Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

The Canadian Left Apes the Americans Yet Again

Posted on by

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

The Canadian Left Apes the Americans Yet Again

On Monday, the twenty-first of February, even though the border blockades had been removed – they were in the process of being removed at the very moment the Emergency Measures Acts was invoked the week prior – and the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa had been dispersed over the weekend through an ugly display of police state brutality that is utterly out of place in a Commonwealth Realm and has tarnished Canada’s reputation, Captain Airhead nevertheless managed to get enough votes in the House of Commons to confirm his use of the EMA.   Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservatives, voted against the confirmation, as did the Lower Canadian separatists, but the Liberals all voted for it as did Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists.  The latter compromised the historical principles of their party to do so.  In 1970 they had been the only party in Parliament to take a principled stand against the War Measures Act when Captain Airhead’s father had invoked it in an actual emergency (bombs, kidnapping, murder, that sort of thing).   In 2022 they propped up the government in using the Emergency Measures Act against a peaceful, working-class, protest, despite warnings from retired members of the NDP old guard, like Svend Robinson, that they were throwing their legacy away in doing so.   

In the debate leading up to the vote, Captain Airhead and the other ministers of the government were repeatedly asked why they were still taking this to a vote even though the protest was over.   No convincing answer was provided.  The House was told that there was still an emergency, that they would just have to trust the government, and that how they voted would reflect whether they did so trust the government or not.   This was how the Prime Minister and Mr. Dhaliwal cracked the whip on their caucuses to prevent members from breaking ranks.   The implication was that it was a confidence vote, which if the government lost would dissolve Parliament, leading to an immediate new Dominion election – less than half a year after the last one – in which the leaders could punish dissenters by not signing their candidacy papers.

Two days after having thus given us his rendition of the role of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the Prime Minister revoked the Emergency Measures Act.    There was, of course, no more of an emergency on Monday than there was on Wednesday, nor had there ever been an emergency of the type that would justify the invoking of the Emergency Measures Act.    While we cannot know for certain what was going on in the empty space between Captain Airhead’s ears, we can be sure that it was not a sudden epiphany about the importance of respecting constitutional limits on government powers – he would have resigned immediately had that been the case – and that three factors likely had a significant role to play in his turnaround.   One of these is that he had taken a severe beating in the international press.   The second is that the Big Five – Canada’s largest banks – would have explained to the government how that forcing financial institutions to act as the government’s thought police undermines those institutions’ credibility, both domestic and international, and threatens the entire financial superstructure of the country, already weakened by years of reckless government financial policy.   The last, but not least, factor was that the government was losing the debate in the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.   This is not like a bill of legislation which gets sent back to the House if the Senate does not approve.   A vote against confirming the use of the Emergency Measures Act in the Senate, and the indicators all suggested that the Senate would vote against confirmation, would immediately revoke the Act.   Which would make things far more difficult for the Prime Minister in the official inquiry into his actions that must necessarily follow the use of the EMA than a voluntary withdrawal of the power.

There is a lot that could be said about how this episode provides further demonstration of many of the truths that I have written about over the years.   It demonstrates that democracy is not the same thing as either constitutionally limited government or personal freedom.   The Prime Minister asked the elected House of Commons to approve his inappropriate use of an Act giving him sweeping powers to trample over our freedoms in order to crush a peaceful protest and they did so.   It demonstrates that the Westminster System of Parliament is much more than a democracy.  It is an institution that has proven itself over time to be effective at protecting personal freedom and checking the excesses of government, even democratic government, and its unelected components have as much to do with making it work as the elected House.   It demonstrates that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolutely useless as a safeguard of personal rights and freedoms.   The Grit government insisted that its actions under the EMA would be consistent with the Charter.   If allowing the government to freeze bank accounts, a) without a court order and b) without liability or any civil recourse for those whose accounts are so frozen is consistent with the Charter, then the Charter is empty and meaningless.   A government that can do that is a government that recognizes no constitutional limitations. It demonstrates that Liberal Prime Ministers, especially those with the last name Trudeau, see democracy in terms of elected dictatorship.  

It also demonstrates that the Canadian Left is incapable of independent thought and borrows all of its bad ideas from the United States.

This has always been the case.   The Liberal Party, which began as the centre-left party that developed out of the pre-Confederation Reform movement, was, before being captured by the harder New Left in the 1960s, the party that envisioned Canada’s destiny in American terms.   It was the party that advocated for North American free trade for a century before the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney sold out their own legacy and signed the US-Canada Free Trade Deal.   It was the party that wanted greater economic, cultural, and political alignment between Canada and the United States.   Liberal theorists such as Goldwin Smith were arguing for formal union between the two countries as early as the 1890s.   The Liberal interpretation of Canadian history retold it as if it were simply a re-run of American history with the same goals accomplished by compromise and negotiation rather than war and bloodshed.   John Wesley Dafoe, a prominent exponent of this interpretation as well as the Liberal propagandist who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, entitled his fanciful view of our history Canada: An American Nation.

This looking to the United States for inspiration did not die out after the Liberal Party swung to the hard left.  When Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada in the late 1960s he exponentially expanded the welfare state.   His inspiration for this was Lyndon Johnson’s similar expansion of social programs in the United States.   LBJ had his “Great Society”, PET had his “Just Society”.   The Canadian social security net that  he so expanded had been similarly introduced in the late 1930s based on the model of FDR’s New Deal in the United States and given the same name.     In 1977, the Trudeau Liberals talked Parliament into passing the Canadian Human Rights Act.   This Act had nothing to do with human rights in the ordinary sense of basic rights belonging to all people that need protection against the power of the state.   It gave the state more power -power that government ought never to have – power to police the thoughts and motives of individual Canadians in their personal and business interactions with one another.   It declared “discrimination” to be against the law – not discrimination by the government but by private Canadians – made it a civilly liable offence with criminally punitive consequences, established an investigative body, the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints at the public expense and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to hear such complaints.   It was a system stacked against the accused, in complete contradiction of the principles the Canadian system of law and justice are based upon, and it became the means whereby the oppressive atmosphere of restricting thought and censoring speech known as political correctness escaped the confines of left-liberal academe where it had developed into the general culture which in turn allowed political correctness in academe to evolve into the more warped version of itself that exists today, wokeness, characterized not so much by self-censorship of thought and speech but by the silencing and destruction of others.   Pierre Trudeau modelled the Canadian Human Rights Act on an American law passed thirteen years earlier – the US Civil Rights Act.  Canada’s constitution is a mixture of the written and unwritten.   In 1982, Pierre Trudeau oversaw the patriation of the principle document of the written part so as to make it amendable by the Canadian Parliament and in the process prefixed to it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   The Charter, over the course of the last two years has been shown to be useless as a protection of Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms from governments, Dominion and provincial, determined not to let those rights and freedoms stand in the way of sweeping public health measures.   Over the past forty years, however, it has proven remarkably effecting at Americanizing our Supreme Court in the sense of empowering it to overturn local laws, customs, and traditions older than Confederation and to secularize public schools (In the last decade or so left-liberal commentators have taken to speaking without irony of Canada’s tradition of “separation of church and state” when we have no such tradition, separation of the two being a distinguishing trait of the American tradition).    The Charter, in other words, has all of the negatives and few if any of the positives, of the document Pierre Trudeau looked to for inspiration – the American Bill of Rights.

Now consider the response of the Canadian Left – the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, Jimmy Dhaliwal and the socialist party, the legacy media public and private – to the Freedom Convoy.    From their initial response as the trucks were heading towards Ottawa, through their commentary on the weeks long demonstrations, and their claims as the Emergency Measures Act was invoked and an ugly, militarized, police force were sent in to trample elderly women with horses, arrest protestors at gun point, beat people with batons and otherwise behave like the lowlife criminal thugs from whose ranks modern police are sadly often recruited, they have regurgitated every bit of the craziness that began afflicting the American Left in the United States’ 2016 presidential election. 

In 2016, Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth and lost the election by accusing the populist, Middle American, supporters of her opponent, Republican candidate Donald the Orange of being a “basket of deplorables” and threw every imaginable pejorative “ist” and “phobe” at them.    You can hear the echo of that in Captain Airhead’s now infamous remarks about the “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”,    When Clinton lost the election she then blamed her loss on Russian interference.

This is parenthetical but timely given the international events that have drawn everyone’s attention away from Captain Airhead’s vile actions, but notice how the same people who back in the Cold War used to accuse anyone who suggested that the Communist regime in the Soviet Union could not be trusted, was working to undermine constitutional government and freedom so as to enslave the world, and had spies everywhere of being paranoid “McCarthyites” started talking the exact same way themselves when the USSR was gone and Russia was Russia again.    Whatever one might think of Vladimir Putin, the present crisis is the result of a little over two decades worth of incredibly bad American policy towards post-Soviet Russia.    Their giving their support to every group wishing to secede from post-Soviet Russia and extending NATO membership to these countries in a period when NATO should have been contracting after the collapse of the Soviet regime and in a way that brought NATO ever closer to Russia’s doorstep – the expansion of NATO’s involvement in Ukraine and vice-versa is the immediate issue – was needlessly insulting and provocative to post-Soviet Russia. Nor was support for the coup about eight years ago in which a Russia-friendly elected Ukrainian government was overthrown in an armed coup that replaced it with a US-NATO puppet government in Kiev and placed de facto control of much of the country in the hands of Banderites (1) exactly helpful.   By doing these things, American governments, usually those led by left-liberal Democrats like Clinton, Obama and Biden, created the conditions that produced the present conflict.  

Just as Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on the Russians in 2016 – her claims have been long since thoroughly debunked – so a CBC commentator claimed with a straight face that the Russians were behind the Freedom Convoy.    The government in justifying its crackdown on the protesters maintained that the Freedom Convoy was backed by foreign funds, the implication being that a foreign government or some foreign organization hostile to the Canadian government was dumping huge amounts of money into it.   The further implication was that the money was coming from either Russia, some extremist group in the United States, or both.   FINTRAC has since demonstrated these claims to be nonsense.   The money supporting the protest came from good faith donors in Canada and abroad who supported the Convoy’s cause – the end of the public health restrictions and mandates that have severely curtailed basic personal rights and freedoms for the last two years.

The remainder of the insane and unsubstantiated allegations hurled against the truckers by the Liberal government, Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists, and the legacy media have been completely plagiarized from the American loony Left’s response to the incident that took place in Washington DC on the Feast of Epiphany last year.   As you might recall, that was the date on which Congress was scheduled to confirm the results of the previous year’s presidential election.   That morning, the incumbent president Donald the Orange, who was challenging the results, held a rally of his supporters.   A fraction of his supporters entered the Capitol building and it was treated as if it was an insurrection, an attempt to violently overthrow the American government and overturn the results of the election.   This was an extremely hyperbolic interpretation of what had actually happened – most of the participants, who rather atypical of insurrectionists were generally unarmed, seemed to be there to take selfies as if they were American versions of Captain Airhead.    It arose out of the paranoia about a supposed “far right” threat to American democracy which had been observably growing on the American left ever since the Charlottesville rally of three and a half years prior had drawn their attention to the fact that their ongoing campaign to tear down monuments, vilify admired historical figures, re-write the past in accordance with their present narrow obsessions about race, sex, and gender, and silence anyone who complains about all of this through the thuggish behaviour of Antifa thought enforcers was meeting with resistance and pushback.   As over-the-top as the American Left’s interpretation of the actual events of the sixth of January was, the Canadian Left’s attempt to impose this same interpretation on the Freedom Convoy is that much more removed from reality.   The Freedom Convoy protestors did not enter the Parliament buildings – they parked on the street in front and threw a block party – and clearly stated their intentions, which did not involve overthrowing the government, and they stuck to their single issue of personal, constitutionally protected, freedom.   Captain Airhead and the Canadian Left had far less on which to hang their accusations of insurrection, occupation, ideology-based extremism, and other such drivel against the truckers than Forgettable Joe Whatshisname and the American Left had for their identical charges against the Capitol Hill selfie-takers last year but they still tried to hammer that square peg into the round hole it so obviously did not fit.

There are many things that can be attributed to the Canadian Left.   Originality is not one of those things.   They should lay off imitating the Americans.   It never turns out well. 

(1)   Banderites take their name from Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who collaborated with the Third Reich in the Second World War.   In other words, they are in actuality the sort of people Captain Airhead and his followers have been falsely accusing the truckers of being.  The Azov Regiment, a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard formed in the 2014 coup, proudly displays its National Socialist ideology in its emblem which prominently features imagery borrowed from the Third Reich.   It is part of the regime that Barack Obama installed in the Ukraine and which is supported today by the same Captain Airhead who thinks that the presence of a single Nazi flag, one almost certainly being used ironically – i.e., to attribute that which the flag symbolizes to Captain Airhead – in a protest is sufficient to condemn the entire protest of thousands as being somehow Nazi and justify his use of excessive government power to crush it.   Captain Airhead’s deputy prime minister, a woman with the ability to appear both vacuous and Machiavellian at the same time, the granddaughter of the editor-in-chief of the Krakivs’ki Visti, a Ukrainian language Nazi propaganda tabloid that ran from 1940 to 1945, and the same woman who about a week ago was giggling to herself in glee at a press conference when asked about the plight of the Canadian families whose bank accounts she had frozen because they supported the truckers protesting for freedom posted to social media the other day, a picture of herself holding a scarf with the colours of the Banderite movement at a demonstration in support of Ukraine.    — Gerry T. Neal

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Kangaroo Court is Now in Session

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, June 17, 2021

The Kangaroo Court is Now in Session

The sixth of June is the anniversary of D-Day, the day, in 1944, when the Allied forces landed on the beach of Normandy and launched the offensive that would liberate Occupied Europe from the forces of Nazi Germany.  This year, on that date, something happened in the Upper Canadian city of London, which the government of the Dominion has declared to be an attack of an entirely different sort.  That evening a family was waiting to cross at an intersection, when a pickup truck ran into them.   One was killed on the spot, three later succumbed to the injuries they had sustained, a fifth was wounded but not fatally.

This would be a horrible occurrence, of course, under any circumstances.  It appears, however, that this was not just some terrible mishap where the driver lost control of his truck.  It seems to have been deliberate.    If this is indeed the case that makes it much worse because a crime is much worse than an accident.  I am speaking, obviously, about how the incident as a whole is to be evaluated.  The dead and wounded would have been no less dead and wounded in an equally fatal accident.

The London police very quickly announced that they were investigating this as a hate crime.   Indeed, the speed in which they made this announcement seems extremely irresponsible when we consider that virtually nothing in the way of evidence corroborating this interpretation of the incident has since been released.   This could be explained, perhaps, if the perpetrator, who soon after asked a taxi driver to call the police and thus essentially turned himself in, had confessed to being motivated by hate.   If this is the case, however, the police have not yet disclosed it.   From the facts that have been disclosed, the only apparent grounds for classifying it as a hate crime are the ethnicity and religion of the victims, who were Muslims and immigrants from Pakistan.

There are many who would say that just as a crime is worse than an accident, so a hate crime is worse than a regular crime.   I am not one of those.   There are basically two angles from which we can look at the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes.   The first is the angle of motive.   Viewed from this angle, the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes is that the former are motivated by prejudice – racial, religious, sexual, etc.- and the latter are not.   The second angle is the angle of the victim.   Viewed from this perspective, the distinction between hate crimes and regular crimes is that the victims of the former are members of racial, religious, or ethnic minorities, women, or something other than heterosexual and cisgender and the victims of the latter are not.  Viewed either way, however, the idea that a hate crime is much worse than a regular crime is extremely problematic.

Is it worse to take somebody’s life because you don’t like the colour of his skin than to take his life because you want his wallet?  

If we answer this question with yes then we must be prepared to support that answer with a reason.   It is difficult to come up with one that can stand up well under cross-examination.   One could try arguing, perhaps, that the murder motivated by prejudice is worse than the murder committed in the act of robbing someone on the grounds that whereas prejudice is irrational, wanting someone else’s money if you have desperate need of it yourself, is not.   This runs contrary to long-established judicial precedent, however.   If a man is so irrational that he is considered to be insane this is grounds for a plea of not guilty in a court of law.   Conversely, the man who did not go out intending to kill someone but does so in the act of stealing his wallet can be charged with first-degree murder.   This is because his intention to commit the crime of robbery makes it a premeditated act.  

Suppose, however, we take the view from the other angle and distinguish between hate crimes and regular crimes based upon the identity of the victims.   From this standpoint, the assertion that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes translates into the idea that it is worse commit a crime against members of such-and-such groups than it is to commit crimes against anyone else.  Worded that way, is there anyone who would be willing to sign on to such a statement?

The idea that hate crimes ought to be considered worse than regular crimes of the same nature but with other more mundane motivations arises out of the idea that “hate” itself ought to be treated as a crime.   The problem with this is that hate, whether in the ordinary sense of the word, or in the rather specialized sense of the word that is employed when discussing “hate speech”, “hate crimes”, “hate groups”, etc. is an attitude of the heart and mind.   To say that “hate” ought to be a crime, therefore, is to say that the government ought to legislate against certain types of thought.   This, however, has long been considered one of the distinguishing characteristics of bad government, government that is tyrannical and totalitarian.   Those familiar with George Orwell’s 1984 will remember that in the totalitarian state of Oceania there was a special police force tasked with tracking down anyone questioned, disagreed with, or otherwise dissented from the proclamations and ideology of the ruling Ingsoc Party and its leader Big Brother.   Such dissenters, including the novel’s protagonist Winston Smith, were regarded as being guilty of crimethink.    I’m quite certain that if Eric Blair were alive today he would be reminding us that this was supposed to be an example to avoid rather than one to emulate.

To return from the idea of hate crimes in general and in the abstract, to the specific, concrete, incident of the sixth of the June, the way our politicians and other civil leaders, aided and abetted by media pundits and religious leaders have been behaving is absolutely atrocious.   All evidence that has been released to the public to date points in the direction of this Nathaniel Veltman having been a “lone truckman”.   Our politicians, however, led by Captain Airhead and his goofy sidekick Jimmy Dhaliwal, but including Upper Canadian Premier Doug Ford and London Mayor Ed Holder, very quickly and very shamelessly politicized the incident and capitalized upon the suffering of the Afzaal family in order to shift the blame off of the actual perpetrator and onto the Canadian public in general with their incessant talk about “Islamophobia”.  

Once again Captain Airhead has been demonstrating his total inability to learn from his past mistakes.   One might think that the man who after building his political career upon a carefully constructed image as the poster boy for “woke” anti-racism was revealed to be a serial blackface artist would have learned a little humility and would have given up lecturing the Canadian public about how we all need to be more enlightened and less prejudiced.   Or that the man whose efforts to use inappropriate political influence to obtain a prosecutorial deal for a company that was a huge donor to his party landed him in the biggest political scandal of his career might have learned that it is not his place to issue proclamations about criminal guilt before the investigation is complete, charges have been laid, and a conviction obtained.   One would certainly hope that the man who has long made it a point of never calling acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam “terrorism” would not use this word to describe any act of violence committed against Muslims at the first opportunity that presented itself as if he lived in some fantasy world where Muslims could only be victims and never perpetrators of terrorism. Anyone thinking or hoping such things does not know Captain Airhead very well.

The cynical among us would observe first and foremost just how this incident seems tailor-made to fit Captain Airhead’s agenda.   Captain Airhead has made no secret of the fact that he wants Canadians to be less free to disagree with him on matters of race, religion, sex, etc.   Granted, he doesn’t word it that way, he says that free speech is important but it doesn’t include hate speech.     Here is the key to understanding him.   Every time someone says “I believe in free speech” or some equivalent statement expressing support for free speech and a “but” immediately follows that statement, everything that follows the “but” negates and nullifies everything that precedes it.   Captain Airhead has been trying since the beginning of his premiership to re-introduce laws forbidding Canadians from expressing views that he doesn’t like on the internet.    Bill C-10, introduced last fall for the ostensible purpose of bringing companies like Netflix under the same regulatory oversight of the CRTC as traditional broadcasters, has been widely regarded as a means of smuggling this sort of thing in through the back door, and the Liberals numerous attempts to circumvent open debate in the House so as to ram the bill through prior to the summer adjournment have hardly done anything to assuage such suspicions.   Captain Airhead was undoubtedly looking for an incident that he could blow out of proportion enabling him to grandstand and basically say, “See, I’m not a creepy little dictator-wannabee, I’m just trying to fight hate like the kind that we saw here”.     No, I’m not suggesting that Captain Airhead faked the incident.   I would not be surprised to learn, however, that some memorandum had been sent to law enforcement agencies telling them to be on the lookout for anything that could be plausibly spun as a hate crime, and to flag it as such regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.  

As for Jimmy Dhaliwal, the less said about his ridiculous assertions that Muslims are living in constant fear of their Islamophobic neighbours in Canada the better.   Such nonsense does not deserve the dignity of a response.

By politicizing this incident in this way, Captain Airhead and Jimmy Dhaliwal are, of course, trying to put the Canadian public in general on trial.   “It is because you are prejudiced against Muslims” they are saying in effect “that this happened, and so you are to blame for this young man’s actions, and therefore you must be punished by having more of your freedoms of thought, conscience, and speech taken from you”.   For years the Left has put the Canada of the past, and her founders and historical figures and heroes on trial over the Indian Residential Schools.  It has been the kind of trial where only the prosecution is allowed to present evidence and the defense is not allowed to cross-examine much less present a case of its own.   Over the past few weeks this mockery of a trial has been renewed due to the non-news item of the discovery of an unmarked cemetery at the Residential School in Kamloops.   The incident in London is now being exploited by the Left to put living Canadians of the present day on the same sort of unjust trial before the same sort of kangaroo court of public opinion.

In 1940 the film “My Little Chickadee” was released which starred the legendary sexpot Mae West and the equally legendary lush W. C. Fields.   It was the first – and last – time they would appear together.   West and Fields had also written the screenplay, or rather West wrote it with some input from Fields in the rare moments he wasn’t totally sloshed, and there is a scene in it in which some of the dialogue is purportedly taken from West’s own experience of thirteen years earlier, when she had been briefly jailed in New York on the rather Socratic charge of “corrupting the morals of youth” over the Broadway play “Sex” that she had written, produced, directed, and, of course, starred in herself.   In the scene in the film, West’s character, Miss Flower Belle Lee finds herself, through the tongue of the character played by Margaret Hamilton, the actress who had portrayed the Wicked Witch of the West the previous year and who seems to have remained in character sans green makeup for this film, appearing before a judge.   After one of her trademark flippant remarks, the judge asks her “young lady, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?”   Her famous reply was “No, your honour, I’m doing my best to conceal it”.

I trust that you, my readers, will recognize that no such concealment is being attempted here. —  Gerry T. Neal

Nathaniel Veltman

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stand Up to the Mob– The Statue Wreckers & Their Establishment Enablers!

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, June 11, 2021

Stand Up to the Mob– The Statue Wreckers & Their Establishment Enablers!

When a mob vandalizes or tears down statues that have been in place for generations of nation-builders, whether statesmen like Sir John A. Macdonald, Father of Confederation and first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, or educators like Egerton Ryerson, one of the chief architects of the Upper Canadian – Ontarian for the hopelessly up-to-date – public school system, back the in days when schools were a credit to their builders rather than a disgrace, this tells us much more about the mob than about the historical figures whose memory they are attacking.   It is far easier to tear something down than it is to build something, especially something of lasting benefit.   It is also much quicker.   What these acts tell us is that the members of these mobs, whether taken individually or collectively, who are howling for the “cancelling” of the memories of men like Macdonald and Ryerson, do not have it in them to achieve a thousandth of what such men accomplished.  Driving them down this quick and easy, but ultimately treacherous and deadly, path of desecration and destruction, is the spirit of Envy, which is not mere jealousy, the wish to have what others have, but the hatred of others for being, having, or doing what you do not and cannot be, have, or do yourself.   It was traditionally considered among the very worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, second only to Pride.    This makes it almost fitting, in a perverse sort of way, that last weekend’s mob assault on the statue of Ryerson at the University that bears his name, took place at the beginning of the month which, to please the alphabet soup people of all the colours of the rainbow, now bears the name of that Sin in addition to the Roman name for the queen of Olympus.

The toppling of the Ryerson statue came at the end of a week in which the Canadian media, evidently tired of the bat flu after a year and a half, found a new dead horse to flog.   Late in May, a couple of days after the anniversary of the incident which, after it was distorted and blown out of proportion by the media, sparked last year’s wave of race riots and “Year Zero” Cultural Maoism, and just in time to launch Indigenous History Month, yet another new handle for the month formerly known as June, the Kamloops Indian Band made an announcement.   They had hired someone to use some fancy newfangled sonar gizmo to search the grounds of the old Indian Residential School at Kamloops and, lo and behold, they had discovered 215 unmarked graves.  

The Canadian mainstream media was quick to label this discovery “shocking”.   This speaks extremely poorly about the present state of journalistic integrity in this country.   When used as an adjective, the word shocking expresses a negative judgement about that which is so described but it also generally conveys a sense of surprise on the part of the person doing the judging.   There was nothing in the Kamloops announcement, however, that ought to have been surprising.   It revealed nothing new about the Indian Residential Schools.   That there are unmarked graves on the grounds of these schools has been known all along. The fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report is entitled Missing Children and Unmarked Burials.  It is 273 pages long and was published in December of 2015.    According to this volume the death rate due to such factors as disease – tuberculosis was the big one – and suicide was much higher among aboriginal children at the Residential Schools than among school children in the general population.   The TRC attributed this to the inadequacy of government standards and regulations for these schools which fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the provincial education ministries like other schools, as well as inadequate enforcement of such standards and regulations, and inadequate funding.   Had the TRC been the impartial body of inquiry it made itself out to be it would also have compared the death rate among Residential School children to that among aboriginal children who remained at home on the reserves.     At any rate, according to the TRC Report, unless the families lived nearby or could afford to have the bodies sent to them, they were generally buried in cemeteries at the schools which were abandoned and fell into disuse and decay after the schools were closed.    All that this “new discovery” has added to what is already contained in that volume is the location of 215 of these graves.   One could be forgiven for thinking that all the progressives in the mainstream Canadian media who have been spinning the Residential School narrative into a wrecking ball to use against Canada and the men who built her are not actually that familiar with the contents of the TRC Report. EGERTON RYERSON'S TOPPLED HEAD.jpg
​

The Canada-bashing progressives have been reading all sorts of ridiculous conclusions into the discovery of these graves that the actual evidence in no way bears out.   The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was hardly an impartial and unbiased body of inquiry.   Its end did not seem to be the first noun in its title so much as painting as unflattering a portrait of the Indian Residential Schools, the Canadian churches, and the Canadian government as was possible.  Even still, it did not go so far as to accuse the schools of the mass murder of children.   The most brazen of the progressive commentators have now been pointing to the discovery of the graves and making that accusation, and their slightly less brazen colleagues have been reporting the story in such a way as to lead their audiences to that conclusion without their outright saying it.   This is irresponsible gutter journalism at its worst.   The Kamloops band and its sonar technicians have not discovered anything that the TRC Report had not already told us was there, and bodies have not been exhumed, let alone examined for cause of death.   Indeed, they did not even discover a “mass grave” as innumerable media commentators have falsely stated, with some continuing to falsely say this despite the band chief having issued an update in which she explicitly stated “This is not a mass grave”.   The significance of this is that it shows that the media has been painting the picture of a far more calloused disposal of bodies than the evidence supports or the band claims.

The media, of course, are not acting in bona fide.  This time last year, they were using the death of George Floyd to promote a movement that was inciting race riots all across the United States and even throughout the larger Western world.   Coinciding with this was a wave of mob attacks on the monuments of a wide assortment of Western nation-builders, institutional founders, statesmen, and other honoured historical figures.   The New York Times, the American trash rag of record,  had been laying the foundation for this for months by running Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project, a revisionist distortion of American history that interprets everything by viewing it through the lens of slavery, in its Sunday Magazine supplement.    What we are seeing up here this year is simply the Canadian left-wing gutter press trying to reproduce its American cousin’s success of last year.

Those who use their influence to support statue-toppling mobs have no business commenting on history whatsoever.   By their very actions they demonstrate that they have not learned a fairly basic historical lesson.   Movements that seek to tear down a country’s history – her past cannot be torn down, but her history, her “remembered past” to use John Lukacs’ definition, can – never end well but rather in disaster, destruction, and misery for all.   The Jacobins attempted this in France in the 1790s when they started history over with their Republic at “Year One”, and endued up with the Reign of Terror.   It has been a pretty standard feature of all Communist revolutions since.    Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, when they took over Cambodia in 1975, declared it to be “Year Zero”.   Watch the film “The Killing Fields” or read my friend Reaksa Himm’s memoir The Tears of My Soul to find out what that was like.  Anybody who fails to grasp the simple historical fact that these are terrible examples and not ones to be emulated has no business passing judgement on the errors of the historical figures who built countries and institutions, led them through difficult periods, and otherwise did the long and difficult work of construction, enriching future generations, rather than the short and easy work of destruction that can only impoverish them.

There are undoubtedly those who would feel that this comparison of today’s statue-topplers who are now likening our country’s founders to Hitler with the Jacobins, Maoists, Pol Pot and other statue-toppling, country-and-civilization destroyers of the past is unfair.    It is entirely appropriate, however.   It is one thing to acknowledge that bad things took place at the Indian Residential Schools and to give those who suffered those things a platform and the opportunity to share their story.   It is another thing altogether to use those bad things to paint a cartoonish caricature so as to condemn the schools, the churches that administered them, and the country herself, wholesale, and to silence those whose testimony as to their experiences runs contrary to this one-sided, un-nuanced, narrative.   It is one thing to acknowledge that admired leaders of the past were human beings and thus full of flaws, or even to point out examples of how they fell short of the standards of their own day or of timeless standards.   It is something quite different to use their flaws to discredit and dismiss their tremendous accomplishments and, even worse, to condemn them for failing to hold attitudes that are now all but ubiquitous but which nobody anywhere in the world held until the present generation.  

When the so-called Truth and Reconciliation process began – I don’t mean the appointment of the Commission but the proceedings that led to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement which brought about the creation of the Commission, so we are talking about two and a half decades ago – the discussion was primarily about physical and sexual abuse that some of the alumni of the schools had suffered there, over which they had initiated the lawsuits that led to the Settlement.   With the creation of the TRC, however, the discussion came to be dominated by people with another very different agenda.   Their agenda was to condemn the entire Residential Schools system as a project of “cultural genocide”.

The concept of “cultural genocide” is nonsensical.   Genocide, a term coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944, means the murder of a “people”, in the sense of a group with a common ancestry and identity.  The Holocaust of World War II is the best known example. The mass murder of Tutsis in Rwanda towards the end of that country’s civil war in 1994 is a more recent example.   The concept of “cultural genocide” was thought up by the same man who coined the term.   It refers to efforts to destroy a people’s cultural identity without killing the actual people.   Since the equation of something that does not involve killing actual people with mass murder ought to be morally repugnant to any thinking person, the concept should have been condemned and rejected from the moment Lemkin first conceived it.    Soon after it was conceived, however, the leaders of certain Jewish groups began using it as a club against Christianity.   Christianity teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Redeemer prophesied in the Old Testament Who established the promised New Covenant through His death and Resurrection and Who is the only way to God for Jews and Gentiles alike.   Christianity’s primary mission from Jesus Christ is evangelism – telling the world the Gospel, the Good News about Who Jesus is and what He has done.   While not everybody believes the Gospel when they hear it and it is not our mission to compel anybody to believe, obviously the desired end of evangelism is for everybody to believe.   Since rabbinic Judaism has long taught that a Jew who converts to Christianity ceases to be a Jew, the Jewish leaders in question argued that evangelism amounts to cultural genocide – if all the Jews believed the Gospel, there would be no Jews any more.   On the basis of this kind of reasoning they began pressuring Christian Churches to change their doctrines and liturgical practices as they pertain to the evangelism of Jews.  Sadly, far too many Church leaders proved to be weak in the face of this kind of pressure.

Canada’s Laurentian political class showed a similar lack of backbone when it came to defending our country against the smear that the Residential Schools were designed to wipe out Native Indian cultural identities.   Indeed, their attitude throughout the entire “Truth and Reconciliation” process was to accept the blame for whatever accusations were thrown against Canada and to refuse to hold the accusers accountable to even the most basic standards of courtroom justice.   Imagine a trial where the judge allows only the prosecutor to call witnesses, denies the defense the right to cross examine, and refuses to allow the defense to make a case.   That will give you a picture of what the trial of Canada by the TRC over the Residential Schools was like.

The reality is that had Canada wanted to erase Native Indian cultural identity she would have abolished the reserves, torn up the treaties and declared the Indians to be ordinary citizens like everyone else, insisted that they all live among other Canadians, and that their children go to the same public schools as everybody else.   In other words, she would have done the exact opposite of what she actually did.   The Canadian government’s policy was clearly to preserve Indian cultural identity, not to eradicate it.   Had they wanted to do the latter, residential schools would have been particularly ill-suited to the task.   The TRC maintains that the idea was to break Indian cultural identity by taking children away from the cultural influence of their parents. If this was the case one would think the government would have had all Indian children sent to these schools.  In actuality, however, in the approximately a century and a half that these schools operated, only a minority of Indian children were sent there.   This was a very small minority in the early days of the Dominion when Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the TRC et al seem more interested in vilifying than anyone else, was Prime Minister.   The government also ran day schools on the reserves and in those days the government only forced children to go to the residential schools when their parents persistently neglected to send them to the day schools.    The Dominion had made it mandatory for all Indian children within a certain age range to attend school – just as the provinces had made it mandatory for all other children within the same age range to attend school.  It was much later in Canadian history, after the government decided to make the schools serve the second function of being foster group homes for children removed from unsafe homes by social workers that a majority of Indian children were sent to the residential schools.     Even then, the eradication of Indian cultural identity is hardly a reasonable interpretation of the government’s intent.

The TRC, in the absence of serious challenge from either Canada’s political class or the fourth estate, created a narrative indicting our country and its founders for “cultural genocide”, featuring a one-sided caricature of the Indian Residential Schools.   Now, after a discovery that adds nothing that was not already contained in the TRC Report, left-wing radicals egged on by the mendacious and meretricious media, have gone far beyond the TRC in their defamatory accusations of murder against the schools and their Pol Potish demands that we “cancel” our country, her history, and her historical figures.   It is about time that we stood up to these thugs who in their envy and hatred of those who did what they themselves could never do by building our country wish to tear it all down.   It is slightly encouraging that the Conservatives were able to stop the motion by Jimmy Dhaliwal’s Canada-hating socialist party to have Parliament declare the Residential Schools to have been a genocide.   I didn’t think they had the kives – the Finnish word for “stones” the bearing of which as a last name by a local reporter brings to mind how the biggest man in Robin Hood’s band of Merry Men was called “Little John” – to do so.

For anyone looking for more information about the side of the Indian Residential Schools story that the Left wants suppressed I recommend Stephen K. Roney’s Playing The Indian Card: Everything You Know About Canada’s “First Nations” is WRONG!, Bonsecours Editions, 2018 and From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, edited by Rodney A. Clifton and Mark DeWolf and just published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy here in Winnipeg earlier this year.

Since the progressive wackos are calling for Canada Day to be cancelled, I encourage you this July 1st to fly the old Red Ensign, sing “God Save the Queen” and “The Maple Leaf Forever”, raise your glass to Sir John and celebrate Dominion Day with gusto.   The only thing we need to be ashamed of in Canada is the way we have let these ninnies who are constantly apologizing for everything Canada has been and done in the past walk all over us.   While I seldom recommend emulating Americans in this case I say that it is time we forget about our customary politeness and take up the attitude of old Merle, who sang “When they’re runnin’ down my country, man, They’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me”.  — Gerry T. Neal

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How importing Chinese Labourers Led to the Most Deadly Disease Epidemic in Human history

Posted on by
How importing Chinese Labourers Led to the Most Deadly Disease Epidemic in Human History
Chinese-Labour-Corps-Canada
According to Professor Mark Humphries (Wilfrid Laurier University) the world-wide flu which killed more than 50 million people originated in China in the winter of 1917-18. This was near the end of World War 1. His research looks at three often-cited origins of the disease : (1) The U.S.; (2) France and (3) China. He concludes that China is the site that makes most sense.
The insights provided by Professor Humphries in his 2014 research should have accentuated the absolute necessity for health checks on immigrants/migrants coming to Canada—particularly at this time of the Corona virus. A large percentage of Canada’s current immigrants come from China and India whose environments have been described respectively as an “environmental catastrophe” and an “environmental disaster”. Let us translate for the benefit of uninformed Trudeau, ethnic Chinese NDP MP Jenny Kwan, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and a host of equally uninformed MP’s and other politicians : The terms “Environmental catastrophe” and “environmental disaster” mean “breeding grounds for viruses”. A large percentage of Canada’s immigrants come from those breeding grounds.
However, instead of recognizing the absolute necessity for health checks, Kwan and many other politicians in the past few years have advocated for the abolition of health checks. Consider also that Trudeau ‘s foolish declaration in 2015 that “Canada would take all refugees” has resulted in Canada taking thousands of fake refugees from Ebola-riddled Nigeria. Finally, note that Trudeau also mined the Russian province of Chechnya in search of gays. Those people are potential carriers of HIV.
Here are some important details in Professor Humphries’ research that Trudeau, all MP’s and other politicians should note :
(1) The deadliest epidemics in history have been those which occurred when previously isolated populations came into sustained contact with one another. The three worst were The Plague of Justinian in the Byzantine Empire (541-542 AD), the Black Death in Europe (1347-1400 AD) and the smallpox epidemic in the New “World”.populations (1500 AD +).
(2) As early as 1914, “public health officials feared that a global war might bring new diseases home to civilian populations.” In August, 1914, Canada’s future Surgeon-General, Dr. Guy Carleton Jones, ominously wrote : “The trail of infected armies leaves a sad tale of sickness amongst the women and children and non-combatants.” (P.56) According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, the Spanish flu (really the Chinese flu) killed about 40,000 Canadians.
Chinese-Labour-Corps-Canada.jpg
​
(3) The 1918 Flu started in China but it spread around the world because formerly-isolated, virus-carrying Chinese came into contact with Canadians, Americans, British, French, other Europeans and then Africans who had had little previous contact with one another.
(4) The contact between the Chinese and other populations happened because the British/French allies in WW1 against Germany needed a large number of workers to do mostly non-combatant work (loading and unloading ships, etc,) behind the front lines of World War 1. The British and the French negotiated with China to bring large numbers of Chinese to Europe. The workers were referred to as the “Chinese Labour Corps” When British authorities saw signs of health dangers, they could have reduced the inflow, but felt committed to the Chinese.
(5) The British asked Canada to help with transporting the Chinese to Europe. Canada agreed. Canada soon accepted the Chinese at its west coast ports (William Head near Victoria first and then Vancouver). It then put the Chinese on CPR trains which took the Chinese to Halifax or to U.S. ports. The Canadian government kept the agreement completely secret. It housed the Chinese in its quarantine facility at William Head. It did examine the Chinese for diseases such as trachoma (a contagious inflammation of the eyelids) and external parasites. It also looked out for signs of flu. When the Chinese were considered ready to leave, they were taken to Vancouver and transferred to trains. It took many cross-country trips to send all the Chinese out. Each train car was guarded by Canadian soldiers and sealed. Dr. James Morton, in his book titled “In The Sea of Sterile Mountains”, says that about 200,000 Chinese Labour Corps members were transported to Canada’s east coast. (P. 229) The trains stopped in Petawawa, Ontario to give the Chinese labourers a rest and then resumed the trip to Halifax. The Chinese labourers were then moved on to ships which took them to southern England. From England, they were moved to France. One big question that Professor Humphries does not deal with is this : What role did the guards play in spreading the disease when they left their work? Humphries says that during 1917-18 alone, 94,000 Chinese workers were shipped by the British from China. (P.72)
(6) Professor Humphries says : “We now know that influenza is caused by a virus which finds its natural home in wild ducks and only infects humans when it crosses the species barrier, sometimes directly passing from birds to people, sometimes passing through an intermediary species such as pigs or horses. When an animal virus becomes a human disease, it has the potential to cause a pandemic because people have no prior immunity. There have been five such episodes in the past 125 years (1889, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009); the 1918 virus was by far the most severe, and researchers are still not sure why.” (P. 58)
(7) As with the corona virus now, Chinese medical officials and political authorities downplayed and covered up the extent and severity of the influenza in Northern China where the Chinese labourers lived. They resented the concerns of an international legation (French and British mostly). When one of their own, a Chinese Doctor Wu who had been trained in Europe, agreed with the international legation, they fired him.
(8) The records of the majority of Chinese Labour Corps units do not appear to have survived in (Canadian ?) archives, but references to the Chinese Labour Corps in the files of other units are informative. The first reports of influenza refer directly to members of the Chinese Labour Corps (April, 2018) .
(9) British records reported that an epidemic of influenza was in progress in Plymouth, England in late July of 1918. CLC members were there in large numbers. An Australian-built ship, the Mantua which left Plymouth on a trip to Freeport in British west Africa, soon reported that 176 sailors were sick with influenza and pneumonia. Ten sailors died and the disease spread in the city of Freeport. From there, the disease spread down the west coast of Africa. Other ships leaving Europe spread the disease to U.S. ports such as Boston. The disease then spread to all of Massachussetts and New York State. Over the next few months, 675,000 Americans died of influenza or pneumonia.
(10) The mobilization of the Chinese Labour Corps moved tens of thousands from the interior of northern China where a confirmed outbreak of a virulent respiratory disease had occurred. Let us repeat : The disease eventually killed more then 50 million people. The term “Spanish flu” was used not because the flu originated in Spain, but because Spain kept detailed records on the flu.
(11) In Humphries words, “The result (of the migration of the Chinese Labour Corps) was the most deadly disease event in history.” (P.81)
 
(12) Would Canadians be far off in labeling Trudeau, his “Diversity is Canada’s strength” policy and a host of Canada’s politicians as Canada’s “real National Viruses”? –– Dan Murray,

Immigration Watch Canada
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , ,

Canadian Politics Controlled By Ethnic Hustlers: Jagmeet Singh And Jenny Kwan   BY DAN MURRAY NDP Jagmeet Singh and Jenny Kwan:

Posted on by

Canadian Politics Controlled By Ethnic Hustlers: Jagmeet Singh And Jenny Kwan

 

by Dan Murray

NDP Jagmeet Singh and Jenny Kwan: ‘White Racists Need to understand that we Asians are the Future of Canada!’

As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population, who would?

However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?”
 All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.

As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become.

Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants.

Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed.

Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.

Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.

‘White Supremacists have no right to complain about Chinese millionaires controlling the real estate market: get used to it, Vancouver now belongs to the Chinese!’

Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”

As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.

‘Nothing gives me more pride than my Sikh heritage in my country Canada…There is no place in Canada for EuroCanadian Pride!’

In his 1909 book,  Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. :

The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare. (P.208)

Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (= violence), localism (= the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (= an overall lack of social cohesion).

In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , ,

Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat

Posted on by
​​​​​Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat
 

Dan Murray,
Immigration Watch Canada
 
 
 
As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population. who would?
 
However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?” All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.
 
As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become. 
 
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants. Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed. Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.
 
Jagmeet Singh
Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.
 
 Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”
 
As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.
 
In his1909 book, Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. : “The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare”. (P.208)
 
Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (violence), localism (the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (an overall lack of social cohesion).
 
In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes. 
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC

Posted on by
Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC
 
 · 

BREAKING WOW! India Report On Justin Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism In Canada Feb 20, 2018 You will NEVER see this on the CBC!!!
Sikh Radicalism in Canada is a clear and present danger! Trudeau has more Sikhs in his Cabinet than India President Modi! Cabinet Minister MP Sohi was Jailed in India under anti terrorism laws! And it gets worse….

He just closed a deal that will give India 500,000,000 Canadian Dollars! But no money for vets!

https://www.facebook.com/StandupforCanada/videos/571422059879265/?t=0

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

WILL JAGMEET AND THE NDP SOON BE DOG MEAT?

Posted on by

 

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

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

Posted on by

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

by Tim Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

Posted on by

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

by Brad Salzberg, Cultural Action Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,
← Newer Entries