turningrite

I'll defer to Bernier here, who maintains that the promotion of tribal division is a political tactic on the part of the Trudeau government. But I think the fact that serious discussion of immigration and multicultural policies is generally not allowed is more a function of an elitist compact between the major mainstream federal parties. The Conservatives are somewhat more open to nibbling around the edges on these things but at the end of the day support large-scale immigration because that's what big business wants. But politics as does nature abhors a vacuum and it's impossible to imagine that the political compact that suppresses debate on immigration and multiculturalism policy can last forever. Maybe Bernier's commentary over the past few days suggests that there's a pent up willingness on the part of some politicians to open Canada's democracy to, well, actual democratic debate and perhaps Ford's concerns about financial implications of supporting the refugee influx will open another front relating to debating the real costs of our immigration and refugee programs.

1.) Social engineering is a widely understood concept. If you think government can't "engineer" social change, you're dreaming in color. 2.) Globalism involves more than trade. It involves transnational institutions that erode the concept of state-based democracy. And, of course, there's no global democracy, so globalization is a threat to democracy in the limited portion of the world where it currently exists. Institutional globalization is the antithesis of democracy and perhaps the biggest threat to democracy since the Enlightenment. 3.) See preceding point. It's pretty clearly not a conspiracy theory. Searching the issue online and you'll find many scholarly analyses, many of them explaining the threat and others pointing to the reforms necessary to ameliorate the inherent threats globalization pose to democracy. 4.) Apparently, you're not well versed on economic history. The post WWII prosperity in the West, from 1945-73 is broadly understood as the "Golden Age of Capitalism" is widely understood and acknowledged. Without wanting to citing any of the individual academic analyses, maybe you can just read the Wikipedia entry on the topic, which references many of the relevant analyses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion 5.) I think the NDP has become pointless. The multinationals must, of course, be controlled, and particularly so in order to counter their tendency to promote monopoly. What does the modern NDP stand for? Hmmmm....

1.) You're attributing a quote from Bernier's tweet to me. A bit sloppy on your part, don't you think? 2.) My point, of course, is that the responses have been predictable, trivial and banal and largely irrelevant. 3.) Things can change quickly. You seem convinced that the current tri-party cabal in Ottawa is cast in stone. That might be wishful thinking on your part. It would, of course, take bravery for one of the existing parties to break from the elitist consensus in Ottawa but it's conceivable that a splinter group could emerge that could challenge the status quo, forcing the other parties to take stands and open fissures in the other parties. Wouldn't it be amazing to see immigration and multicultural policies and ideology open to widespread debate during a federal election? I believe a recent poll indicated that immigration now ranks as the second most important concern for voters with a little more than a year remaining before the next election. And that CBC Angus-Reid poll released in 2016 suggests there's a pent up desire for change in this area.

I believe Bernier's comments over the past few days reflect a growing if often politically unrecognized view held across a broad swath of the Canadian population that our immigration, integration and multicultural policies aren't working. A 2016 CBC Angus-Reid poll indicated that 68 percent of respondents believed that "...minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages." (See link below.) I suspect that our mainstream parties are aware of the high levels of discontent and will probably treat Bernier like a skunk at a garden party for breaking from their clique. But I think this topic must be addressed. If Bernier is turfed from the CPC caucus any new movement/party that might form should be called something like the Popular Action Party. I'd likely vote for it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194

My understanding of the private insurance prohibition in relation to what's viewed as necessary medical care is that it's a function of the Canada Health Act, which stipulates a single payer monopoly for medically necessary health care services. I believe the underlying assumption is that all medically necessary care is provided within the government-funded model. But that's increasingly not the case and we're living under a dangerous illusion if we fail to comprehend this. The representative for the American hospital to which I was referred noted that government funding coverage for patients from Ontario has declined considerably in recent years. I was led to understand that patients from some other provinces fare better in this regard. But what kind of "universal" coverage is this, unless perhaps the term has become a euphemism for universally inadequate or universally diminishing coverage?

There are reports today that Bernier is doubling down on his multiculturalism critique: i.e. "Cult of victimhood and obsession with past wrongs instead of focus on the progress made and to come are another sick characteristic of extreme PC and multiculturalism." Libs of course are braying that the CPC should boot him from caucus, but my guess is that Bernier has tapped into a deep vein of public concern about the impact of Lib/progressive immigration and multicultural policies. What will Scheer do? As I said before in this string, kicking Bernier out of caucus could set him up to lead a movement away from the traditional political party clique that runs Ottawa. Keeping him in the CPC caucus, however, might be difficult if Bernier develops a base within the party that serves to undermine the current leader. (Remember the Chretien/Martin feud?) It will be fascinating to watch as this unfolds. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/15/maxime-bernier-tweets_a_23502758/

Whatabout Trudeau, who characterizes basically everyone who reasonably or otherwise disagrees with his government's immigration and refugee policies as "racist"? Many progressives seem to applaud slurs consistent with their agenda. I guess "racist" is considered a polite slur in these crass times. Okay, but we're talking about Trump here. He has a history of lambasting opponents, real and perceived, with rude insults. According to a Washington Post piece, he's used the word "dog" in insults hurled at Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz, neither one a woman and neither one black (see link below). And he once called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig," a slur consistent with his often derogatory treatment of women he seems threatened by. So it seems that Trump's propensity for generally bad behavior might in fact excuse his insult against Omarosa Manigault Newman. At the very least it's a stretch to construe it as explicitly racist. He seems unable to abandon his reality show persona despite the office he currently holds and many seem willing to tolerate this. On the other hand, people might not be so forgiving if it's verified that he's used the "N"-word in the past. That will be much more difficult to explain away. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-calls-manigault-newman-that-dog-as-she-continues-publicity-tour/2018/08/14/d0956e2c-9fb1-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.938f1f78ed95

That's pretty much my point. We already have a two-tier system in that those who are financially able to do so can obtain adequate health care outside of Canada. I was referred to a U.S. hospital for diagnostic assessment related to a rare disease but when I became aware of the potential extent of the uninsured liability, as the Ontario health system approval I had obtained would have covered only a portion of the cost, I had to assess the feasibility of choosing between this option and no care at all and the latter won out. I was told by a representative for the American institution that it considers Canadians to be "uninsured" patients. I contacted my work benefits provider and was told that its "extended care" benefits cannot provide employees with the kind of coverage required for planned medical care or treatment outside the country because it is essentially illegal to sell this kind of insurance in Canada! Wow! And Canadians think they have access to universal coverage for necessary medical care? Think again. It made me question my support for our so-called safety net.

I was sort of with you throughout most of this until I came to the health care part. Have you had to deal with a serious health care problem, as I have, only to be told that as Canadians we're essentially uninsured and without health care rights and lacking universal access despite demonstrated medical need? Look at the seriously disabled guy in London, ON, who's suing merely to obtain humane care. I believe we should be able to buy private insurance to deal with these issues as the public system is stretched to its limits and the cost to taxpayers to right the ship would be so enormous as not to be feasible. But I also now believe the entire social support system should be moved to a similar model, with eligibility attached to contributions. I think that's the only hope for maintaining adequate services in this country.

No, I dismissed your argument because it concluded with a gratuitously anti-intellectual assumption, thus failing the test of objectivity: i.e. "To assert that a law banning face veils is (or would be) based on caring about female equality and not merely government pandering to bigots is so "unwoke" as to make rational beings cringe" In other words, you dismiss the views of those who don't agree with you based on a preconceived moral construct (i.e. bigotry) rather than on rational discourse and/or evidence and to boot you throw in a personal attack against the commentator to whom you are responding. I made no slur whatsoever against you or your post(s) in the sentence you quote. I simply elaborated on a point you previously raised. You can't set up an argument, attack other commentators for responding to it and then go on to blithely describe their views as amounting to slurs. Based on my assessment of your argument in this string, you don't apparently understand rules of civil debate, unless of course your actual objective was to be seen as clever, which in my opinion you didn't achieve. My advice to you is to avoid the temptation to engage in gratuitously sarcastic 'ad hominem' attacks.

Why would you use this kind of classification system when as far as I'm aware demographic statistics aren't collected in that fashion anywhere else in the developed world. Thus, your assessment is essentially irrelevant. Scientifically, of course, there are three broad generic racial classifications, Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, but in this country we divide people on grounds of meeting a 'visible minority' (vis-min) distinction in comparison to the white majority. The vis-min category itself is imperfect. The U.S. census system classifies most people from the Middle East, whether Muslim, Christian or otherwise, as being white while our system rather artificially allows those from this region to claim visible minority status along with the benefits associated with the vis-min designation.

That's beyond being judgmental on your part and discredits your entire argument.

I've always found it ironic that self-styled anarchists seem so apparently attracted to the trappings and symbolism of authoritarianism. Do they really understand what they're promoting?

Not sure who you're addressing here? But perhaps you should get your facts straight first. According to Stats Canada data, as reported in Wikipedia, in 2016 22.3% of Canadian residents, or more than 7.674 million people out of a general population of 34.46 million, were members of non-indigenous visible minorities. (See link below) Further over the two-decade period from 1996 to 2016 the percentage of the "European" or white people in Canada dropped from 86% of 72.9% of the total population and even more strikingly the number of European or white people fell in absolute terms between 2011 and 2016. I'd have to do some research, but I suspect this is likely the first time since census figures have been compiled in Canada that this has occurred. These statistics are indicative of what demographers would no doubt characterize as a massive demographic shift. I don't think anybody on here is arguing "against" any particular culture but I suspect many Canadians oppose the government's tribal approach to multiculturalism, which focuses on difference rather than integration and commonality. People tend to react against change, particularly when they perceive they are personally disadvantaged by it. And they tend to react even more negatively to significant change, especially when they believe it's being arbitrarily imposed. It's human nature. Do you think mainstream Canadians are not ordinary human beings? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minority_population

I don't think much of what you're saying makes much sense in relation to the topic at hand, which is the implicit problem with forced multiculturalism. Perhaps I need to be more blunt: The form of multiculturalism that's developed in Canada by political fiat is really just social engineering wrapped in a pretty package with a big bow. Canadians have always been multicultural in the organic meaning of that term. I have ancestry that includes at least four different European ancestries and my mother was in fact a post-WWII immigrant. And I attended school with classmates who represented at least a dozen ethnicities. But the prevailing ethos was until about three decades ago inherently integrative. Bernier notes that the intent of the current program is exactly the opposite of this and he said the new anti-integrative tribalism intends to serve the interests of politicians, and in particular the governing Liberals, who've turned it into an art form of sorts.And he warns of the very real dangers in this. I heard one politician object to Bernier's critique yesterday on grounds that he's just saying things without evidence to support his position that the current form of political multiculturalism is divisive and/or counterproductive. In fact, the federal government itself has studied the issue and reached the same conclusion(s), however the study wasn't publicly released and only came to light via an access to information request. (See link below) What the government keeps us from knowing, apparently, is presumably good for us as well as for mindless politicians and media commentators who uncritically mimic the propaganda they're fed. Well, it's fine unless and until voters figure it out and say enough is enough. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

Yes, the CBC, although often fairly described as exhibiting progressive bias, can at times provide glimmers of objectivity. Neil Macdonald's piece on M-103 is a great example of this. The other side of the point, however, is that the Sun and the chain to which it belongs are often dismissed for assumed ideological bias, including by some on this site. It seems the kind of ideological tribalism that's come to dominate U.S. political discussion has had an impact on this side of the border. I guess it was inevitable.

Our political culture is so controlled and manipulated by an elitist agenda that Canada scarcely amounts to a legitimate democracy. There are so many examples of media complicity in this country that we effectively serve as a poster child for Chomsky's "propaganda model" explanation for systemic media bias. As Chomsky and others have noted, populations are manipulated to obtain consent for the social and economic agendas imposed for and by powerful interests. And, further, Chomsky has said that "propaganda is to democracy as the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." Bernier took a risk in speaking out. Will it have any effect? It might were he willing to move out of the tent, although in general Canadians don't pay much attention to cultural issues when casting their ballots. As I watched the commentary yesterday evening there was a distinctive tinge of 'tsk, tsk" to much of the coverage. Oh my, what useful idiots they are, I thought. And many of them probably have no idea how easily manipulated they are.

Huh? Culture is inherent to all societies. This is a sociological rather than a political concept. Just as our foppish post-national PM absurdly holds that there's no mainstream in Canada (he's sooooo over it, apparently), you seem to have concocted an argument holding that opposition to political multiculturalism, which after all is simply a manifestation of social engineering, effectively renders those who agree with Bernier's point of view unthinking bigots and/or xenophobes. The reality is that xenophobia and intolerance are strongly characteristic of many of the ethno-racial-religious enclaves favored by our elitist leaders. The main objective of our globalists, of course, is to undermine the legitimacy of the nation state and all the benefits it has rendered, including, for practical purposes, actual democracy. The bizarre form of globalist economic and cultural ideology favored by our elites and their apologists doesn't actually countenance democracy, which is viewed as inherently inefficient and old-fashioned. But, for the time being, it must be tolerated and manipulated in order to further their globalist goals. I believe Bernier is speaking up for the interests of democratic integrity and social cohesion and warning against the false gods, including the "diversity" babble self-styled and manipulated progressives prefer, that have been created as diversions and smoke screens. Real nation-state-based democracy once actually worked and created the most prosperous societies in world history in the post-WWII era. Do you have a plausibly coherent alternative to offer?

They're all complicit. They all participate to one degree or another in ethno-racial-religious "targeting" strategies. I wonder why the CPC didn't boot Bernier after yesterday's events? My guess is that they're afraid he might on his own lead a splinter group or party that would garner considerable support among mainstream Canadians (yes Justin, there is a mainstream) and even among some in the tribal communities who understand the depth of the problem. Maybe it's safer to keep him inside the tent rather than watch a new tent form around him if he becomes an outsider. I watched as a stream of politicians attacked Bernier yesterday without actually addressing the salient aspects of his commentary. All they did was spout inanities about "diversity" and dismissed his views out of hand. What hypocrites they are, I thought. My guess is that they're worried that eventually there will be a backlash against the elitist "diversity" consensus that's been imposed on this country in recent recent years. If (when?) such a backlash emerges, they'll only have themselves to blame. Maybe they'll realize they should have listened to Bernier.

One has to wonder whether young women who choose to wear face coverings in places like Canada are mainly doing so as a political statement rather than out of religious belief. Perhaps it's become a form of fashionable self-othering? But it also raises the question of whether these women truly understand the Islamist ideology they so openly appear to espouse? The most vocal critic of female Muslim religious wear I ever met was a women with whom I worked when volunteering a couple decades ago who'd fled post-revolutionary Iran. She vociferously criticized fundamentalism and its manifestations as being inherently inhumane. So, the fact that younger women in the West are choosing to adopt these habits, and that self-styled progressives are willing to champion this trend, seems even more problematic than many analysts seem willing to admit. To me it's not a manifestation of "freedom" but instead seems to represent a reactionary form of sentimentalist self-delusion. I guess we're all free to delude ourselves but to assert face covering as amounting to progressive accommodation is so 'unwoke' as to make rational beings cringe.

It's pointless to raise facts about this matter with critics whose minds are made up and in some cases apparently don't even understand the concept of labor productivity. Those of us reading this string who have a grasp of facts understand your argument.

I'm glad you're conceding by means of admitting that it's not your purpose to explain. Presumably, your purpose is merely to express your opinions, which you have done. In any case, it's your prerogative but we now know this argument is at an end and you're position has lost.

Where? As I believe another commentator pointed out, you responded to my post and link about auto sector productivity in Canada with an outdated article. And then you confused labor productivity and cost efficiency, thus undermining the credibility of your argument. Ontario is undoubtedly an expensive jurisdiction and yet remains the manufacturing centre of Canada. Some of America's most expensive states in which to operate businesses, including Massachusetts and California, are also among the country's most prosperous. Where manufacturing productivity has suffered in Canada, this has often been due to investor choices and not due to bad workers. Overall, Canadian productivity is dragged down mainly by the over reliance on resource industries and the increasing transition to a services-focused economy. Manufacturing productivity in Canada, aside from the auto-related industries, has suffered in some instances due to investor choices, including by American corporations, that prefer cheap labor over innovation.

I've already covered that territory where the auto industry is concerned, so you'll have to try harder.

Maybe you don't get the point. Based on some of your other comments, though, I wonder whether your real intent is to cast as bigots and xenophobes those who rightfully point out that Charter rights aren't absolute? Most people don't expect the government to tell people what they can wear in parks or on the streets. In this country, after all, it's not actually illegal to wear nothing in public. Nobody is going to stop people from dressing as they please in parks or while walking along streets, provided no actual harm is caused others. But governments can dictate and even legislate behavior in environments that are definitionally fall within their legislative and/or regulatory jurisdictions, including but not excluded to publicly funded educational settings, government offices, banks and the courts.