Jump to content

Will Multiculturalism be Canada's Achilles Heel (Downfall)?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is a connection between the failing health care system and the ideology of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism is at the root of giving preference to third world migrants over European immigrants.  This results in millions more liberal, NDP, voters who favour Socialism and a nanny state. 

Technically our immigration system does not give preference to anyone. As I wrote earlier, we do not try to recruit people who would make the best immigrants. We simply take what walks in the door. A minority must meet set criteria but we aren't very good at validating their paperwork to ensure they do.

Quebec does work at it somewhat, which is why they get so many applicants from France. But English Canada and its literati seem infected with a kind of utopian marxist belief that all people's are equal and even trying to screen anyone for compatibility would be racist or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The Federation.

Technically speaking there is no 'federation' culture. It's a treaty organization with various member nations. We don't even know how much they yell at and insult each other in meetings or how much their various populations sneer at each other.

We only know about the people who are carefully screened and trained who get into Starfleet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Roosevelt was a war hero who led his men into battle. Trump had bone spurs.

Roosevelt wrote a number of books. Trump hasn't even read any books.

Roosevelt was a hunter and conservationist. Trump's idea of the wilds is the trees on a golf course.

Roosevelt fought against corruption. Trump was and is corrupt.

I think you're mistaken.

I didn't say he was exactly like TR, I said he was more like TR than he is like Jesus Christ

the rich guy from NYC whom the working classes rally around against the Silicon Valley Robber Barons

Bull Moose

in this day & age, information war is the deciding factor, Vietnam doesn't really apply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I tire of these silly ideas.

Do you think immigrants are coming here to develop the arctic tundra? Do you imagine they're settling down in the midst of the boreal forests with axes to build farms? They're coming to a few major cities and making them more crowded. Lose the 'undeveloped silliness'. 

Nor is there any evidence nor has the government ever bothered to present any that immigration has improved our economy. Making it bigger, note, does not suggest it is in any way better. India's economy is bigger. Is it better? Are its people living in luxury? Canada's economy is backsliding compared to all the rest of the industrialized world, in spite of (because of?) masses of immigrants. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-why-canadas-economic-growth-is-expected-to-be-dead-last-among-advanced/

Immigration makes the economy bigger on a nominal basis (total gdp).  It helps the TSX.  On a per capita basis I have no idea, I think it depends on the migrant stream, and there are always different winners and losers.

It's natural for immigrants to move to bigger cities for jobs, family, culture, and acceptance.  But it will raise housing prices end cost of living. We're seeing people from the cities now moving to the small towns which will help these towns not become ghost towns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. In other ways they are optimistic, ie. Muslims coming to the west lose fundamental beliefs at a faster rate than Christians do.

Canadian Muslims are some of the least radical/fundamentalist in the world compared to other Muslims in other countries. They are more moderate.  According to polls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Technically our immigration system does not give preference to anyone. As I wrote earlier, we do not try to recruit people who would make the best immigrants. We simply take what walks in the door. A minority must meet set criteria but we aren't very good at validating their paperwork to ensure they do.

Quebec does work at it somewhat, which is why they get so many applicants from France. But English Canada and its literati seem infected with a kind of utopian marxist belief that all people's are equal and even trying to screen anyone for compatibility would be racist or something.

Immigration policies changed in the 1960s and 1970s with the introduction of official multiculturalism and it's consequences which is the focus of this thread.

"Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for the immigration regime Canada has today, which embraces multiculturalism. In 1967, Ottawa introduced a points-based system for evaluating applicants, after which Canada saw a jump in immigration from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. A 1971 policy first articulated the government’s support for cultural diversity, and legislation in 1976 explicitly codified Canada’s commitment to refugees, mandated federal and provincial officials develop immigration targets together, and cast immigration as a tool for meeting the country’s cultural, economic, and social objectives."

What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

With this policy, in one sense, it could be validly argued that Canada is not really a sovereign nation, but it belongs to the world, particularly the third world or U.N world and now accepts the third world immigrants in large numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canadian Muslims are some of the least radical/fundamentalist in the world compared to other Muslims in other countries. They are more moderate.  According to polls.

The reason for that is because they are still in a relatively small minority.  Check out the countries which have a large percentage Muslim population and look at the history of violence.  Even in America;  recall 9-11?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canadian Muslims are some of the least radical/fundamentalist in the world compared to other Muslims in other countries. They are more moderate.  According to polls.

On this day,

Sep 25, 2014: Moore, OK, USA
A woman at an Oklahoma food plant is
beheaded by a devout co-worker: 1 Killed

 

0925.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Devout readers of The Rebel are known to kill Muslims too, and we don't deport all readers of that far right tag...

The Rebel?   Are you serious.  You love to make stuff up.

"Two attacks in one week with two killed have brought Canada to the fore as a North American breeding ground for terrorist sympathizers. The normally peaceful country has seen between 130 and 145 of its citizens leave and join extremist groups abroad in the past few years, according to Canadian intelligence services, but they may not be the biggest threat. Canada's national security could be in danger from Canadians who have never traveled to overseas jihadist training camps, but are independently committing acts of violence against other Canadians under the banner of the Islamic State group.

“Canada is not immune,” said Mubin Shaikh, a former Taliban recruiter who operated from his hometown of Toronto before changing sides to work for the government as a national security operative. “We need to get away from the idea that even though we're the nicest people you’ll ever meet, people will still attack us.”

Canadians returning from the front lines of jihad are likely to have received weapons and bomb-making training, but while fighters returning to Canada may be well-prepared, they might not be able to operate as covertly as ISIS supporters within the country, said Bob Milton, a retired commander of the London Metropolitan Police Service in the UK.

The Canadian government labeled Wednesday’s shooting at Ottawa’s parliament and a hit-and-run attack in Quebec as “terrorist attacks.” Both Ottawa shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and Quebec attacker Martin Rouleau-Couture were born in Canada, were recent converts to Islam and were reportedly being monitored by law enforcement after attempting to travel to Syria. Although they never left Canada to fight with terrorist groups, their social media profiles were filled with ISIS propaganda. It’s still unknown if a member of ISIS instructed them to carry out their attacks or if the terrorist group simply served as inspiration for "lone wolf" actions.

“It’s linked to ISIS. It follows a direction that was given,” said Shaikh. “It fits the pattern of other countries involved in anti-ISIS operations.”

ISIS In Canada: The Biggest Terror Threat To Canada Could Come From Within Its Borders (ibtimes.com)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Devout readers of The Rebel are known to kill Muslims too, and we don't deport all readers of that far right tag...

That sounds quite wacked out.

quote

List of Killings in
the Name of Islam:
Last 30 Days


This is part of the list of killings in the name of Islam maintained by TheReligionofPeace.com.  Most of these incidents are terror attacks.  A handful are honor killings or Sharia executions.  During this time period, there were 27 Islamic attacks in 15 countries, in which 187 people were killed and 144 injured.   unquote

List of Islamic Terror Attacks (thereligionofpeace.com)

While there have been attacks against Muslims in Canada periodically and must be condemned, they are overall rare compared with the number of terrorist attacks around the world in the name of Islam.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RedDog said:

I’m waiting on health care. I have no doubt I’ll die before I get it. (Sleep apnea and strokes).

Canada is a lie I paid into faithfully.

Government-funded healthcare insurance sucks if the government doesn't fund it enough.  I think its a human rights travesty.

Fund it or privatize it (with a ton of regulation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canadian Muslims are some of the least radical/fundamentalist in the world compared to other Muslims in other countries. They are more moderate.  According to polls.

Radical/fundamentalists exist all over the world.  Canada has been a supplier of extremists who have travelled overseas for al Qaeda and ISIS as have other countries. The evidence is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 10:05 AM, I am Groot said:

All of Islam does.  You will not find any major Islamic scholars or clerics who have different interpretations. This is mainstream stuff.  

No it doesn't.  The idea that 2 billion Muslims around the world agree on everything, and that there are not prominent reformers among them is moronic from the start.  The fact that you can do about 30 seconds of Google research to prove that wrong just makes the statement absurd.  Everything else you've written here is therefore a waste of everyone's time reading.  You're not speaking from knowledge or reason, but absolute, demonstrable ignorance and foolish prejudice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 10:05 AM, I am Groot said:

That's an interesting response. Rather than answering the question you insult me for asking it. Am I not permitted to question your statements? Do you believe everything you write is so far beyond what mere mortals espouse that it is impertinence to doubt it? 

Your hostility towards the questioning of your views is an interesting parallel with a discussion of religious fanaticism.

Thought I'd also swing back to this little gem too.  You're asking a dumb question that doesn't have a fair or reasonable answer, with entirely subjective but also extremely vague criteria on what makes a "culture" better, and equally nebulous qualifications on what defines a specific culture in the first place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Government-funded healthcare insurance sucks if the government doesn't fund it enough.  I think its a human rights travesty.

Fund it or privatize it (with a ton of regulation).

There is a third way, which is how everyone else in the world does it. A public system supplemented by a heavily regulated private system. For example, Germany (maybe it was Austria, no matter) has everyone get private insurance. But the insurance has to be offered at cost by the companies. They can only make a profit by offering extras the basics don't cover. And those who can't afford it get funding from the government. Maybe that'll work. I don't know enough. All I know is ours is not working as well as many others in the world that pay comparable amounts into their healthcare systems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Thought I'd also swing back to this little gem too.  You're asking a dumb question that doesn't have a fair or reasonable answer, with entirely subjective but also extremely vague criteria on what makes a "culture" better, and equally nebulous qualifications on what defines a specific culture in the first place.  

But you're the one who dismissed the idea our culture was better. Did you do that without having any idea or criteria as to what facets of a culture are good or bad? You can say things are subjective only if you discard the ideas passed down to us by the age of enlightenment, including natural law. And I concede people who didn't grow up in the tradition of Western European culture might be inclined to do so. But I think it serves us well and most everyone who lives in the West would agree. Along with most of those who live elsewhere other than religious fanatics.

How about this. A culture where people can speak their minds and give their views without the danger their fellow citizens will kill them is better than a culture where giving your opinion could lead to mobs of people beating you to death.

A culture which has the idea of compromise built into it is better than a culture which has a winner-take-all view. A culture which values tolerance is better than one that does not. A culture which is demonstrably racist is worse than a culture which is not. How about that one? A culture which respects women as equals to men (save for the obvious physical advantages one has over the other) is better than a culture which is built on the belief women are inferior and must always obey men.  Is that one good? I have a whole lot of these which I suspect you would agree with.

So no, it is not impossible to determine which cultures are better than others,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No it doesn't.  The idea that 2 billion Muslims around the world agree on everything, and that there are not prominent reformers among them is moronic from the start.  The fact that you can do about 30 seconds of Google research to prove that wrong just makes the statement absurd.  Everything else you've written here is therefore a waste of everyone's time reading.  You're not speaking from knowledge or reason, but absolute, demonstrable ignorance and foolish prejudice.  

You'll pardon me if I say this reads like a disheveled man screaming into the night as he throws himself this way and that.  It's built on a strawman and then goes on to burn it down while screaming angrily at the sky.

Let's first discount that all 2 billion Muslims around the world agree on everything, for that's an obviously dishonest restatement of what I wrote.

My statement was that "Islam still espouses medieval social beliefs on women, gays, Jews, etc."

You then said it was only 'hardline fundamentalist islam' which did that, to which I replied. All of Islam does. You will not find any major Islamic scholars or clerics who have different interpretations. This is mainstream stuff.  

Now clearly I was speaking about Islam, the religion, not the body of people who make up the congregation, so to speak. I'm sure you'll find individual Muslims who believe that the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and Jews bombed the world trade centre, among other silliness. But Islam, the religion as interpreted by religious scholars and clerics believes and advocates for a clear set of social behaviours as enunciated in its various religious books like the Hadiths and Quoran.

Finally, I'd like to note the irony of someone who castigates me for not speaking from logic and reason yet produces dishonest emotional twaddle such as you wrote above.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You'll pardon me if I say this reads like a disheveled man screaming into the night as he throws himself this way and that.  It's built on a strawman and then goes on to burn it down while screaming angrily at the sky.

Let's first discount that all 2 billion Muslims around the world agree on everything, for that's an obviously dishonest restatement of what I wrote.

My statement was that "Islam still espouses medieval social beliefs on women, gays, Jews, etc."

You then said it was only 'hardline fundamentalist islam' which did that, to which I replied. All of Islam does. You will not find any major Islamic scholars or clerics who have different interpretations. This is mainstream stuff.  

Now clearly I was speaking about Islam, the religion, not the body of people who make up the congregation, so to speak. I'm sure you'll find individual Muslims who believe that the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and Jews bombed the world trade centre, among other silliness. But Islam, the religion as interpreted by religious scholars and clerics believes and advocates for a clear set of social behaviours as enunciated in its various religious books like the Hadiths and Quoran.

Finally, I'd like to note the irony of someone who castigates me for not speaking from logic and reason yet produces dishonest emotional twaddle such as you wrote above.

not that I would declaim you

I certainly see your point of view

the problem is that the Canadian Nationalism you seek to invoke

simply doesn't exist

Canada is a product of the British Empire, the Canada Act 1982 merely an extension of that

and the British Empire was Multicultural by design

the bulk of the British population was actually Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, African & Arab

Roman Germanic Norse Britons were only a small fraction of the population of Britain

we British went out to conquer the world, and we succeeded

not by nationalism tho

by empire, which is the antithesis of nationalism

an empire erases nationalism and replaces it with franchise

the Indians from South Asia are just as British as Canadians are,

joining the Empire together in the Treaty of Paris 1763

frankly,  Hindu's, Muslims, Sikhs & Chinese are even more British than quasi-French Canadian Confederation

realpolitik, we conquered these peoples, then imposed our culture upon them

Glorious Revolution of 1688, Lowland Scots Protestant Enlightenment, Hanoverian German Crown

these people are not foreigners

these are our people, as we are the ones who made them British

thus, people from India & China want to go to America, Britain, Canada, Australia & New Zealand

that's the culture they fit into, they can never be Norwegian, they can only be British

British is not a race, British is not a place,

it was 25% of the world's population, the sun never setting upon it

India was the Jewel in the Crown, Hong Kong was the most British place on earth

the British Empire was an Asian empire, through Suez to the Fat East

the previous English empire was actually overthrown

by a foreigner

a Ductchman

William III, Prince of Orange,

founder of the modern British liberal state & associated Empire

Anglo-Saxon-Norse-French, captured by the Dutch, ruled by the Germans

imposing their couture & political system upon millions of Asians, South Asians & Africans

India was not even a country until we made it

India is our invention, we imposed that on the people there

conversely, Canada is not actually our invention

Canada is French, we simply took it from them as a war prize

so In fact, India is more British than Canada

if you want to separate yourself from this history

if you want to declare independence from this empire

there is only one practical way to do that

which is to join the American republic to the south, the only viable alternative

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not that I would declaim you

I certainly see your point of view

the problem is that the Canadian Nationalism you seek to invoke

simply doesn't exist

Canada is a product of the British Empire, the Canada Act 1982 merely an extension of that

and the British Empire was Multicultural by design

the bulk of the British population was actually Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, African & Arab

Roman Germanic Norse Britons were only a small fraction of the population of Britain

we British went out to conquer the world, and we succeeded  not by nationalism tho

 

I don't believe anything I've written in this thread/topic seeks to invoke nationalism. I simply point out inaccuracies in what others have written. I'm not a religious person but like Sam Harris I can easily see where some religions are worse than others. I am not really a nationalist, but I can certainly see where some cultures are worse than others. Insofar as that goes Canada is the beneficiary of the  Enlightenment and the European Reformation and its culture and values derive from that.

I won't argue about what the British Empire was or was not as I regard that to not be particularly profitable. I would point out that regardless of what you might say about its 'multiculturalism' the leadership of the empire was centred in Britain and its people were absolutely not believers in anything but the racial, ethic, cultural, religious, military, and every other kind of superiority of the people of their island over anyone else in the world, most especially 'wogs', which was the generic name given anyone with black, brown or swarthy skin. The Empire and its various peoples, existed to serve the economic and military needs of the British Isles, and for no other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...