The Shotgun Blog
« OK, but are my tax dollars somehow involved? | Main | It just needs tweeking, that's all »
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Harper's Choice
Kevin Grace is putting a bit of stick about, landing blows on the Liberals and on the chickenheartedness of the Conservatives. As he points out, the Liberal attack ads with their overt suggestion that Harper is anti-immigrant are the hardball end of Canadian politics. And he quotes Harper from a few years ago:
National Citizens' Coalition president Stephen Harper responds,When Harper made this remark it was, with a few minor exceptions true. And there is the rub; officially, as Grace points out, it is just not done for a leader of a major Canadian politcal party to question the immigration policies of the last twenty five years. Mention them and you are immediately labelled a redneck and a racist and consigned to outer darkness by Toronto media.I think Chretien just doesn't care. You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into Western Canadian society.
the ambler
Grace's take is
Do the Liberals now want a referendum on Canada’s immigration and refugee policy? Not on your nelly, they don’t. If Stephen Harper were to take the position, the majority position, that Canada’s immigration policy has been a disaster imposed on this country against the will of its citizens, the Liberals would be routed.
the ambler
I am not so sure. First off, it is by no means clear that the policy has been a disaster. It has certainly strained the resources of the country and stretched the social fabric in often disruptive ways. But I suspect the distortion is different rather than worse than the distortion which would have been caused had there been no immigration or an immigration policy which was overtly racist.
Second, the white flight which has built the suburbs around Vancouver and Toronto, has allowed a fairly significant degree of adjustment to take place. What might have been a burning issue in the Legion fifteen years ago is now a work around. For people in the main centers of Asian immigration the ragged edges of culture clash are increasingly social rather than political.
Finally, whatever else one might want to say about the wisdom of the last twenty five years of Canadian immigration policy, the fact is that there are now several million people in Canada as a result of that policy and they are not going anywhere. So, for Harper to try and run against the fait accompli of that policy would suggest he was ill attached to reality. Not a good position to be in.
Grace quotes an unimpeachable, if unnamed, authority that
shortly after Harper won the Alliance leadership it was put to him there were two issues he could employ to destroy the Liberal hegemony. One was immigration; the other was Canada’s similarly disastrous Indian policy. His response? "Nah."
the ambler
Which suggests that Harper is a little savvier than the Liberals give him credit for.
cross posted from Jay Currie
Posted by Jay Currie on May 5, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83429d7cc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harper's Choice:
Comments
Re: suburban white flight--at least in Toronto, it is the inner suburbs that are increasingly non-white. At least that is what I recall from my time at United Way a few years back. Because rents are relatively cheaper there, many 'newcomers' (as we were to call immigrants) end up there. But since 90 percent of the social services agencies are downtown, a lot of assimilation just doesn't get done.
Would it really be suicide for Harper to raise the issue of immigration? Aren't the Dutch doing this right now, and won't other 'sophisticated, open minded' European countries follow suit shortly?
I'm not convinced Jay that we can argue from 'what might have been' if we hadn't had immigration. We did, and most ordinary voters frankly aren't concerned with alternative history except as a parlour game.
And how do we know that they're not 'going anywhere'?
There's immigration and then there's immigration. There are 'immigrants' and then there are 'settlers', the types we are often dealing with today. Having lots of cool ethnic restaurants is one thing. Having sharia courts in suburban Toronto is another thing altogether, not to mention the burgeoning business in hymen reconstruction and other unpleasant cultural imports.
Not to get all Camp of the Saints on everybody here, but outside of downtown Toronto and Vancouver, I think you'd be surprised (and disappointed) at how popular a "I Want My Country Back" campaign would fly in 'nice, multicultural' Canada.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 7:32:22 AM
Can I just add that I think this may be a class issue? Most people I know who were raised working class (like myself) tend to be more or less anti-immigration. Anybody...?
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 7:41:03 AM
Can any one of you point to an ACTUAL instance in your life of an immigrant in Canada doing something that actually negatively impacted you in some way.
Aside from the poor slob bumbling his way around a city driving you in a cab somewhere and not speeky-good-english.
Seriously - I challenge a SINGLE one of you to name an instance where Canada's immigration policy has actually harmed you, infringed upon your rights, or damaged your ability to get by in this world.
Did an immigrant ACTUALLY steal your job? Did an immigrant actually stop you from being Canadian? Did an immigrant actually circumcise your daughter?
Seriously. I want to know. Just what in the hell have immigrants done to YOU, personally that has you so cheezed off at them?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-05 8:02:58 AM
Meaghan, when possibly violent refugee claimants are wandering around the country while their claims are being investigated; when my taxes are spent on everything from supporting myriad cultural celebrations to language classes to social services for people who have never paid into them and are about a decade away from ever doing so; when so many of the victims and perpetrators of Toronto murders these days are Jamaican immigrants but no one is allowed to ask why...
Do you really need to ask?
It is simply a fact that while large numbers of people come to Canada to become contributing members of society, many others come here to take advantage of our liberal/lax laws and open mindedness.
http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/3877.stm
The September 11 terrorists were immigrants, no?
It actually has never been the conservative position that we are only supposed to be concerned about things 'that effect us personally.' That is actually the prevailing liberal view. As someone concerned about the future of our nation, and how policies about individuals effect society as a whole, I don't believe the subject of immigration should be beyond the pale.
We invented immigration policy and we can un-invent it. We allowed immigrants in for our own self interest, not out of the goodness of our hearts, contrary to the prevailing Canadian myth. Just as easily, we can re-evaluate our self interest in light of current realities and adjust our policy accordingly.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 8:20:06 AM
Here, hear! Meaghan. And I would issue the same challenge to Canada's aboriginal population. Some seem to inexplicably resent the initial immigration of Europeans to this fine continent.
Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2004-05-05 8:24:49 AM
(Does quick look in mirror [http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2003/8/22/1573.html], looks about nervously, prepares reminder that his family, doctors all, have saved more lives than all this blog's writers combined, patiently awaits the obligatory "No, Joey, we don't mean *you*" platitudes...)
Seriously, how do you sort the good ones from the bad ones? You know that there *are* good ones, right?
Posted by: Joey deVilla | 2004-05-05 8:48:07 AM
Kathy's on target. The problem is not immigration as much as official encouragement of ethnic enclaves, the inevitable consequence of 40 years of racist, patronizing, divisive "official multiculturalism". It is the lack of any sense of connection with Canada that is distressing to see. Ironically, I suspect most immigrants would welcome a stronger bond with their new country, which is (ironically again) the way it was in pre-Trudeau Canada. It is usually the 2nd generation that "become" Canadian - and allowing Sharia and other similar nonsense clouds and obstructs that natural process.
Posted by: JGS | 2004-05-05 8:56:18 AM
It isn't that difficult Joey. We crack down on anybody who lies to get into the country, takes part in passport fraud and so forth. We immediately deport non-citizens who are convicted of any crime, including supporting terrorist organizations and enemies of the country.
We only allow Canadian citizens to receive government benefits, get drivers licenses or take part in electoral politics; newcomers will have to rely upon private charity or the generosity of relatives until they can start paying taxes.
We get rid of Heritage Language classes in schools. Immigrants who are not fluent in English or French go to the end of the line.
This will all have the magical effect of getting lots of immigrants to self select for a friendlier place.
I'm sure your doctor relatives have helped a lot of people. So have lots of white/black/Asian doctors. When a Muslim immigrant blows up a North York synagogue at the behest of a Muslim immigrant imam, your doctor relatives services will no doubt be required as well.
Again we are arguing from the personal rather than from broader policies and theories. We can't let the country go to heck because we might hurt a few people's feelings.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 9:42:27 AM
Instead of arguing from personal experience or cheap sentiment or stuff that goes without saying (immigrants built this country and the vast majority are proud citizens; native Canadians were treated like crap in countless ways), PLEASE can we look at the facts on the ground _today_?
Did anybody check out the link I provided about how our immigration policies have allowed Islamist terrorist sympathizers to thrive in our country? What about Orianna Falacci's hair raising books? Just to name two items that have made the news lately.
I for one find it impossible to read this stuff and maintain those It's a Small World After All squishy feelings.
The vast majority of Canadian citizens are 'the good ones' Joey. Are we then not allowed to have conversations about what to do with the bad ones, immigrants or not?
Heck, I don't think much of Canadians of any background or colour who break the law/ mooch off the state/ pick their nose on the subway. But that wasn't what we were talking about. When we have a post on 3rd generation citizen welfare bums, you know I will weigh in on that too.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 10:10:17 AM
Kathy, on your conditions for separating good from bad:
- Lying to get into the country: Agreed.
- Passport fraud: Agreed.
- Supporting terrorist organizations/enemy regimes: If clear evidence showing material aid knowingly provided to a group on a list of terror/enemy organizations can be given, yes.
- Deporting non-citizens who commit a crime: If the non-citizen is an independent adult, yes. If the non-citizen is a dependent child, no (there should be some sort of punishment, however) unless the crime is serious.
- Government benefits: Warrants further discussion
- No driver's license: Disagree. It hinders their ability to get to work, get their kids to school, get groceries and so on, especially if they live in the 'burbs where it's cheaper.
- No voting rights until you're a citizen: Agreed.
- Having functional English or French: If a couple, at least one of them must have it. Mandatory classes for non-English/French speakers.
I'd also switch heritage language classes for orientation classes.
How's that?
Posted by: Joey deVilla | 2004-05-05 10:27:45 AM
Thanks for responding Joey. Once again, we substantially agree (scary, innit?)
So I can't help but ask: then why does the mere hint of a conversation about immigration make so many people so defensive/hostile/ornery?
This isn't a National Front website, so I don't understand why we have to constantly promise 'we're not talking about person X's grandma, but those terrorists' and that we all agree that 'criminals are bad' and so forth. Sigh.
Anyway: what do other people think about barring non-citizens from receiving govenrment benefits, as a way to a) save money, b) weed out moochers and c) present at least the image of fairness and justice to life-long tax payers who should (I think) be the first in line to receive things _they themselves have actually paid for_?
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-05 11:19:23 AM
I am rarely surprised at the consensus Canadians reach on the list of things which should have an immigrant or refugee claimant to Canada bunged into the next plane for his or her homeland.
However, the broader question of whether or not the imigration policies of the last twenty five years should remain in force is harder to address. For example, what would be the politics of calling for a five year immigration and refugee claimant "pause" to let the system catch up and to consider what to do next?
My own sense is that Harper could round up the anti-immigration vote simply by saying that landed immigrants who commit crimes should be automatically returned to their country of origin and the same goes for refugee claimants. Moreover, this process should proceed with dispatch. Conviction to deportation with all the bells and whistles should take no more than a couple of weeks. It would be hard for the Liberals to suggest that this is racist or anti-immigrant, its anti-crime.
But, for the moment I think Harper is wise to stay away from the bigger question.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-05 12:43:11 PM
Well - my mother is dead, of suicide in 1975 - 2 years after I was taken away from her and my siblings in the baby-scoop and placed for adoption. She was told by the immigrant/social workers - that she had the choice of either giving up one child, or losing both. She was also a victim of residential schools. She was sexually and physically abused.
As for my 5 other aunts and uncles in the immediate family - All (except the youngest who did not end up in residential schools) - were physically, emotionally and sexually abused by the priests and workers at the residential schools. 2 are prostitutes in Vancouver's East End - 2 more are recovering alcoholic/addicts.
But Wait... you wanted to know about immigrants - The people responsible for the policies that created these pathologies in my relations were not immigrants (in the technical sense of that word - they were multi-generational Canadians)
As for me - The only time I have been discriminated by, as an Aboriginal Person - was by the DIA Regional Office in Vancouver that declared that since I was an Aboriginal and Media person - I was not to be allowed to speak with my band's Funding Officer to ask about missapproprations of funds. White press were allowed to (and did) speak with said funding officer - band members who were not media were (and did) allowed to speak with said funding officer. I was barred from being able to follow-up on an investigation that I started into over $175,000 that was for a Forrestry Program and ended up being spend on housing.
I had to hand off all of my notes and work to non-native reporters to get questions asked.
I almost forgot the time the CBC treated me like a dumb ignorant indian, when I called the Chief of my band "crooked" and the lawyer for our Band (at $400,000/year) a parasite.
I was told that since I dared to use those words (even though I had documentation to back up the statements) that I would never be asked to speak on CBC again. 3 times since then CBC has called me and asked me to "comment" on some issue or another and I have refused, accordingly.
So - yes, I am a little pissed off at the immigrant CBC that continues to promote, and sanction corruption, nepotism and graft on Indian Reserves - while my relatives suffer the results.
Any other questions?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-05 2:33:16 PM
"The September 11 terrorists were immigrants, no?"
No.
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-05 2:35:26 PM
For the record, the purpose of my comment below in which I ask that Canadian aboriginals take up the same challenge that Meaghan Walker-Williams issued to all Canadians in her comment below that, was to obliquely point out that most "fear" or dislike of immigration is not personal--like she suggests in her comment--but general. People are concerned about being overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigrants and losing control of their country and culture.
It does happen.
Perhaps a few wise old natives raised the alarm when they saw European immigrants arriving here in piddling numbers. And perhaps they were shouted down by younger folks who thought it was just great that these new people were coming here, bringing them nice pots and beads and paying for pelts. "There's lots of room." And the white folks just kept coming and coming.
The point of course is that these fears are not irrational. Societies can be overwhelmed.
Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2004-05-05 3:40:39 PM
I've read thru this thread, Kathy's anti-immigrant and anti-immigration posts,
and the not-very veiled anti-Muslim sentiment contained in them. (Kathy may not
be talking about your grandma, but I'm a little concerned that she may be talking about _my_
grandma!)
I'll try to cook up a response on my own blog later. But until then, I am curious if the voices of conservatism here think that that Kathy's idea of a 'Pauline Hanson' type campaign with veiled anti-Muslim (instead of anti-Asian) themes could succeed in
Canada? Is this the kind of thing western conservatives (and, yes, I know Kathy isn't
a westerner) would support?
Almost 40% of Canadians, and more than 50% of Ontarians, over 15 were either born outside Canada or had one parent born outside Canada.
So an anti-immigrant political platform would, on the face of it, not seem to be a winning strategy. Would a more focused anti-Muslim strategy be successful in getting votes for Conservatives? Is fear or dislike of Canadian Muslims a strong enough issue to get votes? In Ontario? In Toronto? Thoughts?
Posted by: Ikram | 2004-05-05 6:19:48 PM
Meagan: Actually, Yes:
http://cfrterrorism.org/coalition/saudiarabia.html
Most of the September 11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. That is a well known fact.
Kevin: Good answer.
Ikram: If your grandmother was in favour of arranged marriages to first cousins, hymen restoration, wearing the hijab and destorying the State of Israel, maybe I was talking about her, who knows?
The majority of Muslims might not be terrorists, but I can't help but notice that the majority of terrorists are Muslims. I wouldn't be anywhere near as concerned about increased Muslim immigration to Canada if I heard a peep from Muslim Canadians _unreservedly_ condemning terrorism and pledging their allegence to Canada. It has been more than 2 years since 9/11 and I am still waiting with baited breath. What I hear is a lot of bleating about how picked on they are, as if being looked at sideways on the subway were the moral equivalent of getting incinerated in the World Trade Centre.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, a large number of Japanese Americans, some of whom were already in camps, promptly volunteered for the US Armed Forces. The 442nd Regiment was the most decorated of World War 2. If Muslim Americans and Canadians had displayed 1/10th of that sort of spirit post Sept 11, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
http://www.katonk.com/442nd/442/page1.html
I have heard a great deal of scary stuff about what is going on in England, France and the rest of Europe, with their millions of unassimilated Muslim immigrants and their children. UK Shelters originally built for battered wives are nowadays often crowded with young girls escaping arranged marriages. Women (Muslim or not) are gang raped for daring to go without a veil in French suburbs. And so forth.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-islam_cannot.htm
All I'm doing is taking your co-religionists at their word:
"I quoted a moderate, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, of the relatively small Islamic Supreme Council of America. In Kabbani's reliable estimation, such 'extremists' have 'taken over 80 percent of the mosques' in the United States. It is not just the mosques: schools, youth groups, community centers, political organizations, professional associations, and commercial enterprises also tend to share a militant Islamic outlook that is hostile to the prevailing order in the United States and advocates its replacement with an Islamic one. Had this article come out before 9/11, it would have been dismissed as eccentric."
In this article that Pipes did not want to publish earlier, he wrote: "The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people - many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Laden - who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam. Although not responsible for the atrocities in September, they harbor designs for this country that warrant urgent and serious attention."
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1759
If a few crazies have hijacked Islam, pray tell, why is it so very easily hijacked?
Posted by: Kathy | 2004-05-05 7:57:55 PM
more from the Ambler on immigration:
http://www.theambler.com/may1-15_04.htm#thought5my04
and see also: http://tinyurl.com/27t5a
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-05-05 10:54:43 PM
Politically, Ikram has it about right. In a nation of immigrants it is fairly idiotic to be against immigration.
Which is not to say that there is not a good deal of room to suggest changes and improvements to the system.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-05 11:22:42 PM
"Meagan: Actually, Yes:
http://cfrterrorism.org/coalition/saudiarabia.html
Most of the September 11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. That is a well known fact."
Kathy,
Actually no.
First - They were not in Canada.
Second - Not a single one of them was in the US on an immigration visa.
Third - Most of them were in the country illegally as their non-immigration visas had expired.
They were in the US - living illegally, and not a single one of them indicated a desire to immigrate to "The Great Satan" when they entered the country.
Technically, and Really - they were NOT immigrants.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-05 11:42:16 PM
"Perhaps a few wise old natives raised the alarm when they saw European immigrants arriving here in piddling numbers. And perhaps they were shouted down by younger folks who thought it was just great that these new people were coming here, bringing them nice pots and beads and paying for pelts. "There's lots of room." And the white folks just kept coming and coming."
My read of history on this was that for quite some time, the new immigrants to Aboriginal People's lands were not deemed much of a threat. In fact, in 1846 there were only 725 British People in British Columbia. That's WHY the Oregon Treaty was signed. And that's exactly WHY the Oregon Treaty was signed. The Brits were hoping that by making nice with the Indians, and not stealing their land and things from them, that British Columbia would not be taken over by the Americans.
It wasn't until the new immigrants to Aboriginal People's lands started pre-empting lands, and "Indian Agents" started engaging in outright fraud and theft that the Aboriginals in Coast Salish Territory got a whiff of understanding about what kind of people they were dealing with.
When they did resist - 1853, the British Gunboats went up and down the Coast shooting Indians, firing cannonballs at big houses and hanging dissidents.
There was a group of Indians who hung out on Kuper Island and down in Green Point that kept resisting...
However they were not looked upon fondly by the rest of the population. In fact, some of them were betrayed by their own relatives and captured - given over to British Authorities. For which those who did the capturing were appointed "Chiefs" by same British Authorities.
Until that point in history there were no "Chiefs" in the Coast Salish Culture on Vancouver Island.
It was around that time that the 7th wave of disease had struck the populations of Vancouver Island, leaving the Aboriginal Peoples hopelessly mismatched to fight back.
When the "new Canadians" first came to their territory, for the most part the people who were originally there took them at their word, as honourable people. It wasn't until promises were broken many times over that the alarm was raised. Even in the beginning James Douglas did try to stop some of the more blatant abuses - but this changed radically when Trutch became Lt.Governor General. While Douglas was in charge - it was commonly understood and respected that the Indians owned their land. If land was properly sold by Indians to white people - Douglas upheld the sales. If Land was not properly sold by Indians to white people (as in, White people just came and squatted on Indian land) Douglas would uphold the rights of the Indians. Trutch put forth the proposition that Indians did not own any land and as such, any Indian Land could be taken from them at whim - with the hopes that any Indian resistance to such policy could be easily crushed.
It was around this time that A group of high-honoured Indians made a trip to England to Appeal to the King about the abuses they had suffered. Whereupon the Crown promised that such abuses would not continue and that these matters would be dealt with. That was over 100 years ago. We are still waiting for these abuses to end.
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-05 11:59:19 PM
I know they weren't in Canada, Meaghan. Not sure why you brought that up; a bit of a non sequitur. When discussing immigration, I wasn't informed that we were to confine ourselves to discussing Canadian immigration. Excuse moi. I think you're being argumentative just for the sake of it.
They were illegal aliens, i.e. non-citizens, i.e, foreigners. We can argue semantics, but that doesn't bring 3000 people back to life. A great many Muslim immigrants/illegal alliens/refugees to Canada/Europe/US ALSO do not wish to adopt the ways of the Great Satan, but to undermine us. They may not blow up buildings, but they may support those who do.
My bubble is pretty much unburstable.
Jay: Australia was a nation settled by criminals. Are Australians not allowed to be against crime? America was founded by revolutionaries. Are Americans not allowed to criticize revolutionaries at home and abroad?
That Canada was a nation founded by immigrants is a historical fact, but: So what?? Why should our past curtail our discussions today? Just petulantly calling something 'fairly idiotic' doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-05-06 6:49:33 AM
Kathy, I meant politically "idiotic". In my view, while there are political payoffs for a discussion of streamlining the process for getting rid of landed immigrants who break the law and doubtful refugee claimants, there is no upside at all to revisiting 25 years of immigration policy.
Meaghan, what a balanced account of West Coast aboriginal history. I can see Kuper Island out my window. Douglas was, in fact, a pretty fair man and, had the principles he held continued the current land claims mess in BC would be a lot less sticky.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-05-06 11:23:22 AM
One point missing from this discussion is that it ought to be possible to frame a policy on the restriction of immigration that does not threaten the majority of (more recent) immigrants already here, and that could even gain widespread support among them. With the appearance of non-assimilating immigrant enclaves (as is suggested for example by the move to set up a Sharia court), immigration into those enclaves becomes a long-term threat to the country's political stability. It thereby threatens the interests of both non-immigrants and most immigrants. But to build an alliance between these groups, it would be necessary to make it clear that there is no intention of trying to "win the country back" for those of British descent. Rather it would be a matter of trying to exclude those who do not come here with any intention of assimilating to broad Canadian values, e.g., tolerance.
Posted by: Ian Hare | 2004-05-06 1:03:52 PM
Kathy,
I asked if anybody could point to an instance of an immigrant in Canada doing them some harm. You responded by remarking about the "immigrants" - who were mostly Saudi Nationals, in the US, who flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Since I was responding to a post about Harper's views on immigration and some other comments about Canadian immigration - I assumed that the context of the discussion was.... big surprise... Canadian Immmigration. Which is what made your comments about the US illegal Saudi-National Terrorists the non-sequitor.
I believe the US immigration issue is quite different from Canada. The United States prides itself on being a beacon of liberty to all who may wish to come to America and live the American dream. ie.. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearing to breath free."
(I actually get chills when I read that or think of it)
It is one of the things that makes America a great country. If you want to talk about American Immigration - I'd be happy to get my American family or friends to respond to a Canadian perspective on their policies.
As for Canadas policy - I asked you for an instance of your well-being actually being harmed by canadian immigrants. I qualified my remarks to the extent that I believe there is a large difference between legal immigrants those in the country illegally.
I don't see why people who have met the requirements for immigration into Canada, and who have done no harm to the Country, or it's citizens should be lumpened in with terrorists.
There are how many thousands of immigrants to Canada each year? And exactly how many of them are terrorists? A handful perhaps?
In my view - your attitude about immigrants is
It's a little like people who want to claim that the US Army is full of cowardly depraved thugs and monsters - because of the recent Abu Gharib prison torture scandal.
Because a few engaged in despicable acts doesn't and shouldn't condemn all the others to shame.
I would hope.
Or is your position about all the terrible immigrants in Canada, doing terrible things to the country really based on such similarly specious logic?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-06 2:13:34 PM
"They were illegal aliens, i.e. non-citizens, i.e, foreigners" - sez Kathy
Like I said in an earlier threadlet.
I have yet to see an anti-immigration argument that did not in it's essence boil down to "I just don't like those damned brown-skinned people"
Kathy - will you at least admit that there is a huge conceptual difference between the following:
a) legal immigrants
b) foreigners
c) illegal immigrants
d) terrorists
Foreigners are not all immigrants, legal or otherwise. They are also not all terrorists.
I know you don't like them (foreigners) but for the sake of a coherant discussion - could you stick to the topic at hand.
If you really wanted to discuss the harm done by "foreigners" to Canada - you should say so clearly.
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-06 2:34:15 PM
Jay,
If you are interested in that sort of thing - check out "Terror of the Coast" by Chris Arnett- I think Munroes has it in Victoria. I had NO idea you were on the Island. A quasi-libertarian on Vancouver Island, all those years before I moved to Florida - and I never knew you were there! Damn Damn and double-damn!
I was in Duncan for 6 years. Wrote for the Cowichan Valley Citizen for 3 of those years on local Band Government happenings.
As for Kuper Island. My great great great great Uncle was Sam Squ'elum, who, with his friend's wife ended the life of the terrorist Tzouhalem on Kuper Island.
Squ'elum was one of the original 12 names of the First Cowichans who "fell from the sky".
I've got lots more fascinating info about settlement in the Cowichan Valley. Because I have relatives on both sides of the race-line, my perspective tends to be pretty balanced on average I think. The Gabourie family knew Douglas personally when they were alive.
My great great great grandfather on my great-grandmother's side - was a Joseph Gabourie - who hiked across Canada from the Trois Riverres - in Quebec (Abanaki territory), when he was 17 with the first missionary to Cowichan Territory, Father Rondeault. His father was French, his mother Abanaki.
Joseph Married a Somena princess in Cowichan, at the suggestion of the good father Rondeult.And that's where my linegage to Somena comes from. My Indian name is actually his daughter's name - Snu'qual.
That name actually comes from Kuper Island as well.
Next time I am home in Canada, I will look you up - deal?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-06 2:49:11 PM
I must say I am amazed at the lack of discernment among my fellow conservatives here!!
Let's get down right to it.....we are not just talking about any immigration......We are talking about Islamic immigration which HAS to be limited severly if not completely!!
Islam is not an ideology that is here to assimilate.........Islam has stated over for 1400 years in words and actions that they are here to take over......by all means necessary!!
And the leaders from the most prestigious Islamic institutions around the world have again and again threatened that there greatest weapon is the WOMB!! And they are implementing this plan in Europe with horrific results......the upcoming Wars in Europe will be absolutely mind boggling.......the Islamic hordes there are absolutely radical and full of hatred for there 'kafir' hosts!!
This is what this is all about......no one is concerned with decent amounts of immigration from the Caribean or Africa or Eastern Europe...
But we had better damned well through off our politically correct glasses and acknowledge that we are facing a time bomb of incredible danger with our Islamic populations in North America which thankfully are still relatively small at this point but there intentions are much larger!
Why in hell should we be inviting people to live in this country from nations that hate us ie Islamic countries??? It is suicidal and only the most stunned people (liberals) would condone such stupidity!
Yes yes......you can all blather that we all know decent Muslims..yeah yeah......how's this.......my 2 best friends are Sunnis from Trinidad that left Islam many years ago and are thus apostates......I have had many Islamic acquainteces..........the problem isn't that there are not decent Muslims.......the problem is ISLAM........and I would suggest that everyone of you had better start studying this murderous ideology......as I have for over 20 years!!
The best people to talk too are Ex Muslims......they will give you an insider's account of this creed......
Remember folks, Hitler had his Mein Kampf and we didn't pay attention and it almost cost us our civilization......Islam has its Quran and Hadiths......and if we do not learn what these are about, we too eventually could lose our way of life to this, the most vile of world religions and ideologies!!
Please visit the brave ex muslims of
www.faithfreedom.org
run by the brilliant ex muslim Dr. Ali Sina
who is a Persian that now resides in Canada
in hiding of course.......You have to realize,
that under Muhammed's many deranged teachings
that murder of those that leave islam is
presribed.......alas, why Dr. Sina is in
continual hiding!!
Thanks
Posted by: Devon Hill | 2004-05-06 11:58:20 PM
I'll make you a deal. How much did Euro-White immigrants to Canada assimilate into Native Indian culture? Why do you expect other new-comers to Canada to be any different with their prejudices, bigotry and quirks that they bring with them?
For years, I've heard oodles of White Canadians tell Indians "It's time to "get over it".
Well - forgive me for not having too much sympathy for white Canadians when people from foreign cultures come to this country with different habits, beliefs and ideas and aren't interested in adopting those of the current population.
"Get over it".
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-07 7:53:00 AM
"Aside from the poor slob bumbling his way around...and not speeky-good-english."
Why did I think of Chretien when I read this?
Posted by: Orville | 2004-05-07 1:03:25 PM
"I'll make you a deal."
Okay, well, let's hear your terms...
"How much did Euro-White immigrants to Canada assimilate into Native Indian culture?"
They/we didn't! (I'm of mixed heritage, part European and part East Indian, hence why I said that - though I identify more with my white side, and will use consider myself European, and use "we", accordingly for the rest of this post). We were conquerors, conquering other peoples, as has always been the way through human history - esp. when a more advanced society meets a less advanced one, even if the differences are small. (Where are the Assyrians? Where are the Phoenicians? Where are the Carthaginians? Where are the Babylonians? Gone, lost in the mists of history, along with countless other peoples - e.g. the Beothuks. History happens, folks - "get over it", indeed...)
"Why do you expect other new-comers to Canada to be any different with their prejudices, bigotry and quirks that they bring with them?"
We don't! That's just it - we didn't assimilate to aboriginal ways - rather, we conquered and destroyed; ergo, if we want to survive now, against those who would do the same thing to us, we must be better at preserving ourselves and our society and our ways than aboriginals were at defending theirs against us.
What are the terms of your deal - I don't see any "you agree to this; I'll agree to that" here, just a chip on your shoulder about how history has turned out.
Just ask yourself this - do you want to liver under the Crescent Moon and Star - or under the Pink Swastika? If you don't, then lose the bitterness, let bygones be bygones (like I've done, as regards the racism I suffered growing up in rural Eastern Ontario), and work together with those of us who oppose this as well, white and otherwise...
A few years or so ago, a science fiction novel, by aboriginal sci-fi writer Jake Page, came out, entitled "Shatterhand":
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345397215.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif
It imagines an alternate history in which Nazis invaded the U.S. - and the Navajo and Hopi joined in the struggle against them - just as they did in real history:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245562/
The tagline for the novel was: "The Indians lost America once. They are not about to lose it again..." A sentiment with which Dr. David Yeagley (aboriginal conservative, patriotic American journalist) would agree:
http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://www.vdare.com/misc/yeagley_indian_view.htm
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-05-07 7:27:08 PM
Wil S sez
"That's just it - we didn't assimilate to aboriginal ways - rather, we conquered and destroyed"
As I asked Kathy earlier - Which war was it that Canada fought against the Aboriginal Peoples in North America? And when did this "conquering" take place?
Whether you are aware of it or not Wil, Aboriginal culture has not been destroyed. In fact, in BC - Aboriginals are the largest growing population. If current trends continue as they are today - without a massive influx of immigrants to the province, Aboriginals will be the majority between the years 2057 and 2114.
Furthermore - I found your remarks about the advanced cultures to less-advanced cultures to be quite interesting. Advanced by what standard? According to whom? By Advanced, I take it to mean, surviving - sustaining such assaults -- since you qualified the inferior/less advanced "cultures" as the ones that have dissapeared. I would agree with you in that instance that longevity would be a pretty good benchmark.
It may surprise you to know that Coast Salish Aboriginal Peoples have been living in continuous occupation of their lands in the territory now called British Columbia for over 9000 years, according to most recent archeological digs - carbon-dating at Yale and Musqueum. This is a culture that existed with Big Houses, Salmon and Cedar for 20 times longer than "Canadian Society" has. My ancestors were building condos on the beach in Musequem - before the Anglo-Saxons came to England, before the birth of Christ, Before Caesars ruled Rome, Before there was a Rome, While Pharoahs rules Egypt. These same Coast Salish people are not ancient relics, resigned to tombs and digs. They are alive - today and despite the "good intentions" of Canada's failed policy, to as you suggest "Conquer and destroy" --they are alive, and re-populating at a tremendous rate. The renaisance of the Big House and efforts to preserve language and ethnohistory are paying off. In my ancestors' territory - we have come back from a 90% loss of population in less than 200 years. I can not find a single instance in history of another civilization that has managed to survive such a horrific loss of life.
Now - let's talk about so called "Canadian Culture" that needs preserving from the hordes of muslim and other foreigners.
Which culture is it that you are talking about preserving?
Since you believe Aboriginal Cultures were "destroyed" a long time ago - you presumably don't mean to include them in what you call Canadian culture.
So...What the hell do you mean by "Canadian Culture" that you want to preserve from the influx of Muslims?
If Canadian culture is superior/advanced (as you suggested before about sustaining surviving advanced cultures and inferior cultures) - surely you have nothing to worry about muslim influences taking over. Isn't it, (as you said) inevitable that more advanced societies will prevail over less advanced societies.
Islam was founded only 1400 years ago. By Coast Salish standards they are a recent fad - much like this current Canadian Mainstream Society you are so attached to and vehemently want to preserve.
I am quite sure that Coast Salish people will survive them. Though I'm not sure about the "Canadian Society" that you have defined as such.
Especially if the plan is to get the muslims out of the country ASAP.
It is a core tenet of Muslim belief that it is an unforgivable sin to kill another muslim. (although it's fine to kill infidels). It seems to me that the way to ensure that major cities in Canada don't get nuked by muslims is to populate these major cities with Muslims.
And no Wil, - I don't think it's right to kill "infidels". I also don't think it's right to kill muslims. But then again - I am not the one trying to claim that it is only natural, right that advanced cultures "conquer and destroy" weaker and "less advanced" societies. Might doesn't make right.
You know... I'm surprised that you oppose the Muslims and their ideology so much. You have a lot more in common with them, than perhaps you realize. In Centuries past and in the present time when Muslims have taken over other countries - they have done a very good job of "destroying" the cultural icons of the societies they were attempting to conquer -- ie dynamiting the gigantic statues of Buddah in Afghanistan, destroying any graven images etc... But then - that's just the natural course of things right Wil?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-08 4:48:02 AM
Ms. Walker-Williams: Perhaps I left an erroneous impression in my recent posting, that I endorse the conquering of any stronger, more technologically advanced / or more strong-willed group over another - I don't; I just accept that it happens, and that it has happened, and this is the way of the world. I'm glad if the Coast Salish and other B.C. aboriginals are prospering; such is not the case with all of Canada's various aboriginal peoples, as you well know. In any case, my attitude is, what's past is past - let's focus on the present and future.
(I don't understand the comment about "condos" on the beach - whatever kind of dwellings they were, they certainly weren't condos, and no matter how old a given culture is, if it doesn't advance technologically and grow, while others who start out behind advance beyond, I'm not sure I get the logic of boasting of one's culture, over and against others, such as the Romans, the English, etc., but hey, whatever floats your boat...)
The bottom line is - a group has to want to survive. Maybe those who would defeat us are stronger than us - but we can at least try to put up a fight, and "may the best man win", as it were. I'm not interested in questions of which civilization is "superior" - as a Christian, I look at it not in terms of which is superior, but which is right, and which is wrong - any non-Christian civilization is unfavourable to me. Since I believe in Western, Christian civilization, I want to see it prevail over those who would destroy it. "Whose culture?" "Whose values?", may ask the everything-is-relative types... Answer: European-origin, Christian culture, values, and civilization. Even as a mixed-race Canadian, this is what I identify with, and endorse, and want to preserve. This is the most technologically advanced, most freedom-loving, and most moral civilization that has ever been, on planet Earth. It is mine, and I want to keep it.
You're right; the Muslims' victories over others have happened in the same manner as all others' down through history - a culture with a stronger desire to propagate and preserve itself, which is technologically advanced and/or has a higher birthrate than others - and a stronger collectivist sentiment - will defeat others. I shed no tears for the Buddhist statues destroyed by the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan - as it doesn't directly concern Westerners, I couldn't give a crap either way - one non-Western, non-Christian civilization is as bad as another, and I don't care which one defeats which. I just want Western civilization preserved, here in the West.
But we Christians don't feel the need to force everyone to bow before Christ - unlike Muslims, who believe the dar-al-Harb (domain of unbelief) must be conquered by the dar-al-Islam (domain of submission) - we can accept the existence of non-believers in our midst, esp. in our pluralistic, democratic societies of today. So, do you really think the Coast Salish have equal chances of long-term survival under the Crescent as they do under the Cross? There are a number of former animist / tribal religionist groups in Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere who might argue with you - if there were any non-Muslims left amongst them...
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-05-10 12:32:26 AM
Will S writes:
"Ms. Walker-Williams: Perhaps I left an erroneous impression in my recent posting, that I endorse the conquering of any stronger, more technologically advanced / or more strong-willed group over another - I don't; I just accept that it happens, and that it has happened, and this is the way of the world."
You may be right Wil. When Pol Pot mudered millions of Cambodians that was just the way of the world. When Stalin murdered the Ukrainian, the Businesmen and the Conservatives, that was just the way of the world. When Mao murderd 100 million people for not being communist enough - that was just the way of the world.When Turks massacred the Aremenians in 1915, and Hutus massacred half a million Tutsis in 1995 that was just the way of the world. And it's in the past.... we should just forget about it and "move on". I don't think my friends in Israel, and survivors of the Nazi Holocaust would agree with you - but if that's your opinion - fair enough. Their approach to it is "never again".
"I'm glad if the Coast Salish and other B.C. aboriginals are prospering; such is not the case with all of Canada's various aboriginal peoples, as you well know. In any case, my attitude is, what's past is past - let's focus on the present and future."
First off - I never said Aboriginal people were prospering - I said they were populating. There's a bit of a difference there. And the current assimilationist/socialist policies of the Canadian Government are still doing damage to Aboriginals people. It's not something we just read about in History Books - it's still happening today.
"(I don't understand the comment about "condos" on the beach - whatever kind of dwellings they were, they certainly weren't condos,"
800 people living in one HUGE dwelling with a separate apartment for each family does meet the definition of a condo. Of course it wasnt the same architechtual style, and they didn't have running water or electricity of today- but those things are not what defines a condo.
"and no matter how old a given culture is, if it doesn't advance technologically and grow, while others who start out behind advance beyond, I'm not sure I get the logic of boasting of one's culture, over and against others, such as the Romans, the English, etc., but hey, whatever floats your boat...)
You are implying that Salish people have not advanced since contact. This is patently absurd. We have adopted and borrowed oodles of technologies from multiple civilizations. We have kept pace with all of the advanced civilizations of today - as you may surmise from the fact that I am writing this missive from my air-conditioned home in Florida and sending it via the internet - and not sending it via smoke-signals or by couriers in canoes.
"The bottom line is - a group has to want to survive. Maybe those who would defeat us are stronger than us - but we can at least try to put up a fight, and "may the best man win", as it were."
Or - you can attempt to resolve differences and engage in mutually beneficial trade in a free-economy. That's pretty much what the Salish attempted to do, and are doing - even though people like Kathy think that we "sucked" for not blowing you all away. I guess this raises the interesting question about which culture is more advanced and which is more barbaric.
"I'm not interested in questions of which civilization is "superior" - as a Christian, I look at it not in terms of which is superior, but which is right, and which is wrong"
Allowing immigrants to come to our country and participate in our economy is not a commentary on the good or evil of the civilization they came from - it is a characteristic of our civilization. If you think that Muslim civilization is such a terrible thing to have to endure -why wouldn't you show some "Christian" mercy and give refugee to those who are desperately trying to escape it?
" - any non-Christian civilization is unfavourable to me. Since I believe in Western, Christian civilization, I want to see it prevail over those who would destroy it."Whose culture?" "Whose values?", may ask the everything-is-relative types... Answer: European-origin, Christian culture, values, and civilization.
You want Christian cultures, values and civilizations to prevail. So did the Crusaders in 1095 AD, as did the Catholic Church in the Spanish Inquisition from 1478 to 1834, and so do the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Island, who for some strange reason have been blowing each other away for decades, for not being the right "kind" of Christians.
This is to say nothing of the 30 years war in which most Europe was convulsed in an orgy of slaughter over the radical proposition that such a thing as protestant churches should be allowed to exist.
Then there are the Christian Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims matching each other atrocity for atrocity in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then just last week - in Nigeria, a Christian militia murdered 630 people (including women and children) - for being muslim.
"Even as a mixed-race Canadian, this is what I identify with, and endorse, and want to preserve."
Hmmmm.
"This is the most technologically advanced, most freedom-loving, and most moral civilization that has ever been, on planet Earth. It is mine, and I want to keep it."
A big part of why that civilization is pre-dominant today is because of the variant of it that has flourished in North America for the past 5 centuries. The reason it is so rich, prosperous and technologically advanced is primarily because of the freedom, laissez-faire economy, and unfettered scientific quest for knowledge that has brought us so far from the barbarism that prevailed in 1492 Europe. The reason why these conditions prevailed in North America and not previously in Christian Europe is because to a great extent, European IMMIGRANTS to North America were able to escape from the oppressive institutions of Europe such as Absolutist Monarchy, The Inquisition, The secret Star Chamber Courts, the Torture chambers of the Tower of London, and other dungeons dotting the European landscape. Not to mention oppressive state-sponsered churches from various mutually hostile sects of Christianity. That was one reason. The other was exposure to native cultures in North America, many of whom had a far greater degree of individual freedom than was permitted in Europe in the early days of immigration to North America. Did you know Wil that the founding fathers of America were impressed with and influenced by the study of the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy. See the James Madison institute on-line for further details.
"You're right; the Muslims' victories over others have happened in the same manner as all others' down through history - a culture with a stronger desire to propagate and preserve itself, which is technologically advanced and/or has a higher birthrate than others - and a stronger collectivist sentiment - will defeat others."
Were that true - the Soviet Union would be the worlds only super-power today and the United States would have fragmented to pieces for lack of "collectivist sentiment".
"I shed no tears for the Buddhist statues destroyed by the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan - as it doesn't directly concern Westerners,
Forgive me then, if I shed no tears if your culture is unable to continue dominating, "conquering and destroying" others.
"I couldn't give a crap either way - one non-Western, non-Christian civilization is as bad as another, and I don't care which one defeats which."
You seem more infused with the mentality of the crusades than with the teachings of Christ. "Love thine enemies." indeed.
"I just want Western civilization preserved, here in the West.
But we Christians don't feel the need to force everyone to bow before Christ - unlike Muslims, who believe the dar-al-Harb (domain of unbelief) must be conquered by the dar-al-Islam (domain of submission)" -
And this is so unlike the Christians influence on public policy in Canada with respect to Aboriginals. /tongue in cheek
"We can accept the existence of non-believers in our midst, esp. in our pluralistic, democratic societies of today.
Ok - how's about when the Muslims come to Canada, you accept them in your midst.
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-05-10 12:28:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.