Democracy, Immigration, Multiculturalism

Not a fair question Kate, we already know that democracy runs counter to immigration & multiculturalism.

Give it time, everyone will learn - sooner or later!

Well, Jim Fitzpatrick, these people wouldn't be "infiltrating" your Labour Party if they didn't already feel comfortable with the majority of your party's policies.

Now you know how the Tory's feel when Leftists infiltrate their party and skew it's policies to the Left.

Jim Fitzpatrick, get ready to be called a racist by members of your own party in 3, 2, 1...
(hopefully Jim Fitzpatrick will get accused and charged with hate speech, that would be a hoot)

What's frightening is that this is news to anyone. I wonder what the moment of truth will look like to the typical left-lib feminist when they get to experience their first taste of Shariah. Maybe their hollowed-out and humourless souls will embrace the burka and all it stands for, giving them some "purpose" in life/death.

This kind of infiltrating couldn't happen with
Unions and left wing parties here could it? We don't have radical supporters busy at work, say in
Ontario Unions or the NDP...nah, never happen in Canada! This is a free open minded democracy in which people love one another. These bad guys only exist in other lands way far away.

Yes, melwilde, it does happen here.
The silver lining is that they will hollow out those political organizations and many former members will flee to the conservatives.

The downside is that the former members will skew the conservatives even further to the Left.

Oz, you are absolutely right about that. It will be interesting to see where this leads in Britain.

If it weren't so portentous, it would be hilarious; Labour, the party of strident multiculturalism and hyper-accommodation of Islam, finds the rise of Islam within its ranks suddenly distasteful.

Good luck unscrambling the eggs ole chap!

What is the difference between "infiltrating" and "joining a party to achieve a specific objective pleasing to the majority"?

I think "joining a party to achieve a specific objective" is something an individual does for their own individual reasons and "infiltrating" is when you're doing it on behalf of the goals of an exclusive political group you are already affiliated with instead of that exclusive political group starting their own party and running it above board.

The object of infiltration is to hijack an already existing popular party and use it as a front to attain goals they couldn't otherwise attain.

If infiltrators do this, they will inevitably hollow out the pre-existing popular party, especially if the infiltrators have radical goals which prevent them from starting their own popular party.

related, (but in a good way)

A college in Montreal EXPELS a woman who refused to remove her NIQAB!!!

read it at

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100302/mtl_niquab_expulsion100302/20100302/?hub=MontrealHome

That gal in Montreal making a fuss about wearing a mask.....veiling is not islamic anymore than female genital mutilation. In fact the Hadith specifically cites an incident where the Prophet was out and about with his veiled wife. An overheard remark caused him to summon the commenter and by ripping the veil from his wife....proved that his companion was indeed his wife. From that day forward neither his wife or daughter were veiled.

"[We] already know that democracy runs counter to immigration & multiculturalism."

Do we? I suggest that is patently false. Neither immigration nor multiculturalism is the problem per se.

The problem is simply the failure of a nation to demand that its new citizens recognize a basic set of cultural norms in their new country.

Mind you, if we don't know what these are supposed to be anymore, how can we expect new immigrants to?

JJM- Do you base that on statistics? I doubt the majority of Canadians support multiculturalism, or unbridled immigration. I haven't heard a single person support the present immigration policies.

If democracy means "majority rule", I suspect you are wrong, in saying that statement is "patently false".

You may be correct, that those two things are not the "problem, per se", but that doesn't change the fact there's a ground swell of support to overhaul the immigration system, and eliminate state imposed multiculturalism.

sasquatch @2:56 - with respect, that sort of thing is interesting, but really it doesn't matter. I'm not exactly a Koranic scholar, and frankly I could care less whether Mohammed actually said women were meant to dress up year-round like Hallowe'en ghosts. Millions of people do believe that this stuff is Islamic, and they insist on making it our problem. Returning Islam to it's roots, pure as the driven sand, is not going to help us, and frankly it isn't even our business.

JJM - I think the "failure of a nation to demand that its new citizens recognize a basic set of cultural norms in their new country" pretty much is the definition of state-endorsed multiculturalism.

(David Cameron will be the British P.M. soon, and I'm already sick of the sight of him; not something I've ever sought out BTW. He's not exactly Thatcher, this guy. Britain is in bad trouble.)

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked I am.

It will be interesting to see who the public attacks first.
When People realize all this was done purposely to destroy individual liberties while changing the Nations values.If not educational & social culture. By an entitled elite full of delusions of superiority.
Who will the public go after? The authors of this multicultural insanity for gain. Particularly politicians. Or the Colinizers (Islamists) who have infiltrated every organ of the State including our culturel institutions.Through a thousand made up groups. To enforce a pseudo-religion on us all.
If not its tenets of hatred, backed by barbaric Law.
You know the ones where we have been at war with these 8 years?
JMO

Who will the public go after? The authors of this multicultural insanity for gain. Particularly politicians. Or the Colinizers (Islamists) who have infiltrated every organ of the State including our culturel institutions.
~Revnant Dream

False dichotomy.
I say we go after both, as well as anyone and everyone who supported them in this endeavor and gained in any way through direct support.

Put the fear of consequence in these types for a few generations to come.

(just dreaming in Technicolor)

I agree with Oz @ 7:12... when my parents came to this country in the 1950s, they were expected to learn the language, work, and fit in. None of my siblings speaks our parent's "mother tongue" because both my mother and father believed that we're in Canada, and we will speak English. My dad always maintained that if it would have been so great where he used to live, he would have stayed there...obviously, he looked for and found something better. It annoys me to keep having to correct a government that insists on making me a hyphenated Canadian... I was born here, and have never been to the country my parents came from. I AM CANADIAN!!

I knew they were in for it when they undermined Maggie....

The Conservative Cabinet undermined Maggie. She was a victim of her own party. Labour just went along for the ride.

Infiltrated?
No $hit sherlock!!!!

We've had immigration and multiculturalism in Canada since, well, since before we even existed as a country.

We wouldn't exist now without it.

But back in those halcyon days, if you wanted to celebrate your cultural heritage, that was entirely your own business as long as you didn't expect a hand-out from the Crown.

Of course, back then, plucky, self-sufficient immigrants didn't expect much from the state other than a land grant anyway. They organized themselves around their church and built that Lithuanian community centre with their own money and sweat, thanks very much.

And they accepted the fact that they were expected to get on with life and become law-abiding British subjects just like everyone else in the Dominion.

But hey, we're far too post-modern for such stuffy old notions now.

The problem the labour party faces with Islamic infiltration was entirely predictable to anyone with a brain in their heads. Left-wing, liberal politics and hard line religion do not mix. They have nothing in common what-so-ever. You cannot accommodate the views of people who believe that gay people should be hung, stoned to death, or possibly thrown off a cliff face with the aims of progressive politics. Nor can you square tolerance with people who view everyone else as immoral infidels. The problem is that anger at Israel and the desire to fight racism got tangled up with truisms about everyone being the same and embracing the values of other cultures. This mutated, in some left-wing circles, into active support of Islam and the labeling of actual progressive thought as "cultural imperialism". How, dare we impose our western values on other cultures, why shouldn't we shouldn't we be sensitives to the issues of local religious communities, lets talk to every self-appointed community leader as if they represent anyone other than self-appointed community leaders. let's put programs on the TV called stuff like Muslim Driving School because, obviously, Muslims have special ways of learning to drive and lets have a Christmas message delivered by a ruthless theocratic dictator. Aren't we clever, aren't we progressive, aren't we reaching out to people. It's a drip-drip effect. The result of a weak inability to assert anything worth asserting. Race and creed are not the same thing. It is OK to criticise other peoples beliefs and to favour one set of values above another. If it isn't where do you stop? Do we then say "how dare you stigmatise fascism, how can you ignore the sense of social cohesion the Klu Klux Clan gave to rural white communities and who are we to suggests that believers in "the protocols of the elders of Zion" are idiotic? It's weak and pathetic.