Harper's plan to court the immigrant vote

[normanchateau]

Ottawa drops "no apology, no compensation" hard line

Vancouver Sun

Published: Sunday, June 03, 2007

OTTAWA - The Harper government has quietly dropped the previous Liberal regime's "no apology, no compensation" hard-line in negotiations with ethnic groups seeking redress for past wrongs despite warnings that it would open the door to a possible flurry of claims.

In government documents obtained by CanWest News Service through the Access to Information Act, the federal government was recently advised that the new approach "may advance calls for apologies/redress" and that there was the "potential for other presently unknown communities to seek recognition."

"A number of other communities are known to have been impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions including: Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Doukhobors, Germans, Hutterites, Indo-Canadians, Jews, Mennonites, Turks, etc..." says the briefing under the heading Other Impacted Communities.

In an interview with CanWest News Service, Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multicultural and Canadian identity, said the terms and conditions of the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) are still being finalized and will be made public "fairly soon" once the details are worked out completely.

He acknowledged that the "no apology, no compensation" policy of the previous government has been dropped by the Harper government as it picks up where former prime minister Brian Mulroney left off in 1988 with the Japanese-Canadian redress case that involved a full apology and a $422-million compensation package.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized about a year ago to Chinese Canadians for the country's racist immigration policies of the past, including the head tax once charged by the federal government to newly arriving immigrants from China. The payments come out of the Harper government's $24-million CHRP, which drops the Martin government's "no apology, no compensation" policy.

As well, consultations and a report by Conservative MP Jim Abbott, who is parliamentary secretary to Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda, have been completed for the government on the Komagata Maru ship incident in 1914 which saw 376 Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus forced back to sea by a Canadian warship at Vancouver harbour.

The documents say the Conservatives have also created a new four-year $10-million National Historical Recognition Program to "provide a federal government narrative that presents an objective point of view on the history linked to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions."

"I shouldn't be made to feel culpable for what my great-grandparents may have thought, say about Asian immigration. But the Canadian state has a responsibility to face up to those moments in our history when we allowed unjust policies to focus on particular ethnic communities," said Kenney.

Source:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...7c606c5&k=65329

Many in the Vancouver Sikh community are demanding that the government apologize for the Komagatsu Maru incident. Apparently the Conservatives are considering this according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun under the Access to Information act. But that incident involved Canada refusing to allow into Canada an entire boatful of illegal immigrants. Why does Canada need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country? Why do we today refuse entry into Canada of illegal immigrants yet feel that we need to apologize for refusing entry to illegal immigrants in 1914? Beyond courting the Sikh vote, does Harper have any rational or principled reason for doing this? Shouldn't apologies be reserved for those who suffered racial injustice after moving to Canada?

[kimmy]

Apologizing for the Japanese internment was the right thing to do.

Apologizing for the Chinese Head Tax was the right thing to do.

Apologizing for the internment of my mom's peeps was the right thing to do, although Canada did not even officially acknowledge that Ukrainian Internment even happened until a Conservative private member's bill passed in 2005.

Why does Canada need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country?

Here is the background of the Komagata Maru incident, for those who might not be aware of it:

Once upon a time, Canada had preferential immigration policies regarding British subjects. Upon realizing that a hell of a lot of British subjects were "undesirables", people from places like India, Pakistan, Africa... Canadian authorities invented technicalities to make immigration from such places a practical impossibility. One of these was the "continuous journey" policy: immigrants from British colonies were welcome, but they had to travel directly here. If they stopped in other countries on their way to Canada, they weren't allowed in.

An ingenious plan: since there were no direct means of travelling to Canada from these "undesirable" countries, this technicality would effectively stop all of these unwanted British subjects from coming to Canada.

Except that some Indians came up with a plan to beat the technicality by chartering a ship to take them directly from India to Canada. They complied by the letter of the rule, but were turned back anyway.

Canada sent a warship to turn back people who, by the letter of our own rules, were allowed to come here. They were not illegal. British subjects at the time were allowed to come to Canada. The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

-k

[guyser]

Here is the background of the Komagata Maru incident, for those who might not be aware of it:

Once upon a time, Canada had preferential immigration policies regarding British subjects. Upon realizing that a hell of a lot of British subjects were "undesirables", people from places like India, Pakistan, Africa... Canadian authorities invented technicalities to make immigration from such places a practical impossibility. One of these was the "continuous journey" policy: immigrants from British colonies were welcome, but they had to travel directly here. If they stopped in other countries on their way to Canada, they weren't allowed in.

An ingenious plan: since there were no direct means of travelling to Canada from these "undesirable" countries, this technicality would effectively stop all of these unwanted British subjects from coming to Canada.

Except that some Indians came up with a plan to beat the technicality by chartering a ship to take them directly from India to Canada. They complied by the letter of the rule, but were turned back anyway.

Canada sent a warship to turn back people who, by the letter of our own rules, were allowed to come here. They were not illegal. British subjects at the time were allowed to come to Canada. The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

-k

Damn , the things one can learn. I had no idea that happened. Thank you.

[Mad_Michael]

Ottawa drops "no apology, no compensation" hard line

Vancouver Sun

Published: Sunday, June 03, 2007

OTTAWA - The Harper government has quietly dropped the previous Liberal regime's "no apology, no compensation" hard-line in negotiations with ethnic groups seeking redress for past wrongs despite warnings that it would open the door to a possible flurry of claims.

In government documents obtained by CanWest News Service through the Access to Information Act, the federal government was recently advised that the new approach "may advance calls for apologies/redress" and that there was the "potential for other presently unknown communities to seek recognition."

"A number of other communities are known to have been impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions including: Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Doukhobors, Germans, Hutterites, Indo-Canadians, Jews, Mennonites, Turks, etc..." says the briefing under the heading Other Impacted Communities.

In an interview with CanWest News Service, Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multicultural and Canadian identity, said the terms and conditions of the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) are still being finalized and will be made public "fairly soon" once the details are worked out completely.

He acknowledged that the "no apology, no compensation" policy of the previous government has been dropped by the Harper government as it picks up where former prime minister Brian Mulroney left off in 1988 with the Japanese-Canadian redress case that involved a full apology and a $422-million compensation package.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized about a year ago to Chinese Canadians for the country's racist immigration policies of the past, including the head tax once charged by the federal government to newly arriving immigrants from China. The payments come out of the Harper government's $24-million CHRP, which drops the Martin government's "no apology, no compensation" policy.

As well, consultations and a report by Conservative MP Jim Abbott, who is parliamentary secretary to Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda, have been completed for the government on the Komagata Maru ship incident in 1914 which saw 376 Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus forced back to sea by a Canadian warship at Vancouver harbour.

The documents say the Conservatives have also created a new four-year $10-million National Historical Recognition Program to "provide a federal government narrative that presents an objective point of view on the history linked to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions."

"I shouldn't be made to feel culpable for what my great-grandparents may have thought, say about Asian immigration. But the Canadian state has a responsibility to face up to those moments in our history when we allowed unjust policies to focus on particular ethnic communities," said Kenney.

Source:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...7c606c5&k=65329

Many in the Vancouver Sikh community are demanding that the government apologize for the Komagatsu Maru incident. Apparently the Conservatives are considering this according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun under the Access to Information act. But that incident involved Canada refusing to allow into Canada an entire boatful of illegal immigrants. Why does Canada need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country? Why do we today refuse entry into Canada of illegal immigrants yet feel that we need to apologize for refusing entry to illegal immigrants in 1914? Beyond courting the Sikh vote, does Harper have any rational or principled reason for doing this? Shouldn't apologies be reserved for those who suffered racial injustice after moving to Canada?

If Harper has any dreams of turning his minority into a majority, he's got a mighty weird sense of how to go about doing this. Up until now, I've been fairly neutral about Harper - but with this, I now loathe the man and consider him toxic to good government.

[BC_chick]

Blatant and desperate vote-seeking notwithstanding, I actually think an apology is a good gesture. Kimmy just touched the surface of this incident with the "direct-passage" clause which was nothing but a racist loophole.

But when the ship was turned away and went back to India, the British tried to get the passengers on a train and send them somewhere else. One thing lead to another, the passengers protested and the Brits opened fire killing a number of them.

I was reading an article about this incident in one of our local dailies. It's an issue that's been the cause of resentment for the Sikh and Hindu and community since.

[normanchateau]

immigrants from British colonies were welcome, but they had to travel directly here. If they stopped in other countries on their way to Canada, they weren't allowed in.

An ingenious plan: since there were no direct means of travelling to Canada from these "undesirable" countries, this technicality would effectively stop all of these unwanted British subjects from coming to Canada.

Except that some Indians came up with a plan to beat the technicality by chartering a ship to take them directly from India to Canada. They complied by the letter of the rule, but were turned back anyway.

Canada sent a warship to turn back people who, by the letter of our own rules, were allowed to come here. They were not illegal. The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

Of course the laws were racist at the time but the point remains that these people were illegal immigrants by Canada's laws of the day. Canada had every right to determine Canada's immigration policies. Canada still has every right to determine Canada's immigration policies without apologies to anyone but the electorate.

These people were illegal because by the laws in place in 1914, they hadn't come directly from India. They came from Shanghai. This granted Canadian authorities the legal right to prevent their entry. See:

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/komaga...ru_incident.htm

Why should we be apologizing to illegal immigrants? Should we be apologizing to the boatloads of illegal Chinese immigrants who came ashore in British Columbia in 1999 and who were sent back to China? And since they weren't Caucasian, should another Prime Minister 90 years from now apologize for the racist 1999 Canadian government who refused to accept these illegal immigrants?

[Figleaf]

The Chinese head tax, while it may have been racially motivated, fell only on individuals who chose to be subject to it. No-one forced these people to immigrate, and the existence of the tax was known before they came. Therefore the head tax was a completely different thing than the internments (an illegal confiscations) people already in Canada were wrongfully subjected to.

In my opinion it was a breach of trust for the government today to compensate and apologize for legal government choices at the time that harmed no-one.

[normanchateau]

I was reading an article about this incident in one of our local dailies.

The Vancouver Sun covered this issue in depth a few days ago. Here's what the Sun article concluded:

"It must have been awful for the Komagata Maru passengers to have come all this way, to spend two months with little food and water in Vancouver harbour, only to be sent back and face jail time. But it was their choice to challenge a foreign law. Like other illegal migrants, they tried and failed.

Countries have every right to set their own immigration policies, picking and choosing which people and how many to allow in each year. But more than that, governments have a responsibility to set immigration policies that are advantageous to their citizens. They have a duty to protect their own citizens' rights to decent homes, jobs, opportunities for advancement, good schools for their children, health care and so on.

Over the years, Canada has developed one of the most generous immigration policies of any country in the world. One in five Canadians is an immigrant and we are all lucky to be here.

But Canada can not accept everyone who shows up at our doorstep and nor could it 90 years ago.

It's unfortunate, but it's not something we need to apologize for."

Here's the full article:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...a5a451fff78&p=2

If Stephen Harper wants to apologize to Sikhs solely to get some votes, fine. However, I believe in the long run, a more principled stand would serve Canadians better.

[BC_chick]

I wouldn't say he should apologise for it. I just think it's a good gesture... a lot of those people still have descendents in Canada. Apologies never hurt anyone, it's not like he wants to recompensate them.

But I do see the other point of view about setting such precedences too.... from my understanding apologies aren't handed out often because they are an admission of guilt and that opens the doors for lawsuits.

In any case, unlike most of the other things Steve does, it's not an issue I feel strongly about either way.... that's all really.

[mikedavid00]

The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

And the reason you are not allowed to marry into these peoples families is, quite simply, becuase you are white.

[mikedavid00]

I wouldn't say he should apologise for it. I just think it's a good gesture... a lot of those people still have descendents in Canada. Apologies never hurt anyone, it's not like he wants to recompensate them.

But I do see the other point of view about setting such precedences too.... from my understanding apologies aren't handed out often because they are an admission of guilt and that opens the doors for lawsuits.

In any case, unlike most of the other things Steve does, it's not an issue I feel strongly about either way.... that's all really.

Yes. Lets let Harper appologize for something that Canada did in 1914.

It's obvious that these ethnic communities are just using this incident as a political football.

The problem with Canada is it recognizes visible minorities to begin with. How will we ever live together peacefully if we give special groups that are based off their skin colour and culture.

Lets all assimilate for now and stop immigration soon. Let's all become Canadians.

[ScottSA]

The Chinese head tax, while it may have been racially motivated, fell only on individuals who chose to be subject to it. No-one forced these people to immigrate, and the existence of the tax was known before they came. Therefore the head tax was a completely different thing than the internments (an illegal confiscations) people already in Canada were wrongfully subjected to.

In my opinion it was a breach of trust for the government today to compensate and apologize for legal government choices at the time that harmed no-one.

I can't believe I'm even partially agreeing with sweal on something...

[normanchateau]

I wouldn't say he should apologise for it. I just think it's a good gesture... a lot of those people still have descendents in Canada. Apologies never hurt anyone, it's not like he wants to recompensate them.

There are many other gestures Harper could make. Why just apologize on the basis of race and ethnicity? Prior to 1969, homosexual behaviour, i.e., sodomy, was a criminal offence in Canada. Should he apologize to all homosexuals? Prior to 1919 in Canada, women could note vote. Should he apologize to all women? In the early 20's, the Communist Party of Canada was an illegal organization. Should he apologize to all communists. Where does it all end?

[guyser]

There are many other gestures Harper could make. Why just apologize on the basis of race and ethnicity? Prior to 1969, homosexual behaviour, i.e., sodomy, was a criminal offence in Canada. Should he apologize to all homosexuals? Prior to 1919 in Canada, women could note vote. Should he apologize to all women? In the early 20's, the Communist Party of Canada was an illegal organization. Should he apologize to all communists. Where does it all end?

Well, lets get those done and we can see whats left on the agenda.

[sharkman]

As far as various immigrants go, the majority of them are pro-family, religious types who tend to have a dim view of liberalizing marriage to include gays. They would thus possibly tend to migrate towards the Tory flag, so I don't think the Tories need to apologize to get votes. I agree that it was the right thing to do.

[normanchateau]

As far as various immigrants go, the majority of them are pro-family, religious types who tend to have a dim view of liberalizing marriage to include gays. They would thus possibly tend to migrate towards the Tory flag, so I don't think the Tories need to apologize to get votes. I agree that it was the right thing to do.

It sounds like you're implying that he should only apologize to those who might vote Tory.

What about apologizing to women for denying them the vote? Or is there no point since most women won't vote for Stephen Harper anyway?

[sharkman]

If you'll take another look at what you quoted of me, I said they don't need to apologize to get votes, so no I am not implying that. I am implying that they don't need to apologize to get votes from immigrants.

[normanchateau]

I agree that it was the right thing to do.

Why?

[normanchateau]

The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

And the reason you are not allowed to marry into these peoples families is, quite simply, becuase you are white.

I suspect the issue is religion rather than race. Sikhs are no keener on having Hindus marry into their families.

[BornAlbertan]

I think BC should be apologizing for this if anybody apologizes!

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/komaga...ru_incident.htm

But in reality...I don't think anyone should be apologizing.

You choose who you want in your home. Immigration is not supposed to be about "being nice". Immigration is about economics. An economy saturated with developement and depleted on labour CANNOT GROW. Hence, immigration.

A country should be able to adobt any practice it deems to ensure it only let's in the people that will best help the country at that particular point in history. It should not have to account for it 100 years later because of some bleeding heart bastards who don't understand that it is not all about them!

[Michael Bluth]

You choose who you want in your home. Immigration is not supposed to be about "being nice". Immigration is about economics. An economy saturated with developement and depleted on labour CANNOT GROW. Hence, immigration.

A country should be able to adobt any practice it deems to ensure it only let's in the people that will best help the country at that particular point in history. It should not have to account for it 100 years later because of some bleeding heart bastards who don't understand that it is not all about them!

Wow.

You really are a born Albertan.

I like Harper making these apologies.

It isn't that really big of a deal or a lot of money to the Federal Government. But it means a lot to the specific communities.

It also helps dispel *scary* *scary* *scary*.

[BornAlbertan]

You choose who you want in your home. Immigration is not supposed to be about "being nice". Immigration is about economics. An economy saturated with developement and depleted on labour CANNOT GROW. Hence, immigration.

A country should be able to adobt any practice it deems to ensure it only let's in the people that will best help the country at that particular point in history. It should not have to account for it 100 years later because of some bleeding heart bastards who don't understand that it is not all about them!

Wow.

You really are a born Albertan.

I like Harper making these apologies.

It isn't that really big of a deal or a lot of money to the Federal Government. But it means a lot to the specific communities.

It also helps dispel *scary* *scary* *scary*.

Can you dispute that immigration is about economic sustainability rather than just being nice? Why should Canada have to apologize for what every other country in this world does: pick and choose who they want within their country for the growth and sustainability of their economy.

If you read the link I posted, you would read that entry was given to Indians with $200.

[BC_chick]

Seems like the CPC supporters can't make up their minds on whether or not minorities support Harper. On the one hand, I was chasitised for saying it and I was told that it's nothing but a figment of my imagination. On the other hand, when it's time to use the exact same thing to their favour, all of a sudden Harper's right in trying to make inroads with immigrants.

Dare I bring up the H word?

[BornAlbertan]

Seems like the CPC supporters can't make up their minds on whether or not minorities support Harper. On the one hand, I was chasitised for saying it and I was told that it's nothing but a figment of my imagination. On the other hand, when it's time to use the exact same thing to their favour, all of a sudden Harper's right in trying to make inroads with immigrants.

Dare I bring up the H word?

Hello?

[BC_chick]

Seems like the CPC supporters can't make up their minds on whether or not minorities support Harper. On the one hand, I was chasitised for saying it and I was told that it's nothing but a figment of my imagination. On the other hand, when it's time to use the exact same thing to their favour, all of a sudden Harper's right in trying to make inroads with immigrants.

Dare I bring up the H word?

Hello?

Hello.