programs, foreign worker programs, funding for pro-communist university departments. Foreign language advertising and signage has permeated some communities to the degree that they no longer appear Canadian. Our banks market in foreign languages, often without an English or French equivalent. Indeed, the situation is so extreme it often appears our government has greater concern for the well being of non-Canadians and foreign governments than for their own citizens.

Meanwhile, among the top source countries of our immigrants who provide the majority of our immigrants, all is culturally “status quo”. No government-enforced multiculturalism. No priority for foreign workers or students. In fact, all of Canada’s top immigrant source countries continue to retain their core identities, as they have for centuries, or even millennia. Only Canada, as well as Australia, are constitutionally mandated for the very fabric of their nations to undergo comprehensive cultural transformation. Just two nations out of slightly under two hundred countries in the world. In other words, only 1% of the world’s nations are truly multicultural. 

 From these facts we see that on an international level, multiculturalism is far from the norm. In reality, it is barely on the map. Furthermore, the Canadian public has never endorsed or given consent to this transformative policy. Clearly, it’s implementation is non-democratic. 
On this basis, and considering current societal prohibition of European-Canadian identity, how long will it be before the founding English and French Canadian populations of our nation are relegated to the periphery of society?  One generation. At present immigration rates, that’s all it is going to take. Yes indeed, the times they are a ‘changin. 

by b. salzberg, (c)  2015'

 

With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious this unprecedented policy was a major game-changer. To this day, it is arguable the majority of Canadians are unaware of the policy’s full impact, and its implications for the future of our country.

One significant but largely overlooked factor is to be found in the area of funding. The Act explicitly states that ethnic cultural organizations are to receive government funding for the promotion of cultural events, language and holidays.

 

In practical terms, this scenario played out whereby the largest and best organized ethnic communities received the lion’s share of the funding. Basically, it was a “snooze and you loose” situation. Indeed, many non-profit groups hit the snooze button. The outcome was an inequitable distribution of funding, with a few select communities receiving tens of millions, and smaller communities receiving little, or nothing.

 

Times change. Demographics change, and no where in the world has this change been more profound than in Canada, a nation with the highest per-capita immigration rate in the world. Interestingly, until Australia adopted constitutional multiculturalism, Canada was also the only nation in the world with official multiculturalism. Pretty special, yet in all the excitement and fanfare, few seemed to notice or care that the general public had no input in the implementation of the policy. The public did not ask for or endorse this policy in any manner. It was a purely unilateral government decision, entirely devoid of the democratic process.

Only with the dawning of the 21st century did the true impact of this policy begin to reveal itself. With mass immigration transforming the ethnic make-up of our nation, the demographic change became increasingly profound. In 2012, a Statistics Canada study pronounced that caucasians will become a minority in Toronto and Vancouver by 2031.

 

As a result, Canadians of European origin today find themselves in a curious situation. Our government says white Canadians are headed for minority status, yet as an identifiable group, this diminishing segment of Canadian society lack a defined communal identity. This is all quite understandable, as in the past there was no need to even consider the issue of identity. Historically, Euro-Canadians were a well entrenched majority, and there was no reason to believe this would change, at least not to the degree that a re-thinking of identity would be necessary.

 

Multiculturalism mandates that minority groups have the right to promote their ethnicity, and to receive money to do so. We see this manifested, for example, in Vancouver’s two week celebration of Chinese New Year, complete with taxpayer-funded social events, dragon parades, and colourful community centre displays. The Viksaiki parade, largely government funded, is the largest festival of the year in Surrey, B.C., a city with a population on par with the municipality of Vancouver.

Let’s be frank- present-day multiculturalism has resulted in a number of oddities, inequities, and downright curiosities. Our society has arrived at a situation whereby the white Canadian are a “pending” minority, yet they lack in a communal voice or identity. When attempts have been made to create an identity on par with our larger “minority” communities, these actions are met with cries of xenophobia, racism, and other nastiness.

 

Why the double standard? How did we arrive at a situation where the only identifiable group prevented from organizing, receiving funding, and promoting their traditions are those whose ancestors founded our country? Take the holiday of Christmas for example. Within contemporary society, the religious components of our biggest holiday are disappearing- basically, politically correct forces want the “Christ” taken out of Christmas. At the same time, Muslim and Sikh holidays have been elevated to the highest level of multicultural sensibility.

Is it therefore reasonable to say that multicultural policy is largely responsible for a cultural “inversion” unprecedented in the history of our country?   Questions therefore arise- has multicultural policy become a tool to promote all ethnicities except that of Canadians of European heritage? What will happen come 2031…will caucasians be the only minority without the ability to promote their ethnicity? Will their behaviour as a minority community still be labelled as oppressive when they attempt to establish an identity for themselves within our multi-ethnic society? Are there special interest organizations and individuals who would prefer this be the case? After three decades of personal involvement and education on these matters, my answer to the latter question is yes.

 

Let’s face the facts: the multicultural ideal originally put forth by Pierre Trudeau no longer exists. Toward the end of his life, when asked his feelings on multiculturalism during a parliamentary visit, Trudeau indicated his sadness, stating that “this was not what he wanted”. In 2015, it is apparent that what was once a policy is today an INDUSTRY, comprised of multicultural organizations, civil libertarians, legal professionals, Charter of Rights advocates and immigration consultants- not to mention our top post-secondary institutions.

 

Those of us who have been around a while may recall a time in our history when things were very different. During the “cold war” of the 1950’s, Russian-style communism was presented by government and media as a danger to society, capable of undermining the freedom and democratic rule so cherished by our nation. In the 1960’s, a wave of anti-Americanism swept through Canadian society. Events such as the Vietnam War stimulated a desire for a separate identity from our neighbours to the south. Our federal government, sensing public discontent, launched a program entitled the Royal Commission on Arts, Letters and Sciences to analyze “the degree of English-Canadian dependence on the United States”.

 

Fast forward to 2015. Today, we find our government bending over backwards to ingratiate the desires of communist governments, and their economic interests. Trade deals, foreign currency hubs, foreign student programs, foreign worker programs, funding for pro-communist university departments. Foreign language advertising and signage has permeated some communities to the degree that they no longer appear Canadian. Our banks market in foreign languages, often without an English or French equivalent. Indeed, the situation is so extreme it often appears our government has greater concern for the well being of non-Canadians and foreign governments than for their own citizens.

 

Meanwhile, among the top source countries of our immigrants who provide the majority of our immigrants, all is culturally “status quo”. No government-enforced multiculturalism. No priority for foreign workers or students. In fact, all of Canada’s top immigrant source countries continue to retain their core identities, as they have for centuries, or even millennia. Only Canada, as well as Australia, are constitutionally mandated for the very fabric of their nations to undergo comprehensive cultural transformation. Just two nations out of slightly under two hundred countries in the world. In other words, only 1% of the world’s nations are truly multicultural.

 

From these facts we see that on an international level, multiculturalism is far from the norm. In reality, it is barely on the map. Furthermore, the Canadian public has never endorsed or given consent to this transformative policy. Clearly, it’s implementation is non-democratic.

On this basis, and considering current societal prohibition of European-Canadian identity, how long will it be before the founding English and French Canadian populations of our nation are relegated to the periphery of society?  One generation. At present immigration rates, that’s all it is going to take. Yes indeed, the times they are a ‘changin.

 

  

by b. salzberg, (c)  2015