Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Overthrowing the Mullahs | Main | Meanwhile, in Great Britain »

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Reality sets in

Sun Media has a wake-up call for all those utopians out there who believe that Canada's multicultural policies should and do mean that every newcomer to the country gets to keep his old customs without having to integrate to some extent.

The wake-up call comes in the form of a poll done for Sun Media by Leger Marketing, which finds, "Most Canadians believe ethnic minorities should restrain their cultural customs and conform to those around them." The poll, "shows a stunning 85% believe it's important -- if not essential -- that minorities adapt to the lifestyle habits of the city where they live."

A Leger executive observed, "Over a third of Canada thinks there's a problem with someone wearing a veil, which is more evidence of us having this simmering racism. Not as nice a country as we'd like to think it is."

Oh come on now! I wouldn't be so quick to brand someone as a racist simply because he has concerns about a Muslim woman wearing a full-face veil in public. That would make Britain's Jack Straw and Tony Blair racists, a label to which I suspect they would both vehemently object.

Anyway, read the whole Sun story here. And visit Leger's site here for more details (although I don't think they've posted today's poll yet). And read my recent Western Standard story, about multiculturalism's shortcomings in dealing with immigrants who don't want to integrate. The story centred on fundamental Muslims.

Interestingly, an associated Leger poll published yesterday by Sun Media found that 88 per cent of Canadians have a good opinion of Italian immigrants but only 53 per cent have a good opinion of the Arab community. Another sign of simmering racism? Or simply an understandable reflection of the damage down to the Muslim brand by radical Islamic terrorists, the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq, etc?

Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 18, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350f0ada69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reality sets in:

Comments

Just read online an aticle about an aussie muslim cleric.

See

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/ujc.asp

Comments are telling. One suggested the cleric should show the way by blowing himself up first.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-18 2:00:34 PM


As you say in your article, at the centre of this is the infamous relativism; which Western academia and our MSM have rammed down our throats for the past half-century.

Multiculturalism implies that all cultures are equal. They aren’t. The Greeks gave us much more than the Aztecs.

Also some cultures should just die out. Tribal Islamism being one them but it is artificially propped up by oil so instead of imploding it is exploding outwards out of the Middle East towards us.

Also, being against multiculturalism has nothing to do with racism. Culture is not a race. Islam’s greatest numbers can be found in Indonesia, they aren’t Arabs. Islam is a tribal socio-political way of life that has wrapped itself up in a religion.

Islam needs to go through a reformation like Judeo-Christians did. Islam needs to separate Mosque and State and treat women equally, just to name a couple of problems that un-reformed Islam has. Many Muslims are advocating such a reformation, such as Salam Mansur who writes for your magazine.

Finally multiculturalism should not be mixed up with tolerance of diversity, which makes good commercial sense. Diversity is welcomed but Multiculturalism is a propaganda term successfully used by the left and backed up by the left’s weapon of political correctness. The postmodern relativists have successfully equated racism with criticism of a culture. We need to unwind that.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-18 2:10:54 PM


No one in western civilization should be allowed to go about in public places with their face covered.
It has zero to do with racism. It has everything to do with safety and integration.
They are shunning all the people around them.

We have no way of knowing who is under that garb and have no way of identifying them.

How would anyone be able to talk or do business with faceless person?

These people are playing our Multicultural policy to the limits.

Holland has put a stop to it. Canada will not, you can bet on it. We are a Nation of pandering,
gutless politicians. There will have to be an event of monumental consequence to get any action.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-18 2:12:14 PM


> Sun Media has a wake-up call for all those
> utopians out there who believe that Canada's
> multicultural policies should and do mean that
> every newcomer to the country gets to keep his old
> customs without having to integrate to some
> extent.

Funny, nobody I know is advocating this. But they also don't advocate to tell people how they have to live their lives. Which ironically enough is what most Western Standard Posters are all about. Proclaiming freedom and democracy while at the same time trying to control every aspect of life they don't like (like say, relgions they don't approve off, opinions they don't like, people who aren't as fortunate as them....).

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-18 2:16:52 PM


Aha!...Racism...the very cornerstone of political correctness.

When I originally saw these results,my very first thought was not that 47% could admit they had racist tendencies,it was that about 40 of the 51% were f*cking liars.

Bigotry,especially racism,is part of the inherent human condition.It occurs to as many different degrees as there are people.Some couldn't give a damn about your color...others can never see beyond it.

Not exactly an emotion...not exactly an instinct...it is probably somewhere in between,a throwback from when protecting our own genes was what life was ALL about.Not to mention it can also be taught.
Like jealousy,greed and hatred,racism,to some degree,is part of who most of us are.It is how we behave in light of this that really defines us.

I submit,if someone is so lacking of empathy as to treat unfairly another human being based solely on their race,they probably wouldn't hesitate to f*ck over someone from their own race too.

As for multi-culturalism...

It has proven a dandy idea to entice others from around the world to settle here.In practical terms,it is proving destructive to our very way of life.
We cannot accomplish anything as a nation if we do not share some common visions.This country has instead become so fractured along ideological,regional and cultural lines,I have all but lost hope for our future.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-18 2:21:44 PM


Say,

If a blond lady wore a veil, would it be racist of her to say she did not like it?

Leger -- a veil is not a western custom. It used to be a western custom, but it was tossed out, due to the impractical nature of the custom, along with advancements in science. Just because a person in the west does not condone the wearing of a veil, does not mean they discriminate against the genes of that person.

We do not wear veils in Canada, because it also stands for the submission of women, and inequality.

People who posit otherwise, are saying that in order for a person to be Canadian and not racist, that they must support all the practices in other countries, that are oppressive there, just so they can show just how conforming to the Canadian Charter they really are.

Let me remind every single reader here, that although that discrimination has to do with discrimination at work, and has nothing to do with social choices, against particular practices.

The wearing of a veil, in Canada is a choice. And if people do not like it, then it is no different from choosing to not go to McDonalds, if a person chooses not to.

Put it this way. If the wearing of particular clothing represents whether or not a person is racist, then all people who come to Canada, and do not conform to western values, are racists. This would then mean that we Canadians, regardless of what we believe, are a race.

Now there's a notion not thought of before.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 2:33:32 PM


Actually, snowrunner, our flawed Charter does advocate that a cultural group's rights are privileged. It is very much involved in telling people how to run their lives.

You can find that in section 15 (1) which claims that every individual is equal, but, in section 2, rejects this equality by promoting group rights over individual rights, for it states that "subsection 1 does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".
Given our semantic capabilities - that means that group identities trump individual freedoms.

And section 27 specifically says that 'this Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians".

So, if I claim that I have to pray five times a day and this means that I require time off and a special room..or, if I claim that I require special days off, or that I can wear a full veil on the plane, or I can wear a sword to school or..

And if the socialist left insists that whatever I want to do, is my 'right' - then, this is most certainly 'telling someone how to run their lives'. The school board has to set aside a room, special times, it has to allow a youth to wear a kirpan/sword to class.

When a church wants to refuse to rent its hall to a lesbian couple - the Human Rights insists that they must do so. Isn't that telling citizens how they must run their lives?

And, with regard to your 'religions they don't like' - if you mean the Islamic religion, I think that you need some education. Islam is a sociopolitical mode of life, a medieval tribalism rejecting dissent and reform under the guise of a 'religion'. It needs a lot of work to modernize it and enable its followers to live with other people - rather than killing them.


Posted by: old blockhead | 2007-01-18 2:49:23 PM


Let's hope that the faint glimpses of push-back against official multiculti are going to take hold.

It seems that the "visible minorities" have been applying for federal government positions in inordinate numbers. Apparently the PS is becoming concerned about something called the "drop-off rate" - number of accepted vs number hired. Well, guess what. There aren't enough of those nice cushy jobs to go around so where do recent immigrants get off feeling that they are entitled and should be at the head of the cue.

Probably a mindset developed with more recent immigrants who have been paid to re-locate, paid to cover ESL training, paid to maintain the continuence of values/mores from offshore, and paid better (extended settlement provisions) than many others who are first and second generation here who have been able to muster in a non-subsidized job. All the while taking advantage of all things socially/monetary out there that allow them to maintain a dual citizenship and with no expectations of having to assimilate.

It is time that the word/concept of "mosaic" is deleted from all things educational and immigration/settlement literature, and the word/concept of "integration" be introduced in its place.

"Mosaic" is a made in Canada concept developed with the best of intentions decades ago. However, it has not/is not working and continues to become an increasingly divisive force within society. Sooooo... dump it.

Reverse discrimination is also a type of racism and perhaps the time has arrived to used the Human Rights Tribunals to get some decisions to get the playing field back to something resembling level.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-01-18 2:50:25 PM


Until you tear down every "human rights" commmission in this country, disband and do away with utterly the Liberal Party of Canada, de-feminazify the academy (and cast out self-absorbed marxists at the same time) and de-feminazify the mainstream media, you're going to continue to have rabid multi-cult fervor in this country; that's simply a given. There are, at present, too many powerful individuals who have invested too much into the fiction of multiculturalism for it to die an easy death; these elitist jackasses will use their grip over education, media and the law to fight any reform in this area to the nth degree and the rest of us simply have to recognize that mounting evidence calling multiculturalism into question simply won't be enough.

I say we ship all the imams to Toronto where they can blow up anything they want - much to the relief if not delight of the rest of the country

Posted by: bk | 2007-01-18 3:00:04 PM


bk,

You sound like someone who is never going to get it.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 3:05:59 PM


Since when have 85% of Canadians agreed on anything?Cripes....you can't even find that many that want to pay less taxes.

My only other question is which of our embarrassingly opportunistic party leaders will be first to pretend to care about this and make it a cause?

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-18 3:14:28 PM


calgary clipper,

"Mosaic" is a US concept. Mutli-cultural is a Canadian concept. In the US, the term was use dto describe a melting pot. But, in Canada, it has been used to reinforce differences. It was designed udner the pretext that people could dress differently, worship freely, and all be equal. What was not considered was that people would use the breach as a mechanism to bring in an ideology and way of being that is totally against everything we, as western people, believe. So, they use this part of our legislation, to make an arguement that in modern free world, the position against freedom, and therefore in favour of submission and sujugation, is legitimate. Because "submission and subjugation" are positions that are in opporsition to freedoma nd democracy, these people want our system to recognize their oppressive ways as legitimate. They use our cultural sensitivities as a means to attack our modern society. Why they do that, is simple. AS long as we are free, our existence takes credibility away from their system. They believe they are superior and more advanced intellectually, and have the ppowers of an almighty behind them, in everything they do. They believe that the rest of us are not people in their terms. So, attacks against us are legitimate, while our views are not considered legitimate. They even go as far as believing that what they believe supercedes everything we believe. And, though a dangerous ideology, they have declared that they are willing to go as far as it takes, to win, because their belief denotes that whenever they fail, that they have done the test, and that next time they are tested, they will not fail.

An example of their ideology in action, is evident in the multiple attacks against the west, at innocent people around the world, through terror.

The rest of us, who do not ascribe to their way of thinking, are the mosaic. And yet it is multi-culturalism which has permitted a lack of boundaries through which their ideology, which advocates violence, is thriving.

What we need to do here is commit to a definition of multi-culturalism which defines the limits, in language which excludes a framework for terrorists to gain power and momentum.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 3:18:08 PM


The fact that BK can say

“I say we ship all the imams to Toronto where they can blow up anything they want - much to the relief if not delight of the rest of the country”

with impunity on this blog is one of the reasons why I find the content on the Shotgun has significantly declined over the past year. That BK trash is what makes the WS seem unprofessional and gives conservatism a bad name.

This Blog needs clear ownership and a reaction from the owner to offensive comments like BK’s.


Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-18 3:33:23 PM


nomdenet,

Just wanted to remind you that you are definitely not alone in your opinion.
Where I disagree with censorship by our hosts,it should be a sense of common conscience that prevents such ignorant postings.
Sadly,where many here do not hesitate to confront stupidity and hate-mongering from the left...they turn a blind eye when it is a product of peers.This silence can so easily be misconstrued as agreement.

Thanks for making clear that it is NOT.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-18 4:11:49 PM


***Last November, Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor's background, and was now unwilling to let him speak. AR secured a venue in Halifax, where Jared Taylor planned to give the following talk on Jan. 16, the day after Prof. Divine gave his.

On Jan. 16, before Mr. Taylor could even be introduced, 20 or 30 demonstrators filed into the room, and began shouting and beating on pots and pans. This went on for perhaps 20 minutes until a group of perhaps six men surrounded Mr. Taylor at the podium and, linking arms, forced him from the room. Demonstrators also destroyed copies of American Renaissance that Mr. Taylor had prepared for distribution.***

" In 2005, black violence got so bad in Toronto that one councilman, Michael Thompson, urged the police to pull over young blacks randomly and see if they were armed. Mr. Thompson said this wasn't racial profiling, but that "the police now have got to take measures — drastic measures." There was criticism of this, of course, but Mr. Thompson was not hounded out of polite society as you might suspect. He is black and thus enjoys the benefits of protective coloring.

Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. We know, for example, that blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in youth gangs, and blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn't want to know.

We find yet another interesting diversity issue in the case of Toronto's now-defunct zero-tolerance policy on crimes in schools. Students were committing so much robbery, drug dealing, sexual assault, and weapons violations that in 2000 the province passed the Safe Schools Act, requiring that any student guilty of these offences be expelled or suspended. Just four years later the province had to drop the policy. Why? Non-whites were being expelled and suspended all out of proportion to their numbers. More than 1,000 children under the age of seven had been suspended — for things like robbery, weapons possession and drug dealing — and the majority were black. So Toronto had to junk the zero-tolerance policy.

This story illuminates two things: First, we learn that non-whites were the major source of the problem; you did not have a rash of crimes like this when the schools were overwhelmingly white. Second, a sensible, non-discriminatory solution had to be ditched because non-whites were getting more of their share of the punishment. Here, racial diversity both caused the problem and made it impossible to apply an obvious solution.

[...]

Take a look around the world. Wherever people are killing each other most diligently, they are killing each other because of diversity. The Tutsis and Hutus slaughtered each other because of ethnic differences. The Tamils and Sinhalese slaughter each other in Sri Lanka because of religious and ethnic differences. Arabs and blacks slaughter each other in Darfur because of racial and religious reasons. Arabs and Israelis slaughter each other because of ethnic and religious differences.

Orwell was on to something.

The Soviet Union broke up because of racial and ethnic differences. So did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Zimbabwe is expelling white farmers only because they are white.

Diversity of the kind Canada is promoting is one of the most obviously divisive forces on the planet. To keep jabbering, as Canadians are supposed to do, that diversity is strength is like repeating the three official government slogans from George Orwell's 1984. Let me remind you what they were:

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

"Diversity is strength" fits right in, doesn't it?"

http://amren.com/0702issue/dalhousie.html

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-18 4:21:18 PM


Dr. Jared Taylor:

" So far, I haven't said anything about Canada's oldest experiment with racial diversity, which is relations between whites and aboriginals. If diversity is a strength, this one should be well developed because it has been around the longest. Somehow, it doesn't seem that way. It was news even in the United States when Indians took over the town of Caledonia, Ontario, which they claimed was on their land, and chased out the white man. McLeans magazine warns of more to come. An article from just last December 27 begins like this: "Canada should brace for more dramatic displays of aboriginal defiance in 2007, warn native leaders who say the First Nations frustrations that boiled over in a small Ontario town this year may well be a tipping point for decades of simmering aboriginal anger." Decades of simmering aboriginal anger. It sounds like another source of strength gone bad.

On the very day of the cite>McLeans article, the Mohawk Nation News wrote: "Don't get any ideas that we will become Canadians. No way! We can and will handle our own affairs. So get out of our way while the going is good. Canada, you know, everything belongs to us. We're getting it all back."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/08012007/21/canada-s-worst-neighbourhood.html

"Inner-city Regina -- effectively two neighbourhoods, North Central and the area east of the downtown known as the Core -- is among the poorest spots in urban Canada. Thirty per cent of residents depend on government assistance. Local food banks deal with more than 3,600 requests a month. The health authority, which last year distributed 1.8 million needles, estimates there are more IV drug users per capita than on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Girls as young as 11 or 12 regularly work the stroll. Regina's high incidence of break and enters, car thefts, street robberies and violent assaults has placed the city at the top of Canada's urban crime rankings for nine of the past 10 years. (An overall 15 per cent drop in criminal code offences proved just enough to land the city second place in 2005, right behind Saskatoon -- 13,194 incidents per 100,000 population versus 13,236.)

The province's jails are a major recruiting ground. By some estimates, as many as 25 per cent of inmates at any given time are members of Aboriginal gangs. The percentage in youth custody is probably even higher. (The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations estimates that six out of 10 youths arrested in the province's urban centres are native, as are 75 to 90 per cent of those in youth custody.) The gangs' allure -- money, excitement and a ready-made family -- is hard for authorities to combat. "We're up against a pretty big recruiter, offering pretty big incentives," says Bazin.

From the outside, that seems like an understatement. In 2006, Regina had eight murders. The previous year there were also eight, giving the city the second-highest per capita murder rate -- 3.97 per 100,000 population -- among major Canadian centres. (Edmonton was the worst with a rate of 4.29.) Consider the fact that 15 of those killings occurred in North Central and the Core -- combined population 15,000 -- and the problem looks even starker. Nationally, Aboriginals make up three per cent of Canada's population, but account for 17 per cent of homicide victims, and 23 per cent of those accused of that crime. At least 11 of Regina's 16 murder victims since the beginning of 2005 were native. The identity of the killers isn't as clear, since eight of the 16 murders remain unsolved (as of late last year, the Crown was reviewing evidence with an eye to laying charges in one of those cases)."

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-18 4:34:08 PM


What a surprise that the Lefties trot out the ole race card when people disagree with their agenda. And my word, I wonder why so many do not trust Muslims/Arabs. Surely it could not be a case of survival instinct. Then we learn that many do not agree with individuals parading around in public with everything hidden except the eyes. I wonder if the fact that more than one male terrorist has used the same disguise to wreck havoc and murder on civilians might have something to do with it.

As for the comment that diversity is okay while multiculturalism is not, I offer a word of caution. A few years ago the federal government renamed its multiculturalism policy diversity. The goals and objectives are exactly the same with only a change in name. I am not proposing that everyone must be the same, but I get very wary when any government decides to get involved and promote such concepts.

Dinesh D'Souza has come out with an excellent book titled "The Enemy at Home", that he identifies as the "cultural Left". I give him full credit for stating that unless we can win our internal war with the Left, we stand no chance of winning against the Islamists. While his book covers the situation in the US, the problem is not limited to the Americans.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-18 4:45:18 PM


Snowy,
"Funny, nobody I know is advocating this. But they also don't advocate to tell people how they have to live their lives. Which ironically enough is what most Western Standard Posters are all about. "
Umm, you mean like seat belt laws, the health act, hypocritical provincial smoking regulations, and affirmative action hiring laws, etc.

I think most of this came from "Canada's Natural Ruling pParty" which seems to do a good job of telling us how to live our lives. And the bonus is, they do it at the behest of other Canadians who vote them in to do it for them.

So it really boils down to who's in charge and how much damage they can do to my freedoms.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 5:21:28 PM


Canadian Observer I’m pleased to see your comment but I still think the leadership from the ownership on a blog is important, otherwise we look like the kids in “The Lord of the Flies”.

Alain I agree that the Enemy Within is even more serious than Islamofascism. The latter will be beaten back, the only question is how much blood and treasure will it take. The enemy within will make the price that we ultimately pay higher than would otherwise be the case.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-18 5:24:12 PM


Water dog:

Pay no heed to snowy.

Evidently, he loves memory-erasing drugs.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-18 5:38:24 PM


Although Trudeau the First was not the originator of multiculturalism, he expanded and furthered it through government actions, and introduced *this kind* of multiculturalism, what we have now.

He was asked by a reporter in the mid 90's:

"you were one of the key architects of multiculturalism and now we are in a situation where many newcomers to Canada consider their ethnicity before being Canadian. Is this the outcome you wanted?"

P.E.T.'s response, after a brief silence

"No, this is not what I wanted."

Wait, until Kim Jong Trudeau occupies the PM office. The Liberals have used immigration policies for enhancing their voter basis.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-18 5:43:42 PM


Alain,

Good points Alain,

The leftists are using the islamists against the middle and the right.

Why?

Because they can, and are willing to be associated with terrorists, as it makes them feel as though the crinkled up foreign army fatigues that they wear, has additional fear clout.

Thus we also see terms such as eco-terror and tactics, that hurt people, damage properties, and which only the middle and left say anything about.

Many on the left are totally silent when it comes to acts of violence committed in the name of their issues. And, they are also silent about the terrorists acts, as they have alligned themselves with the islamists, and condone women being socially forced to wear those things, and coerced to believe that it is in their best interests, when in fact if it was, they would not permit them to leave their oppressive homelands, to come to the free west.

Fact remains, no matter which way folks look at this issue, people come to the west, and have come to the west, and will come to the west, to be free of all that ancient oppressive garb. So, to come here to expect to practice oppressive garbology, goes against what we believe, as well as the intent of the charter of rights and freedoms.

If it was not about freedom, it would say the charter of submissive rights and oppression.

It does not, so anyone who supports submission, should be encouraged to not come here, before they find out just how intolerant we are about oppressive people who are hell bent on forcing everyone into submission.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 6:02:11 PM


Two notes to this thread:

1. Does no-one else find it strange, that this thread over multiculturalism has been turned into an issue of Muslims?

I find it especially strange in light of the fact, that relative few Muslims are in the "Western" Canada, but there are many Hindus and Far-East Asians.

Is everyone here under the illusion (under drug influence?), that the biggest problem of Canada's "culture" comes from Muslims, not from (for example) Sikhs?

2. It is delighting to see so many freethinkers in one single thread. One wants to outright ban wearing a veil (what else?), another wants to ship all imams to Toronto, a third one wants to ban saying, that all imams should be shipped to Toronto, etc.

The concept of "freedom of individual" will be applied very "individually", if at all.

This is a good reflection of the Canadian understanding of "free speech": you have the freedom to express yourself, except if someone dislikes, what you are expressing.

Anyway, I see a huge difference between *allowing diversity* and *making extra effort supporting it*. Example: I see nothing wrong with Sikhs (or whoever) wearing turbans, but I do see something wrong with accomodating them by translating the public papers of the municipality government in Punjabi, because they may not speak English .

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-18 6:02:19 PM


Cato,
"Wait, until Kim Jong Trudeau occupies the PM office. The Liberals have used immigration policies for enhancing their voter basis."

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Kim Jong? Are you suggesting he will enslave and starve our nation if he gets a chance. Even his father didn't do that. Besides, while I see no reason to vote for someone with absolutely no credentials, I still would not hold the son accountable for the bad decisions of the father.

How old are you anyway?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 6:03:50 PM


Calgary clipper
"Reverse discrimination is also a type of racism and perhaps the time has arrived to used the Human Rights Tribunals to get some decisions to get the playing field back to something resembling level. "

The term "Reverse discrimination" assumes that I have been discriminating against someone and now it is being done to me. It is a biased term in and of itself. I would prefer "discrimination" without the prefix or if you prefer "legitimate discrimination" as this is how the Human Rights Tribunals seem to view it.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 6:56:07 PM


h2o273kk9,

"Are you suggesting he will enslave and starve our nation if he gets a chance."

Are you fabricating now my arguments as well? Are you suggesting, that the Liberals abuse of immigration policies led to the enslavement of Canadians?

Someone so well-informed as you will certainly know, that Kim Jong-il is a genius in all matters, obviously through genetic inheritance, for his father had been "a genius ideological theoretician and a genius art leader, an ever-victorious, iron-willed brilliant commander".

Furthermore, even some less well-informed have noticed latest during the last Liberal leadership convention, that the young Trudeau's image has been regularly *groomed*. It started much earlier, but in December it became blatant. Although he has not shown anything (or has he?), he was celebrated by all top Liberals.

Who was surprized, when the news appeared that he may run for Parliament next time?

This is one half of the issue. The other half is in Chretien's history as PM.

- Chretien's close friend, Jane Steward was the best candidate for Minister of HRDC,

- Chretien's friends were naturally eligible for a multimillion dollar grant from HRDC (the RCMP saw it differently),

- Chretien's business partner was eligible for a huge bank loan, even if a bank director has to be removed for that, after the intervention by Chretien (the bank lost the money),

- Chretien's associate in his law firm is the best candidate for the Supreme Court of Canada,

- Chretien's daughter was the best candidate for the 2010 Winter Olympics Committee.

You are free to make your own thoughts about that.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-18 7:09:37 PM


Cato,
"You are free to make your own thoughts about that."

Yes sir, masser! I be grateful fer yer scraps.

"Are you fabricating now my arguments as well? Are you suggesting, that the Liberals abuse of immigration policies led to the enslavement of Canadians?"

Please explain how a question becomes a fabrication.

"Someone so well-informed as you will certainly know, that Kim Jong-il is a genius in all matters"

So you think Justin Trudeau is a genius? You did allude to Kim Jong Trudeau, n'est-ce pas?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 7:18:26 PM


"Please explain, how a question becomes a fabrication"

In what language does a question start with "that's a bit harsh"? Did you see *any* reference to enslavement or starvation or alike?

"So you think Justin Trudeau is a genius?"

So you think Kim Jong-il is a genius?

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-18 7:29:09 PM


Cato,
"In what language does a question start with "that's a bit harsh"? "

Easy! When it has a comma (,) followed by "don't you think?"


"Did you see *any* reference to enslavement or starvation or alike?"

Yes. When I saw the unique name Kim Jong commonly found in current events discussion about enslavement and starvation.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 7:33:59 PM


Snowy,
I nearly forgot about your beloved Sweden.

"Snowy,
"Funny, nobody I know is advocating this. But they also don't advocate to tell people how they have to live their lives. Which ironically enough is what most Western Standard Posters are all about. "

Isn't this where the feminists tried to pass a law banning men from using urinals? Shotgunners have nothing on them.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-18 7:49:38 PM


Cato,

I am glad you have upped the anti to include West Indians.

Let us discuss the invasion of India, some hundreds of years ago, shall we? Oh, for freedom's sake, why not?

OOOPS! That would mean we would have to discuss one of the very first mass genocides, that was performed against the Hindus, where 3,000,000 men, women and children were slaughtered by the sword. And guess who did that?

Oh, but according to you, if we even meantion that it were the Muslims, then we are picking on them.

No, we are not.

OK, then let us discuss the terrorist attack in Bali, shall we?

OOOPS! That was caused by some Muslims too.

Ok, ok, so we can look for something else to discuss then.

I know, we can talk about 9.11!

OOOPS! More extremist Muslims.

Come to think about it, there are relatively few attacks against the WESTERN WORLD (we love the west out here) that have been done by folks who are not Muslim. And even on Canadian turf, it is not Hindus, Sikhs or Budhists that are doing terrible things against our society.

And even when you read about assassinations, such as Mr kennedy, eventually in the background, oh and Mr Lapine who murdered all the women in Montreal, well, you cannot get away from it. Somewhere back there, in the darkness, is something terrible that has been nurtured by submission.

Now, we know many many Muslims who have nothing to do with what the extremists do. And, you can tell the difference between them and the goons who do suicide bombings. For one, they love freedom and are deeply involved in democracy. So don't you go running off considering it to be some kind of exclusive basshing. Just, when it comes to multi-culturalism, Budhists fit in, radical-extremist-islamofacism does not fit in.

Not my fault. We invited them here, paid for their food clothing and shelter, gave them elglish language lessons, and they decided not to fit in. You are not too smart, so you don't know why. You merely seem to get off on telling this free discussion where peoples concerns are, without an ounce of major contribution whatsoever.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-18 9:08:41 PM


H20
Agreed - probably better to drop the "reverse" prefix. Discrimination is discrimination and it is that which would have to be proven to a Tribunal. I haven't seen any case(s) where a group/person has in fact pursued a complaint against another group/individual who would, by comparison, be considered a minority.

Since the Tribunals were basically set up for the benefit of the minority, perhaps the Tribunal
would come back with a decision to the effect that
o.k. - the situation basically revolves about "legitimate discrimination" (on the part of the minority)..... so case dismissed. Then again, it may not be dismissed.

Since multi/c has been entrenched in such a solid legal framework, it strikes me that if it is to be mitigated in society, the mitigation will also have to be done via legal challenges in a Human Rights Tribunal to build up some case law.

Lady
google on Canadian Mosaic - interesting to read the origin of this concept. Coined in 1938, revived in 1965 as the Vertical Mosaic and then morphed into what we now know as multiculturalism - culminating with the Official Multiculturalism Act (1985). It was a Canadian effort to move away from the American model of a melting pot. The bottom line is that we are stuck in the EPC mode and the negative impacts of official multiculturalism are likely to intensify.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-01-18 10:46:06 PM


For all those who think that the Shotgun should somehow censor its comments area, I'd urge you to ge visit the G&M comments section, which does edit content. This is a very tame comments section comparitively.

Also I think that BKs first paragraph is bang on. The second is satirical rhetoric. It would be very sad if the shotgun were to become as humourlessly partisan as the leftist blogs that exist out there.

Posted by: ward | 2007-01-18 11:23:58 PM


I haven't read all of the comments. So forgive me if this isn't entirely on-topic.

Adam Smith's ethical treatise is barely taken notice of. Most philosophers tend to think that David Hume, a contemporary of Smith's, and a friend of his, said it also, and probably said it better. They're wrong to think this, even if the two overlap.

Both were sentimentalists. This is the view that, at bottom, all moral evaluation reduces to our sympathy, or lack of it, for the sentiments someone else appears to have given some circumstance. For Hume, sympathy was merely pity or compassion. For Smith, sympathy meant feeling, in some way, what the other person is feeling, whether it be sadness, grief, or joy, happiness, and so on. Smith's view is broader.

What we really want, says Smith, is mutual sympathy of sentiments. We are pleased when we consider the position of someone else (from an impartial spectator point of view) and find that they are reacting to their situation as we would if we were in their shoes. We are displeased when their sentiments are out of sync with ours. Within a subclass of these sentiments, we call people morally good or morally bad just in so far as the sentiments that they express, given their situation, points to a motive or reaction that we either approve of or disapprove of.

We express our sentiments in more than one way. We can cry, laugh, shake, or make facial expressions. We can also demonstrate our sentiments by way of clothing, the written word, jewelry, and so on.

One way to read the poll results is to insist that our desire for having other people integrate into our culture is a desire for mutual sympathy of sentiments. Not wanting to integrate appears to demonstrate an indifference to our sentiments. This is threatening because, if someone does not care about my sentiments, she will not be motivated to stop doing what she's doing if I show disapproval, for instance. In short, it is much more difficult to enforce certain social norms when people do not care about the sentiments of those they are around.

That seems like a reasonable worry. Wanting people to integrate is not racism. At least not in cases where we want people to conform so we can have reasonable expectations about their behaviour, and better plan our lives.

Smith, it seems, can teach us much more than merely economics...

Posted by: Peter Jaworski | 2007-01-18 11:35:28 PM


I recently wrote a lengthy piece on immigration:

http://www.albertatimes.com/2007/01/how-canadian-are-you.html

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-01-19 12:39:34 AM


So Ward you think this statement is humourous ?

“I say we ship all the imams to Toronto where they can blow up anything they want - much to the relief if not delight of the rest of the country”

I think it’s a rather serious threat. Because it appears on a conservative WS blog it makes the participants here, such as yourself, look like rednecks. It makes it all that much more difficult for the 30% or so of realists in this country to fight the utopian “enemy within” whose relativism fosters denial of the Islamofacists threat.

You espouse your own relativism that because they do it on the Globe and Mail therefore you can do it here. That’s a slippery slope.

Ward you are part of the problem. You are what scares away the voters in the middle that would like to jump from corrupt Librano$ but calculate Conservatives are harbouring rednecks like you who are more dangerous than corruption. People like you are an impediment to a Conservative majority.

That’s why I favour an aggressive response and ownership of problems like you by the Shotgun. To slough it off and ignore this problem de facto means the Shotgun endorses your reckless statement.

Conservatives claim to have a better set of values than Librano$. If that’s the case then here’s a good place to prove it.

This is no different than multiculturalism and the question to integrate or not to integrate. We can change immigrants to Canadian values or they will change us to theirs. But there will be change a change in somebody’s values.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-19 7:18:29 AM


Nomdenet: Part of the problem is pundits like you who see fit to twist statements by others to justify your rants. Nowhere did I say or imply that I found BKs statement "homorous" but yet you accuse me of that.

I said sarirical rhetoric. What my statement implied was that BKs statement was not serious but an over the top statement. Kind of like Kleins let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark statement. Ralph was expressing frustration not an actual wish to have an entire province freeze to death.

You however seem to have a real bug in your ass about people who do not see things your way and beleive that those who do not share your view should be banned.

You and others like you are far more dangerous than BK

Posted by: ward | 2007-01-19 8:52:22 AM


WHERE THE HELL IS STEPHEN HARPER ??

For a guy who has an opportunity to make change he has turned his back on his base and is now almost as bad as the Liberals he hates so much.
Have you seen any immigration changes ?

And by the way, all of the above critiques are correct, we ARE losing our Canadian culture, the root of the problem IS multiculturaliam and the bulk of crime in toronto is BLACK.the rest is Asian.
Funny how 2 % of the population of Canada (black) can cause so much trouble.The only positive spin I can think of is that 35 % of immigrants dont stay but go back, half of them within 12 months
apparently by the late 90's the return rate was 46 %. all i can say is whats wrong with the other 50 %.

Posted by: gary jackson | 2007-01-19 9:18:39 AM


Ward you said, “The second is satirical rhetoric. It would be very sad if the shotgun were to become as humourlessly…”

You directly linked a comment about blowing up Toronto as being humourous and/or satirical rhetoric.

That observation has nothing to do with a debate about whether anybody agrees with me. Blowing up Toronto is a sick comment.

As to “twisting statements” … where did I suggest that you be banned? You should be aggressively opposed, which I’m doing now. I’m saying because there is no ownership of the Shotgun (ownership being a key value of conservatives) your finding satire and houmour in blowing up Toronto is allowed to go on with impunity and that’s tantamount to harbouring rednecks.

Ezra said nothing close to that over the Danish Cartoons and he has to deal with the Human Rights Commission. I’m saying there is some linkage going on here in the minds of the public and that it is a serious concern for Conservatism generally.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-01-19 9:19:43 AM


by the way you all should go to a web site called notcanada.com

its where whiney pain in the ass immigrants go to say how much they hate canada

its disgracefull

Posted by: gary jackson | 2007-01-19 9:20:47 AM


gary:

Maybe those in the MSM who are monitoring this website will eventually pick up on that huge hint, just like they are now starting to examine the only too real threat of Islamic jihad ... as we have done here for the past six months.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-19 10:46:13 AM


Cato, I do not see any major problems with your comments nor that much difference from most of the others on this issue. Lady has identified very well why fundamental Muslims are the major concern to most Canadians, and it boils down to safety and security. For the same reason there is a total difference between wearing a turban and being hidden from head to toe.

Of course our ridiculous policy of multiculturalism encourages all groups immigrating not to assimilate and has got completely out of control. I agree with you that I do not have a problem with someone wearing a turban (there are large numbers where I live) or a sari, but I disagree with public funds being used to translate documents into their language. I disagree also with them being able to obtain a driver's license without being able to communicate in English here. I especially disagree with them being allowed to alter the RCMP uniform, since no one is forced to join the RCMP in the first place.

I apply the same to all groups immigrating here. If they wish to retain their own language and pass it on to their children at their own expense and effort, no problem provided they are able to function in the language of the country - English and French in Quebec.

In closing let me add that anyone not willing to respect and follow our laws should not be allowed in or allowed to remain.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-19 11:19:33 AM


I think that the multiculturalism was the realistic reaction to the alarmingly low fertility rate of the local population. The problems caused by the immigration are secondary. The problems that caused the need for immigration are the most important problems. Those are problems of crumbling family values and low fertility rate. I think it was called “the race suicide” in early 1930s. So treat the causes not the symptoms. Nothing good will come from the pride parades and red neck mentality spreading as some sort of society cancer. For the Darwin lovers society based on pride parades, PC, red neck mentality, and low fertility will not survive.
About the tolerance. I think the technical definition of tolerance is accepted deviation. And the perception of deviation is mutual. Multicultaralism or the melting pot are just names. The reality is that large groups of newcomers have always had significant impact and changed the existing society. BTW ever without newcomers the society norms change. That is why the slavery was abolished in the USA and restrictive covenants against Jews were removed in Canadian cities. I think that the perceived paradise of the past was the paradise for Anglo-Saxons only. So the tolerance is mutual and the real multiculturalism is the result of capitalist forces that find opportunity in every society change. This comment is way too long and well structured. But who cares?

Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-19 11:30:31 AM


I meant poorly structured but again who cares.

Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-19 11:33:22 AM


nomdenet/CO:

"I say we ship all the imams to Toronto where they can blow up anything they want - much to the relief if not delight of the rest of the country."

I agree with your comments. The above statement might be humourous to someone with a particular point of view and an inclination to a particular type of humour in times other than today. Because some Canadians have an understandable fear that very statement could become true in the current environment it is clearly not humourous. It does not matter what someone might otherwise think about the majority of Toronto's residents.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-19 11:37:49 AM


As much as I hate Toronto and Ontarians, I don't want there to be a terrorist attack there.

Such an act would generate sympathy for the city and its people. New Yorkers received much sympathy after 9/11.

I don't want non-Ontarians to feel any sympathy at all for Ontario people. Ontarians are bigoted scum who get what they deserve. They're doing a great job destroying themselves with their incompetence and stupidity - like re-electing that idiot mayor (what were you people thinking?). External help is not needed.

If anything it is Ontario that does the terrorizing. To support Ontario's control over Quebec society and its economy, Trudeau the Evil used a pair of high-profile kidnappings to justify the suspension of human rights and the military invasion and occupation of Quebec in 1970. He should have been thrown out of office and put on trial for abuse of power for that debacle. Worse, it now appears that the FLQ was an RCMP plant.

The NEP was also an act of oppressions. Albertans had their human rights abused so that Ontario could seize Albertans' wealth for themselves. Trudeau the Monster should have been put on trial for that one too. What a tragedy that he died in bed.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-19 11:45:50 AM


http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/

"The man at the centre of a venomous anti-racism protest in Halifax on Tuesday says freedom of speech was squelched by a bunch of "louts" who refused to consider his opinion on racial diversity.

Jared Taylor said Wednesday he should have been allowed to deliver his prepared remarks to a public meeting at the Lord Nelson hotel.

"These people are terrified of a dissenting view," he told CTV news, referring to young foul-mouthed demonstrators who shouted him down at a raucous event inside a hotel meeting room.

[. . .]

At one point in the noisy protest, Mr. Taylor was roughed up by activists wearing bandanas or balaclavas to hide their identities. An attendee, who is Jewish and was there to see if Mr. Taylor was going to talk about Jews, intervened and helped the man free himself from a couple of the demonstrators.

"I was hoping to have a civilized debate," said Mr. Taylor. He acknowledged he was shocked when he was "surrounded by louts who then forced me physically . . . out of the room."

Editor of a publication called American Renaissance, Mr. Taylor is a Yale-educated journalist and author who believes in freedom of association. But he maintains blacks are happier living and working with blacks, and whites are happier with whites."

Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-19 11:48:21 AM


Alain,

I had a very good work-out this morning. I have been training for Borat's "Running of the Jews", so that this year, when I lay my egg, I can be quick enough, put a turbin on it, before Cato's children come out to smash it to smitherines....

///Silliness OFF!

Actually Alain, I don't mind Turbins and uniforms. They actually look quite smart. What I object to is the lack of uniformity when people wear diferent types of head dresses. And I disaprove of the fact that cowboys, who join the military, have to leave their chaps at home. Some of them look quite fine, if you know what I mean?

We should never forget the fact that many Sihks have family relatives who wore their uniforms for her majesty Queen Victoria. They wore their Turbins with their uniforms, and looked smashing! Furthermore, they were some of the finest soldiers ever to serve the British Empire. So, when it comes to the issue of whether there is a place for Turbin headress, in our military, given the fact that the British modified theirs to be inclusive of the Sihks, I see no reason why we cannot modify certain aspects of the uniform to accomodate them in dress matters. I don;t know what the position is on the helmets, because there is no way they can wear a helmet and Turbin, at the same time, and there are no Sihks who wear uniform on regular basis, posting here, to tell us what they do to become ready.

Back to the note of the RCMP, you can google, and find there were many Cavalry regiments out there who had both Sihk and others. One such example that comes to mind, are the Bengal Lancers. These Regiments served in Northern India and Afghanistan, amongst other locations, and did toours in that region that went on for decades, and not just six months here or there. I believe they have earned the right to keep their head dress, and it behoves the forces to ensure that the headress and the uniform conform to standards that are equally respectful. Perhaps non Sihks could learn a thing or two about how to put on a Turban, so that everyone in a Regiment can look the same, once in a while.

Besides, it is high time they started serving kosher foods. I cannot imagine what it must be like to see pig served up at every meal....

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-19 11:52:21 AM


DJ,

Sounds to me as though the protestors had a message, and that their message got through.

The onlt thing I object to in regards to that Protest is that he was out there in fornt, with his name all over the place, and his face showing, while the protestors, many were covered up, as though they had something to hide. I don't like people covering their faces, as one of the important aspects of a democracy, is trust and accountability. People should be accountable for their actions, even when supporting what they believe is the right thing. Face covering, whether balaclava or sheets is cowardly.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-19 11:57:12 AM


Nondment

I said it would be sad if the shotgun blog became as humorlessly partisan as some of the leftist blogs out there.

Again I did not say that BKs statement was humorous. Satire and rhetoric are meant to be funny but do not always find their mark.

My reference to humorlessness was in reference to your rather spit flecked over the top response to BKs post and my post refering to it.

In no way did I espouse relativism regarding the Globes comments section in the manner that if they do it there than we can do it here as you accuse. I simply pointed out that you will find far more vitrol from the ever so superior readers of the Globe in its comments section than you will from readers of the Western Standard or commenters on the Shotgun Blog. Nowhere did I say that justified doing the same here. Why try to make my comment something it. is not?

You said "Thats why I favor an aggressive response and ownership of problems like you by the Shotgun" so if not banning what did you mean?

Sorry I got in the way of you and the other 30% of the realists who are saving the country.

Anyone who took BKs comment seriously deserves to give their head a shake.

In my opinion Conservatives attacking other Conservatives over something as obviously satirical as BKs comment probably has the lefties sitting back and laughing.

The fact that Ezra is having to go before the Human Wrongs commission is an idictment of the idiocy and political bias of that intstitution, not of any culpability on Ezras part.

Posted by: ward | 2007-01-19 4:13:26 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.