Bernier criticizes Trudeau's "extreme multiculturalism"

eyeball · August 19, 2018

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Here is Bernier's comment. Tell me what was racist about it. Or shut up and slink away with your weaselly tail between your legs.

“Canada has always been a diverse country and this is part of who we are. I love this Canada,” read one of the tweets. “But there is a difference between recognizing diversity and pushing for ever more of it. Something infinitely diverse has no core identity and ceases to exist.”

The air of reasoned respectability he brings to racism is fucking disgusting.

No doubt Bernier touted the harmonization of the globe's economy into one homogenized mono-culture of greed - the very antithesis of diversity and reason so many humans have been dispossessed and displaced. Like most conservatives he probably laughed his silly ass off when people voiced their concerns about where that would lead. Where was respectability for concern then?

Edited August 19, 2018 by eyeball

Michael Hardner · August 19, 2018

23 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) Oh my, I've hit a nerve. If you don't believe we're being manipulated you've become desensitized and lost perspective.

2). Occasionally, glimmers of objectivity are permitted to seep through the haze of officially sanctioned messaging ...

3.) Everybody you know holds these values, including workmates? You apparently live in splendid isolation.

4). The media in this country in conjunction with the economic elites and their political servants communicate consensus or "acceptable" positions on issues like immigration and multiculturalism.

5.) What "example" are you referencing? Please be more specific.

1) Why do you think you hit a nerve ? I wasn't upset by your post.

2) Yes, I understand what you are saying but to say *I* am brainwashed is elitist and arrogant. I definitely don't assume that everyone who agrees with me is brainwashed.

3) Yes, I live in an isolated island called Toronto.

4) "Economic elites"... and yet you arrogantly say I'm delusional and brainwashed. How are we part of the elites exactly ? You are using ridiculous language to describe people with a different point of view. Would you be ok with people calling you a 'hick' or a 'racist' just because they think so ? I don't think everybody shares my point of view, just the people I know. Yes, we exist, and the rural populist elite can't make us go away although you would like to.

5) Well... if you think government can create outcomes with certainty are you a system error ? I don't see it.

Michael Hardner · August 19, 2018

21 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Did everyone you know oppose Kellie Lietch's suggestion of values testing for would-be immigrants? Did they all oppose the government wanting to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies?

2. The media was universal in their positions on these issues, but polls showed the great majority of Canadians were on the other side of the fence - but those views were never EVER represented in the national media.

1. It's a little too granular, and removed in time so I can't answer.

2. I believe you.

Centerpiece · August 20, 2018

8 hours ago, Argus said:

It's so sad you try to back up your unfounded and unsupported accusation against Bernier with a similar accusation against me. I ask you again to respond to my question. If you cannot, then have the integrity to retract it.

Here is Bernier's comment. Tell me what was racist about it. Or shut up and slink away with your weaselly tail between your legs.

“Canada has always been a diverse country and this is part of who we are. I love this Canada,” read one of the tweets. “But there is a difference between recognizing diversity and pushing for ever more of it. Something infinitely diverse has no core identity and ceases to exist.”

As I said previously- when you examine Bernier's comments in the context of Trudeau's clear, stated belief that Canada "has no core identity....no mainstream", they make perfect sense. Add to that Trudeau's Orwellian open-borders policy and what you have is a government that attaches no value to being Canadian.

marcus · August 20, 2018

11 hours ago, Argus said:

It's so sad you try to back up your unfounded and unsupported accusation against Bernier with a similar accusation against me.

On 11/28/2017 at 7:55 AM, Argus said:

Mr. Selfie at the federal level sends billions overseas to try to buy a security council seat, spends billions importing goat herders from the desert who will be on welfare most of their lives

I just did a search and saw that you have used "goat herders" quite often. Usually with the word "welfare" in the same sentence. It's one of your favourite slurs! It goes all the way back to 2006!

You're a bigot.

eyeball · August 20, 2018

2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

....when you examine Bernier's comments in the context of Trudeau's clear, stated belief...they make perfect sense.

The problem I have with this is that your examinination of Bernier's comments require that I attach some level of seriousness to Trudeau's.

In any case, it's this sort of intellectual dissection of minutia one needs to absorb to give right wing racism the respectability it desperately craves.

turningrite · August 20, 2018

On 8/19/2018 at 1:57 AM, marcus said:

1.) Brushing aside her comments because she is an academic is a bizarre way to try to win a debate. Generalizing like that does not win any points. That said, I do accept and acknowledge that there is a problem in Academia when it comes to freedom of speech, but her comments and the points she's making on Bernier's twitter comments has nothing to do with that.

2.) See my previous post where the sign at the park in Winnipeg has been vandalized after Bernier's comment. The point has been made. It's a fact. Not sure why this simple fact is scary to you. When you see someone flinch when a park is named after a non-white guy, there is an underlying reason for that. They're uncomfortable with "the others". I see that on here.

3.) Her main point is that there is no such thing as radical multiculturalism. We have a base in our laws and a robust and dynamic immigration system that contradicts what Bernier is saying. Overall, our immigration system is a huge a positive for Canada.

4.) Some say that Bernier is making these comments to increase donations from a sector of society that feeds off of bigotry. Personally, I believe Bernier's comments are based on his ignorance. Pure and simple. There is a lot of myth in Bernier's rants.

1.) Her commentary contains no substantive or objective analysis (i.e. stats, polling results). It simply reflects her ideological views and opinions, which is fine in its own right but doesn't render her comments any more relevant than those of anybody else. And the concluding tweet is undemocratic in both tone and content. In an actual democracy, citizens shouldn't simply defer to their leaders. Rather, they should be skeptical and hold them to account.

2.) What does a park in Winnipeg have to do with anything I've said here? There are hotheads on both sides of the ideological divide. You should also address the attack on the Sir John. A. statue in Montreal and the Toronto Sun photographer who was reportedly assaulted at an "anti-hate" rally in Toronto if you're trying to make an argument about intolerance. Further, I don't believe we know much if anything about those involved in the Winnipeg incident. Is there any proof at this point that it was racially motivated or amounted to anything more than teen vandalism. After the fake hijab attack incident in Toronto earlier this year, we should be skeptical about these things until details are known. You seem anxious to attribute racial discord to events on an 'a priori' rather than evidentiary basis.

3.) That's her opinion. Also, there are many problems with our immigration and refugee systems. A federal government study, which wasn't released to the public but was obtained via an access to information request (see article about the study in link below), illustrates that the rosy view of immigration generally presented by our leaders isn't particularly accurate.

4.) That's your opinion, but the broad CBC-Angus Reid poll on multiculturalism released in 2016 suggests that Bernier's views reflect the concerns of a solid majority of Canadians. You seem to take the view, then, that most Canadians are ignorant bigots. And yet, studies show that Canada is among the most tolerant countries on earth. You don't appear to comprehend that one can be critical of immigration and/or refugee policy without being a bigot, and that, in my opinion, illustrates the fatally undemocratic conceit of "progressive" thought at this point in our history.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

Edited August 20, 2018 by turningrite

turningrite · August 20, 2018

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) "Economic elites"... and yet you arrogantly say I'm delusional and brainwashed. How are we part of the elites exactly ? You are using ridiculous language to describe people with a different point of view. Would you be ok with people calling you a 'hick' or a 'racist' just because they think so ? I don't think everybody shares my point of view, just the people I know. Yes, we exist, and the rural populist elite can't make us go away although you would like to.

5) Well... if you think government can create outcomes with certainty are you a system error ? I don't see it.

4) The economic elites exert enormous control over both our politicians and our media. This is hardly a controversial or even anymore a contentious position. And what do you mean that I'm using "ridiculous" language to describe others? Please provide examples. Self-styled progressives on this forum often derogatorily refer to those who disagree with progressive views as being racists, xenophobes, bigots, and even worse. Have I done this in challenging your views? I hardly think so. As I've said elsewhere, I believe the fatal conceit of progressive thought in this country is to view all opposition to progressive thought as being in some fashion morally compromised.

5) The elites and their political servants inexorably pursue change over time based on their own interests. Complex societies can't be turned on a dime but there's little doubt that starting in the mid-to-late 1980s economic globalization and its associated policy manifestations gained a seemingly intractable foothold in Western societies. This was particularly the case in the Anglo-Western world. The result has been an increase in the influence of the corporate agenda and its priorities and a decline in democratic influence. A reaction has set in throughout much of the Western world, loosely defined as populism, although this hasn't occurred in Canada.

P.S. Over the weekend I read a review by Fareed Zakaria in the NY Times, in which he discusses a book ('How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World' by Adam Tooze) that addresses the aftershocks of the 2008/09 recession. Canada is identified as an outlier among major Western countries in avoiding a populist reaction against the major tenets of elitist corporate globalization, including large-scale immigration. But the main reason for this is not what our progressives might imagine, i.e. our open and tolerant policies. Rather, it is the fact that Canada was spared the worst of the recession's impacts, particularly due to its more stable banking sector. This suggests that political complacency was bought and maintained by relative economic stability. If this is the case, it means that our leaders are walking a tightrope where implementing disruptive globalist policies is concerned. If they fail, the consent they've manufactured for their policies (as Chomsky et al. might have it) might quickly evaporate as well. The elitist consensus that dominates among our political, economic and media elites has survived to this point, but can it do so into the future? It's a fascinating question, I think, but one our self-styled progressives seem unwilling to contemplate. So focused on false moralism, they've been co-opted into the service of the corporate agenda, and most likely have no comprehension of this.

Edited August 20, 2018 by turningrite

Argus · August 20, 2018

11 hours ago, marcus said:

I just did a search and saw that you have used "goat herders" quite often. Usually with the word "welfare" in the same sentence. It's one of your favourite slurs! It goes all the way back to 2006!

You're a bigot.

Well it's nice you found a hobby. But first, the question was that you back up your claim that what Bernier said was racist. I even provided you the quote. You have deleted both and instead undertaken a determined effort to find an excuse to support your personal insult against me. Do you imagine this impresses anyone?

Referring to uneducated, largely illiterate third world rural people as goat-herders, and pointing out their lack of applicable job skills might not be flattering, but it can hardly be called bigoted. Not by an honest person, after all. Clearly my concern is their lack of economic potential, not whatever race or creed they called their own.

But then you're not an honest person, are you? Your own posting history reeks of antisemitism and far left ideological zealotry.

dialamah · August 20, 2018

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

After the fake hijab attack incident in Toronto earlier this year, we should be skeptical about these things until details are known.

Unless of course its a Muslim guy shooting people: in that case we should make the case that its terrorism and that media and authorities are in some plot to hide this from us.

DogOnPorch · August 20, 2018

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Unless of course its a Muslim guy shooting people: in that case we should make the case that its terrorism and that media and authorities are in some plot to hide this from us.

It's not like Muslim guys are shooting-up the rest of the planet in terror attacks...

Centerpiece · August 20, 2018

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Unless of course its a Muslim guy shooting people: in that case we should make the case that its terrorism and that media and authorities are in some plot to hide this from us.

Not a plot - just frustrating bureaucracy. Here in Ontario, we have an extra level of "oversight" called the SIU. Note how the shootings in Fredericton were handled without an SIU equivalent - a lot of information in a short period of time and continued dialog between the Police/RCMP and the public. The Ontario police can't fully disclose their investigation - and in fact, they may be a bit hamstrung in doing it - until such time as the SIU completes its investigation of the police for possible charges against officers. Even that part is frustratingly puzzling. It was reported that Hussain killed himself - and nothing has been said to the contrary. That said, why is the SIU involved except in a very nominal and speedy way? Care to offer an opinion?

Quote

The SIU is an arm’s length agency that investigates reports involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must

consider whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation

depending on the evidence, lay a criminal charge against the officer if appropriate or close the file without any charges being laid

report the results of any investigations to the Attorney General.

Link to SIU News Release: https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=4092

Edited August 20, 2018 by Centerpiece

turningrite · August 20, 2018

52 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Not a plot - just frustrating bureaucracy. Here in Ontario, we have an extra level of "oversight" called the SIU. Note how the shootings in Fredericton were handled without an SIU equivalent - a lot of information in a short period of time and continued dialog between the Police/RCMP and the public. The Ontario police can't fully disclose their investigation - and in fact, they may be a bit hamstrung in doing it - until such time as the SIU completes its investigation of the police for possible charges against officers. Even that part is frustratingly puzzling. It was reported that Hussain killed himself - and nothing has been said to the contrary. That said, why is the SIU involved except in a very nominal and speedy way? Care to offer an opinion?

The role of the SIU in suppressing details of the investigation into the Danforth shooting is extremely problematic. I cannot think of another democratic jurisdiction where similar suppression would be tolerated. Reportedly, the Danforth gunman killed himself. If this is so, the matter should simply revert to the procedures that govern normal police investigations. Even if the police did kill the suspect, it's been pointed out no real controversy would likely emerge. There is nothing apparent in this case that raises concerns about the legitimacy and/or legality of police action, suggesting that the purpose of suppressing details relates to some other factor or to other factors. In my opinion, the manner in which this whole matter has been handled undermines public confidence in the objectivity of the system. Democracy is not well-served by smoke screens.

dialamah · August 20, 2018

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

The role of the SIU in suppressing details of the investigation into the Danforth shooting is extremely problematic.

This assumes they are actively suppressing confirmed details. I haven't seen any information that even suggests thats the case.

The assumption that information is being suppressed because its not confirming a preferred narrative is as logical as Bible thumpers claiming that the Bible proves God's existence.

turningrite · August 20, 2018

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

This assumes they are actively suppressing confirmed details. I haven't seen any information that even suggests thats the case.

The assumption that information is being suppressed because its not confirming a preferred narrative is as logical as Bible thumpers claiming that the Bible proves God's existence.

Obviously, you haven't read many of the mainstream media commentaries which have been critical of delays in disclosing substantive information to the public about the Danforth investigation. Christie Blatchford's National Post piece a couple weeks ago quite succinctly summarizes the problem: "And in the Hussain case, where there is much public interest and a sort of imposed chill on the police until the SIU part of the probe is complete, surely the unit could both put a rush on the job or be a little more transparent about the issues, if there are any, that are complicating its task."

It should have been a simple task to figure out whether a police bullet killed Mr. Hussain and determine whether the case even properly falls under SIU jurisdiction. The legitimacy of the justice system in any democracy is premised on public confidence in the openness and objectivity of the system. In this we are failing, and the Danforth investigation is a stark illustration of this.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-absence-of-police-answers-on-toronto-danforth-shooting-leaves-rumours-and-nonsense

Edited August 20, 2018 by turningrite

WestCanMan · August 20, 2018

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

The problem I have with this is that your examinination of Bernier's comments require that I attach some level of seriousness to Trudeau's.

In any case, it's this sort of intellectual dissection of minutia one needs to absorb to give right wing racism the respectability it desperately craves.

If you're admitting that Trudeau's comments re: Canada having no core identity etc etc went full retard then we can at least agree on one thing.

Part 2 though...wow, you must be such a great person because you call other people "racist". Just kidding, that comment you made was entirely ignorant and inflammatory. FYI racism isn't even a part of the discussion, the discussion is about cultural/religious differences. I'll just assume you meant xenophobia and massacre your idiotic argument from that perspective. More info for you - "diversity" isn't strength. Unity is strength. If people come here with the intention of being "Canadians with some ethnic flavour" or whatever you want to call it that's one thing, if people want to come here to still be __________s who just happen to live in this part of the world that's going to create the kinds of problems that Bernier was talking about.

Trudeau is appealing to the balkanization of our country by his choice of rhetoric. It's fair to say that.

GostHacked · August 20, 2018

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

It's not like Muslim guys are shooting-up the rest of the planet in terror attacks...

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, have the Saudis left yet?

Michael Hardner · August 20, 2018

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

1) The economic elites exert enormous control over both our politicians and our media. This is hardly a controversial or even anymore a contentious position.

2) And what do you mean that I'm using "ridiculous" language to describe others? Please provide examples.

3) Self-styled progressives on this forum often derogatorily refer to those who disagree with progressive views as being racists, xenophobes, bigots, and even worse.

4) ...starting in the mid-to-late 1980s economic globalization and its associated policy manifestations gained a seemingly intractable foothold in Western societies.

5) including large-scale immigration.

6) This suggests that political complacency was bought and maintained by relative economic stability.

7) If they fail, the consent they've manufactured for their policies (as Chomsky et al. might have it) might quickly evaporate as well.

8) The elitist consensus that dominates among our political, economic and media elites has survived to this point, but can it do so into the future?

9) It's a fascinating question, I think, but one our self-styled progressives seem unwilling to contemplate. So focused on false moralism, they've been co-opted into the service of the corporate agenda, and most likely have no comprehension of this.

1) Let's just say 'wealthy', why don't we. It's clearer that way.

2) I reject the term 'elites' because it's prejudicial and values-laden. It can mean anything, and often is used as an entry point to an argument that the public is being brainwashed or somesuch.

3) Yes and there is a handy report function for insults. Do you think it's ok to insult people ?

4) Did you know that we fought an election on Free Trade ? Did you know that it's actually popular with people now ? It makes sense for countries to specialize and the economic orthodoxy is pretty straightforward on this.

5) Immigration levels have been increasing, yes, but nothing in 2008 changed the curve from what I can see.

6) Wait - are you saying now that economic stability was the payoff to the people for trade deals... that were bad for people ? I am very confused.

7) Yes, well this makes sense ... economic failure has a political price.

8) Elitist consensus ? How can you have an elitist consensus when the elitist are supposedly 1% ? I don't understand the math. If growth can't continue and economic policies don't deliver, then there is a political price to play. Or maybe the whole thing collapses because it's unsustainable as the Marxists have been predicting.

9) That is why 'progressives' are called 'liberals'... they are not communists, they favour a balance. You should read 'Das Kapital'. (I haven't read it.)

Michael Hardner · August 20, 2018

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, have the Saudis left yet?

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudis-campaign-woman-risk-beheading-israa-ghomgham-426201683

My facebook feed says that Saudi Arabia has beheaded this woman activist, which is an egregious human rights violation... I can't find verification though.

scribblet · August 20, 2018

On 8/18/2018 at 9:05 PM, marcus said:

You're a bigot who denies being a bigot. Of course you will deny his comments as being bigoted.....

Just to say: why do people use that instead of who.

Edited August 20, 2018 by scribblet

h102 · August 20, 2018

On 8/17/2018 at 2:05 PM, betsy said:

That's the problem! They don't. They're not assimilating! Why???? Refer to Bernier's explanation! Grouping together has been a problem before.....even so now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501169.html

Racism. Who wants to assimilate into a society that says you are basically sub-human? Those immigrants from Europe only were able to assimilate after society reclassified them as white. Professor Noel Ignatieff from Harvard University wrote a very good book on this subject called "How the Irish Became white". Until they were classified as white, they were locked out of society, highest crime rate in recorded human history in New York's hell's kitchen, out right mass gangland violence. This is a society where proximity to whiteness determines the opportunities you get, those who are locked out of whiteness get nothing. Immigrants do not choose to assimilate it is actually white people

DogOnPorch · August 21, 2018

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudis-campaign-woman-risk-beheading-israa-ghomgham-426201683

My facebook feed says that Saudi Arabia has beheaded this woman activist, which is an egregious human rights violation... I can't find verification though.

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, have the Saudis left yet?

Disingenuous...

Just because I'm anti-deportation doesn't mean I'm pro-Saudi Arabia.

Edited August 21, 2018 by DogOnPorch

DogOnPorch · August 21, 2018

...and let's be clear...if you're a criminal...I want yer azz out of here.

GostHacked · August 21, 2018

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Disingenuous...

Just because I'm anti-deportation doesn't mean I'm pro-Saudi Arabia.

You are definitely anti-Islam. And Saudi Arabia is a radical Islamic dictatorship, something I would also think you are against. But I guess I was wrong.