Jump to content

Visible Minorities to be majority in 25 years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Debate is all well and good when two sides are about equally influential and powerful. But what happens when there are 10 times as many Arabs as Jews? A 100 times more, or a thousand? Which side will have the bigger political influence, the bigger voice? The Jewish population in Canada is what, 300 thousand or so? When, after decades of immigration, there will be millions and millions of Muslims why would they bother having "dialog" with Jewish groups when they can simply assert their influence directly through our democracy and elect anti-Israeli politicians? And who is to say they would stop with anti-Israeli politicians. It is no secret that anti-Semitism is rife in the Arab world.

Back when there were many more Jews in Canada than Arabs, what was Canada's position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Was it pro-Israeli? Nope - Canada wanted to play the part of an honest broker whose main goal was to get people talking. This only changed recently with the Harper government, and believe me, the opinions of the old Reform party base have a lot more to do with Harper's position than appealing to the half of the Jewish population that is hawkish on Israel. After all, there's a lot more of the former in Canada.

The fact is that neither population will ever be large enough to swing Canada's position on the issue to either extreme - what we're seeing now is as hawkish on Israel as Canada's foreign policy will ever be.

There's also the factor that you seem to be overlooking: that "ethnic" issues are not the be all and end all of voting for people of religious/ethnic minority communities. The CBC did a lot of polling and coverage on just what exactly minorities vote on in the last election, the found that the primary concerns are nearly identical to white Canadians: jobs, economy, health, education, etc.

Obviously you'll find the children of immigrants in any immigrant community. But if they grow up in a community composed almost entirely of immigrants from a certain country and their children,

But, as I've pointed out before - these communities don't exist. You're not going to find any school, anywhere where most of the children are from one country.

You will however, still find schools in the heart of Toronto where most students are white. There's not many, but they exist.

These types of enclaves are prevalent in major immigration centers, including Toronto and Vancouver.

Name the ones in Toronto.

Indeed, so why do we let in so many refugees? The foremost goal of a nation should be to take care of its own citizens, not to endlessly offer succor to victims of foreign violence.

I think we're perfectly capable of doing both. We can't take in everyone, but I think your underestimating how many we can handle.

But if Argus's stat about half the prisons being filled with Somalis (who you say are mostly refugees), then clearly it is having a substantial negative impact on our society.

We still don't even know if that's true or not in Ottawa, much less if the same situation exists in Toronto.

Now, let's look a step further and see if one really needs to be in the majority on the national level for this to be possible. If your group makes up only 1% of the country's population then clearly this is impossible, right? No, not right. Because if that 1% lives together in one area of one city, then in that neighbourhood the schools will be full of their children, the people living there will be of their group, and the local businesses will be owned by their group. Hence, members of that community can succeed just as well as the majority without integrating, so long as they are content to remain within their ethnic enclave, which many are.

This is theoretically possible, but it just doesn't exist in reality in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when there were many more Jews in Canada than Arabs, what was Canada's position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Was it pro-Israeli? Nope - Canada wanted to play the part of an honest broker whose main goal was to get people talking. This only changed recently with the Harper government, and believe me, the opinions of the old Reform party base have a lot more to do with Harper's position than appealing to the half of the Jewish population that is hawkish on Israel. After all, there's a lot more of the former in Canada.

The fact is that neither population will ever be large enough to swing Canada's position on the issue to either extreme - what we're seeing now is as hawkish on Israel as Canada's foreign policy will ever be.

jewish population of Canada is falling apparently just like the native Canadian born population but with no jewish immigration to replace them they will cease to be a political factor...latest estimate of Canadian muslims 750,000 and growing, Harper has made a miscalculation openly throwing his support behind Israel...at current growth levels muslims will number 1 in every 13 Canadians in two decades that will make them a sizable political force that politicians can't ignore...that and the old reformers will literally be dead(including the rightwingnuts on this forum)...this will bring a definite shift in Canada's policy toward Israel...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the CIA World Fact Book, 91.2% of Jamaica and 95% of Haiti is black. If not black countries, what would you call them? If you want to argue that Africa is any different, show us some evidence.

It'll be interesting to see you do that when the evidence contradicts your argument:

Again, according to the CIA World Fact Book, Japan is 98.5% Japanese. If not Japanese, what would you call it?

I could care a less about your mind; I care about facts.

You talk of "skilled posters", yet you argue against easily verifiable facts and common knowledge. Rule #1 in a debate: never deny the obvious.

Sorry, but I wasn't making an argument about "white countries" or "black countries" of what have you. If the definition of "black country" is a country that is 90% black, then fine. We have our definitions, we can now go back and examine the assertion. Same goes for your statement about Japan - I didn't see any assertions about "Japanese countries" just non-white, black and so on.

My asking for some definition of whatever the original poster was talking about is not an argument in itself. And if those facts are easily verifiable, then why isn't evidence provided.

None of what the poster says is obvious, in fact it's intentionally murky and obscure. "Blacks aren't nice to whites" can be said, with a few specific examples (although he hasn't even taken his argument to that level yet) but what exactly is it supposed to mean ?

We had a long discussion with a poster called Lictor, and it was an exercise in frustration to get him to state his definitions, his evidence, and then to refute our counter-arguments.

Sorry, but this is a discussion board not a bulletin board so we will take apart lazy generalizations pretty quick you will find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find me one historian that agrees with this idea of yours, because according to the basic dictionary definition of either immigration or colonialism you're wrong.

You appear to be desperately trying to make a distinction between suicide and homocide and while I agree they are different, my point is the end result is identical.

I never said it was acceptable, in fact I said I hoped they didn't turn their culture into some sort of static dogma entrenched in law, but of course you won't admit that because you can't go without mischaracterizing my argument.

And yet, we applaud aboriginals turning their culture into a static museum piece. Why is that? Why do we place a high value on the retention of culture and cultural values on the part of other people, but none on our own? Quebec is asserting its own cultural values in this instance, while Canada appears to be flinging its own away in horror lest it cause the slightest provocation or offense to newcomers.

Fact of the matter is that even without any immigration, culture within Canada would be changing, so to treat it like it's some sort of monolith that is unchanging throughout time is ridiculous.

Culture generally changes slowly without outside influence, and it changes in directions the members of that culture choose. That's not the case with a flood of newcomers from foreign cultures.

Frankly, the absence of immigrants doesn't eliminate homophobia. The Reform party was homophobic, and they were homegrown evangelicals. They spearheaded the effort against same sex marriage in this country.

There is homophobia of that sort (Ie, people squeamish about gays and not feeling altogether comfortable around them) and then there is HOMOPHOBIA (Kill them! Kill them all! Burn them alive!) of the type we are importing.

As for immigration - while new Canadians may indeed be more religious than Canadian-born citizens, there are significant jumps away from orthodoxy/conservatism religious interpretations and towards more progressive secular ones with each passing generation.

There's no evidence of this, actually. It's true that Canada has moved further into secularism over the past several decades, and we are now a largely secular society. But Up until this societal shift there was no evidence that immigrants abandoned or toned down their religious beliefs. And we don't have a history of massive immigration from non-Christian religions to guide us. Furthermore, even if that is to some degree true, how does that help someone here NOW? Ie, if you're a Jewish Canadian born in Toronto and make the mistake of going to York university, is the anti-semitism you will regularly encounter acceptable because perhaps those muslim students there now will have children who might not be as anti-semitic - or at least, maybe their grandchildren won't be, or maybe their great-grandchildren?

For the record, you realize that you can be very religious and still be progressive, right?

No. I don't see how since all the major religions still adhere to religious beliefs which preclude the acceptance of homosexuality or womens equality.

Religiosity doesn't automatically mean someone is a homophobe or thinks women are inferior. This is especially true in de-centralized religions such as Hinduism.

Uhm, yes, they're so very liberal in India.

But as I said before, the children of these immigrants are not as conservative as their parents

Meaningless. Children are rarely as conservative as their parents - until they become parents. Or as one young Muslim was quoted in an interview with a Swedish magazine. "When you're young, you want a whore... er, heh heh, I mean a Swedish girl... but when you get married you want a proper Muslim girl."

This notion that all religious affiliations are working together to undermine Canadian democracy and/or equality is simply without any precedent,

Take your straw men elsewhere. I'm not going to defend a suggestion no one but you has made.

Yet, according to a Royal Bank report in 2005, immigration contributes to the economy, and recommended RAISING immigration levels.

Big business loves immigration because more immigration means more cheap, obedient workers. And all those workers have to be housed so that means construction of new homes and that means loans and sales. Big business has always loved immigration, the more the better. It used to be said that what was good for business (GM) was good for America (or Canada). No one says that any more.

Wrong.

Violent crime has been falling in Canada since 1992, same with the overall crime rate.

Or not. Reported crime has been falling, but you know I am personally aware of at least a dozen people who have been the victims of crime ranging from assault to rape to theft and none bothered to report any of it to the police. Why not? Because it would be a big hassle, and they had very, very little confidence the police would be able to do anything, or that if they did, the courts would really punish the perpetrators. According to Stats Canada's Victim of crime survey only one third of crimes are reported to the police and the number is falling.

As an illustration of the misleading impact this can have, there was a marked divergence of aspects of actual crime versus crime reported to police in the first half of this decade. Compared to the 1999 survey, the 2004 Criminal Victimization Survey shows: "...no significant change in self-reported rates of violent victimization, namely sexual assault, robbery or physical assault. However, rates rose by 24 per cent for theft of personal property, 42 per cent for theft of household property and 17 per cent for vandalism

The most anti-semitic period in Canadian history occurred when immigration was at a fraction of its current size in the 1930's-40's

You are comparing a historical period with the rise of a given ideology (nazism) which demonized Jews with the present era, and the rise of an ideology (Islamism) which demonizes Jews. Good work! The difference is that we are importing the ideologues this time around. Do you seriously want to wait until we need guards with machine guns outside every Jewish temple and school as in Europe?

The only way you could say these areas that have majority visible-minorities don't have anyone Canadian is to say that non-whites aren't Canadian - you're not saying that, are you?

Statistically speaking, if you exclude aborigines, the great majority of non-whites are not born in Canada.

Are you making the argument that Canada should get out of the refugee business and using Somalis as an example? Keep in mind that this would require turning away people like your hero, Hirsi Ali, had she applied to Canada.

I am saying that if we are going to accept refugees we should only accept legitimate political refugees and only after careful examination. That is not the case now where agencies provide "refugees" with boiler plate stories to tell and the system is stacked in favour of acceptance.

So are you going to acknowledge the unique set of circumstances that Somali Canadians face? Or just continue to make sarcastic remakes that avoid dealing with the facts?

Many ethnic groups in Canada have unique sets of circumstances. But that doesn't make a mother feel any better when their daughter is shot down in the streets in the crossfire between Jamaican gangs, or when their son is stabbed to death on a bus by a Somalian thug. Most of our violent street crime appears to be carried out by immigants - Somalians in Ottawa, Jamaicans in Toronto, Iranians and Haitians in Montreal, various tribes of east Asians in Vancouver.

Most immigrants are professionals or skilled workers,

Not actually true. Only a fraction of immigrants are actually tested against a points system for skills.

most professionals and skilled workers in any of these countries were born/raised/lived in major cities. Most major city in most of these countries is diverse in terms of having a mix of ethnic groups and in some cases religious groups

.

Yes, which is why many of those cities have a history of extremely violent race and religious riots. Do you think India is a bastion of tolerance because of its mix of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs?

I don't buy that one bit, not if anti-immigrant sentiment is as popular as you suggest.

How popular do you think women's suffrage was? Somehow women got the right to vote even without being able to vote. Anti-immigrant Canadians don't nearly have the same kind of cards stacked against them. And they've done absolutely nothing in 50 years to form any sort of political movement.

As you said before, you don't automatically assume someone is a Canadian because they're born here.

I suppose there's some sort of test they have to pass before you change your mind, what is it exactly?

It's like porn and art - difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jewish population of Canada is falling apparently just like the native Canadian born population but with no jewish immigration to replace them they will cease to be a political factor...latest estimate of Canadian muslims 750,000 and growing, Harper has made a miscalculation openly throwing his support behind Israel...at current growth levels muslims will number 1 in every 13 Canadians in two decades that will make them a sizable political force that politicians can't ignore...that and the old reformers will literally be dead(including the rightwingnuts on this forum)...this will bring a definite shift in Canada's policy toward Israel...

First off, our position on Israel is not based on Jewish votes - most of which have long gone Liberal. It's based on the principal that we have more in common with a democratic western-inclined state, however imperfect, thatn with murderous terrorists.

Second, you appear to take a bitter satisfaction in your hopes that "old reformers" will be dead. Can you give me an example of a single policy you attribute to "old reformers" which will not be held by Muslims - but to an even greater degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I don't see how since all the major religions still adhere to religious beliefs which preclude the acceptance of homosexuality or womens equality.

It doesn't matter what you think of it, because it's an incontestable fact (not a a matter of opinion) that there are plenty of people who are very progressive and very religious.

And EVERY religious person, of any ideological stripe, if forced to contend with parts of theri own religion with which they simply do not agree. There are no exceptions to this.

According to Stats Canada's Victim of crime survey only one third of crimes are reported to the police and the number is falling.

As an illustration of the misleading impact this can have, there was a marked divergence of aspects of actual crime versus crime reported to police in the first half of this decade. Compared to the 1999 survey, the 2004 Criminal Victimization Survey shows: "...no significant change in self-reported rates of violent victimization, namely sexual assault, robbery or physical assault. However, rates rose by 24 per cent for theft of personal property, 42 per cent for theft of household property and 17 per cent for vandalism

Where here does it say that the number of reported crimes is falling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where here does it say that the number of reported crimes is falling?

There are some interesting links here, and all of the VBT's letters are worth reading.

The UN statistical victims survey has, over the years, shown that crime rates in the US have fallen considerably - in tandem with police statitics on reported crimes. In Canada, however, while police statistics on reported crimes continue to fall, victimization surveys show no such fall. The inescapable conclusion is that fewer people are reporting crime to the police. Stats canada says only only about one third of crimes (and only 12% of sexual assaults) are ever reported to police.

Vancouver Board of Trade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I see is more assumptions, just thin time by someone else, not you. I don't buy it. Crime is declining in Canada and it has been fore a long time.

Statistics Canada's criminal victimization surveys seem to indicate otherwise.

Further, they suggest that only a fraction of crimes are ever reported. So on what do you base your unassailable belief that crime is falling? On the one third (approximately) of crimes which Stats Canada says the police ever find out about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus on what criteria he uses for deciding if someone is Canadian or not (after earlier stating that he does not consider people Canadian just because they or their parents, or grandparents born and grew up here.

YIt's like porn and art - difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.

So you're definition of who is or isn't a Canadian isn't definable? Than how do you expect any government to adopt it as a policy? Are you even being serious here anymore?

You know what, I don't think you are - after all, you began this latest response by insisting that Immigration and Colonialism are the same thing, even when the most conservative of Historians and Polisci Profs would laugh at you, because it's blatantly wrong.

Listen, if you're not going to take this seriously, or are going to continue to be completely disingenuous, or just plain too cowardly to ACTUALLY STATE YOUR BELIEFS, than I'm not going to bother anymore.

As I've said before, you allude to holding certain beliefs, refuse to clarify what your beliefs actually are, thus forcing people to make assumptions, then feign outrage when people summarize what appear to be your beliefs - saying that you hold no such ideas . . . Then you proceed to never actually clarify what your beliefs actually are.

I've been pretty patient with you so far, but you know what? I'm going on vacation this week for 3 weeks overseas and I'd rather spend that time wrapping up loose ends and spending time with people worth my time.

Enjoy your echo chamber, I won't be coming back to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the statistics that say crime is falling. Surveys are not reliable ways of gathering proportional data, because people who have had problems are more likely to respond than people who haven't.

And how reliable are police agencies if less than a third of crimes are ever reported to them? And how do police agencies know whether crime is actually falling? Are they getting fewer reports because fewer crimes are being commited or are they getting fewer reports because more people think reporting is a waste of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how reliable are police agencies if less than a third of crimes are ever reported to them?

We don't know that, because surveys are bad ways to gather information when you're trying to find out how many people something is happening to. We don't really know how many crimes are happening, and the best statistics we have are the crime reporting statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus on what criteria he uses for deciding if someone is Canadian or not (after earlier stating that he does not consider people Canadian just because they or their parents, or grandparents born and grew up here

Why do you feel it neccessary to continually exaggerate my statements (lie) in order to work yourself up to the proper state of self-righteous indignation? Surely you don't feel the need to justify your political correctness, do you?

For the record, of course, I never made the above statement.

So you're definition of who is or isn't a Canadian isn't definable? Than how do you expect any government to adopt it as a policy? Are you even being serious here anymore?

Again, of course, that was never in question. I never even implied that my personal belief in what constitutes real Canadians ought to somehow be put in print and passed as law.

You know what, I don't think you are - after all, you began this latest response by insisting that Immigration and Colonialism are the same thing, even when the most conservative of Historians and Polisci Profs would laugh at you, because it's blatantly wrong.

Is it possible for you to be an more pedantic? You cling like a ludicrous clown to the insistence that there is in the end some difference to the dead body as to whether it was killed voluntarily or involuntarily. It's still a dead body. That is and always has been my point. Your insistence on ignoring this makes it rather obvious you yourself have little interest in serious discussion.

Listen, if you're not going to take this seriously, or are going to continue to be completely disingenuous, or just plain too cowardly to ACTUALLY STATE YOUR BELIEFS, than I'm not going to bother anymore.

I don't think I've done much to hide my beliefs over the years here. And frankly, I think your suggestion that stating ones opinions - anonymously - on an internet forum is a measure of bravery is startlingly absurd.

As I've said before, you allude to holding certain beliefs, refuse to clarify what your beliefs actually are, thus forcing people to make assumptions, then feign outrage when people summarize what appear to be your beliefs - saying that you hold no such ideas . . . Then you proceed to never actually clarify what your beliefs actually are.

Well this is simply meaningless babble which cannot be answered.

I've been pretty patient with you so far
,

I weep at your bravery and nobility. I hope that somehow the brown people can find others to defend their honour while you are away.

Enjoy your echo chamber, I won't be coming back to this thread.

He cried in a shrill voice before flouncing off in an indignant huff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

You may have seen this quote circulating on email recently. It is attributed to Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 1907

 

'we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else . . . this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian'

I believe that the vast majority of Canadians with a Canadian heritage, like myself, whose grandparents immigrated in the first decade of the previous century, welcome immigrants from anywhere in the world, provided they accept their new home and the long-standing traditions that are a part of it. We simply expect them to obey Canadian laws, even those that conflict with their ethnic traditions, accept Canadian customs, learn the local language and pay their own way. Those who arrive with the intention of changing Canada to fit their needs, are not contributing but rather are destroying our country.

Every immigrant is free to practice the religion of their choice, speak their ancestral language at home or in their local community and celebrate their heritage openly but they must leave their homelands' hatreds and politics behind; they must share our values, support themselves and pay their taxes like the rest of us. They must become Canadian!

Canada's governments have a responsibility to encourage assimilation not promote division through multiculturalism.

Isn't it just common sense?

UnionJack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have seen this quote circulating on email recently. It is attributed to Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 1907

 

'we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else . . . this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian'

Right you are o say it is "attributed" to Laurier but you should have said wrongly attributed...in fact it is from a speach by Teddy Roosevelt.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also at that time, to be Canadian meant following British customs - let's face it.

What are Canadian customs and values today ? And what Canadian laws conflict with ethnic traditions ?

I think encouraging multiculturalism to a point is fine, but assimilation will happen whether or not the government funds an 'ethnic dancing' exhibition or not.

Assimilation today seems to mean the 1st generation kids listening to club music, driving their cars downtown blaring club music, and wearing loud colors... as such, I wish that more teens of all races dressed and behaved as their grandparents and stayed home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like my son's class, numerous Chinese, Syrian, Lebanese, German, a couple of Japanese, Sri Lanka, India and a bunch more...and they play fine together, they all speak English...I see they same kids and their parents at the soccer/hockey games these kids are as Canadian as any I went to school with...

my older kids are the same, it's routine on weekends for my home to look like a meeting of the UN, teenagers from all over the world acting like teenagers do and I have no idea which are born here and which ones are not...

I agree with you Wyly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else . . . this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian'

Well said Teddy!!!

Also at that time, to be Canadian meant following British customs - let's face it.

What are Canadian customs and values today ?

Good point, good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure what the writer of the OP expects.

Canadians are too consumed with consumerism and selfishness to have kids. Our population probably wouldnt even grow without immigrants or it might shrink. We also wont do any work for less than about 20 bux an hour, so that likely has companies lobbying for immigrant workers behind closed doors.

How many kids do have Argus? Are you mannin' up and doing your share to increase our birth rate? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, good question.

Not having a distinct general Canadian culture is the first of many problems. But really, immigrants are not assimilating into the non-existent Canadian customs but rather Canada evolves to be more accommodating the immigrant's cultures and customs. Multiculturalism was the right wings way of minimizing the power of immigrants and their descendants, since by treating all different and diverse ethic groups as one big "multicultural" group, they retain the ultimate power. What the right wingers did not expect is that ethnic groups would infiltrate the higher ranks of business and government, and now threaten their power structures. Same thing with women. The predominant white male managers now have to compete for their jobs and promotions with women and immigrants who are granted equality in the workplace. Pretty soon the white male manager dominance will be a thing of the past. However, his resentment and self-pity will linger on for some time I believe....

Edited by charter.rights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Theres a list of birthrates.

Canada is 169th. Immigrants are the only reason our population and economy is not stagnant or shrinking.

Its likely due to the fact that the tradional goal of raising a family has been replaced in our culture with having as easy a life possible, and building up the largest cache of non-durable consumer goods possible.

Guess we pretty much did this to ourselves.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...