Assimilating to Immigrants

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has anybody heard about this Charles Roach fellow who refuses to take the oath of citizenship because he and his fellow blacks were "colonized as a people by the British throne, enslaved as a people by the British throne..."?

This article by Mark Steyn discussed it in more detail. You have to register before you can read it. Use your "junk only" email address (don't we all have those?) to register if you don't want their spam.

It's worth the 45 seconds to read it. The oddest thing is that Mr. Roach is from Trinidad which makes him already a British subject.

The gist of what Steyn argues (and I am inclined to agree) is that

1. Roach doesn't HAVE to become a citizen of Canada

2. Aren't imigrants suppose to come here and assimilate to Canada - not Canada assimilate to immigrants?

3. What is Canada? Just a hotel where people can just show up and start demanding we change our values to suit them?

This to me is a bizarre case.

To quote Steyn:

"Canada is nothing other than whoever happens to be standing around in it at any particular time. M. Chrétien used to dignify this as "da Canadian values," but in practice "da Canadian values" boils down to forswearing the very notion of Canadian values. As Hedy Fry was wont to say from time to time, what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here? In seeking a constitutional right to reject Canadian sovereignty, Mr. Roach is in an oddly profound way the apotheosis of a Canadian value system that values the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority.

I think the judge should have told Mr. Roach to take a hike. Immigration is discretionary. That's to say, no state is obliged to take in this or that alien and then confer citizenship upon him. And for an immigrant to say he's prepared to accept citizenship only if in doing so he can reject the constitutional order is, even by the standards of our postmodern multiculti identity, almost too exquisite a parody.

Which is probably why Mr. Roach is a shoo-in. "

Thoughts?

[downtoit]

Agreed. I've heard of him before he was involved with Dudley Laws.

[g_bambino]

Has anybody heard about this Charles Roach fellow who refuses to take the oath of citizenship because he and his fellow blacks were "colonized as a people by the British throne, enslaved as a people by the British throne..."?

The gist of what Steyn argues (and I am inclined to agree) is that

1. Roach doesn't HAVE to become a citizen of Canada

2. Aren't imigrants suppose to come here and assimilate to Canada - not Canada assimilate to immigrants?

3. What is Canada? Just a hotel where people can just show up and start demanding we change our values to suit them?

This to me is a bizarre case.

Yes, he's a "civil rights" lawyer who was indeed involved with Dudley Laws. He also forced the Toronto Police and the TTC to hire a quota of minorities, and founded the Black Action Defence Committee. On a positive note, he was a founder of Caribana (now the Toronto Caribbean Carnival). He was born a British Subject in Trinidad, but came to Canada after our citizenship laws were enacted, thereby meaning he'd have to go through the immigration process - including giving allegiance to the Monarch - before becoming a Canadian. He's refused to do so for something like fifty years.

As for his class action suit - this is really no more than a publicity stunt for both Roach (who runs his own law firm), and the miniscule republican group (who are really just anti-anything-remotely-associated-with-Britain) Citizens for a Canadian Republic (CCR), of which Roach is an active member, if not a leader.

The story starts back in 2005 when CCR essentially hijacked an International Human Rights Day event at Metro Hall to push their cause; a large banner reading "We're not bees, why do we need a Queen?" was draped behind the podium while the United Nations flag was shoved off to the side. For about two hours, Tom Freda (head of CCR), Ashok Charles (CCR executive member who "recants" his citizenship oath every Victoria Day) and Roach spoke to the crowd. Roach made lengthy references to the subjugation of blacks under the British Crown, and argued that nobody should be required to pledge their allegiance to anyone; it was a matter of human rights to free prospective Canadian immigrants from the requirement to give allegiance to the Queen of Canada before attaining citizenship. I can't remember if it was there, or later in the press, that I heard/read Roach say that asking people of central-African descent to swear allegiance to the Queen was like asking a Jewish person to give allegiance to a descendant of Hitler. Really, no joke.

Of course Roach can choose not to be a citizen. Of course we should expect that he would accept the history and constitutional structures of the country he wants to become a citizen of. But, of course, Roach, for all his fighting for "civil rights," cares not about others but only about himself. He's a proponent of the belief that the Charter gives everyone the right to have everything without challenge, cost or hindrance. He's also one of those people who have a knack at playing the victim. Certainly, yes, slavery was conducted under the powers of the British Crown, which is an affront to our modern sensibilities. But Roach conveniently ignores that it was King George III who gave Royal Assent to the Slave Trade Act in 1807 - making Britain - and by extension the entire Empire - the first to abolish slavery, after which they pushed others like France and Portugal to stop. Ditto for the British Parliament, though Roach also forgets it was under that form of government the society grew that he has been living in since he came to Canada.

He and his CCR compatriots - somewhat like Quebec separatists - are masters at this game; revising history to make themselves seem the victims of oppression and intolerance, then trying to convince us that we're all just as maligned as they are, and finally showing us the solution they have to all our new-found ills. This past Victoria Day they actually marched through downtown Toronto in what they hailed as a "Pro-Democracy March." One wonders what people living under the oppression of Robert Mugabe or those seeing democracy slip away in Pakistan and Venezuela think of some twenty five Canadians whining about what an undemocratic state they live in.

Ah, perhaps too many in Canada engage in this sport.

Pictures of Roach and the "Pro-Democracy March" can be seen here: Photos

[BC_chick]

Let me get this straight. He's an immigrant to the country as of many years, he refuses to take the oath to become a citizen, so as it stands he is NOT a citizen?

If my understanding here is correct, this bothers Mr. Steyn et al because..... ?

[g_bambino]

Let me get this straight. He's an immigrant to the country as of many years, he refuses to take the oath to become a citizen, so as it stands he is NOT a citizen?

If my understanding here is correct, this bothers Mr. Steyn et al because..... ?

This non-citizen wants to have the Citizenship Act requirement of swearing allegiance to our Queen struck down as unconstitutional before he will become a citizen... and the court may be - based on past situations where our constitutional reality has been overridden by the quirky political dogmas of a minority of people - accomodating to his demands. I believe that is what bothers Steyn.

[BC_chick]

This non-citizen wants to have the Citizenship Act requirement of swearing allegiance to our Queen struck down as unconstitutional before he will become a citizen... and the court may be - based on past situations where our constitutional reality has been overridden by the quirky political dogmas of a minority of people - accomodating to his demands. I believe that is what bothers Steyn.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

[rogue state]

I'm curious, what Canada expects from immigrants? to obey laws, to follow the Queen, protect environment, and to vote.

About integrating, how can be "Integration" defined ?

Not receiving welfare or how ?Liking hockey? Beer ?

[geoffrey]

I'm glad I never had to swear my allegiance to the Queen. What a stupid thing to do. I wouldn't even swear to Canada.

Should we bow over to immigrants, no. But we hardly need to be willing to give our lives for the royal throne. This is something that should be changed anyways.

[scribblet]

We are not 'giving our lives to the throne'. The throne is part of our culture and heritage, is only a symbol but a powerful one, it helps sustain our democracy. As Churchill once remarked - the 20th century dictators crawled up from the gutter onto the empty thrones of Europe .

If this guy doesn't want to do this then he can leave, people know, or should know what the requirements are to becoming a Canadian citizen.

[g_bambino]

I'm glad I never had to swear my allegiance to the Queen. What a stupid thing to do. I wouldn't even swear to Canada.

Should we bow over to immigrants, no. But we hardly need to be willing to give our lives for the royal throne. This is something that should be changed anyways.

Despite your selfish bombast, if you're a Canadian citizen you implicitly owe allegiance to the Queen - as Steyn says, not to her as an 81 year old German-Scots woman, but as the human embodiment of the authority and unity of the state. If you say you won't give your life for the Throne/Crown/Queen, then you're saying you won't give your life for Canada.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This non-citizen wants to have the Citizenship Act requirement of swearing allegiance to our Queen struck down as unconstitutional before he will become a citizen... and the court may be - based on past situations where our constitutional reality has been overridden by the quirky political dogmas of a minority of people - accomodating to his demands. I believe that is what bothers Steyn.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

That is part of it and the gist of this case. But what I think Steyn is saying is that this case is a microcosm of Canada's larger problem: that we're so obsessed with "tolerance" or "accomodation" that the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. And we're even proud of it.

I also think he's suggesting that Canada does have a history and values and an identity, and that we too easily give it up for people who come over here and demand that we change that identity or values to accomodate them, when in reality THEY are the ones who are the immigrants, perhaps it is they who should be looking at integrating if they wish to be here.

When you join an organization, be it a church, a political group, a charity cause, a service club...presumably it is because there are some things attractive and common values of which you intend to be a part. It wouldn't make much sense for somebody to join the local Rotary club or elk's club then refuse to take the oath and demnd that it be changed. The same should go for a country, even moreso!

Steyn questions whether we as Canadians actually stand for anything. He also questions whether countries should be assimilating to immigrants or viseversa.

It's a valid debate. There is no right or wrong, but think about it. This is just one micocosm. Think of the muslim UK police officer who said he would not protect jews. Should we accomodate this? Is this type of "tolerance" tolerable in the name of the almighty "diversity"?

Is natinoalism only OK if it's not western?

[scribblet]

It's a valid debate. There is no right or wrong, but think about it. This is just one micocosm. Think of the muslim UK police officer who said he would not protect jews. Should we accomodate this? Is this type of "tolerance" tolerable in the name of the almighty "diversity"?

It's a valid debate, one which we should be able to have without accusations of racism etc. being brought in.

With political correctness being so pervasive, politicians et al are scared to suggest meaningful reform or even debate immigration policies because the immigration and refugee industry consisting mainly of lawyers and ethnic leaders paid by government grants, label all critics and criticism as racist.

Multicult and diversity is really nothing but social engineering. 'Diversity' is a malignant policy that actually harms more than helps as it is is really the essence of racism.

[jbg]

Let me get this straight. He's an immigrant to the country as of many years, he refuses to take the oath to become a citizen, so as it stands he is NOT a citizen?

If my understanding here is correct, this bothers Mr. Steyn et al because..... ?

This non-citizen wants to have the Citizenship Act requirement of swearing allegiance to our Queen struck down as unconstitutional before he will become a citizen... and the court may be - based on past situations where our constitutional reality has been overridden by the quirky political dogmas of a minority of people - accomodating to his demands. I believe that is what bothers Steyn.

If he doesn't want your system or Queen why is he there?

[gc1765]

If he doesn't want your system or Queen why is he there?

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

[g_bambino]

If he doesn't want your system or Queen why is he there?

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

Not sure about right here (besides me), but seems that there's hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year who want to swear allegiance to the Queen - promising to respect her authoritah and follow her rules gets them citizenship. Sure beats allegiance to some politician, or to some vagary like "Canada."

[g_bambino]

This non-citizen wants to have the Citizenship Act requirement of swearing allegiance to our Queen struck down as unconstitutional before he will become a citizen... and the court may be - based on past situations where our constitutional reality has been overridden by the quirky political dogmas of a minority of people - accomodating to his demands. I believe that is what bothers Steyn.

If he doesn't want your system or Queen why is he there?

Simple: he wants all the benefits of Canadian citizenship, and he wants to make a political point. He's a selfish grandstander.

[g_bambino]

That is part of it and the gist of this case. But what I think Steyn is saying is that this case is a microcosm of Canada's larger problem: that we're so obsessed with "tolerance" or "accomodation" that the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. And we're even proud of it.

I also think he's suggesting that Canada does have a history and values and an identity, and that we too easily give it up for people who come over here and demand that we change that identity or values to accomodate them, when in reality THEY are the ones who are the immigrants, perhaps it is they who should be looking at integrating if they wish to be here.

It's a valid debate. There is no right or wrong, but think about it. This is just one micocosm. Think of the muslim UK police officer who said he would not protect jews. Should we accomodate this? Is this type of "tolerance" tolerable in the name of the almighty "diversity"?

Is natinoalism only OK if it's not western?

I agree that this is the underlying theme of Steyn's piece, and Roach's lawsuit is a prime illustration for it.

I would say that Anglophone, Brit-descent Canadians have been suffering from a severe case of cultural cringe since the mid 1960s, when we started to buy the revisionist history and propaganda of the Quebec separatists, and felt a collective guilt over what evil things we were all supposedly responsible for. But, this actually seems to be a more far-reaching phenomenon that's also taking place in the UK, Australia, to an extent the US, and elsewhere; so, it can't just be about Anglo and Franco Canadians. WASPS everywhere, and men in particular - who have, admittedly, pretty much been running the show for the last couple of centuries - have been made to feel blameworthy over the actions of their ancestors, by any group that's learned to take advantage of this by playing up the victim card. Everywhere the values and traditions of old - i.e. prior to 1970 - are equated with the values and traditions of senior, white, English speaking men, who are, in turn, equated with colonialism, oppression, and imperialism.

There's a certain validity to the equation - there's no doubt that the west is built on the actions of senior, white, English speaking men, and there's no doubt that some of their actions would be considered an affront to equality and human dignity by today's standards. But, the ironic thing is that in our rush to sprawl ourselves in repentance at the feet of those who were once our "victims," we ignore the broader scope of the world, including the injustices, prejudices, and all-round reprehensible behavior of some of these minority groups, both in the past and still in the present. So guilty do we feel about having bossed them around in the past that we'll now accommodate their discrimination against women, preaching of hatred against other groups, and practice of racism and sexism, even when it's directed right at us.

It's as though Canadian identity and values from before 1982 - when the magical Charter came into effect (of course nobody has a clue what the Bill of Rights was) - are now viewed as the identity and values of racist, old, English men. The thinking then says that now we must move away from that past and establish a new epoch of tolerance and accommodation - the supposed exact opposite of what came before - which began with the establishment of official multiculturalism. Well, sure, multiculturalism is great - who wants to live in a banal society of automatons? And sure, we shouldn't necessarily hold on to every belief and every value of our predecessors. But, this sterilization of history in the name of remorse has left us as a lobotomized country - as Steyn says: now we're nothing more than who stands here at any given moment; a transient, rootless society. Everything from the past is sacrificed in the name of political correctness and reconciliation, and so the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. Because this makes us the most tolerant, we take a macabre pride in this gutless attitude.

Following quickly in our footsteps, of course, is Britain, where guilt over their imperial past has given fuel to the destruction of British traditions, devolution, and a closer integration with the socialist EU; Australia, where guilt over terra-nullis and the White Australia Policy has had similar effects.

Canada can be a tolerant nation. In comparison to many others throughout history, it always really has been; an end-product of the British Empire, which, despite our modern view of it, did actually accommodate local customs, cultures and languages much more than the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, Japanese and others empires did. As well, Canada's always being a nation of immigrants has had an effect. But a country that willingly lets its foundations in history blow away in the winds that bring in a multitude of newly imported cultures, many of which themselves continue to practice what the WASP Canadian majority has been making every effort to stop themselves, is a dangerous experiment in social engineering. Our history is our history, for good or bad. We should absolutely acknowledge the bad, but should not lump the entirety of the past into a negative category. Our proud traditions should remain, our functioning constitutional system should be protected, and we should indeed, in no uncertain terms, expect immigrants to this land to accept this country's past, accept this country's proud traditions, accept the values of our society, and live by the rules. They can add their flavour to the societal make up, add their bit to the national debate, but this sick cultural suicide on the part of Canada has to stop.

[Rue]

I'm glad I never had to swear my allegiance to the Queen. What a stupid thing to do. I wouldn't even swear to Canada.

Should we bow over to immigrants, no. But we hardly need to be willing to give our lives for the royal throne. This is something that should be changed anyways.

This coming from a man who makes it a point whenever possible to suggest aboriginal peoples are unjustified in seeking redress under Canadian law.

I guess your being Canadian and your concept of Canadian citizenship is nothing more then a crass opportunity for you to manipulate for what ever suits you at any given moment.

Listen up. If you feel no loyalty to Canada, you have zero business lecturing aboriginal peoples or any Canadian on anything because you admit you feel no responsibility to your fellow Canadians so you have no right to expect any of the benefits that come from Canadian citizenship. No Canadian citizenship is not something that ony works if it is to suit you. How you twist swearing allegiance to 'bowing to immigrants" is of course anyone's guess.

No it is not stupid to swear an allegiance to the country you expect citizenship from. Citizenship is not a right, it is a privilege. It means if we want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship there is a two way contract-it is n't just given to you and you have no obligation to giving anything back and these imigrants you lump in one category and dismiss are more than willing to do this precisely because unlike you they do not take their citizenship for granted. Its easy to be smug about rights you take for granted and conside your God given rights.

Charles Roach's arguement is a legal one as to the choice of which symbol to use as head of state-it is not about him saying he does not believe in swearing an allegiance, he is simply arguing who Canadians should swear to. As much as I disagree with him, I respect his sticking to a principle all these years and unlike you he respects Canadian citizenship and its laws and that is precisely why he engages in this debate.

You think it stuipid to show respect to fellow Canadians and the vision of Canada? Then you expect people to take you seriously?

Man and to think you think you are in the position to lecture aboriginal people on how good they have it after such a comment.

What a joke.

[g_bambino]

I'm glad I never had to swear my allegiance to the Queen. What a stupid thing to do. I wouldn't even swear to Canada.

Should we bow over to immigrants, no. But we hardly need to be willing to give our lives for the royal throne. This is something that should be changed anyways.

I guess your being Canadian and your concept of Canadian citizenship is nothing more then a crass opportunity for you to manipulate for what ever suits you at any given moment.

No it is not stupid to swear an allegiance to the country you expect citizenship from. Citizenship is not a right, it is a privilege. It means if we want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship there is a two way contract-it is n't just given to you and you have no obligation to giving anything back and these imigrants you lump in one category and dismiss are more than willing to do this precisely because unlike you they do not take their citizenship for granted. Its easy to be smug about rights you take for granted and conside your God given rights.

Charles Roach's arguement is a legal one as to the choice of which symbol to use as head of state-it is not about him saying he does not believe in swearing an allegiance, he is simply arguing who Canadians should swear to. As much as I disagree with him, I respect his sticking to a principle all these years and unlike you he respects Canadian citizenship and its laws and that is precisely why he engages in this debate.

You've actually touched on the crux of my argument against Roach. Not even yet a citizen, he feels he should be granted his demands without recourse or sacrifice on his part - ie. he refuses to enter into the two-way contract you correctly speak of, between he and the Queen, before being granted the citizenship he so desires. That this is his only motive is demonstrated in the fact his case has never been about the choice of which symbol to use as head of state; he's never offered up an alternative. He simply believes it is his god given right to get what ever he demands in the way he wants it.

Sure, he has the stubbornness to stick to his "principal," but I hardly see that as respectable. And his refusal to take the citizenship he's eligible for simply because he can't get it in the way he wants it given to him reminds me of nothing but the petulant child who screeches when he isn't indulged by everyone around him. That doesn't speak of respect for citizenship at all, only his own egotism and selfish rights.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That is part of it and the gist of this case. But what I think Steyn is saying is that this case is a microcosm of Canada's larger problem: that we're so obsessed with "tolerance" or "accomodation" that the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. And we're even proud of it.

I also think he's suggesting that Canada does have a history and values and an identity, and that we too easily give it up for people who come over here and demand that we change that identity or values to accomodate them, when in reality THEY are the ones who are the immigrants, perhaps it is they who should be looking at integrating if they wish to be here.

It's a valid debate. There is no right or wrong, but think about it. This is just one micocosm. Think of the muslim UK police officer who said he would not protect jews. Should we accomodate this? Is this type of "tolerance" tolerable in the name of the almighty "diversity"?

Is natinoalism only OK if it's not western?

I agree that this is the underlying theme of Steyn's piece, and Roach's lawsuit is a prime illustration for it.

I would say that Anglophone, Brit-descent Canadians have been suffering from a severe case of cultural cringe since the mid 1960s, when we started to buy the revisionist history and propaganda of the Quebec separatists, and felt a collective guilt over what evil things we were all supposedly responsible for. But, this actually seems to be a more far-reaching phenomenon that's also taking place in the UK, Australia, to an extent the US, and elsewhere; so, it can't just be about Anglo and Franco Canadians. WASPS everywhere, and men in particular - who have, admittedly, pretty much been running the show for the last couple of centuries - have been made to feel blameworthy over the actions of their ancestors, by any group that's learned to take advantage of this by playing up the victim card. Everywhere the values and traditions of old - i.e. prior to 1970 - are equated with the values and traditions of senior, white, English speaking men, who are, in turn, equated with colonialism, oppression, and imperialism.

There's a certain validity to the equation - there's no doubt that the west is built on the actions of senior, white, English speaking men, and there's no doubt that some of their actions would be considered an affront to equality and human dignity by today's standards. But, the ironic thing is that in our rush to sprawl ourselves in repentance at the feet of those who were once our "victims," we ignore the broader scope of the world, including the injustices, prejudices, and all-round reprehensible behavior of some of these minority groups, both in the past and still in the present. So guilty do we feel about having bossed them around in the past that we'll now accommodate their discrimination against women, preaching of hatred against other groups, and practice of racism and sexism, even when it's directed right at us.

It's as though Canadian identity and values from before 1982 - when the magical Charter came into effect (of course nobody has a clue what the Bill of Rights was) - are now viewed as the identity and values of racist, old, English men. The thinking then says that now we must move away from that past and establish a new epoch of tolerance and accommodation - the supposed exact opposite of what came before - which began with the establishment of official multiculturalism. Well, sure, multiculturalism is great - who wants to live in a banal society of automatons? And sure, we shouldn't necessarily hold on to every belief and every value of our predecessors. But, this sterilization of history in the name of remorse has left us as a lobotomized country - as Steyn says: now we're nothing more than who stands here at any given moment; a transient, rootless society. Everything from the past is sacrificed in the name of political correctness and reconciliation, and so the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. Because this makes us the most tolerant, we take a macabre pride in this gutless attitude.

Following quickly in our footsteps, of course, is Britain, where guilt over their imperial past has given fuel to the destruction of British traditions, devolution, and a closer integration with the socialist EU; Australia, where guilt over terra-nullis and the White Australia Policy has had similar effects.

Canada can be a tolerant nation. In comparison to many others throughout history, it always really has been; an end-product of the British Empire, which, despite our modern view of it, did actually accommodate local customs, cultures and languages much more than the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, Japanese and others empires did. As well, Canada's always being a nation of immigrants has had an effect. But a country that willingly lets its foundations in history blow away in the winds that bring in a multitude of newly imported cultures, many of which themselves continue to practice what the WASP Canadian majority has been making every effort to stop themselves, is a dangerous experiment in social engineering. Our history is our history, for good or bad. We should absolutely acknowledge the bad, but should not lump the entirety of the past into a negative category. Our proud traditions should remain, our functioning constitutional system should be protected, and we should indeed, in no uncertain terms, expect immigrants to this land to accept this country's past, accept this country's proud traditions, accept the values of our society, and live by the rules. They can add their flavour to the societal make up, add their bit to the national debate, but this sick cultural suicide on the part of Canada has to stop.

What an EXCELLENT post. Thank you for articulating this so well.

My view? We could learn a thing or two from the USA on this subject.

[Black Dog]

Why is it that everytime I look at one of these threads I hear the voice of Moe the Bartender from The Simpsons?

"Immigrants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!"

[g_bambino]

Why is it that everytime I look at one of these threads I hear the voice of Moe the Bartender from The Simpsons?

"Immigrants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!"

Maybe because you don't actually read the thread? Dunno... just a suggestion.

[Black Dog]

Maybe because you don't actually read the thread? Dunno... just a suggestion.

Why bother reading it when I can give everyone the short version:

JerrySeinfeld: Here's a Mark Steyn article about immigrations and why it suxx.

g_bambino: ...and here's my take on why Queen rulz. Sorry: the Queen.

Now, obviously, I'm taking a poke at some of the more monomaniacal tendencies of certain posters here and am not commenting, per se, on the subject at hand. But if I may, the problem is simply this: Canada doesn't have a culture to sacrifice, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. "Canadian" culture is little more than a trite and mostly harmless collection of slogans and symbols that the vast majority of the citizenry regards with a kind of bemused affection and little else. And really, what else can be expected of a country that is barely out of its infancy as an entity, and who's citzens, for the most part, huddle together in far-flung enclaves separated by unimaginable distances filled with damn near nothing at all?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for trite symbols, be they HRH or the Tragically Hip. But they shouldn't be confused with real values, which Canadians have aplenty and which, I'm sure, are forged of sterner stuff than carpetbaggers like Steyn would have us believe. Equating the rejection of certain symbols with a rejection of values is pure sophistry. Hell, I'll go further: the whole notion of cultural suicide is bunk.

[g_bambino]

Maybe because you don't actually read the thread? Dunno... just a suggestion.

Why bother reading it when I can give everyone the short version:

JerrySeinfeld: Here's a Mark Steyn article about immigrations and why it suxx.

g_bambino: ...and here's my take on why Queen rulz. Sorry: the Queen.

Now, obviously, I'm taking a poke at some of the more monomaniacal tendencies of certain posters here and am not commenting, per se, on the subject at hand. But if I may, the problem is simply this: Canada doesn't have a culture to sacrifice, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. "Canadian" culture is little more than a trite and mostly harmless collection of slogans and symbols that the vast majority of the citizenry regards with a kind of bemused affection and little else. And really, what else can be expected of a country that is barely out of its infancy as an entity, and who's citzens, for the most part, huddle together in far-flung enclaves separated by unimaginable distances filled with damn near nothing at all?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for trite symbols, be they HRH or the Tragically Hip. But they shouldn't be confused with real values, which Canadians have aplenty and which, I'm sure, are forged of sterner stuff than carpetbaggers like Steyn would have us believe. Equating the rejection of certain symbols with a rejection of values is pure sophistry. Hell, I'll go further: the whole notion of cultural suicide is bunk.

Well, at least you demonstrated that you read the last line of one post. Sadly, it seems you've just taken a haphazard guess at the rest, assuming everyone is a single message repeater (though, maybe an assumption not without a certain validity).

I think you'd find - or, at least I hope you'd find, if I've expressed myself clearly enough - that I was blaming resident Canadians for our own cultural haziness, not immigrants, per say. Sure, we've always been a bit lost and weak on what Canadian identity was/is, but we previously seemed at least able to maintain a few national myths and symbols that somewhat unified us across the geographic and cultural expanse. Those tended to be enriched with our collective history. Today, though, we sacrifice all the meaning behind those things in the name of sensitivity and political correctness so that we're left with really no substance to the emblems that remain, and even less to those that have been lamely forced in as replacements for others lost - the crown is decimated, coroprate "Canada" logos have replaced crests and arms, the flag and maple leaf now stand for intangible things like multiculturalism, tolerance, and other gushy, feel-good trite that can only be given false credibility by being labeled as "Canadian values." So, clearly I never said the rejection of symbols meant the rejection of values; quite the opposite, values lend little support to symbols, as values are by nature transient and unstable. What I did say was that the rejection of history, tradition and long standing constitutional structures in the name of modern values that themselves value "the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority" is lamentable. What we had before may not have been all that great, but eviscerating it has certainly only done the opposite of fostering national unity and strengthening Canadian culture. That self-evisceration - the gutting of history and meaning from our emblems in favour of hypocitical and transient values - is what I meant by cultural suicide.

[Black Dog]

I think you'd find - or, at least I hope you'd find, if I've expressed myself clearly enough - that I was blaming resident Canadians for our own cultural haziness, not immigrants, per say.

I don't think I implied that you were blaming immigrants.

Sure, we've always been a bit lost and weak on what Canadian identity was/is, but we previously seemed at least able to maintain a few national myths and symbols that somewhat unified us across the geographic and cultural expanse.

And we don't now? I don't agree. Sure, you may not like what we have, but I've seen nothing to suggest that Canadians born after 1967 are less connected than their grandparents because they grew up with the Maple Leaf and not the Red Ensign.

Those tended to be enriched with our collective history. Today, though, we sacrifice all the meaning behind those things in the name of sensitivity and political correctness so that we're left with really no substance to the emblems that remain, and even less to those that have been lamely forced in as replacements for others lost - the crown is decimated, coroprate "Canada" logos have replaced crests and arms, the flag and maple leaf now stand for intangible things like multiculturalism, tolerance, and other gushy, feel-good trite that can only be given false credibility by being labeled as "Canadian values."

What can I say? Times change. Maybe those new symbols mean little to you, but to other generations, they can be meaningful. That's not to say we should discard the old willy-nilly, but be open to evolution. Canada today, for better or worse, is not the Canada of 100 years ago.

clearly I never said the rejection of symbols meant the rejection of values; quite the opposite, values lend little support to symbols, as values are by nature transient and unstable.

Are you saying values are easier to change than symbols?

What I did say was that the rejection of history, tradition and long standing constitutional structures in the name of modern values that themselves value "the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority" is lamentable.

Any evidence of this phenomenon?

What we had before may not have been all that great, but eviscerating it has certainly only done the opposite of fostering national unity and strengthening Canadian culture.

I guess I just don't see that happening in any significant way. Maybe I'm too young.