Bernier criticizes Trudeau's "extreme multiculturalism"

[turningrite]

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

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/15/maxime-bernier-tweets_a_23502758/

Edited August 15, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

I think Bernier has been biding his time and waiting for his moment.  We don't yet have a Brazen Asshole Party in Canada, but I'm sure it would get wide support and he'd be happy to lead it.

[turningrite]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bernier has been biding his time and waiting for his moment.  We don't yet have a Brazen Asshole Party in Canada, but I'm sure it would get wide support and he'd be happy to lead it.

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

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194

[taxme]

18 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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

At least Bernier is willing to talk about and take on our present day immigration fiasco and crisis that is beginning to help destroy this country's great British/European traditions, culture and history. Canada needs more politicians that lean to the right for a change. All we ever get are liberals and socialists running this country and who are trying to ruin this once great British/European nation that we call Canada and to try and turn it into a third world looking one. That does not work well for me.  

[taxme]

48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bernier has been biding his time and waiting for his moment.  We don't yet have a Brazen Asshole Party in Canada, but I'm sure it would get wide support and he'd be happy to lead it.

Imagine having a politically incorrect non-puppet on a string bunch of politicians who have done nothing more than appear to be a bunch of special interest minority butt kissers in Canada as we see today and what Canadians have been forced to put up with for years now. Today all I ever see our politicians do is just keep showing me that they have more love and concern, not for Canada and the majority of Canadians, but appear to be more loyal and concerned about the rest of the world. The majority of Canadians have been led by the nose and have been forced to accept the liberal and socialist clueless and useless programs and agendas like multiculturalism and massive third world invasion which has been going on for decades now and which has done nothing for Canada or Canadians at all except maybe for the opening of different third world restaurants which benefit them only anyway. I am starting to see a country that is not sure as to who or where it is coming or going anymore. The liberals and socialists have done such a fine job of screwing this country and it's people up thru division and even appear to be trying to promote hatred and violence in what was once a very peaceful and great nation. We are seeing today many incidents of acts of violence and racism being committed against white people as a result of all this multicultural done on purpose division immigration.

Where is Canada's Trump? I hope that it is not all going to be left up to Doug Ford alone to try and get this once great country back on track. The man needs some help.  

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/13/2018 at 2:05 PM, turningrite said:

1. "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"

2. According to the CBC story, the usual progressive criticisms of "racism" and "xenophobia" have emerged.

3. Maybe Bernier could start a new party? My guess is that it would quickly garner lots of support.

 

1. We have been hearing this since the 70s, from Trudeau Sr.

2.  It can be a bad idea for other reasons too.

3.   Yes, and if he ends up being popular we could have another string of 4-term majority Liberal governments.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/14/2018 at 1:31 PM, turningrite said:

1) 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.

2) The main objective of our globalists, of course,

3) is to undermine the legitimacy of the nation state and all the benefits it has rendered, including, for practical purposes, actual democracy.  

4) 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?

1) You just slipped this part in.  'Social Engineering' is a loaded term, and probably an imaginary concept if taken literally.  Any policy can be taken as 'social engineering', for example setting up a religious rights ministry in a government.  Government can't "engineer" society it can only influence it.

2) 'Globalist' is a loaded term.  Since all parties support trade you can just say 'politician'.  

3) 100% pure conspiracy theory.  If you can get me a picture of Chretien Harper and Mulroney plotting to undermine legitimacy, preferably over a few baby corpses, that would be super.

4) Worked for whom ?  You conveniently skipped past a couple of world wars to declare when they 'worked'

Those who worked for liberalized trade were governments serving multinationals.  If you are against Multinationals (seems about right) then do you support the kinds of controls the NDP would support ?  Eg. environmental and labour controls ?  

[scribblet]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

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

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194

I agree as I said earlier about multicult.    Most people are fine with legal immigration but don't like offical/enforced multicult.  which is the antithesis of nationalism as it highlights the differences while ignoring similarities.  Why should we all be isolated from each other, each with their own tribal 'hearth'  as this only fosters resentment and creates a divisive ethos. 

Maybe this is what Trudeau/Liberals want, a divided people which makes many Canadians uneasy even as discussion about immigration and culture is restriced as any serious critique of immigration is generally not allowed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Maybe this is what Trudeau/Liberals want, a divided people which makes many Canadians uneasy even as discussion about immigration and culture is restriced as any serious critique of immigration is generally not allowed.  

Maybe a new angle (after 40 years) would help the critique to be taken seriously.  Seriously, people are using the same criticisms against this PM that they used against his father who first came up with the approach.  To my mind, there are some pretty good arguments out there but the opponents to immigration come largely from the spectrum that also houses the pro-business faction. 

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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

Which of his views are far off centre?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bernier has been biding his time and waiting for his moment.  We don't yet have a Brazen Asshole Party in Canada, but I'm sure it would get wide support and he'd be happy to lead it.

Isn't the Brazen Asshole party the nickname for the NDP?

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe a new angle (after 40 years) would help the critique to be taken seriously.  Seriously, people are using the same criticisms against this PM that they used against his father who first came up with the approach. 

And were the arguments wrong then?

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To my mind, there are some pretty good arguments out there but the opponents to immigration come largely from the spectrum that also houses the pro-business faction. 

I'm pro business, to a degree. On the other hand, I'd screw business in a heartbeat if it was in the national interest. I'd have the government make generic drugs, for example, at cost. ALL generic drugs.

And many of the arguments against the current immigration system are economic, so it's not a surprise those who are concerned with budgets and economic well-being are opposed to importing vast numbers of non-productive mouths.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

1. And were the arguments wrong then?

2. I'm pro business, to a degree. On the other hand, I'd screw business in a heartbeat if it was in the national interest. I'd have the government make generic drugs, for example, at cost. ALL generic drugs.

3. And many of the arguments against the current immigration system are economic, so it's not a surprise those who are concerned with budgets and economic well-being are opposed to importing vast numbers of non-productive mouths.

1. Well, the charge is basically that funding multiculturalism would make for a disaster where each enclave was played off against the other.  That did not happen. 

2. Ok.

3. So what is the concern ?  That business is enriching itself at the expense of the greater good ?  If so, then I have some tax changes I'd like to propose and maybe some labour reform.  If that's not part of the discussion then there may be other drivers behind immigration reform like... just not liking immigrants.  Just suggesting that.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have been hearing this since the 70s, from Trudeau Sr.

2.  It can be a bad idea for other reasons too.

3.   Yes, and if he ends up being popular we could have another string of 4-term majority Liberal governments.

1.) You're attributing a quote from Bernier's tweet to me. A bit sloppy on your part, don't you think?

2.) My point, of course, is that the responses have been predictable, trivial and banal and largely irrelevant.

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

Edited August 16, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

I think Multiculturalism is an admirable idea.  Canada is a very unified country politically, much more than the U.S. right now, despite are large and growing diversity.  Diversity is our strength.  On a practical level, we have to be careful not to leave Canada a stump like the Giving Tree, wherein we bankrupt the place trying to right every wrong and fix every problem.  We have to set priorities, and on some international issues like mass migration, we need to basically divvy up the responsibilities among countries.  One or a few countries can't be the only ones offering safe harbor.  With a measured, even-handed approach, we can continue to give.  Canada is a wealthy country and thriving economically.  People want to be here.  It's a good society, but that society will be hard to sustain if we start to see more mass migrations worldwide due to climate change, war, politics, economic collapse....There will be more Syria's and Micronesia's from which people will seek refuge.  We need to prepare for all of this.  I wouldn't be surprised if over the next century we see entire countries abandoned.  This is why global thinking is so important.  It's not a matter of being a globalist, but simply understanding that if everyone simply hoards and runs for the hills, we all get trapped in the doors of the fire escape.  This is why we do fire drills.  We have to have careful plans to deal with and try to prevent these eventualities.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You just slipped this part in.  'Social Engineering' is a loaded term, and probably an imaginary concept if taken literally.  Any policy can be taken as 'social engineering', for example setting up a religious rights ministry in a government.  Government can't "engineer" society it can only influence it.

2) 'Globalist' is a loaded term.  Since all parties support trade you can just say 'politician'.  

3) 100% pure conspiracy theory.  If you can get me a picture of Chretien Harper and Mulroney plotting to undermine legitimacy, preferably over a few baby corpses, that would be super.

4) Worked for whom ?  You conveniently skipped past a couple of world wars to declare when they 'worked'

5.) Those who worked for liberalized trade were governments serving multinationals.  If you are against Multinationals (seems about right) then do you support the kinds of controls the NDP would support ?  Eg. environmental and labour controls ?  

1.) Social engineering is a widely understood concept. If you think government can't "engineer" social change, you're dreaming in color.

2.) Globalism involves more than trade. It involves transnational institutions that erode the concept of state-based democracy. And, of course, there's no global democracy, so globalization is a threat to democracy in the limited portion of the world where it currently exists. Institutional globalization is the antithesis of democracy and perhaps the biggest threat to democracy since the Enlightenment.

3.) See preceding point. It's pretty clearly not a conspiracy theory. Searching the issue online and you'll find many scholarly analyses, many of them explaining the threat and others pointing to the reforms necessary to ameliorate the inherent threats globalization pose to democracy.

4.) Apparently, you're not well versed on economic history. The post WWII prosperity in the West, from 1945-73 is broadly understood as the "Golden Age of Capitalism" is widely understood and acknowledged. Without wanting to citing any of the individual academic analyses, maybe you can just read the Wikipedia entry on the topic, which references many of the relevant analyses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion

5.) I think the NDP has become pointless. The multinationals must, of course, be controlled, and particularly so in order to counter their tendency to promote monopoly. What does the modern NDP stand for? Hmmmm....

[bush_cheney2004]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Multiculturalism is an admirable idea.  Canada is a very unified country politically, much more than the U.S. right now, despite are large and growing diversity. 

 

Such comparisons to the U.S. are routinely expected in this forum, but the numbers on the ground say otherwise....for total population, diversity, and net emigration from Canada to the United States over the past 100 years.   Canada has the Clarity Act to test uniformity (e.g. Quebec nationalism)....the U.S. had a civil war.

[Zeitgeist]

No, I mean that right now more Canadians agree with each other politically than do people in the U.S.  We're not as polarized. 

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

 

Maybe this is what Trudeau/Liberals want, a divided people which makes many Canadians uneasy even as discussion about immigration and culture is restriced as any serious critique of immigration is generally not allowed.  

 

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

[Scott Mayers]

On 8/14/2018 at 12:44 PM, turningrite said:

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

You don't get what I'm saying. First, "Multiculturalism" is not "multiculturalism". It is a unique Canadian trademarked version that utilizes the fact that even favoring TWO or THREE cultures is technically, "multicultural" (intended common interpretation that means one favors many cultures diversely). But in fact, it is no different than MONOCULTURALISM when it actually means strictly a select few cultures, not ALL. It is also "forced" in that it is constituted of all people here in Canada without concern about the actual significant minority, the individual. 

When you guys who favor Mono-culturalism through your usual W.A.S.P. stereotype, you don't help us by arguing against Trudeau for the same reason that the White Supremacists of a rally against taking down historical statues takes the dominant notice: you STEAL the attention of the problem by negating DEGREE of cultural problems when it is actually ANY LAWS that favor culture or religion that is the problem. As such, you ruin it for us all when we want to argue with a logical stance. No one pays attention to anyone but the extremes. And you guys represent not ANTI-Cultural lawmaking but MONO-cultural lawmaking. As such, you are WORSE if you get in power!!!

I'm tired this. The reason the left are acting Segregationist rather than Integrationist is that they don't believe they can beat the means of the hard tactics the right normally uses. As such, they have adopted the tactics OF THE RIGHT by utilizing some of the Machiavellian methods that don't use logic but emotions to appeal. I disagree with the left doing this but find the right already default to this methodology and so disapprove of both. 

The reality is that we need to attack laws that specify favor nor disfavor to ANY CULTURE OR RELIGION. We need to address the constitution or no matter what occurs, the game is just about who has the stronger emotional impact. And in this case, you will lose because when everyone is all using a 'cultural' Nationalistic stance, the left has MORE 'Nationalist' groups on their side. The only hope we have is if your Conservatives stop using the very Machiavellian tactics that the left are FORCED to use to overrule your own.

We don't NEED "cultural" conservation laws, no 'heritage' department, or any form of SPECIFIC internal system that directs what is 'good art' for us versus 'bad art'. This is what it reduces to. Canadian law dictates that we MUST favor specific kinds of art in the guise of universal truth. There is nothing about one's past culture that requires special consideration of laws that discriminate from others. AND....most specifically for those who don't associate with any specific group, we should not have to pay heed to a system that dictates we must fit in with one of a set of 'acceptable cults' based on genetic identity. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Scott Mayers
spelling

[Scott Mayers]

If Bernier were instead able to point out THAT the Trudeau government (from Pierre's) originally set the Constitution to bias specific historical cultures and NOT all cultures, he may have a better stance because only arguing degree makes it worse for the Conservatives because of their tendency to 'mono-' cultures. Why would the majority of culture-favoring people want a side that only favors a smaller subset of cultures than a larger one?

Not to offend any specific groups, the reality is that ANY wealth will tend towards more mono-cultural systems when it is based in more pure capitalistic means. For the same reason, there will always be some culture on the economic bottom that tends to get concentrated in population. These are due to the fact that humans are limited to FAVOR what is more closely related to them by family links, not merely because of racist beliefs. 

To avoid bias, Bernier would require not pointing to 'extreme' Multiculturalism, but to ANY  Culturalism (laws made for/against specific cultures).

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) You're attributing a quote from Bernier's tweet to me. A bit sloppy on your part, don't you think?

2.) My point, of course, is that the responses have been predictable, trivial and banal and largely irrelevant.

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

1) I didn't attribute it to you.  Not sure why you thought that.

2) I agree that the first, and easiest reaction is to dismiss the idea with that response.  I will also agree, begrudgingly, that that claim can sometimes be overused.

3) Of course they can.  We had, I think, SIX political parties in parliament last election so tri-party isn't a thing.  And we had two major right-ish parties from the 1990s to the 2000s which allowed the Liberals to drive to the centre and dominate.  With regards to immigration and multiculturalism, I would feel better if those who are opposed at least FELT that they were being heard for the sake of unity.  The concern I have is that those who are against these policies are gathering outside the political sphere and encouraging - let's say - "direct action".  I would like to see that poll also.

I also find it hard to understand the immigration issue.  I live in Toronto which is the prime area impacted - for good and bad - by increased immigration.  Those who have lived here the longest see the highest impact in declining quality of government services, such as transit, however are paid back by soaring property values.  This is a boon to baby boomers who didn't save adequately for retirement, theoretically.

Quote

4.) Social engineering is a widely understood concept. If you think government can't "engineer" social change, you're dreaming in color.

5.) Globalism involves more than trade. It involves transnational institutions that erode the concept of state-based democracy. And, of course, there's no global democracy, so globalization is a threat to democracy in the limited portion of the world where it currently exists. Institutional globalization is the antithesis of democracy and perhaps the biggest threat to democracy since the Enlightenment.

6.) See preceding point. It's pretty clearly not a conspiracy theory. Searching the issue online and you'll find many scholarly analyses, many of them explaining the threat and others pointing to the reforms necessary to ameliorate the inherent threats globalization pose to democracy.

7.) Apparently, you're not well versed on economic history. The post WWII prosperity in the West, from 1945-73 is broadly understood as the "Golden Age of Capitalism" is widely understood and acknowledged. Without wanting to citing any of the individual academic analyses, maybe you can just read the Wikipedia entry on the topic, which references many of the relevant analyses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion

8.) I think the NDP has become pointless. The multinationals must, of course, be controlled, and particularly so in order to counter their tendency to promote monopoly. What does the modern NDP stand for? Hmmmm....

 

4.) I don't know if "can't" is applicable.  I find it difficult, though, to see a difference between attitudes in, say, New York or San Francisco and Toronto despite the federal governments having a markedly different approach.  So maybe they CAN or CAN'T engineer attitudes but I think it's better to look at how much influence they have.  "Engineer" implies that they pretty much have control over outcomes and that is not the case.  If you think government can simply engineer attitudes then there are implications elsewhere to policy.

5.) What transnational institutions ?  "no global democracy means globalization is a threat to democracy" how ?  How is global trade and whatever these institutions are, a threat ?

6.) I need objective evidence from a credible source here.  Maybe you mean that, as the left has said for decades, multinationals such as the National Fruit Company have undermined governments in poorer countries to exploit workers.  That's well documented but precedes the Mulroney/Reagan/Thatcher era of global trade.

7.) Ok, so it worked for 'the west'.  Post world-war-II.  I didn't doubt that.  But there are a few factors that built upon democracy that you are ignoring, such as a few world wars just ending (?) and relatively left-leaning governments who were much more friendly towards labour.

8.) Right, but what about those pet policies ?  Wouldn't it be easier for you to reform the NDP than the Conservatives ?  You seem closer to them since anti-multinationalism is in your DNA.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Michael Hardner

[scribblet]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

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

Right, heaven help there should be an open debate, a debate which can and should happen without the name calling and finger pointing. Bernier is correct saying that the growth of 'communities' which don't adhere to Canadian/Western values/traditions will eventually lean to an isolated population.  This identity politics is reducing us to nothing but tribal clans each with it's own hearth which eventually will wipe out Canadian values and culture.   Canada doesn't have the demographics yet but this notion that promoting separateness and that ALL cultures are equal matter how barbaric or misogynist is ridiculous and could be our downfall. 

Scheer has distanced himself from Bernier and some people are now saying this will cost the Conservatives the election; possibly because people are too scared of being labelled to speak out.    We should be angry at Trudeau  who says 'There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada"  which is pretty radical, instead of criticizing Maxime Bernier for saying there  should be.  What's wrong with these people ?  

I'm adding this article here from Australia which is a long read but does have salient points.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/how-i-lost-faith-in-multiculturalism/news-story/f7c75dd449a8c18334460b4d032e5cea

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by scribblet

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, the charge is basically that funding multiculturalism would make for a disaster where each enclave was played off against the other.  That did not happen. 

That was NOT the charge. The charge was that Canada would become less united, with large groups of immigrants becoming large groups of insular communities whose values did not align with each other, much less with the Canadian 'mainstream'. and I think that this has happened and is continuing to happen. We have a prime minister, in fact, who says there IS no Canadian nation, and no central core identity. He is echoed by most of those on the political left (or at least, certainly not contradicted by them). 

Now as immigration numbers grow and a more substantial portion of them come from cultures which are even more different from Canada's in terms of values and beliefs, that disunity is likely to grow. And I would suggest that this lack of unity doesn't show itself much in good times, where most people are relatively content. Where a nation's unity and sense of mutual brotherhood comes into play is when there is a crisis. That's when nations without any sense of unity or 'core identity' shatter into their diverse elements who turn on each other.

3. So what is the concern ?  That business is enriching itself at the expense of the greater good ?

The concern is that in bringing in massive numbers of unskilled workers Canada is impoverishing itself.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Multiculturalism is an admirable idea.  Canada is a very unified country politically, much more than the U.S. right now, despite are large and growing diversity.

It is politically unified only in that none of the parties pay much attention to the desires of the people on many subjects. The fact that 30%-40%-60-70%% of the population say they want a given thing, and 0% of politicians support this is not a reason to crow about the glorious democracy of Canada.

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Diversity is our strength. 

Until troubled times. Then it becomes our weakness.