Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

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.

The Three Stooges Talk Nonsense While Trump Provides Leadership in Fighting Terrorism

Posted on by

The Three Stooges Talk Nonsense While Trump Provides Leadership in Fighting Terrorism

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling

STEVEN BLANEY, AN ENCOURAGING VOICE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

Posted on by
STEVEN BLANEY, AN ENCOURAGING VOICE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
 
Hello,

Yesterday, The Toronto Sun published an editorial by renown editorialist Candice Malcolm which praises Steven Blaney’s proposed plan on national security and immigration.

According to her: “Steven Blaney on the national security front — deserve special recognition for their bold leadership and proposals to get Canada back on the right track.

We’re glad to take compliments when they come, especially from someone known for tackling sensitive issues with courage and audacity.

This is what she wrote:

When it comes to national security, Quebec MP and former federal public safety minister Steven Blaney provides a reality check to counter Trudeau’s open-border naivety.

Far from cowering to political correctness, Blaney’s no-nonsense approach to immigration and security is exactly what Canada needs.

From his sensible proposal to stop illegal immigration across the U.S. border, to his commitment to the integration of newcomers, rather than hands-off mass migration, these policies would help restore the integrity of our immigration system.

Unlike most politicians, Blaney understands Canada’s natural advantages are being undermined by Trudeau’s gullible approach to immigration and security.

All Canadians must remain vigilant to the threats we face and, like Blaney, should refuse to be silenced by the politically correct liberal mob.

Canada is the best country in the world and common sense, conservative values and ideas are needed now more than ever to ensure we remain strong and free.

Candice Malcolm is right. Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are cunningly leading us to a slow death, like a frog which boils to death without noticing its once cold water is heating up.

If like me you care about preserving Canada’s natural advantages, send a clear message by marking Steven Blaney as your first choice on your ballot and by donating $10 to our campaign by clicking the button below so that he can continue his fight to put Canada back on track.

Thank you Candice for saying out loud what many people are afraid to say!

Pierre-Luc Jean
Campaign Manager

Donate $10

Steven Blaney Campaign

1264 rue des Grenats, Levis, QC, G6W7M5

If you are no longer interested, you can unsubscribe instantly

EMAIL VIA MAILGET

 

Refugee Claimants Receive VIP Version of Canadian Healthcare Services

Posted on by
Refugee Claimants Receive VIP Version of Canadian Healthcare Services
 
By Louise McNeil

​​​​According to the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and United States, “refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they have qualified for an exception to the agreement.”

Because the recent border crossers in Manitoba and Quebec obviously came from the U.S. and have traveled through the United States, the important question is this : What are these refugee claimants doing in Canada? They should have been returned to the U.S. In fact, unless they can prove that they did not come from the U.S., they should have been returned to the U.S. almost immediately. In my view, by not returning these border crossers to the U.S., Justin Trudeau has violated the Canada–U.S. Safe Country agreement. His motive : to import as many votes as possible.

Furthermore, at least some of these border crossers have claimed refugee status in the U.S. For those claimants whom the U.S. has not yet rejected, the U.S. process should be allowed to take its course and those border crossers should be in the U.S. as the process continues. For those whom the U.S. has already rejected, Canada should not waste its time processing.

Trudeau takes his direction from George Soros, the multi-billionaire who supports civil unrest in many countries and believes in open borders.

At the end of the day, Canadian authorities will refuse many of the refugee claims and the claimants will be sent back to the United States. Trudeau is aware of this but simply can’t avoid grandstanding as the protector of the world’s so-called “persecuted”. I believe he is victimizing the refugee claimants further by offering them false hope to stay in Canada.

In the meantime, Canadians are responsible for providing free services (health care and other) to those with refugee claims as they move through Canada’s refugee system. 

On March 22, 2016 Stephanie Levitz of Canadian Press wrote that the total cost of the Syrian Refugee Program may cost up to $1 Billion to resettle 25,000 government assisted refugees. According to The National Post, the Syrian Refugee programme cost is closer to $1.2 billion. As of 2016 the budgeted cost of the Interim Federal Health Program is $51 million. 

Specifically, Canada’s Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) has to provide health care to recent border crossers as well as to protected persons such as resettled refugees, rejected claimants, and immigration detainees, along with other groups identified by the minister.

That means that the border crossers and those in other categories will receive free health care until they become permanent residents or until they leave of their own accord or are forced to leave once their case is denied by the Refugee Appeal Department (RAD) and/or Supreme court. An average case can last from two to five years. Some last upwards of ten years or more. During this time, Canadians have to pay for the cost of health care provided to anyone claiming refugee status, regardless of whether the claims are false.

The following is a description of the health services refugee claimants receive : in-patient and out-patient hospital services such as services from medical doctors, registered nurses and other health-care professionals licensed in Canada. These services include pre- and post-natal care ; laboratory, diagnostic and ambulance services.

Refugee claimants can also receive Supplemental coverage such as limited vision and urgent dental care ; home care and long-term care ; services from allied health-care practitioners including clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, counselling therapists, occupational therapists, speech language therapists and physiotherapists.

In addition, they can obtain assistive devices, medical supplies and equipment, including orthopedic and prosthetic equipment. The equipment includes such things as mobility aids, hearing aids, diabetic supplies, incontinence supplies and oxygen equipment.

Canada’s Interim health-care programme also provides prescription drug coverage (most prescription medications and other products listed on provincial/territorial public drug plan formularies).

Finally, Canada’s Interim Health plan pays for the cost of one Immigration Medical Exam (IME), and IME-related diagnostic tests required under the Immigration Refugee Protection Act.

Since April 1st, 2017, refugees who are traveling from overseas refugee camps to Canada receive not just a free Medical examination required for immigration, but Vaccinations; Treatment of disease outbreaks in refugee camps; and Medical support during travel to Canada

Here is the question I have for all Canadians : WHAT’S IN YOUR HEALTHCARE? I suspect it’s nothing close to what refugee claimants are getting.

For sensible immigration policies for the 21st century.
See what’s happening on our social sites
Immigration Watch Canada P.O. Box 45075 Dunbar RPOVancouver , B.C. V6S 2M8 Canada 1-778-803-5522
www.ImmigrationWatchCanada.org

Trudeau Tells Us Multiculturalism Must Go From “Tolerance” to “Acceptance” — Hell, No!

Posted on by

Politicians in Dress Up Beyond Shameless in Sikh Parade

Posted on by

 

Politicians in Dress Up Beyond Shameless in Sikh Parade

Who is that guy in the saffron do rag standing on the podium? Why it’s Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

 
Inline image 3
 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the speakers at the 2017 Khalsa Day Parade. (Martin Trainor/CBC)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inline image 2And who is that other guy, also with a saffron do rag and a huge saffron clown tie posing for selfies with some men in turbans? It’s none other than John Tory Mayor of Toronto.
 
The CBC (April 30, 2017) reported: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Kathleen Wynne and Mayor John Tory joined thousands in Toronto today in celebrating the 39th annual Khalsa Day Parade.

Held in commemoration of the Sikh new year, the Khalsa order of Sikhism and the end of Sikh heritage month, this year’s event also celebrated the 350th anniversary of the birth of Sikh Guru Gobind Singh.”

Not to be unkind, but is there a European Heritage Month or a Christian Heritage Month? Didn’t think so.

The CBC report continued: “In addition to appearing at the event, the prime minister also spoke to the revellers and celebrated diversity in Canada

“This is just a wonderful time to celebrate the fact that Canada is a country that is strong not in spite of our differences but because of our differences,” Prime Minister Trudeau said.

The mayor also built on the theme of diversity when he spoke to the crowd.

“The city embraces and celebrates what is good in every faith and every culture,” Tory said. “Diversity has helped build a society that is as harmonious as it is diverse.”

For all the blather about the joys of diversity would these politicians join or celebrate a European Heritage or White Pride event? Of course not. Only privileged minorities merit this attention.

And as for the dress up? Why must some politicians parade around as degraded clowns? Why not attend the event, if they must, dressed respectfully and respectably in a business suit and shirt and tie?

Definition of a Canadian Conservative

Posted on by

Definition of a Canadian Conservative

by Tim Murray

Jason Kenney
Jason Kenney, self-proclaimed “conservative”

ACanadian Conservative is a Liberal who drags his heels. If you want to create a Conservative, just grab a Liberal and wait 5 years.

These cucks are:

  • Pro mass immigration
  • Pro mass Muslim immigration
  • Pro multiculturalism
  • Pro free trade
  • Pro abortion on demand
  • Pro gay marriage
  • Pro gay adoption
  • Pride Day participants
  • Against re-opening a debate on the death penalty
  • Against doing anything meaningful or substantial that would make the CBC accountable, cut it down to size or privatize it.
  • Afraid to restore free speech to universities or establish a Bill of Rights for students which would guarantee their right to listen to different points of view.
  • Afraid to tell the truth about Islam. Afraid to admit Muslims cannot “integrate.” Afraid to state that no religion or ideology or set of ideas warrants immunity from criticism.
  • Afraid to alienate Muslim voters. Or feminists. Or the LGBT lobby. And seemingly afraid of their own shadow.

They are cowards, frauds, pretenders, and opportunists. Traitors of the worst kind.

Justin Trudeau’s idiocy and superficiality is manifest. We know what he is and where he wants to take us. But Conservatives attempt to convince us that they offer an alternative. Bullshit.

The worst enemy you can have is the enemy who poses as your friend and advocate. He’s the one who will stab you in the back every time. No one fits that description better than future Conservative leader and ethnic ass-kisser par excellence, Jason Kenny, who is a master at this game. I will be damned if I vote for him just to get rid of Justin. Choosing the lesser-of-two-evils is a mug’s game. All you do is guarantine the permanent reign of evil. Unless people vote for what they believe in, rather vote against what they believe in, we are lost.

Canada doesn’t need five centre-left parties. What it needs, what we need, is a populist party that puts Canadians first. And for such a party to get off the ground, we need proportional representation. If we can get just 5% of the vote, then we are off to the races. We can grow our support just like the Sweden Democrats and the AfD have. Imagine if 25% of MPs gave voice to our beliefs and championed our cause. The political class would have a panic attack.

Trudeau on Muslim prayer in schools: Canadians have to move ‘beyond mere tolerance towards acceptance’

Posted on by

Trudeau on Muslim prayer in schools: Canadians have to move ‘beyond mere tolerance towards acceptance’

 
Don’t kid yourself, the Trust Fund Kid did not dream this idea up himself. He is a shill for bigger interests. He’s no deep thinker. This is now mainstream Cultural Marxist multiculturalism dogma: We must go beyond tolerance to acceptance
 
A blueprint for this dangerous suicidal nonsense can be found in an article by Sonia Nieto “Affirmation, Solidarity and Critique: Moving Beyond Tolerance in Multicultural Education”. (Multicultural Education, Spring, 1994) This poison has been around for a long time. Nieto wrote; “The four levels to be considered are tolerance; acceptance; respect and finally affirmation, solidarity and critique.”
 
Meddling in a local education issue in my county, Peel, Trudeau preaches that we must not just tolerate the Moslems, we must accept and embrace them. I was still teaching in Peel in 1994 when schools suddenly abolished Christmas assemblies. We had to be more “inclusive”. So, we became inclusive by excluding ourselves, the Christian majority and many others who, although not practising Christians, celebrated Christmas as a secular holiday.
 
On April 23, 2017, the CBC reported Trudeau saying: “We of course need to continue to work to ensure that everyone understands that respecting the neighbors, that moving beyond mere tolerance towards acceptance and friendship is the path that Canada needs to continue on.”
Well, hell no! 
For one thing, Canadians were never consulted about demographic changes, about bringing in large numbers of radically different people from cultures often hostile to our own. We may have to tolerate the practice of cultures and faiths we find weird or repugnant but we can never be made to “accept” or “feel solidarity” with ideas and practices we find alien, objectionable or just plain nonsense.
How an I accept a religion that sees its people as the “Chosen People”,  making the rest of us Unchosen? I cannot and will not accept that or feel solidarity.
How can I accept a religion that says there is no God but Allah and whose Scriptures celebrate marital sex with little children and condone lying to non-Moslems  (taqiyya) to advance the cause of Islam? [“There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.” — What Makes Islam So Different]
In fact, to follow this suicidal prescription would be to “accept” religious or cultural views of religions that often contradict and oppose each other. We enter into a world of dangerous madness.
Multiculturalism is a form of confusion and insanity.
Further, to insist on “acceptance” of others is to further limit free speech. What I object to or wish to criticize another privileged ethic, racial or religious group? If I must not just tolerate but “accept” them, then I must suppress my own objections or beliefs. Or, perhaps, the all-intrusive state will do it for me.
Pamela Geller continues the story below.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

30
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+

Acceptance. Acceptance of Sharia supremacists brutalizing women who don’t wear hijab. Acceptance of rampant female genital mutilation. Acceptance of never knowing when you leave your house if you will return, or be the latest casualty of the latest jihad massacre. Acceptance. Surrender.

“Trudeau: Canadians have to move ‘beyond mere tolerance towards acceptance’”, CIJ News, April 19, 2017:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently weighed in on the heated debate over the Friday prayers for Muslim students in public schools in the Peel District School Board (PDSB).

Trudeau reiterated that Canadians should behave “beyond tolerance towards acceptance and friendship” with other fellow citizens from all faiths and cultures. In this regard, Trudeau said the following (CBC report – 04:23-04:41):

We of course need to continue to work to ensure that everyone understands that respecting the neighbors, that moving beyond mere tolerance towards acceptance and friendship is the path that Canada needs to continue on.

Speaking with reporters in Sudbury, Ont, on August 22, 2016, after attending a two-day retreat with members of his cabinet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau presented his belief in multiculturalism based on a tolerant approach towards other cultures and choices individuals are making in accordance to their faith.

The following is Trudeau’s answer to a question regarding the integration of Muslims in the Canadian society (originally in French):

“There are countries in the world where tolerance is essential. You have to be tolerant towards your neighbors. I think in Canada we should go beyond tolerance, being tolerant is accepting some people, but you don’t want to be too bothered, but you have to have an openness, comprehension, understanding, and this is what do we are aiming for, this is what we see every day when we see diverse communities enriched by their communities. This is what they have to aim for. Obviously there are small controversies here and there. We will continue to have those, but I think that the respect for rights and the choices of individuals has to be central to our public debate.”
To watch the press conference click here.

In a videotaped message, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invites Canadians to watch CBC’s series “Canada: The Story of Us” which “packs more than 400 years of Canadian history” and “presents “Canada’s history as you’ve never seen it before.”

The following is Trudeau’s message as posted by CBC on March 27, 2017:

“Welcome. Tonight, and throughout the series, we meet some of the extraordinary women and men who’ve shaped our country’s unique character. Perhaps no country has been as successful in finding its strength through cooperation and its identity through acceptance and respect. For generations, we’ve come together, bridging cultures and communities to seek a more hopeful future for all. And that’s not to say Canada’s history is perfect. It’s not. There are dark chapters in our past that we’ve only begun to confront. But today we recognize the responsibilities inherited from past generations and entrusted to us by future ones. We know our success is built upon decades of hard work and rooted in Canada’s diversity. And we know that a strong, prosperous nation can be as united as it is diverse. I hope that, like me, you’ll be inspired by these heroic Canadians so that together we can write the next chapter in the Great Canadian Story.”

In his traditional greeting to the Reviving the Islamic Spirit in Toronto (December 23-25, 2016), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau commended the Muslim community for its contributions to Canada, reiterated his commitment to combat Islamophobia and politics of hate and division and said that Islam shares Canadian values of empathy, generosity, acceptance and respect.

The following is the transcript of Trudeau’s statement…

“Thank you for this opportunity to share a few words with you. This year, we celebrate our 150 anniversary which is a testament to the dedication and hard work of many organizers and volunteers. Today, we come together as friends celebrating common values that unite us all, values like empathy, generosity, acceptance and respect. These are tenets of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, vital principles on which Canada is found. As prime minister, I want to make sure my actions and words reflect the what brings Canadians together. So let me be clear, Canada is stronger because of the contributions of its Muslim community. We are stronger because of you. And that’s why every day we just chose hope over fear and stand up to the politics of hate and division. That is why our government supports initiatives that encourage inclusion and equality, combats Islamophobia and strengthens the protection of our civil rights… [French] Thank you very much for being here. May peace and blessing be upon you.”

In an interview with the CBC on January 31, 2016, Trudeau said:

“We need to make sure that we’re working with communities like the Muslim community for example to demonstrate that Islam is not incompatible with free and open Western societies.”

Canadian Imam contradicts Trudeau: “Islam will never become a part of liberal secularism”……..

The Conservative Leadership Race

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

The Conservative Leadership Race

As one whose lifelong Toryism is a matter of principle and conviction rather than partisan allegiance the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada has been of only tertiary interest, if that, to me. The party has compromised, sold-out, and otherwise betrayed the principles and ideals to which its name alludes time and time again.

Unfortunately, while the Conservatives cannot be trusted to live up to their own principles you can always count on the Grits to live down to our worst expectations of them as they do everything in their power to impose the latest version of their ever-changing insane ideology upon our country while feathering their nests, enhancing their power, and displaying the utmost arrogance and contempt for ordinary Canadians. The Liberal Party of Canada began its sordid existence as the party advocating selling out the heritage of honour and loyalty upon which our country was built for filthy American lucre and has spent a century and a half trying to undo Confederation, strip us of our traditions and legacy, rob us of our rights and freedoms and turn Canada into a pathetic, third-world, police state that hides the sheer nastiness of its politically correct oppressiveness behind a thin outward veneer of toxic niceness. Now, under the leadership of an intolerably arrogant, empty-headed and black-hearted coxcomb, the Grits have placed an onerous debt burden upon the backs of future generations of Canadians for centuries to come with their present extravagance, taken a gigantic first step towards the subjection of Christians, Jews, and all other non-Muslim Canadians to dhimmitude by passing, against widespread objection, a motion condemning Islamophobia, while seeking to shove the most recent gender insanity down all of our throats and, in complete disregard for the safety, well-being, and wishes of Canadians, thrown out the welcome mat to all those who pose enough of a security risk to be rejected as immigrants and asylum-seekers by our southern neighbour.

Therefore, while it is too much to hope that the Conservatives, returned to power, would actually put Tory principles into practice in their governance, such a return is to be wished if for no other reason than to rid the country of the disastrous misrule of the vile and loathsome gang of miscreants presently holding office. For a number of reasons – several decades worth of neglect in the teaching of Canadian civics in our schools and our having been swamped by Yankee pop culture in the same period being the chief two – the Canadian electorate treats our general elections as if they were the equivalent of American presidential contests and votes according to who the party leader is. Who the leader is, therefore, matters and so this race demands our attention.

Sadly, the quantity of the candidates seeking the leadership is far more impressive than the quality. Indeed, it is much easier to decide which candidates ought not to be allowed anywhere near the leadership than to pick one who stands out as deserving to win. Foremost among these is Kevin O’Leary. The Dragon’s Den star has been compared to American President Donald Trump but the comparison is cosmetic and superficial and has nothing to do with policy matters. O’Leary is a free trader and an immigration enthusiast, as well as being the most socially liberal candidate to ever seek the Tory leadership. He is most like Donald Trump in his personality – in his policies he is much closer to Justin Trudeau. It is hard to imagine a worse combination in a prospective Conservative leader.

The other Irishman, Erin O’Toole is also disqualified in my books. A Kisaragi Colour, the founder of the blog The Maple Monarchists, has surveyed the leadership candidates on their views of Canada’s constitutional monarchy. All who replied, either personally or through their staff, indicated their support of the institution to some degree or another, except O’Toole and Lisa Raitt, both of whom declined to indicate their position. This is a disqualifier. Royalism is a sine qua non of Canadian conservatism and someone who refuses to commit publicly to support of the monarchy has no business even running as a Conservative candidate much less for the leadership.

If the leadership were to be decided on that sole issue alone, Andrew Scheer would clearly be the best candidate as he indicated the most enthusiastic support for the royal institution by far of all the candidates in his response.

There are other issues to be considered, however, and here things become complicated because different candidates stand out as being the strongest on different sets of issues.

Take “social conservatism” for example. This commonly denotes the sort of moral and social positions that evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox, and other religious conservatives would support. This would include being pro-life, i.e., opposed to abortion and euthanasia, a supporter of traditional one man/one woman marriage, and an opponent of the alphabet soup gang agenda, of feminism, and often of the legalization of recreational drugs such as marijuana. For a couple of decades the conventional wisdom has been that no party running on a socially conservative platform stood a chance of winning because Canadians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. In fact the opposite is the case. Opposition to moral and social breakdown will always be more popular than tightening the purse strings and anybody with an ounce of sense knows that. The conventional wisdom exists to browbeat the major parties into not putting it to the test by running a socially conservative campaign. On social conservatism, the strongest of the candidates would be Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-University. Trost is an evangelical Christian, who has been outspoken on socially conservative issues throughout his political career, and who has opposed the shift towards social liberalism taken by the party under the interim leadership of Rona Ambrose.

On culture and immigration there is no good candidate. A good candidate would be one who takes the position that immigration, legal and illegal, should not be allowed to change the character of the country, that our government and not the immigrants themselves will select who is allowed in and that it will place the needs of our country first in doing so rather than those of the prospective immigrants, that we will not admit large numbers of either immigrants or refugees in periods of high unemployment and economic recession, that illegal immigration will not be tolerated and will result in the permanent disqualification of the queue-jumper for even legal immigration, and that our refugee admission policies need to be reformed to recognize the reality that the vast majority of asylum seekers are frauds. A good candidate would denounce the toxic cultural atmosphere of ethnomasochism and oikophobia that liberalism spent much of the last fifty years creating. No candidate dares to take this position, of course. The closest thing to it is Kellie Leitch, who is not close at all but who merely wants prospective immigrants to be screened for values that conflict with Canadian values, by which she means the values of the multicultural, feminist, progressive, liberal, left that has been denouncing her as a bigot for wanting newcomers to hold to their values. On this, as with social conservatism, a platform much further to the right that provided Canadians with a real alternative to liberalism for a change would garner much more support than the conventional wisdom would acknowledge.

On fiscal and economic policy if any of the candidates stands out it is probably Maxime Bernier.

Ideally, the next Conservative leader would be strong on all of these issues, but such a person does not appear to be present among the current candidates. Practically, the next leader will also have to be someone around whom the party can unite and who can generate enough popular support to oust the Liberals. Although this quality is harder to gauge, here too there is no name jumping off of the candidates list as the obvious choice.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever the Conservatives choose as their leader will win by default simply because everyone will finally be sick to death of Justin Trudeau.

Advice to Manitoba Premier Pallister : LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN PEOPLE. DO NOT IMITATE THE EXAMPLE OF TRUDEAU

Posted on by
Advice to Manitoba Premier Pallister : LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN PEOPLE. DO NOT IMITATE THE EXAMPLE OF TRUDEAU

Our advice to Manitoba Premier Pallister : LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN PEOPLE. DO NOT IMITATE THE EXAMPLE OF TRUDEAU.

The government of Manitoba is currently experiencing a flood of refugee claimants on its border with the U.S. Well over 500 have entered and the possibility of thousands more looms. To deal with this issue, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has just announced that his government will provide financing for 14 new housing units. His announcement is naive and shows that he has been duped by the immigration lobby. Instead of catering to them, he should be pressuring back-boneless Trudeau to stop the inflow. Several months ago, Trudeau should have given orders to return these fake refugee claimants to the U.S. Instead he announced that Canada would welcome them.

 

Our advice to Premier Pallister is this : LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN PEOPLE. DO NOT IMITATE THE EXAMPLE OF TRUDEAU.

Inline image 1

Financing housing units for fake refugees will divert scarce resources from the needy populations of Winnipeg and the rest of Manitoba.

According to a University of Winnipeg report, about 135,000 of the population of Winnipeg (Canada’s seventh largest city) is at risk of becoming homeless. Winnipeg itself has 7600 `hidden’ homeless, 1,915 short-term or crisis sheltered people and 350 living on the streets.

Currently, the government of Manitoba is unable to look after the homeless in its own capital.

We give the same advice to other provincial premiers (especially Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne) and to the gross hypocrites on the municipal councils of Toronto, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal and other so-called “sanctuary” cities. Looking after people who call themselves refugees may give Canada’s useful “municipal idiots” some temporary noble and heroic delusions. It will definitely win them congratulations from the immigration lobby who are constantly looking for fools to support them.

But the “useful idiots” should remember that the immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, immigration consultants and ethnic advocates) consists of the foulest-smelling sludge in the immigration advocacy cesspool. Most of the lobby pretend to be protectors of the world’s persecuted, but they do what they do to maintain their jobs, increase their personal financial gain and to betray Canada. As for their clients, most of them are here to plunder Canada.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For details of the University of Winnipeg report, see https://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/news-homeless-facts

_______________________