December 9, 2006

"Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."

Every so often one reads something that contains such obvious truth, that is communicated with such clarity and efficiency, that it comes to serve as an ideological anchoring point. This is one such piece for me, first published in 2001. I've been meaning to share it for some time now.

Multiculturalists insist that we change how we teach our children, in order to reshape how they think. Specifically, they must stop thinking of Western and American civilization as superior to other civilizations. The doctrine underlying this position is cultural relativism -- the denial that any culture can be said to be better or worse than any other. Cultural relativists take the principle of equality, which in the American political tradition is applied to individuals in terms of rights, and apply it instead to cultures in terms of their value.

One approach taken by multiculturalists to extinguish feelings of cultural superiority is to revise reading lists in our schools to minimize the influence of those they deride as "dead white males." A few years ago the novelist Saul Bellow set off a controversy when he said, "Find me the Tolstoy of the Zulus, or the Proust of the Papuans, and I would be happy to read him." In the storm of outrage that followed, Bellow was accused of racism. But the charge was unjustified. Bellow was not saying, after all, that the Zulus and Papuans are incapable of producing great novelists. He was saying that as far as he knew, they hadn't. But just by raising the possibility that some cultures have contributed more, if you will, to the dining table of civilization, he had violated one of the chief tenets of multiculturalism.


In carrying forth their case, cultural relativists must account for the obvious fact that for the last half millennium, it has been one culture -- the culture of the West and now of America -- that has dominated the world. Prior to 1500, China was the preeminent civilization and Western civilization -- then called Christendom -- was a relative backwater. How did this backwater conquer the world? Multiculturalists explain it in terms of oppression. Western civilization, they say, became so powerful because it is so evil. The study of Western civilization, they insist, should focus on colonialism and slavery, the distinctive mechanisms of Western oppression. But colonialism and slavery are not distinctively Western at all. They are universal.

The British conquered India and ruled it for 300 years. But before the British there were the Persians, the Mongols, the Afghans, and Alexander the Great. Indeed, the British were the sixth or seventh colonial invader to occupy a large part of Indian territory. As for slavery, it has existed in all cultures. It was prevalent in ancient India, in China, in Greece and Rome, and in Africa. American Indians practiced slavery long before Columbus set foot here. In point of fact, what is uniquely Western is not slavery, but abolition. The movement to end slavery developed only in Western civilization. While people everywhere oppose slavery for themselves, never outside the West have slave-owners and potential slave-owners proclaimed principles condemning it, and expended blood and treasure ending it.

From the speech "Multiculturalism: Fact or Threat?" by Dinesh D'Souza, given on May 22, 2001 in Boise, Idaho. The rest is here. The little periodical it first appeared in, Hillsdale College's Imprimis, is truly unparalleled in the quality of content per square inch of copy. And it's free!

Posted by Kate at December 9, 2006 12:49 AM

I've heard several adverts for Imprimis on Hugh Hewitt's show on KRLA, but this is the first time I've bothered to actually look up the site. Indeed excellent. Thanks.

Posted by: Geoff Warren at December 9, 2006 1:35 AM

Adopt our values or stay away, says Blair

The Daily Telegraph ^ | 09/12/2006 | Philip Johnston

Tony Blair formally declared Britain's

multicultural experiment over

yesterday as he told immigrants they had ''a duty"

to integrate with the mainstream of society.

In a speech that overturned more than three decades of Labour support for the idea, he set out a series of requirements that were now expected from ethnic minority groups if they wished to call themselves British. These included "equality of respect" - especially better treatment of women by Muslim men - allegiance to the rule of law and a command of English. If outsiders wishing to settle in Britain were not prepared to conform to the virtues of tolerance then they should stay away. He added: "Conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2006 5:42 AM

The whole thing is extremely silly. Governments don't impose culture, people create it. Western nations have been importing vast numbers of people from all over the world. Those people come from different cultural backgrounds and that background doesn't evaporate on contact with a new country.

Waves of immigration are always treated with paranoia when they first arrive. What we're seeing now is simply a very old cycle repeating itself.

Posted by: Jose at December 9, 2006 6:41 AM

Jose, I do not disagree with you, but I do think the ethos of the country shapes how the integration and transformation takes place (of both immigrants and the receiving society), For example, in the US, there is a can-do motif to attain success that works better with value integration. Think of Italian-Americans like Dean Martin or Joe DiMaggio, who in one sense retain their roots, but in another sense become everyman icons who transcend ethic background. Joe DiMaggio did not belong just to Italian-Americans; he was an icon for all Americans. In Canada, it seems, this does not happen so readily. Perhaps it is the more socialist government and economy that makes it easy to be comfortable without much effort to integrate into the broader society--to have to create value for people outside one's ethnic tribe. I met a couple on a plane from Delhi who barely spoke any English. They have lived over 25 years in Surrey, BC. They were lovely people, friendly and I am glad they are part of my country. But I wish they had become integrated enough to speak English (or French in Quebec)--enough to be able to participate in the local (non-ethnic-based) community centre, for example.

Posted by: murray at December 9, 2006 7:01 AM

First Australia...then England....wouldn't it be nice if Canada could follow suit?
Excellant info as always, Thanks Kate.

Posted by: Sumbuddy at December 9, 2006 7:14 AM

the immigration rules has a lot of things that need to change are a few things that need to happen before anyone is allowed into our country

1)must be able to speak one of the official languages
2)must be able to support yourself by way of a JOB
3)if you apply for a job with the RCMPolice, DO NOT EXPECT to be able to wear your turban and sword, oh I guess that is wrong, WE HAVE TO CHANGE for your benefit and religious reasons, never mind that the RCMP stetson has been part of OUR heritage for 100's of years, but we will bend over backwards to allow what YOU want, never mind what WE want, we wouldn't want to UPSET anyone would we


Posted by: altarboy at December 9, 2006 7:21 AM

Jose, your concept is (perhaps) noble, but unfortunately naive and unilateral. From your perspective, it seems that Muslims (as an example) are apparently free to move into a Western nation and impose THEIR belief system on the western society...why not the quid pro quo? I encourage you to move to Iran or Saudia Arabia and try to impose your western lifestyle on the Muslims...I'm sure you're perspective will change.

As the old saying goes, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".

And, may I add, I am thankful that you (or those who possess your mindset) will never be a guest in my house...I expect a guest in my house to follow certain rules (as an example, no smoking)...even if I invite that person to live with my family, my family will insist that there be no smoking in the house. Oh, and no spousal abuse, either...and no racism or sexism or bigotry towards gays/lesbians or Sharia Law or...

I could go on, but I would like to think that you are smart enough to get my drift.

Immigrants should not HAVE to give up their culture, but if they cannot or will not make their culture subservient to the culture in which they choose to reside, then they need to go away. It's as simple as that.

Consider what the Liberals liked to intone..."Canadian values". The suggestion being, there are certain values that Canadians hold dear and we should not destroy those values...yet you and your ilk seem to be happy to give those values up for the cause of "equality of culture" or (I suspect) fear of beheading.

If the "intruding" culture can illustrate that their way is better, then the "receiving" culture should be flexible and open enough to change...I cannot believe that Islam is a superior culture to the western culture in any way.

Stand for something, principled and stick to your principles...otherwise, you are not a man but a slave.

Posted by: Eeyore at December 9, 2006 7:35 AM

BRAVO, Kate, for posting this article. It's extremely articulate and reminds of what really happened over long period's of the world's history vis a vis colonialism and the colonized.

murray says, "Perhaps it is the more socialist government and economy [in Canada] that makes it easy to be comfortable without much effort to integrate into the broader society..."

Not only under our socialist governments over the past 30 years have immigrants found "it easy to be comfortable without much effort to integrate into the broader society...," assimilating into the broader society has been the turn off of the "victim" spout for them. There are riches galore to be had through government programs once you can prove that you are either part of a victim group or are a victimized individual.

Why assimilate if the government will pay your bills as a hyphenated Canadian?

I am NOT saying that many immigrants are not pulling their weight in Canadian society. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are. But we're a small country, and we cannot afford to continue the multicultural apartheid system the Liberals first brought in under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I still maintain that he and his government had as one prong of their multi-culti agenda the watering down, if not the obliteration, of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Back then, going to church was de rigeur; most families did. In 2006, 80% of Canadians do not go to church, synagogue, or mosque. If this was one of the intended outcomes of Trudeau's multicultural experiment, it was highly successful.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 8:33 AM

O/T Reminder to those that may have forgotten-click on the link for the weblog awards to support the best Canadian Blog period-SDA.

Posted by: Jim in Calgary at December 9, 2006 8:57 AM

Canada is fringing on problems similar to Britain, we too should be doing what Blair of Britain is doing and Howard of Australia as well. Also Holland has a very good idea going in the same vane, showing the possible immigrants a video of life in Holland, the message being, if they can't abide, they should not consider living there.

Our problem with immigrants with which we have little or no history is compounded by our Multiculturalism and Charter Rights Acts. They encourage and enable them to ghettoize.
No doubt we will go to the brink before we act, at which time we may be reacting to something very traumatic.

Posted by: Liz J at December 9, 2006 9:03 AM

Re my above post. I should have said that 80% of Canadians do not attend church or synagogue, seeing as I am talking about Canada's Judeo-Christian heritage.

D'Souza underlines my suspicions about one of the motives behind Trudeau's and the Liberals' multicultural experiment, which has been extremely effective:

[Begin quote]

Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science. These institutions were developed because of a peculiar dynamism in Western civilization -- a dynamism driven by the combination of Western philosophy and theology. And it is these institutions, I believe, that comprise the source of Western strength and explain the West's long-standing dominance in the world. In keeping with this, and contrary to multiculturalist doctrine, America's unparalleled power in the present is sustained far less by military force than by the force of its ideas and institutions.

[End quote]

It is precisely the dynamism of "Western philosophy and theology," which, in the case of North America, is a reference to Judeo-Christian theology, that has driven the machinery of "democracy, captialism, and science" in the West. And it is this dynamism that has attracted immigrants from all over the world, of many different races and religions.

It seems incumbent upon us in the West to NOT water down our dynamic and democratic heritage, which has fuelled unparalleled progress for not just us, but for the whole world.

I suggest that readers of this post read D'Souza's complete thesis, where he answers charges of racism and the "negative" effects of colonialism.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 9:11 AM

First Australia...then England....wouldn't it be nice if Canada could follow suit?
Excellant info as always, Thanks Kate.
Posted by: Sumbuddy at December 9, 2006 07:14 AM

Let's hope this is the start of a domino effect. Well done, Mssrs. Howard & Blair.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at December 9, 2006 9:12 AM

Multiculturalism is a policy of the Government of Canada.

It is the prime tool for the perpetuation of the socialist utopia/welfare state espoused by left-liberals/socialists.

It is the monster from Trudeau and his cabal.

This policy, however, has not/does not apply to Quebec, which is a unicultural/unilingual, French only, province.

The Multiculturalism Act was meaningfully applied only outside Quebec; Bill 101 made Quebec unilingual French only. This is but one outcome: the real discrimination mentioned below.

This Act was/is the acid used to attempt to dissolve Anglo-Saxon Canadian heritage.
How? By making all cultures equal, everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec. Anglo-Saxon heritage was levelled/denigrated/downplayed/diminished; not to be dominant any longer.

Message: Bring your culture into Canada; live in ghettoes; do not integrate into Canada; all cultures are the same; enjoy.

Ghettoes become no-go-zones, as in France; or, as on/in Indian reserves.


"These may be a recognition of real problems

that will be dealt with in a multicultural manner

or them may be thinly disguised phrases

for discrimination."

C. Themes in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act

In the October, 1996 paper, "A 'Great' Large Family," Chris Fries and I identified several major themes that exist in the Act. While other researchers might identify a different set of themes, or name them differently, the following five themes would seem to identify the main features of the Act.

* Diversity
* Equality
* Overcoming barriers
* Harmony
* Resource

These generally seem to be very positive features, although it might be argued that diversity and resource are not so positive. Note that overcoming barriers is not emphasized in the Act, but rather treated as only one component, and perhaps a minor one.

So long as there are major economic and social inequalities, barriers to full participation and equality do exist

and multicultural policy may do little to help

reduce these barriers.

In recent years though, there has been a greater focus of multicultural policy on "antiracism, removal of discriminatory barriers, and institutional accommodation" (Fleras in Charlton and Baker, p. 27). By focusing on social justice as a major theme, the renewed Multiculturalism Program appears to put more emphasis on these issues. At the same time, the phrases "management of diversity," "management of pluralism," or "managing a diverse workplace" have become commonly used in some parts of Canada. These may be a recognition of real problems that will be dealt with in a multicultural manner or them may be thinly disguised phrases for discrimination."

On July 21, 1988, Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, or The Canadian Multiculturalism Act became law. The Act currently reads in part:

3. (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to ...-

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2006 9:24 AM

"[I]f you apply for a job with the RCMPolice, DO NOT EXPECT to be able to wear your turban and sword"

Actually, I've never had much heartache with the idea of Sikhs in either the RCMP or our forces.

They have an excellent record as first-rate soldiers of the British Empire. They served by our side with courage, loyalty and distinction through two world wars; there's no lack of Sikh names on Commonwealth War Graves tombstones.

Many years ago, I recall hearing an interview with a Sikh RCMP constable on CBC Radio (he was posted to some BC logging town). The weenie female interviewer asked something like, "How would you feel if, when you were on patrol, you went into a bar on a Friday night and some of the customers made remarks about your turban?"

Without missing a beat, he replied, "If I worried about what a bunch of drunks in a bar thought about me, I'd never have become a police officer."

Good answer.

Posted by: JJM at December 9, 2006 9:55 AM

The Sikh thing is darwinism at it's finest. If Sikh soldiers refuse to wear a helmet, well, there'll be a few less Sikhs after the next firefight. Ditto for Sikh motorcyclists, although any head injuries should NOT be covered by our healtcare system. Let them pay for their own religious idiocy.

Posted by: Alex at December 9, 2006 10:15 AM

The racist "Distort D’Newsa" is profiled at

Posted by: dave m. at December 9, 2006 10:32 AM

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Hillsdale sounds like a great college. Their mission statement is an interesting read -- here is the link:

Posted by: Muttering In Manitoba at December 9, 2006 10:40 AM

The Sikh RCMP constable’s answer was cutesy and contrived. In fact, he should be very much concerned about how the drunks in the bar perceive a uniformed police officer. He should be concerned whether they have a culturally-induced, gut-level respect for the uniform, which most of us raised in Canada automatically have. We learn our gut-level values, starting in the cradle, and they can’t be easily re-programmed. So don’t blame the people in the bar, blame the idiots who are trying to re-program us to respect a uniform that is culturally foreign to us, for no logically defensible purpose.

Posted by: glasnost at December 9, 2006 10:43 AM

Shorter Jose: "Whaaaa, Canadians are racist".

You say that a lot but empirical data suggests otherwise. Anyway, we're not as racist as the Portuguese, lol.

Posted by: Bob at December 9, 2006 10:56 AM

Three cheers for Tony Blair. Lets hope Monte Solberg is listening. Write him to ask for these same changes in Canada. In the comments in the g&m re this, the only ones who appear to be against it have Arabic names. Thats another thing parents could do, quit naming their kids after the terrorists and their ilk. I am sure there are english equivalent names, they could use. After all we all have someone we disliked or had problems with as a child in school and to this day distrust anyone with that same name. First thing these newcomers must have is one of our languages. Why should I pay for someone to learn to speak and overload our education system.

Posted by: maryT at December 9, 2006 11:02 AM

What we're seeing now is simply a very old cycle repeating itself.

Posted by: Jose

Multiculturalism became law in 1988 Jose.
I'm not convinced that 18 years is "a very old cycle, repeating itself".
On the contrary, this sounds more like a relatively brand new destructive policy cooked up without any thought by elitist inane Utopians.
You better read the Hillsdale article.

Posted by: Trudeau's Nazi Helmet at December 9, 2006 11:19 AM

One interesting side issue here: Or is it a side issue?

Dinesh D'Souza is a man of East Indian origin, part of what he, himself, talks about as "the browning of America." Thank G*d for writers as articulate and knowledgable about history and the actual facts about slavery, immigration, colonialism, racism, and multiculturalism, of whatever colour, race, or religion.

But a question worth asking is: Would a writer with the name of Denis Smith, say, of British-Irish heritage be given the same hearing if he had written the same article?

maz2 is right on when he points out that "This [Multicultural] Act was/is the acid used to attempt to dissolve Anglo-Saxon Canadian heritage.
...By making all cultures equal, everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec. Anglo-Saxon heritage was levelled/denigrated/downplayed/diminished; not to be dominant any longer."

It's time to "take back the night" that Anglo-Saxon heritage has been consigned to by the Utopian/socialist hordes in government, academia, the MSM, and even in our churches of Anglo-Saxon heritage where their "leaders" have become surrender monkeys of the first order.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 11:46 AM

I think an important point is that the West remains the only culture that actually rejected slavery and inequality; that set up a Magna Carta, which is to say, the rule of law rather than the rule of a leader; and a Declaration of Independence and Constitution that specifically articulated the equality of the individual.

These other cultures did indeed participate in colonialism, wars of occupation and slavery - and, they never renounced them. Therefore, why does the left ignore these moral and intellectual triumphs?

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2006 11:56 AM

Well, ignoring all the silly stuff about Sikhs on motorcycles and parents "naming their kids after terrorists" etc., etc., I can only give my own opinion on immigrants thusly:

1. Immigrants should learn one (or preferably both) of our official languages.

2. Immigrants should be prepared to become Canadian citizens if they intend to reside in Canada permanently.

2. Immigrants should be prepared to work.

3. Immigrants should not allow their attachment to their home country to outweigh their responsibilities to Canada.

Immigrants should otherwise be free to get on with their lives as they see fit - just like the rest of us.

And while I do think the Canadian taxpayer has a moral responsibility to assist immigrants in integrating into Canada (e.g., English and/or French lessons), I don't think the Canadian taxpayer has any moral responsibility to assist immigrants with their own cultural activities.

You want the kids to learn all about their Iranian history and speak Farsi? No problem. But you pay for it.

Posted by: JJM at December 9, 2006 11:56 AM

Large waves of dominant immigrant cultures overwhelm, they don't assimilate. Polynesia, for example. Closer to home, travel to Trinidad, Bombay west... Spend time in south Florida...

There is no such thing as multiculturalism as a stable form of civilization, or, put another way, the stability of multiculturism is in its constant flux of competitive change. Culture is Darwinist, just like the animals it regulates.

Posted by: Skip at December 9, 2006 12:13 PM

JJM - Re your 9:55a.m. post: Why do we need to Know the religion of our policemen? and, when muslim women apply to join the force, as they eventually will, should they be allowed to wear
their veils and head coverings?

Posted by: maggie at December 9, 2006 12:14 PM

David Fraum give sda a mention today. Also takes the latest report on Iraq apart. Blaming Isreal and Palestine for all the worlds problems is = to blaming Bush for everything from Eve eating the apple to killing JFK. He states Palestine could have had peace in 1947, said no, could have had a state in 1967, said no. They want all or nothing, sort of like the SWL deal the liberals tried. Just wonder how many have died in Isreal and Palestine because they wanted Isreal gone. What kind of economy would Palestine have if they had decided peace instead of death. It is a vicious world out there. Eventually the world leaders and media will have accept the fact that this terrorism in the muslim countries would happen with or without peace between Isreal and Palestine. Why would some young muslim in the US decide to try and set off 4 hand grenades in a Chicago mall when the he has probably never heard of either country, just allah. Wait till someone succeeds in Toronto.

Posted by: maryT at December 9, 2006 12:48 PM

"Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science"
This is so untrue, ALL great powers have used colonialism, or have used force in the maintenance of their domination. To deny this is to close your eyes. Have we become this detached from history that we cannot even remmeber what has happened in our past? The U.S. was different in some ways, less obvious at times, in the way it dominated others, more through the use of its corporations, but even then, when those businesses where threatened by governments wishing to free themselves from U.S. domination, the U.S. had no qualms about sending in their military. South America is a prime example of how the U.S. dominated and acted in ways comparable to a colonial force, more subtle, but still no less oppressive, and democracy was definitely not high on the agenda, Cuba anyone???
The next upcoming power, China, will be no different than any of the others that have had their turn at the throne. They will use whatever means they find necessary to maintain their dominance over less powerful nations. This is our history.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 1:44 PM

Richard comments: "The next upcoming power, China, will be no different than any of the others that have had their turn at the throne."

Oh yeah?

Where's China's commitment to individual (not group) human rights--or any human rights, for that matter? What philosophical or theological ideas does China emulate to create not only a democracy, in their own country or any country that it should colonize?

Judging by the way they treat their own citizens, I suspect that, if you're right, Richard, China WILL "use whatever means they find necessary to maintain their dominance over less powerful nations." What they won't do, however, and what every Western democracy has done, with its unique blend of philosophical and theological (that would be Judeo-Christian) ideas, is to leave behind it principles of democracy, equality before the law, and justice on which newly forming countries can base their own governance.

You need to refresh your ideas of "history," Richard. China, with its dismal track record in the human rights department, does not equal England or the United States of America.

There is no equivalency here.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 1:59 PM

"To deny this"
Richard nobody is denying anything.

Reread in order.

Posted by: richfisher at December 9, 2006 1:59 PM

the age of colonization and the age of democracy hardly overlap. True democracy cannot coexist with slavery , I think that was central to the American Civil war.

slavery still exists in the middle east which is still a system of fifedoms.

Posted by: cal2 at December 9, 2006 2:10 PM

"Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science"

This is so untrue, ALL great powers have used colonialism, or have used force in the maintenance of their domination. To deny this is to close your eyes. Have we become this detached from history that we cannot even remmeber what has happened in our past?

Perfect example of a knee-jerk leftard response.

The statement doesn't say western civilization hasn't used colonialism. It says western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism.

Posted by: ol hoss at December 9, 2006 2:54 PM

And the multiculteralists are the ones who are screwing up everything with thier butting in and do gooderism

Posted by: spurwing plover at December 9, 2006 3:07 PM

I can't really respond to most of the rebuttals leveled at me since they don't really have anything to do with what I said. For a lot of people debate means "ignore what the other guy said, substitute something else from your imagination that is indefensible, pretend the other guy said that and respond appropriately." I'm a bit tired of that so I'm not going to bother taking that bait anymore.

However a few quibbles:

"Judeo-Christian theology, that has driven the machinery of "democracy, captialism, and science" in the West"

The West had the roots of science and democracy long before it ever got Judeo-Christian theology. The west is built upon two cultural traditions that co-exsist in a state of tension: the Hellenic and the Judeo-Christian.

Murray- cheers for engaging me in a bit of real discussion:

"but I do think the ethos of the country shapes how the integration and transformation takes place (of both immigrants and the receiving society),"

I'm not sure how much difference the ethos of the country really makes myself so much as how tolerant and accepting people are to the immigrants. The more unwelcoming, the more likely the immigrants will form insular communities. In any case I don't think government policy counts for very much.

Posted by: Jose at December 9, 2006 3:21 PM

Around the block, do you really think the U.S., Spain, Germany, France, or Britain, or any other nation you wish to name, where instilling democracy or Judeo-Christian principles when they invaded or dominated other countries? When Jesus said "respect all men", I think He meant what he said. He did not say respect is earned, He did not say respect only "some", He said respect 'all' people. The form in which I see great powers dominating is through coercion, and at times invasion, how does this equate to respect? When you read the history of how the oil companies of different nations operated in the Middle East, and the treatment of the Arabs, is there anyone wondering why they formed OPEC? Or why Castro came to power? Why is Chavez where he is today? There are solid, valid reason why. When the Russians invaded Eastern Europe, and crushed any opposition to their dominance, the U.S., or Spain, supporting murderous regeimes in South America through military support and, or, at times invasion, where does this reflect respect? How does this give anyone the slightest notion that those powers where trying to instill democracy or Judeo-Christian principles?
What I think is if you treat people like crap, it can come back to bite you at some point, injustice breeds injustice, just as hatred breeds hatred, as we have seen in Ireland, Middle East, South America, North America, the Soviet satellites, and others. History is overflowing with examples, and what I wonder is why do nations keep making the same mistakes over and over? Why has the lesson not be learned, that injustice is equal to eventual failure and demise? We can worship God and our belief in Judeo-Christian principles all we want, but if governments do not exemplify those principles by their actions, then what have they, or we, to boast about? I am not saying the U.S. or Western nations are the 'Satans' of the world, that is for the wacko zealots. It is just a pattern that is ingrained in our history, regardless of what nation or religion. Do I think we have more to offer than what some other nations have shown? Most defintely, but we still have a long way to go, and have failed miserably in being able to point fingers at others, in far too many instances. What did Jesus say about pulling the lumber out of our own eyes first?

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 3:22 PM

Richard commented on this statement, "Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science"

Richard's comment was "This is so untrue". he asserted that- and he referred only to the US - that it used 'force and domination'; he referred to, in particular, corporations. Richard, I think that your anti-Americanism is leading you to focus on an invalid view of industrialism and economics.

First, the USA is not and never was, a colonial power. And 'domination' is an ambiguous word. If you refer to the domination of a corporation, let's say, that manufactures computers - that's an economic requirement. I'm sure you use a computer. Can any small business do the research necessary to develop a computer, raise the funds necessary to make them in a reliable and competent manner, market them effectively, provide back-up service etc, etc? There's nothing wrong with corporations; they are the backbone of industrialism.

If you want to live in a peasant economy, ie, non-industrial, then - by all means, you can do away with corporations. But as soon as you move into the highcosts, high risks, long term developments and required networks of industrialism - you require corporations.

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2006 3:35 PM

Does anyone know if Maher Avar denounced his Syrian citizenship?
So when next time in US they will not ship him there!
Do I have to pay for him like I did for Lebanese Canadians?
I like to keep my money – spend on beer and popcorn.

Posted by: george at December 9, 2006 3:40 PM

Ol Hoss, Britain was not a Colonial nation? Read your history, and as for the U.S., you are right not really a colonizer, but imperialistic, definitely, and not much difference in the end result. How would you feel if you found out China had covertly spent $30 million to help get the Liberals elected in the next election? Would you feel your right to a fair and democratic election had been tampered with? What would you think if China had secretly aided in an attempt to kidnap Harper? It isn't all black and white Hoss, the world is full of shades, too often dark ones.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 3:49 PM

The big buzzwords of the Liberal leftards are "Canadian values". Only they know what they are and only they know how to preserve them.
If what has gone down over the past decade under the Liberals is what they are referring to, we are in deep moral decline, on our way to social ruin and ripe for takeover.

The old horse's a**, apologies to the horse, Chretien, is right up to his eyeballs in business with China. Who's business? Who knows? He just came back from there before the big convention/love-in.

Old Mo Strong must have one hell of a big project in Mao's world, he's not been sighted around these parts for many moons.

Posted by: Liz J at December 9, 2006 3:52 PM

Jose I am curious, how do you feel about people who come to the western nations, and then want to change the laws of their new home, to match those of their country of origin? Would you think that would make the natives a tad suspicious of their willingness to become integrated citizens? I am not saying anything about their ability of keep their traditions and culture, but about their desire to live in harmony in their new home, and accept at least some of the basic values of their new home.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 4:02 PM

ET, my view of many corporations is that they are plain evil. We have become so obsessed with work and productivity, but most of all profits, and we have forgotten something that is far more important, namely people. In our haste to push God out of our institutions, and subsitute profits as the primary God, society has degraded, and is in a state of decline. You can point to anything you want as the cause, immigrants, laziness, socialism, the end when we give up the most basic core value of christianity, that people come first, nothing else, then failure is inevitable I think.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 4:15 PM

Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science. These institutions were developed because of a peculiar dynamism in Western civilization -- a dynamism driven by the combination of Western philosophy and theology. And it is these institutions, I believe, that comprise the source of Western strength and explain the West's long-standing dominance in the world. In keeping with this, and contrary to multiculturalist doctrine, America's unparalleled power in the present is sustained far less by military force than by the force of its ideas and institutions.

I should point out in passing that there is room in American education for an authentic multiculturalism. Reading lists can be anchored in Western thought and culture, but include the great books produced by non-Western cultures as well. This, however, is not what the multiculturalists want. For one thing, the great books of non-Western cultures reflect beliefs and prejudices that are anathema to multiculturalist ideology. To cite just two examples, the Koran embodies a strong doctrine of male superiority and The Tale of Genji, a Japanese classic, celebrates social hierarchy. So it is misleading for multiculturalists to say they support the expansion of curricula to include the great works of non-Western cultures. What they really support is tailoring education to promote the ideas and objectives of the political left.

Yeah, this is just about right, though I do not believe in all of present day American ideology regarding democracy, capitalism and science.

Posted by: Mark M at December 9, 2006 4:16 PM

It's curious that so many blame the left on multiculturalism in Canada. The Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988 - the Conservatives had a majority government at that time. Why would that make it Trudeau's fault? In addition, other Western countries adopted multiculturalism as a part of their own domestic policies, including the government of that noted left-winger, Margaret Thatcher.

The reality is that multiculturalism (and the expansion of immigration)is just another convenient means for the ruling government to expand it's voter base. "Invite them to our country, give them money for their folk festivals, etc. and they'll vote for us." Even if an identifiable ethnic group is responsible for terrorist acts in this country, this policy will probably not change: for example, the Conservative government didn't bar Sikhs from coming to Canada after the Air India bombing.

Posted by: lberia at December 9, 2006 4:22 PM

How about forming a new multicultural organization? The US, UK, Canada, Australia, maybe even India.

It could be called Anglostan.

Posted by: Wayne in Wetaskiwin at December 9, 2006 4:36 PM

Eyesore; I hope you are not of the 'ilk' that wants to bankrupt the service/hospitality industries of this nation with your fanatical hatred of cigarette smokers. If it is just on your own property that you wish to enforce your ban then that is fine with me - I just hope that you are not an agenda driven zealot.

You will not be among the Conservatives joining Mr. Thompson and willy Grayham in smoking a cigar to celebate the birth of a new baby born to a young M.P. in the Conservative Party. Maybe you could suck on a chocolate cigar or do you also have a chocolate ban in your mindset?

Beware the paths of peacemeal intrusions into the Freedoms of others lest they lead to your own door.

Posted by: Jema54 at December 9, 2006 4:46 PM

"In Canada, multiculturalism was adopted in 1971, following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec).
Progressive Conservative Party leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of "unhyphenated Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism.
The Liberal Party government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the "Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework" in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precursor of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which received Royal Assent on 21 July 1988. Symbolically, this legislation affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation, the first country in the world to explicitly ratify it in law. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures."

Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 "officially recognized" a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism.[1]

The section reads,

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."

P.S. Jose thinks Canadians are a bunch of racists.

Posted by: Bob at December 9, 2006 4:46 PM

Richard, Jesus NEVER said "Respect all people." He said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and heart, and your neighbour as yourself."

I agree with you that governments all too often do not do as Jesus counselled. But I would suggest that the reason we see mass immigration from countries not based on Judeo-Christian principles, even though democratic governments are not perfect (human institutions never will be, despite the hopes of the Utopians) is that other countries, the ME countries and China included, don't in any way exemplify democratic principles.

The thing about Judeo-Christian principles is that they accept the HUMANITY of each person, whatever their race or religion, because they believe that EVERY PERSON is created in the image of God.

That belief is not shared by countries whose goverments are not based on this premise--and this is the reason the flow of immigration is from those countries to the West.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 4:46 PM

Richard - if you feel that the Chinese spent x-dollars in a Canadian election, then, you'd have to evaluate the people who took the money; not just the people who offered the money.

Richard - again, you have no understanding of corporations. You are talking mythic nonsense. You are using a computer. Could you, on your own, engineer and develop such a thing? Do you have the expertise, the know-how to design it? Do you know that you have to pay for that expertise - or do you expect the computer engineers to live on the street? Do you know that you have to pay for the parts, for the manufacture, for the research ? That's what corporations do. You have been brainwashed into a simplistic and naive view. What do YOU think corporations do?

A corporation is a group of citizens, who pool their money, to research, develop, innovate and make a product. No single person could do that by themselves. It takes a colllective. What's wrong with that?

God has nothing to do with this issue - don't be naive. A corporation MUST make profits. Do you know why? Of course you don't; you think it's evil profits which they will spend it all, not on beer and popcorn, but on yachts and women. No, it is reinvested into more research, more risk-ventures, more entrepreneurship.

Another error you make, Richard, is assuming that all cultures are equal. They aren't; they are intimately tied to their economic system. When that system changes, the cultural behaviour must change.
So- if someone is coming to a land, which is currently economically, only hunting and gathering, and introduces agriculture - that means that the old way of culture, which supports hunting and gathering, must change. That's what happened to a lot of peoples in North American and Africa; they are economically only in hunting and gathering. When agriculture was introduced by the Europeans - the old hunting and gathering culture had to change; it no longer works in an agricultural economy.

Same thing the opposite way. When a tribal group based around a peasant agriculture, such as Islamics, comes to Europe or N. America, which is not tribal and is industrial, then, the tribal immigrants have to adapt. Why do they have to adapt? Because an economy can't go backwards. It can't regress from an industrial to an agricultural mode. That's backwards.

So, the less developed economy and its peoples have to adapt to the more developed economy and its culture. You may not like that - but economics is more important than utopian dreams.

Iberia- it would be interesting if you could provide some proof that the gov'ts of the day were so desperate to retain power, and were losing it within their home populations, that they felt that had to entice immigrants to come, and provide a preservationist ideology that would require no integration - just for votes. Didn't they realize that this would cost them votes in their core constituents? And - was it the case that they were losing the core constitunet votes? Why? I think that you hypothesis is filled with enough holes for a boatload of immigrants to fall through - and disappear.

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2006 4:51 PM

I always have to laugh at multicult in the United Kingsdom. Most history buffs know full well that the British Isles were the doormats of the western world for hundreds of years. Everybody and his dog conquered them and ruled them for varying amounts of time. If the Brits had a multicult law hundreds of years ago, they would never have developed into the cohesive and powerful great country that they did become. There would still be little ethnocentric tribes of Normans, Romans, Vikings, Swedes etc etc spread over the island.
One of the defining marks of the fascist form of government is that it always divides a country up on the basis of race and/or religion. Pierre Trudeau was called a fascist by many people for many good reasons.

Posted by: rockyt at December 9, 2006 4:55 PM

Around the block, Jesus said love everyone as you love yourself. Can you tell me you can love someone but not respect them as a fellow human being, just as flawed as ourselves? Not talking about their behavior or their actions, but can you love someone and not respect that person? As for immigration yes you are right some basic democratic principles here and a much better chance at finding a job that will give them a future.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 5:27 PM

"Western civilization, they say, became so powerful because it is so evil"

Yeah well it was always at war, either within its own ranks, or with extremely innovative outsiders such as Islam. Not neccessarily evil. Just better at fighting. Hence the fact that amongst western civilizations wondrous contributions are the two most devastating wars in history (WWI and WWII). For some reason this is always ignored.

I dont know if I buy the concept of western civilization - it seems to be about taking credit for "capitalism, liberalism, democracy" while ignoring the fact that communism and facism are also contributions of western civilization.

Besides, the real truth, not the truth of multiculturalism alone, is that proponents of western civilization conveniently ignore the fact that no civilization starts from scratch - every civilization picks up contributions from other civilizations - Western civilization ideals such as democracy et al benefitted a great deal from the fact that the Islamic civilization at the time had not banned Ancient Greek philosophy, while 'western civilization' had. Al Farrabi, Averroes et al left a major impact on western thinkers. Why are these facts so conveniently ignored?

Western civilization can claim superiority NOW, but how long do you think thats going to last with China and India rising. Another couple of centuries (not much in 5000 years of recorded human history). Western civilization, if there is such a thing (I find it hard to reconcile diverging French, British and German histories into one civilization) is in its golden age and it will eventually be surpassed - but does that make it inherently superior to other civilizations, many of which have had their glory days in the past? I think its a matter of context. It may now be superior, but well, give it another millenia and another civilization - 'eastern' by the looks of it, will.

Besides, anybody who's read d'Souza knows hes one of those "more catholic than the pope" types. Hes an immigrant and he hates being an immigrant so he trashes everything about immigrants, not surprisingly their 'culture', because people dont immigrate unless they ve got nothing to lose, adn d' Souza is probably no exception.

Posted by: cranky at December 9, 2006 5:36 PM

God has nothing to do with this issue - don't be naive.
ET...that is why we are going downhill. It is exactly that attitude, that corporations do not have to have morality, only profits are of concern. There 'are' so many examples of how corporations have acted like a true psychopath in the way they operate. A total disregard for the lives of workers, or customers.
If the corporation is 'only' concerned with profits, then we have removed the value of those who work there, or buy those products. Where did I ever say profits are bad? Please show me? I said when profits are the only consideration in operating a business, it is ignoring the value of people. I do not see business or profits as wrong, only when those profits become more important than basic moral values, and respect for people, then it becomes a failed institution, no matter how successful it is economically. If that is the only criteria we use to judge success or what is appropriate, then none will profit ultimately. People and the future generations are far more important than profits for today. Maybe that is why there are investment firms who only deal with companies that meet certain ethical standards of functioning.
Two more things ET what someone spends their money on is their business, I was not making any kind of statement about that fact. The second is that if a nation is 'only' tied to its economic system and not on some basic moral principles, it will eventually self-destruct I believe.

Posted by: Richard at December 9, 2006 5:45 PM

I didn't say that governments were necessarily losing their voter base of home constituents and thus had to bring in immigrants. It's more a case of adding to their voter base. As for proof, look at voting patterns and notice that liberal support is concentated in urban centres; most of the recent immigrants live in these ethnic centres; and, most of the immigration has occured while the liberals were in power. If all that is too circumstantial for you, consider this: do you honestly think that any party could win a federal election in Canada with a platform of "no more non-anglo immigrants"? Not likely, hence the pandering to the ethnic vote.

BTW..."A corporation is a group of citizens, who pool their money, to research, develop, innovate and make a product. No single person could do that by themselves. It takes a colllective. What's wrong with that?"

ET, is that really you? Did you really write that? My jaw hit the floor. A collective? Isn't that

Posted by: lberia at December 9, 2006 6:03 PM

Richard, you ask me if I " someone and not respect that person"? and I can answer, yes, that's entirely possible. And, as you suggest, I can't divorce respect from action and behaviour.

If someone I know is abusive in his/her relationships, I can hate what they do, that is not respect them or their behaviour, but I can love them. How? I can pray for them, I can wish the best for them, and if I know them well enough I can talk to them and suggest that they get counselling.

I know a lot of people who I don't respect, because of bad choices they've made, making life not only difficult for themselves but for everyone else, but I love them, just the same. I wish them no ill and I pray for them.

I would like to know what your thoughts are on the flow of immigration from countries with no Judeo-Christian foundations to countries where Judeo-Christian values have been the foundational values on which all of their public institutions are founded.

I don't see North Americans or Europeans, for instance, flocking to China or to the Middle East or to Cuba, which has outlawed Christianity and is now a socialistic Communist country. But, despite Britain and the U.S. using, as you put it, "colonialism...or...force in the maintenance of their domination," both countries have contributed enormously to free enterprise and democracy of the world. They have not enslaved their people, as the Chinese have, as Communists do, as Muslims do to their women: So, please remind me, again, where the equivalency is.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 7:11 PM

...uh, folks, let's can it for a bit...

Merry Christmas eh.

Posted by: tomax7 at December 9, 2006 7:11 PM

tomax7, please forgive me, but it's actually Advent for the next two weeks. Christmas doesn't start until Christmas Eve, and then it lasts for 12 days.

I'll be happy to say Merry Christmas then!

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 9, 2006 7:14 PM

Forgive me Iberia but mocking ET for using the term collective to describe capitalism displays a weak command of the language and meager rational mind.

The goals of the "collective" is where capitalism and socialism separate.

But that is a quibble compared to both your posts and Richard's and your attempts to critiques his insightful comments.

Go ahead and tilt into the wind aginst that which a free society and free markets have provided to you and your family. While you carp about how crappy corporations are to "people," they are the basis for an economic system that is the most sophisticated and successful the world has ever known.

Many, many more of the planets people can eat well and live longer because of the industrial revolution progressive march.

Sure there are people who go hungry and get sick and die but what would you have us do? Experiment further with Marxism or Communism, failed systems which wwere just awful to the "people."

Posted by: jrb at December 9, 2006 7:47 PM

A word about corporations, if I might.

I'm a big fan of corporations in the way they work by virtue of the free enterprise system.

Remember that publicly traded corporations are publicly owned, and therefore the people who profit are the shareholders in the corporation, which can include pension funds and citizens from any walk of life.

I knew a fellow whose corporation was downsized and he was fired, and at the same time the shares he owned in the corporation increased in value. You have to admit that it's pretty good when you can profit while being fired.

On the other hand, there is the creeping spectre that has conveniently remained concealed behind legitimate threats of socialism --

Plutocracy. This could loosely be defined as government controlled by big business.

An example in the US is our struggle with illegal immigrants.

The Chamber of Commerce and other spokesmen for big business (normally the group I travel with) really like the cheap labor that they get from illegal immigrants working in the US. It is said that one out of every seven Mexican workers now reside and work in the US.

The American people are something like 84% in favor of sealing our southern border, penalizing businesses that hire illegal aliens, and deporting most illegals who reside in the US. This is the will of the people.

However, powerful corporate interests want the cheap labor. So big corprate interests in agri-business and other areas put pressure on senators and congressmen to avoid sealing off our borders.

Well, these corporations give generously to the campaigns of senators and congressmen. They also have businesses that employ a lot of people and create a lot of economic activity in the states of these senators and in the congressional districts.

As a consequence it is very easy for senators and congressmen to drag their feet on border solutions while they continue to make businesses happy with the possiblities presented by illegal labor.

This is a struggle that presently is going on essentially between the will of the American people who see illegals as a threat to sovereignty, culture, language, and a host of other things, and big business that has powerful ways of influencing legislators to continue to look the other way.

So despite the fact that I am very much in favor of corporations and profit handsomely from them personally as a shareholder, I believe that it is the responsibility of government to make certain that these corporations are good citizens where they reside.

This kind of situation is repeated in many areas, and from what I've read on SDA about Power Corp, it seems to me that Canada also has some corporate citizens that need to improve their citizenship.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at December 9, 2006 8:01 PM

Funny, I was just watching a Discovery Channel show called 'Rick Mears Survival' in which he was living off the land much as the Laplanders of Finland have done for a thousand years.

He described it as a 'rich and complex culture' while the video showed a well dressed Lapland woman cleaning the skin of a reindeer, using traditional techniques. While I can be amazed and intrigued by their ability to use the natural products around them for their 'rich and complex culture', the simple fact is that it is still a life of catching fish, herding reindeer and living in tent and pole lodgings. It hasn't changed appreciably in a thousand years, which to me, disqualifies it as being either rich or complex.

By the way, I noted that the Lapland woman, in addition to her beautiful traditional clothing, was wearing a wristwatch and reading glasses, neither of which were developed by her rich and complex culture.

Posted by: Randy at December 9, 2006 8:10 PM

Multiculturalism was designed by Trudeau, and his ilk, in order to dissolve the Anglo-Saxon hegemony in Canada.

Quebec was/is not affected by multicult laws, etc. Quebec was/is a tribal entity, sleeping in its own world of clouds, merci.

What would Canada,other than Quebec, become?

Belgium. Belgium, is the European Union, personified: Chocolates and horsemeat.

Socialist Dion cares not a whit for Canada.

Dion is a French-European socialist, a nullity.

...- ...- ...-

Roger Scruton on Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Need to Defend the Nation State


It does not need me to tell you that the account of national loyalty that I have just offered does not fit easily to the case of Belgium.

For modern Belgium is a state in which two nations are being held together,

largely against the will of one of them.

Belgian citizenship is not rooted in a shared national loyalty, and has become a purely legal privilege, which can be bought or sold with the passport.

This buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe.

The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.

But it seems that the trafficking in Belgian passports is especially popular, perhaps because there is no pre-political loyalty which the passport represents.

For the same reason no efforts are made to ensure that immigrants to Belgium acquire loyalty to the secular state,
or respect for the customs that have shaped it:

Belgian citizenship is what immigrants are seeking,

and Belgian citizenship has been treated by the political class as a commodity,

to be bought and sold like any other.

Finally, the Belgian political class has fixed its sights on Europe,

as the collective enterprise that will extinguish all those old national loyalties,

and put a cosmopolitan indifference in their place.

The European Union has meant a lot to the Belgian élite. It places them at the heart of the continent, transforms Brussels from a provincial town in Flanders to the capital of Europe, and provides a project that will distract attention

from the growing disintegration of the country,

and from the problems which they are determined in any case to deny.

No wonder they are angry, when a popular party calls for the separation of Flanders, and for its re-constitution as a self-governing nation state.

Even if there is no ground for the charge of ‘racism and xenophobia’ you can be sure that the plan is to make it stick.

Just imagine what would happen to the EU, were Flanders to become a nation state!

What a step backwards this would be – a step towards loyalty, accountability, democracy and all the other superannuated things that the EU seeks to extinguish. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2006 8:12 PM

Murray wrote: "I met a couple on a plane from Delhi who barely spoke any English. They have lived over 25 years in Surrey, BC. They were lovely people, friendly and I am glad they are part of my country. But I wish they had become integrated...."

As an arch-conservative I couldn't agree more. However, this is hardly unique to non-western immigrants to Canada. For example, my parents have British friends who have been here for 35 years and have never bothered to become citizens. Shameful.

And I have friends from New Zealand who both teach in B.C. schools and have been here since the early 70's. Neither of them has taken out Canadian citizenship, yet they teach Canadian kids in Canadian schools and take home Canadian tax dollars and wait to collect Canadian Gov't pensions. Shameful.

Posted by: Randy at December 9, 2006 8:27 PM

If all cultures are equal, then why do we accept refugees?

Posted by: Kate at December 9, 2006 8:28 PM


Your problem (and ET's) is that you obviously imagine the world is only black and white, capitalist or socialist. Well, guess what? It isn't. There has never been a purely capitalist country in this world, nor has their been a purely socialist one. The best countries to live in have a balance between the two.

If you think corporation are so benevolent, check this out:

Posted by: lberia at December 9, 2006 8:32 PM

WE HAVE TO CHANGE for your benefit....

Under P. Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we apparently have no choice but to re-invent every organization of society, should a single individual warrant it doing so.

Case in point, the film titled: '100% Woman' documents Michelle Dumaresque's history-making and controversial foray into international women’s competition, and explores the thorny question raised by transgendered athletes. Since the world of sports is one of the few gender-segregated arenas left in our society, it poses a unique dilemma when the demand for equal
rights runs up against charges of unfair advantage."

She is the only person in professional mountain bike racing who started and lived life as a male until adulthood, then began competing as a woman. Her competitors believe that because of her underlying male physiology, she has an unfair competitive advantage.

But because the medical profession has declared her now to be 'female', under the Charter of Rights, she cannot be denied the right to compete against 'natural born women'. So the whole sport must accomodate this one individual, making the others feel that the competition has become a mockery of their right to compete on a level playing field.

Posted by: Randy at December 9, 2006 8:45 PM


Exactly!!! I wonder if these chowder heads even stop to think about the horrors most people who live in thee prison Nations experiance on a daily bases.

To say nothing of the many humiliations, injustices, thieft, with Women treated less than stock animals. Yup their the moral eqivalent of us all right.

Its the noble savage lie all over again. Where dealing with barbarians for the most part. Ones that want to kill us & have never shied away from admiting this.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at December 9, 2006 8:54 PM

Well there goes the reparations...

I thought that I would sue Italy (the Romans) for invading England and bringing with them their multicultural genetic deficiencies with them and their SLAVES.

Or is CANADIAN VALUES that we are the only nation that apologizes and pays off for what we now consider wrong doings of our forefathers ( eg Chinese head tax, Japanese Canadians confiscation of property during WWII etc. ) The laws, and reasoning behind them may be without foundation today, but then they were not... Why do we continue to apologize and pay?

Anyway, I agree with D'Souza; will abandon any thoughts of reparations and continue to celebrate being CANADIAN with deep roots to England, France, Austria, Germany(Poland at the time) and the Ukraine. I can not think of anything more Canadian than Yorkshire Pud, Tortiere, Strudel and Pyrogy!

Afterall, if lawsuits come back in vogue again; look at all the governments I can go seeking out a few bags of gold!

Posted by: NorthernLight at December 9, 2006 9:26 PM

"Jose I am curious, how do you feel about people who come to the western nations, and then want to change the laws of their new home, to match those of their country of origin?"

It depends on the law. Banning abortion I wouldn't be cool with, legalizing marijuana sure why not.

At the end of the day do you really want to make an immigrants political opinions a criteria for citizenship? How would you feel about a pro-choice r only immigration policy for instance? After all pro-life immigrants want to change the laws of this country, we can't have that now can we?

You can contemplate that can of worms all you want but no one in their right mind would want to open it.

Posted by: Jose at December 9, 2006 9:36 PM

Multiculturalism should not even be an issue for small-government, fiscal conservatives.

When people are living their lives in freedom, then it is entirely their own, private choice whether to associate with some other group of people, and it is also the free, private choice of all people to decide for themselves, without coercion, which language they will use for communication and which values they hold in common. People who live in this way are relatively free of ethnic conflict and tend to find the most peaceful, efficient and simplest means of getting along.

But say you're a socialist who believes in big-government programs like government education, government hospitals, government business subsidies, government arts and cultural support, government recreation, government transportation, government-controlled media ... in other words, say you're a completely typical 20th century or 21st century North American or European. You believe in coercive, monopolistic government institutions instead of voluntary and free association. What language are your coercive government institutions going to use when they're delivering their mandatory "services"? Whose underlying cultural norms and moral values will be supported by these monopolies? Anglo-Judeo-Christian? Euro-Christian? African Pantheist? Arab Sharia or Persian Sharia? Now, you've got a big fight on your hands. You insist that everyone has to go to government schools and watch government-regulated TV in order to learn the "proper" values, but other than the most basic values (life, liberty and property - which socialist countries virtually ignore anyways), there is no agreement whatsover on the precise ways in which people should behave and interact with each other. Should government force everyone to accept a uni-cultural government monopoly in education, healthcare, media, business regulation, civil law, etc.? Or should government force everyone to accept a multi-cultural government monopoly in all of these things?

One thing's for sure - when government forces either uniculturalism or multiculturalism on its citizens, it creates and exacerbates the very conflicts which it claimed it would extinguish. Not surprising, really. Peace does not flow from the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Justzumgai at December 9, 2006 9:43 PM

If the multi-culti equivalence crowd really wants to be consistent, it will accept the genital mutilation of girls in some cultures. Of course, it can't, consequently, multi-culti equivalence is based on convenient subjective choices of convenience.

Multi-culti is about guilt over slavery. Get over it already.

Posted by: shaken at December 9, 2006 9:44 PM

given my druthers, from where I have stood for the last, ahem, 55 years, I would choose to be born in the culture, race and nation that I am.

the acne part I could do without.

Posted by: bollocks at December 9, 2006 11:36 PM

why dont politishuns ever play serious devil's advocate with their regulatory legislation looking for loopholes?

1 prime example: taxicab licenses.

a small group of shrewd folks with inside track (not the same as insider info) scooped up all the licenses they could early on and went on to make many millions bartering the finite # of licenses.

without ever getting behind the wheel of a cab.

a loophole.

2nd example: income trusts.

nobody bothered to post a bounty for anyone who could find a serious loophole, so there it sat, waiting for the corporate beanheads to find it necessitating flaherty's unpopular and very typical politishun's way of dealing with loopholes: solve one big problem by creating thousands of smaller ones.

another example near miss: city of london was going to stiff landlords for the tenants' unpaid utility bills. I sent a number of very stinging letters to city hall pointing out that once word got on the street there was a 3 month or so window before the utility company pulls the plug, then THOUSANDS of deadbeats would stiff landlords with MILLIONS in utility bills, necessitating rent increases which would constitute a subsidy of the deadbeats by the reliable conscientious tenants.

the proposed bylaw was shot down.

so when in blazes are the political bosses going to admit they cant think of everything and set up a feedback mechanism, even if its unidirectional, experts pointing out in some formalized manner, perceived flaws-in-da-laws ???

never gonna happen with the present methods.

Posted by: bollocks at December 9, 2006 11:57 PM

Tolerance is the prelude to cultural relativism. The best way to practice absolute tolerance is by refusing to discern. By refusing to judge one has foresaken the concept of values-- one that one must act to acheive or maintain. Cultural relativism seek to destroy values and man's noble pursuit of them.

Posted by: Ryan McGillivray at December 10, 2006 12:38 AM

As per Ryans last post I agree....although I might say it a different way.

I really don't care what color, race or creed you are....your sexual preference matters not a whit...unless you are considering having sex with me.

As far as the multi-C goes.........Cultural observances are best hounoured within your circle.

What I will not tolerate is ignorance, corruption, manipulation and perifidy.


What does matter is if

Posted by: Syncrodox at December 10, 2006 1:06 AM

"If all cultures are equal, then why do we accept refugees?"

Oh Kate. Dont be daft. All political systems arent equal, and no they arent a reflection of culture either. Indias a democracy and Pakistan isnt despite the fact that both were one nation till about 60 years ago, and would ostensibly have shared the same culture until that period tooo.

Colonialism didnt bring democracy to the whole planet. It did however destroy local forms of government and create countries who ve had their borders drawn not to reflect ground realities, but to suit the whims and fancies of a western civilization that defeated them in war. These groups have historical rivalries. In Europe boundaries were drawn on the basis of linguistic groups. Not the case in Africa. All groups try to dominate others, regardless of whether they re western or eastern. In fact you re trying to do that right now.

That is without doubt the stupidest question I ve heard in my life. It betrays a lack of understanding of history and human nature. Let me guess, you avoided getting a higher education to avoid the leftist anti western civilization tilt of the education system.

Posted by: Oh boy at December 10, 2006 2:52 AM

"If the multi-culti equivalence crowd really wants to be consistent, it will accept the genital mutilation of girls in some cultures. Of course, it can't, consequently, multi-culti equivalence is based on convenient subjective choices of convenience.

Multi-culti is about guilt over slavery. Get over it already."

AMEN, shaken (but not stirred) brother!

Posted by: eastern paul at December 10, 2006 2:58 AM

Round the Block, I would disagree with you that you can love someone and also disrespect them. You can disrespect or dislike their "actions", but you cannot disrespect the person. Why? Because Christ does not disrespect you, and you have done nothing to earn His respect, none of us have. It is a free gift, hey is that communism?
Maybe not, but then again... As for immigration, we believe in freedom and we have an immigration policy that allows people to move here. That said, I do not think we should surrender our core values and beliefs and I also do not believe we should force our culture on anyone. It is treading a very fine line, at least for me it is. Some Muslims want Shira law, well no thank you, you moved here, we have our own laws, and if you do not like them, move to a country that will pratice those laws you want. People I believe move here because the west offers more freedoms and chances for personal success, and of course many have done very well for themselves, awesome. Another small point Around, is that the founding fathers of the U.S. where not all christians as we would know it, a few where diests. Some refused to believe in certain aspects of Jesus' powers or actions, and John Adams rejected the diety of Christ. Just something I learned which I never knew.

Posted by: Richard at December 10, 2006 2:59 AM

jrb...I will tilt at windmills as you put it. I believe too many corporations put profit ahead of the value of people's well being, and at times their lives, not to mention the oveall benefit to society. There are numerous examples of how corporations focus only on profits and operate within a moral vacuum. That is not sustainable for any civilization, and the more prevalent it becomes the more harm it does to the citizens of that country. I am not denying the value of business, and work, I reject that profits are the only reason for operating a business. I think Adam Smith had concerns about the power of businesses and their ability to excessively control people, and governments. Eisenhower also worried about a similar situation with the military industrial complex, and he mentions the power and influence of money. I think these two men among others, realized the dangers of corporations to influence and control politicians and ultimately the public. Just as there are dangers in having governments that are all powerful, there has to be a balance between public and private interests. We do not have that=limited democracy.

Posted by: Richard at December 10, 2006 4:12 AM

Richard, thank you for your response. Would I/could I respect Hitler, Stalin, Clifford Olson, or Karla Homolka? No, I wouldn't/ I couldn't. Yet, as a Christian, I am called to love; that means, in these contexts, praying for these people, wishing them no ill, hoping for them--it's too late for Stalin and Hitler--that someone/something will change their way of thinking and their way of life in a positive direction.

You say, "As for immigration, we believe in freedom..."

And why is that? Freedom in Canada didn't just 'happen.' It is no accident. We are a democracatic free-enterprise economy, with equality of opportunity, because our founding institutions are based on freedoms as outlined in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Canadians seem reluctant to admit this. Maybe they don't know our history. Seeing as the public education system has done everything it can to erase the Christian 'stamp' of our society, perhaps it's little wonder.

Then you add, "That said, I do not think we should surrender our core values and beliefs and I also do not believe we should force our culture on anyone." (You seem to contradict yourself in your next few sentences.) Before individuals come to Canada, they need to do their homework and find out who we are and what our "core values" are (not the Liberals' "Canadian values," PLEEZE). They need to understand that they will be expected to assimilate and not live in ethnic/religious ghettos forever. And that they will have to live by democratic priniciples, not the cramped, partisan ones they've been used to in their countries of origin.

Canada, like Britain and Australia, needs to clearly articulate our expectations of immigrants to Canada, which need to be much higher than the Liberals' underwhelming desire simply for more votes. If people are coming to our country, and are going to benefit financially when they first arrive and then, from our greater freedoms (bought at a great price by Canadian men and women in two world wars and now in Afghanistan) they need to know that it is unacceptable to continue to live as they always have by bringing their wars and inter-tribal clashes to Canada.

Enough multicultural political correctness, which prevents law enforcement and other agencies from coming down hard on individuals in these communities when they're engaging in illegal activities (Air India, Jane and Finch drug wars, Muslim militancy, come to mind). The law should be blind to the ethnicity of felons.

Canada is being torn apart by hyphenated Canadian enclaves, no doubt Pierre Elliot Trudeau's ultimate motive for multiculturalism, in order for Quebec to be transcendent within our Dominion. A Machiavellian Magus: weren't most Canadians duped?

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 10, 2006 7:42 AM

The new religions in Canada, ushered in by no other than PET, with his Communist and Nazi predilections, are bilingualism, feminism, soicialism, and multiculturalism.

They have replaced Judeo-Christian faith in the public square, to the point that when most young people think of "Canadian values," feminist, bilingual, socialist, and multicultural propaganda pop into their heads. They have no idea of any other "values" unless their parents have taught them other ones.

Given that only 20% of Canadians go to church or synagogue, and that 100% of our young people go to schools, where Judeo-Christian principles are, at best, non-existent or, at worst, ridiculed, and where small "l"-liberal revisionist propaganda has replaced the actual teaching of history, is it any wonder that our children are complete strangers to the religious underpinnings of our up-to-now successful democracies in the West?

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 10, 2006 8:34 AM

Liz J at December 9, 2006 09:03 AM

"No doubt we will go to the brink before we act, at which time we may be reacting to something very traumatic."

This worries me too Liz. This is something I see to be as almost inevitable. Sometimes people will say enough and take matters into their own hands.

I believe France is ripe for this to occur at any time. All it needs is a catalyst.

Posted by: signaller222 at December 10, 2006 9:30 AM

"The new religions in Canada, ushered in by no other than PET, with his Communist and Nazi predilections, are bilingualism, feminism, soicialism, and multiculturalism."

Fair enough. But what is so wrong with a Canada that needs to be changed. Well, apart from the fact that Liberals benefit in elections as a result of them.

I really dont know why you would want to go around pushing unneccessary change on a society that, by and large, is perfectly fine. Theres really very little to complain about - apart from having to let go of a little more of your money.

All in all, this is one of the few countries in the world where everyone can feel safe. Cant say that about England. Or Australia - anybody remember the race riots of last summer - and no it wasnt immigrants who were instigating them, it was Aussies who were drunk.

Australia, btw, has a very serious racism problem. They are by no means an ideal state.

That said, multiculturalism is going a bit too far when you decide to legally implement things like Shariah. There is a Canadianness that needs to be respected, and it has its parameters, but it seems to me that a lot of people here simply want to narrow those parameters, which I think will not contribute positively to Canadian society. Life right now is fairly good. Amongst the best in the world.

Dont believe me? Go to Africa. OR inner city America for that matter. We ve got a pretty good deal up here.

Posted by: Quantano at December 10, 2006 9:36 AM

batb's right on. The First Sunday in Advent was a week ago. Advent is the beginning of the Christian New Year and is a time for fasting--doesn't happen too often these entitled days--and prayer for Christians: as they await Christ's coming, they hope for peace and that, like Christ, they might bring light and healing to a broken and hurting world. I'd say that's a pretty good message for anyone.

So, the next day, at the school where I teach, what day was commemorated from the board's "special days" book? The UN Day of the Disabled. Oh yeah, that great Canadian institution, the UN! (IMO, this corrupt and bloated boondoggle is one of the major CAUSES of world discord.) I asked if Advent was even included in the book. No. I told the administration at my school that I thought ignoring important days or seasons of the Judeo-Christian dispensation, on which the dominion of Canada was founded and on which our society's laws and stability rest, is a serious oversight. I've written a short script to be read over the PA.

I've also written scripts for Epiphany, eclipsed by the New Year, Ash Wednesday--the Chinese New Year superceded it--and for All Saints and All Souls Days, which are "tsunamied" by Halloween. (The board wants "equity"? I'll provide it! I intend to send my scripts to the lady at the equity office to include in the board's "special days" book. So, what ignoramuses--or propagandists--managed to overlook three of the most important Christian observances? Let me guess . . . )

I call my successful literacy program, which I've largely developed myself, a "structural language program". It's solidly based on language PATTERNS, which my children learn by direct instruction and problem solving games I've devised. Then there is massive practice of the skills. (A principal once scoffed at the very idea and insisted that I put quotation marks around the word "massive". Sheesh!)

My point? The kids have no pattern whatsoever re virtues or values. What they hear at school is a total hodge-podge of mushy thinking and maudlin feelings, in short, propaganda. (The mewlings, with claws, on December 6 to commemorate the "Montreal Massacre" were quite disgusting: feminist misandry of the worst kind. I don't know how my principal, a reasonable person, could stomach and mouth such vile platitudes.)

The only saving grace is this: there is no pattern to commit to, no allegiance of any kind, and no cultural memory is nurtured or sustained. The kids--teachers too, actually--generally ignore the whole thing.

Now, to contradict myself: unfortunately, the cultural memory kids in the public system ingest is a cluttered one, with very little meaning. This gruel neither nurtures nor sustains. In general, our children are unmoored from morality, which, in truth, is grounded in religious faith, not the junk-food--at best--to poisonous stew of moral relativism the public schools dole out. Throw out faith and there is neither the will nor the strength to resist the barbarism that surely follows. And then we wonder about the horrors we experience around us more and more often.

Kyrie eleison.

Posted by: lookout at December 10, 2006 10:04 AM

Kate: "If all cultures are equal, then why do we accept refugees?"


Posted by: tomax7 at December 10, 2006 10:22 AM

"Or Australia - anybody remember the race riots of last summer - and no it wasnt immigrants who were instigating them, it was Aussies who were drunk."

Actually that's not quite correct. The race riots were precipitated by an attack upon three lifeguards by (you guessed it!) muslim youths. You see Australia's beaches have become trolling grounds for pedatory muslim gangs over the years.
Yes there may have been drunks, but to identify the drunkeness of some of the crowd, or the actions of the rioters, as the jumping off point, is to ignore all previous actions and events. The riots were a reaction to these events, not the cause.

Posted by: one of the other greg's at December 10, 2006 10:55 AM

Why are all head honchos so afraid of a lawsuit. Seems all anyone has to do is to threaten one and the leaders of a school, town, city, media etc give up. Seattle was threatened with a lawsuit by a Rabbi if they didn't take down the Christmas tree or put up a symbol of the Jewish faith. Tree and christmas decorations were taken down. Wonder how retailers around the US and Canada would react when public celebration of Christmas is finally abolished, because that is what is in the future. We Christians will continue to celebrate, but will do it in the way it is supposed to be done, and get rid of the commercialism.

Posted by: maryT at December 10, 2006 11:01 AM

"Canada is being torn apart by hyphenated Canadian enclaves, no doubt Pierre Elliot Trudeau's ultimate motive for multiculturalism, in order for Quebec to be transcendent within our Dominion."

Now that's just plain silly. I suppose you also believe George Bush and Halliburton blew up the Twin Towers themselves?

The Dominion of Canada was built from Day One as a confederation of hyphenated enclaves - we set ourselves up like that in 1867. The proof is our continued "chicanerie nationale" over English- and French-Canadian issues (or Western, Maritime and Central Canadian spats for that matter).

The idea that Trudeau was trying to make Quebec somehow "transcendent" is just plain tosh. Whatever we might think of old Pierre (and I have a long list of gripes about him and his acolytes), he was nothing if not "pan-Canadian" in his outlook.

His actions during the FLQ crisis and his robust response to separatism stand as proof of that.

C'mon folks, let's raise the bar a little with these comments.

Posted by: JJM at December 10, 2006 11:13 AM

Richard: "ET, my view of many corporations is that they are plain evil."

ET: "A corporation is a group of citizens, who pool their money, to research, develop, innovate and make a product. No single person could do that by themselves. It takes a colllective. What's wrong with that?

God has nothing to do with this issue - don't be naive. A corporation MUST make profits. Do you know why? Of course you don't; you think it's evil profits which they will spend it all, not on beer and popcorn, but on yachts and women. No, it is reinvested into more research, more risk-ventures, more entrepreneurship. "

What is this, a Bizzaro Certs commercial? STOP, you're both wrong.

Richard, corporations that compete in free markets without government subsidy, like your local dry cleaner, doughnut store, or dress shop (which, by the way, make up the majority of Canadian corps.), are the nearest we have to completely Christian enterprises. They offer their products to a market which is free to choose or reject them; if the people who make that market feel a particular firm offers a higher value (be it lower price, higher quality, better service, whatever), they will choose it. For example, I get my morning coffee at Coffee Time, because the lines are short, and I'm in and out in a moment, unlike any Tim's near me. However, when Tim's comes out with something new and interesting, like their breakfast biscuits, I'm willing to try that. Free choice in a free market - that means a group of people offering what products they think represent the best value and choice to people who are free to reject that combination for another. Ultimately, free market capitalism is about *service*; those who provide great service succeed, those who don't, die. To take a very recent example: there are many who claim corporations cut costs at every chance, to increase profits while endangering consumers. But Taco Bell recently announced, because of a few cases of disease, it was eliminating green onions from its products. TB could have concluded it was one bad batch of onions, done nothing, said nothing, and carried on. But, its directors realized in the long term, the best course was to be honest and open, and take the road that made now and future customers more secure.

Now to ET: I'm sorry, but have you not read a newspaper in the last five years? If you have, please defend the actions of Dennis K. of Tyco, of the Adelphi owners, of Conrad Black, of Eleanor Clithoroe and the latest disgraced chief of Hydro One (Parkinson? - too lazy to look it up), among many, many examples. While most corporations do "good" in every sense of the term, some, especially those who depend on some sort of government favour (e.g. the Canada Wheat Board) or government supported monopoly (Ontario Lottery), or government subsidy (Bombardier) betray that trust, and do "evil", in Richard's term.

I'm a capitalist, and I worked for a high tech startup where the owner pledged everything he had to make the business work. In the event, it did, but he had many sleepless nights and god knows how many ulcers until he had success. I left a bit early so I didn't have the financial success he did, but I don't begrudge him a penny. He had a vision, he staked his money and reputation on it, and he succeeded. I think he is as great a Christian as one can find: he offered his ideas and wealth to the world, hoping they would find the offer valuable, while risking everything he had.

Jesus told the parable of the talents. To me, this is the Christian veneration of capitalism. If you work in a free market, without government intervention or subsidy, where people are free to choose to buy your products or not, and you do so, in the spirit of the parable, of returning the greatest value to your investors, then I think what you do is noble and good.

Posted by: Kevinb at December 10, 2006 11:34 AM

The impetus for Tony Blair's recent speech effectively calling an end to multiculturalism in Britain is Islamic supremacy. It is a culture that wants to replace the host culture completely. It is their 'holy' mandate. To the ummah there is no higher law than sharia, the host country's laws are man's law and must be defeated.

Other cultures may come here and bring deep hatreds from their homelands, ie: Jamaicans in Toronto, the Air India disaster, the Tamils, etc. However, they are not attempting to, or for that matter, want to replace our culture.

We must be proud of our culture, it has created the best way of life in the world. We cannot allow the runaway concept of tolerance to enable lesser, dark age cultures to replace ours with barbarity and slavery. It is Muslims - politically organised and Saudi financed - who are manipulating our laws and deceiving our leaders (taqiyya) in order to attain their goal of worldwide sharia (regardless of how long it takes). And this must be stopped dead.

As an aside, it is the Islamic nations who created and still maintain slavery. They are the ones who created the African slave trade (the west, of course, was a willing participant, but only for a period). In fact, the arabic word for black and slave is the same - Abed. Same thing goes for how they treated the Slav's (slave). It was the Barbary Muslims who captured and enslaved 1 to 1.25 million European and American Christians between the early 18th and early 19th centuries. They went as far as the English and Irish coasts, sometimes wiping out whole coastal regions - even to Iceland where a town of 400 disappeared. This and their thieving piracy was finally defeated by John Adams and the US navy. America's first war against Islam.

Saudi Arabia 'officially' ended slavery in the early '60's, although they are still practicing it. Slavery is an intrinsic element in how the Quran and the Hadiths allow Muslims to treat non-muslims (and lesser Muslims, as in the Sudan). Wasn't it a Saudi couple, living in Colorado, who were recently convicted of having a slave?

Political and imperialist Islam is not, and will never be compatible with any western culture and people who want to remain free. To that end, it's not good enough to call an end to the concept of multiculturalism - Muslim immigration (read colonialism) must be stopped.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 10, 2006 11:42 AM

irwin daisy :

Nice touchdown!!!

Posted by: Revnant Dream at December 10, 2006 1:41 PM

Oh boy :

Your the one with a lack of history. Remember the first world war? They divided the land up into nations based on ethnic, language & racial lines. After the allied victory. Sounded like agood idea . We all know how that turned out eh?

Now a 100 years later you reiterate thethis failed policy as the savior of the midle East. As well, you use it as a bat aginst the West. Of course the natives get a free pass from the moonbat battalions, with no clue about human nature.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at December 10, 2006 1:48 PM

Multiculturalism has never worked in the history of the world. The best known example of this is in the Balkan countries, macedonia, Croatia, Serbia,Bosnia et al.

It is interesting that Tony Blair, an Englishman, is the first in the world to state an elementary truth; Multiculturalism does not work and it is over, finished . This in Britain, which has pioneered so much of the worlds important and advanced social and governmental legislation which has been adopted by the more progressive nations throughout the world.

Multiculturalism was imposed on Canada, it was not democratically voted in, it was never a major plank of any partys platform, it was sneaked in by one worlders who made Trudeau think it would appease supposed alienation felt by quebecers in Canada, and it was accompanied by bilingualism imposed on all Canadians except quebecers.

Multiculturalisms acceptance has much to say about Canadians tolerance, for allowing an alien and misunderstood policy to be accepted. Others might say it shows Canadians to be wimps that they would accept a totally new road for their country without any vote, trial, or demonstration that it had workded anywhere in the world. ie look at Belgium with the Flemish and the Walloons, still fighting it 1000 of years later, and the Czecks and Slovaks, after hundreds of years, separating into their respective cultures. Where has multiculturalism worked? In Canada between the french and the "others"? What made Canadians think it would work, What made Canadians accept this flawed policy so totally and lamely?

We swallow government propaganda, we are "enriched" by these cultures. Oh Yeah, How?? In every school a big banner inside the dorway "Strength thru Diversity". What does that Mean? Is it true? Every young person I have met believes as they have been taught that multiculturalism is the best thing since whatever.

Immigration into Canada should be stopped. Totally. Then no charges of discrimination. Oh yes, we would take in people who could speak our language, have an education or money, lets not be stupid. We have only room for so many, why not only take the best? the best for Canada! World overpopulation is bigger than climate change. The US went from 200 to 300 million people in 42 years. No wonder much of the US now looks like a trash pile, especially some of that former garden of Eden, southern California.

Now it is recognized that no ordinary young couple could ever buy a home in Vancouver. (my lot is worth almost 2 million dollars, not a good thing for young people]. Fraser Valley, one of the most productive areas in the world, lush man, is on the way to being paved over, The Okanagan, one of dthe worlds beauty spots now full of traffic with orchards being bulldozed and paved for new subdivisions. You can only live on the plains or the valleys and within a 200 mile strip of the us border. The rest of Canada is a desert as far as living in it. So can anyone say why we need more people? Yes, I have heard the propaganda also, need them to look after an ageing population, to do the work no one else will do etc etc. The only reason Canada is so rich it has lived off unsustainable resources and still doing it. We have killed all the cod, the biggest biomass in the world, are almost finished with the salmon, our old growth forests {and now starting on our Boreal, the lungs of Canada, in order to provide a few jobs making Kleenex, our mines and oil are not sustainable.

People polute and more people polute more.

Posted by: neil thompson at December 10, 2006 2:35 PM

Hi Around the Block, ty for your response, I guess we will agree to disagree, I could treat those people with respect that you mentioned, I would defintely not respect what they did. If Karla, or Clifford, of Pickton ask for forgiveness, and accepted Jesus would they be forgiven? In the Bible God says if you have broken one of my laws, you have broken them all. That is something to consider, and very important I believe, as it pertains to our perception of ourselves in relation to God. You said previously that you can disrespect people for bad choices they have that criteria, we would all disrespect each other, because which of us has not made bad choices? And continue to do so, even small ones. Just my thoughts on it.
Perhaps I did not make my thoughts about immigration clear, I do not think we should force our religious or cultural traditions on other people, that to me is obvious. What I am saying is that we should not have to become so PC, for example, that we cannot say Merry Christmas to immigrants, because I have had immigrants say it to me. Who started all this PC crap anyway? It is just obscene how far is has gone, it is like Aseop's fable about the camel and the tent. Canada has its own laws and views about democracy, respect for people's rights etc. Not sure how true this is, but I heard that Holland is showing potential immigrants pictures, one of which is a topless woman at the beach, and another of two men kissing. I would say if they cannot accept that people have a right to do what they want, as long as they do not harm anyone else, then do not come here. You and I would not agree with some things that occur here, but we respect people's rights. That is one of the prerequisites for a democracy. I believe most immigrants accept this, it is a minority that don't. As for living in enclaves, well you have to be fair, other cultures have done that, Italians, Germans, French. That does not concern me as much as being willing to accept that all people have rights, not just a select few, and in preserving those rights, we have to adhere to some very basic principles of democracy, which we have had for a long time here. There are also some actions we will not permit, the abuse of women, religious conflict, etc.

Posted by: Richard at December 10, 2006 4:03 PM


Posted by: george at December 10, 2006 4:26 PM

"Jesus told the parable of the talents. To me, this is the Christian veneration of capitalism. "

Jesus also told a parable about a robber (see Mark 3:27 and parallels). Consider also the paralble of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1-15), where the protagonist behaves in a way that is absolutely contrary to the workings of capitalism - he pays everyone the same amount, regardless of how little or how much they work. Then there is the parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 12:16-20), which hardly seems to endorse capitalism! Then, again, there is the parable of the Unjust Steward (Lk 16:1-7). This man behaves very badly (though capitalistically). There is also a parable about an unjust judge (Lk 18:2-5). The unjust judge is said to neither fear God nor respect people. God is compared to this judge, yet I think it would be very unreasonable to take the parable as an endorsement of corrupt or unjust judges. You might also consider the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31)!

In fact, in the parables the protagonist sometimes behaves well, sometimes badly. Frequently, the point of the parable is elsewhere. In short, these are deep waters and to say that the Parable of the Talents constitutes an endorsement of capitalism is simplistic and, very probably, incorrect.

Posted by: exile at December 10, 2006 6:14 PM

The only reason for bringing Jesus into this thread, at all, is because of D'Souza's prescient observation:

[begin quote]

Western civilization is not distinguished by colonialism and slavery, but by its institutions of democracy, capitalism, and science...[which] were developed because of a peculiar dynamism in Western civilization -- a dynamism driven by the combination of Western philosophy and theology. And it is these institutions, I believe, that comprise the source of Western strength and explain the West's long-standing dominance in the world. In keeping with this, and contrary to multiculturalist doctrine, America's unparalleled power in the present is sustained far less by military force than by the force of its ideas and institutions.

[end quote]

Would that most Canadians knew and defended the origins and "philosophy and theology" underpinning its democratic--and, by extension, its free-enterprise--institutions. Our revisionist history and the animus towards Christianity in academia, the MSM, our public education (sic) institutions, and various political Parties, including the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc (not to mention environmental "icon" David Suzuki, who made preposterous and erroneous statements about Christianity in his series "A Planet for the Taking") has blinded Canadians to the the very tenets that have guaranteed our democracy over the past 200 years.

We're severing the branch from its root with alarming speed and we don't seem to know what the H*ll we're doing, all the time acting as though the tree doesn't need the root in order to live. How short-sighted, not to mention suicidal, is that?

This is one of the central points made in D'Souza's article and I'm just wondering what bloggers on this thread think about it (lookout has commented on this point).

Do you think the anti-Christian stance of many of our public institutions is legitimate, or can you see how destructive it has been to our democracy and will continue to be if we continue down this road?

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 10, 2006 6:46 PM

"Do you think the anti-Christian stance of many of our public institutions is legitimate, or can you see how destructive it has been to our democracy and will continue to be if we continue down this road?"

Excellent question batb. My earlier post (today, 10:04 a.m.) says what I think. I hope that other SDA readers will consider and respond.

Posted by: lookout at December 10, 2006 7:24 PM

Exile...excellent post, I agree with everything you have written. The Bible mentions in numerous places about the pitfalls of placing too much importance on money or presteige, or fame. The parable of the good servant who invests the money entrusted to him, is more about the person whom God has blessed with a knowledge of His ways, His intention for us, than it is about money, or wealth, in my opinion. That is the irony of the Bible, you can read so much into it, and to be fair, maybe I am reading it incorrectly, but I will still stand by what I think that parable is saying to me. We have created a system where money is worshipped more than God, we have accepted the premise that morality has to be kept separate from the actions of those who control the large corporations, or governments. In doing so, a course has been determined where ethical behavior by our leaders is unimportant , and those in society are irrelevent, as long as profits exceeds costs, and the investor has a profitable return on the investments. I believe we are self-destructing, not from immigration or multi-culturalism, but from divorcing ourselves from the love and compassion of a God who sees every human life as being important to Him.

Posted by: Richard at December 10, 2006 11:03 PM

"Do you think the anti-Christian stance of many of our public institutions is legitimate, or can you see how destructive it has been to our democracy and will continue to be if we continue down this road?"

You can blame the Enlightenment if you want to but our civilization has done good by it so far. The west has been becoming less religious for a long time now and it's been for the better. If you want to see an example of a people who mingle ferverent adherence to doctrine with public policy take a look at Pakistan or read some European history.

Posted by: Jose at December 11, 2006 5:35 AM

"People polute [sic] and more people polute [sic] more."

So let's just kill 'em all off!

Right, Neil?

Posted by: JJM at December 11, 2006 7:58 AM

Well, Jose, check out my earlier post--10:00 a.m. yesterday. Then you might visit a public school and check out the self-referential to downright rude, bullying behaviour of a critical mass of the kids. (And I'm just talking elementary school here!)

I've just watched again the documentary, "Unsafe to Teach". You might check that one out too. How about Jane Creba's death, by gunfire, in downtown Toronto last year and a whole host of other violent incidents, which are increasing precipitously. But you say, "The west has been becoming less religious for a long time now and it's been for the better."

If I were you, I'd take off the rose coloured glasses and look again.

Posted by: lookout at December 11, 2006 8:04 AM

Jose, you say, "If you want to see an example of a people who mingle ferverent [sic] adherence to doctrine with public policy take a look at Pakistan..."

You might stick to the topic and the question you were answering! For one thing, I'm talking about Canada and, for another, Pakistan is not a country whose institutions are based on Judeo-Christian principles, so it's not a very helpful comparison...Also, I'm not suggesting "fervent adherence to doctrine with public policy."

What I am suggesting is that Canadians and our MSM stop bashing the Christian faith--it's certainly not acceptable to bash the Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or any other faith, but for some reason, it's OK to be publicly and often viscioulsy critical of Christianiy, which is a glaring double standard. I'm suggesting that Canadians do some studying about where our democratic institutions began and how they flourished.

It will surprise many to discover that the Christian Church in Canada was foundational to the public school system, our hospitals, which are open to all no matter what faith they adhere to, our universities, and our Parliamentary system, not to mention the many public welfare agencies and our universal health care system.

Check out the religious institutions, which, of course, were "manned" by priests, nuns, and lay people who made many personal sacrifices to bring these institutions to life, if you want to be informed about the facts rather than blindly accepting the propaganda and smear campaign "the chattering classes" in Canada have been waging against the Christian faith for quite some time.

I do agree with you, Jose, about the Enlightenment, a main tenet of the chattering classes, but I won't blame "it." I blame men and women who blindly accept myths and lies about their past and who are, then, bound to go down the wrong road because they have no idea where they've come from.

Canada has a rich spiritual heritage which we have foresaken for a mess of pottage. (Richard, I agree with your analysis of what, essentially, ails us in Canada.) We can draw on this heritage for a creative way ahead or languish in our spiritless, Godless, Utopian wilderness.

For the sake of our children, I'd rather choose the first option.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 11, 2006 8:36 AM

The problem with the blind - like Jose - is they know no right from wrong. Everything is equivalent. Islam may have it's bad points, but then so does Christianity. They have no idea of history. Neither do they practice any sort of critical thought. They have no capability for reason.

The 'enlightenment' did not replace Christianity. Rather, it came from Christian reason. Study the faith and culture of the people that brought it forward.

Also study the prophet of Islam versus Jesus. There's an obvious and marked difference that anybody can see, regardless of atrocities commited in Christ's name.

For example: Most know Christ's lesson to the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, regarding the adultress: "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Now let's compare exactly the same situation with regards to Mo:

Mohammad said, "Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child." After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone, which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle prophet prayed over her and she was buried. – Hadith No. Muslim 682

There is no comparison of Islam to any other religion. It is singularly evil, from the root. And as more and more non-muslims are coming to know, it is a supremist, bigoted and imperialist, political ideology masquerading as religion:

Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God…Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order…until the dar al-harb is rduced to non-existence…The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. – Professor Majid Khadduri, treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 11, 2006 10:58 AM