Bernier criticizes Trudeau's "extreme multiculturalism"

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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. 

You are mistaken. Canadian media and politics simply ignore those people, regardless of their numbers, who do not agree with the cultural values of the small bubble of media/academic/political elites. If the Liberals had gone ahead and given us proportional representation and those voices found political parties to support their grievances you would see a different story.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

12 hours ago, turningrite said:

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. 

No, they support it because, like the Liberals, they play identity politics, and cater to the specific interests of immigrant/ethnic groups in order to buy votes. Bernier said as much in a followup tweet. All the parties have their specific 'wranglers' who are recognized members of this or that ethnic community, and who tell the party what they need to promise so that they, the wranglers, can pull in votes from that community. Most of these things have little to do with what is good for Canada.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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. 

 

Not technically possible given differences in population and party membership.  

Donald Trump got a larger percentage of cast votes in the U.S. than did the Liberals/Trudeau in Canada.

There is plenty of polarization in Canada...see Quebec nationalism, separatism, regionalism, pipeline battles, carbon tax, reconciliation, etc.

[turningrite]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Not technically possible given differences in population and party membership.  

Donald Trump got a larger percentage of cast votes in the U.S. than did the Liberals/Trudeau in Canada.

There is plenty of polarization in Canada...see Quebec nationalism, separatism, regionalism, pipeline battles, carbon tax, reconciliation, etc.

I think what Zeitgeist really means to say is that our mainstream politicians agree with each other more than is the case south of the border on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and even trade policy. There's very little real choice on these major issues within the tri-party political cartel that controls policy discussion in Ottawa. However, based on the CBC Angus-Reid poll released in 2016, for which I provide a link in a prior comment in this string, most Canadians (i.e. 68%, if the poll remains reflective of current public opinion) likely agree with the gist of Bernier's recent tweets expressing  concerns about our centrifugal and tribalist multicultural policies. And polling on immigration also suggests misgivings and divisions between the populace and the ruling cartel as well. To me, the fact that public opinion and perception is not reflected in the policies of our mainstream parties isn't actually a credit to the supposed virtues of Canada's restrictive, controlled and manipulated democracy.

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

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.

 

1.) Perhaps you don't pay attention to the formatting here? The header above your reply reads as follows: "On 8/14/2018 at 1:31 PM, turningrite said:"

2.) I think our political class will do everything it can to discredit the kind of views expressed by Bernier, particularly given that it's likely aware he's reflecting views widely if not vociferously held in the Canadian population, if the results of the 2016 CBC Angus Reid poll still hold, which I suspect they do. Our main political parties and politicians are for the most part bought and sold by powerful interests, and where that's not necessarily the case, as with the NDP, pixie dust and unicorns have obliterated rational analysis.

3.) We have at present a tri-party political monopoly that basically sets the parameters of policy discussion in Ottawa. These three parties garnered roughly 92% of the vote in the 2015 election. We have seen attempts to break out of this monopoly, particularly on the part of the BQ, but it could never attain power as it was/is a solely Quebec-based sovereignist outfit. The Reform Party also broke into the monopoly for a time, but it never evolved much beyond its roots as a Western-Canadian focused protest movement. Eventually, it reintegrated into the Conservative Party, taking it slightly further to the right.

4.) Governments absolutely have control over social outcomes they choose to impose. Some might well argue that the Canadian government has become a poster child for this. And perhaps you've never read Noam Chomsky's work about "manufacturing" consent?

5.) Trade deals in the globalist era contain the very seeds of de-democratization. As a student of economic history myself, I find it amusing when people think that trade deals merely involve trading goods. The NAFTA agreement's investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms are classic examples of the kind of institutionalized language employed to undermine the sovereignty of democratically elected governments. The uproar in parts of Europe over the CETA deal (which now may be blocked by a populist coalition in Italty) has in large measure focused on these kinds the anti-democratic mechanisms. And the TPP was attacked over the use of similar language and provisions. Credible analysts, including I believe the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, have pointed out that the TPP  had/has little to do with actual trade and more to do with imposing a corporate agenda. Interestingly, the vacuous Trudeau is a proponent of the language and mechanisms of de-democratization while Trump, whom I dislike because of his offensive style and autocratic tendencies, clearly appears to understand the problemic aspects of globalization, at least insofar as its negative impact on labor markets is concerned.

6.) There are so many articles and analyses available online related to the risks posed by globalization to democracy that it's difficult to identify a singular critique. You can take a look at the Global Policy Forum piece on globalization, for an unabashedly negative assessment. But if you're interested in looking beyond your preconceptions and reading a very moderate take on the deleterious impacts of globalization you might want to read an analysis in the NY Times, written by Harvard professor Dani Rodrik, which notes that "...the elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals. Societies were asked to subject domestic economies to the whims of global financial markets; sign investment treaties that created special rights for foreign companies; and reduce corporate and top income taxes to attract footloose corporations." And the writer is actually a fan of globalization - well, assuming it can be reined in and reformed! The article rather wistfully takes the position that globalization could be salvageable and put to work for the benefit of democracy, but to do so would mean isolating and excluding many countries that are now involved in the scheme, like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia. In other words, imagining a kinder, gentler and more democratic form of globalization is a pipe dream. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/put-globalization-to-work-for-democracies.html

7.) Well, there's a singular factor you're apparently ignoring, which is that the capitalist world faced ideological competition. You are aware that during WWII the CCF was gaining in the polls and a Communist, Fred Rose, was elected to Parliament, right. This set the stage for the release by the Liberal government in 1945 of the White Paper on Employment and Income' that laid the groundwork for the implementation of a social democratic agenda over the next three decades. A "mixed-market economy" was to provide benefits for ordinary people by means explicitly social democratic policies in order to bolster and sustain for, well, capitalism. This approach was adopted throughout throughout much of the developed West, although perhaps less wholeheartedly in the U.S., and led to the broadest form of equitable prosperity experienced in the modern era. The oil shock of the 1970s put an end to the party, and the emergence of post-industrial Western economies, exacerbated by emerging globalization, largely finished it off. It's now in its death throes.

8.) PET would probably be horrified by what multiculturalism has become. He loathed ethnic nationalism and tribalism but was open to the idea of a broader civic nationalism that could accommodate Canadians, including newcomers, of all backgrounds. He no doubt viewed multiculturalism in the traditional Canadian context of cultural integration rather than segregation. His position on aboriginal/indigenous claims, where he bluntly rejected victim-based tribalist ideology, provides insight into his real beliefs. He believed in a modest immigration program and was mindful of the threat posed by immigration to the interests of Canadian workers. Immigration numbers didn't really ramp up until the Mulroney era, where the program was turbocharged at the behest of the corporate class, and the dependency-based refugee scheme took off after the Singh decision in 1985, which followed PET's departure. It's a matter of conjecture as to whether he would have been supportive of many the Charter's more more problematic impacts, but there are clues that he probably would be alarmed at some of those impacts were he around today. The Charter is in some ways a theoretically good idea gone awry.

By the way, should you respond further on this, please provide references to back up your assertions. You play a game where you ask others to substantiate their positions when you don't do so yourself.

Edited August 16, 2018 by turningrite

[Benz]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 5:15 PM, Argus said:

Yeah? Like who? Got a cite?

Alot from all sides. But the most virulants were liberals. One in particular that I try to remember his name. I did not see him posting recently. I have been absent from this forum few years and my memory is failing me about who said what.

Liberals did not change much about that topic, but the conservatives did. They realize more how much toxic is the multiculturalism than before. Bernier added more precisions to his thoughts and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. I do not remember I ever agreed with him before on any other subjects.

[scribblet]

Doing identity politics means trying to drum up support by appealing to specific groups on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, language, sexuality or other characteristics, instead of speaking to them as Canadians interested in the wellbeing of our country as a whole.

In actuality, all Maxime Bernier is doing, is  fighting against identity politics. .

[Benz]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

 

 

I could have said the same few years ago. Especially when Layton was the leader. But I think that the election of Singh is a revelation of how the libetarian-left took alot of space in that party. It's a doctrine that cannot be reasonned. I understand him to be hopeless regarding NDP. Maybe you are right and the mountain is not as complicated to move as it may seems.

But when the leader of a party says that one should have the liberty to choose according to his religious beleifs and substract itself from the rules of wearing a helmet for security, I conclude that I do not belong there. NDP has broken an important link with the core values of the canadians and it's not everyone that is capable to close their eyes on this.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No, they support it because, like the Liberals, they play identity politics, and cater to the specific interests of immigrant/ethnic groups in order to buy votes. Bernier said as much in a followup tweet. All the parties have their specific 'wranglers' who are recognized members of this or that ethnic community, and who tell the party what they need to promise so that they, the wranglers, can pull in votes from that community. Most of these things have little to do with what is good for Canada.

If you read my posts in this string you'll note that I admit that all three major federal parties, which I believe function as a political cartel where issues like immigration and multiculturalism are concerned, are complicit in the game of identity-based tribal politics. I suspect, however, that there is a greater level of dissatisfaction with the elitist political consensus within the CPC caucus in comparison to the situation in the other two parties, which have been completely captured by special interests and lobbyists. During the Harper years some attempts were made to reform the ridiculous refugee determination system and to rein in the benefits associated with the refugee program. Also, a nod, even if halfhearted, was given to mainstream values, particularly with the ill-fated but popular move to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. Ultimately, the CPC, which favors the corporate preference for open-ended immigration, simply wouldn't break ranks with the elitist consensus even where it was clear it might have had some latitude to do so. We'll see if Bernier's very reasonable objections to identity-based tribal politics changes anything. I'm skeptical, but at least he's encouraging public debate and causing discomfort among the complacent political elites, who must know that public opinion is likely on Bernier's side. Politics, as does nature, abhors a vacuum, and these issues have simply gone too long without being subjected to rational scrutiny and public debate.

Edited August 16, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

18 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I think what Zeitgeist really means to say is that our mainstream politicians agree with each other more than is the case south of the border on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and even trade policy. There's very little real choice on these major issues within the tri-party political cartel that controls policy discussion in Ottawa....

 

All the more reason I suspect that a lot of polarization is hidden behind the structural barriers of Canadian political parties/government, media, and multi-cult dogma.   Add some limits on freedom of expression (e.g. hate speech laws), publication bans, and aversion for open conflict, and the appearance of less polarization is achieved, true or not.

 

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

All the more reason I suspect that a lot of polarization is hidden behind the structural barriers of Canadian political parties/government, media, and multi-cult dogma.   Add some limits on freedom of expression (e.g. hate speech laws), publication bans, and aversion for open conflict, and the appearance of less polarization is achieved, true or not.

 

Yes, the whole thing undermines any claim that we function as a legitimate democracy. Rather, we present a classic example of what Noam Chomsky characterizes as a system grounded in "manufactured" consent, which ultimately serves an elitist corporate economic agenda. I suspect our foppish PM Is merely a useful idiot in this process. But why does he need to worry anyway when, as he's reminded us, he has his family trust's wealth to fall back on? He's insulated from the deleterious impacts of the globalist agenda he so blithely promotes, as are some of the other mediocrities in his cabinet like the wealthy Mr. Morneau, whom journalist Chantal Hebert has characterized as being "politically clueless."   

[Shady]

Diversity is our strength is the new 2 + 2 = 5 from 1984.  You must say it and nod with approval at all times, or else feel the wrath of the state and the state-run/supporting media complex.  Somebody needs to tell Justin that diversity isn't our strength, freedom is.  Without freedom, diversity would be meaningless.

[turningrite]

17 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

Diversity is our strength is the new 2 + 2 = 5 from 1984.  You must say it and nod with approval at all times, or else feel the wrath of the state and the state-run/supporting media complex.  Somebody needs to tell Justin that diversity isn't our strength, freedom is.  Without freedom, diversity would be meaningless.

I think Trudeau's merely a faithful servant to the corporate elites, who want open-ended immigration. It's a big part of their business model. Multicultural tribal politics grabs votes for this agenda and anybody who dares criticize it, however reasonably, is immediately cast as being racist, xenophobic, or worse.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Benz said:

Liberals did not change much about that topic, but the conservatives did. They realize more how much toxic is the multiculturalism than before. Bernier added more precisions to his thoughts and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. I do not remember I ever agreed with him before on any other subjects.

Well, as a party member, I got to put all the candidates in order of preference when I voted, and Bernier was probably my #3 or #4 choice. I liked some of what he said, and he seemed more honestly and unapologetically conservative in what he said. Far too often conservatives politicians in Canada refuse to forthrightly defend conservative principles, preferring to talk around things rather than speak honestly. This eventually led to the "progressive conservative' party being basically the liberal-light bench warmers who only got to play when the Liberals had sufficiently screwed up that they simply had to be yanked from the game for a time. I like that Bernier speaks openly, and I wish more conservatives would.

I have been watching some of the backbench Tory MPs in the UK of late. There is considerably less party discipline over there and they can speak their minds on any subject, including openly criticizing their party leader in the media. I think this leads to less of a 'trained seal' population of MPs, and perhaps to people of more stature and ability being willing to run for office.

As to Multiculturalism, the leaders of France, the UK and Germany have all admitted that multiculturalism has been a failure in that it has delayed assimilation and produced large populations of foreign 'citizens' who have little attachment to their country or countrymen. Why, then, is it a crime to state that we might be ladling in too much multiculturalism into uor national policies?

[Argus]

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

Ultimately, the CPC, which favors the corporate preference for open-ended immigration, simply wouldn't break ranks with the elitist consensus even where it was clear it might have had some latitude to do so. 

The best example of this came in the leadership campaign, when Kellie Leitch proposed a 'values test' for potential immigrants, all the other candidates closed ranks against her. Yet polls showed something like 89% of party members actually liked the idea (along with majorities of liberal and ndp supporters). However, she was relentlessly pilloried in the media during the entire campaign as if she were some sort of KKK member daring to voice her avowed racism in public. This shows the vast gulf between the citizens and that small cadre of media/political/academic elites who monopolize media and politics in Canada.

[Centerpiece]

It's a shame that we can't have honest discussions about issues like this. There is no doubt that many Canadians share the same concerns that Bernier tried to express. As Europe has found out, accepting Middle East migration has different challenges than welcoming those from other parts of the world. Manchester is a great example. Coming from non-democratic religion dominated governments with  an animosity, if not hatred for the West - how can one NOT understand that we have to acknowledge those challenges - including screening to help families understand what they are getting into - and to develop long-term plans to help them integrate........not just one year of Federal money and then dump them on the provinces. Too bad we're not allowed to talk about it......because people like me are.....well....we're red-neck racists.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

1.The charge was that Canada would become less united,

2. 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'.

 

1.  "Canada less united" is not much of an issue, especially if it was predicted in the 1970s at the height of the separatist threat.  

2.  Disunity is happening everywhere, including in places where there is very little immigration.  Disunity may be a symptom or a cause but immigration angst is a symptom.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) Perhaps you don't pay attention to the formatting here? The header above your reply reads as follows: "On 8/14/2018 at 1:31 PM, turningrite said:"

2.) Governments absolutely have control over social outcomes they choose to impose. Some might well argue that the Canadian government has become a poster child for this. And perhaps you've never read Noam Chomsky's work about "manufacturing" consent?

3.) Trade deals in the globalist era contain the very seeds of de-democratization. As a student of economic history myself, I find it amusing when people think that trade deals merely involve trading goods. The NAFTA agreement's investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms are classic examples of the kind of institutionalized language employed to undermine the sovereignty of democratically elected governments. The uproar in parts of Europe over the CETA deal (which now may be blocked by a populist coalition in Italty) has in large measure focused on these kinds the anti-democratic mechanisms. And the TPP was attacked over the use of similar language and provisions. Credible analysts, including I believe the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, have pointed out that the TPP  had/has little to do with actual trade and more to do with imposing a corporate agenda. Interestingly, the vacuous Trudeau is a proponent of the language and mechanisms of de-democratization while Trump, whom I dislike because of his offensive style and autocratic tendencies, clearly appears to understand the problemic aspects of globalization, at least insofar as its negative impact on labor markets is concerned.

4.)  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/put-globalization-to-work-for-democracies.html

5.) Well, there's a singular factor you're apparently ignoring, which is that the capitalist world faced ideological competition. 

6.) PET would probably be horrified by what multiculturalism has become. 

7.) By the way, should you respond further on this, please provide references to back up your assertions. You play a game where you ask others to substantiate their positions when you don't do so yourself.

1. Well, yes, that's what happen when you quote.  Nobody is inferring that you said the thing, but you posted it.

2. If governments were able to generate consensus, then you wouldn't have the dissent you yourself are espousing.  Why didn't they just socially engineer populism away ?

3. Dispute resolution requires that each party be heard under it's own set of laws.  It's not like China would agree to our laws being used for us AND for them.  Such a long paragraph, do you have any other examples?  You really had the one example and it's kind of 1/2 an example.

4. I concur that the article (by a leftist Harvard professor) is a good example of national *sovereignty* being withered away.  However that's not the same as democracy.  There are some good concerns mentioned there, though.  I am more of the Aldous Huxley school, or Neil Postman maybe that we are "amusing ourselves to death".  A single idiotic reality TV star is doing more damage than the last ten dictators.

5. YES, 100%.

6. Also, yes.  Or maybe.

7. I hardly make assertions.  I state opinions, that are often challenged - to which I usually respond "well, ok, that's just... like.. your... opinion.... man"

 

 

 

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2.  Disunity is happening everywhere, including in places where there is very little immigration.

Examples? Around the world, where I see disunity, esp violent disunity, it comes from places where there are different types/ethnicities/religious groups of people jammed together in one state, or where different types of people are introduced to that state. That has certainly been the case in Canada and that was merely because of language.

Quote

  Disunity may be a symptom or a cause but immigration angst is a symptom.

I disagree. Disunity is a result, not a cause. Diversity is the the cause. How often do you see violent disunity in places without diversity vs those with?
Whether it's France, Britain, Spain, or elsewhere, incl Canada, the disunity comes from separate identity groups. And Canada's government is cultivating that separateness among identity groups. Largely for short-term political game.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

1. Examples? Around the world, where I see disunity, esp violent disunity, it comes from places where there are different types/ethnicities of people jammed together in one state, or where different types of people are introduced to that state. 

2. Disunity is a result, not a cause. Diversity is the the cause. How often do you see violent disunity in places without diversity vs those with? 

1. America is pretty dis-unified right now and it's happening everywhere, so blaming the Blacks, Mexicans and Alaskans doesn't cut it.

2. Where is there unity ?  I don't accept diversity as the cause of disunity and you would be hard pressed to find hard proof.

[Argus]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. America is pretty dis-unified right now and it's happening everywhere, so blaming the Blacks, Mexicans and Alaskans doesn't cut it.

And what is the heart and soul of the dis-unity? Come on, you know what it is. It's immigration. Sure, there are stupid things Trump says that outrages people, but the one thing that got him elected was "Mexicans' and "Muslims". And the biggest shit shows so far of his two year presidency, with hostile crowds screaming at each other, have revolved around identity, immigration, and race. And you can say that's all on him, but that doesn't explain why he retains huge support and approval among Republicans. Take away the immigration thing entirely, and what exactly is he left with to rally his base?

The coming election will be all about immigration. The Republicans have said as much. It will be "only Republicans can protect you from the brown hordes!" and to counter that Democrats will be saying "Let them all in! All of them!" or words to that effect.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

2. Where is there unity ?  I don't accept diversity as the cause of disunity and you would be hard pressed to find hard proof.

Seriously? How blind are you? France? Britain? Spain? Canada? All have separatist groups and all have faced or are facing the threat of separation because of that. Remember that country that used be called Czechoslovakia? It doesn't exist. Ukraine? That was all about ethnic Russians on one side. Same thing for Georgia. Sudan, with Arabs to the north and Black Africans to the south. Rwanda sound familiar?  Nigeria and Kenya? Muslims against Christians. Yemen? Shiites against Suunis. There are more examples than you can shake a stick at. But there are very, very, very few of diverse nations surviving and thriving without fighting very hard against the disunity caused by their diversity.

[marcus]

Kudos to M. Bernier for speaking from his heart about his discomfort with Canadians who are different from himself. Doing so helps voters understand the contrasting party choices available the next time they vote.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

1. And what is the heart and soul of the dis-unity? Come on, you know what it is. It's immigration.  

2. Democrats will be saying "Let them all in! All of them!" or words to that effect.

3. Seriously? How blind are you?  

1. Nope.  It is: divisive media and politicians who exploit anxiety over disappearing identity and reduced economic power.  Trump is exploiting Mexican immigration in the same way William Jennings Bryan exploited false anxiety over the gold standard.

2. They don't say that.

3.  Yes, you flew off the handle with irrationality and didn't answer my question.  Try again.

[betsy]

On 8/15/2018 at 3:24 PM, 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

 

He's vocalizing what so many Canadians are hesitant to say.

[Boges]

It's racist. Plain and simple. There shouldn't be an imperative to adopt Canadian cultural practices to be here. The only imperative is that your own cultural practices shouldn't be illegal or discriminatory. This is where Islam's treatment of women becomes a sticking point for most.