When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant more pavilions at Folkfest;
The underside of multiculturalism is its ideological root in West-bashing. Sometime around 1960, it was determined by a few French intellectuals (whose unintelligible gibberish other intellectuals pretended to understand) that the greatest criminals against humanity in the history of the world weren’t the Nazi and Communist murderers of 100 million people. Rather, it was European colonialists, who imposed their cultural values on their captive audience.
Even though Canada was a colony itself, and had never indulged in imperialism of any kind, Canadians were informed they must share in the blame because of their religious, racial and cultural association with former colonialists.
I’ve asked this before – if all cultures are equally valuable, then who are these so-called “refugees” they keep sending us?
Great piece by Barbra Kay. Consider that her son Jonathon has just been name in a law suit by that freak Richard Warmen. Can Barbara be next on his list.
I cannot imagine what it will take to get rid of multiculturalism in Canada, but whatever it is, it must be done and soon. Will anyone start to organize Canadians in this effort? Or will I have to do it myself?
haha – I love that line – “more pavillions for folkfest”!
I am a Canadian first, but I recognize that our country is full of diverse people of all walks of life. While Canadian citizens owe their loyalty to Canada first, we also have other identities not related to our citizenship. Some of those identities are multicultural in nature. My take on multiculturalism is that being Canadian is not the same for everyone; for instance my Canadian identity is probably different from yours. My Canadian-ness is tied up in individual freedom (that freedom is under attack at times – the gun registry comes to mind) that is not shared by most people on the planet.
I guess that what I’m trying to say is that multiculturalism is a daily reality in Canada, both urban and rural. Whether or not we need a taxpayer-funded department of multiculturalism is another matter that is up for debate, I’m sure. 😉
“then who are these so-called “refugees” they keep sending us?”
Kate, you aren’t opposed to accepting genuine refugees, are you?
Will anyone start to organize Canadians in this effort? Or will I have to do it myself?
John V
I think you’re on your own, John. I’m sure Louise would be shoulder to shoulder, but she’s got that knuckle-dragger class action thing going on.
[quote]The problem with multiculturalism is that it encourages the next generation — and the next — to feel they are also in a foreign country. This is an invitation to fragmentation, anomie and the crisis of confidence Canada now faces.[/quote] Barbra Kay
ET posted an absolutely brilliant opinion (~1 wk ago) on Canada’s Multiculturalism. I hesitated to respond because “Fragmentation” is a death wish for collectivism. The Socialists are culling themselves.
What say you ET ?
Of course not. But if all cultures are “created equal”, then the systems that they support cannot possibly spawn something known as a “refugee”. What are they escaping from? Escaping to? Surely, not something “better”!
Canada is multicultural. It’s a fact and it isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. Now some government policies to promote and fund multiculturalism may not be fair but it’s a result of gov’ types running after votes – normal politics.
Just take a drive down Bloor near Jane (in TO). There’s the old Ukrainian Hall and then the Polish Credit Union and then the Scottish Rite and then Portegal Town, Little Italy, China Town (1) etc. (Just like taking a drive down main street New York City.)
Next year an interesting thing is about to happen in the US (if McCain gets in). Puerto Rico will be allowed to vote on becoming the 51st US state (ending years of crap). American States have a lot more power and say than many people in so-called independent countries. Puerto Rico hits way above it’s weight in terms of helping the US military with manpower (even though the population is about 6M – this is much much more than places like Montana or Idaho). Puerto Ricans are predominantly Spanish speaking. I don’t think real Americans care about this language or that cultural difference as long as they swear allegiance to the USA. The US is not a melting pot and that is why I believe that Canada, Mexico, etc. will be part of the US in the next 100 years.
Good questions, Kate. I guess my response is that different cultures are just that – different. As to whether or not they are equal is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
With that in mind, I make a distinction between ‘economic’ refugees and refugees who either a) fled their homelands for legitimate fear of their lives due to civil war, etc. and b)people displaced by natural disasters (i.e. a volcanic eruption makes their island/province/territory uninhabitable). Economic refugees should apply through the proper immigration channels. I think I get your point.
“I guess my response is that different cultures are just that – different”
And that difference produces millions of people who want to leave where they are and come here. Regarding the economic advantage, the economic system and its benefits did not arise like magic. It is integral to the culture.
i remember PET arguing one day that quite simply “nationalism leads to wars”… (i assumed he believed the collective and statism leads to peace and harmony….)
i doubt he ever understood the inherent flaw and contradiction in his reasoning…and the utter ignorance of or utter repudiation of man’s nature….i mean really…creating dozens of ‘statelets’ where none existed before…and legitimizing them !
he was the worst thing imaginable for this nation …a meddling social worker theorist ideologue….
Kate,
Your rhetorical questions may be right be correct or the be be wrong but they always quietly DEMAND an answer, I love them, you should should list them.
My old favourite asked about why we dont have dedicated drunk driving lanes.
The new challenger for number one is
if all cultures are equally valuable, then who are these so-called “refugees” they keep sending us?
There are answers but they cut to the heart of the debate. If you have ever watched the movie “The History Boys” these would get you in to “Oxbridge”. They are relevant without being “Couleterish”.
Its why I keep coming back.
Seeing the fact that “multiculturalism” is a product of a singular “culture” (pretty hard to find Multicult in Islam, Asian or indigenous North American cultures) it is a phenomena of the last 20 years in only one culture and actually only half of that culture as the US favors the melting pot culture.
So the Multicult ideal is restricted to only the UK commonwealth and the EU…strangely enough these are nations which have more or less accepted decadent fabian socialism and much of the self destructive altruism that comes with it.
Part of that self destructive alturism is Multi cult which essentially says new culture counts but host culture doesn’t, we really have nothing in this culture worth preserving from the homogenizing cultural effect of multicult or the societal balkanization of our national identity.
About the only Canadians that “get this” are the Quebecois…who certainly have a traditional founding culture they want preserved…in language, borders and custom…which happen to be the 3 elements of a cohesive nation state.
Without a single language, culture and border, a nation ceases to be a nation and becomes a balkanized construct…which is good if you are in the game of snapping up failed homogenized nation states for the new “global village” global governing cartel.
Glad you’ve picked up on Barbara Kay’s column in yesterday’s National Post. It is so right on.
It’s also timely. it ties in with the debate in the HOC over Immigration. The surrender Monkeys called Official Opposition who stood and damned the Conservative Bill then stood and voted for it.
Trudeau’s stupidity is what we are dealing with today.
John B said:
“i remember PET arguing one day that quite simply “nationalism leads to wars”
You will never meet a crypto-communist,(who is dedicated to global governance), who does not advocate the destruction of the nation-state for a centrally regulated balkanized global confederacy…much like is described in UN and CFR documents on global governance.
Trudeau, like the transnationalist socialists that followed him to the PMO was more concered with the global village than his own nation. His tenure was spent shaping Canada into the image of a vassal state of the global village..we were not acceptable to his vision as is…we had to be deconstructed and rebuilt as a vassal holding of the UN. Rather than strengthening us as a cohesive sovereign nation state…everything this man did was culturally and nationally divisive…and our nation still suffers from the culture war he started.
Our nation is weaker by his efforts.
Which way are the rafts going? Hanging chads? Talk about election fraud! People keep voting with their feet and someone keeps rigging the results.
Seen in the greater scope of human history from the last few millennia, multiculturalism is nothing more than a localized fad that will be relegated a chapter in the history books of a few centuries from now.
I think it will be seen as a notion that had its vogue because of a combination of a decadent, uninvolved citizenry and a group of agenda-driven politicians/activists, further enabled by the echo of communism’s failure.
The question is who will write those history books? Will it be resurgent western democratic capitalistic world whose ideology has triumphed because of its inherent superiority to the stifling totalitarian ideologies that it currently competes against, or will it be one of the latter, triumphant because of overwhelming numbers and because of the lassitude of the West.
And to those who state that we already have a multicultural Canada, I would answer that we have a “multiethnic” Canada, and this is not the same as multicultural. Multiculturalism is a dogma which states that all cultures are of equal merit. This creates serious conflict when it comes to deciding how the nation is going to be run
Multiethnicity in a monocultural society would mean that individuals of multiple races and origins life together under a common framework of law and societal expectations. This is a far more workable way to run a land.
Can anyone name a successful truly multicultural nation in human history?
But if all cultures are “created equal”, then the systems that they support cannot possibly spawn something known as a “refugee”. What are they escaping from?
More than one non-sequitur is to be found in this passage, so I’ll just stick to the last question: ‘What are they escaping from?’
Well, Iraqi refugees (and internally displaced persons), for example, represent one of the most serious cases in the world today: they are escaping from the consequences of US foreign policy, not a ‘system’ supported by their ‘culture.’
Politeness forbids naming those quarters of the internet whence this refugee-producing foreign policy has received some of its loudest support.
Does Canada and Canadians have a legal right to decide who can emigrate here? Are we legally obliged to accept anybody who applies?
It’s amazing how completely dense some of you people are.
The Multi-culti transnational worshipers all believe the same thing: we live in an historical vacuum; seize power in the present, erase the past and you will maintain control into the future and get to shape society into your Utopian vision.
Stephen 8:39, (no I am not arguing with myself)
You raise the poitn that there are different types of refugees and immigrants. Those fleeing a war, whether indigenous or foreign created isnt really the point, and economic refugees. Soemtimes you can class in political refugees in there since they are likely being persecuted for beliefs, ethnicity or religon in their former home state.
So the question is best applied to economic refugees, if all cultures are of equal value why would we want to accept the practices of cultures that may have held them back economically, if they are economic refugees/immigrants. And it isnt about accepting them it is more about not denigrating the culture and conditions that brought the wealth to this part of the world.
Current economic conditions have soemthing to do with starting economic conditions, and it is a long road (see Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel) but there are numerous incidences where culture makes a difference (see discussions on Nelson and Trafalgar re British warrior and political culture vs spainish culture) Also look at the differences between what some areas have done with oil wealth (Alberta, Norway, Texas) vs others (Libya, Sudan, post revolutionary Iran and now Venezuala) Management matters, culture matters.
War refugees are different matters. It is our cultural tradition to accept those from war torn or persecution driven parts of the world, we dont make too much of a distinction of whether or not it was locally started or imported.
Re the comment re PET and nationalism. I would agree with him on ethnically based nationalism versus civic based nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is a dangerous genie, being patriotic to your country because of the civic ideas (freedom, democracy etc) is not a bad thing and is fact a good thing. It shows you are tied to those ideals and want them for your particular patch of ground rather than saying that some land that used to belong to your forefathers needs to be repatriated regardless of the wishes of the current occupants or political system, like say half of spain being a Muslim land because it was once conquered by Arab armies.
‘if all cultures are equally valuable’ – I was thinking the same thing when Brenda Martin case was front page news. The people who seemed most vexed by her treatment were the multiculti enthusiasts. I have a few lefty friends and I kept telling them it didn’t matter if you were considered guilty until proven innocent in Mexico, or that there was no habeas corpus, because all systems/cultures are equal. They did not appreciate my snark.
The National Post is fast becoming my fav MSM newspaper. For years, I have bought Globe on weekends because there was no other choice but the Post seems to have upped its game in the past few months and I enjoy it much more than Globe.
Apply the principle of blind acceptance to personal friendships. Have Clifford Olson over for tea?
People may be created equal, but they do not behave equally.
Is there something wrong with the bear comments?
‘if all cultures are equally valuable’ – I was thinking the same thing when Brenda Martin case was front page news. The people who seemed most vexed by her treatment were the multiculti enthusiasts. I have a few lefty friends and I kept telling them it didn’t matter if you were considered guilty until proven innocent in Mexico, or that there was no habeas corpus, because all systems/cultures are equal. They did not appreciate my snark.
The National Post is fast becoming my fav MSM newspaper. For years, I have bought Globe on weekends because there was no other choice but the Post seems to have upped its game in the past few months and I enjoy it much more than Globe.
I for one am amazed at the “refugee’ that travels through several countries to escape oppression before getting to Canada. Are they not supposed to seek sancuary at the first place they land at? Why are they not declaring themselves as refugees at Heathrow, Kenedy or LAX?
btw, your comments re: polar bear are blocked with errors
Immigration is a western phenomenon. Its survival depends on the collective guilt fraudulently inculcated into the western European mind now for a couple of generations.
It is not something that is universally shared throughout all nations and all mankind. For that matter, neither are so-called Universal Human Rights. Which, as a measure against the preposterous lie of multiculturalism, explains a lot.
“Canada is multicultural. It’s a fact and it isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.”
Actually, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are multicultural. And it’s a success, if success is measured by division rather than equality. The rest of Canada is not multicultural. Check the last census.
I don’t have a problem with immigration as long as who ever is coming here is properly vetted and will plus our country. However, I do have a problem with certain ideologues immigrating who are trained from birth to hate our culture and commanded by holy writ to replace it with their own. (dar al Islam vs. dar al Harb – by their definition, not mine).
Canadians have a responsiblity and must have a say in who, why and how many. It is not only our near future that’s at stake, we are also making decisions for generations to come.
John Murney – you are viewing multiculturalism within the ‘pavilions at folkfest’ lens which sees everyone united within a basic commonality as ‘Canadian’ but with different backgrounds – which are seen as ‘backgrounds’ that don’t interfere with that up front basic commonality. That’s not the reality.
The migration of peoples across the planet is as old as our species. Our species can only exist as a ‘society’ or collective; we can’t live alone. Our knowledge base isn’t genetic but learned; we develop it over time. What happens is that people settle and adapt to the local ecological reality. You develop a different economy and lifestyle if you live in the rich fields of Europe vs the desert or the rainforest. Over many centuries people develop beliefs and behaviour that enable them to live as a collective.
So, there are two factors that help create a collective set of beliefs/behaviour: the ecology, the economy. What happens when the population migrates? To another ecological area, to another economy? Do they take the old knowledge base, frozen and unchangeable? Or, do they adapt and develop a new one?
The USA was developed as a nation, by openly supporting the latter; the development of a new knowledge base. They were the first country and indeed, might be the only country, that supported freedom of the individual. To think, to act, to believe – within a basic common set of laws and constitution. Quite a remarkable ideology. This declaration of the individual as a free thinker is the basis for the US domination in the world of inventions, innovations, technological advances and wealth.
The US based its view of immigrants on their knowledge base; that is, their non-hereditary attributes. It ignored their hereditary attributes of ethnicity, colour. And it defined a knowledge base as open-to-change. Therefore, there was no such thing as ‘equality of cultures’. Impossible. Knowledge belonged to the individual not the group and could be changed.
Canada is also an immigrant country. However, unlike the US, it didn’t define immigrants according to their knowledge base but according to their ‘identity group’ of origin. Remember, the US didn’t care about that origin; it didn’t define the immigrant by ‘identity group’.
We had Trudeau – who dealt Canada this death blow with his ‘slice and dice’ political strategy of gaining power for one political party by splitting the country into two linguistic groups and splitting Ontario into balkanized adversarial groups.
The Liberal Party would then define itself as the only party capable of preventing ‘separation’; it would get Ontario votes with that tactic. And balkanizing Ontario into faithful multicultural blocks would also get votes.
Canada defined immigrants as representatives of identity groups, with frozen beliefs and behaviour. These beliefs and behaviour were dealt with as almost religious dogma; they were not treated as knowledge which could be adapted. Instead, the people and the beliefs were set up to be kept intact within these old ways and customs – as faithful blocks of voters.
The Liberal strategy was to spend millions to encourage immigrant ethnic isolation by funding ethnic schools, community centres, organizations set up these groups as focused primarily on retaining their ‘pure identity’, on a rejection of integration into Canada except as an identiy group. And these groups became adversarial with each other in their competition for funds.
That is, Canada defined immigration within a POLITICAL strategy rather than within a NATIONAL strategy. The focus was on gathering a faithful electorate not on developing Canada.
The new immigration policy being developed by the Conservatives is focused around KNOWLEDGE. Not ethnic group. The Liberals are very angry; they want the immigration policy to remain as it was, around ETHNICITY or cultural identity. They want people admitted via the criteria of their ethnic identity; these groups are federally and provincially funded (by Liberal govts) to operate as closed groups.
But defining someone for their KNOWLEDGE? That suggests that knowledge can differ, that it can be changed, that it can be evaluated.
Heck – like freedom of speech, that’s an American concept. We, in Canada, reject both freedom of speech and the advancement of knowledge. We’re Canadian.
Current economic conditions have soemthing to do with starting economic conditions, and it is a long road (see Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel) but there are numerous incidences where culture makes a difference
—Stephen
I have watched Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” 3 hour series on PBS and even though Diamond’s goal is to demonstrate all cultures ( or races ) are equal and only luck gave an advantage to white Europeans, but he managed to convince me of the exact opposite.
What Diamond says basically is that because white Europeans were lucky enough to have cattle where they lived to do the hard work for them, it gave then more free time to think…and that explains why we have rockets and computers… and why some colored people – until they had contact with white Europeans – had not even discovered the wheel yet.
I will not do it here for obvious reasons, but Diamond’s theory is so full of holes – holes big enough to pass cattle through it – that I can shred it to pieces easily.
“Does Canada and Canadians have a legal right to decide who can emigrate here? Are we legally obliged to accept anybody who applies?” Posted by: rebarbarian
There’s a debate on that and it might be the downfall of the government. Harper wants to be able to give priority to immigrants who have an education and skills to meet Canadian needs and fast track the system as well. The previous system invented by the Liberals has 900,000 applicants on it, first come, first served, (unless you are a stripper and have the sympathy of a liberal Cabinet Minister)a list which will remain that way unless the law is changed. Now the Liberals don’t want “priority” given to anyone except who they say should come here and according to Dion that would be families that need to be reunited. I doubt the Liberal priority will include any rigorous terrorist screening though in which case would bring in those over welders.
“Politeness forbids naming those quarters of the internet whence this refugee-producing foreign policy has received some of its loudest support.”
pfffftttt must be horrible where your headspace is buddy.
“hell is the total absence of reason”
Multicultural is NOT Multiculturalism.
The working bacteria in my gut are “Multi-cultural” (pun not intended but distracting!) in that there are lots of different types of bacteria working together with no problem. Some get the better jobs, others get better locations and some just get the butt-end of the stick, that’s just how life is.
Introduce Multiculturalism and some types of bacteria are given preference over others. For instance, the ones that like broccoli are favoured over the ones that like Beer.
In a man, this automatically creates a life-threatening chemical imbalance that would kill me.
Thus, while being multi-cultural can be beneficial, imposing multi-culturalism is deadly.
Is that simple enough?
John Murney said: “I guess my response is that different cultures are just that – different. As to whether or not they are equal is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.”
This is quite wrong, John. Cultures are most profoundly -not- equal. Some cultures are far more effective than others at gaining advantage from the natural environment, and these differences can be measured. Witchcraft, for example, is far less advantageous than technology.
When I graduated from university back in 1979 we used to do things like measure the energy output of rural villages and compare them to each other. This became anathema shortly after I left, and currently to even suggest measuring anything at all is a capital offense in Anthropology and Sociology.
Multiculturalism is nothing other than denying reality for political gain. People who believe in witchcraft love being told their culture is “equally valid”. A comforting lie which garners votes. If it keeps them stuck on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, that’s just an opportunity to raise taxes for social programs.
Notice how none of this does a pinch of good for the individual with the non-functional culture?
Its like gun control, another convenient lie that gets votes from townies. Tell you what, I puzzled over gun control for a long time before it dawned on me that the people pushing it didn’t believe a word of it. They were just lying because it was easy to lie about guns, the Ivory Tower propaganda mill was all going their way. That it gets people killed doesn’t seem to matter much to them.
Liberals are lying about multiculturalism because its easy to lie. Same reason. Same result.
Friend of USA:
It’s all starting to make sense now.
An ability to raise cattle helped Europe advance beyond other cultures.
But since all must be made equal in Utopia, there needs to be a way to take away this ‘accidental’ advantage.
Mix the cow fart theory into the global warming debate and, volia, all become drum-beating vegetarians as the consumption of beef decreases.
And, all can sit around the global village campfire in an atmosphere of equal misery.
I’ve always thought that multiculturalism was introduced as an alternative to biculturalism, the notion of two founding cultures and two founding “nations”. Which of course ignored the reality of Western Canada.
Personally, I think that Quebec separatism should have been engaged more directly.
Actually, friend of usa, that is NOT what Jared Diamond’s thesis is about – ie – the Europeans ‘lucky enough’ to have cattle. The book is far better than the DVD by the way.
Diamond’s theme has nothing to do with ‘luck’ but with ecology. The earth is made up of multiple ‘biomes’ or ecological systems. There are rainforests, deserts, near deserts, grasslands, temperate forests and so on. Each biome enables a different type of plant and animal life. That basic ‘material stuff’ is what the human population has to work with in each biome.
The European biome is the richest on this planet in terms of richness of soil, depth of soil, temperate (mild) climate, easy water availability (regular rainfall). This enabled certain animals to develop there and be domesticated. Cattle, for example won’t be found in the rainforest; the dampness rots their hooves. And they require grasslands not vines to eat. Only small animals are found in the rainforest. There are almost no domesticated animals in most of Africa (giraffes? lions?). All of these differences in the environment ‘determine’ the type of economy possible in a particular region. You can’t grow wheat in the arctic. Or in a rainforest. There were no domesticated animals in N. America; the Europeans brought them over (horses, cattle).
So, the domestication of plants and animals in Europe meant that it could support a large and progressively increasing population. This required a constantly developing knowledge base and technology to support and maintain that population.
Other parts of the earth couldn’t support any increases in population; the plant base was too narrow; couldn’t be domesticated to produce more food; animals couldn’t be domesticated. Problems with temperature, soil quality, water availability and so on.
So, I don’t think you can shred Diamond’s theory very easily. It’s based on facts – about the earth. Water, temperature, plants, animals etc.
You can’t ignore the ecology!
Who ever said all cultures are equally valuable? Or should be considered equal? Or mandates that they should be accepted as such? As usual, ET, you’re fighting a straw man of your own construction.
And of course Barbara Kay is completely full of it.
“Barbara Kay is completely full of it.”
We’re all in awe of your analytical skills, manny.
You do understand that we didn’t have the population and hence a conducive geographic location from which to command an Imperial presence. Don’t you?
All things having been equal, do you suppose that the emerging Nation of Canadians would have been any different? Remember the treatment of Aboriginals by Britain and France, supported by it’s Colonists before you answer.
Do you always speak like a stone skipping on the water? Is your audience so gullible and easily lead?
BTW, we have diverse culture within our traditional definition of Canadians. I sometimes wonder how the Newfies stand the rest of us.
Nationalism does indeed lead to wars.
And so do:
internationalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, colonialism, mercantilism, patriotism, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islamism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, pacifism, vegetarianism, etc., etc.
You name a human “-ism” (including humanism!) and I guarantee it’ll be the basis for somebody’s grudge against somebody else.
Maybe the overpopulation cranks have the right idea after all: rid the world of mankind and all will be sweetness and light.
Well, except for those damned polar bears and their senseless murdering ways…
JJM at April 10, 2008 2:00 PM
Hell yeah JJM, a virtual Garden of Eden. Except for those damn polar bears. Not to worry, those climate change deniers have a plan for that.
I read Diamond’s book and agree with FoU. There are tremendous holes in his rationalization, for that’s truly what it is. Africa is hole #1. African ungulates have been domesticated all over the world as well as in Africa, e. g., goats and cattle. Nonetheless, just so his self-esteem is intact, its all good.
iowavette – Well, it’s nice to hear from a biologist on this thread. Or, are you a zoologist? Or an anthropologist?
Did goats and cattle originate in Africa? Really? What part? Are goats found in the Mediterranean and Middle East – and thus, in NORTH Africa – but – are they, pre-industrialism and pre-colonialism, naturally found in central and south Africa? What about cattle? In the central rain forests, eh? And in the southern deserts?
The environment is a reality that no society can ignore; if your ecological reality means that there’s no grassland, then you can’t have cattle. Many species can’t be domesticated – such as deer and moose. If the soil is too thin, you can’t have plough agriculture.
I don’t know why you are concerned about Diamond’s self esteem. His publication rate suffices to deal with that. Could you provide some factual evidence to rebut his ecological claims?
Stephane Dion has announced that the Liberals would provide a 75 million dollar fund to provide security at ‘places of worship’.
Think about this.
If the Liberals hadn’t established the divisive and adversarial system of multiculturalism, which sets up isolated identity groups snarling at each other’s Liberal-Funded ‘distinctiveness’ – well, we wouldn’t have to provide ‘security forces’ to keep the groups from fighting each other.
If the Liberals hadn’t established multiculturalism to freeze immigrants into being replicas of their old country’s beliefs and behaviour – we might instead have enabled immigrants to all work together to develop a shared commonality as Canadians.
Then, we wouldn’t have to provide security forces to protect these frozen identity groups from harming each other.
ET:
You are a big fan of the USA. An american wannabe… you wish canada to be exactly like the USA. I disagree with you.. I have my problem with Canada… I am a separatist… but the canadian model is better than USA. I rather have Quebec embedded in Canada than USA.
For example, how could you explain the millions of $ that the LA police department spend to prevent black and hispanic from killing each others in LA?
Isn’t a failure of melting pot in USA? you idealize USA.
read it there: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/17race.html
For those shocked at the concept of caring environmentalists coming to blows, check out the item entitled “SOLAR FLARE” at Tim Blair’s site!
http://www.timblair.net
AQS- do you mean the millions of dollars the Liberal Party is suggesting to prevent different religious groups in Canada from killing each other at their religious centres?
ET, you mean different groups in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
The ROC seems to have not much problem in that regard.
Wow,steffi dolittle has shown some foresight. He must understand that as more and more Canadians realize that some religions engage in activities that are definetly un-Canadian,such as polygamy,forced marriage,and systematic abuse of women and children,the great unwashed may take offense.Damn those Mormons.
Add blowing up airplanes,building,and people that you don’t agree with to the above list and who do you have?
Stephen wrote: why we dont have dedicated drunk driving lanes.
See here for a chuckle or two:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dot_creates_new_lane_for_reckless