Bernier criticizes Trudeau's "extreme multiculturalism"

[turningrite]

I've long said that the Conservatives really messed up when Bernier lost the party's leadership. I think he's one of the few willing to speak out on principle about a lot of issues Canadians find problematic and/or perplexing. In a news report today, he criticizes Trudeau's "cult of diversity" as being divisive and counterproductive:

"Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges"

According to the CBC story, the usual progressive criticisms of "racism" and "xenophobia" have emerged, of course, but I suspect Bernier has highlighted misgivings held by a lot of Canadians about Trudeau's multicultural and diversity obsessions, which our political leaders in general are far too hesitant to address. Maybe Bernier could start a new party? My guess is that it would quickly garner lots of support.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4783325

Edited August 13, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

31 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I've long said that the Conservatives really messed up when Bernier lost the party's leadership. I think he's one of the few willing to speak out on principle about a lot of issues Canadians find problematic and/or perplexing. In a news report today, he criticizes Trudeau's "cult of diversity" as being divisive and counterproductive:

"Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges"

According to the CBC story, the usual progressive criticisms of "racism" and "xenophobia" have emerged, of course, but I suspect Bernier has highlighted misgivings held by a lot of Canadians about Trudeau's form of multicultural fetishism that our political leaders are generally far to timid to address. Maybe Bernier could start a new party? My guess is that it would quickly garner lots of support.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4783325

When a country decides that it wants to flood and mix up it's culture with dozens of different other traditions, cultures, religions and languages it will be a recipe for tribal networks to be set up where no one will eventually see the need nor desire to want to assimilate into the hosts culture anymore who allowed them all in. There is no problem with allowing in the many races and their cultures into Canada but what Maxine Bernier is basically saying is that there are just too many of one culture being allowed in and because of it ghettoes are starting to spring up especially here in the Lower Mainland.

There is no reason for why a city like Richmond, BC has now become a city where the Asian population is now in the majority of the citizen's of that city. BC's population is now 25% non-white and the city of Vancouver is 40% non-white and climbing every year. Asians are pretty much able to survive in their own culture in BC and not will require themselves to want to join the host nations people and assimilate into that host nations culture and traditions. Tribal ghettoes are springing up just about in most cities in the Lower Mainland thanks to multiculturalism and massive third world invasion. 

People like Bernier and myself and many others are always called racists just because we are not in favor of having to stand by and watch as our Canada as we all knew it several decades ago is disappearing fast as the numbers are showing and will eventually be replaced by the many a foreign cultures that are being allowed in by the hundreds of thousands every year and in time without a doubt the host nations people will become the minority in their own home land. Trudeau's is on a warpath to try and do just that. Replace the white host people with non-white foreign people and reduce the white population to minority status. And along with his zionist buddy G. Soros who is behind the plan to make Canada become a non-white country it is well on it's way to fruition. I wish that Bernier had been given the job as the leader of the conservative party because he would have looked more into and at this multicultural mess that we have happening today in Canada and would have probably put an end to this program and agenda of the Soros destruction of white Canada thanks to multiculturalism. 

My opinion of course. 

 

[turningrite]

35 minutes ago, taxme said:

I wish that Bernier had been given the job as the leader of the conservative party because he would have looked more into and at this multicultural mess that we have happening today in Canada and would have probably put an end to this program and agenda...

 

I think the most interesting aspect of Bernier's commentary relates to his assessment that Trudeau is promoting the creation of ethno-racial-religious political tribes that can be bought off with taxpayer dollars and special privileges. In other words, Trudeau is the ultimate political cynic, playing off the interests of varying groups against the broader interests of the Canadian population. And yet he dons a moralistic stance when sonorously condemning anybody who dares to criticize his diversity agenda when the inherent moral flaw is in his own program. The term hypocrisy barely touches on Trudeau's capacity for duplicity.

Edited August 13, 2018 by turningrite

[-TSS-]

Unfortunately things don't work in a way that even if people elct a government which is very pro-multiculture and when they get fed up with it and elect another government which is not so pro-multiculture and the new government could just unravel the work of the previous government. A harmful government can do a lot of irrepairable damage.

There will be elections in Sweden in three weeks time and very anti-immigration Sweden Democrats are tipped to become the largest party with estimated 26-30% of the votes. Even if they become the largest party the other parties are likely to gang up on the SD and keep them out of the government.

However, even if SD one day wins an absolute majority and could legislate as they wanted do you think they could just kick out all the foreigners. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[betsy]

20 hours ago, turningrite said:

I've long said that the Conservatives really messed up when Bernier lost the party's leadership. I think he's one of the few willing to speak out on principle about a lot of issues Canadians find problematic and/or perplexing. In a news report today, he criticizes Trudeau's "cult of diversity" as being divisive and counterproductive:

"Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges"

According to the CBC story, the usual progressive criticisms of "racism" and "xenophobia" have emerged, of course, but I suspect Bernier has highlighted misgivings held by a lot of Canadians about Trudeau's multicultural and diversity obsessions, which our political leaders in general are far too hesitant to address. Maybe Bernier could start a new party? My guess is that it would quickly garner lots of support.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4783325

Notice how they crucify him now.....for stating just the obvious.  For almost a decade now, some of us here have been saying that multi-culturalism isn't going to work.   People tend to group together.  We have to have immigrants who see no problem or conflict  integrating into Canadian society, and embracing Canadian values.

Progresssives want to point out that Canada was built up by immigrants.   Yes, that's true.   But, immigrants from where???    

 

I hope Canadians wake up. 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by betsy

[turningrite]

18 minutes ago, betsy said:

Notice how they crucify him now.....for stating just the obvious.

I hope Canadians wake up. 

 

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.

Edited August 14, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

20 hours ago, turningrite said:

I think the most interesting aspect of Bernier's commentary relates to his assessment that Trudeau is promoting the creation of ethno-racial-religious political tribes that can be bought off with taxpayer dollars and special privileges.

I thought the most interesting aspect was the response from the media. They collectively acted like an MP saying something even remotely controversial was shocking. And immediately turned to his leader expecting condemnation and discipline. As far as I can see Bernier's commentary was pretty fair game, and I see nothing in it most conservatives would have a problem with. But we have no history in this country of MPs speaking their minds in public on any subject whatever. Compare this to the UK, where backbench MPs routinely criticize party policy and even their own leadership in public interviews and newspaper columns.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

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.

If Trudeau had actually had the balls to bring in proportional representation the existing Conservative party would lose half its support overnight to new parties which were actually willing to openly embrace conservatism and conservative principals. 

[Scott Mayers]

You guys are only helping to show WHY there is a problem. You treat the problem as about some causal problem of the intrinsic ideals of the left when it is actually the intrinsic ideals of 'conservatives' who, if they are NOT in the larger majority, COLLECT within those parties that USE the ideals of the left as a false front to counter the CULTURE of the majority. 

The problem is that ANY 'culture' granted power specifically in a Constitution is necessarily some form of "theocratic" lock-in of some interest or another. The 'right' parties are usually of the conservative already IN POWER who want to IMPOSE their culture upon everyone universally. The 'left' parties (in spite of apparent ideologies) are always taken over by the relatively 'liberal' forms of religious cultures that arrogantly think that religions are all true EQUALLY and specifically among what is considered those who interpret them with flexibility. That half of any general religious class, like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, are strict to keeping interpretation fixed regarding their religions makes them necessarily UNIFORM in their beliefs about what occurs when in power. It MUST, to them, be a government that aims to make the people conform to their specific belief without flexibility. The other half are those who believe that religions are of some god that exists but that they are less certain of which truth is precisely true. As such, they interpret that there is 'some' truth where everyone at least has some common thread of truth about in all LIBERAL religions (freely interpretable). But because the literalist 'right' of EACH religion can never agree when in power to others of similar agreement of those differences, those right-wing preferring cultures take OVER the left if only to overthrow or diminish the present 'right'-wing religious domination specifically.

Example: A strict Islamic conservative religion would never agree to join in with a strict Christian conservative religion. They 'agree' in principle to a right to have political right to impose religious beliefs but conflict because each of their own cannot logically coincide. So only one could exist as some party on the right. This means that either there would be multiple divisive right-wing parties who would agree in principle but could never actually have enough power to rule as a majority without the prior power they need to establish that majority prior to becoming that majority. 

This means that it is 'necessary' for those conservative strict religions who lack contingent majorities or sufficient plurality to rule with confidence, to join up with the left and appeal to a feigned appeal to "diversity". In meaning, they simply 'agree' temporarily to set aside their clear differences of conservation to disempower those other conservatives of other religions in some way.

The actual 'liberal' or 'progressives' are irrelevant when the economy is suffering. As such, this is the time when the left gets most "counter-progressive" for long-standing groups of their side (like to support strengthening Aboriginal Nationalism) and "uniquely-progressive" for specific new groups based upon 'liberating' classes of people within religions that are most strongly denied of most conservative forms....like the pro-gender politics that treats ones choices as GENETIC. 

Who gets lost is all of the actual population that is not literally religious but are scapegoated by all political sides knowing that they are forced OUT of competition by simply BEING distinctly individual and more DIVIDED by all those strict religious groups.

This is what and why the Middle East (and even Africa) is always at odds within. They are worlds where the economic problems strongly exist. It favors more 'conservative' bent politics such that you can never repair unless they have some magical fortune of economy that favors a large majority of people. 

We are screwed. And you guys above who falsely continue to attack the 'ideals' of the left are either missing that those ideals are NOT extant there or are purposely adapting this rhetoric to attempt to hide that the problems are actually about "conservative" thinkers of CULTURE and RELIGION. You guys are not against CULTURE, you are just against the MULTICULTURAL forms of political imposition. What you all agree to is to SOME CULTURE as a right to POWER.

I don't believe I could alter anyone on this. I'm left-wing and get ignored being presumed to be right-winged for challenging this there for the same logic. If it weren't true of the left, I'd have open dialogue with ease by many others on the left. This doesn't occur because they are locking out those who AREN'T strictly 'conservative' for "MULTICULTURALISM" by their own particular terms. The money raised by any of those conservative interests controlling the left makes the left here NON-progressive and only SELECTIVELY-liberal.

If you guys on the right care to appeal, you can't simply attack those of us on the left who have actual 'progressive' nor 'liberal' views but to appeal to us for some means to defeat the laws of any constitutional means that allows laws to be made regarding culture or religion is a similar way to the American's First Amendment. I'm doubting this will occur though without better times world-wide. And history proves that as we have evolved, those OLDER WORLDS become the worlds that NEVER get better and only get worse (like the Middle East and Africa, etc.)

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

You guys are not against CULTURE, you are just against the MULTICULTURAL forms of political imposition. What you all agree to is to SOME CULTURE as a right to POWER.

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?

Edited August 14, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I thought the most interesting aspect was the response from the media. They collectively acted like an MP saying something even remotely controversial was shocking. And immediately turned to his leader expecting condemnation and discipline. As far as I can see Bernier's commentary was pretty fair game, and I see nothing in it most conservatives would have a problem with. But we have no history in this country of MPs speaking their minds in public on any subject whatever. Compare this to the UK, where backbench MPs routinely criticize party policy and even their own leadership in public interviews and newspaper columns.

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.

[Scott Mayers]

54 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Huh? Culture is inherent to all societies. This is a sociological rather than a political concept. Just as our foppish post-nationalist 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?

"Culture" is inherent in social beings. But it is merely the definition of a common set of behaviors in some group in time or place, whether it be of a country OR an individual. Culture, by individuals, are their set of defining behaviors they LIKE to do based upon their OWN selective choices. So 'culture' will always exist. Where the problems occur is when specific groups in political power USE LAWS to enforce some select set of cultures both constitutionally and in law that are based on a belief that traditional behaviors of individuals are INHERENT GENETIC traits, like some DNA encoding. For instance, if one who is Irish who believes they have some inherent gene that makes them necessarily believers in Leprechauns and so should have laws that conserve that right to all those genetically linked to those Irish roots. 

It is not 'democratic' to favor laws that command forced inherent rights upon individuals without their own right to choose what they like as "culture". I may be born white with accidental Irish heritage, but could be adopted to a Native-blooded family never knowing such 'culture' of my ancestry. Would I 'own' something "Irish"? Would I 'own' my adopted Native families heritage? 

Neither to me is a rightful means for laws to be made to favor nor disfavor. In fact, favoring any culture is just like having some law that asserts that someone of England necessarily likes Shakespeare or that one who is Italian necessarily likes Opera. Culture is art. But in practice, it is actually RELIGION at the true core because it imposes laws that lock in certain religiously assumed heritage. That is, the reason 'culture' is pushed whether singularly or in multiple forms, is to impose some set of religious beliefs in LAWS. Using 'culture' or 'multicultural' laws is to distract us to look at more favorable yet still discriminatory behaviors as inherent to specific people. But it ignores that if you adapt favorable stereotypes, it logiclally requires outsiders to also rightfully presume the negative stereotypes. You can't say I am born to like X but that it is silly for others then to be born to not like X. If it is favorable genetically to like a Picasso, it should be genetically favorable to dislike a Picasso. 

If you accept a stereotype that says all people genetically born with African decent owns a right to Rap, for instance, because Rap was initially created from some African American 'culture' at some time and place, you'd have to accept the negative stereotypes associated with the themes of gang-life, drugs, and murder, that the music associates with that same community. This is ridiculous. Why is it alright, on the same idea, for one to be privileged to use certain words for one group but not for the other? 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Culture" is inherent in social beings. But it is merely the definition of a common set of behaviors in some group in time or place, whether it be of a country OR an individual. Culture, by individuals, are their set of defining behaviors they LIKE to do based upon their OWN selective choices. So 'culture' will always exist. Where the problems occur is when specific groups in political power USE LAWS to enforce some select set of cultures both constitutionally and in law that are based on a belief that traditional behaviors of individuals are INHERENT GENETIC traits, like some DNA encoding. For instance, if one who is Irish who believes they have some inherent gene that makes them necessarily believers in Leprechauns and so should have laws that conserve that right to all those genetically linked to those Irish roots. 

It is not 'democratic' to favor laws that command forced inherent rights upon individuals without their own right to choose what they like as "culture". I may be born white with accidental Irish heritage, but could be adopted to a Native-blooded family never knowing such 'culture' of my ancestry. Would I 'own' something "Irish"? Would I 'own' my adopted Native families heritage? 

Neither to me is a rightful means for laws to be made to favor nor disfavor. In fact, favoring any culture is just like having some law that asserts that someone of England necessarily likes Shakespeare or that one who is Italian necessarily likes Opera. Culture is art. But in practice, it is actually RELIGION at the true core because it imposes laws that lock in certain religiously assumed heritage. That is, the reason 'culture' is pushed whether singularly or in multiple forms, is to impose some set of religious beliefs in LAWS. Using 'culture' or 'multicultural' laws is to distract us to look at more favorable yet still discriminatory behaviors as inherent to specific people. But it ignores that if you adapt favorable stereotypes, it logiclally requires outsiders to also rightfully presume the negative stereotypes. You can't say I am born to like X but that it is silly for others then to be born to not like X. If it is favorable genetically to like a Picasso, it should be genetically favorable to dislike a Picasso. 

If you accept a stereotype that says all people genetically born with African decent owns a right to Rap, for instance, because Rap was initially created from some African American 'culture' at some time and place, you'd have to accept the negative stereotypes associated with the themes of gang-life, drugs, and murder, that the music associates with that same community. This is ridiculous. Why is it alright, on the same idea, for one to be privileged to use certain words for one group but not for the other? 

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

Edited August 14, 2018 by turningrite

[Queenmandy85]

33 million of Canada's 37 million citizens are caucasian. 4 million are not. Numbers are approximate and I did not include First Nations.

Caucasians represent many cultures and most of the main religions. Which of those cultures are you against?

[turningrite]

58 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

33 million of Canada's 37 million citizens are caucasian. 4 million are not. Numbers are approximate and I did not include First Nations.

Caucasians represent many cultures and most of the main religions. Which of those cultures are you against?

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

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by turningrite

[scribblet]

I suppose in itself  the fact that people find Bernier's remarks that controversial is evidence of the dearth of diversity of thought in Canada.  We are not supposed to question diversity and multicult even tho it has become `racist`to suggest that ALL people are equal.

Many people came to Canada to be free of ethnic hostilities and tensions, but our immigration laws and programs  have altered the composition of the Canadian people resulting in a gov`t sponsored cult of ethnicity, even more so since Trudeau became PM.   IMO the results are not healthy as we are now composed mainly of inviolable ethnic and racial groups, all of whom are pigging out at the taxpayers’ financial trough.

The growing diversity of our population should make the quest for a unified common culture urgent as much of the world is embroiled in savage ethnic wars which we should not import and should avoid. 

[Benz]

How ironic! 10 years ago, when I was saying moreless the same thing, the same conservatives that are currently on his side, were fiercely accusing me of being a facist racist or something like that. The mindsets are changing in Canada.

The left is totally divided in 2. There is a new form of leftist. They are libetarians. Usually, that is a property that you would find only on the right wingers.  Not anymore. The best example of this is when Singh says one should have the right to choose to avoid protection helmet for bikers. Personal beleifs and individual rights are now, out of sudden, greater that the common good and people's protection. Even if it is the society that ha to pay for the consequences of your decision.

I have zero affinity with that position.

Culture is also a word used in so many different angles. In this topic, I make a clear difference between one individual's culture, vs a nation-level one. The second one is something shared by the people that defines them as a nation. Music, food, etc.. are cultural traits that may be shared by alot of individuals but, they are still only to the individual level. Those are not the kind of things the government or state shall interfere in. However, when it comes to communitary traits, like the respect of each others, equality of sex, the behavior in the society, no forced marriages, children's rights, etc... those core values are expected to be shared and adopted by every one. That is what defines a nation and its nationale culture. 

The problem with multiculturalism, is that those who believe in it, they think we should allow (or even propmote) people from another culture to live with its outside values, even if they are in contradictions to the ones defining Canada on the national level. They do not understand the consequences.

[Queenmandy85]

43 minutes ago, turningrite said:

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.

I was refering to caucasians. The census includes South Asians (India and Pakistan) as visible minorities yet they are caucasian ("white"). Non- "whites" (everyone is brown, just different shades of brown) are black Africans, Chinese / Japanese/ Koreans, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I was refering to caucasians. The census includes South Asians (India and Pakistan) as visible minorities yet they are caucasian ("white"). Non- "whites" (everyone is brown, just different shades of brown) are black Africans, Chinese / Japanese/ Koreans, etc.

 

Indeed, as the very racist Canadian term "visible minority" has been criticized for years as arbitrary and discriminatory.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/term-visible-minorities-may-be-discriminatory-un-body-warns-canada-1.690247

 

 

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, Benz said:

How ironic! 10 years ago, when I was saying moreless the same thing, the same conservatives that are currently on his side, were fiercely accusing me of being a facist racist or something like that.

Yeah? Like who? Got a cite?

[taxme]

On 8/13/2018 at 12:43 PM, turningrite said:

I think the most interesting aspect of Bernier's commentary relates to his assessment that Trudeau is promoting the creation of ethno-racial-religious political tribes that can be bought off with taxpayer dollars and special privileges. In other words, Trudeau is the ultimate political cynic, playing off the interests of varying groups against the broader interests of the Canadian population. And yet he dons a moralistic stance when sonorously condemning anybody who dares to criticize his diversity agenda when the inherent moral flaw is in his own program. The term hypocrisy barely touches on Trudeau's capacity for duplicity.

Typical of liberals. Divide and conquer. As far as I am concerned liberals are never patriotic to their country at all. They use their country as a tool to try to keep getting elected and if it means destroying their own countries culture and traditions by creating division, such as we are seeing today with all this massive third world immigration happening and their bringing with them their own culture, traditions and religion, then so be it, the liberals will do whatever it takes to divide and stay in power. Before the sixties Canada never had the problems we have today thanks mostly to liberalism and the conservative party was no better. They always appear to just want to go along with the liberals programs and agendas for Canadians.

Personally, I always put liberalism on my treason list first. I have never met a real and true patriotic liberal Canadian yet. Liberals never want to talk about the real problems affecting Canada today, much of it created by them, but appear to much rather try to make more problems for Canada and Canadians even worse. They keep coming up with and adding more and more socialist/communist programs and agendas that will eventually cause more division. My opinion of course. 

 

[taxme]

47 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I was refering to caucasians. The census includes South Asians (India and Pakistan) as visible minorities yet they are caucasian ("white"). Non- "whites" (everyone is brown, just different shades of brown) are black Africans, Chinese / Japanese/ Koreans, etc.

WTH? The word Caucasian is normally referred to people that have white colored looking skin. South Asians, blacks or Asians are not white, they all have a brown or black or yellow looking skin colored face. People from and of European decent are called and considered the true white people. People from Sweden or Germany or Britain are not brown colored looking people but white in color looking people. Even native Indians called the white man paleface(white). I think that you are just trying to make white people feel as though they are not truly white people at all but are people of mixed colors. Bull chit. Just saying. 

[Queenmandy85]

You can say the sun rises in the west, but that doesn't make it true.Our european ancestors were probably very brown when they arrived in Europe. South Asians are caucasian. Place a sheet of white paper beside your skin and see which is whiter.

This is all irrelevant. We are all modern homo sapiens, with a little neanderthal mixed in to non-africans. Physiologically, there is virtually no difference.

[Queenmandy85]

As for Bernier, he is too far off centre to be a viable contender.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[turningrite]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I was refering to caucasians. The census includes South Asians (India and Pakistan) as visible minorities yet they are caucasian ("white"). Non- "whites" (everyone is brown, just different shades of brown) are black Africans, Chinese / Japanese/ Koreans, etc.

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. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by turningrite