Jason Kenney Thinks Immigration Is All Good

I made a point to watch Michael Coren's hour-long interview with Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (with a title like that...), a couple of nights ago. Kenney has kept the high levels of 250,000 new immigrants for 2010, and is coyly playing with the idea of doing the same for 2011, despite the recession. I was sure Coren would ask him about this decision, and even discuss immigration as a broader issue.

Well, it didn't happen. Instead, Kenney spent many minutes talking about his "good will ambassadorship" visiting immigrant and ethnic communities and asking them how he could make things better for them. Of course, each ethnic community will have gripes, and will make demands that he favor their group, include more of their group in his new immigration numbers, give them more money for their particular cultural activities, and so on. None of them will say "reduce immigration, and dismantle the Multiculturalism policy," which is how things can really get better.

What was even stranger is that in order to deflect accusation of "racism" that his government may have had – Conservatives are always considered racist simply for being conservative – he was boasting how his immigration numbers are as good as, or better than, the Liberals'!

I don't see any MSM bringing up these topics (other than to say that it's all good), and no blogs either. Issues such as Muslim immigration; the effect of immigration on the future composition of big cities like Toronto (a major study recently reported that 28% of Canada's population will be foreign-born by 2031); multiculturalism and the public coffers, etc. are considered too inflammatory. I don't see why, since they pertain to important national issues.

For Jason Kenney, the unassimilable masses from the Third World is a myth. He thinks his good will, extra government funding, more "settlement" programs, and general wishful thinking will remove any doubts that the (very few) immigration and multiculturalism critics, including immigration expert James Bisset, bring to the table.

Even Third World (including Chinese and Indian) immigrants know better. They form their own ghettos, demand special treatment whether financially or culturally, and coerce the government to perform according to their needs.

Will the Real Jihadist Please Stand Up?

"Conservative" independent filmmaker Jason Apsoto has recently released a film on Islam called Kalifornistan. The website promoting Kalifornistan has this to say about the film:

KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with his 'mighty plutonium superbomb' - while being distracted by an exotic dancer.

KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbor into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.

There are enthusiastic reviews for this film at its website, but I will be more critical. Apsoto has made his jihadist a lone, lunatic sex maniac, whose mission to destroy Los Angeles is due more to his deranged personality than his religious convictions.

Many writers give all kinds of reasons for jihadists' uncontrollable quest to bomb apostates: They are sexually frustrated maniacs; they are poor, oppressed Arabs; they are psychologically impaired; they have unresolved issues with their distant fathers; they are too close to their clingy mothers. And so on.

Apsoto seems to have fallen for the "they are deranged sex maniacs" variety, and that is where I cannot take his film seriously. I understand that artistic license is due, but even artists have to research their material and know something about their subject, rather than make up whatever they feel would suit the tone of their film.

One critic writes, "the film clicks as strong, effective satire." The jihadist's prescription is to follow the clear commands from the Koran, which is to turn the
whole world into Islam, whether by force or by stealth. Apsoto, rather than find a unique and artistic way (if possible) to write a fictitious account of a real Koran-following jihadist, prefers to make his jihadist a socio/psychopath so that his film becomes a "satire."

Hirsi Ali's Polite Disdain for Christianity

Ayaan Hirsi Ali pops up periodically to comment on the prevailing Muslim incident. This time she is reacting to the South Park censorship. As far as I can tell, she has been interviewed by Fox News and has had an article published by the Wall Street Journal on this topic. And here is a link to her interview with Anderson Cooper from CNN. That is more attention than the astute Diana West, whose analysis of the incident is far more valuable than Ali’s.

Near the very end of the interview on CNN, Hirsi Ali says:

We have to take them [Muslims] on. And that means, I think, scrutinizing Islam, criticizing it in the same way that we criticizing Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies, and other religions.

Equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense.

It never occurs to Ali firstly, that Islam has no business being alongside Judaism and Christianity to merit "equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense."

Second, it is interesting that she puts "offense" as part of her egalitarian treatment of religions, and that she puts "ideologies" and "religions" in the same sentence.

Ali has come forward as an atheist, and has declared her dislike for Christianity (to put it mildly). In the slips that she performed, it is clear that she politely disdains religion, and that offending Christianity might be just as commendable as offending Islam.

This is the kind person that the American Enterprise Institute has hired to protect American (and Western) interests.

More Diversity = More Disharmony

The anonymous author of the Canadian Immigration Reform Blog is one of those commendable writers in the highly populated blog world. He relentlessly and diligently documents immigration stories. His posts are often a week or two apart, but he never disappoints.

His commentary is also extremely useful, and I never find any points to refute. In his great post "Toronto, 2031: The Most Racist Place On The Planet" he writes about the out-of-control HRCs, and how they are fulfilling the exact role I had given them since I started analyzing the whole enterprise: to create an environment where "discrimination" can be controlled and subdued.

I also wrote many months ago that the post-1967 immigration policies (when entry was accorded to all nationalities, and not just to Europeans) have produced a population so diverse that a harmonized co-existence seems more and more difficult. What similarities does a Chinese have with an Indian, or a Somali with a Mexican? At least pre-1967, immigrants related to a generalized European culture, including the Ukrainians, the Poles and the southern Italians.

In his above entry entry, Pax Canadiana (the name that this blogger goes by) writes about a Turkish immigrant taking a Chinese woman to the HRCs for insulting him in her donut shop, and a Muslim woman reporting discrimination on the job by her black employer.

According to the Toronto Star article where Pax Canadiana obtained his information, HRCs cases have increased from 15/year to 15/month since 2008. Part of this increase is that the HRCs have made it easier for plaintiffs to file their cases. But, an important part is that with this increased diversity, there is also an increase in disagreements and antagonisms, and therefore an increased need for filing complaints somewhere. I've always said why not file in a court of law, but the HRCs are ready-made for these types of complaints.

In 2031, Toronto’s visible minority population is expected to comprise more than half of the city’s population. Expect Pakistani Muslims to sue black Caribbeans, and disgruntled Chinese to complain about their Somali neighbors. In fact, put any combination of nationalities together, and there is sure to be a case presented to the HRCs at some point.

So much for Multiculturalism, the policy which was to maintain a happily diverse population. According to Pax Canadiana’s (and my) assessment, all this is simply a recipe for friction and disharmony.

Update on: The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination

Below I have linked to the Youtube videos showing the discussions on dismantling the HRCs on the Michael Coren Show, which I wrote about in the previous post. The first couple of minutes of Part 1 I think pretty much delineate Coren's views (Coren is the more right-leaning of the talk show pundits), where he says that scrapping the hate speech component of the HRCs is a good idea, but all the rest should remain.

In Part 2, he briefly admits that even if the Conservatives were to initiate the dismantling of the HRCs, the other parties would derail it by saying that the Conservatives agree with (i.e., are) Holocaust deniers, homophobes (and he could have also said racists, sexists, and so on).

In short, like I said before, those who advocate the removal of the HRCs have only looked at the issue in terms of hate speech (free speech), and not in terms of discrimination. And I've said all along that the main purpose of the HRCs is to fight "discrimination," and curtailing free speech is just a by-product of the whole set-up. I don't think any party would enjoy being called racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and certainly not the newest accusation, Islamophobic. Unless people deal with these issues, I don’t think government maintained (and mandated), and tax-payer subsidized HRCs are going any time soon.

John Turley Stewart, of the National Post (who's also on the Coren Show panel), does a good job of arguing for total dismantling. But, to me, he sounds like the lone voice in the whole debate. Coren is for partial reform (i.e. getting rid of the hate speech parts), as I think are most critics of the HRCs, including Ezra Levant.

The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination; Hate Speech Is But a Small Part

Michael Coren, at his show The Michael Coren Show recently talked about the Human Rights Commissions. He opined in a manner that I think resembles most Canadians' thoughts: get rid of the hate speech (Section 13) codes of the Human Rights Act, but leave the rest as is. In other words, people who feel discriminated against for reason of religion, race, sexual orientation, gender etc. could still use the HRCs.

The reality is that the majority of HRC cases are not hate speech cases. They are stories of perceived discrimination at the workplace, in service areas (restaurants, etc.), while renting homes, and so on. So rather then take these cases in a normal court, and suing for whatever grievances endured, it seems expeditious, less costly and probably more likely to result in a positive verdict (for the plaintiff) than going to a real court.

But why should the government support these pseudo-court bodies when there are perfectly functional real court systems? As I wrote in this previous blog, it is all about avoiding discrimination in the multicultural society, and to prevent discord and dissatisfaction between all these various groups, with differing skills and abilities. Coerced harmony is better than battling things out in the real world of real laws.

Here is another interesting part of this story. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has maintained the high levels of immigration for 2010, at around 250,000. I don’t know the run-down of the countries being admitted, but recent history has shown that a majority come from non-Western countries. What is the likelihood that such groups will help maintain the HRCs, as they struggle to fit into the country? And what is the likelihood that such groups (both new and older members) will strongly reject the dismantling of the HRCs?

Most anti-HRC proponents have gone after the (narrow) hate speech component of the Human Rights Act. The reality is that it is the anti-discriminatory part that is larger, and probably in the long run, more powerful. Truly dismantling these costly bodies will, I predict, raise the ire of these many groups who benefit from pushing their grievances through the HRCs rather than fighting for them in the real courts.

Email Problem

I accidentally deleted an email sent to Cameralucidas@yahoo.com this morning. I closed the tab while my email inbox was loading. If you've been trying to get in touch with me, please try again.

Lawyers enabling Terrorists, Geert Wilders's Trial, and Other Articles by David Harris

Infant Princess Margriet of 
Holland who was born in
Ottawa where the Dutch 
Royal Family fled to during WWII

David B. Harris, who could have been the first high profile Canadian to experienced Muslims' attempt at censorship, also writes on Muslims, terrorism and national security. His recent article "What’s scarier than terrorists? Lawyers" appears in the Ottawa Citizen on February 19, 2010.

He was also part of the symposium: The Trial of Geert Wilders, published on the International Free Press Society website. His commentary is titled: "Pursuit of a Parliamentarian." Here is a French version of the speech, which includes a photograph of Dutch Queen Juliana, who fled to Canada with her family when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands. The photo shows her holding her infant daughter Princess Margriet who was born on Canadian soil in 1943. In order for Princess Margriet to claim her Dutch royalty, the Ottawa hospital suite where she was born was deemed “extraterritorial.” (Here is photo of the Dutch Royal Couple in Ottawa and their three daughters, including new-born Princess Margriet).

Mr. Harris writes at IFPS:

Connections of law and spirit were further cemented when the First Canadian Army liberated much of occupied Holland. Remembering all of this, the Dutch Royal Family upon liberation sent Ottawa thousands of tulip bulbs, a gift that continues yearly, to this day.

This shared history of struggle for liberty and democracy must leave Canadians wondering whether disturbing legal developments in the Netherlands signal a loss of The Hague’s commitment to the freedoms for which Canadians and Dutch sacrificed. In the land of the tulip, “the first freedom” – freedom of speech – may be in the balance.

We have come at another impasse in the West. Just like problems during the two World Wars required our joint efforts, we have a similar calling in our modern pursuit against jihad.

Was David B. Harris the Very First Canadian to Go Through Attempted Censorship by Muslims?

David B. Harris is the former Chief of Strategic Planning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He is now the Director of International and Terrorist Intelligence at INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc.

In April 2004, while on Ottawa's CFRB radio, he asked this question:

"Shouldn't someone be looking into CAIR-CAN's relationship with its more-troubling American relative, CAIR?"

CAIR-CAN's then Chair Dr. Sheema Khan sued both Mr. Harris and the Ottawa radio station for libel. Mr. Harris and CFRB radio didn't back down after these accusations. And in 2006, CAIR-CAN "dropped their suit, cold. No damages, no costs, no apology, no clarification."

This is very similar to what happened to Ezra Levant, except that rather than being sued for libel and brought before the court system, he was charged with "promoting hate" and brought before the Human Rights Commissions. Three years later, the complainant Syed Soharwardy also withdrew his case.

Perhaps in 2006, CAIR-CAN was not yet familiar with the intricacies of the HRCs, and went the legal libel route. In any case, both incidents show that Muslims are more than ready to silence anyone who speaks truthfully about the problems in their religion and its organizations. We have so far seen a court case and a HRC case come to nothing. (That doesn't mean though that the accused suffered lost time, lost money and endless months of frustration). But, I think that Muslims will continue to manipulate all the possibilities to silence discussion and debate, and most of all disagreement, when it comes to their religion.

The Taking of Christ

By Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

The Taking of Christ, Caravaggio, 1602

Small Steps Towards Removing the Negative Influences of the Human Rights Commissions and the Human Rights Act

Here is a simple diagram which explains the relationship between the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commissions.

Explanation of the diagram: 

1. The Human Rights Act defines discriminatory grounds, and areas where such discrimination is prohibited.

2. When someone believes he has been discriminated against, he can file a case with the HRCs.

3. As well as a plethora of areas, ONE violation involves hate speech.

4. A case, after it's been through the HRCs and was unsuccessful, can then be appealed through the Supreme Court.

There are a few of points I would like to make:

1. The only way a violation of the HRA can be heard is through the HRCs.

2. The HRA was designed to prevent DISCRIMINATION against particular groups (look at the diagram).

3. HATE SPEECH is only one of the violations. Others include discrimination at place of employment, in housing, while receiving services, etc.

4. Almost all the high level cases of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Marc Lemire and now the lesbian couple case, involve what was deemed by the plaintiffs as hate speech.

5. These hate speech cases are actually very few. The only way they got the public's attention is because those accused refused to concede, and publicized their cases according to their influence.

6. The majority of cases, which continue on almost a daily basis, are mundane cases of perceived discrimination on the job, in housing, in service areas like restaurants, etc.

7. The majority are filed by what are called "visible minorities" who fall under the race, national origin, ethnicity, colour, and religion categories of groups.

8. Thus, rather than being a freedom of speech issue, the CHRs and the HRA are about discrimination, or more precisely, preventing what groups perceive to be discrimination against them. This includes discriminatory (hate) speech.

9. Finally, these visible minority groups are largely from the immigrant populations, and are often recent immigrants.

10. The HRCs and the HRA are strongly intertwined with the Multiculturalism Act and the Immigration policies of Canada.

11. The prominent Multiculturalism Act, and the very high levels of immigrants and refugees that are being admitted into Canada, fuel the HRCs and HRA with an endless client base.

12. Until there is a concerted revision of all of these institutions and policies - HRCs, HRA, Multiculturalism Act, immigration and refugee policies, - I don't believe that politicians will be ready to annoy their immigrant/visible minority constituents by changing laws that actually benefit such groups, but clearly harm others - like journalists, Christians, and comedians.

13. Since denying truth (via free speech) is such a dramatic constraint, it is no surprise that the freedom of speech aspect of the HRCs has received the most attention. But, what runs all these organizations is the anti-discriminatory position of the Canadian government, which will forfeit everything else to protect this position.

Solutions:

1. Reduce immigration levels in general.

2. Find peaceful ways to reduce immigrants by removing them from Canadian society.

3. Reduce immigration of Muslims.

4. Find peaceful ways to reduce Muslims by removing them from Canadian society.

5. Review the HRA on all levels and make revisions, especially with the "hate speech" sections.

6. Remove the HRCs so that cases are directly decided in Canada's courts, rather than in these improvised committees.

7. Christian leaders should be outspoken about the removal of Christianity from the center of Canadian culture. They should be outspoken about non-Christian elements which infiltrate the culture, and forcibly make demands to accommodate their lifestyles. Such groups include the stringent homosexuals, and the aggressive Muslims.

8. Canadians should be inundated with positive images of Canadian history, culture and religion, so that they don't weaken in front of aggressive accusations by homosexuals, Muslims and an array of visible immigrants from Chinese to Indians to Africans.

9. Canadians should retake what is rightfully theirs, without apology, and find ways to accommodate minorities of all types with fair and realistic strategies.

Lesbians and Light Bulbs on the Coren Show

There is ample room for comedy in Canadian politics. Perhaps that is why so many Canadians become comedians (the words even sound similar).

In Michael Coren's show last night, the "freelance writer" David Menzies was warned by Coren to lay off the jokes in case the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) came after the Coren show. Now, the CRTC is a type of Human Rights Commission for broadcasting media. I thought Coren had more spunk than that, but I don't blame him. Why let a silly joke ruin his show!

Menzies Moment:

There is yet another high profile HRC case going on. This time, a lesbian couple is filing a complaint against a comedian who made fun of their lesbianism. Actually, they heckled him during his comedy act, and he heckled back, but unkindly (i.e. he discriminated against their type and hurt their feelings).

Menzies was about to make a joke on lesbians and light bulbs, but got censored by the prudent Coren.

It was a laugh out loud moment. (Yes, Menzies was funny, but didn't Coren realize what he was doing?).