Christine Williams: Model Immigrant

Christine Williams hosts the popular current affairs show On the Line. She could be the female Michael Coren, since she doesn't shy away from unpopular topics, and is one of the few television hosts in Canada who is leans more to the right. I don't use "leans more to the right" lightly, because she is a moderate on many issues. Like Coren, she takes special care to cover all the grounds, and often defends many of the non-right issues in Canada in a, well, right angle.

For example, she has clearly stated that she believes the problem with Islam is that it has adherents who prefer to enact its more violent messages. Hence her insistence that it is the radical elements of Islam that are the problem, and not Islam itself. She has actually described jihadists as psychopaths and not as what they really are: the vanguard of Muslim society who are fulfilling their religion's commands through violent means.

She discusses multiculturalism extensively on her show. Her view is that since Canada is now inevitably a multi-ethnic society, there is no choice but to deal with it through multiculturalism, or more precisely, through generalized respect for all cultures. This implies that she is sympathetic to some multicultural policies. She still supports, and believes in, assimilation. But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants. Children of immigrants from non-European countries repeatedly say that they feel less assimilated than their immigrant parents. Immigrants of different cultures are having a difficult time relating with each other let alone with the culture at large. More and more immigrant and ethnic ghettos are cropping up in major Canadian cities. These are the kinds of facts that Williams should have at the tips of her fingers. Otherwise, she is simply be building a "wishful thinking" scenario, and deluding her public in the process.

Williams is interviewed here [two-part video], providing many insights into what formed her character. She came to Canada from Trinidad as a four-year-old, and spent difficult years growing up. Her parents often shuffled her back and forth between Canada and Trinidad as they adjusted to their adoptive country. Eventually, through rebellions and then conversion to Christianity, she became one of the model immigrants in Canadian society.

But, there are a few strange elements in her life too. The most outstanding is that her parents' lifestyle in Canada was initially dramatically inferior to that in Trinidad. By her account, they seemed to have been respected members of Trinidadian society, and perhaps even relatively wealthy. It took them many years to adjust to Canada, but they persisted until they achieved some success.

Another piece of information she provides in her interview is that despite having been in Canada since she was four, she never dissociated herself totally from Trinidad. She went back and forth to Trinidad regularly, sent by her parents as a child, and later on as an adult of her own free will. It was at one of those trips as an adult that she met her Trinidadian husband, who joined her in Canada. Twenty years later, they have two children in their teens. Are these the kinds of children of immigrants that I discussed above who feel less Canadian than their immigrant parents? Quite possibly.

I always wonder about people like Williams and her parents. The parents caused their daughters (Williams has a sister) a lot of anguish while growing up due to their stubborn insistence to "make it" in Canada. Williams herself is either delusional about the realities of non-Western immigrants in Canada, or she is being disingenuous, and ignoring important data about immigrants and assimilation (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, Williams comes off as a semi-advocate of multicultural policies, of the "lets all assimilate, but respect each others cultures" variety. I think this is is her way of reconciling her Trinidadian background with her Canadian reality. So, perhaps unconsciously, she wants it both ways. She is certainly holding two contradictory views: supporting a multi-ethnic, and by extension a multicultural, Canada; and promoting immigrant assimilation through Canadian "values" and "culture."

Harboring multicultural sentiments can be pernicious, such as respecting Muslims, and only reining in on the violent (jihad) and stealth (sharia) activities they exhibit. These, according to Williams, are only practiced by a radical handful. The rest, like all other nonwhite immigrants in Canada, and just like her and her family, simply wish to assimilate and become "Canadian." But the reality shows otherwise.

I wonder if people like Williams, successful, and by all appearances assimilated immigrants, have ever thought of going back to their countries of origin? There seems to be a subtle disconnect within even the well-intentioned non-Western immigrants like her, who get pulled into contradictory statements as they try to work out their place in Canadian society. Surely Williams would have a much easier time in Trinidad. After all, she followed her roots by marrying a Trinidadian man. And by all accounts, her children are less likely to feel Canadian, and more likely to accept their "differences" than she is (or can). She can be at least honest (although she is certainly very genuine, and her problem is lack of systematic thought on the subject) and say: "I am different, and I am leaning on multiculturalism, ethnic diversity and the wonderful smorgasbord that is Canada to allow me to live comfortably in Canada."

If this is how I assess Williams, then what about all those who adamantly do not wish to assimilate, and who fight to change Canadian society to fit their needs by unequivocally supporting the policies of multiculturalism? These are the ones that really need to go back, to their familiar societies, which do not require any radical changes in order for them to feel "at home."

What a concept! I haven't heard anyone argue about solving the multicultural disaster this way. So, it is time for concerned citizens like Christine Williams, and Salim Manur who wrote about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism here, to reassess themselves and their solutions.

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.

Time for Ezra Levant to Focus His Energy on Addressing Multiculturalism and High Levels of Immigration

In my previous post, I wrote that the underlying existence of the Human Rights Commissions is to prevent discrimination of "vulnerable" groups such as women, racial minorities, the disabled, homosexuals, native Canadians, and religious minorities.

My position about the HRCs has always been that they exist mostly as a result of the multicultural and high immigration policies of Canada. I tried to convey this with statistics, articles and direct information from the HRCs and other governmental resources in my series of posts under Human Rights Commissions. I started this endeavor when I began to analyze Ezra Levant's complaints regarding the HRCs, which is that he is after dismantling them because they curtail freedom of speech and expression. Well, the reality is that they didn't stop the "freedom of speech" of the Muslims who attacked him, and dragged the case for three years during which he lost thousands of dollars.

Well, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a union group, says it like it really is. In my previous post, I quoted PSAC as saying that closure of HRCs posts will "have a particular impact on racialized people and recent immigrants."

Somebody finally tells the truth, and it isn't the Conservative government, nor is it pundits like Levant and Mark Steyn (who was also stung by the HRC courts). It is a leftist union organization which let the cat out of the bag. Although, none of this was ever really a secret.

I tried to convey this to Ezra Levant, but email communication wasn’t really possible since he has no address posted at his site. So, I have been linking all my blog posts on the HRCs to his blog, hoping that he gets the time to read them.

Dismantling the HRCs is a gargantuan endeavor, not only because Canada has very specific, biased views on what is free speech and what isn't - look at Ann Coulter's experience - but because those very people for whom the HRCs exist are growing in numbers and in power.

Unless immigration rates are reduced, and the multicultural polices of Canada are revised (and frankly thrown out), the forces that push for organizations like the HRCs will continue to get stronger.

Perhaps my conclusions are unrealistic: Multicultural policies will never be revised, and immigration of minorities (both religious – i.e. Muslims - and racial) will continue to grow.

But, it is a first step to point out that the HRCs' problem is multi-faceted. Specific mandates and policies have been put in place, which gave strength and staying power to these institutions.

Even the Harper’s government seems convinced of their necessity. Rather than closing down centers, his government is allowing an overall expansion of the organization, with increased funding.

One final thought: the HRCs have actually become the canary in the coal mine, exposing the consequences of multiculturalism and high levels of immigration (and immigrants). I hope Levant starts to focus on this now, and perhaps more specifically and more realistically, on the Muslim presence here in Canada, who came in primarily through immigration and who are taking maximum advantage of the multicultural policies of the country.

Adding My Own Questions on Racism to the Dismally Deficient Ones Asked by the CBC Reporter

The excellent documentary "A Conversation about Race" by Craig Bodeker is no longer available on YouTube. Fortunately, I was able to watch it about a year ago. Since it is an entrepreneurial effort, as well as an educational one, the hour-long $20 DVD is well worth the investment.

The much shorter, and pernicious, video produced by CBC that I discussed yesterday, asks the same questions about racism as does "A Conversation about Race," but never bothers to substantiate the answers (and accusations of racism) as Bodeker valiantly attempted to do throughout his film.

I will try to add some follow-up questions that I think the CBC reporter should have asked to come up with concrete answers, rather than responses based on hurt feelings and emotional outbursts.

The journalist from the CBC comments:

As those numbers [of ethnic minorities] grow, racism still thrives. We visited three communities in Ontario to find out how:

I suppose my first question would be to the CBC reporter, to explain what she means by “racism continues to thrive,” and if she could show me actual numbers and statistics to support that statement.

Here are some of the responses she received for her question on how racism thrives, and I add my follow-up questions:

First black man: How to talk about it is not so easy or obvious.
KPA: I think it is very easy. Here is a simple question: can you give me specific examples where someone, or some people, have been racist towards you?

Second black man: You have to be at least two times as good as the other people around you, or you're not getting the job. You're not going to be placed if you're equal.
KPA: Has this happened to you or to someone that you know? Have you, or people that you know, been refused jobs and you thought it was because you were black and merely equal to, and not twice as good as, your white competitors?
KPA: Just another question. In your current job, do you think you were twice as good as your white competitors who didn't get the job? How do you know? Did your boss specifically tell you?

Muslim woman: The secretary at my school once told me to take off my earrings because they looked like planes that are about to take off.
KPA: That does sound annoying. Maybe she had bad memories of 9/11, and didn't like anyone wearing earrings that look like planes that might crash into buildings. Can you give other examples of racism towards you?

Third black man: Professors look at you like "do you really know what you're talking about?"
KPA: They just look at you, and you get that impression? Has any professor ever said to you that because you are a black student, you don't know what you're talking about?

And the focus of the report, Toronto teacher Kurt Moss, who, according to the CBC reporter, has been plagued by racism all his life, talks of his first incident of racism.

Kurt Moss: Me and a group of friends, mostly black males, were crossing the street. And someone who was crossing the street as well they (sic) said, "Get out of the way you niggers." That's when I realized, recognized, that this is a huge issue.
KPA: Has anyone ever called you a nigger, or any other derogatory name, since that first incident? And if not, how do you detect people's racism towards you?

The CBC reporter let everyone off the hook. They all felt racism, they perceived racism, they were annoyed, irritated and frustrated by some of the ways they were treated, but none of them produced any concrete examples of actual racist incidents other than Kurt Moss.

And Kurt Moss is now the champion anti-racist teacher-activist in the Toronto school system, all based on one, single incident probably about ten to fifteen years ago, which he is still traumatized by and which he simply won’t let go of. If I were of a truly cynical nature, I would say that this incident has become his goose which lays the golden eggs, sustaining his job, his activism and his life. Racism, or crying racism, can be a very lucrative business.

To watch the short video, you can go here to the CBC's The National site. The video is called, "Tolerance: Canadian Voices."

Oh Canada, Poor Canada!

Photo from Toronto Star article: 
"A city of unmatched diversity"


Contemporary Canada is being hijacked once again. Recently, Native Canadians have been usurping lands and bypassing law and order demanding a bigger share of the nation.

And imagine calling someone a liar or a thief, simply and absolutely based on your whims and perceptions, with nothing to back up your accusations? A video report from yesterday's CBC The National showed just that, well almost.

In response to reports projecting that 28% of Canadians will be foreign born by 2031, and large cities like Toronto and Vancouver will have close to 60% of their population as visible (ethnic) minorities, the CBC conducted its own little survey on racism (The video is titled, Tolerance: Canadian Voices).

Everyone in the survey said yes, there is racism. Except for one white man, who looked like he was talking from a small town. He said that "it feels like we're being taken over."

What is remarkable about this very short report (only six minutes long) is that all of the non-white respondents said that they felt that they have been discriminated against. But none of them came up with any concrete examples, unless it is half-baked ones like the Asian girl who feels that she is being discriminated against when people assume she doesn't speak English, and a black student says that he's always being asked where he comes from.

And besides this pervasive feeling of racism, which all the minorities were happy to jump on, none of them voiced any kind of thanks or gratitude for their presumably productive (at least with jobs and income) lives that Canada provides for them. They did not complain about discrimination at jobs, with housing, their children and school admittance. Instead, they all focused on some amorphous feeling of discontent, which they have cultivated for whatever reason.

This whole "Canada is a racist country" has a sticky, grimy feel to it. Like I said earlier, it is like someone who has decided that I am a liar, and however much the evidence and my behavior contradicts that, who will continue to swear by my dishonest nature.

So, this is what we are to expect much more of in the next twenty years, when the ethnic minorities, comprising a bigger and bigger piece of the Canadian pie, will feel it is necessary to continuously downgrade Canada.

Oh Canada, Poor Canada!

The Smorgasbord of Cultures that Will Be Canada in 2031

Photo from Toronto Star article: 
"A city of unmatched diversity"

The National Post's editorial  on Thursday had a short column: "What Canada stands for." Of course, the article starts with the biggest fallacy of all when it states:

Canada has always been a nation of immigrants 

Canada started as a country of British and French settlers, who claimed territory after territory, some by peaceful means, others through epic wars, to build a nation. Eventually, the British took the upper hand. Vast areas of land needed to be developed, especially in the prairies, and Canadians allowed Eastern Europeans, mainly Ukrainians, to develop parcels of often difficult land. Other European immigrants came in waves, but not as different peoples to do what they will. The came to a country already established with its own culture, laws, religion and society. These fluxes of immigrants, almost exclusively from European countries, had to subvert their identities and nationalities to that of their host country. They had to speak English, had to accept the dominant socio-religious structure of the country, and had to bring up their children as Canadians first and foremost.

But the next part of the sentence certainly rings true:

[A]nd it will become more so [a nation of immigrants] in the next 20 years. 

Yes, thanks to the policy of multiculturalism, the acceptance of immigrants who have no cultural connection with Canada, nor any desire to connect to it, Canada will become a nation of immigrants with nothing to tie them together.

The op-ed goes on to say:

According to a report released yesterday by Statistics Canada, by 2031, up to 28% of the population could be foreign-born. The number of people following a religion other than Christianity is expected to double to 14%, up from 8% in 2006. 

Who are these foreign-born? They are from countries where there is no natural social, cultural or historical association with Canada. They are from civilizations and countries as far and diverse as India, China, Somalia, Mexico. In short, they are almost all non-Europeans.

Here is a thought: A Chinese and an Indian (or a Somali and a Mexican) are far less likely to find points of interest in their culture, language, religion than a German and an Italian. However much Europeans divide themselves into distinct groups while in Europe, their commonalities are easier to find than their differences once they arrive at the shores of the New World.

They have long historical connections starting from Greece, going on to Rome, Jerusalem, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment the two World Wars, and an infinite number of more points of intersection in between these epic periods in history. A German is as likely to have some attachment to Michelangelo as is a Frenchman or an Englishman, and even the nihilist Dadaists of the pre-WWII period do pop up in European artists' imaginations. And these European immigrants brought this rich cultural heritage to Canada, with which they could all, at some level, associate. Canadians even looked (and look) back, to some extent , to European examples for their cultural developments.

How can a Chinese Buddhist’s culture have anything in common with a German’s or an Englishman's and ultimately a Canadian's? And here's an even more radical thought, which the multi-culti brainpower hasn’t thought about: How is a Chinese Buddhist to have anything in common with an Indian Hindu, or a Somali Muslim with a Mexican Catholic (who believes in his own brand of saints with the Mexican Patron Saint Guadalupe dictating a distinct Mexican culture very different from the Spanish influence since, for one, she was a Mestizo)?

At one point, immigrants from different parts of Europe had two things going for them when they arrived in Canada:

a). They had some intersecting points of cultural agreements with each other, and with the dominant Canadian culture.

b). There was no official multiculturalism which kept them tied up in their ghettoes, thus they were forced to blend and mix with the rest of the country. AND, they could do this because of point a)., where their cultures weren't too different from each other’s.

Now, flash forward to 2010. With the triple dose of a). official multiculturalism, b). cultures with little or no commonality with the dominant one, and c). cultures with little or no commonality with each other, it is no surprise that Canada is slowly parcelling off its land to 1001 different ethnicities and races, who are content to barricade themselves behind their exclusive territories. Here is an astonished journalist who reports that by 2007, there were 254 ethnic enclaves in Canada’s three biggest cities – Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver – up from SIX in 1981.

Official Canada in 2031 may look hybrid and mixed, as the above op-ed indicates, but the private Canada will be frighteningly exclusive. And this will have in turn engendered public exclusiveness, where groups of people segregate in their own towns, cities or municipalities, start their own shops, manage their own offices, and retain their own languages, religions and cultures.

But wait, hasn’t this happened in 2010? Toronto suburbs (still part of the Greater Toronto Area) such as Brampton and Markham are already there. Brampton is now 57% visible minority, the majority of which are Indians. Markham, a Chinese enclave, is 65% visible minority.

I won't go through the rest of the article, since it is the usual liberalized view of immigration, which doesn't take into any account these inassimilable characteristics of post-1967 immigrants (when the Immigration Act of 1967 removed all restrictions on non-European immigrants). But, the article ends off with this insipid suggestion:

Canadians need to define our values so that both immigrants and the native-born have the same expectations of what Canada stands for — and what it does not.

Even if Canada were to define more precisely what it stands for, immigrants are much better at defining who they are, and are not likely to give up their identities any time soon.

New Developments on the Wilders Case

Here is an enlightening discussion on the Wilders trial at View From the Right. It appears that Wilders's trial has been delayed for several months. European contributors, including Dutch blogger Snouck Hurgronje and Belgian Paul Belien who is the Vice President of the International Free Press Society, give their insights on the trial in the ensuing comments. Apparently, no-one other than VFR and Snouck is reporting on this delay, including other vocal pro-Wilders sites in the States, Canada or Europe.

Snouck makes an interesting observation in the first link above:

I wonder whether Mr. Wilders agrees with us about Health Care. He got into politics on his expertise of the Dutch Health Insurance system. Beforehand he worked as a staff member for the Sociale Verzekeringsraad (Social Insurance Council) and before that on the treaty department of the Ziekenfondsraad (Council of National Health Insurance).

It is all intertwined, isn't it: Universal health care; Human Rights Commissions; repressing journalists reporting on issues regarding Islam; high levels of immigration. If one of these is running amok, then the others are there, or getting there.

It's Not Enough to Repeatedly Say "Stop Muslim Immigration"

Kathy Shaidle is repeatedly posting on her popular blog Five Feet of Fury "Ban Muslim immigration to Canada," or "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada today."

I sent her an email yesterday with this suggestion:

Hi Kathy,

First a belated Merry Christmas and (a timely) Happy New Year!

I am glad that you are consistently mentioning a radical approach to the Muslim issue - stopping Muslim immigration into Canada.

Most people these days will not come up directly with that approach. But your popular blog will surely give people something to think about.

If I can make a suggestion. I think most readers would like some kind of strategic approach to the problem. They might get frustrated at simply saying: stop Muslim immigration. How, when, why etc. might be their questions. It is a blanket statement like: Muslims are destroying our civilization.

I have linked on my blog to a comprehensive strategy which conservative writer Lawrence Auster has established. It not only looks at immigration, but also:

- what to do with Muslims already here. Part of many people's rationale is that Muslims are already here, they are "assimilating" and we cannot do anything about them.

- how to approach jihadi and sharia infiltration

- And even what to do with our "diversity" institutions such as multiculturalism

But, rather than re-write it, it is better that you read the whole thing yourself.

You can find more information on Auster's writings about "What to do about Islam" here.

Plus, one other suggestion, Geert Wilders already has clear policies he has set up for the Netherlands, for which he is getting incredible popular support. Perhaps you could also use examples from his strategies on how to deal with Muslims in the West.

People are eager to know what to do. Most writers and politicians are not giving them the information and background that they want.

Let me know if I can be of help.

Kidist.

Keeping Our Eye on the Ball

The Human Rights Commissions (I have a special link for all my posts on the HRCs at the right hand column of this blog) are associated with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were, as were the other institutions, installed to dampen the effects of diversity and the conflicts that multicultural and diverse communities can incur. They predictably arrived right after the amended immigration policies of 1967, which allowed non-white immigrants to enter into Canada without any restrictions.

Recent high-profile cases have involved pastor Boissoin and his letter to his local Alberta paper on homosexuals, and Marc Lemire who was put before the Commissions for comments on the website that he monitors. But the most vocal and belligerent cases have by far been by Muslim groups trying to silence writers and commentators on Muslim issues and news.

I have written here that while the task of dismantling these HRCs should still continue, (and also the repealing of hate speech laws, although I am not sure if that is even possible), we should not ignore these most aggressive of opponents that exposing the wrongs of HRCs has unveiled for us.

One way or another, Muslims are determined to push their culture and religion into Canadian society. If kangaroo HRCs courts won't work, they will go through normal legal procedures; if overt measures are pushed back, they will continue with their ever-covert activates of taking over one square inch at a time.

One of their most effective measures is to use the current systems and institutions to further their cause. The HRCs are one, multiculturalism is another, and diversity is the way in which they can hide behind, and soften, their effects. Immigration is what adds fuel to this fire.

These battles of the last few years on the "freedom front" have actually disclosed clearly and unequivocally a hostile force. As I wrote in my previous post, it is important to straighten out these institutions, but alongside that, we have a difficult and deceptive opponent to contend with in Islam, and we shouldn't lose sight of it.

Tying together the Use of Hate Speech Laws and the HRCs with Muslims and with Immigration

I got a response from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts to my last email about the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium in Ottawa in early December.

She writes regarding the accuracy of her liveblog (which I didn't doubt, I just wanted clarification on a few points):

My liveblog, although not a word for word transcript, is substantially accurate on all or most of the main points and solutions offered by speakers. If I didn't mention something it is probably because it was not covered or at least not covered in any substantial way.

And in response to my question about free speech as it relates to Muslim groups, this is what she had to say:

I am, however, reasonably certain that most free speechers would place the chief, and most disturbing, blame for the current situation on the system which enables and submits to radical agendas rather than on those who would themselves seek to advance such a radical agenda. The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system. It is for the justice system to ensure that they do not succeed. That is why there is a tendency to focus on legal and political challenges to hate speech laws and public education on the issue.

I responded:

You write:

The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system.

Until now, no group of people has tried so radically to take advantage of existing Canadian laws and systems in order to aggressively advance itself within the country as have done the Muslims.The very public incidents such as the Maclean's HRCs case, and the one against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons, have allowed us to see what we're up against. Muslims, I believe, are now the biggest threat to freedoms of all kinds (speech, expression, of the press, etc.).

I thought that someone like Bjorn Larsen, who has been involved personally with many counter-jihad groups and individuals, would have brought this insight (or relationship) in his presentation. He did mention Muslims, but didn't tie all this together. I think that hate speech laws, in and of themselves, should be fought against, but what they have exposed in terms of Muslims (and multiculturalism, in general) should also be the focus.

How Bjorn Larsen Could Have Presented a Multi-Faceted Solution to Problems Facing Free Speech

Larsen focused his speech at the Free Speech and Liberty symposium on hate speech laws. His solution is that we should simply repeal them. In Canada, these laws are enforced through Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and its corresponding Human Rights Commissions, which state:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Or through the Criminal Code of Canada which has three sections:

- Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group;

- Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place that will incite hatred against an identifiable group, and thereby lead to a breach of the peace; and

- Section 319(2) makes it an offense to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Read about the differences between the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provision here.

In 2003, David Ahenakew, a First Nations politician, was charged by the Saskatchewan Justice Department (not the HRCs) with inciting hatred against Jewish groups when he justified these comments on the holocaust "That's why [Hitler] fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world" by saying "How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" He was convicted and fined $1,000, but the charge was later overturned.

The focus may be on the HRCs for now, but there is room in the Criminal Code for belligerent and aggressive groups to use the hate speech laws to continue to silence legitimate discussions. These hate speech laws are very much present, and are not simply gathering dust in some drawer.

Larsen states in this symposium (which focused purely on free speech) that we must repeal them. I have no law background, so I have no idea how possible this is.

The other solution is to reduce, and strategically remove, the group that is now most likely to put these laws into effect, which is the Muslim group. Even in Holland, it is the Muslims that are bringing Wilders to court.

I have maintained throughout Our Changing Landscape that the high levels of minority immigrant groups, who will cry "racism" and "discrimination" at opportune moments, will also continue to be problematic when it comes to the HRCs and the hate speech laws. So the aim should be to reduce immigrations levels in general.

Thus, the problem should be viewed as a combination of aggressive Muslim groups, high levels of non-white immigrants, and toxic hate crime laws. Larsen, with his ample experience with prominent counter-jihad individuals, should have provided a multi-faceted solution to the problem that includes the reduction of Muslim immigration. Currently, free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press cannot be discussed separately from the Muslim problem specifically, and the immigration problem in general.

No News Might Really Mean No News

No news from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts regarding my email to her asking about Bjorn Larsen's presentation at the recent Free Speech and Liberty symposium in Ottawa. I find that making specific recommendations of reducing Muslim immigration to solve the "free speech" problem that has escalated in the Western world often is met with silence or with resistance by bloggers and other writers (including Islam experts - see here my email interview with Robert Spencer).

I attribute this partly to the severity of the solution, and that most Islam experts are liberals at heart when it comes to discriminating against groups of people. Many excuses are presented, including the timing is wrong, and that we need to educate people more about Islam before taking drastic measures that many might disagree with.

I think it is also some kind of addictive need to keep talking about the problem, and hoping it would go away just with the rhetoric.

Anyway, since it looks like Rebekah did such a thorough job presenting the speakers' speeches to us on her blog, there is no need to think that she may have left information out. Which holds that Larsen, despite his time with prominent counter-jihad groups, and his many interactions with Geert Wilders who is one of the main proponents for the reduction of Muslim immigration into the West, did not present that solution in his speech. Dare I say that he might be a "Semi-Usual Suspect?"

Respected Muslim Family Man Now in a Canadian Jail

Respected Muslim family man now in a Canadian jail

Here is an exemplary family man, community organizer, leader in his professional group, and a "modern" Muslim, who has been jailed for threatening to kill his daughter.

His whole family (minus the daughter, who has been hiding for two years now), who say that he was simply a strict father and nothing more, apparently see nothing wrong with him pressuring his daughter into an arranged marriage. Of course, threatening to kill her could simply mean that he lost his temper when his daughter disobeyed him. His fellow-workers think he's an exemplary colleague, and he even has been offered to keep his job while in jail.

Such is the fate of the "good Muslim family men" in the West. Why don't we give these people a break and simply say:

By coming into our countries, your children will change, you will have a hard time keeping your family together, and anything that you try to do to retain your culture and your religion could be misconstrued as criminal. So, just stay home, in your Islamic countries, where you will live much more peaceful lives and where you can maintain your beliefs and your families intact.

This is surely the least we can do to alleviate all this hardship and heartache.

"Abolishing The West: Immigrants Reject Assimilation"

This is the title of Sam Francis's article written in 2002. I have provided the whole article here below. I've highlighted some points I think are worth emphasising. You can substitute "Canada" or "America" for "Britain."

Here is one quote though that is apt for the current Canadian scene.

[T]he Home Office has been suggesting that maybe the "minorities speed the process of integration by adopting British 'norms of acceptability,'" and proposing that newcomers take an oath of allegiance, study British history and culture and embrace "our laws, our values, our institutions." The suggestions promptly received the British (excuse me, the African-Caribbean) equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

Jason Kenney has recently revised the citizenship test to include those very ideas, and received the Canadian equivalent of the "Bronx cheer" from the Multi-Culti Intelligentsia.

-------------------

Abolishing The West: Immigrants Reject Assimilation

By Sam Francis

How much longer will the white majority nations of Europe, North America and Australia keep pretending they're "assimilating" non-white Third World peoples into the warm and toasty melting pot imagined by multicultural mythology?

Probably not very much longer at all, as a matter of fact. If Sept. 11 wasn't enough to disabuse some people of their delusions about immigration, the immigrants themselves will do so.

The New York Times reports that in Great Britain, where both Tory and Labor governments have long pushed multiculturalism, welcomed mass immigration from the remnants of the British empire and outlawed virtually any act, word or thought that even looks like "racism," the immigrants themselves are fed up with trying to become British. [Britain's Nonwhites Feel Un-British, Report Says, NYT April 4, 2002]

"The only times I call myself British are when I go to get a passport and when someone asks me where my accent comes from," snorts a native-born Englishwoman, Jenni I'Anson, who happens to be of Jamaican parentage.

"Otherwise I would never class myself as British. There is no sense of belonging here. I would only say that I am African-Caribbean."

Her nephew is a bit more explicit about what he is.

"British to me means white, and I don't get treated like a white person, so I don't think of myself as British."

The Times report dredges up several quotations like these from several Britons (no insult intended) who are either immigrants themselves or descended from non-white immigrants. Last summer's race riots in northern England perhaps hinted to many that the multiculturalist propaganda was all hogwash, but even without riots, terrorism and blatant anti-white and anti-Western sentiments, the evidence is pretty clear that Britain's Third World population is not behaving the way universalist ideology insists it should.

In response to the northern riots, the Home Office has been suggesting that maybe the "minorities speed the process of integration by adopting British 'norms of acceptability,'" and proposing that newcomers take an oath of allegiance, study British history and culture and embrace "our laws, our values, our institutions." The suggestions promptly received the British (excuse me, the African-Caribbean) equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

If there's any place in England where "assimilation" would seem to be able to work, it's Sheffield, the country's fourth largest city, and it's on Sheffield that the Times report focuses. The city "would seem to be a place where that project would enjoy more success than elsewhere in Britain. Race relations have been less combative here than in cities like London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bradford and Leeds with histories of rioting. The local government has been more attentive and the police more communicative." But assimilation, integration, call it what you please, is not what the immigrants (excuse me again, the British) want. "Of course [assimilation is] the wrong thing to be asking of us," declares one Pakistani immigrant who arrived as a child and is now 46.

"What a lot of so-called English want us to want is leafy Oxfordshire. But what we want is a job, a decent place to live, safety, a chance to educate our children. We want to preserve our separate identities. And remember, we must still also maintain the economic link with our original homes. Forty years later, I am still sending money back."

What this gentleman is saying is that neither he nor other non-Western immigrants have the least intention of even trying to adopt the manners and values of the country to which they invited themselves, and that they feel insulted if the "so-called English" suggest they should.

What they expect is that the British people and the civilization they created should provide them with whatever they please — the wealth, security, freedom, education and comfort that is the creation of the white West — but that they do nothing whatsoever to sustain the civilization.

Of course, there is a school of thought that maintains that non-Western peoples are simply not capable of sustaining — or assimilating to — the civilization of the West, that "East is East and West is West," as Kipling put it, and never the twain shall meet. The responses of non-Western immigrants into Britain say nothing to contradict that view.

How long a country like Britain, which now has a population only 7.1 percent non-white but is projected to have a non-white majority by the end of the 21st century, can expect to maintain the fruits of the civilization that even the immigrants demand as their right is not clear.

But whether the immigrants cannot, will not or simply do not assimilate to the civilization of the country in which they chose to live, the fate of extinction that faces British civilization is no different from that which faces all other Western nations that continue to harbor the mythology of mass immigration.

Coercions into Victim Status

Photo from Toronto Star article: "Near half
in Greater Toronto Area (GTA) minorities"

The favorite cop-out for all minorities, blacks, Asians, Muslims,etc., is to play the victim card. Any person that doesn't belong to the still-majority white culture, whether conservative or liberal, libertarian or neo-conservative, will at some point pull out this card. I once told someone that I have never been tempted to pull out this card, even a triple-trump one as a female, minority, immigrant (I'm sure there are more I could reel off). I don't really know why this is. It could just be a freak of nature, although I don't think so. My theory on that is long, and for another time. Partly, I think it is to do with my interest in art, and true, honest art requires excellence and discrimination. My love of art is too pure to make horrible compromises.

Recently, I have been thinking about how minority cultures are built. For example, how do blacks (both here in Canada and in the U.S.) segregate themselves as a victimized group? How do black families live collectively like that? What kinds of subtle pressures and constant nudgings convince whole groups to agree with and accept a victim status? How do people reconcile the outright lies and other more shifty paradigms with their real social conditions? Is the truth so hard to bear?

Partly, of course, it is the deep-seated fear of being shunned and ostracized. Strong group leaders, with a lot of love and compassion in mind, fascistically coerce their members to "be like them, or else." There is a lot to lose with the "or else."

But, that is the weakness of those coerced. Accepting a lie is as bad as lying. Every single individual has the opportunity to rise up to the truth. It doesn’t require an undue amount of intelligence or subtlety. It really boils down to humility before greater forces. Humility before God.

Harder Citizenship Test Just Means Keep Doing More of the Same

Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has recently unveiled a new citizenship test guideline that he says will make acquiring citizenship more difficult. Kenney says that the document is to show new citizens that they "are inheriting a set of responsibilities, of obligations. "

In a recent interview at TVO with journalist Steve Paiken, Kenney says that he is not looking for assimilation of newcomers as much as their integration into Canadian society. He believes that multiculturalism and diversity are an asset to Canadian society, but that this new set of guidelines is necessary to help forge a more cohesive society in this multicultural "mosaic."

Kenney felt compelled to tighten the citizenship test in order to counter the effects of runaway Canadian multiculturalism. Yet, his government recently announced that it will not reduce the high levels of new immigrants accepted into the country. The numbers remain at 250,000/year.

So, while trying to tighten the citizenship requirements mostly as a reaction to multiculturalism’s ghettoizing effect on Canadian society, Kenney opts for more of this multiculturalism via immigration.

Is What's Wrong With the World Able to Save its Communities and Country?

Lydia McGrew's response to my comments at What's Wrong with the World that transnational adoptions would destroy American communities (I replaced "destroy" with "change" at her adamant protest) was that how can one single child, who is to be brought up with mother's apple pie, ever harm the community?

My concise answer is that if one family thought that it was OK to bring in a Korean child, why would other families not think that was a good idea? Just like pro-immigration groups, supporters of transnational adoptees think that there is nothing wrong with bringing in people who look very different from them into their communities.

McGrew elaborates further and says that these children are brought up to be Americans. But the reality which McGrew refused to acknowledge was that these kids who are brought up saying "Mommy" and "Daddy" later on, according to a New York Times report, psychologically abandoned these very American lifestyles and parents, and went to great lenghts to find their original countries, languages and cultures.

As I wrote in one of my comments:

No era has ever performed this experiment before. And this experiment is clearly full of holes. The NYT group showcases the adults of the first wave of that experiment. To me, it proves that the experiment has failed. Our ancestors knew better.

I instinctively understood this. Why couldn't McGrew?

More Adoption Woes

I've ended my participation in the difficult debate that was going on at What's Wrong With the World. Of course, debaters think their point of view is right, but I was surprised by the adamant inability for Lydia McGrew to see the "other side." I still don't know the source of her stubbornness. I have to say, though, that it is tied in with her own adoption. But, emotionalism has never helped anyone. The lives of whole villages and towns, both in the adopted child’s original country and in his newly acquired one, are at stake because people behave emotionally.

My final, exit, post at WRWTW is:

My position is that transnational adoptions are difficult for the children being adopted, and for the community which they are being adopted into.

If people wish to alleviate the poverty of those children, I think they should start by seeing how they can help the children in their own countries.

I also think that people should investigate very carefully these adoptions situations. Who profits from them, where these children are really coming from. If there is really no other family member that can take care of them.

Finally, because of such a high demand for children from overseas, people wishing to adopt should realize that they may be changing the dynamics of those communities. That mothers and other family members who could take care of their children are tempted to put them up for adoption as an easier way out.

There's more, of course, regarding bullying in the schoolyard, disregarding the existential angst adopted children exhibit, whether two parents at any cost trump geographical and racial displacement. It is all there where I try to rebut McGrew's positions on these.

What's Wrong with Transnational Adoption? What's Wrong with the World Says "Nothing."

Lydia McGrew at What's Wrong with the World comments (rather lengthily) on Laura Woods post on transnational adoption (about which I also have some input at Laura's blog, as I wrote here).

To say the least, I am very surprised as Lydia's take on the whole thing. Better to read the discussion there, rather than me commenting about it here. I've done it all there.

How Ideology Slowly Changes the Make-Up of a Society

Here is a very important discussion about transracial adoptions at The Thinking Housewife.

I have put the link here at Our Changing Landscape even though it doesn't pertain to Muslim issues directly. But, it is the same idea of changing a country's make-up through ideological or political reasons.

Muslims are allowed into Canada and America without second thought as to how they will contribute to these countries. Yet, what thy have done is slowly change things to fit their cultures and societies.

Similarly, adopting children from faraway, culturally alien lands, changes many factors in the societies into which they are adopted. In Angelina Jolie's case, the smart and cute Zahara is made to feel, by my assessment, much more at home than the blonde and blue-eyed Shiloh. Yet it is Shiloh's home and country by ancestry and by inheritance. Zahara is the newcomer, the visitor.

There are many more issues discussed at Laura Wood's site. I strongly recommend that you visit and read what is there, including some very interesting comments.

Now that Laura has enabled me to be brave enough to tackle that kind of subject, namely immigrants from non-Western countries and the West's desire to do good by these immigrants, I will hopefully start writing more direct posts on those issues.