Tag Archives: multiculturalism

A Picture Demonstrates the Multicultural Problem

Posted on by

A Picture Demonstrates the Multicultural Problem

Better than long speeches
 

 
There’s a particular photo that went around the world.
That of the little boy lying dead on the beach. 
It is true that the photo is very sad 
and makes you reflect on the distress of these people 
fleeing their country at the risk of their lives.
 
Above, a photo showing some people walking to reach the final objective, 
to live in a European country.
Even if this photo is making it around the world, 
only 1% of the people will notice the truth.
In the photo,  there are 7 men and 1 woman. 
Up to this point – nothing special.
But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet, 
accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.
There is the problem, none of the men are helping her, 
because in their culture the woman represents nothing. 
She is only good as a slave to the men. 
Do you really believe that these individuals could integrate 
into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions????
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Time to Change Tune on Official Multiculturalism

Posted on by

Time to Change Tune on Official Multiculturalism

by Licia Corbella,

About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are
demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their
children from music and co-ed physical education programs for religious
reasons. The families believe music is un-Islamic ~ just like the
Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of
Afghanistan and that physical education classes should be segregated
by gender even in the elementary years.

The school division is facing the music in a typically Canadian way –
that is, bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these
demands, even though in Manitoba, and indeed the rest of the country,
music and phys-ed are compulsory parts of the curriculum. Officials
say they may try to have the Muslim children do a writing project on
music to satisfy the curriculum’s requirements. The school officials
have apparently consulted the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and
they have also spoken to a member of the Islamic community suggested
by those very same Muslim parents. In any event, the school district
is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of
these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school
and Canadian culture.

Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says he has
a better idea. “I’d tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach
music and physical education in our schools. If you don’t like it,
leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole
country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives
under sharia law,” said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of
sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary.

That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us
would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing
about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country.
“Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way
around,” he argues. If they did not like these things in Canada, why
did they not go somewhere else? If they want Canada to be like their
homeland why don’t they go home?

Kanwar, who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan via England and then
the United States in 1966, says he used to buy into the “mosaic,
official multiculturalism” (nonsense). He makes it clear that, like
most Canadians, he is pleased and enjoys that Canada has citizens
literally from every country and corner in the world, as it has
enriched this country immensely. But it’s official multiculturalism –
the state policy “that entrenches the lie” that all cultures and
beliefs are of equal value and of equal validity in Canada that he objects
to.

“The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian
values – not Muslim values – with British and French rule of law and
traditions and that’s why it’s better than all of the other places in
the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea
of sharia law a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely
incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada,” says Kanwar, who in
the 1970s was the founder and president of the Pakistan-Canada
Association and a big fan of official multiculturalism.

Kanwar says his views changed when he started listening to the people
who joined his group. They badmouthed Canada, weren’t interested in
knowing Canadians or even in learning one of our official languages.
They created cultural ghettos and the Canadian government even helped fund
it.

“One day it dawned on me that the reason all of us wanted to move here
was going to disappear if we didn’t start defending Canada and its
fundamental values.” That’s when Kanwar started speaking out against
the dangers of official multiculturalism. He has been doing so for
decades. So, it’s no surprise that Kanwar is delighted with the recent
speech British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered to the 47th
Munich Security Conference on Feb. 5.

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism,” said Cameron, “we
have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to
belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving
in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds
objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.
But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from
someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even
fearful, to stand up to them.

This hands-off tolerance,” said Cameron, “has only served to
reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some
young Muslims feeling rootless and … can lead them to this
extremist ideology.”

Kanwar actually credits German Chancellor Angela Merkel for being
among the first of the world’s democratic leaders to take the
courageous step in October to say that official multiculturalism had
“failed totally..” It appears leaders are getting bolder. During an
interview with TFI channel on Feb. 10, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy declared: “We have been too concerned about the identity of
the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the
country that was receiving him.” Cameron ended his speech by saying: “At
stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.That’s why this is a
challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet.”

That democratically elected leaders are at long last starting to sing
a different tune on official multiculturalism is sweet music to Kanwar.
Here’s hoping those poor kids in Winnipeg will get to hear some of it.

Licia Corbella is The Herald’s Editorial Page Editor

lcorBella@calgaryherald.com [February 12, 2011

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canad

Posted on by

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canada

by Tim Murray

What diversity lobbyists hate: Canadian family life in 1950.

It has often been argued by the talking heads of the multicultural and immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.

Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call “settlers”, occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here — even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not “discover” or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans even conceived of it.

Multicultural Arguments Are Inconsistent

These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.

Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from this same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?

There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first — even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians”, the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is, “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship — or cultures — or there should not. But the multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit — recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.

The multicultural “Party Line” needs to be de-constructed.

Yes, the ‘land’ was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the “land” is not the nation. The “land” is not “Canada”. And one can’t credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called “Canada”. It should also be noted that the newcomers from “non-traditional” sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this “nation” of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed “White settlers” and their descendents didn’t do such a bad job of building this nation after all.

Multiculturalism is a social engineering project that turns Canada into a country resembling those that immigrants to Canada have fled fromYet it is the multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks like they are half way there. In 1981, there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, “Is this really a good thing?” “Diversity”, we are constantly told, is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the multicultural lobby assures us that there is “unity in diversity”. A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.

Diversity Is Disunity

You don’t believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Ruandans. Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don’t even have to look far. Take a look at America’s experiment with “integration” right now. Look how it is descending into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of “whites” sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated “apartheid”, but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King’s dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and “Coming Apart”, as Charles Murray’s book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, “The United States is the most fractured society on earth — the most fractured culture.”

The make-believe world that the media presents and the unrelenting torrent of state propaganda will not long conceal these facts. The spin-machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the “Diversity Illusion”, as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.

Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: That so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracized or even punished for spreading “hateful” messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division that exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as divisive!

The communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: That they were insane. That they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: That the socialist state was a Workers’ Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.

But suddenly in the late 1980s and early 1990s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn’t working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.

The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. “In-group” favouritism, a manifestation of which is “ethnic nepotism”, is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of Genetic Interests, Frank Salter, might say, we are “hard-wired” to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests.

One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadian wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the mandates of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially, the CBC.

Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada’s European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That’s why many of these multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers — nothing more, nothing less.

It’s time that Canadians know the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

The New German Multicultural Toilet

Posted on by

The New German Multicultural Toilet

by The New Observer

February 2, 2016

http://newobserveronline.com/and-now-the-new-german-multicultural-toilet/

“Refugees” in Germany still find European toilets a “mystery,” cannot use them despite being given pictogram instructions, are continuing to leave human excrement on bathroom floors and showers—and this is why Germany has to introduce a new “multicultural toilet.”

Although this might sound as if it is from some bizarre TV comedy sketch, it is not. Right now, German engineers are working on a “multicultural toilet” at the Global Fliegenschmidt toilet manufacturers in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, and news of their first design has appeared in the German media.

As reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), in an article titled “A Toilet that Everyone Can Use” (Ein Klo, das jeder benutzen kann), the new toilet has been necessitated by the fact that the 1.5 million nonwhite invaders just simply cannot learn how to use ordinary European toilets—and that, after many months of failure, they have given up trying to teach them how not to foul up a bathroom.

According to the remarkable FAZ article, “German toilets are a mystery to many refugees and this has already led to problems. A new mobile multicultural toilet should remedy this—and along the way teach something about the coexistence of cultures.”

It goes on to describe some of the many problems which German sanitary engineers have had to face after being overwhelmed with the nonwhite invasion: “Many of the refugees have no experience of such toilets in their culture.”

It says that all efforts to educate the nonwhites as to how a toilet works have failed, even though detailed instructions have been provided in pictogram and in Arabic script.

“Many refugees, especially those from poorer classes,” FAZ continues, “only know of the concept of latrines. The toilets have indeed been used as such, but certainly not the way they were originally intended. They have stood on the toilet bowl when they were supposed to have sat there, and more often than not, the bowl has broken.”

Or, the FAZ tastefully informs its readers, the invaders have “done their business anywhere in the house, except in the designated place.”

Furthermore, the newspaper continues, “showers have in this regard also been misunderstood”—in other words, used as toilets.

“Added to all of this, is that many of the Muslim refugees do not know what toilet paper is,” the article continued, adding that they “clean up with the left hand, the unclean hand.”

Largely because of these “problems,” as the FAZ politely calls them, these “cultural differences have been an unbearable addition to an already difficult situation” in the invader centers.

“Employees of mobile toilet rental companies have refused to work at the shelters anymore because they no longer want to clean the centers,” FAZ said.

“And because many of the refugees did not even know what to do with the toilets, they make their way straight into the bushes. And that is why the mayor of the municipality Hardheim im Odenwald, in his much-maligned guide for refugee etiquette, stated inter alia that ‘Our call of nature is done exclusively in toilets, not in gardens and parks, and not even in hedges and behind bushes.’”

Other challenges being faced by the German sanitary engineers include “different latrines for different cultures,” the fact-filled article goes on to tell its readers.

“For Muslims, it is important that when using a toilet, one’s back does not face Mecca. In addition, latrines for men and women have to separate from each other, and the floor cannot be green in color, because that is the color of Islam.”

Therefore, FAZ says, the new “German toilet manufacturers are working to arrive at a solution to this problem. Thus, at the mobile toilet manufacturer Global Fliegenschmidt in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, they had been working on a so-called oriental toilet, consisting of a hole with two foot stands on either side of it.

“But even that did not work, because there are enough refugees who still use it differently,” the article continued, necessitating the development of “multicultural toileting.”

This new “multicultural toilet” allows for both sitting and squatting, the FAZ proudly informs its readers.

It is not yet known when the new toilets will be deployed, but, going by the problems being faced in the invader centers, the Germans had better hope that it is relatively soon.

FAZ-Toilets

 

 

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Multiculturalism and Marxist Bias in Academia – SWC Interviews Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Posted on by

 

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

CANADA HAS GONE MULTICULTURAL

Posted on by
CANADA HAS GONE MULTICULTURAL
 by PAUL BRADLEY
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Paul Bradley who wrote this excellent article describes the nation as Masochistic, which he defines as the condition of someone who finds pleasure in self-denial and submissiveness.
 
This article carries an NB note which advises that: “Only 1% of the world’s nations are officially ‘multi-cultural’ and they are all White nations!” and adds: “While our nation’s demographics have changed dramatically, multicultural policy has not changed one iota. There is no nation on earth which maintains a policy of cultural self-destruction like Canada.”
_______________________________________________________________________
  Indeed we live in curious times. Like never before, human beings are moving about our planet in search of a better life, a cleaner environment, and a higher standard of education. As it happens, however, within our era of unprecedented globalism, Canada stands out among the nations.
 
  Canada is unique in that our country is “officially” multicultural — meaning: multicultural policy is entrenched within our constitution. The only other nation in the world, which maintains such a policy is Australia.
 
  Putting this in proper context, at present there are approximately two hundred nations in the world — meaning that a mere 1% of the world’s nations are officially multicultural. Are Canadians aware of this fact? Frankly, it is doubtful. Based on our government and media’s portrayal of the policy since its inception in 1988, one could easily believe this brand of legislated diversity is standard among nations.
 
  Obviously, it is not. While many nations encourage diversity and willingly accept immigrants and refugees, these countries do not have a legislated mandate to financially support these communities. In Canada, hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars are provided to immigrant communities each year for purposes of promoting cultural events, as well as religious institutions and holidays.
 
  Is this necessarily a bad thing? Under reasonable conditions perhaps not. Unfortunately, the circumstances are anything but reasonable. For decades, Canada has maintained the highest percapita immigration rates in the world. As a result, our country — particularly our urban centres — have transitioned from relatively homogenous communities to a hybrid of various ethnicities.
Is this necessarily a problem? Again, arguably not — though considering the absence of public analysis of these circumstances, one may wonder if an equitable balance will be maintained in the long term. One reason for skepticism is the fact that while our nation’s demographics have changed dramatically, multicultural policy has not changed one iota.
 
  As a result, our so-called “minorities” are no longer minorities in the true sense of the word — yet hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars continue to flow through to these communities and their non-profit organizations.
 
  In fact, these organizations have become so well organized they are beginning to transform the cultural identity of our nation. To add insult to injury, the governments of the nations from which these migrants come from are also providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of funding everything from major real estate developments and shopping malls, to multi-million dollar Islamic mosques and Sikh temples.
 
  All the while, Canadians go about their busy lives, largely oblivious to the societal changes occurring around them. Well, perhaps some are aware — yet within Canada’s hyper-politically correct society, few dare to criticize these developments. As a result, Canadians appear to have little choice but to stand back while China buys up our real estate, and Middle Eastern nations finance the growth of Islam within the nation. For instance, the Toronto Sun reported in January 2015 that a Muslim group linked to a terror organization was buying buildings across Canada. The largest known MAC [Muslim Association of Canada] acquisition is a sixty storey, $4.7 million building in Montreal’s financial district that will house the Canadian Institute of Islamic Civilization.
 
  New arrivals, refugees and religious fundamentalists are valued above the traditional culture and heritage of the nation. Indeed, multicultural policy has led to a peculiar form of “inversion” – it is not Canadian workers who receive priority, but rather temporary foreign workers. On campus, multiculturalism has led to a situation whereby our so-called “Canadian” universities have divested themselves of their Canadian identity. Rather, they are “globalist” education centres for the wealthy of the world. For the Canadian-born students fortunate enough to attend these institutions, they are receiving a thorough education in how to hate their own country, dislike the founding fathers of their nation, as well as a full indoctrination on the virtues of globalism, communism, and every other anti-democratic form of politically ideology.
 
  Let us face the facts: there is no other nation on earth which maintains a policy of cultural self-destruction like Canada. Furthermore, consider the situation within the source nations of our largest immigrant communities. China is the number one source of migrants to Canada. Does China’s government maintain a policy whereby the rights of newcomers take precedence over Chinese nationals? Does China maintain a policy whereby their citizens find a government-sanctioned indoctrination of Western values, culture and religion? Truly, this idea is unthinkable. How about Iran? Pakistan? Not one of these nations would dream of implementing this form of political self-flagellation!
 
  Canada is different — so different that we are the most politically and culturally masochistic nation on earth. Since the time multicultural policy was established in 1988, our government, legal industry and diversity advocates have been steadily chipping away at the foundation of our national heritage.
 
  Who sanctioned such a thing? Did the Canadian public collectively order up a place of cultural eradication like one orders a steaming dish of chow fun in Chinatown? Not a chance – it never occurred. The general public had no choice in the matter, just as they had no choice in whether or not their country maintains the highest rate of immigration on the planet.
 
  More questions abound — What happened to application of democratic process regarding these matters — or at least a recognition of the will of the majority? Oddly enough, all public discussion went dormant after our government began to walk our nation down a cobblestone road to its cultural demise. Are these the signs of a healthy democratic society? Not likely. One could suggest, in fact, that official multiculturalism has served as ground zero for an unapproved and unnecessary societal inversion.
 
  Naturally, this movement has received a great deal of support – not just from born-and-raised Canadians who are presently riding the multicultural bandwagon into the great Canadian sunset. Government immigration “critics”, civil libertarians, our legal industry, our real-estate industry, ethnic “identity”, politicians – all of them are collectively chipping away at the bedrock of Canadian society.
 
  Want to hide your identity at your citizenship ceremony? Step right up, our civil liberties lawyers are here to help. Committed a crime back in the old country? Not a worry; a legal eagle armed with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will assist you — pro bono!
 
  Such is the sorry state of contemporary Canada – a nation which has, for reasons nobody can explain, inverted its priorities which placed Canadian-born citizens at the back of the bus.
  For how long will “generational” Canadians – those who are second and third generation, and beyond — stand by while our nation commits cultural suicide? Only time will tell. Unfortunately, this is of the essence. Left to their own devices, Canada’s cultural assassins and their merry band of self-loathing practitioners will proceed to bury every remnant of what defined our nation before multiculturalism came to town……..
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Immigrant underclass in GTA fuels simmering frustrations:

Posted on by

Immigrant underclass in GTA fuels simmering frustrations:

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/05/08/immigrant_underclass_in_gta_fuels_simmering_frustrations.html

“By 2017, the GTA is forecast to become home to a predominantly non-European population.”

Brad: Canadians of European Origin are headed for minority status in Toronto and this Multicult Practitioner is playing the immigrant guilt card.

Warning…you are about the read a lie:

“While immigrants and immigration is the heart and soul of the country, if you look at the main basis of inequality in Canada, along with gender, it’s based on race and immigrant status,” said Yogendra Shakya, senior research scientist at Access Alliance.

Brad: The heart and soul of this country?? Perhaps according to the prime movers in Multicult Canada’s attempt to destroy Canadian culture, but for the majority of Canadians– ie Canadians of European Origin(CEO)– this is yet another attempt to elevate immigrant groups by playing the sympathy card.

The heart and soul of this country was built by Canadians of European Origin:

– Governance 

– Parliamentary system

– Legal and Judiciary system

– Capitalist Free Enterprise system

– Democratic Process

– Legislative system

– Educational system

– Taxation 

– Social Services

and every other foundation of Canadian society.

NONE of these fundamentals are rooted in the nation’s from which our modern immigrants come from:

– China, India, Iran, Philippines, Pakistan Korea et al.

For how much longer are the Canadian public going to tolerate the Multicultural propaganda perpetrated by people like Y. Shakya?

OFFICIAL MULTICULTURAL POLICY: a mandate for Canadian taxpayers to fund the destruction of their own culture

Brad Salzberg

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity

Posted on by

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity  

by Brad Salzberg, April 2015

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

'Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity by Brad Salzberg, April 2015 For nearly three decades I have pondered the origin, meaning and impact of Canada’s official multicultural policy. During this period, certain conclusions have crystallized in my mind, and yet at the same time, many unanswered questions remain. It is well known that the founder of multiculturalism is former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. What is not so well known are the circumstances under which this maverick prime minister formulated multicultural ideology, and it’s eventual legislation. Trudeau was the first western leader to meet with Mao Tse Tung, founder of the People’s Republic of China, in the year 1970. Subsequent visits to China would follow, including a walk along the Great Wall, during which the Prime Minister did a ballet pirouette, subsequently explained as a way to break the formality of the occasion. Less than one year after Trudeau’s first visit to China, he introduced multicultural ideology to Canada. His intention, as he publicly stated, was for multiculturalism to “function within a bi-lingual framework”. It would take seventeen more years for multiculturalism to achieve “official” status. In 1988, the policy was entrenched in our constitution as the Multicultural Act of Canada. By 2008, largely due to the influx of foreign money, the “function within a bi-lingual framework” component had all but disappeared. With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious this unprecedented policy was a major game-changer. To this day, it is arguable the majority of Canadians are unaware of the policy’s full impact, and its implications for the future of our country. One significant but largely overlooked factor is to be found in the area of funding. The Act explicitly states that ethnic cultural organizations are to receive government funding for the promotion of cultural events, language and holidays. In practical terms, this scenario played out whereby the largest and best organized ethnic communities received the lion’s share of the funding. Basically, it was a “snooze and you loose” situation. Indeed, many non-profit groups hit the snooze button. The outcome was an inequitable distribution of funding, with a few select communities receiving tens of millions, and smaller communities receiving little, or nothing. Times change. Demographics change, and no where in the world has this change been more profound than in Canada, a nation with the highest per-capita immigration rate in the world. Interestingly, until Australia adopted constitutional multiculturalism, Canada was also the only nation in the world with official multiculturalism. Pretty special, yet in all the excitement and fanfare, few seemed to notice or care that the general public had no input in the implementation of the policy. The public did not ask for or endorse this policy in any manner. It was a purely unilateral government decision, entirely devoid of the democratic process. Only with the dawning of the 21st century did the true impact of this policy begin to reveal itself. With mass immigration transforming the ethnic make-up of our nation, the demographic change became increasingly profound. In 2012, a Statistics Canada study pronounced that caucasians will become a minority in Toronto and Vancouver by 2031. As a result, Canadians of European origin today find themselves in a curious situation. Our government says white Canadians are headed for minority status, yet as an identifiable group, this diminishing segment of Canadian society lack a defined communal identity. This is all quite understandable, as in the past there was no need to even consider the issue of identity. Historically, Euro-Canadians were a well entrenched majority, and there was no reason to believe this would change, at least not to the degree that a re-thinking of identity would be necessary. Multiculturalism mandates that minority groups have the right to promote their ethnicity, and to receive money to do so. We see this manifested, for example, in Vancouver’s two week celebration of Chinese New Year, complete with taxpayer-funded social events, dragon parades, and colourful community centre displays. The Viksaiki parade, largely government funded, is the largest festival of the year in Surrey, B.C., a city with a population on par with the municipality of Vancouver. Let’s be frank- present-day multiculturalism has resulted in a number of oddities, inequities, and downright curiosities. Our society has arrived at a situation whereby the white Canadian are a “pending” minority, yet they lack in a communal voice or identity. When attempts have been made to create an identity on par with our larger “minority” communities, these actions are met with cries of xenophobia, racism, and other nastiness. Why the double standard? How did we arrive at a situation where the only identifiable group prevented from organizing, receiving funding, and promoting their traditions are those whose ancestors founded our country? Take the holiday of Christmas for example. Within contemporary society, the religious components of our biggest holiday are disappearing- basically, politically correct forces want the “Christ” taken out of Christmas. At the same time, Muslim and Sikh holidays have been elevated to the highest level of multicultural sensibility. Is it therefore reasonable to say that multicultural policy is largely responsible for a cultural “inversion” unprecedented in the history of our country? Questions therefore arise- has multicultural policy become a tool to promote all ethnicities except that of Canadians of European heritage? What will happen come 2031…will caucasians be the only minority without the ability to promote their ethnicity? Will their behaviour as a minority community still be labelled as oppressive when they attempt to establish an identity for themselves within our multi-ethnic society? Are there special interest organizations and individuals who would prefer this be the case? After three decades of personal involvement and education on these matters, my answer to the latter question is yes. Let’s face the facts: the multicultural ideal originally put forth by Pierre Trudeau no longer exists. Toward the end of his life, when asked his feelings on multiculturalism during a parliamentary visit, Trudeau indicated his sadness, stating that “this was not what he wanted”. In 2015, it is apparent that what was once a policy is today an INDUSTRY, comprised of multicultural organizations, civil libertarians, legal professionals, Charter of Rights advocates and immigration consultants- not to mention our top post-secondary institutions. Those of us who have been around a while may recall a time in our history when things were very different. During the “cold war” of the 1950’s, Russian-style communism was presented by government and media as a danger to society, capable of undermining the freedom and democratic rule so cherished by our nation. In the 1960’s, a wave of anti-Americanism swept through Canadian society. Events such as the Vietnam War stimulated a desire for a separate identity from our neighbours to the south. Our federal government, sensing public discontent, launched a program entitled the Royal Commission on Arts, Letters and Sciences to analyze “the degree of English-Canadian dependence on the United States”. Fast forward to 2015. Today, we find our government bending over backwards to ingratiate the desires of communist governments, and their economic interests. Trade deals, foreign currency hubs, foreign student programs, foreign worker programs, funding for pro-communist university departments. Foreign language advertising and signage has permeated some communities to the degree that they no longer appear Canadian. Our banks market in foreign languages, often without an English or French equivalent. Indeed, the situation is so extreme it often appears our government has greater concern for the well being of non-Canadians and foreign governments than for their own citizens. Meanwhile, among the top source countries of our immigrants who provide the majority of our immigrants, all is culturally “status quo”. No government-enforced multiculturalism. No priority for foreign workers or students. In fact, all of Canada’s top immigrant source countries continue to retain their core identities, as they have for centuries, or even millennia. Only Canada, as well as Australia, are constitutionally mandated for the very fabric of their nations to undergo comprehensive cultural transformation. Just two nations out of slightly under two hundred countries in the world. In other words, only 1% of the world’s nations are truly multicultural. From these facts we see that on an international level, multiculturalism is far from the norm. In reality, it is barely on the map. Furthermore, the Canadian public has never endorsed or given consent to this transformative policy. Clearly, it’s implementation is non-democratic. On this basis, and considering current societal prohibition of European-Canadian identity, how long will it be before the founding English and French Canadian populations of our nation are relegated to the periphery of society? One generation. At present immigration rates, that’s all it is going to take. Yes indeed, the times they are a ‘changin. by b. salzberg, (c) 2015'

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

  

by b. salzberg, (c)  2015

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

How Would Canadians Vote in a Poll on Multiculturalism?

Posted on by
Wonder what the poll results would be in Canada? Of course, with our current political environment,Canadians will never know.

Inline image 1

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

Welcome to…China? No, actually, welcome to Journey Middle School! in Sooke, BC

Posted on by
Welcome to…China? No, actually, welcome to Journey Middle School! in Sooke, BC
 
In efforts to further promote state-sponsored multiculturalism, Journey Middle School (located at: 6522 Throup Road, Sooke, BC  V9Z 0W6) proudly fly’s the flag of China in order to “welcome” Chinese visitors to their school. 
Looks like at this school, students are receiving an indoctrination (not education) in the early stages of being put though our modern state-operated school system. It is no doubt that schools much like Journey are corrupt, with almost its entire faculty consisting of leftists who abuse their teaching positions as platforms to propagate partisan political agendas to young vulnerable students.
In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to enact an official policy of multiculturalism. At the time, Canada was 96% European. There was no vote, and there was no referendum. We were never asked, and we never agreed. As in all Western countries, multiculturalism was imposed on us without our consent. 
Welcome to...China? No, actually, welcome to Journey Middle School! in Sooke, BC In efforts to further promote state-sponsored multiculturalism, Journey Middle School (located at: 6522 Throup Road, Sooke, BC V9Z 0W6) proudly fly's the flag of China in order to "welcome" Chinese visitors to their school. Looks like at this school, students are receiving anindoctrination (not education) in the early stages of being put though our modern state-operated school system. It is no doubt that schools much like Journey are corrupt, with almost its entire faculty consisting of leftists who abuse their teaching positions as platforms to propagate partisan political agendas to young vulnerable students. In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to enact an official policy of multiculturalism. At the time, Canada was 96% European. There was no vote, and there was no referendum. We were never asked, and we never agreed. As in all Western countries, multiculturalism was imposed on us without our consent. Our countries are democracies, and in a democracy the majority rules. Across the entire Western world, undemocratically imposed multicultural policies are reducing our people to minorities within our own countries and thereby stripping us of our autonomy and our powers of self-determination; we are being of our ability to choose our leaders and our destinies. This is basically what our young people are being told to "celebrate" at schools dominated by the radical-left (Journey in this particular case, being a prime example). Multiculturalism runs counter to the interests of our people and we did not vote or it, nor did we need it. Therefore, it is completely illegitimate and we are entirely justified in opposing it, resisting it, and destroying it. Yours truly, Lisa Glatt Regional Activist
Our countries are democracies, and in a democracy the majority rules. Across the entire Western world, undemocratically imposed multicultural policies are reducing our people to minorities within our own countries and thereby stripping us of our autonomy and our powers of self-determination; we are being of our ability to choose our leaders and our destinies. This is basically what our young people are being told to “celebrate” at schools dominated by the radical-left (Journey in this particular case, being a prime example). 
Multiculturalism runs counter to the interests of our people and we did not vote or it, nor did we need it. Therefore, it is completely illegitimate and we are entirely justified in opposing it, resisting it, and destroying it.
Yours truly,
Lisa Glatt
Regional Activist
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,
← Newer Entries Older Entries →