How Quebec turned into a hotbed of antisemitism Multiculturalism's failures on display (National Post)

[CdnFox]

https://archive.ph/THRgQ

Rahim Mohamed cited Montreal in these pages as “an epicentre of anti-Jewish hatred.” He’s right, for a good historical reason. A statement after the school-door shootings by Premier François Legault offers a clue to what it is. Admirably vowing that “every effort will be made to find and punish the culprits,” Legault added, “Let us not import the hatred and violence that we see elsewhere in the world.”

What he should have said was “Let us no longer import the hatred and violence…”

The question, as Europe has discovered, is whether law enforcement and political resolve will be sufficient to stuff an angry, Judeophobic genie back into a bottle most western governments blithely uncorked through their infatuation with multiculturalism, or in Quebec’s case fixation on language, both of which, alas, necessitated a self-destructive indifference to the epidemiology of terrorism.

 

Wow - no punches pulled by the Post in this article.  For the TLDR version - From 1970 - 2005 quebec which has control over it's immigration allowed a crap tonne of palestinians and lebenese into their province and a whole bunch of them (many listed) have gone on to be terrorists and major trouble makers. Now we're stuck with them. 

[Michael Hardner]

As usual, the article tells only parts of the story to serve the goal of scapegoating.

But let's just focus on the idea that Quebec is "turning" antisemitic, as though the national controversy over Mordecai Richler's accusations in the 1990s didn't happen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delisle–Richler_controversy#:~:text=The Delisle–Richler controversy is,the priest-historian Lionel Groulx.

 

I usually defend the press, even the government funded National Post, but Kay's hackish framing of this is borderline dishonest since she's 80.  She would have been well aware.

[Nationalist]

I have come to the conclusion that the Quebec political class is using the French desire for preserving their language and culture as a tool to gain power. I don't know anyone who really thinks Quebec should not maintain its language and culture. But the politicians howl about this over and over and Les Quebecois fall for it.

I've been watching Les Quebecois shoot themselves in the foot over and over for decades now. Its silly as hell. They get special dispensations for just about everything and still they fall for the old, "They want to make us English" bullshit of their own politicians.

@Les Quebecois - Folks...you been HAD! Nobody wants you to become English. We like your culture just fine. You do NOT need to express your fear of this by voting for those lyin' sacks of shit. You DO...however...need to start actually CONTRIBUTING to Canada, instead of bleeding it. Its past time y'all friggin' woke up!

Edited November 20, 2023 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I have come to the conclusion that the Quebec political class is using the French desire for preserving their language and culture as a tool to gain power. I don't know anyone who really thinks Quebec should not maintain its language and culture. But the politicians howl about this over and over and Les Quebecois fall for it.

For sure but... maybe we can learn something from this ?  It's not like they invented it.

Here's an example I'm sure you'll like 

 

 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For sure but... maybe we can learn something from this ?  It's not like they invented it.

Here's an example I'm sure you'll like 

 

 

And? I mean...what's your point? Does increased military in our cities scare you? Why would anyone be even concerned with this, if they are law abiding citizens? Hell I think our police forces are way understaffed. Our military too.

Why does this concern you?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And? I mean...what's your point? Does increased military in our cities scare you? Why would anyone be even concerned with this, if they are law abiding citizens? Hell I think our police forces are way understaffed. Our military too.

Why does this concern you?

It's a red herring dude.

The fact is  that quebec has an unusually high percentage of antisemites.  This writer presented an interesting argument as to why.  That doesn't mean they're right - but if you're going to say that there's some other reason you would have to dispute the facts of the article substantially OR present another likely cause.

Mike is struggling to do either.  So he's presenting distractions that aren't relevant.  Picking a single point in the article he can disagree with, pointing out that anti sematism and racism exists elsewhere (as if anyone suggested otherwise).

It is true that Quebec allowed a lot of immigration from high density muslim areas with a history of beef with israel. Normally id' say "so what", but we are seeing more extreme levels of anti sematism from that region. Perhaps the lesson there is 'don't import anyone who's excessively polarized to avoid importing their homeland's troubles'?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. what's your point?

2. Does increased military in our cities scare you? Why would anyone be even concerned with this, if they are law abiding citizens? Hell I think our police forces are way understaffed. Our military too.

3. Why does this concern you?

1. Parties use fear to gain power.  Always.  I'm glad you have come to the conclusion in the Quebec example but I'm helping you to realize the general case.
2. Why the hell would I post that video if I thought it was valid after I wrote "it's not like they invented it" ?
3. Because the Federal Liberals do it too.  And Conservatives.  And everybody.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1.  ... pointing out that anti sematism and racism exists elsewhere (as if anyone suggested otherwise).

1. Huh ?  Elsewhere ?  What ?  I was talking about Richler... ever heard of him ?

Politics isn't 100% real and this board is for people who can see through the manipulations of all parties including the ones they themselves vote for.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Huh ?  Elsewhere ?  What ?  I was talking about Richler... ever heard of him ?

Politics isn't 100% real and this board is for people who can see through the manipulations of all parties including the ones they themselves vote for.

1 - sure kid.  Notice you coudlnt' address the other points either.

2 - oh is THAT what this board is "For" -  i forgot you're the sole and final arbiter of what we should be discussing.  If it's any help we can see through YOUR manipulations just fine.

It would appear that Quebec's strong anti Semite sentiment is due substantially to their choice of immigrants. Seeing as you can't offer a plausible alternate explanation i suppose the take away is we should be more restrictive of our sources of immigration. 

[Michael Hardner]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1 - sure kid.  Notice you coudlnt' address the other points either.

2 - oh is THAT what this board is "For" -  i forgot you're the sole and final arbiter of what we should be discussing.  If it's any help we can see through YOUR manipulations just fine.

3. It would appear that Quebec's strong anti Semite sentiment is due substantially to their choice of immigrants.

4. Seeing as you can't offer a plausible alternate explanation i suppose the take away is we should be more restrictive of our sources of immigration. 

1. Sorry - got you and Nationalist confused: I answered it in #2 to nationalist.  Why would I post the video in SUPPORT of the point, reinforcing it, if I actually believed it ?
2. No I'm not the sole arbiter but I know better than you.
3. You're talking past me again.
4. Is that sentence supposed to be a critique of Richler's book ?

Serves me right for trying to educate you.... anyway, enjoy the slop...

Edited November 20, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sorry - got you and Nationalist confused: I answered it in #2 to nationalist.  Why would I post the video in SUPPORT of the point, reinforcing it, if I actually believed it ?
2. No I'm not the sole arbiter but I know better than you.
3. You're talking past me again.
4. Is that sentence supposed to be a critique of Richler's book ?

Serves me right for trying to educate you.... anyway, enjoy the slop...

2 -  you know nothing. You just demand the world conform the way you wish.  The members here define what the board means to them, not you. It's the hieght of arrogance that you'd even suggest that.

3 -  You're dodging simple facts again.  I know you want to change the subject but that is in fact the subject.

4 - Why couldn't you address any of the other points?

 

Serves me right for thinking you may be interested in honest debate instead of your usual efforts in obfuscation and dodging.

Quebec seems to have a very high percent of anti semites and perhaps should be viewed as a cautionary tale about choosing where immigrants come from

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1 -  you know nothing.

2. You just demand the world conform the way you wish. 

3. The members here define what the board means to them, not you. It's the hieght of arrogance that you'd even suggest that.

3 -  You're dodging simple facts again.  I know you want to change the subject but that is in fact the subject.

4 - Why couldn't you address any of the other points?

 

Serves me right for thinking you may be interested in honest debate instead of your usual efforts in obfuscation and dodging.

Quebec seems to have a very high percent of anti semites and perhaps should be viewed as a cautionary tale about choosing where immigrants come from

1. I agree, but you know negative...
2. What good would that do ?  Far be it for someone like me, who agrees with politis, to 'demand' things of people like you who want to end it.
3 (the first 3). I'm sure it makes you seethe to see me express my opinion.  It's not the "hieght" [sic, sic, sic] of arrogance for me to engage with you, acknowlege your poitsn and criticise them as though you knew what you were talking about.
3 (the second 3).  I'm not denying that's the topic, silly, I'm saying that the statement "It would appear that Quebec's strong anti Semite sentiment is due substantially to their choice of immigrants." is substantially refuted by the fact that one of their Anglophone men of letters wrote an entire HISTORY of the deep roots of Antisemitism.
4. What other points ?  If I show that this was written about in 1992 as a long historical problem, doesn't that need to be addressed in an defense of the point that says Quebec's immigration policies from 2005 are to blame ?

I apologize in advance, and sincerely so, if I missed something but really the point seems to me to be DOA.  Your persistence, though, is making me wonder if I missed something.

Cheers...

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Serves me right for thinking you may be interested in honest debate instead of your usual efforts in obfuscation and dodging.

2. Quebec seems to have a very high percent of anti semites and perhaps should be viewed as a cautionary tale about choosing where immigrants come from

1. Yeah I debated it: 1992 < 2005 is my point.
2. But also Harper was elected at that time so if we are jumping on the correlation train clearly he is the sole culprit.  ( That was sarcasm btw )

Edited November 20, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I agree, but you know negative...
2. What good would that do ?  Far be it for someone like me, who agrees with politis, to 'demand' things of people like you who want to end it.
3 (the first 3). I'm sure it makes you seethe to see me express my opinion.  It's not the "hieght" [sic, sic, sic] of arrogance for me to engage with you, acknowlege your poitsn and criticise them as though you knew what you were talking about.
3 (the second 3).  I'm not denying that's the topic, silly, I'm saying that the statement "It would appear that Quebec's strong anti Semite sentiment is due substantially to their choice of immigrants." is substantially refuted by the fact that one of their Anglophone men of letters wrote an entire HISTORY of the deep roots of Antisemitism.
4. What other points ?  If I show that this was written about in 1992 as a long historical problem, doesn't that need to be addressed in an defense of the point that says Quebec's immigration policies from 2005 are to blame ?

I apologize in advance, and sincerely so, if I missed something but really the point seems to me to be DOA.  Your persistence, though, is making me wonder if I missed something.

Cheers...

1. Yeah I debated it: 1992 < 2005 is my point.
2. But also Harper was elected at that time so if we are jumping on the correlation train clearly he is the sole culprit.  ( That was sarcasm btw )

1 - wow, you must really kick it on the elementary school grounds, which is where i assume you learned your debate skills.

2 -  you tell me, it seems to be your expectaiton

3-  The only one whos been seething recently about people expressing their opinion is you. Over a few threads now. Although in this case you seem to be seething more about the fact that I'm not buying in to your obfuscation routines.

4- ahh so now you're pretending not to be able to read.  Again, refusing to address the points. Can't discuss them honestly so just pretend they don't exist. And we both know you didn't miss anything, you're choosing to pretend you did.  And you could have gone back and read pretty easily.

1 - No, you attempt to change the channel and avoid any other point, that's the point

2 -  I don't think anyone's blaming trudeua OR harper.  The feds never came up as a cause.  Quebec has a lot of authoroity over it's own immigration, this would be on them.  The only thing we can say about the feds is maybe they should take a lesson and consider carefully where they allow immigration from to avoid this kind of thing .

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1.  Quebec has a lot of authoroity over it's own immigration, this would be on them.   

Once again: Anti-Semitism in Quebec is not a recent phenomenon and is not traceable to policy changes in 2005 as evidenced by a complete history relayed in a book by Richler in 1992.

Do you want to talk about that or pretend I didn't point it out ?  Your choice.

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Once again: Anti-Semitism in Quebec is not a recent phenomenon and is not traceable to policy changes in 2005 as evidenced by a complete history relayed in a book by Richler in 1992.

Do you want to talk about that or pretend I didn't point it out ?  Your choice.

Who said it was recent or from 2005? From the article itself:

The reality is that between 1970 and 2005, Quebec, which — unlike other provinces — controls its own immigration numbers and provenance, determined to import as many fluent French-speakers as possible. With minimal triaging, Quebec flung open its doors to former French colonies like Haiti and Vietnam, who have no axe to grind with Jews, but also to Islamically volatile North African and Middle Eastern countries, where extreme antisemitism is baked into the culture.

 

YOU were the one who brought up it being a "recent change" in your first reply. Nobody else is saying that.

Did you want to talk about that or pretend you didn't bring it up? Your choice.

The discussion which you've been so diligently avoiding is that this is a long term result of quebec's immigration policy going back as far as the 70's.   So you create a fake narrative and then try to claim it's not true - which is what the original article said.

Which yet again brings us back to the issue you seem to be avoiding like the plague - if you want to avoid anti sematism in canada it might well be wise to be more selective where we allow immigrants from.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's a red herring dude.

The fact is  that quebec has an unusually high percentage of antisemites.  This writer presented an interesting argument as to why.  That doesn't mean they're right - but if you're going to say that there's some other reason you would have to dispute the facts of the article substantially OR present another likely cause.

Mike is struggling to do either.  So he's presenting distractions that aren't relevant.  Picking a single point in the article he can disagree with, pointing out that anti sematism and racism exists elsewhere (as if anyone suggested otherwise).

It is true that Quebec allowed a lot of immigration from high density muslim areas with a history of beef with israel. Normally id' say "so what", but we are seeing more extreme levels of anti sematism from that region. Perhaps the lesson there is 'don't import anyone who's excessively polarized to avoid importing their homeland's troubles'?

Racism exists in everyone. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.

The question is not, "Are you racist?" it's more, "How do you handle your racist instincts?"

But every single human has a fear of "the other". Its an instinct.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Parties use fear to gain power.  Always.  I'm glad you have come to the conclusion in the Quebec example but I'm helping you to realize the general case.
2. Why the hell would I post that video if I thought it was valid after I wrote "it's not like they invented it" ?
3. Because the Federal Liberals do it too.  And Conservatives.  And everybody.

Mike...70% to 75% of the human population simply goes along with what they are told by those seen as "authoritative". No matter how dopey it sounds.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Once again: Anti-Semitism in Quebec is not a recent phenomenon and is not traceable to policy changes in 2005 as evidenced by a complete history relayed in a book by Richler in 1992.

Do you want to talk about that or pretend I didn't point it out ?  Your choice.

I love how everything Hardner opines becomes brilliant wisdom to him and he's baffled when others don't immediately accept it.

Of course, antisemitism in Quebec is not recent! Of course, it's been there a long time! The exact same thing can be said for Ontario. But when the author points out that everyone arrested for hate crimes against Jews is a Muslim immigrant that is something anyone interested in actual discussion would take notice of.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which yet again brings us back to the issue you seem to be avoiding like the plague - if you want to avoid anti sematism in canada it might well be wise to be more selective where we allow immigrants from.

Ok, there's something in the original article I misread, so I actually don't have a relevant argument on this. 

My understanding of policy changes in the 2009s was the basis for my point about 2005.  I researched it, and the fact is I was mistaken.

Sorry to waste your time.

[WestCanMan]

Even CBC admitted to this story about a Mtl Imam quoting verses from a Hadith about exterminating Jews: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/imam-sermon-montreal-mosque-1.4037397

https://www.timesofisrael.com/second-montreal-mosque-hosts-imam-calling-for-death-of-jews/

According to the CBC (aka 'here comes some bullshit') "the larger muslim community" was upset by it, but the video was online for 4 months before it was brought to the attention of the police...

 

There's a mosque in Mtl that made the top 9 list for producing Al Qaeda jihadis, worldwide.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-lists-montreal-mosque-as-al-qaeda-recruiting-place-1.1124571

Of the other 8, 2 are in Yemen, 2 are in Pakistan, 1 is in Pakistan, and the 3 in the western world are in the UK, Italy, and France. If they did top ten I'm pretty sure Belgium has a really bad one as well. 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

For sure but... maybe we can learn something from this ?  It's not like they invented it.

Here's an example I'm sure you'll like 

Gawd the Libs are a repugnant bunch. 

It's worth noting that only Liberal PMs - named Trudeau ? - have actually imposed martial law on Canada. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Gawd the Libs are a repugnant bunch. 

Agreed.  And I was a Martin fan.