The new face of hate

[mikedavid00]

We need immigration because too many of us chose not to renew our population.

Yes repeat the news paper articles. Please do.

No one should be coming to Canada unless they have job lined up. This is how the rest of the world worlks and for good reason.

I realize we'd have on 10 to 20,000 wokrers a year from south america and eastern europe only.

Oh well.

Too bad for India, Pakistan, China, and Jamaica. The free ride is over guys. It was nice while it lasted. So long. Good bye.

Go be intellectual University schollars with 4 degrees in another country. Just stay the FCK out of here becuase you aren't needed and are KILLING our healthcare system and social services.

[Higgly]

You guys need to stop seeing immigrants as a drain on our system and start seeing them as a positive force. We were all (well almost all) immigrants at one time. That's just the way it is here.

[Leafless]

Whoa...aren't you being a bit selective? Off the top of my head, I can think of Ukrainians abused by the Crown, as were Chinese, Japanese, etc. Hell, they kicked Acadians out of the country!!

What does this have to do relating to immigrants who initially built Canada?

Every country has national self interests including Canada.

[mikedavid00]

Exackly. Every wave of immigrants has been abused in some wy by the current crew. Some got off lightly. Some (like the Chinese) suffered horrribly to give us a better country. The 'Cajuns definitely have a grievance.

Lord.

You don't get it. Early immigration saw oppertunity that was never seen before. People didnt' come here for fun. Coming here was like coming to a land of oppertunity.

You could just go and buy land and farm it. Cut down treest and ship them. Try doing that these days. Back then you came to the Americas to prosper.

Today we are in another reality. Another world. Todays immigration has NOTHING AT ALL to do with historic immigration.

Thus almost every country in teh world has a thing called a 'policy'. If an employer doest sponsor you in to work, you aren't coming.

It's that simple.

Immigration to the US is building the US.

Immigration to Dubai is building the UAE.

Immigration to CANADA is simplying ruining our country and worsoning each of our lives. This is a CANADIAN SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

[bush_cheney2004]

What does this have to do relating to immigrants who initially built Canada?

Every country has national self interests including Canada.

You were doing OK until all that harmony stuff...didn't happen that way at all. Were the slaves in Lower Canada also happy immigrants?

[mikedavid00]

You guys need to stop seeing immigrants as a drain on our system and start seeing them as a positive force. We were all (well almost all) immigrants at one time. That's just the way it is here.

Firstly, modern immigratns drain or welfare state which is a proven fact... (edit: ... in Canada. Other countries benefit from immigrants.. an no. most of theirs are not from China, Pakistan and India. That is a Canadian specific phenomena).

Secondly, that idealogical arguement of 'we're all immigrants' is nonsense and does't apply to reality in 2007.

That's like saying 'we were all unisex beings at one time. Yeah in theory true, but not right now we're not.

Edited September 24, 2007 by mikedavid00

[Higgly]

Lord.

You don't get it. Early immigration saw oppertunity that was never seen before. People didnt' come here for fun. Coming here was like coming to a land of oppertunity.

You could just go and buy land and farm it. Cut down treest and ship them. Try doing that these days. Back then you came to the Americas to prosper.

Today we are in another reality. Another world. Todays immigration has NOTHING AT ALL to do with historic immigration.

Thus almost every country in teh world has a thing called a 'policy'. If an employer doest sponsor you in to work, you aren't coming.

It's that simple.

Immigration to the US is building the US.

Immigration to Dubai is building the UAE.

Immigration to CANADA is simplying ruining our country and worsoning each of our lives. This is a CANADIAN SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

So you're saying that today's immigrants are not here for opportunity just because the nature of the opportunity has changed? You cannot be serious.

[mikedavid00]

Let's call a spade a spade, the true hate in North America is, ethnic intolerance against the 'White English speaking Christian culture' period and many White citizens are trying to ensure ethnic dominance will never be a reality.

As always I completely agree.

The 'new face of hate' is the 'new face of Canada'.

That's what the article should have been about.

[mikedavid00]

There is some truths in what Leafless had said.

This multi-culturalism is only adding fuel to the fire. It is building resentment. In some ancient post I've made, I expressed my concern that the supremacists will be able to lure more to look at things from their own point of view.

Every south asian I have ever met are supremists by definition. So much so that they arrange marriage and make sure that you and I are kept OUT of their family for racial reasons.

They feel they have a suprior culture and are some of the most racist people I've met in my life.

I have honestly never met a truly racists, white supremist.

I've known kids back in the day who wore the doc martins as a fad to be cool, but never a true supremist.

I've met PLENTY, PLENTY of 'brown supremists'.

But ah yes. THey are vitims. THey are free of racism and can do no harm.

[mikedavid00]

I am not anti-immigration. But I do want a closely screened immigration policy.

A lot of ethnic minorities I've talked to (asians and blacks and latinos)...we seem to share the same opinion: we came to this country, therefore we adapt to it.

So all these ridiculous demands for more cultural rights must be coming from radical activists or those who stand to gain by something.

And you know I just might add that Betsy, who's opinion I agree with most of the time and respect, doesn't run all over the forum claiming that her voice is that of x culture.

See she is really multi-cultural and has friends from other countries like me. Just becuase she's from x background, she doens't go around waving her home countries flag. She does say 'judge me becuae my home country is x'. Or 'hey in my country we do x'.

And the bigger picture here is that some cultures DO indeed integrate better with us. Phillipinos are one of them. Almost every phillipino couple in Ottawa i knew was dating a caucasian or spanish or another Canadian and didn't ghettoise themselves. The parents never were racist either.

Some people from some countries just integrate better. I don't think anyone here can deny that.

[mikedavid00]

So you're saying that today's immigrants are not here for opportunity just because the nature of the opportunity has changed? You cannot be serious.

Immigrants are here becuase we let them in. They don't care if they have oppurtunities or not. Use Xul as an example. He's not dumb. He knows there's not a job waiting here for him. It's common knowledge all over the world. What he does know is that he can collect cheques for himself and his children and use our services while he goes to school.

Immigrants know they will not find jobs here and not have their credentials recognized:

http://www.notcanada.com/

Canada is not a paradise of all these white collar jobs that we cannot fill. Go ask a University grad how their doing and how much their making. They might laugh at you. If an immigrant does work a good job, then he directly took it away from a qualified Canadian. This happens daily and also saturates our labor market which drives wages lower.

You really have to be proficient with supply and demand to know where i'm getting at.

Immigrants for the most part are not needed in Canada. Yes, unskilled laborers are needed in parts of Canada in very small numbers, but we don't need 300,000 people coming here when 1/2 are living in poverty now.

[geoffrey]

Every south asian I have ever met are supremists by definition. So much so that they arrange marriage and make sure that you and I are kept OUT of their family for racial reasons.

--

But ah yes. THey are vitims. THey are free of racism and can do no harm.

This is a very rare occurance, but I think I agree with you here mike.

I've never seen such active racism towards others than we see with many of the Asian groups. They forbid marriage to outsiders, and all of the social pressures keep them within their group. Not just the South Asians either. As a whole minorities in Canada are far more exclusive of other minorities and the majority white population than society is as a whole to them.

[mikedavid00]

This is a very rare occurance, but I think I agree with you here mike.

I've never seen such active racism towards others than we see with many of the Asian groups. They forbid marriage to outsiders, and all of the social pressures keep them within their group. Not just the South Asians either. As a whole minorities in Canada are far more exclusive of other minorities and the majority white population than society is as a whole to them.

I agree.

In Ottawa the phillipino's there were in many mixed relationships if not all of them. I even asked once 'how come they don't date each other?' The spanish for sure mix. The Portrugues and Italian do mix outside as well. Jewish also mix believe it or not. I'm sure we all know someone Jewish who has married mixed. But I guess these poeple don't view themselves as these minorities but rather as Canadians or people who are not racist. They don't spend the whole night talking about how 'brown' they are.

Sikh's I personally found through ex gf's and friends to be the most backwards, most racist, most xenephobic people in Canada. I'll easily go on the record in saying that. (well Ok Muslims from Pakistan get the top honors here but it's almost like they are so bad they are in their own category. Like aliens almost).

[jennie]

I've been out all day after posting this. Quite an interesting conversation.

Three interesting sections ...

There isn't enough attention being paid to the everyday hatred, the everyday forms of racist or hateful incidents that occur," she says. "We need far more education so that the public can be inoculated against this kind of thing."

That way, when people come across hatred on the Internet, they won't just click to another web page, but be able to recognize racist propaganda for what it is, says Mock.

It's difficult to tell what's more dangerous -- the postings where outright bigotry is poured onto the electronic page, or the well-thought-out, eloquently phrased and researched points of view on immigration and the need to "protect" the purity of the white race.

I haven't seen any statements about the "purity of the white race" in this thread, if that's what 'white supremacy' is.

White Nationalism is the new and improved version, also about 'purity', wanting a nation for white people.

(But they have never responded to my offer of a nice 'white' ice floe. )

Or maybe it could also mean maintaining a white majority, or white control even with a minority like (former) South Africa?

"(They're) transforming their views from the poisonous 'We want to expel minorities and imprison or exterminate Jews,' to something like 'We're just concerned about non-traditional immigration sources,' which usually means non-white," says Richard Warman, an Ottawa-based human rights lawyer. "They try to throw sugar in with their poison just to give it a more palatable taste."

...

Paul Fromm is considered one of the most recognizable members of the extreme right in Canada. On the Internet, he operates several sites of his own and is a common fixture on Stormfront and other similar sites.

Fromm also speaks at rallies held by those who support white supremacist and racist views. He says those in the white pride movement recognize that in order to attract new recruits they must "tone down" existing members, whose method of expressing themselves is to belittle minorities with profanity.

FREE SPEECH

"We want to make everyday Canadians and Americans comfortable with these ideas," he says. "The way to do it is not to dress up in funny uniforms and scream at people."

Oh ya? Is that how they used to do it? I can see why that didn't work.

Not everyone posting on these sites or attending the rare meeting agrees with resorting to violent measures to deal with what they believe are the country's ills.

...

Well I am certainly glad to hear that!

"Not everyone who is a white supremacist is a neo-Nazi, and not everyone who is a white supremacist is a skinhead," says Edmonton police Const. Dave Huggins, who is recognized as one of the pre-eminent hate crime investigators in Canada. "There is a wide spectrum of being a white supremacist."

Some are drawn to it because they like National Socialism, while others might be more white nationalist while at the same time saying they are part of the Christian Identity movement, he says.

An element of their shared concern is a fear within the movement that European-centric countries, such as Canada, will be irrevocably altered culturally by an influx of immigrants from non-European countries.

"If you can appreciate that mindset when you're dealing with extremists then you can understand how easy it is to recruit others because they touch into fears that are naturally there," says (Const.) Huggins.

White supremacists must be exposed and brought to justice, but they must also be marginalized and the public inoculated -- particularly young people -- against their hatred, says Mock.

I think the young people are doing ok, most of them.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jennie

[Michael Hardner]

White supremacists must be exposed and brought to justice, but they must also be marginalized and the public inoculated -- particularly young people -- against their hatred, says Mock.

I would add: Racist ideology can easily be defeated in an open debate. If you refuse to debate these ideas, and instead attempt an end-run around them by marginalizing and shaming those who espouse them, you will leave an element of doubt in the minds of those who are swayed by their arguments.

[jefferiah]

I would add: Racist ideology can easily be defeated in an open debate. If you refuse to debate these ideas, and instead attempt an end-run around them by marginalizing and shaming those who espouse them, you will leave an element of doubt in the minds of those who are swayed by their arguments.

Saying you hate someone or putting down another ethnicity, race, whatever this should never be criminal. It may be distasteful, but people should have a right to speak their minds. It is different when you encourage someone to commit a crime against people of another race. When you do that you are directly commanding and inciting violence. This is already a crime anyway. So.......

[Michael Hardner]

Saying you hate someone or putting down another ethnicity, race, whatever this should never be criminal. It may be distasteful, but people should have a right to speak their minds. It is different when you encourage someone to commit a crime against people of another race. When you do that you are directly commanding and inciting violence. This is already a crime anyway. So.......

Jeff,

I don't think it is criminal to say that, at least in Canada.

[jennie]

You raise a good point ... what is a crime and what is not:

Criminal Code

PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION

Hate Propaganda

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b') an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b') an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b') if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c') if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

“communicating”

« communiquer »

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group”

« groupe identifiable »

“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

“public place”

« endroit public »

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements”

« déclarations »

“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited September 24, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

You might be surprised.

Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000.

This is only one case. There are others.

Bill Whatcott (a self-proclaimed ex gay) was sued for handing out pamphlets at a gay pride parade about how being gay is sinful and that homosexuals can change. Whether you like his views or not, he was not encouraging any violent act, but some people claimed they were offended and brought to tears when they read his pamphlets and so.......

These are both gay cases I know, but I mean whats good for the goose....It can work with anything...race, sexual orientation....whatever.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000.

With regards to your case, it hasn't even been ruled on yet from what I can see.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[jennie]

You might be surprised.

Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000.

This is only one case. There are others.

Bill Whatcott (a self-proclaimed ex gay) was sued for handing out pamphlets at a gay pride parade about how being gay is sinful and that homosexuals can change. Whether you like his views or not, he was not encouraging any violent act, but some people claimed they were offended and brought to tears when they read his pamphlets and so.......

These are both gay cases I know, but I mean whats good for the goose....It can work with anything...race, sexual orientation....whatever.

tax dollars funding homosexual activists

He certainly libeled the teachers, if that was his spin on it.

I wonder what the charge is?

The Human Rights Act isn't clear to me tonight, but here it is.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/index.html

[jefferiah]

He was referring to his tax dollars funding homosexual activist groups, a seperate issue from the homosexuality being taught to children.

[jennie]

You might be surprised.

Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000.

This is only one case. There are others.

Bill Whatcott (a self-proclaimed ex gay) was sued for handing out pamphlets at a gay pride parade about how being gay is sinful and that homosexuals can change. Whether you like his views or not, he was not encouraging any violent act, but some people claimed they were offended and brought to tears when they read his pamphlets and so.......

These are both gay cases I know, but I mean whats good for the goose....It can work with anything...race, sexual orientation....whatever.

about how being ___ is sinful and that _____ can change.

I am not sure it works with race ... jk

Edited September 24, 2007 by jennie

[Visionseeker]

You might be surprised.

Check out the case of Stephen Boissoin who has had a case pending before the HRC for a few years now. He was a pastor in a small Alberta town and wrote a letter to a Red Deer newspaper about his concern over homosexuality being taught in schools and his tax dollars funding homosexual activists. Whether you like his opinion or not, or even his choice of words. He never actually recommended any violent action or anything like that. Nonetheless he is being sued for 5000.

This is only one case. There are others.

Bill Whatcott (a self-proclaimed ex gay) was sued for handing out pamphlets at a gay pride parade about how being gay is sinful and that homosexuals can change. Whether you like his views or not, he was not encouraging any violent act, but some people claimed they were offended and brought to tears when they read his pamphlets and so.......

These are both gay cases I know, but I mean whats good for the goose....It can work with anything...race, sexual orientation....whatever.

Being sued or called before the HRC is not the same thing as being charged under 319; different standards, different level of offense.