turningrite

I'm not sure billions want to come to Canada. I think that for a lot of migrants coming to Canada is a means to an end. For some, it offers a respected passport, access to affordable education for their kids, somewhat accessible health care when they need it and a safe haven when things get dicey back home. I recall congratulating a woman at work a couple decades about moving to Canada. She said her main goal and that of her relatives who had come to Canada as well as their hope for the children they were raising here, was to get into the United States. Some would succeed in this, she admitted, and some wouldn't. But at least those stuck here wouldn't be desperately disadvantaged. Interestingly, Australia, a wealthier and in many ways more attractive destination than Canada, is grappling with problems associated with its similarly large immigration program. Its Productivity Commission fairly recently (releasing its report in 2016, I believe) conducted an extensive examination of the strengths and weaknesses of its policies, reaching some conclusions that I believe Canada also needs to consider. Its examination determined that the so-called demographic boost generated by large-scale immigration is overstated. It also concluded that family class or chain migration (i.e. beyond spouses and natural children) isn't particularly economically productive and generates an over-reliance on government support. And it recommended that immigrants be more carefully selected based on both the specific needs of Australia's economy and the ability of prospective immigrants to integrate, with particular reference to demonstrably effective language skills. Wouldn't it be nice were we in Canada as rational in our approach to immigration and integration concerns as is apparently the case in Australia rather than relying on ideological bullying to enforce an agenda about which a significant proportion of Canadians are skeptical?

I suspect the Conservatives aren't so much distancing themselves from Bernier as wincing at the fact that his comments demonstrate the degree to which they too are part of the anti-democratic elitist consensus on immigration and cultural issues that has long dominated official Ottawa. Polling, including the large CBC Angus-Reid poll on the topic in 2016, suggests that Bernier's views reflect majority mainstream concerns. As Margaret Wente noted in a column this week in the Globe and Mail, [Bernier's] views are also popular because mainstream politicians have been reluctant to allow an outlet for legitimate concerns over immigration and refugee policy." Our federal politicians, among all the traditional mainstream parties, seem worried that a little too much democracy might break out. Well, they had it coming.

Canada has long been a multicultural country. This was the case well before "official" multiculturalism became public policy. I'm retired and yet when I attended school many decades ago my classmates represented at least a dozen or more ethnic nationalities. Traditional Canadian multiculturalism was essentially organic and inherently integrative. The emerging multiculturalism we're now witnessing appears to be different in some aspects, sometimes manifesting as tribal chauvinism with segregationist tendencies. I think we have to recognize the differences and take remedial action before it's too late to reset the clock. Bernier is doing us all a favor by raising his concerns.

I think you're missing the point here. I have in the past worked in roles where I had to manage, hire and fire people. My own attitudes about the people I considered hiring for various roles was impacted less by my personal views than by my sense of how customers and/or clients might perceive them. Hiring is an art as much as anything else and if a candidate is highly focused on their own issues, needs, expectations, sensitivities or rules it sends a message to a hiring manager or committee that it might be risky to assume the candidate will be flexible enough to make a customer or client feel comfortable and/or be able to work with varied and often difficult customers or clients. Perhaps this kind of assessment isn't entirely fair, but it's a function of human nature.

That poll is a pretty weak gauge of public attitudes about immigration. Rempel is correct to note that it essentially amounts to spin. Other polling and data have been more enlightening. It came to light a few months ago, as reported on the CBC's website, that internal polling done by the federal government indicated a drop in support for immigration levels when respondents were informed of the actual intake numbers: "Internal data prepared by the Immigration Department for a committee of deputy ministers suggests a majority of Canadians supports current immigration levels, but this support drops when Canadians are informed of how many immigrants actually arrive every year." (See link to article below.) This suggests that the government has been pursuing a cynical 'keep 'em stupid, keep 'em happy' strategy as majority support is sustained only in the absence of accurate information. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-public-support-1.4619762

I suspect Scheer won't turf Bernier from caucus because it's likely Bernier's views are widely supported in the party. So far, Scheer is trying to sit on the fence, which is probably a bad strategy for him and his party. If the 2016 CBC Angus-Reid poll that indicated widespread discontent with open-ended multiculturalism still hold, as I suspect they do, the CPC would probably see an uptick in the polls were it to embrace Bernier's critique. It sure didn't hurt Doug Ford when he made his "take care of our own" remark during the recent provincial election. He was loudly and predictably criticized by the hectoring progressive class for the comment but if anything it may have bolstered his support. Scheer is probably terrified to move away from the consensus position promoted by the mainstream party cabal in Ottawa. But he shoudn't be. He'll never win over the kind of ideologically rigid progressive voters he's afraid of alienating in any case.

There's a fascinating story in the news about a Muslim woman in Sweden who won an award (in a closely split decision) after a job interview was terminated when she wouldn't shake the interviewer's hand, based on, um, religious/cultural grounds. Apparently, in her country/religion/culture women simply don't do this, while in the West it's simply considered a matter of common etiquette. I guess the point here is that in any job where one might deal with the public one might come into contact with clients who might expect local customs to prevail over minority cultural practices about which most might understandably be unaware. How would you react to somebody who refused to shake your hand in such a situation? I guess if I were provided a pamphlet in advance explaining the inherent cultural dissonance I could accommodate it, but is it reasonable to expect people to on their own understand these things? Hmmm.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-woman-sweden-farah-alhajeh-refuse-shake-hands-employment-interview-uppsala-a8494821.html

I don't know a lot about Finland but all I can say is to be very careful. And don't listen to propaganda from self-serving politicians and advocates. Our infrastructure, both physical and social, has been stretched to the limits in places like Toronto. Our hospitals are bursting at the seams, where as an "admitted" patient you can lie on a stretcher for days as I have done, sharing a single filthy bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors, while waiting for an actual bed to become available. Our transit system, in an urban region of 6 million, is unreliable and overcrowded and has scarcely expanded over the past 20 years while the population has increased by about 50 percent. Our roads are equally clogged, with Toronto's commuting times now ranked as the worst in North America. Our housing prices and rents have exploded in comparison to rather stagnant incomes, with housing insecurity rising alarmingly, burgeoning homelessness and an emergency shelter system that can't accommodate demand. And there is no social housing available even to those most objectively in need, including the seriously disabled and seniors. And those are just the things that immediately come to mind. As I said, don't listen to the rosy promises of do-gooder politicians and advocates. You won't get a do-over when the inevitable problems emerge. We're the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.

Margaret Wente addresses the political suppression of dissent relating to immigration and multiculturalism in her column in today's Globe and Mail. She states: [Bernier's] views are also popular because mainstream politicians have been reluctant to allow an outlet for legitimate concerns over immigration and refugee policy. "There is no core identity", no mainstream in Canada,” Mr. Trudeau has said. A lot of Canadians disagree." In fact, those who disagree are cast as xenophobes and bigots not just by Trudeau but by the closed political cartel that defines the parameters for policy discussion in Ottawa. The CPC leader, Scheer, has responded to Bernier's critique by noting that he opposes identity politics but believes in both diversity and unity at the same time. Really? I guess that's how one might emphatically take no stand at all, which hardly seems a credit to his leadership capabilities. As Wente notes in her piece: "Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength. What makes Canada strong is our ability to unite people of diverse backgrounds with a shared set of goals and values." Wente believes Bernier's latest foray into controversy is likely intended to demonstrate to CPC members that they made the wrong choice in not choosing him as party leader, which may in fact be the case, but it has ignited a debate that's long overdue in this country - but also a debate our mainstream parties don't want us to have. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-whos-playing-identity-politics-everyone/

Others might characterize it less charitably as manipulating the narrative. The selective lack of openness tends to substantiate the views of critics, like Bernier, who believe that special treatment and double standards have become the norm. I think a lot of Canadian agree with him on this.

It's interesting, however, that we quickly learned the details concerning his motives, in contrast to the Danforth shooting several weeks ago which is still being shrouded in mystery by our authorities. I just read breaking news that the publication ban on the investigation into the Fredericton shooting has been lifted. But still nothing about Danforth rampage. Different strokes? Hmmmm.... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-decision-expected-today-on-publication-ban-for-fredericton-shooting/

But such integration or assimilation will occur much more slowly if the tribal multiculturalists have their way. Based on her withering critique of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel apparently understands this. Perhaps you should admit it as well.

The federal government knows it's failing. An internal federal government evidence based analysis, which was never publicly released but obtained via an access to information request and came to light last year in media reports, has concluded as much. (See link to article below.) Of course, we know the government only tells us what it wants us to hear. It conveniently casts critics doubters as bigots and xenophobes while it manipulates reality to suit its own ends. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

Your post, of course, is facetious. Your stated assumption that Bernier's view reflects discomfort with Canadians who are different from himself is in my opinion scurrilous. A 2016 CBC Angus-Reid poll (for which I've provided a link in a previous post in this string) indicated a solid majority (68%) of respondents to be skeptical of open-ended multiculturalism, and when breaking down the respondents by category immigrants who'd been in Canada for a considerable period of time also sided with the majority view, thus rendering your position inherently inaccurate. The great European champion of open migration, Angela Merkel, has described multiculturalism as a sham and a failure. Perhaps you might consider a more objective analysis?

I'm not convinced this is entirely correct. As new groups entered the country, most faced some degree of animosity, at least at first. The Irish were mistreated when they arrived, the Italians were mistreated, the Ukrainians were mistreated, etc. But eventually these groups adapted and moved into the mainstream. Governments did not intervene to force acceptance. There was minimal social support and immigrants pretty much had to make it on their own or move on, as many in fact did, mainly to the United States. Religion was an issue as well. My father used to recall growing up Catholic in small town Ontario in the Orange Order's heyday, where Catholics and Protestants largely worked, shopped and socialized separately. WWII, he used to say, was the unifying event, after which religious animosity and separation evaporated. The point is that everybody got along once ethnic and religious chauvinism (i.e. tribalism) dissipated and most people, at least in English-speaking Canada, simply began defining themselves as Canadian. I think the lesson here is that ethnic and tribal division is counterproductive and in the Canadian context is regressive. Why we are now encouraging and to some extent celebrating the emergence of a government-promoted form of tribal multiculturalism remains a mystery to me. I suspect Bernier is correct where he believes the new form of identity-based tribalism is being promoted and exploited for political purposes.

There was an editorial in today's Toronto Star that touched on the incident, pointing to it as an example of the general attack on the media. And the other evening on the CTV evening news broadcast Lisa Laflamme made an apparently pointed comment about the ban that's been applied to reporting many of the details of Fredericton shooting. She might have applied her comment as well to the dreadful suppression of facts about the Danforth shooting. Perhaps some in our media, no doubt trained as journalists, are beginning to realize that media coverage is being so manipulated and skewed as to lose any claim to being objective. And we have partisan activists on both sides of the ideological divide, including 'antifa' radicals at one extreme and conservative 'clappers' near the other, who do everything possible to limit open public inquiry and debate. Without an open and free press, democracy can neither function nor thrive. We have to ask whether the democratic era is in danger of simply slipping into the mists of time? https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/08/16/attacks-on-the-press-must-be-challenged-no-matter-their-form.html

I believe that for the first several months following legalization the Ontario government will sell pot exclusively via an online sales system, which suggests that minimally names and addresses will have to be provided. It's my understanding that the LCBO will not be involved in the process. So, my advice to those who use pot is to beware providing personal details to any government agency or corporation. Wait until it's known how the private sales market will work.

I think you're overstating the connection between the Western aversion to fundamentalist Muslim female dress and assumed bigotry. Many Canadians, including a lot of progressives and moderates, are uncomfortable with such clothing, although most have been intimidated into saying little or nothing about it. There was a good column touching on the topic by Heather Mallick in yesterday's Toronto Star. She, of immigrant and mixed racial heritage, says that as a feminist she too dislikes Muslim face coverings. In the Western context, they convey meaning and intent beyond simple religious affiliation and/or devotion. She notes that she rather agrees with Boris Johnson's recent critique that "it's ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes" and she points to a cultural/psychological explanation for the Western aversion to face coverings, referencing the view of historian Tom Holland who holds that in some aspects these garments raise the specter of the Grim Reaper. In other words, the visceral aversion may be grounded more in a fear of death (necrophobia) rather than Islamophobia. Given our diversity obsession, we often forget that Western cultural perceptions are often subliminally grounded in historical realities, including the Great Plague and the Black Death. We, too, have distinct historical and cultural influences that impact us in ways we often don't realize and are unable to intellectualize. So when your stomach knots when you see a woman approaching you covered head-to-toe in black with only her eyes otherwise visible you should take comfort in the reality that you're probably not a bigot at all. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/08/14/the-missing-ingredient-in-political-life-charm.html

Most Canadians are quite aware that they have no inherent "right" to enter the U.S., which is why I believe they should be very wary about providing information about their use of pot to any government agency or corporation.

I think Trudeau's merely a faithful servant to the corporate elites, who want open-ended immigration. It's a big part of their business model. Multicultural tribal politics grabs votes for this agenda and anybody who dares criticize it, however reasonably, is immediately cast as being racist, xenophobic, or worse.

Ford announced this week that for several months people in Ontario will have to buy their pot from a government monopoly while a system is worked out to eventually allow private sector participation to emerge. I hadn't thought much about the issue because I don't use pot, but after reading a letter on the topic in today's Toronto Star I started to wonder about the risks associated with any public role in the industry. Presumably, people who order online from the government will have to provide identifying information like names and addresses and a database of some sort will be generated. But can we trust that customer privacy will be protected? I'm skeptical about this. Imagine, for instance, if American authorities demand access to such a list in return for, say, a trade deal. Even though some states have legalized pot, the U.S. federal government doesn't recognize its legality and foreigners, including Canadians, can be banned from entering the U.S. merely for admitting to past pot use, however incidental. After Harper handed over our police and court databases to the U.S. to assuage American security concerns and ease trade flow, a friend who'd paid a pot possession fine almost 30 years prior was turned back at the U.S. border and had to go through a lengthy and expensive process to get a temporary entry waiver, which he must now renew on a regular basis in order to travel to the U.S., and he says that even with the waiver he's still hassled at the border. Personally, I don't trust giving much personal information to government agencies. Should we be concerned about this new government run pot regime?

Yes, the whole thing undermines any claim that we function as a legitimate democracy. Rather, we present a classic example of what Noam Chomsky characterizes as a system grounded in "manufactured" consent, which ultimately serves an elitist corporate economic agenda. I suspect our foppish PM Is merely a useful idiot in this process. But why does he need to worry anyway when, as he's reminded us, he has his family trust's wealth to fall back on? He's insulated from the deleterious impacts of the globalist agenda he so blithely promotes, as are some of the other mediocrities in his cabinet like the wealthy Mr. Morneau, whom journalist Chantal Hebert has characterized as being "politically clueless."

If you read my posts in this string you'll note that I admit that all three major federal parties, which I believe function as a political cartel where issues like immigration and multiculturalism are concerned, are complicit in the game of identity-based tribal politics. I suspect, however, that there is a greater level of dissatisfaction with the elitist political consensus within the CPC caucus in comparison to the situation in the other two parties, which have been completely captured by special interests and lobbyists. During the Harper years some attempts were made to reform the ridiculous refugee determination system and to rein in the benefits associated with the refugee program. Also, a nod, even if halfhearted, was given to mainstream values, particularly with the ill-fated but popular move to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. Ultimately, the CPC, which favors the corporate preference for open-ended immigration, simply wouldn't break ranks with the elitist consensus even where it was clear it might have had some latitude to do so. We'll see if Bernier's very reasonable objections to identity-based tribal politics changes anything. I'm skeptical, but at least he's encouraging public debate and causing discomfort among the complacent political elites, who must know that public opinion is likely on Bernier's side. Politics, as does nature, abhors a vacuum, and these issues have simply gone too long without being subjected to rational scrutiny and public debate.

1.) Perhaps you don't pay attention to the formatting here? The header above your reply reads as follows: "On 8/14/2018 at 1:31 PM, turningrite said:" 2.) I think our political class will do everything it can to discredit the kind of views expressed by Bernier, particularly given that it's likely aware he's reflecting views widely if not vociferously held in the Canadian population, if the results of the 2016 CBC Angus Reid poll still hold, which I suspect they do. Our main political parties and politicians are for the most part bought and sold by powerful interests, and where that's not necessarily the case, as with the NDP, pixie dust and unicorns have obliterated rational analysis. 3.) We have at present a tri-party political monopoly that basically sets the parameters of policy discussion in Ottawa. These three parties garnered roughly 92% of the vote in the 2015 election. We have seen attempts to break out of this monopoly, particularly on the part of the BQ, but it could never attain power as it was/is a solely Quebec-based sovereignist outfit. The Reform Party also broke into the monopoly for a time, but it never evolved much beyond its roots as a Western-Canadian focused protest movement. Eventually, it reintegrated into the Conservative Party, taking it slightly further to the right. 4.) Governments absolutely have control over social outcomes they choose to impose. Some might well argue that the Canadian government has become a poster child for this. And perhaps you've never read Noam Chomsky's work about "manufacturing" consent? 5.) Trade deals in the globalist era contain the very seeds of de-democratization. As a student of economic history myself, I find it amusing when people think that trade deals merely involve trading goods. The NAFTA agreement's investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms are classic examples of the kind of institutionalized language employed to undermine the sovereignty of democratically elected governments. The uproar in parts of Europe over the CETA deal (which now may be blocked by a populist coalition in Italty) has in large measure focused on these kinds the anti-democratic mechanisms. And the TPP was attacked over the use of similar language and provisions. Credible analysts, including I believe the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, have pointed out that the TPP had/has little to do with actual trade and more to do with imposing a corporate agenda. Interestingly, the vacuous Trudeau is a proponent of the language and mechanisms of de-democratization while Trump, whom I dislike because of his offensive style and autocratic tendencies, clearly appears to understand the problemic aspects of globalization, at least insofar as its negative impact on labor markets is concerned. 6.) There are so many articles and analyses available online related to the risks posed by globalization to democracy that it's difficult to identify a singular critique. You can take a look at the Global Policy Forum piece on globalization, for an unabashedly negative assessment. But if you're interested in looking beyond your preconceptions and reading a very moderate take on the deleterious impacts of globalization you might want to read an analysis in the NY Times, written by Harvard professor Dani Rodrik, which notes that "...the elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals. Societies were asked to subject domestic economies to the whims of global financial markets; sign investment treaties that created special rights for foreign companies; and reduce corporate and top income taxes to attract footloose corporations." And the writer is actually a fan of globalization - well, assuming it can be reined in and reformed! The article rather wistfully takes the position that globalization could be salvageable and put to work for the benefit of democracy, but to do so would mean isolating and excluding many countries that are now involved in the scheme, like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia. In other words, imagining a kinder, gentler and more democratic form of globalization is a pipe dream. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/put-globalization-to-work-for-democracies.html 7.) Well, there's a singular factor you're apparently ignoring, which is that the capitalist world faced ideological competition. You are aware that during WWII the CCF was gaining in the polls and a Communist, Fred Rose, was elected to Parliament, right. This set the stage for the release by the Liberal government in 1945 of the White Paper on Employment and Income' that laid the groundwork for the implementation of a social democratic agenda over the next three decades. A "mixed-market economy" was to provide benefits for ordinary people by means explicitly social democratic policies in order to bolster and sustain for, well, capitalism. This approach was adopted throughout throughout much of the developed West, although perhaps less wholeheartedly in the U.S., and led to the broadest form of equitable prosperity experienced in the modern era. The oil shock of the 1970s put an end to the party, and the emergence of post-industrial Western economies, exacerbated by emerging globalization, largely finished it off. It's now in its death throes. 8.) PET would probably be horrified by what multiculturalism has become. He loathed ethnic nationalism and tribalism but was open to the idea of a broader civic nationalism that could accommodate Canadians, including newcomers, of all backgrounds. He no doubt viewed multiculturalism in the traditional Canadian context of cultural integration rather than segregation. His position on aboriginal/indigenous claims, where he bluntly rejected victim-based tribalist ideology, provides insight into his real beliefs. He believed in a modest immigration program and was mindful of the threat posed by immigration to the interests of Canadian workers. Immigration numbers didn't really ramp up until the Mulroney era, where the program was turbocharged at the behest of the corporate class, and the dependency-based refugee scheme took off after the Singh decision in 1985, which followed PET's departure. It's a matter of conjecture as to whether he would have been supportive of many the Charter's more more problematic impacts, but there are clues that he probably would be alarmed at some of those impacts were he around today. The Charter is in some ways a theoretically good idea gone awry. By the way, should you respond further on this, please provide references to back up your assertions. You play a game where you ask others to substantiate their positions when you don't do so yourself.

I think what Zeitgeist really means to say is that our mainstream politicians agree with each other more than is the case south of the border on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and even trade policy. There's very little real choice on these major issues within the tri-party political cartel that controls policy discussion in Ottawa. However, based on the CBC Angus-Reid poll released in 2016, for which I provide a link in a prior comment in this string, most Canadians (i.e. 68%, if the poll remains reflective of current public opinion) likely agree with the gist of Bernier's recent tweets expressing concerns about our centrifugal and tribalist multicultural policies. And polling on immigration also suggests misgivings and divisions between the populace and the ruling cartel as well. To me, the fact that public opinion and perception is not reflected in the policies of our mainstream parties isn't actually a credit to the supposed virtues of Canada's restrictive, controlled and manipulated democracy.