New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Evening Star]

Why? Because it said something you didn't like? Would you prefer the Telegraph? Labour's Secret Immigration Plan or perhaps the Times? Labour's secret immigration scheme

Because it's spinning multiculturalism - and the resulting social changes, which are an obvious and not unintended effect of any multiculturalism policy - as some sort of outrageous conspiracy. Or maybe there is something about the British context that I need to grasp. In any case, it does not seem to me that there was anything blatantly secretive or conspiratorial about Canada's policies wrt immigration and multiculturalism. As justme notes:

Mulroney didn't simply continue it, he increased immigration despite evidence of an economic downturn. The Conservatives have since continued mass immigration regardless of what shape the economy is in.

By the time of the 1984 and 1988 elections, the social effects of multiculturalism and immigration should have been evident. Canadians continued to support these policies, even the right-wing party. Presumably, this was because enough people actually liked the social changes.

[CANADIEN]

They said so?

Nope. Check the writings of Cartier and Champlain, for example.

Ralph Klein did.

So, it was not Peter Loughead?

More seriously, before he turned rebel and later nutcase, Louis Riel's movement started in reaction against (central) Canada trying to impose its rule on the local population of Manitoba.

That would be Japs. Even their whorehouses have signs (in English) Japanese Gentlemen Only

And that would be a number of people here.

[g_bambino]

I would like to see examples of people here suggesting we embrace the subjucation of women.

Have you heard of any uber liberal pushing for the desegregation of mosques? How about: "This week the [women's Legal Education and Action Fund] is celebrating whatever role it played as intervener in... acculturating the quaint custom of wrapping up women like sausages... We've accommodated a liaison between modern matriarchy and medieval theocracy."¹

Then again, the Catholics have been here for centuries and still won't let women become priests. But, at least they can sit, sans mask, in the congregation in amongst their male fellow worshippers.

[Guest TrueMetis]

In your opinion it's extremist. Not wanting to become a minority in your own country is not extremist, and such policy would be considered racist if carried out on any other racial group. But the word racist is reserved for white people and anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Except plenty of people in this country are already minorities, so by using you logic them wanting to become majorities is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[Saipan]

And that would be a number of people here.

Never seen Japanese whorehouses in Canada. But who knows, maybe you did.

[CANADIEN]

Never seen Japanese whorehouses in Canada. But who knows, maybe you did.

Should have phrased my comment better. I meant a lot of people on this site have prejudices based on other people's skin colour of origin.

Edited October 17, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Evening Star]

Then again, the Catholics have been here for centuries and still won't let women become priests. But, at least they can sit, sans mask, in the congregation in amongst their male fellow worshippers.

That's the distinction that makes it not sexist?? As your own example shows, 'liberals' don't for the most part intervene in the private practices of believers of other faiths. That doesn't mean anyone is embracing subjugation of women in public spaces.

[Saipan]

Then again, the Catholics have been here for centuries and still won't let women become priests.

Never mind Catholics. Take Olympics, they won't let me join synchonized swimmers, because of my balls.

[Jack Weber]

Never mind Catholics. Take Olympics, they won't let me join synchonized swimmers, because of my balls.

Do realy want to become a synchronized swimmer???

If you are male,and you really want to do this,I'm questioning your attachment to your attachments!!!

[CANADIEN]

Have you heard of any uber liberal pushing for the desegregation of mosques?

And to you it's embracing subjucation of women. It's not to me because... guess what, it's not.

How about: "This week the [women's Legal Education and Action Fund] is celebrating whatever role it played as intervener in... acculturating the quaint custom of wrapping up women like sausages... We've accommodated a liaison between modern matriarchy and medieval theocracy

sensationalism from the Post aside, once again nothing like embracing subjucation of women. Some women (a very small number, actually) dress that way, but then how they dress is their business, and is no more yours or mine that it is their husband's or father's. As for the issue of testifying while wearing a veil, while it is incompatible with the notion that the accuse should know who his/her accuser is, the court's decision to let judges balance freedom of religion with basic rules of a trial on a case by case basis is NOT embracing subjucation of women (Iand I am not a big fan of that ruling by the way).

You want to prove that the subjucation of women is embraced by proponents of multiculturalism? Come with proof. Statements that it is OK to treat a woman like an inferior because HEY that,s what you did in the old country. Or changes to civil or criminal laws to accommodate practices that run contrary to the principle of equality of men and women before the law.

[Argus]

By the time of the 1984 and 1988 elections, the social effects of multiculturalism and immigration should have been evident. Canadians continued to support these policies, even the right-wing party. Presumably, this was because enough people actually liked the social changes.

As I've already pointed out, it wasn't that Canadians necessarily liked these policies so much as that they weren't infuriated by them. Besides, who else were they going to vote for? There were no parties which called for a drop in immigration. For reasons I've already stated, it was a lot safer and easier for politicians to support immigration than to question it.

[Saipan]

Some women (a very small number, actually) dress that way, but then how they dress is their business, and is no more yours or mine that it is their husband's or father's.

Yes, it is the business of the Islamic men, who invented that cocoon wrap.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, it is the business of the Islamic men, who invented that cocoon wrap.

No because it existed before Islam did.

[g_bambino]

You want to prove that the subjucation of women is embraced by proponents of multiculturalism? Come with proof.

I never actually said die-hard proponents of the Liberal version of multiculturalism embraced the subjugation of women. I said they don't seem to know what the Hell to do when one of their cherished minority cultures embraces the subjugation of women.

[Evening Star]

We treat them the same way that we treat Catholics, who, as you explained yourself, also practise sexism. We allow them to practise their beliefs, within reason, in their private religious spaces.

[g_bambino]

We treat them the same way that we treat Catholics, who, as you explained yourself, also practise sexism. We allow them to practise their beliefs, within reason, in their private religious spaces.

It seems to me that those hard to the left consider it perpetually open season on Catholic traditions (as it perhaps should be in a democratic state), yet they can't bring themselves to treat some sects of Islam in the same manner for fear of being seen as hypocrites. I don't blame them; they would indeed look like duplicitous idiots judging non-Western cultures according to Western standards while at the same denigrating as an unenlightened, racist boor anyone who judges non-Western cultures according to Western standards. Quite the conundrum that leaves them tied in knots.

[c/e]

Edited October 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

I never actually said die-hard proponents of the Liberal version of multiculturalism embraced the subjugation of women. I said they don't seem to know what the Hell to do when one of their cherished minority cultures embraces the subjugation of women.

Actually, your actual words were:

it's then that we see those on the left who worship at the shrine of Trudeaupian multiculturalism start to splutter and get tangled by their own words as they attempt to explain how one culture's habit of separating and subjugating women, for instance, should be embraced for its differences by our tolerant and open society.

WE both stand corrected.

[Evening Star]

It seems to me that those hard to the left consider it perpetually open season on Catholic traditions (as it perhaps should be in a democratic state), yet they can't bring themselves to treat some sects of Islam in the same manner for fear of being seen as hypocrites.

[c/e]

I'm not sure what you mean by "those hard to the left" but as far as "proponents of Liberal multiculturalism" go, Trudeau himself was a churchgoing Catholic, as are e.g. Turner, Chretien, and McGuinty. (At least the latter three identify as Catholics. Not sure about their church attendance. Mulroney too, for that matter.) I don't really see how it's ever been open season on Catholic traditions, especially considering how e.g. Catholic schools still get full public funding in Ontario.

[Shwa]

Oh, and the government plays stupid. When did it start happening? That's right, AFTER the fall of apartheid.

And yet most of the white people have remained in South Africa. So consider this point lost.

Your idea of balance is to make it a black country, and I have no problem with black countries, but by the same token, white people should have the right to white countries, but...

Nope. My idea of balancing it out is that the new ruling government tried to reverse the inequities that specified most of the best farmland for a white colonist minority which were set up through blatantly racist policies by the white minority government.

You mean the land that wasn't yet a country that had people living on it before Tonto's people arrived? If Tonto tried to make his tribe multicultural, he'd lose his scalp.

As I said earlier, it appears that you do not have any clue when you are talking about Native cultures and all you are doing is over-emphasizing that point. However, should you wish to start educating yourself, start with the treaties...

Hocus Pocus:

"there are many in Japan who believe culture and tradition are no less important than survival."

So are you ascribing an opinion of a so-called "many" as to what the reality is for an entire country?

Immigration Bureau of Japan

No one is saying they don't have their conservatice issues or limit immigration like we do, but they are bringing 'em in...

Japanese Immigration Policy

"As of the end of 2004, 1.97 million foreign nationals were registered in Japan, accounting for about 1.6 percent of the total population (127.69 million) and representing a 1.3 percent increase from 1.7 million in 2000. (See Table 1.)

Koreans composed the largest group (607,000), followed by Chinese (488,000), Brazilians (287,000), and Filipinos (199,000). Well over 90 percent of resident foreigners came from either Asia (74 percent) or South America (18 percent).

Approximately 41 percent of registered foreigners are permanent residents, including 466,000 "special permanent residents," or former colonial migrants and their descendants. "

People that disagree with intermarriage will be condemned for racism.

So? If the shoe fits wear it and quit being a big baby about it. Sheesh.

The government protects the right to be anti-white but tries to do away with the right to be pro-white. It's called political correctness.

Oh right, it's the governments fault. Nice try Dorothy.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Shwa

[justme]

Whether or not the Armed forces feel they need to target minorities for recruitment (they don't - you see, unlike you, I do not feel the need to judge people according to the color of their skin) does not change the fact that there are people proving everyday a loyalty to this great country of ours that is not tainted by prejudice.

That comment went completely over your head. It's not a question of the Armed Forces targeting anyone, but the fact that when it comes to cushy government jobs, we have to have an affirmative action program that discriminates against the founding people of the country, or people will squawk about racism, yet the military is overwhelmingly white, and nobody complains about that.

In your opinion I'm judging people based on skin colour. It's not a matter of whether I think they're good or bad, but that they have their own countries, and white people have as much right to a home where they are a majority and can continue with their way of life as any other group of people on the planet. You don't have to destroy the future of your own people to prove that you don't hold any ill will towards others. To suggest that you do is an insane argument.

I don't, but then I deal into what actually makes sense, not prejudice-based fears.

It doesn't make sense that ONLY white countries are flooded to the point that they may become a minority within a generation. It seems to be YOU that's prejudice - against white people.

And the skin-colour of an individual matters only to those who cannot shake their illogical prejudices.

ONLY white countries are being flooded, and ONLY white children will have to live like minorities in their own countries because of it. It is ONLY governments in white countries that have affirmative action programs to discriminate against their own people - even though constitutions supposedly protect them. The prejudice is against white people.

You are devoted to a narrow, "idealized" vision of a Canada that is more myth than reality.

I'm devoted to a nation that was built by Europeans. It is not myth, but fact that the population didn't begin to change until the last four decades. It is fact that in 2001, Canada was still 83% white - although, that is changing rapidly thanks to mass immigration.

Edited October 19, 2010 by justme

[Saipan]

No because it existed before Islam did.

Where it exist today? Only in medieval Islamic culture.

[justme]

Except plenty of people in this country are already minorities, so by using you logic them wanting to become majorities is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

There is a difference between being a minority because you migrate to a country and the majority population of a country becoming a minority because of immigration.

[justme]

And yet most of the white people have remained in South Africa. So consider this point lost.

The fact that more than a million people have left the country since apartheid is not something to make light of. Most of the population in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan are still there, but does that mean that the living conditions are good?

The only thing I consider lost is you.

Nope. My idea of balancing it out is that the new ruling government tried to reverse the inequities that specified most of the best farmland for a white colonist minority which were set up through blatantly racist policies by the white minority government.

Yep, your idea of balance is land ownership for blacks only. Mugabe clearly stated that he wants all white people off their land, and you're trying to defend it.

People are now starving and Zimbabwe is printing one trillion dollar bills.

As I said earlier, it appears that you do not have any clue when you are talking about Native cultures and all you are doing is over-emphasizing that point. However, should you wish to start educating yourself, start with the treaties...

As I said earlier, they weren't the first people in North America, and Canada did not exist as a country until Europeans came.

So are you ascribing an opinion of a so-called "many" as to what the reality is for an entire country?

No, I stated something that is well known and reported on and supported by the fact that the population is 98.5% Japanese.

So? If the shoe fits wear it and quit being a big baby about it. Sheesh.

You may be for the destruction of the white race, but I'm not.

Oh right, it's the governments fault.

That's right. It wasn't the average Joe on the street that started all of this, and it's not like we were given an alternative in an election.

Edited October 19, 2010 by justme

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is a difference between being a minority because you migrate to a country and the majority population of a country becoming a minority because of immigration.

Except white people are only a majority in North America because of immigration. You just happen to be on the other side of it this time.

Where it exist today? Only in medieval Islamic culture.

Uh no actually. In some parts of Israel Jewish women wear the burqa, and many women in some European countries wear a similar outfit.

Edited October 19, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bonam]

Except white people are only a majority in North America because of immigration. You just happen to be on the other side of it this time.

Yeah... cause going the way of the natives is what our civilization should be aiming for. I don't want my grandkids living on a reserve. The natives had no choice, they were overwhelmed by superior numbers, superior technology, and a more virile culture. We (our government), on the other hand, have every choice as to our immigration policies.