I am Groot

Reporting victimization to police Victims of crime may choose to report––or not report––an incident to police for a wide range of reasons. The GSS asked whether or not the incident was reported, as well as reasons for reporting or not reporting the incidents experienced. Of note, the information on reporting to police (and all other incident characteristics) that follows excludes incidents of spousal violence which were collected under a different methodology and will be analyzed in a future Juristat article. In 2019, most incidents were not reported, with about three in ten (29%) coming to the attention of police. Most were reported directly by the respondent (22%) while some were reported in another way (7%). Generally speaking, household victimization incidents were more likely than violent incidents to have been brought to the attention of the police (35% versus 24%) (Table 6). That said, the proportion of incidents that were reported to police varied widely depending on the specific type of crime (Chart 7). About half of motor vehicle thefts (52%), robberies (47%E), and break and enters (45%) were reported to police. Horseshit.

The irony is that if a white Canadian was to try to wrangle votes by saying "Vote for me, I'm white like you," or "Vote for me, I'm a wastp/british like you!" everyone would call it racist and say that tribal voting was a terrible thing, but no one dares to say the same about the 'newcomers' and how they vote.

That is not the same report. That is about police reported crime while the one I cited is the on criminal victimization.

Speaking of one of the dangers of multiculturalism being when ethnic groups vote as a bloc for their own as mentioned earlier. I'd add when they vote as a bloc for causes external to Canada but important to them. Muslims pretty much vote as a bloc. They don't vote conservative because conservatives won't give them what they want: more immigration of Muslims, more tolerance for their separateness, more accommodation, and more agreement with their desire for how Canada should treat the Muslim world. Thus, we have Canada joining Australia and the UK in rewarding Hamas for its savage attack on Israel by recognizing a Palestinian state. All three of these leaders speak in high-minded ways as though they expect this will help anything over there. But the truth is all three are led by weak, leftist leaders whose parties rely on Muslim votes, and whose base, progressives, increasingly feel empowered to express their disdain and dislike for Jews. The reason for recognition of Palestine has nothing to do with any interest they have for Palestine and everything to do with catering to Muslim and anti-israel/jewish voters at home.

Uhm, no, the General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization, taken every five years, told me that. Unfortunately, due to the amazing efficiency of our massive federal government, the 2024 survey is not yet out, but in 2019 it showed about a third of crimes were reported to police. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00014-eng.htm#a25

e pluribus unum What Canada has is e pluribus pluribus.

Phhhht. Every study shows Canada and other Western nations are at the top of the list when it comes to egalitarian societies free of racism. The irony is that the people we're bringing here, and who we are, thanks to multiculturalism, not trying to integrate, are generally at the bottom and come from the most racist, misogynistic, and intolerant societies on Earth. I can't help noticing that the most leftist institutions, like universities, always seem to be filled with racism! Why is that? Trudeau said every government department and agency was institutionally racist. Are they still? Even after ten years of Liberal government? The Left sees any differences between performance and outcomes of different identity groups as PROOF that there is racism/prejudice. But that's logically indefensible. No separate groups perform identically. Even siblings in the same family don't perform identically.

I am learned and wise, so my opinions have more value than yours.

Is Sweden better off today thanks to its embracing immigration? It now leads the West in rape, and especially in gang rape. It has daily hand grenade attacks from ethnic (Muslim) street gangs. Its economy is fraying and its sense of unity coming apart. It is facing a crisis due to its failure to integrate these newcomers because it blithely told them they didn't have to integrate but could retain their own customs and values. I use Sweden because it's a perfect example of a previously safe, peaceful, prosperous, homogenous state that suddenly brought in a flood of newcomers. All this happened in a very short period of time so we can easily see the changes and the causes. Economic growth can come through better productivity. Better productivity can come through innovation and improvements in technology. These are areas where Canada lags far behind others in no small part due to the reliance of business to a continuous stream of cheap foreign labour. No. I don't have a problem with immigration. I have a problem with too much immigration. I have a problem with immigration without proper screening for the adaptability of the prospective immigrants. I have a problem with not imposing high standards for prospective immigrants, and setting out responsibilities for those immigrants to integrate, as some others do. What evidence? The last time anyone dared to take a survey of Muslim attitudes in Canada, it showed second-generation Muslims were more rigid in their adherence to Islam and its values than their immigrant parents. They take such surveys with more regularity in the UK, and the results are not helpful if you are one hoping Muslims will integrate. This would be the reason for Keir Starmer's warning that without integration Britain risked becoming an island of strangers.

Cultural relativism. Yes, I understand the theory that you can't properly judge another culture given your mind is operating within the dictates of your own. But let's look at the Muslim world. Generally speaking, other than a few oil rich states (which needed the West to develop their oil and needs western technicians to keep it flowing) the Muslim world is pretty backward. It's GDP is about $4,400 per year as opposed to $19,300 of the rest of the world. It has 9 scientists, engineers and technicians per 1000 people vs 141 in the West. More books are translated into Spanish every year than have EVER been translated into Arabic. They have high infant mortality rates, lower lifespans, and only 2 Muslims have ever won a noble prize in science, and both were working in Western universities. By this it's clear that Muslim culture and values are not as good as Western cultural values. The US motto is e pluribus unum - out of many, one. Their society is built on newcomers adopting American values, culture, and behaviour and largely abandoning their own. Multiculturalism is the opposite of that. It's newcomers retaining their cultures and values. I'm not sure what this means. A people's council? Of leaders and media? Conservatives embraced democracy, but media don't govern. At least, they shouldn't. And the underlying base of conservatism is assumed and continues to take places within democracy. But it didn't abandon its core philosophy of protecting the existing order, and the culture, values, and traditions on which it was founded. And I do not see how inviting in the world's most intolerant people and then telling them they don't have to adapt and integrate into OUR culture and values is going to lead to anything good. The problem with the term 'marginalized' is that it presumes that a group is underperforming through no fault of its own but due to some action against it by the majority. Today, that is not the case. Underperforming groups are responsible for their own underperformance.

That's a generation to me given I was alive then. Can you demonstrate any way it has improved Canada in any demonstrable way other than a better choice of restaurants? I can think of a number of ways it has harmed us. And look at what's going on in Europe now. Massive upheavals in country after country, the rise of far-right groups to political power all because the Left absolutely refuses to compromise their lofty ideals and control their borders. This includes the US. David Frum said it in 2017, "If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.". It's what Carney said. The problem is we've brought two million Muslims into our country. So if they don't integrate, if they retain their medieval Islamic cultural values, there will be constant friction between them and the rest of the country. Is all change good? Conservatives can handle change. What they don't want is unproven change. The fads the Left adopts and eagerly embraces, despite much evidence that they'll be good for anyone. The government laws on trans, is one such change, as are DEI and multiculturalism.

What if they ARE? Not due to race, because racism isn't about just racism anymore. But if my people ARE superior to your people because MY people are flexible, adaptable, united, educated, and sophisticated, but yours are superstitious, ignorant, prone to violence, and think compromise is weakness? It's odd to me that some people don't understand that the root word of conservative is conserve. The absolute core of conservatism is about conserving the traditions, values, cultures, and structure of society. Which explains why conservatives have ALWAYS been the least content with large-scale immigration in every country and the most unwilling to allow change without proven value.

Define racism. I'm not disagreeing on what you wrote above. But somehow, it's racist to hire a white man over a black man just because he's white but it's very noble to hire a black man over a white man just because he's black. So what exactly is racist in a world where government, universities, and corporations deliberately engage in racial hiring and promotion? If the races are different, if cultures are different, why does the Left insist that they're all exactly the same, and that all profesions and occupations must have the exact same percentage of every identity group as exist in the population as a whole? Given that the term 'racist' is applied to religions and nationalities now, what if one religion IS, in fact, superior to another?

It's a generation or so old. And I note that Canada has been going downhill since it was imposed. How has multiculturalism helped Canada at all, vs harmed it? Why would we completely ignore the leaders of the UK, France and Germany who realized it was a terrible mistake and backed away from it? You mean like Carney saying Islamic values are Canadian values? Seriously? I don't think so. Do you want Islamic values to become Canadian values? Western culture is the most advanced, sophisticated and tolerant in the world. You want toss that away so we can be more like the Muslim world?

You people on the fringe left don't scare anyone anymore with your constant shrieks of 'waacciiiiissst!" You apply it to everyone who disagrees with you, regardless of evidence. This is the hasty generalization fallacy. Just because you might see a few people do something does not suggest the group does this. Back in 2017, before your hero Justin Trudeau opened the borders, the Immigration department warned that too many immigrants were coming in too fast to be absorbed. It warned that integration should not be assumed as a default, that ethnic enclaves were growing, that immigrants were taking longer to learn English, that their economic prospects were diminishing. It also warned of an impending housing crisis. The Left completely ignored it. What do they bring? Most of our new immigrants come from failed societies. And they are largely failed societies because of the culture and values of the people living there. That's especially true of Muslim countries, who are doomed to eternal poverty because of their Islamic laws and the culture of acceptance Islam fosters. No one said beat anyone into submission. But why are driver's licences, even commercial driver's licences, available in dozens of languages? If you can't speak the local language, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. Governments put out all kinds of information and forms in multiple languages now, so that newcomers don't have to learn English. We deter the necessary integration in dozens of small ways we never used to even as the immigrants we bring in now are vastly more different from us than their predecessors, and then simply presume they will integrate like their predecessors did. We should have finished the job. Both we and the natives would be a lot happier and a lot more prosperous today.

And the Left is the font of normality and sanity, right? There are no crazies there. I mean, if you don't count the Left's absolute worship of the sacred victim, their willingness to see their nations destroyed rather than stop masses of backward immigrants and migrants coming in (most of who hate the Left and its policies!), their determination to push the trans agenda at all costs, their hatred of economic success and free speech.

This is in 'police reported' crime. If people don't report the crime, then it doesn't get counted. People are reporting a lower percentage of minor criminal events to the police these days because they know the police won't bother to do anything about it because the police know the courts won't do anything to the people they catch. So tons of thefts that aren't covered by insurance, tons of minor assaults and vandalism is never reported to police because why bother? In other words, violent crime is up for the fourth straight year? Again, in some of these cases, people just won't bother to report to police. Level 1 sexual assaults are usually minor crimes like sexual touching without injury or unwanted kissing. Extortion is usually ethnic now and they often don't tell the police. Attempted murder is kind of a joke of a crime and is rarely charged because, barring an admission from the suspect, it's impossible, the way the law is written, to convict. Especially with our Liberal judiciary. Witness the clown of a judge who last week gave a low sentence for manslaughter to a man who chased and shot another man in the chest. The judge said he wasn't convinced the man knew the victim would be hurt or that he intended to kill him. I guess he figured black men didn't understand how firearms work - even though this particular one was under two firearms prohibition orders at the time.

Another odd thing about the Left is how it sneers at and looks down at Americans, yet, like a child lying on the floor by the stairs listening to adults, it eagerly waits for whatever new faddish political idea the grown-ups down south come up with so it can eagerly put it in place here. Such is DEI. DEI is a concept the Americans came up with to try to include blacks and others in the mainstream who they believed had been largely shut out for many decades due to racism, segregation and slavery. It's debatable whether it was necessary or helpful, but there was never any point for it in Canada. According to the last census, 98.4% of 'visible minorities' are immigrants or their kids. Who exactly are we so determined to make up to for our past racism? How does it make sense for us to completely skew everything from hiring and promotion to university acceptance, government science and business grants, etc. in order to give preference to immigrants and their kids? And how does anyone think this would somehow NOT increase racism? Whenever the Left is asked for justification for this, they will usually cite some statistic about how whites are more numerous than blacks or others in a given profession or occupation, or make more money, or whatever. But why would distinct and separate groups act, think, or behave in the same way? Why would we expect immigrants born and raised in a different culture, with different values and different educations, to have the same outcomes here as 'old stock' Canadians? Why would we think Asians or Africans would be exactly as interested in being lawyers or cops or teachers in the same numbers as Canadians, and would be capable of passing the tests, given their lower skills in English? But every university course admission, every hiring test, every government grant is guided by DEI - not merit. Which, as Steven Pinker says, is madness. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/diversity-mandates-killing-canadian-science-famed-academic-tells-commons-committee

You know, if you'd learn to write things backwards at least you'd sound more like Yoda. Otherwise, these odd, mysterious pronouncements of yours just seem like brain farts. "No religion, the Americans have." See, it sounds sort of profound. Though you have to pitch your voice like Yoda to pull it off.

Who is 'you people'? Because those who would do that are generally not conservatives, any more than US Republicans are conservatives. I don't give a shit about covid or hunter's laptop. Though antisemitism should certainly be pulled into the discussion because unscreened immigration is a big part of its rise.

Although the media won't talk about it, we all know this is exactly what is happening today. Any riding that has a substantial (but minority) ethnic presence will usually have a candidate from that group. Why? Two reasons. One. All parties know that if the other guy has an ethnic candidate and they don't, the other party will automatically get almost all the votes from that ethnic group. Given ridings are often won with little more than 30% of the vote, if a candidate can get almost all of a particular ethnic group that makes up say 20% of the riding to vote for them, they'll almost certainly win. The second reason, of course, is that a candidate from a given ethnic group, say Sikhs, will go to their temple and to community events and he'll say "I've joined the X party. They will soon be choosing who will be the candidate in the next election. Join the party and you can vote for me and I'll look after your interests and those of the Sikh community, and fight against the evil Indians oppressing us in our homeland. Most ridings only have a hundred active members, if that, and only a fraction of the rest of the party members in that riding will show up to vote for who will be the candidate. A few busloads can usually get you the nomination. This is how Jagmeet Singh got elected leader of the NDP. The media know all about this but never speak about it. This is because it's part of those things the media chooses not to make part of any public conversation lest it cause impure thoughts in those lesser Canadians who aren't gifted with the wisdom and nobility of journalists.

It came from a piece I found elsewhere.

You realize the major cause of rightist anger towards the left IS immigration, right?

Oh, don't worry. These types never get released anyway, the Lefties here all said when we complained about how the drooling twats on the Supreme Court refused to allow longer periods without parole for vicious sex killers and mass murderers. Except, of course, they do. Because we have parole boards that, like our judges, are chosen for their ultra-progressive, hug-a-thug, bleeding-heart liberal values. No criminal is really at fault. Whatever they do it was society's fault, or their parents, or poverty or something like that. Killer who dismembered teenage Sudbury girl gets day parole | Sudbury Star

And you seem to be utterly uninterested in justice.