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 But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants.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.

Multiculturalism In Canada Is Here To Stay

Salim Mansur has written in the Toronto Sun:

Multiculturalism is a diminution of Canada’s founding history. It diminishes the vitality and largeness of the political culture that has accommodated a multitude of ethnicities within its borders, while it fails in bringing to immigrants — especially of non-European origin — a compensating increase in appreciation for those values that went into building Canada as a model of civility...

It is now for the rest of us to engage in a constructive discussion on how to roll back multiculturalism, this doctrine of divisiveness, for the love of Canada.

Mansur fails to explain something: why is it that multiculturalism flourished soon after non-Europeans started to enter and remain in Canada? Could it be that the differences between Canada’s founders and these current immigrants are just too great?

How much easier is it for a Ukranian immigrant to assimilate fully and unconditionally to Canadian culture than it is for an Indian or Chinese immigrant? Based on cultural, historical and civilizational backgrounds, non-Europeans undoubtedly find it much more difficult.

These are the kinds of difficult questions that writers like Mansur have to face in order to talk honestly about immigration and multiculturalism. Then, we can discuss whether in this current climate and historical juncture it is even feasible to change or dismantle the multicultural policies. But I am getting more and more pessimistic, and I think that in Canada, multiculturalism is here to stay.

Spring Revives Hope

Spring blossoms next to the statue of Egerton Ryerson,
the founder of Ryerson University

[I posted this entry in Camera Lucida last night, but it should also be here at Our Changing Landscape, only to show that some things do indeed remain the same. Egerton Ryerson's contribution to Toronto is an enduring legacy. His statue still stands. And the spring flowers bloom every year. This is a small sign of hope that in small miraculous ways, we can revive our hopes.]

I walk through the Ryerson University campus almost daily in order to catch the various public transportation options. The majority of voices and faces on this "urban" campus are of Toronto's brave new inhabitants: Arab, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, a smattering of blacks, and some who speak various Eastern European languages.

The library, which I often use, is filled with staff with strange accents, who often cannot help me with simple requests (such as renewing my I.D., for example), and I have to return when a more seasoned librarian is on duty. The librarian is the least appreciated, but the most knowledgeable, person I know (or knew). These days, these "new-comer" employees seem hired simply to swipe our library cards.

Once I heard (and saw) a student - at least I think he was, but he looked older - talk so loudly and aggressively in Arabic on his cell phone, that I reported him to campus security guards, saying that he looked suspicious. They took my comments seriously, and confronted the guy. Later on I asked what had happened, and one of the guards told me they didn't find anything unusual, and just told him to keep his voice down.

I took the photograph above last year, but the image is exactly the same this year, as the spring blossoms and young leaves decorate the various campus locations. The trees in the above picture are in front of the statue of Egerton Ryerson, the founder of what is now Ryerson University. I wonder what this Protestant minster would have thought of his learning institution being filled with Arab Muslim students, so much so that someone felt so startled by the behavior of one of them that she had to call the authorities on him.

Perhaps that the flowers bloom every year under his statue is a sign for hope that someday, somehow, normalcy will be restored. In the meantime, it is enough to enjoy these beautiful spring blooms.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Of Burkas, Crosses and Yarmulkes

A few years ago, when Ontario was in the grips of battling off Sharia law, I watched with fascination as a Muslim Iranian woman courageously condemned Sharia as misogynistic, and that it had no place in Ontario or Canada. Ontario finally banned Sharia law, but also threw out Jewish and Catholic tribunals in the name of multiculturalism.

At that time, I had no blog. And I decided to write an article, and send it to the National Post. My article condemned the compromise (or inclusiveness) that these Muslims (mostly women) and non-Muslims were asking of the Ontario court system, in outlawing all religious tribunals.

I realized in those elementary moments of my education about Islam, Muslims and the West, that there was a big difference between on the one side Jews and Catholics, and on the other, Muslims. It was actually depressing to watch Jewish commentators come out for multiculturalism, who were willing to give up their own tribunals for the sake of "harmony." And the inept and ultra-liberal (and Liberal) Ontario Premier making impassioned speeches about one law for all was at the nadir of his political life, I thought.

I wrote the article, but no one would publish it at the time. Later on, I edited it somewhat (to make it more current) and ChronWatch.com published it in 2008. Here is the article, which is titled: Islam’s Missionary Women.

I write this now because Islam’s contributions to the West are still considered to be on the same level as those of Jews, and Western nations' founding Christians. But Wilders, whose party has now won in one municipality, and came second in another, and is expected to have big wins in the national elections, says that is not so. Ban the burkas, not the crosses or yarmulkes, is his declaration. How hard is it to come to that conclusion? This is more-or-less what I said about five years ago. The tragedy, though, is that modern people, who are deep in the throes of liberalism, still refuse to discriminate between that which is the source of Western civilization, and that which will seal its death.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mark Steyn's Lucidity, Although He Doesn't Get It Quite Right

He writes at The Corner:

[T]he superficial fluffily benign language of multiculturalism that comes so naturally to our rulers provides a lot of cover for the shriveling of free speech...

As Canadians have discovered, liberty is lost very quietly and quickly. And trying to get it back is slow and painful — particularly at a time when artists, universities, publishers, and others who congratulate themselves incessantly on their truth-telling courage find increasingly pre-emptive self-censorship the better part of valor.

Steyn, like Kevin Michael Grace, thinks the biggest problem is voluntary self-censorship. Well, yes that is probably true in the case of the ultra-liberal elites that Steyn uses as his examples. But, I doubt that the majority of ordinary people really do self-censor, but are coerced into self-censorship instead.

As I've said many times before, dismantling (or merely battling) the Human Rights Commissions is only the beginning. There is so much ingrained in society now that allows HRC-type events to occur. My favorite is the myriad of free legal aid services available for poor, minority complainants who can still go to a real court and sue those they deem racist or discriminatory. All kinds of similar subversive activities take place all the time.

So, Ezra Levant has to think about what his real battles are. It is well and good to eradicate kangaroo courts, but the problem lies much deeper than that.

The multiculturalism that Steyn writes about is being fueled by our high immigration rates, and that is part of where the problem lies. Certainly, homosexuals, feminists, the disabled and other "victimized" HRC complainants exist, but then, I attribute that to rampant liberalism, which is the same liberalism that allows multiculturalism to fester.

This is how Levant should be thinking, and not "optimistically" finish off his incomplete mission.

No HRCs In The U.S. But Look At Greeley, Colorado and Dearborn, Michigan

Here's a story about the Somali meatpackers in Greeley, Colorado's Swift & Co. meatpacking plant, who walked off the job, and 100 of whom were fired last year, because their supervisors wouldn't let them pray at sunset during Ramadan.

There are no Human Rights Commissions in the United States. Yet, there are enough loopholes for minority groups to make cases for their discontent at work (or at schools, as the University of Michigan foot-washing sinks for Muslims demonstrates). Also, see my previous story about a Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 254 that is underway in the U.S.: 

Pending Hate Crimes Legislation

On January 5, 2007, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee introduced H.R. 254. The definition of "hate crime" remains the same as passed in 1994, but this bill goes much further than the enhanced sentencing provided by the 1994 legislation. H.R. 254 establishes a new federal offense for hate crimes and mandates a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses with the possibility of life imprisonment for crimes motivated by "the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person."

Here's another story from Dearborn Michigan, where an Arab Christian proselytizer was prohibited from handing out Christian literature during the Dearbon Arab Festival. From Creeping Sharia:

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Dearborn’s policy and seeking a court order allowing the group to wander the festival grounds freely to pass out literature. U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds denied the Law Center’s motion on behalf of the Christian group.

No HRCs in the U.S., but Muslim groups, amongst others, are having no difficulty curtailing the freedoms of other groups through regular court proceedings. This is exactly what Levant recommends: use the court system to fight your battles, and get judges like Nancy Edmunds to favor the aggressive, freedom quenching groups.

Ezra Levant, who managed to untangle the corrupt HRCs, is merely working on the surface. His latest post is that the new leader for the Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak, put the dismantling of the HRCs on his political platform.

The National Post had this to say about Hudak:

Mr. Hudak is not without his flaws either. His attempt to have it both ways with the HRC (keep the commission, but abolish the tribunal) will probably satisfy no one.

To be fair, Hudak, according to an interview he did recently, just wants to keep the educational component of the HRCs, rather than any part of the fraudulent court. But why even keep that seemingly harmless component?

Hudak evidently believes in the principles of the HRCs, which is to fight the dual demons of discrimination and inequality at various levels in someone’s life – from the workplace to acquiring housing and even to eating in a restaurant.

Even without the HRCs, given Canada’s Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, there are infinite venues for people to voice their grievances.

It is easy to get all indignant about false courts and the guilty-until-proven-innocent charges of the HRCs, let alone the exorbitant costs they incur on the poor recipients of these filed cases.

But, not one dismantler of the HRCs, from Hudak to Levant, has talked about their underlying problems.

They just saw an unfair system, run by government monies, and said that real courts are where such cases should be filed.

The question is:

Why should such cases be filed anywhere, at a bona fide court or a  fraudulent one like the HRCs? Why should a group of people like, say, the Somali Muslims in Greeley, have the option to file their ridiculous claims that their supervisors were mistreating them? This meatpacking plant has already its established workplace traditions, which have obviously helped build the plant very successfully over time. Yet a new set of people is setting up its own traditions which are obviously disrupting the plant and its workers. A sane supervisor should indeed fire them.

Levant is saying that the Muslims who complained about his Mohammed cartoons, and later filed a suit at the HRCs against him, should go to real courts.

They very well might, in the near future. And they might win their cases, causing him yet another six-figure cost for his defence. There are many ways his opponents can save money, including using the government-subsidized legal aid centers which furnish people with lawyers based on income, but which subtly favor minorities and immigrants.  So, its back full circle to the beginning. 

To put it bluntly, the problem is not fully that of the HRCs. The problem is the kinds of people who are filing these cases, as I have discussed in detail in my previous posts.

Hate Crimes in Australia and America

The International Free Press Society has a video up entitled: "Australia, exactly as Canada does, criminalizes opinion of Islam."

As far as I can tell, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Australia is similar to the Provincial Human Rights Commissions in Canada.

An Australian pastor has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself against a Muslim group which says he vilified Islam. The Muslim group took him to court based on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

His only crime was to read quotes directly from the Koran during a seminar on Islam.

His conviction has since been overturned by the Australian Supreme Court, and several states in Australia have dropped this law, but Victoria has only made amendments.

He talks with Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network and says the United States is in danger of such "hate crimes" laws. A "hate crimes" Bill HR 254 has been introduced to Congress, and is now just a matter of votes. 

As I keep saying, as long as Ezra Levant fights the symptoms (the HRCs) rather than the causes, which I have identified as high immigration and the concomitant multiculturalism (and especially Muslims), then a few decades down the road he will wonder what went wrong with his valiant fight.

Even If The HRCs are Dismantled, There Is Much More Work To Be Done

In my previous post I wrote:

As long as high levels of immigration from non-Western countries is the norm in Canada, I argue that there will be an endless stream of visible minorities who are potential HRC case filers, and will thus keep the HRCs going.

I should qualify that. Even if the HRCs are successfully dismantled with Levant's incessant activities, systems and institutions which do the work of the HRCs (affirmative action is one example) will still exist as long as there is the population group that demands these kinds of services.

That is what I meant by "underlying problems." If Levant doesn't address these problems, then dismantling the HRCs will have become a futile exercise.

Prime Stoppers of Free Speech Are Muslims

Here is a great speech given by Diana West, who as a journalist is understandably concerned about free speech issues. She is the Vice President of the International Free Press Society, and was recently in Copenhagen for a conference on "Free Speech and Islam."

As I've been saying all along, Levant cannot ignore the main reason that he had to spend three years fighting the HRCs is because he published the Mohammed cartoons, and Muslims took him to the HRCs.

The multicultural/immigration link that I have been writing about was succinctly and eloquently addressed by Diana West in her speech. And especially the Muslim link.

Also, I can't believe that this discussion has been going on for almost twenty years, and Levant, immersed as he is in a multicultural and immigrant affair, still hasn't caught on.

He thinks that free speech denunciations just come out of thin air. But, there is a history behind all this. Something I have been recommending he study for a while now, if he wants to have lasting effect in his battles against those trying to stop free speech.