After 9-11 there were rumours that some of the hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada. When this turned out not to be true, the attitude of Canadian politicians, particularly Liberal ones, was "See, our immigration and refugee policies are fine. All these stories about terrorists living here aren't true." Never mind that Ahmed Ressam was caught crossing the border with a carload of highly volatile explosive material destined for Los Angeles airport or that Canada is home to infamous Khadr family or that there are many other examples of terrorists operating here. Canada might have to pay a steep price for its complacency. Our economy depends on cross-border trade and any measure that makes it harder to enter the US will cost us. Canadians may believe we don't have a terrorist problem, but it's what the US thinks that counts.
Tim Harper writes in the Toronto Star:
Tom Tancredo's fence along the Mexican border will cost about $1 million (U.S.) per mile to build, he figures, but the wall he wants along the Canadian border would cost a bit more because of rougher terrain.
In the 61-year-old Colorado Republican congressman's ideal world, the U.S. is sealed off by walls to the north and south, illegal Mexican immigrants are sent home, would-be bombers stay in Canada, and his country can finally deem itself safe from terrorists and drug-runners.
It may seem absurd on the surface, but it's not totally fanciful. The U.S. House has already passed a bill okaying the Mexican fence, a proposal an indignant Mexican President Vicente Fox has branded America's Berlin Wall.
The Tancredo initiative is also a sobering lesson in how Canada can get sideswiped by the increasingly poisonous relations between Washington and its Latin American neighbours in this hemisphere.
The problem becomes more acute when major elected officials in this country continue to occasionally take to the airwaves to spread the myth that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada.
As Tancredo said in an interview with the Toronto Star yesterday, once you seal off your southern flank, your problem becomes your northern flank.
"Right now, we have a problem," he said. "We all know the northern border is porous. People can come through it at their whim." In effect, Canadian "problems" become American "problems" through geographical proximity, he believes.
"If you have an unsecured border, then the policies of your neighbours become yours," he said. "You have a very liberal refugee policy which makes it easy for people to come, especially from the Middle East. As a result it is easy for them to enter into the United States."
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Toronto Sun: Police say Romanian refugee claimants headed fraud ring
Tom Godfrey writes in today's Toronto Sun:
Police also allege Bebi Nicolae Moldovan, 30, and Stefan Fanel Gozav, 32, headed a Romanian fraud ring whose members stole personal information from unsuspecting GTA customers and used the knowledge for making credit cards or to empty people's accounts.
[. . .]
Police said the suspects are wanted for the alleged assault and abduction of a Toronto couple on Dec. 23 outside a nightclub near Finch Ave. and Hwy. 400.
[ . .]
Police have issued a border alert for the men should they try to flee to their native Romania. The suspects entered Canada using stolen passports and made refugee claims, police said.
Officers suspect one of their scams involved buying valid Romanian passports, which are sold to others for use to enter Canada and make refugee claims.
Four others were arrested last week and were refused bail last Friday.
Police also allege Bebi Nicolae Moldovan, 30, and Stefan Fanel Gozav, 32, headed a Romanian fraud ring whose members stole personal information from unsuspecting GTA customers and used the knowledge for making credit cards or to empty people's accounts.
[. . .]
Police said the suspects are wanted for the alleged assault and abduction of a Toronto couple on Dec. 23 outside a nightclub near Finch Ave. and Hwy. 400.
[ . .]
Police have issued a border alert for the men should they try to flee to their native Romania. The suspects entered Canada using stolen passports and made refugee claims, police said.
Officers suspect one of their scams involved buying valid Romanian passports, which are sold to others for use to enter Canada and make refugee claims.
Four others were arrested last week and were refused bail last Friday.
Parti Quebecois wants another sovereignty referendum
From the Globe and Mail:
The Parti Québécois is moving forward with an aggressive plan to persuade Quebeckers to give it a mandate to hold another sovereignty referendum in an election expected next year.
Note to readers unfamiliar with Canadian politics: There are two separatist parties in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois led by Gilles Duceppe is federal, while the Parti Quebecois led by one-time coke-snorter Andre Boisclair is provincial.
The Parti Québécois is moving forward with an aggressive plan to persuade Quebeckers to give it a mandate to hold another sovereignty referendum in an election expected next year.
Note to readers unfamiliar with Canadian politics: There are two separatist parties in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois led by Gilles Duceppe is federal, while the Parti Quebecois led by one-time coke-snorter Andre Boisclair is provincial.
Rapid population growth straining Canada's urban infrastructure
Today's Toronto Star has an editorial about Canada's aging urban infrastructure:
In a report released yesterday, Statistics Canada estimated that Canada's public engineering infrastructure, on average, is at or past the halfway mark of its "service life." Water treatment plants tend to be oldest, with only a third of their useful life ahead of them. Roads and highways throughout the country have reached 59 per cent of their lifespan, on average, while the figure for sewers is 52 per cent.
On the surface, those figures might not look too bad. But because these averages include all the new infrastructure built recently to accommodate the explosive growth in the 1990s in urban areas, they tend to understate the amount of replacement that will be needed over the next decade. For example, 84 per cent of all investment in the four critical infrastructure areas — roads, sewers, sewage treatment and bridges — from 1992 to 1997 was for new construction. Barely 12 per cent went for renovations to upgrade existing stock that was already aging.
Further, the bulk of this infrastructure is in cities, which have the least capacity to pay for the needed upgrades. This is especially true for roads, where over the last 40 years, much of the cost of financing and repair has shifted from provincial governments to cities.
Canada has a low birthrate. Immigration is the reason for "the explosive growth" in urban areas.
On page 14 of his 2002 report on immigration, former ambassador Martin Collacott writes:
In May 2001, the Canadian government released a report entitled Towards a Balanced Geographical Distribution of Immigrants, which acknowledged, in effect, that the situation was far from ideal with regard to current settlement patterns of immigrants. They go overwhelmingly to large cities, with three-quarters settling in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal alone. Would it not make far better sense to encourage them to go to regions of the country with declining populations, such as the Maritimes and Prairies?
Recognition by the government of the fact that large metropolitan centres are becoming overcrowded has been slow in coming. There are those who for various reasons support the idea that our larger cities should continue to row. Some, such as the real estate industry, have a vested interest in seeing this happen. Others point to the various advantages of large concentrations of population and contend that modern technology should be able to deal with the problems arising from increasing size. By the same token, a good deal of concern has been voiced by many residents of metropolitan areas over levels of pollution, traffic congestion, and pressures on health and education systems. Until the necessary technology and resources are in place, further growth is more than likely to have adverse consequences for most of the population. Most of this growth is taking place because of immigration and is accompanied by increasing concentrations of newcomers. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the government report acknowledges that resistance to immigrants has increased in the large metropolitan areas because of the large numbers living there (Towards a Balanced GeographicalDistribution of Immigrants, p. iii).
In a report released yesterday, Statistics Canada estimated that Canada's public engineering infrastructure, on average, is at or past the halfway mark of its "service life." Water treatment plants tend to be oldest, with only a third of their useful life ahead of them. Roads and highways throughout the country have reached 59 per cent of their lifespan, on average, while the figure for sewers is 52 per cent.
On the surface, those figures might not look too bad. But because these averages include all the new infrastructure built recently to accommodate the explosive growth in the 1990s in urban areas, they tend to understate the amount of replacement that will be needed over the next decade. For example, 84 per cent of all investment in the four critical infrastructure areas — roads, sewers, sewage treatment and bridges — from 1992 to 1997 was for new construction. Barely 12 per cent went for renovations to upgrade existing stock that was already aging.
Further, the bulk of this infrastructure is in cities, which have the least capacity to pay for the needed upgrades. This is especially true for roads, where over the last 40 years, much of the cost of financing and repair has shifted from provincial governments to cities.
Canada has a low birthrate. Immigration is the reason for "the explosive growth" in urban areas.
On page 14 of his 2002 report on immigration, former ambassador Martin Collacott writes:
In May 2001, the Canadian government released a report entitled Towards a Balanced Geographical Distribution of Immigrants, which acknowledged, in effect, that the situation was far from ideal with regard to current settlement patterns of immigrants. They go overwhelmingly to large cities, with three-quarters settling in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal alone. Would it not make far better sense to encourage them to go to regions of the country with declining populations, such as the Maritimes and Prairies?
Recognition by the government of the fact that large metropolitan centres are becoming overcrowded has been slow in coming. There are those who for various reasons support the idea that our larger cities should continue to row. Some, such as the real estate industry, have a vested interest in seeing this happen. Others point to the various advantages of large concentrations of population and contend that modern technology should be able to deal with the problems arising from increasing size. By the same token, a good deal of concern has been voiced by many residents of metropolitan areas over levels of pollution, traffic congestion, and pressures on health and education systems. Until the necessary technology and resources are in place, further growth is more than likely to have adverse consequences for most of the population. Most of this growth is taking place because of immigration and is accompanied by increasing concentrations of newcomers. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the government report acknowledges that resistance to immigrants has increased in the large metropolitan areas because of the large numbers living there (Towards a Balanced GeographicalDistribution of Immigrants, p. iii).
Monday, January 30, 2006
That other Hogtown: Gainesville, Florida
This blog's name comes from Toronto's nickname: Hogtown. Today, I learned there's at least one other Hogtown: Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville's nickname comes from Hogtown Creek which runs through the city. The town even has an annual Hoggetowne Mediaeval Faire.
New Google Service: Blog Search
Jim West at the Petros Baptist Church blog points out that Google has a new service called Blog Search.
West, by the way, is a biblical scholar and runs a first-rate academic discussion list called Biblical Studies. This is not a religious group where people discuss theology. The list is devoted to academic study of the Bible. List members have a variety of beliefs ranging from conservative Christian to secular humanist. Some members are well-known scholars. The list is open to anyone with an interest in biblical studies.
West, by the way, is a biblical scholar and runs a first-rate academic discussion list called Biblical Studies. This is not a religious group where people discuss theology. The list is devoted to academic study of the Bible. List members have a variety of beliefs ranging from conservative Christian to secular humanist. Some members are well-known scholars. The list is open to anyone with an interest in biblical studies.
The spread of Hindu chauvinism abroad
If you follow international news, you'll know that Hindu chauvinists in India have a powerful political party called the BJP. I worry that Indian immigrants are bringing Hindu extremism into Canada. A controversy in the United States over school textbooks reinforces my concern. From the Christian Science Monitor:
In the halls of Sacramento, a special commission is rewriting Indian history: debating whether Aryan invaders conquered the subcontinent, whether Brahman priests had more rights than untouchables, and even whether ancient Indians ate beef.
That this seemingly arcane Indian debate has spilled over into California's board of education is a sign of the growing political muscle of Indian immigrants and the rising American interest in Asia.
The foes - who include established historians and Hindu nationalist revisionists - are familiar to each other in India. But America may increasingly become their new battlefield as other US states follow California in rewriting their own textbooks to bone up on Asian history.
At stake, say scholars who include some of the most elite historians on India, may be a truthful picture of one of the world's emerging powers - one arrived at by academic standards of proof rather than assertions of national or religious pride.
[. . .]
Instigating the California debate were two US-based Hindu groups with long ties to Hindu nationalist parties in India. One, the Vedic Foundation, is a small Hindu sect that aims at simplifying Hinduism to the worship of one god, Vishnu. The other, the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), was founded in 2004 by a branch of the right-wing Indian group the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
This year, as California's Board of Education commissioned and put up for review textbooks to be used in its 6th-grade classrooms, these two groups came forward with demands for substantial changes.
[. . .]
The hottest debate centered on when Indian civilization began, and by whom. For the past 150 years, most historical, linguistic, and archaeological research has dated India's earliest settlements to around 2600 BC. And most established historical research contends that the cornerstone of Indian civilization - the practice of Hindu religion - was codified by people who came from outside India, specifically Aryan language speakers from the steppes of Central Asia.
Many Hindu nationalists are upset by the notion that Hinduism could be yet another religion, like Islam and Christianity, with foreign roots. The HEF and Vedic Foundation both lobbied hard to change the wording of California's textbooks so that Hinduism would be described as purely home grown.
[. . .]
Early proponents of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" proposed in 1850 by philologist Max Mueller may have had political agendas to justify the subjugation of the subcontinent, Mr. Witzel says, but the preponderance of evidence shows that Aryans came to India, with their horses, their chariots, and their religious beliefs, from outside.
"Unquestionably, all sides of Indian history must be repeatedly re-examined," wrote Witzel and comparative historian Steve Farmer, in an influential article in the Indian magazine Frontline in 2000. "But any massive revisions must arise from the discovery of new evidence, not from desires to boost national or sectarian pride at any cost."
[. . .]
But no matter which version of Indian history California adopts for its 6th graders, it is bound to aggravate someone. The Board of Education has already heard from South Indians who argued that the HEF and Vedic Foundation represent a North Indian upper-caste perspective.
"We were saying, 'These groups don't speak for us,' " says Anu Mandavilli, herself a South Indian. When groups like the Vedic Foundation try to simplify Hinduism as the worship of a single god, "they have their own agendas."
In the halls of Sacramento, a special commission is rewriting Indian history: debating whether Aryan invaders conquered the subcontinent, whether Brahman priests had more rights than untouchables, and even whether ancient Indians ate beef.
That this seemingly arcane Indian debate has spilled over into California's board of education is a sign of the growing political muscle of Indian immigrants and the rising American interest in Asia.
The foes - who include established historians and Hindu nationalist revisionists - are familiar to each other in India. But America may increasingly become their new battlefield as other US states follow California in rewriting their own textbooks to bone up on Asian history.
At stake, say scholars who include some of the most elite historians on India, may be a truthful picture of one of the world's emerging powers - one arrived at by academic standards of proof rather than assertions of national or religious pride.
[. . .]
Instigating the California debate were two US-based Hindu groups with long ties to Hindu nationalist parties in India. One, the Vedic Foundation, is a small Hindu sect that aims at simplifying Hinduism to the worship of one god, Vishnu. The other, the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), was founded in 2004 by a branch of the right-wing Indian group the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
This year, as California's Board of Education commissioned and put up for review textbooks to be used in its 6th-grade classrooms, these two groups came forward with demands for substantial changes.
[. . .]
The hottest debate centered on when Indian civilization began, and by whom. For the past 150 years, most historical, linguistic, and archaeological research has dated India's earliest settlements to around 2600 BC. And most established historical research contends that the cornerstone of Indian civilization - the practice of Hindu religion - was codified by people who came from outside India, specifically Aryan language speakers from the steppes of Central Asia.
Many Hindu nationalists are upset by the notion that Hinduism could be yet another religion, like Islam and Christianity, with foreign roots. The HEF and Vedic Foundation both lobbied hard to change the wording of California's textbooks so that Hinduism would be described as purely home grown.
[. . .]
Early proponents of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" proposed in 1850 by philologist Max Mueller may have had political agendas to justify the subjugation of the subcontinent, Mr. Witzel says, but the preponderance of evidence shows that Aryans came to India, with their horses, their chariots, and their religious beliefs, from outside.
"Unquestionably, all sides of Indian history must be repeatedly re-examined," wrote Witzel and comparative historian Steve Farmer, in an influential article in the Indian magazine Frontline in 2000. "But any massive revisions must arise from the discovery of new evidence, not from desires to boost national or sectarian pride at any cost."
[. . .]
But no matter which version of Indian history California adopts for its 6th graders, it is bound to aggravate someone. The Board of Education has already heard from South Indians who argued that the HEF and Vedic Foundation represent a North Indian upper-caste perspective.
"We were saying, 'These groups don't speak for us,' " says Anu Mandavilli, herself a South Indian. When groups like the Vedic Foundation try to simplify Hinduism as the worship of a single god, "they have their own agendas."
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Toronto Sun Diversity Dialogue
This announcement appeared in today's Sunday Sun:
Attention Toronto-area ethnic organizations and community groups:
The Toronto Sun is planning a series of editorial board meetings with leading community representatives throughout our culturally diverse city.
If your group would like to participate, please e-mail us at diversityforum@tor.sunpub.com and we'll be in touch.
Oh yeah. This ought to be fun. Are the Sun's editors masochists? Will any of these "community leaders" have anything good to say about Canada or will they all be complaining about how bad their particular group is treated?
Whites are on the verge of becoming a minority in Toronto. Maybe a white community leader should meet with the Sun editors to speak up for white interests. What am I saying? Whites don't have interests. Only a racist would suggest they do.
Attention Toronto-area ethnic organizations and community groups:
The Toronto Sun is planning a series of editorial board meetings with leading community representatives throughout our culturally diverse city.
If your group would like to participate, please e-mail us at diversityforum@tor.sunpub.com and we'll be in touch.
Oh yeah. This ought to be fun. Are the Sun's editors masochists? Will any of these "community leaders" have anything good to say about Canada or will they all be complaining about how bad their particular group is treated?
Whites are on the verge of becoming a minority in Toronto. Maybe a white community leader should meet with the Sun editors to speak up for white interests. What am I saying? Whites don't have interests. Only a racist would suggest they do.
"Racist, sexist, homophobic"
Rose Murrell who lives in Welland, Ontario wrote a letter to the Toronto Sun objecting to a column called 218 reasons NOT to vote for the Liberals. Murrell writes:
Maybe somewhere in your “in-depth” reporting you should have reminded people that they would not be not voting for the Progressive Conservatives last Monday when they cast their ballot for Mr. Harper, rather, they were voting for the Reform Party that hides its racist, sexist, homophobic agendas under the cloak of the PCs. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still gonna be a pig!
Oink. Oink. Racist, sexist, homophobic? Do these words actually mean something?
Maybe somewhere in your “in-depth” reporting you should have reminded people that they would not be not voting for the Progressive Conservatives last Monday when they cast their ballot for Mr. Harper, rather, they were voting for the Reform Party that hides its racist, sexist, homophobic agendas under the cloak of the PCs. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still gonna be a pig!
Oink. Oink. Racist, sexist, homophobic? Do these words actually mean something?
Los Angeles police chief on race, crime and gangs
I should have posted this earlier. Two readers mentioned this January 14 Maclean's interview with former New York and current Los Angeles police chief William Bratton. Steve Sailer also blogged about it. Linda Frum is the interviewer.
Chief Bratton, have you ever been to Toronto?
Yes, quite a few times.
So you know a little bit about our city? You know about our problems? A 27-per-cent increase in the number of homicides from 1995 to today. A Boxing Day slaying where a 15-year-old innocent bystander was gunned down during a gang shootout on a major shopping street. Can I tell you -- it would be nice if you were our police chief.
Well, thank you. Tell me, the gang violence that you are experiencing, what is the racial or ethnic background of the gangs?
That's a refreshingly blunt question. Some say it may be as high as 80 per cent Jamaican. But no one knows for sure, because people here don't like to talk about that.
You need to talk about it. It's all part of the issue. If it's Jamaican gangs that are committing the crimes, well then, go after the Jamaican gangs. And don't be afraid to go after them because they're black. That's the last thing you need to be concerned with.
Oh boy, I can see the complaints coming in already. You have to understand the climate here. The major local daily in Toronto, the Toronto Star, says it doesn't believe in "gratuitously" labelling people by ethnic origin.
Well, that really helps identify who they are, doesn't it? The next step will be to refuse to allow the police to identify people by their race or ethnic origin. That type of societal consciousness really goes to extremes.
Chief Bratton, have you ever been to Toronto?
Yes, quite a few times.
So you know a little bit about our city? You know about our problems? A 27-per-cent increase in the number of homicides from 1995 to today. A Boxing Day slaying where a 15-year-old innocent bystander was gunned down during a gang shootout on a major shopping street. Can I tell you -- it would be nice if you were our police chief.
Well, thank you. Tell me, the gang violence that you are experiencing, what is the racial or ethnic background of the gangs?
That's a refreshingly blunt question. Some say it may be as high as 80 per cent Jamaican. But no one knows for sure, because people here don't like to talk about that.
You need to talk about it. It's all part of the issue. If it's Jamaican gangs that are committing the crimes, well then, go after the Jamaican gangs. And don't be afraid to go after them because they're black. That's the last thing you need to be concerned with.
Oh boy, I can see the complaints coming in already. You have to understand the climate here. The major local daily in Toronto, the Toronto Star, says it doesn't believe in "gratuitously" labelling people by ethnic origin.
Well, that really helps identify who they are, doesn't it? The next step will be to refuse to allow the police to identify people by their race or ethnic origin. That type of societal consciousness really goes to extremes.
Why do Canadian Catholics vote Liberal?
A regular reader who leaves thoughtful comments pointed out that the presence of high numbers of Catholic voters in a riding correlates with support for the Liberals.
An internet search turned up this article from the Catholic Register:
"Why Catholics vote Liberal is still largely a mystery, at least for me. I propose the creation of a special prize for the individual or team that solves the mystery," (Andre) Blais told political scientists from across Canada at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, Ont., in June.
Blais has rigorously and carefully analysed voting patterns over the last 40 years and found beyond a statistical doubt that there is a significant "religious cleavage" in voting patterns outside of Quebec. On average, Catholics in Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 have been 18 per cent more likely than non-Catholics to vote Liberal.
The Catholic tendency to vote Liberal in western Canada is a little less pronounced, but still significant with Prairie and British Columbia Catholics 12 per cent more likely to vote Liberal than the alternatives.
Since Catholics constitute 30 per cent of voters in Ontario and 40 per cent down east -- compared to just 20 per cent of voters in the western provinces -- the Liberal cushion among Catholic voters is enough to deliver the Liberals a stranglehold on those two regions. Liberals have won the largest number of votes cast in 15 of the last 19 federal elections in Canada.
In Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 Liberals have averaged 43 per cent of the vote, compared to 33 or 34 per cent for the next most popular party. Subtract the Catholic vote from those totals and the Liberals would find themselves on the opposition benches more often.
Last July Burkean Canuck posted some excerpts from a Jeffrey Simpson column in the Globe and Mail about this phenomenon. (Quick now - why do Catholics prefer Liberals?, July 13, 2005)
An internet search turned up this article from the Catholic Register:
"Why Catholics vote Liberal is still largely a mystery, at least for me. I propose the creation of a special prize for the individual or team that solves the mystery," (Andre) Blais told political scientists from across Canada at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, Ont., in June.
Blais has rigorously and carefully analysed voting patterns over the last 40 years and found beyond a statistical doubt that there is a significant "religious cleavage" in voting patterns outside of Quebec. On average, Catholics in Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 have been 18 per cent more likely than non-Catholics to vote Liberal.
The Catholic tendency to vote Liberal in western Canada is a little less pronounced, but still significant with Prairie and British Columbia Catholics 12 per cent more likely to vote Liberal than the alternatives.
Since Catholics constitute 30 per cent of voters in Ontario and 40 per cent down east -- compared to just 20 per cent of voters in the western provinces -- the Liberal cushion among Catholic voters is enough to deliver the Liberals a stranglehold on those two regions. Liberals have won the largest number of votes cast in 15 of the last 19 federal elections in Canada.
In Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 Liberals have averaged 43 per cent of the vote, compared to 33 or 34 per cent for the next most popular party. Subtract the Catholic vote from those totals and the Liberals would find themselves on the opposition benches more often.
Last July Burkean Canuck posted some excerpts from a Jeffrey Simpson column in the Globe and Mail about this phenomenon. (Quick now - why do Catholics prefer Liberals?, July 13, 2005)
Michael Coren's question: "what is moderation and who defines it?"
Writing in the Toronto Sun, Michael Coren asks what I consider a good question: "But what is moderation and who defines it?" I like the question, because I'm interested in the way journalists, politicians and others use labels to dismiss points of view they don't like.
Coren writes:
Harper fought a reasonably good campaign and we're now being told a minority government will guarantee he governs in a moderate manner. But what is moderation and who defines it?
Canada redefines marriage, arrests people who try to operate private clinics, persecutes law-abiding gun owners and has the most permissive approach to abortion in the democratic world. There is nothing immoderate about questioning and countering this. Opposing extremism is not extreme.
Some people, of course, will not be happy unless and until the Conservatives resemble the red Tory mess of the Mulroney days. The absurdity of this is that the Progressive Conservatives failed.
Remember, at least one-third of the Liberal caucus are social conservatives and there is a chance of some crossing of the floor, depending on who becomes their next leader.
As someone who believes Canada's immigration policies are broken and need to be fixed, I've long been frustrated by the way immigration reformers are dismissed as "nativists" or worse "racists". I see the same kind of name-calling in the discussion of social issues like abortion and gay "marriage".
To judge by what you read in papers like the Star or the Globe and Mail, you would think that abortion and gay "marriage" are only opposed by a few "extremists" on the fringe rather than by millions of ordinary Canadians, not necessarily a majority, but at least a sizeable minority.
As David Warren wrote last Sunday:
As one of the precious few “social conservatives” writing in the Canadian mainstream media, I am deluged with mail from disenfranchised people.
There are, I would estimate, many million people in this country who still hold views that were fairly universally held a couple of generations ago -- against abortion on demand, same-sex “marriage”, pornography in public places, among many other issues. Who think men are men and women are women, and that both are degraded when they are forced to exchange their natural roles. Who are more favourably disposed to the United States than to the average fashionable Third World dictatorship. Who are not instinctively offended by the existence of our military, or our police. Who understand risk and reward. Who are proud of what their ancestors achieved in this country. Who work for a living, and resent the fact that most of the high taxes they pay go to purposes and programmes they find abhorrent.
Warren also says:
Many of them are New Canadians. Many of them came to this country for a chance to raise their children in freedom, as Christians, or as observant Jews, or Hindus, or Sikhs, or Muslims.
There is some truth in this. Many immigrants are social conservatives, but that doesn't mean they would ever vote for a conservative political party, even one that, unlike Harper's Conservatives, unabashedly championed social conservative causes. Muslims, for example, have strong views against homosexuality, but most would be reluctant to support the Conservatives because of the latter's positions on national security and foreign policy, or so it seems to me.
Coren writes:
Harper fought a reasonably good campaign and we're now being told a minority government will guarantee he governs in a moderate manner. But what is moderation and who defines it?
Canada redefines marriage, arrests people who try to operate private clinics, persecutes law-abiding gun owners and has the most permissive approach to abortion in the democratic world. There is nothing immoderate about questioning and countering this. Opposing extremism is not extreme.
Some people, of course, will not be happy unless and until the Conservatives resemble the red Tory mess of the Mulroney days. The absurdity of this is that the Progressive Conservatives failed.
Remember, at least one-third of the Liberal caucus are social conservatives and there is a chance of some crossing of the floor, depending on who becomes their next leader.
As someone who believes Canada's immigration policies are broken and need to be fixed, I've long been frustrated by the way immigration reformers are dismissed as "nativists" or worse "racists". I see the same kind of name-calling in the discussion of social issues like abortion and gay "marriage".
To judge by what you read in papers like the Star or the Globe and Mail, you would think that abortion and gay "marriage" are only opposed by a few "extremists" on the fringe rather than by millions of ordinary Canadians, not necessarily a majority, but at least a sizeable minority.
As David Warren wrote last Sunday:
As one of the precious few “social conservatives” writing in the Canadian mainstream media, I am deluged with mail from disenfranchised people.
There are, I would estimate, many million people in this country who still hold views that were fairly universally held a couple of generations ago -- against abortion on demand, same-sex “marriage”, pornography in public places, among many other issues. Who think men are men and women are women, and that both are degraded when they are forced to exchange their natural roles. Who are more favourably disposed to the United States than to the average fashionable Third World dictatorship. Who are not instinctively offended by the existence of our military, or our police. Who understand risk and reward. Who are proud of what their ancestors achieved in this country. Who work for a living, and resent the fact that most of the high taxes they pay go to purposes and programmes they find abhorrent.
Warren also says:
Many of them are New Canadians. Many of them came to this country for a chance to raise their children in freedom, as Christians, or as observant Jews, or Hindus, or Sikhs, or Muslims.
There is some truth in this. Many immigrants are social conservatives, but that doesn't mean they would ever vote for a conservative political party, even one that, unlike Harper's Conservatives, unabashedly championed social conservative causes. Muslims, for example, have strong views against homosexuality, but most would be reluctant to support the Conservatives because of the latter's positions on national security and foreign policy, or so it seems to me.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Demography is destiny: Toronto suburbs are becoming more like the city
When pundits analyze politics in the Greater Toronto Area, they usually make a distinction between the City of Toronto itself and the suburbs. The two areas are known respectively as the 416 and 905 regions after their telephone area codes. (Incidentally, the 905 prefix was only introduced in 1993 in response to Toronto's rapid population growth.)
In the 1990s Ontario's provincial Conservative Party led by Mike Harris was able to win seats in the 905 region even when it did badly in the city itself. However, in this past Monday's federal election, the Conservatives weren't able to make a breakthrough in the suburban areas that used to back Harris. According to the Globe and Mail:
Despite some high-profile wins in the 905 region, the Conservatives failed to make the election breakthrough they had hoped for in the suburbs around Toronto.
Tory gains came instead in the so-called outer suburbs, with seats in Burlington, Halton and Whitby-Oshawa taken from the Liberals.
[. . .]
In the 2004 election, Liberals won 18 of 22 ridings in the 905 belt, with the Conservatives taking the remaining four seats in the most northern and eastern parts of the region.
The fast-growing suburbs on Toronto's boundaries had been solid backers of former Ontario Tory premier Mike Harris in the 1990s, until the provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty recaptured several seats in the region in 2003.
Not surprisingly, the Liberal and Conservative party leaders returned repeatedly to the region to shore up support.
In the runup to Monday's vote, Liberal and Conservative election watchers said that several issues -- crime, ethics and taxes -- resonated locally just as they did nationally.
There's an article in this Saturday's Toronto Star that looks at how the 905 suburbs are becoming more like the central city:
Say goodbye to the white picket fence dividing the city of Toronto and its suburban regions.
And banish the notion of a 416 or 905 headspace.
Those telephone area codes mean nothing when it comes to politics. And Monday's election results — a virtual repeat of the 2004 vote — confirm it.
We're nervous about Stephen Harper's Conservative agenda.
Defying pollsters and pundits who had predicted a Tory tide outside Toronto, the Conservatives were shut out of Peel and York regions. And apart from one seat in Whitby-Oshawa and another in Burlington, the Conservatives prevailed only in the rural outer edges of Durham and Halton, where the city gives way to farmers' fields.
[. . .]
But others, such as Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, who holds no party affiliation, agreed the vote marks a political watershed.
"I've always thought this 416-905 dichotomy was somewhat artificial ... and narrowing constantly," he said.
"You can go to certain neighbourhoods in Ajax and certain neighbourhoods in Toronto and you wouldn't see much difference. A lot of people in this municipality are just years away, or at most a generation away from being Toronto dwellers."
It's the same story in Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan and Markham where Italians, South Asians, East Asians and people from the Caribbean are joining thousands of Canadian-born 416ers in their quest for more affordable housing. And they are bringing their politics with them.
In the 1990s Ontario's provincial Conservative Party led by Mike Harris was able to win seats in the 905 region even when it did badly in the city itself. However, in this past Monday's federal election, the Conservatives weren't able to make a breakthrough in the suburban areas that used to back Harris. According to the Globe and Mail:
Despite some high-profile wins in the 905 region, the Conservatives failed to make the election breakthrough they had hoped for in the suburbs around Toronto.
Tory gains came instead in the so-called outer suburbs, with seats in Burlington, Halton and Whitby-Oshawa taken from the Liberals.
[. . .]
In the 2004 election, Liberals won 18 of 22 ridings in the 905 belt, with the Conservatives taking the remaining four seats in the most northern and eastern parts of the region.
The fast-growing suburbs on Toronto's boundaries had been solid backers of former Ontario Tory premier Mike Harris in the 1990s, until the provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty recaptured several seats in the region in 2003.
Not surprisingly, the Liberal and Conservative party leaders returned repeatedly to the region to shore up support.
In the runup to Monday's vote, Liberal and Conservative election watchers said that several issues -- crime, ethics and taxes -- resonated locally just as they did nationally.
There's an article in this Saturday's Toronto Star that looks at how the 905 suburbs are becoming more like the central city:
Say goodbye to the white picket fence dividing the city of Toronto and its suburban regions.
And banish the notion of a 416 or 905 headspace.
Those telephone area codes mean nothing when it comes to politics. And Monday's election results — a virtual repeat of the 2004 vote — confirm it.
We're nervous about Stephen Harper's Conservative agenda.
Defying pollsters and pundits who had predicted a Tory tide outside Toronto, the Conservatives were shut out of Peel and York regions. And apart from one seat in Whitby-Oshawa and another in Burlington, the Conservatives prevailed only in the rural outer edges of Durham and Halton, where the city gives way to farmers' fields.
[. . .]
But others, such as Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, who holds no party affiliation, agreed the vote marks a political watershed.
"I've always thought this 416-905 dichotomy was somewhat artificial ... and narrowing constantly," he said.
"You can go to certain neighbourhoods in Ajax and certain neighbourhoods in Toronto and you wouldn't see much difference. A lot of people in this municipality are just years away, or at most a generation away from being Toronto dwellers."
It's the same story in Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan and Markham where Italians, South Asians, East Asians and people from the Caribbean are joining thousands of Canadian-born 416ers in their quest for more affordable housing. And they are bringing their politics with them.
Toronto Tamil radio station accused of having terrorist links; granted licence anyway
Last week I mentioned a controversy inside the Conservative Party over the Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan terrorist group fighting for Tamil independence. Deputy leader Peter MacKay upset some Toronto Conservative candidates running in districts with Tamil voters after he restated the party's support for a ban on the Tigers in Canada. According to an internal Conservative email quoted in a Canadian Press report, the Conservatives' foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day had agreed not to talk about the proposed ban during the election in order to avoid alienating local Tamils. The existence of a "gag order" was disputed by Conservative MP Jason Kenney.
When I searched the web to find more information about this story, I came across several references to a Tamil radio station in Toronto called Canadian Multicultural Radio. This in turn led me to a July 17, 2003 National Post story by Stewart Bell whose beat covers the Tamil Tigers and other terrorist groups who have set up shop in Canada. Bell writes:
Federal Cabinet ministers have upheld a broadcast licence issued to a new multicultural radio station in Toronto despite allegations it has ties to the Tamil Tigers terrorist group.
Canadian Multicultural Radio plans to begin broadcasting this fall after Cabinet dismissed complaints of terrorist links, the Department of Canadian Heritage announced yesterday.
[. . .]
The decision comes as the Liberals are being called too soft on the Tamil Tigers, also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE, a violent insurgent group in Sri Lanka responsible for suicide bombings and political assassinations that have killed thousands.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has repeatedly recommended the government outlaw the Tamil Tigers under Canada's Anti-Terrorist Act, but Cabinet has refused to do so.
After the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission approved the FM radio application on April 17, members of Canada's Sri Lankan community appealed to the government to overturn the decision.
Their letters claimed the numbered company behind the station had ties to the Tigers, and said volunteers from the World Tamil Movement, the main LTTE front, went door to door in Tamil neighbourhoods seeking support for the bid.
When I searched the web to find more information about this story, I came across several references to a Tamil radio station in Toronto called Canadian Multicultural Radio. This in turn led me to a July 17, 2003 National Post story by Stewart Bell whose beat covers the Tamil Tigers and other terrorist groups who have set up shop in Canada. Bell writes:
Federal Cabinet ministers have upheld a broadcast licence issued to a new multicultural radio station in Toronto despite allegations it has ties to the Tamil Tigers terrorist group.
Canadian Multicultural Radio plans to begin broadcasting this fall after Cabinet dismissed complaints of terrorist links, the Department of Canadian Heritage announced yesterday.
[. . .]
The decision comes as the Liberals are being called too soft on the Tamil Tigers, also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE, a violent insurgent group in Sri Lanka responsible for suicide bombings and political assassinations that have killed thousands.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has repeatedly recommended the government outlaw the Tamil Tigers under Canada's Anti-Terrorist Act, but Cabinet has refused to do so.
After the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission approved the FM radio application on April 17, members of Canada's Sri Lankan community appealed to the government to overturn the decision.
Their letters claimed the numbered company behind the station had ties to the Tigers, and said volunteers from the World Tamil Movement, the main LTTE front, went door to door in Tamil neighbourhoods seeking support for the bid.
Catalonia nears autonomy from Spain
Here's a story that should interest Canadians. From the Washington Post:
They have their own language, their own culture, and a history of rebellion going back more than 500 years. They have had periods of semi-independence punctuated by brutal government crackdowns. They have a vibrant economy that is the envy of their country. And they're determined to become their own nation.
It is a picture that fits any number of armed separatist movements around the world. Here, it describes a peaceful drive for more autonomy in the Spanish region of Catalonia, and it is nearing success with the backing of the country's Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Opponents say the plan for more self-rule is a Trojan horse, paving the way for full independence, striking at the foundation of Spain's 28-year-old democracy and threatening to break up the country. Francesc Vendrell, a spokesman in Catalonia for the opposition Popular Party, calls it unconstitutional. "If the current proposal is approved," he said, the effect would be to give the Basque region"a basis for independence."
[. . .]
Conservative and nationalist opposition to the plan, which analysts predict parliament will pass in modified form in a few months, has been intense. A countrywide boycott was launched against Catalan goods, particularly its famous Cava sparkling wine, and the Popular Party accused Zapatero's government of fomenting the Balkanization of Spain.
Lt. Gen. Jose Mena Aguado was fired as head of land forces earlier this month after warning of "serious consequences" if the law were passed. He also cited a clause in the constitution permitting the armed forces to intervene to guarantee the unity and sovereignty of Spain. Army Maj. Tomas Torres Peral later criticized the firing in a newspaper opinion piece, asking, "Can one, must one, be neutral when it comes to defending the constitution?"
The remarks, which recalled Gen. Francisco Franco's four decades of military dictatorship, stunned Spaniards across the political spectrum, and underscored how polarizing the issue has become.
They have their own language, their own culture, and a history of rebellion going back more than 500 years. They have had periods of semi-independence punctuated by brutal government crackdowns. They have a vibrant economy that is the envy of their country. And they're determined to become their own nation.
It is a picture that fits any number of armed separatist movements around the world. Here, it describes a peaceful drive for more autonomy in the Spanish region of Catalonia, and it is nearing success with the backing of the country's Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Opponents say the plan for more self-rule is a Trojan horse, paving the way for full independence, striking at the foundation of Spain's 28-year-old democracy and threatening to break up the country. Francesc Vendrell, a spokesman in Catalonia for the opposition Popular Party, calls it unconstitutional. "If the current proposal is approved," he said, the effect would be to give the Basque region"a basis for independence."
[. . .]
Conservative and nationalist opposition to the plan, which analysts predict parliament will pass in modified form in a few months, has been intense. A countrywide boycott was launched against Catalan goods, particularly its famous Cava sparkling wine, and the Popular Party accused Zapatero's government of fomenting the Balkanization of Spain.
Lt. Gen. Jose Mena Aguado was fired as head of land forces earlier this month after warning of "serious consequences" if the law were passed. He also cited a clause in the constitution permitting the armed forces to intervene to guarantee the unity and sovereignty of Spain. Army Maj. Tomas Torres Peral later criticized the firing in a newspaper opinion piece, asking, "Can one, must one, be neutral when it comes to defending the constitution?"
The remarks, which recalled Gen. Francisco Franco's four decades of military dictatorship, stunned Spaniards across the political spectrum, and underscored how polarizing the issue has become.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Jamaicans and crime - something else we're not supposed to talk about
Recently, the Toronto Star reported that Toronto and Jamaican police are cooperating to fight transnational Jamaican crime networks:
Three people in one family are shot dead in a house in Jamaica. Cold-blooded, savage and seemingly without motive — until the police investigation reveals that the hit was ordered in Toronto, or New York or London.
It's a growing profile for crimes on his Caribbean island, according to Jamaican Police Commissioner Lucius Thomas, who brought the message this week to his Toronto counterpart, Chief Bill Blair. They met, along with senior officers on both forces, to discuss developing the kind of co-operation Jamaican police already enjoy with New York and Miami police.
At a closed-door meeting Monday at police headquarters, Thomas made the point "that crime is international and that decisions criminals make in Toronto have an effect in Jamaica," said Deputy Chief Keith Forde. "He told us that the criminals know the family tree."
Decisions have yet to be made on how they'll share information. But an exchange program is planned in which, for starters, two Jamaican officers will come to Toronto for advanced training in investigative techniques, while doubling as a resource.
Does this mean Toronto has a Jamaican crime problem? Of course not. How dare you even think that?:
Forde stressed that the discussions "should in no way be seen as proof that Jamaicans are a big problem here. I don't want to see the real issue of violence in Toronto sidetracked by saying that," he said. "It's not fruitful. Crime in Toronto is a total community issue."
This kind of political correctnesss drives me nuts. Canada is supposed to be a democracy where citizens have a right to discuss problems that affect them. If Jamaican immigrants are bringing violent crime to Toronto, we should be able to talk about it even if it hurts the feelings of Jamaicans.
Immigration policy is supposed to serve the interests of Canadians. If the current policy is creating problems, it needs to be changed. Canadians shouldn't be shy about saying that immigration from some countries is better than immigration from others. We don't have an obligation to accept immigrants from countries with serious crime problems if that means bringing in criminals along with honest people. Jamaican crime is a legitimate topic for discussion. A deputy police chief who tries to discourage that discussion is putting political correctness ahead of the public interest.
Three people in one family are shot dead in a house in Jamaica. Cold-blooded, savage and seemingly without motive — until the police investigation reveals that the hit was ordered in Toronto, or New York or London.
It's a growing profile for crimes on his Caribbean island, according to Jamaican Police Commissioner Lucius Thomas, who brought the message this week to his Toronto counterpart, Chief Bill Blair. They met, along with senior officers on both forces, to discuss developing the kind of co-operation Jamaican police already enjoy with New York and Miami police.
At a closed-door meeting Monday at police headquarters, Thomas made the point "that crime is international and that decisions criminals make in Toronto have an effect in Jamaica," said Deputy Chief Keith Forde. "He told us that the criminals know the family tree."
Decisions have yet to be made on how they'll share information. But an exchange program is planned in which, for starters, two Jamaican officers will come to Toronto for advanced training in investigative techniques, while doubling as a resource.
Does this mean Toronto has a Jamaican crime problem? Of course not. How dare you even think that?:
Forde stressed that the discussions "should in no way be seen as proof that Jamaicans are a big problem here. I don't want to see the real issue of violence in Toronto sidetracked by saying that," he said. "It's not fruitful. Crime in Toronto is a total community issue."
This kind of political correctnesss drives me nuts. Canada is supposed to be a democracy where citizens have a right to discuss problems that affect them. If Jamaican immigrants are bringing violent crime to Toronto, we should be able to talk about it even if it hurts the feelings of Jamaicans.
Immigration policy is supposed to serve the interests of Canadians. If the current policy is creating problems, it needs to be changed. Canadians shouldn't be shy about saying that immigration from some countries is better than immigration from others. We don't have an obligation to accept immigrants from countries with serious crime problems if that means bringing in criminals along with honest people. Jamaican crime is a legitimate topic for discussion. A deputy police chief who tries to discourage that discussion is putting political correctness ahead of the public interest.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
How many non-citizens voted in this election?
An American student studying in Toronto risked a $5,000 fine and cast a ballot (he spoiled it) on Monday because he wanted to show how easy it is for non-citizens to vote illegally. Peter Cunningham says he wants to be a journalist and thought this would make a good story. According to CTV (video clip available at site):
The American student who voted in Monday's federal election says Canada needs to be more vigilant in verifying voters' identities.
Peter Cunningham, who attends the University of Toronto, told CTV's Canada AM Thursday his intention wasn't to help elect a certain candidate -- he says he spoiled his ballot -- but to show how easy it is for a foreign citizen to vote.
The idea was spawned while Cunningham, who is from Michigan, was volunteering at a polling station and learned that proof of citizenship was not required for those registering to vote on election day.
He was able to cast a ballot in Toronto's Trinity-Spadina riding with only his student card and a hydro bill as identification -- proving his residency, but not his nationality or his age.
"I immediately thought... this can't be true," he said. "I mean, maybe the guy forgot to mention something.... The potential for mishap is huge."
Cunningham said he did it because he wants to become a journalist and thought exposing the flaw would make a good story. He even called his mom and told her about his plan in advance, and said she supports his decision.
"I just would like to point out that there's an error in the system that should be corrected," he said.
He submitted an article chronicling his experience to The Toronto Star, but the paper published its own story on the events instead, so he didn't get paid.
This story was the topic of discussion this afternoon on talk radio station CFRB. One of the callers identified himself as a Conservative candidate in Scarborough. Unfortunately, I didn't catch the name. He said during the election, he went door to door with the voter list. He said when he asked for a person on the list, the person would often say he couldn't vote because he wasn't a citizen. The candidate would then report this to Elections Canada only to be told that the person was in fact eligible. Another caller who said he had been a scrutineer claimed non-citizens voted at his polling station.
Obviously, you can't judge the situation by what you hear on talk radio, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of foreign citizens did vote in this election. The system does seem vulnerable to fraud. At my polling station, I wasn't asked for any identification or proof of citizenship. I simply had to present the voter card I got in the mail. There used to be more polling stations. The person in charge would be a neighbour who knew me, but that's not true any more. Add to that the confusion caused by large numbers of voters who don't speak English as well as the presence of well-organized ethnic organizations determined to elect one of their 'own' and you have the potential for widespread voter fraud. Whether that fraud actually occurred, I can't say for sure, but I suspect it did.
The American student who voted in Monday's federal election says Canada needs to be more vigilant in verifying voters' identities.
Peter Cunningham, who attends the University of Toronto, told CTV's Canada AM Thursday his intention wasn't to help elect a certain candidate -- he says he spoiled his ballot -- but to show how easy it is for a foreign citizen to vote.
The idea was spawned while Cunningham, who is from Michigan, was volunteering at a polling station and learned that proof of citizenship was not required for those registering to vote on election day.
He was able to cast a ballot in Toronto's Trinity-Spadina riding with only his student card and a hydro bill as identification -- proving his residency, but not his nationality or his age.
"I immediately thought... this can't be true," he said. "I mean, maybe the guy forgot to mention something.... The potential for mishap is huge."
Cunningham said he did it because he wants to become a journalist and thought exposing the flaw would make a good story. He even called his mom and told her about his plan in advance, and said she supports his decision.
"I just would like to point out that there's an error in the system that should be corrected," he said.
He submitted an article chronicling his experience to The Toronto Star, but the paper published its own story on the events instead, so he didn't get paid.
This story was the topic of discussion this afternoon on talk radio station CFRB. One of the callers identified himself as a Conservative candidate in Scarborough. Unfortunately, I didn't catch the name. He said during the election, he went door to door with the voter list. He said when he asked for a person on the list, the person would often say he couldn't vote because he wasn't a citizen. The candidate would then report this to Elections Canada only to be told that the person was in fact eligible. Another caller who said he had been a scrutineer claimed non-citizens voted at his polling station.
Obviously, you can't judge the situation by what you hear on talk radio, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of foreign citizens did vote in this election. The system does seem vulnerable to fraud. At my polling station, I wasn't asked for any identification or proof of citizenship. I simply had to present the voter card I got in the mail. There used to be more polling stations. The person in charge would be a neighbour who knew me, but that's not true any more. Add to that the confusion caused by large numbers of voters who don't speak English as well as the presence of well-organized ethnic organizations determined to elect one of their 'own' and you have the potential for widespread voter fraud. Whether that fraud actually occurred, I can't say for sure, but I suspect it did.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Conservative MP says border guards will get guns
From a Canadian Press article in the Toronto Star:
The Conservative justice critic says the party will stand behind its promise to give Canada’s border guards guns, a day after two murder suspects from California made a run for the border before they were stopped in a shootout.
“It’s simply a practical matter of how soon these officers can be trained and the firearms issued to them,” said Vic Toews, the Conservative MP who served as justice critic in Opposition.
“That’s our commitment and I trust our minister will do exactly that.” His thoughts were echoed by B.C. solicitor general John Les, who said he thinks it is time to arm border guards.
[. . .]
Toews said in an interview today that he did not like the fact that the Canadian border guards fled their posts as the gunmen approached the border.
“I think it does nothing for our national image. I find it very disturbing that our officers felt compelled to leave because of this threat to their personal safety,” he said from his Manitoba riding of Provencher.
“I understand their concerns very well and don’t fault them. What surprises me is that the former government refused to properly equip our officers.”
The unarmed Canadian border guards abandoned their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border yesterday when they heard the murder suspects were coming their way.
A spokeswoman for the Canada Border Services Agency said the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger.
The Conservative justice critic says the party will stand behind its promise to give Canada’s border guards guns, a day after two murder suspects from California made a run for the border before they were stopped in a shootout.
“It’s simply a practical matter of how soon these officers can be trained and the firearms issued to them,” said Vic Toews, the Conservative MP who served as justice critic in Opposition.
“That’s our commitment and I trust our minister will do exactly that.” His thoughts were echoed by B.C. solicitor general John Les, who said he thinks it is time to arm border guards.
[. . .]
Toews said in an interview today that he did not like the fact that the Canadian border guards fled their posts as the gunmen approached the border.
“I think it does nothing for our national image. I find it very disturbing that our officers felt compelled to leave because of this threat to their personal safety,” he said from his Manitoba riding of Provencher.
“I understand their concerns very well and don’t fault them. What surprises me is that the former government refused to properly equip our officers.”
The unarmed Canadian border guards abandoned their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border yesterday when they heard the murder suspects were coming their way.
A spokeswoman for the Canada Border Services Agency said the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger.
Sailer comments on the election
Steve Sailer offers some comments on the Canadian election. He writes:
The fundamental problem with Canada, as Brimelow explained in his book The Patriot Game almost two decades ago, is that it is not a nation-state: it was two nations under one state. Quebec would make a reasonable nation-state, and British Canada would make an excellent one. But to save this unnatural governmental arrangement from the perfectly rational result of Quebec walking out, Pierre Trudeau invented the current system that is based on the abasement of British Canada. Then the ruling class turned around and covertly stuck it to Quebec by using the multiculturalist rhetoric that justifies Quebec's privileged position to import vast numbers of immigrants, some of whom filter into Quebec, to keep the separatist vote in Quebec just below 50.01%. Of course, most of the immigrants move to British Canada, further abasing that nation, but that is a price the ruling elite is perfectly willing to pay.
The fundamental problem with Canada, as Brimelow explained in his book The Patriot Game almost two decades ago, is that it is not a nation-state: it was two nations under one state. Quebec would make a reasonable nation-state, and British Canada would make an excellent one. But to save this unnatural governmental arrangement from the perfectly rational result of Quebec walking out, Pierre Trudeau invented the current system that is based on the abasement of British Canada. Then the ruling class turned around and covertly stuck it to Quebec by using the multiculturalist rhetoric that justifies Quebec's privileged position to import vast numbers of immigrants, some of whom filter into Quebec, to keep the separatist vote in Quebec just below 50.01%. Of course, most of the immigrants move to British Canada, further abasing that nation, but that is a price the ruling elite is perfectly willing to pay.
More Vdare commentary about the Canadian election
Kevin Michael Grace who blogs at The Ambler has written an article about the Canadian election for Vdare.
Grace writes:
Harper, however, managed to win only 114 of 233 seats in English Canada. This is a worse showing (after adjusting for House of Commons seat inflation) than managed by Clark or the other great Conservative loser, Robert Stanfield.
Harper did so poorly in English Canada because he once again rejected the Sailer Strategy: he refused to graze where the grass is. Despite torrential recent Third World immigration, Canada is still overwhelmingly white: 86% at the time of the 2001 census. Voters of non-European origin, who tend to be concentrated in Canada’s three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, are stubbornly Liberal in loyalty and show no sign of changing allegiance.
Grace predicts the break-up of Canada:
In any event, the National Question is being answered. Like all open marriages, Canada’s union is doomed. Quebec has become a nation-state, and the Confederation of Canada is now nothing more than a not particularly convenient administrative convenience.
[. . .]
Like Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, Canada has been dissolved by the acid bath of “openness.” Canada’s glasnost has taken the form of a savage 40-year (and counting) assault on its traditions and history, its symbols and institutions, its British and royal foundations and—through immigration—its founding peoples.
[. . .]
As Gorbachev discovered, a country that has lost its animating principle is a house of straw. Canada’s house is soon to be blown down. Yesterday’s federal election is most likely the last.
Grace writes:
Harper, however, managed to win only 114 of 233 seats in English Canada. This is a worse showing (after adjusting for House of Commons seat inflation) than managed by Clark or the other great Conservative loser, Robert Stanfield.
Harper did so poorly in English Canada because he once again rejected the Sailer Strategy: he refused to graze where the grass is. Despite torrential recent Third World immigration, Canada is still overwhelmingly white: 86% at the time of the 2001 census. Voters of non-European origin, who tend to be concentrated in Canada’s three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, are stubbornly Liberal in loyalty and show no sign of changing allegiance.
Grace predicts the break-up of Canada:
In any event, the National Question is being answered. Like all open marriages, Canada’s union is doomed. Quebec has become a nation-state, and the Confederation of Canada is now nothing more than a not particularly convenient administrative convenience.
[. . .]
Like Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, Canada has been dissolved by the acid bath of “openness.” Canada’s glasnost has taken the form of a savage 40-year (and counting) assault on its traditions and history, its symbols and institutions, its British and royal foundations and—through immigration—its founding peoples.
[. . .]
As Gorbachev discovered, a country that has lost its animating principle is a house of straw. Canada’s house is soon to be blown down. Yesterday’s federal election is most likely the last.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Good comments about immigrant support for the Liberals
Damian Penny is a blogger from Newfoundland. Yesterday he posted a message about the election results. This prompted a man by the name of Mark Collins to leave his own analysis in the comments section. Like me and others, Collins noticed that areas with high numbers of immigrants voted Liberal:
It is interesting that the Liberals dominate in Toronto and do well in Vancouver--43.7 and 37.5 percent foreign-born population (2001 census, even higher now).
That immigrants tend to vote Liberal should be common knowledge by now, but this trend is ignored in a lot of the election analysis I've seen. I'm surprised by how many people are surprised that Toronto continues to vote Liberal. What did they expect?
Collins also makes an important point about the urban-rural divide. The Conservatives do have urban support in those cities where the number of immigrants is relatively small:
What is interesting is the situation in the next three largest metropolitan areas, all close to a population of one million: Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton. The Liberal won only two seats in Ottawa, in the urban core (the NDP won the other core seat); the Conservatives won all the suburban ridings. In Calgary and Edmonton the Conservatives won all the seats.
Surely this is an urban triumph for the Tories, but I do not think one will find any such description of the result in the media. One wonders why.
Another interesting fact: the foreign-born population of these three cities is, respectively, 17.7, 20.9, and 17.8 percent (curiously the percentage for Canada as a whole is 18.4--almost the same).
Collins has more to say here.
It is interesting that the Liberals dominate in Toronto and do well in Vancouver--43.7 and 37.5 percent foreign-born population (2001 census, even higher now).
That immigrants tend to vote Liberal should be common knowledge by now, but this trend is ignored in a lot of the election analysis I've seen. I'm surprised by how many people are surprised that Toronto continues to vote Liberal. What did they expect?
Collins also makes an important point about the urban-rural divide. The Conservatives do have urban support in those cities where the number of immigrants is relatively small:
What is interesting is the situation in the next three largest metropolitan areas, all close to a population of one million: Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton. The Liberal won only two seats in Ottawa, in the urban core (the NDP won the other core seat); the Conservatives won all the suburban ridings. In Calgary and Edmonton the Conservatives won all the seats.
Surely this is an urban triumph for the Tories, but I do not think one will find any such description of the result in the media. One wonders why.
Another interesting fact: the foreign-born population of these three cities is, respectively, 17.7, 20.9, and 17.8 percent (curiously the percentage for Canada as a whole is 18.4--almost the same).
Collins has more to say here.
Immigration explains the urban rural divide in the Canadian electorate
From the CBC:
As pundits, pollsters and the public sift through the results of Canada's 39th general election, one area of attention may well be the apparent urban-rural divide in voting patterns.
Voters outside of urban, downtown areas in places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, were much more likely to cast their ballots for the Conservatives.
Inside those centres, many more voters tended to support the Liberals, the NDP or, in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois.
What do these urban areas have in common? Answer: lots of immigrants.
Also from the CBC:
Elections Canada doesn't collect statistics on voting by ethnocultural community, but Statistics Canada and groups that work with immigrants suggest that many immigrant groups vote in lower numbers than people who were born in Canada.
Many politicians are keen to change that. According to the last census, about 18 per cent of the population were born outside the country. About 84 per cent of those became Canadian citizens. And the numbers are growing. According to Statistics Canada, the number of immigrants in the population is projected to go up at least 25 per cent in the next decade.
Particularly in the major urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the number of people born elsewhere is significant. Many ridings have more naturalized citizens than those born in Canada.
Andy Mark, executive director of the Chinese Canadian National Council, says political participation often depends on where people have lived. "A lot of them come from mainland China, where it's a one-party election system, so they're still getting used to the concept of a true democratic process where they're entitled to vote," he says. "A lot don't realize simple things like employers would give you an hour off to go vote."
Mark says outreach programs from Elections Canada, maybe through partnerships with ethnic-specific organizations like his, could help.
That's exactly what Elections Canada is trying to do. Out of its budget of $10 million for advertising, the elections regulator is spending $750,000 to advertise to people whose first language is something other than English or French. Print, radio and TV ads promote the importance of voting and let people know how to get information in their mother tongue.
They have created pamphlets in 26 languages for organizations to hand out, or for individuals to download, that describe how to get registered and vote.
Do we really want people who can't speak English voting? If immigrants want to get involved in Canadian politics they should learn the language.
As pundits, pollsters and the public sift through the results of Canada's 39th general election, one area of attention may well be the apparent urban-rural divide in voting patterns.
Voters outside of urban, downtown areas in places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, were much more likely to cast their ballots for the Conservatives.
Inside those centres, many more voters tended to support the Liberals, the NDP or, in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois.
What do these urban areas have in common? Answer: lots of immigrants.
Also from the CBC:
Elections Canada doesn't collect statistics on voting by ethnocultural community, but Statistics Canada and groups that work with immigrants suggest that many immigrant groups vote in lower numbers than people who were born in Canada.
Many politicians are keen to change that. According to the last census, about 18 per cent of the population were born outside the country. About 84 per cent of those became Canadian citizens. And the numbers are growing. According to Statistics Canada, the number of immigrants in the population is projected to go up at least 25 per cent in the next decade.
Particularly in the major urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the number of people born elsewhere is significant. Many ridings have more naturalized citizens than those born in Canada.
Andy Mark, executive director of the Chinese Canadian National Council, says political participation often depends on where people have lived. "A lot of them come from mainland China, where it's a one-party election system, so they're still getting used to the concept of a true democratic process where they're entitled to vote," he says. "A lot don't realize simple things like employers would give you an hour off to go vote."
Mark says outreach programs from Elections Canada, maybe through partnerships with ethnic-specific organizations like his, could help.
That's exactly what Elections Canada is trying to do. Out of its budget of $10 million for advertising, the elections regulator is spending $750,000 to advertise to people whose first language is something other than English or French. Print, radio and TV ads promote the importance of voting and let people know how to get information in their mother tongue.
They have created pamphlets in 26 languages for organizations to hand out, or for individuals to download, that describe how to get registered and vote.
Do we really want people who can't speak English voting? If immigrants want to get involved in Canadian politics they should learn the language.
Peter Brimelow comments on Canadian elections
Over at the Vdare blog, founder Peter Brimelow offers his take on the Canadian elections. He points out that two predictions he made in his book the Patriot Game have come true:
“5. There may be ‘a time of troubles’ in Canadian politics, with no party able to gain a majority.
“6. …a sectional party, probably from Quebec, but possibly from the West, could hold the balance of power in the House and demand radical reform.”
He also points out that the separatist Bloc Quebecois now holds the balance of power in the Canadian House of Commons. He compares this to the what happened with the Irish Nationalists in the British parliament at the end of the nineteenth century.
He writes:
What this means in Canada is that Quebec has taken another step to becoming an independent nation-state. What it means more generally is that, when something is inevitable, it eventually happens.
In his view, American immigration reform is also inevitable.
“5. There may be ‘a time of troubles’ in Canadian politics, with no party able to gain a majority.
“6. …a sectional party, probably from Quebec, but possibly from the West, could hold the balance of power in the House and demand radical reform.”
He also points out that the separatist Bloc Quebecois now holds the balance of power in the Canadian House of Commons. He compares this to the what happened with the Irish Nationalists in the British parliament at the end of the nineteenth century.
He writes:
What this means in Canada is that Quebec has taken another step to becoming an independent nation-state. What it means more generally is that, when something is inevitable, it eventually happens.
In his view, American immigration reform is also inevitable.
Toronto votes Liberal. Conservatives don't win majority.
It's a minority government, because the Conservatives didn't win enough seats in Ontario.
So much for wooing the ethnic vote. The Greater Toronto Area, the urban region with the country's largest number of immigrants, voted Liberal. From the Toronto Star:
As voters across Canada showed their dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberals and voted in a Conservative minority, voters across the GTA marched to the polls and, defying predictions of wholesale change, in many cases decided to stick with the candidates they’ve elected before.
Also from the Star:
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives made some strong gains in Ontario, but not on a scale to deliver the majority government the party had hoped for.
The Tories took 10 seats from the Liberals since the 2004 vote, but the Liberals kept the seat they gained from the Conservatives when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. That gave the Conservatives 39 of Ontario’s 106 seats, and left the Liberals with 55.
Three Liberal seats were lost to the NDP, who took a total of 12 seats in the province.
“The Conservatives must be disappointed with the numbers they’ve got in Ontario,” said David Docherty, head of the political science department at Wilfrid Laurier University. “I think they were hoping for much bigger gains.”
[. . .]
Still, the Conservatives were able to wrest several rural seats away from the Liberals.
[. . .]
A little more than two hours after the polls closed in Ontario, the Liberals still held 40 per cent of the popular vote compared to 35 per cent for the Conservatives and 20 per cent for the New Democrats.
In 2004, the Liberals took 44.7 per cent of the vote in Ontario, while the Conservatives took 31.5, and the NDP took 18.1.
[. . .]
With 106 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons at stake in Ontario, voting patterns in Canada’s most populous province usually loom large in deciding who will form a federal government.
When the writ was dropped last November, the Liberals held 74 seats in the province — dominating urban and suburban centres as well as northern Ontario.
The Conservatives held 23 seats throughout the southwest and eastern regions, a collection of mostly rural ridings. The party’s 24th seat, won in the 2004 election, was handed to the Liberals when Stronach made her stunning defection from the Tories.
In the 2004 campaign, Harper’s Conservatives managed to grow two Canadian Alliance seats into 24 Conservative ones, but that finish also fell well short of expectations.
The expectation then was that by merging the Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties Conservatives would turn large swaths of Ontario Tory blue.
Ontario hasn’t elected Conservative politicians en masse to federal Parliament since the Mulroney years, sending 67 and then 46 Tories to Ottawa during two elections in the 1980s.
So much for wooing the ethnic vote. The Greater Toronto Area, the urban region with the country's largest number of immigrants, voted Liberal. From the Toronto Star:
As voters across Canada showed their dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberals and voted in a Conservative minority, voters across the GTA marched to the polls and, defying predictions of wholesale change, in many cases decided to stick with the candidates they’ve elected before.
Also from the Star:
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives made some strong gains in Ontario, but not on a scale to deliver the majority government the party had hoped for.
The Tories took 10 seats from the Liberals since the 2004 vote, but the Liberals kept the seat they gained from the Conservatives when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. That gave the Conservatives 39 of Ontario’s 106 seats, and left the Liberals with 55.
Three Liberal seats were lost to the NDP, who took a total of 12 seats in the province.
“The Conservatives must be disappointed with the numbers they’ve got in Ontario,” said David Docherty, head of the political science department at Wilfrid Laurier University. “I think they were hoping for much bigger gains.”
[. . .]
Still, the Conservatives were able to wrest several rural seats away from the Liberals.
[. . .]
A little more than two hours after the polls closed in Ontario, the Liberals still held 40 per cent of the popular vote compared to 35 per cent for the Conservatives and 20 per cent for the New Democrats.
In 2004, the Liberals took 44.7 per cent of the vote in Ontario, while the Conservatives took 31.5, and the NDP took 18.1.
[. . .]
With 106 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons at stake in Ontario, voting patterns in Canada’s most populous province usually loom large in deciding who will form a federal government.
When the writ was dropped last November, the Liberals held 74 seats in the province — dominating urban and suburban centres as well as northern Ontario.
The Conservatives held 23 seats throughout the southwest and eastern regions, a collection of mostly rural ridings. The party’s 24th seat, won in the 2004 election, was handed to the Liberals when Stronach made her stunning defection from the Tories.
In the 2004 campaign, Harper’s Conservatives managed to grow two Canadian Alliance seats into 24 Conservative ones, but that finish also fell well short of expectations.
The expectation then was that by merging the Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties Conservatives would turn large swaths of Ontario Tory blue.
Ontario hasn’t elected Conservative politicians en masse to federal Parliament since the Mulroney years, sending 67 and then 46 Tories to Ottawa during two elections in the 1980s.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Western Standard article: "Quebecers are Canadians with a vengeance"
I came across an interesting article that originally appeared in the Western Standard. Pierre Lemieux says Quebec has lost its once distinct character:
The problem is that there is not much of a distinct society in Quebec.
There used to be. Until the 1960s, Quebec differed from the rest of the country because of its French-Canadian and Catholic population. As peasants, men of the woods, and family women, the French-Canadians were suspicious of political power, and probably more so than other Canadians. Alexandre Taschereau, Quebec’s Liberal premier from 1920 to 1936, rightly thought that Roosevelt’s New Deal was “a Socialistic venture bordering on communism.”
The Quebec Church did have much authority, but it was moral authority more than political power. Although the French-Canadian (as opposed to the French French) joie de vivre has been exaggerated, it did contrast with North American puritanism. French-Canadians were an unruly crowd, as were their coureurs des bois ancestors. They were strong, adventurous, self-reliant and free.
[. . .]
And even the traditional French-Canadian tolerance has been rapidly receding with the imposition of artificial and coerced diversity, the regimentation of the younger generations, and the immigration of people coming from worse tyrannies and ignorant of our traditional liberties.
The problem, then, is not that the average Quebecer is different from the typical Ontarian or British Columbian; the problem is that he is more Canadian—that is, more naively statist—than anybody in the country. Quebecers are Canadians with a vengeance. The very fact that “French-Canadian” is now considered a taboo term confirms that the new Quebecers who have replaced the ancient French-Canadians are just obedient Canadians who speak bad French.
Quebec “sovereignty” would mean exactly what “sovereign” means: an all-powerful state. The only hope, perhaps, is that the Quebec state would turn into an inefficient banana republic, where escaping the visible fist of the state would not be too difficult. At least for some people.
The problem is that there is not much of a distinct society in Quebec.
There used to be. Until the 1960s, Quebec differed from the rest of the country because of its French-Canadian and Catholic population. As peasants, men of the woods, and family women, the French-Canadians were suspicious of political power, and probably more so than other Canadians. Alexandre Taschereau, Quebec’s Liberal premier from 1920 to 1936, rightly thought that Roosevelt’s New Deal was “a Socialistic venture bordering on communism.”
The Quebec Church did have much authority, but it was moral authority more than political power. Although the French-Canadian (as opposed to the French French) joie de vivre has been exaggerated, it did contrast with North American puritanism. French-Canadians were an unruly crowd, as were their coureurs des bois ancestors. They were strong, adventurous, self-reliant and free.
[. . .]
And even the traditional French-Canadian tolerance has been rapidly receding with the imposition of artificial and coerced diversity, the regimentation of the younger generations, and the immigration of people coming from worse tyrannies and ignorant of our traditional liberties.
The problem, then, is not that the average Quebecer is different from the typical Ontarian or British Columbian; the problem is that he is more Canadian—that is, more naively statist—than anybody in the country. Quebecers are Canadians with a vengeance. The very fact that “French-Canadian” is now considered a taboo term confirms that the new Quebecers who have replaced the ancient French-Canadians are just obedient Canadians who speak bad French.
Quebec “sovereignty” would mean exactly what “sovereign” means: an all-powerful state. The only hope, perhaps, is that the Quebec state would turn into an inefficient banana republic, where escaping the visible fist of the state would not be too difficult. At least for some people.
India promotes dual loyalties; Toronto Star, surprise, thinks this is wonderful
Yesterday, I blogged about a Toronto Star article that describes how Punjabi immigrants have taken over politics in the city of Brampton, just outside Toronto.
Last week, the Toronto Star had another article dealing with Indian immigrants. The Indian government is encouraging Indo-Canadians to acquire dual citizenship:
Canada may be home, but for Toronto's Indian community, "the sacred motherland" will always tug at the heart, and often the wallet.
That deep sense of connection enticed about 500 GTA residents — Canadian citizens — to apply for a new form of dual Indian citizenship, even before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh formally launched the program at an expatriates' conference here last week. Thousands more are expected to sign up in the coming months.
So-called "overseas citizenship," available to anyone born in India, or whose parents or grandparents were born there, won't allow the holders to vote, run for public office, or buy agricultural land. But it will offer the convenience of not requiring a visa for visits, or checking in with local police for stays longer than six months. And it will allow these partial citizens to invest freely in residential or commercial property and gives them parity under Indian tax laws.
"Every person of Indian origin living anywhere in the world can aspire to be a citizen of our sacred motherland," Singh told the fourth annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas conference, earning a standing ovation from a thousand delegates attending from around the world, including about two dozen Canadians.
Notice how Indian citizenship is race-based. You qualify for Indian citizenship if your ancestors are Indian. Yet, if anyone suggested Canada should give preference to British or European immigrants, Indo-Canadians would be screaming racism. Canada and other western countries are expected to accept immigrants from all over the world even if that means replacing the native majority, but apparently it's perfectly OK for India to give special treatment to people of Indian origin.
I don't know how many Indo-Canadians are interested in this "overseas citizenship", but if you choose to live here, Canada should be your "sacred motherland". I'm not saying Indian immigrants shouldn't have a sentimental attachment to the country they came from, but if you become a Canadian citizen Canada should come first. What are the implications for the Canadian state when large numbers of its people have dual citizenship, which implies dual loyalties? Of course, that's a question you're not allowed to ask in a multicultural country.
Last week, the Toronto Star had another article dealing with Indian immigrants. The Indian government is encouraging Indo-Canadians to acquire dual citizenship:
Canada may be home, but for Toronto's Indian community, "the sacred motherland" will always tug at the heart, and often the wallet.
That deep sense of connection enticed about 500 GTA residents — Canadian citizens — to apply for a new form of dual Indian citizenship, even before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh formally launched the program at an expatriates' conference here last week. Thousands more are expected to sign up in the coming months.
So-called "overseas citizenship," available to anyone born in India, or whose parents or grandparents were born there, won't allow the holders to vote, run for public office, or buy agricultural land. But it will offer the convenience of not requiring a visa for visits, or checking in with local police for stays longer than six months. And it will allow these partial citizens to invest freely in residential or commercial property and gives them parity under Indian tax laws.
"Every person of Indian origin living anywhere in the world can aspire to be a citizen of our sacred motherland," Singh told the fourth annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas conference, earning a standing ovation from a thousand delegates attending from around the world, including about two dozen Canadians.
Notice how Indian citizenship is race-based. You qualify for Indian citizenship if your ancestors are Indian. Yet, if anyone suggested Canada should give preference to British or European immigrants, Indo-Canadians would be screaming racism. Canada and other western countries are expected to accept immigrants from all over the world even if that means replacing the native majority, but apparently it's perfectly OK for India to give special treatment to people of Indian origin.
I don't know how many Indo-Canadians are interested in this "overseas citizenship", but if you choose to live here, Canada should be your "sacred motherland". I'm not saying Indian immigrants shouldn't have a sentimental attachment to the country they came from, but if you become a Canadian citizen Canada should come first. What are the implications for the Canadian state when large numbers of its people have dual citizenship, which implies dual loyalties? Of course, that's a question you're not allowed to ask in a multicultural country.
And the beat goes on: weekend shootings leave 5 injured
Today is election day in Canada, but that's no reason for Toronto's thugs to take a break. From the Globe and Mail:
It was a bloody weekend in the Greater Toronto Area when a teenager watching a high-school basketball tournament in Scarborough was shot in the stomach and three others at a Mississauga house party were the victims of gunfire.
A man was shot in front of his daughter in the area of Don Mills and the 401 Friday evening.
In the first case, an 18-year-old man had been approached by a group of males when a fight erupted. He was then shot in the stomach, on a footpath outside the Progress Avenue campus of Centennial College, at about 8 p.m. Saturday. Despite the wound, he managed to make his way back to the college gym, where he collapsed. In the ambulance, he spoke with paramedics, Detective Michael Healy of Toronto Police said.
[. . .]
On the opposite side of the GTA, several people were turned away from a house party in the McLaughlin Road and Eglinton Road area of Mississauga.
The suspects returned some time after 1 a.m., shots rang out and three people were hit, said Constable Dameon Okposio of Peel Regional Police.
"Two people suffered from non-life-threatening gunshot wounds and a third party is in serious condition and in surgery for his wounds," Constable Okposio said in a telephone interview yesterday.
[. . .]
In a third, unrelated, incident, a 26-year-old father was unloading a toy couch from his car on Friday night when he was shot in the back outside a high-rise apartment building on Graydon Hall Drive in the Don Mills and Highway 401 area.
The man's daughter, who is two years old, was walking about five metres ahead of him with her grandmother, when the gunman fired at him from about three to 4.5 metres away.
He was shot in the elbow, thigh and back area; two of the three bullets fired are still lodged in him and he may end up suffering some paralysis, Toronto Police Detective Scott Carter said.
It was a bloody weekend in the Greater Toronto Area when a teenager watching a high-school basketball tournament in Scarborough was shot in the stomach and three others at a Mississauga house party were the victims of gunfire.
A man was shot in front of his daughter in the area of Don Mills and the 401 Friday evening.
In the first case, an 18-year-old man had been approached by a group of males when a fight erupted. He was then shot in the stomach, on a footpath outside the Progress Avenue campus of Centennial College, at about 8 p.m. Saturday. Despite the wound, he managed to make his way back to the college gym, where he collapsed. In the ambulance, he spoke with paramedics, Detective Michael Healy of Toronto Police said.
[. . .]
On the opposite side of the GTA, several people were turned away from a house party in the McLaughlin Road and Eglinton Road area of Mississauga.
The suspects returned some time after 1 a.m., shots rang out and three people were hit, said Constable Dameon Okposio of Peel Regional Police.
"Two people suffered from non-life-threatening gunshot wounds and a third party is in serious condition and in surgery for his wounds," Constable Okposio said in a telephone interview yesterday.
[. . .]
In a third, unrelated, incident, a 26-year-old father was unloading a toy couch from his car on Friday night when he was shot in the back outside a high-rise apartment building on Graydon Hall Drive in the Don Mills and Highway 401 area.
The man's daughter, who is two years old, was walking about five metres ahead of him with her grandmother, when the gunman fired at him from about three to 4.5 metres away.
He was shot in the elbow, thigh and back area; two of the three bullets fired are still lodged in him and he may end up suffering some paralysis, Toronto Police Detective Scott Carter said.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Toronto Star hits another low; compares Conservatives to terrorist group Hamas
If you've been reading my blog lately, you'll know I don't like the Conservative Party because of its stand on immigration. But that doesn't mean I'm not bothered by the Canadian media's anti-Conservative bias. Sunday's Toronto Star carries an article by Mitch Potter about the elections in the Israel-occupied Palestinian territories. Much of the article is about whether participating in elections will make the Islamic terrorist group Hamas more moderate. In the middle of the article, Potter starts talking about Canadian politics. He writes:
On at least some levels, the Palestinian political angst mirrors that of Canada: Here and there, a majority's contempt for its ruling elite is tempered by a creeping suspicion that the alternative comes with a social agenda only a minority could love.
Right. That's a fair comparison. Holding parliamentary votes on gay marriage and abortion is the same as implementing Sharia law. Oh brother. Is it any wonder the media doesn't understand immigration? They can't tell the difference between traditional Canadian values and a totalitarian religious code that governs every aspect of personal life.
On at least some levels, the Palestinian political angst mirrors that of Canada: Here and there, a majority's contempt for its ruling elite is tempered by a creeping suspicion that the alternative comes with a social agenda only a minority could love.
Right. That's a fair comparison. Holding parliamentary votes on gay marriage and abortion is the same as implementing Sharia law. Oh brother. Is it any wonder the media doesn't understand immigration? They can't tell the difference between traditional Canadian values and a totalitarian religious code that governs every aspect of personal life.
Conservatives support INCREASED immigration in principle
Diane Ablonczy was the Conservative critic for immigration. On her website I found a link to an interview she gave to immigrationguides.com The whole interview is worth reading, because it shows that her primary concern is making immigration easier. There's no acknowledgement that immigration is causing serious social problems in Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere. It's the same pro-immigration pap you get from the Liberals. Here's the part of the interview that grabbed my attention:
Ablonczy said that while the Conservatives supported increased immigration in principle, to do so at this moment would be "irresponsible".
"Right now the Liberal immigration system has created a backlog of over 700,000 applicants, and people are waiting for up to 10 years to go through the process. So although we support an increase in immigration, we have said that it is irresponsible to talk about immigration levels until the credentials issue is resolved, settlement programs are strengthened, and the backlog is addressed," she said.
Ablonczy said that while the Conservatives supported increased immigration in principle, to do so at this moment would be "irresponsible".
"Right now the Liberal immigration system has created a backlog of over 700,000 applicants, and people are waiting for up to 10 years to go through the process. So although we support an increase in immigration, we have said that it is irresponsible to talk about immigration levels until the credentials issue is resolved, settlement programs are strengthened, and the backlog is addressed," she said.
Conservative language policy: unilingualism for Quebec, bilingualism for the English-Canadian majority
Back in December, I wrote about the Conservative Party's support for official bilingualism in the federal government.
Quebec's provinicial government, however, is officially unilingual, even though the province has a substantial English minority which has made major contributions to the province's economic development.
According to the Globe and Mail, Stephen Harper has no problem with this double standard:
And in response to Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe's charge this week that he would attack Quebec's language laws, Mr. Harper said that was a provincial responsibility.
"I think it's clear that Bill 101 has had some positive impact over the years in strengthening the position of the French language, but these are ultimately, these are decisions of the Quebec legislature," Mr. Harper said. "I have been clear for a couple of decades that I don't believe the federal government should interfere in provincial language legislature."
Quebec's provinicial government, however, is officially unilingual, even though the province has a substantial English minority which has made major contributions to the province's economic development.
According to the Globe and Mail, Stephen Harper has no problem with this double standard:
And in response to Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe's charge this week that he would attack Quebec's language laws, Mr. Harper said that was a provincial responsibility.
"I think it's clear that Bill 101 has had some positive impact over the years in strengthening the position of the French language, but these are ultimately, these are decisions of the Quebec legislature," Mr. Harper said. "I have been clear for a couple of decades that I don't believe the federal government should interfere in provincial language legislature."
Toronto Star story about immigration and disease
Does anyone remember the SARS epidemic of 2003? I seem to recall accusations of racism at any suggestion that Chinese immigration might have something to do with the outbreak. I also remember Mississauga (a city in the Greater Toronto Area) mayor Hazel McCallion once catching hell for complaining about the burden immigrants were placing on local hospitals.
On January 13, the Toronto Star printed an important story about how Third World immigrants are bringing disease to Toronto.
Here's an excerpt:
Toronto has one of the largest groups of international travellers in the world who come back with a tropical disease, according to a new study.
Almost half are immigrants returning from visiting family and friends in Third World countries, says Dr. Jay Keystone, head of the tropical disease unit at Toronto General Hospital.
Such travellers don't believe they will be affected by diseases in their home country and also can't afford the cost of anti-malarial drugs and vaccines, Keystone said in an interview.
About 8 per cent of travellers to the developing world require medical care during or after their trip, according to the study of 17,000-plus of them, about a quarter from the Toronto clinic, published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The travellers' destination determines what disease they're apt to get, the study, the first of its kind, concludes.
Fevers from the tropics were seen disproportionately in visitors returning from sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia, and acute diarrhea noted among visitors to south-central Asia. Skin diseases were most apt to be picked up in the Caribbean or Central or South America.
On January 13, the Toronto Star printed an important story about how Third World immigrants are bringing disease to Toronto.
Here's an excerpt:
Toronto has one of the largest groups of international travellers in the world who come back with a tropical disease, according to a new study.
Almost half are immigrants returning from visiting family and friends in Third World countries, says Dr. Jay Keystone, head of the tropical disease unit at Toronto General Hospital.
Such travellers don't believe they will be affected by diseases in their home country and also can't afford the cost of anti-malarial drugs and vaccines, Keystone said in an interview.
About 8 per cent of travellers to the developing world require medical care during or after their trip, according to the study of 17,000-plus of them, about a quarter from the Toronto clinic, published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The travellers' destination determines what disease they're apt to get, the study, the first of its kind, concludes.
Fevers from the tropics were seen disproportionately in visitors returning from sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia, and acute diarrhea noted among visitors to south-central Asia. Skin diseases were most apt to be picked up in the Caribbean or Central or South America.
Muslim sues Ottawa over detention
Saturday's Globe and Mail reports:
Ahmad El Maati, the Canadian truck driver who says he was tortured during two years in Syrian and Egyptian prisons, has filed a lawsuit against the federal government -- a move that he says will force out the truth about Canada's role in his detention.
The federal government has not commented on the cases of Mr. El Maati, a Canadian-Egyptian of Syrian descent, and Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born Canadian detained in the Middle East on suspicion of terrorist links, despite pressure from groups such as Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
[. . .]
Mr. El Maati came to the attention of Canadian counterterrorism investigators in August of 2001, when U.S. border guards stopped the truck he was driving in Buffalo, N.Y. They seized a map of Ottawa on which were printed numbers identifying federal nuclear facilities, a virus lab and other buildings from the truck's glove compartment. Officials suspected it showed targets for terrorist attacks. The map, which Mr. El Maati says must have belonged to a previous driver, was a visitors guide to Ottawa, produced and distributed by the federal government.
After being questioned about the map by CSIS agents shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. El Maati went to Syria to formalize his marriage. When he arrived, he was taken to the Palestine Branch of Syrian General Intelligence. He was held for more than two years in Syrian and Egyptian jails.
Ahmad El Maati, the Canadian truck driver who says he was tortured during two years in Syrian and Egyptian prisons, has filed a lawsuit against the federal government -- a move that he says will force out the truth about Canada's role in his detention.
The federal government has not commented on the cases of Mr. El Maati, a Canadian-Egyptian of Syrian descent, and Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born Canadian detained in the Middle East on suspicion of terrorist links, despite pressure from groups such as Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
[. . .]
Mr. El Maati came to the attention of Canadian counterterrorism investigators in August of 2001, when U.S. border guards stopped the truck he was driving in Buffalo, N.Y. They seized a map of Ottawa on which were printed numbers identifying federal nuclear facilities, a virus lab and other buildings from the truck's glove compartment. Officials suspected it showed targets for terrorist attacks. The map, which Mr. El Maati says must have belonged to a previous driver, was a visitors guide to Ottawa, produced and distributed by the federal government.
After being questioned about the map by CSIS agents shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. El Maati went to Syria to formalize his marriage. When he arrived, he was taken to the Palestine Branch of Syrian General Intelligence. He was held for more than two years in Syrian and Egyptian jails.
Conservative candidate: "The Conservative Party has become the party of immigrants"
Jurij Klufas is the Conservative candidate in the riding (electoral district) of Parkdale-High Park. According to the biography posted on his website, he is also "an executive in the arena of diversity television".
Visiting his website, I found this (ATTENTION: link opens PDF document) statement on immigration:
“ The Conservative Party has become the party of immigrants – more and more new Canadians who, like me, came to this country to seek opportunity, freedom, and a hopeful future for their families see these things best assured in the Conservative Party of Canada.
“In Parkdale - High Park, we are trying to reach out to as many new Canadians as possible – in the Polish community, the Vietnamese community, the Filipino community, the Tibetan community, the Ukrainian community and many others in order to tell them about the Conservative Party of Canada, and how it can help them and their families.
As Mr Harper said, hard-working new Canadians bring to Canada a strong work ethic, a commitment to family life, an appreciation for higher education, and a respect for law and order. These are Canadian values, these are Conservative values, and these are values that we will bring to a new Conservative government.
I happily concede that many immigrants are hard-working, but so are many native-born Canadians and they are being hurt by competition from immigrant labour. The law of supply and demand applies as much to labour as any other commodity. Also, not all immigrants are hard-working. Some end up on welfare and as Jim Travers of the Toronto Star has reported:
With a winter election looming and Liberals desperate to hold the ethnic vote, Immigration Minister Joe Volpe is telling fanciful stories about the success of immigrants that just don't fit the facts. Volpe, who also happens to be Paul Martin's Ontario political boss, is promoting the notions that new arrivals are doing rather well and that Canada is ready to throw its doors open to a swelling new crowd.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Documents circulating through select government departments and obtained by the Star reveal disturbing results suggesting a ruling party concerned more with national interests than electoral advantage would put immigration increases on hold.
Why aren't the Conservatives making an issue of the Liberals insane proposal to INCREASE immigration levels? I think the answer is obvious. The Conservatives have decided to go after the immigrant vote. They are trying to out-pander the Liberals even if that means supporting a policy that is damaging Canada.
Visiting his website, I found this (ATTENTION: link opens PDF document) statement on immigration:
“ The Conservative Party has become the party of immigrants – more and more new Canadians who, like me, came to this country to seek opportunity, freedom, and a hopeful future for their families see these things best assured in the Conservative Party of Canada.
“In Parkdale - High Park, we are trying to reach out to as many new Canadians as possible – in the Polish community, the Vietnamese community, the Filipino community, the Tibetan community, the Ukrainian community and many others in order to tell them about the Conservative Party of Canada, and how it can help them and their families.
As Mr Harper said, hard-working new Canadians bring to Canada a strong work ethic, a commitment to family life, an appreciation for higher education, and a respect for law and order. These are Canadian values, these are Conservative values, and these are values that we will bring to a new Conservative government.
I happily concede that many immigrants are hard-working, but so are many native-born Canadians and they are being hurt by competition from immigrant labour. The law of supply and demand applies as much to labour as any other commodity. Also, not all immigrants are hard-working. Some end up on welfare and as Jim Travers of the Toronto Star has reported:
With a winter election looming and Liberals desperate to hold the ethnic vote, Immigration Minister Joe Volpe is telling fanciful stories about the success of immigrants that just don't fit the facts. Volpe, who also happens to be Paul Martin's Ontario political boss, is promoting the notions that new arrivals are doing rather well and that Canada is ready to throw its doors open to a swelling new crowd.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Documents circulating through select government departments and obtained by the Star reveal disturbing results suggesting a ruling party concerned more with national interests than electoral advantage would put immigration increases on hold.
Why aren't the Conservatives making an issue of the Liberals insane proposal to INCREASE immigration levels? I think the answer is obvious. The Conservatives have decided to go after the immigrant vote. They are trying to out-pander the Liberals even if that means supporting a policy that is damaging Canada.
Politics in Brampton, Ontario: "non-ethnics" need not apply
In a message I posted yesterday, I wrote:
I don't know the exact number, but about half of Ontario's seats are in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). It used to be that the Conservatives had a shot in the outer suburbs (the so-called 905 belt). This area once voted for Harris, but since then it's been flooded with immigrants and the only way the party can win seats is by running "ethnic" candidates and pandering to ethnic voters.
Mike Harris, for those of you outside Canada, was a Conservative
premier (prime minister) of Ontario. Even though his party was shut out of Toronto proper, it was able to win seats in the suburban regions that circle the city. These suburbs are called the 905 area after their area code. Phone numbers in the city itself have a 416 prefix. Political analysts often contrast voting patterns in the 905 area with those in the 416 area. Clear as mud? I hope so.
A long time ago Toronto was a Conservative bastion. Post-World War II immigration turned the city into a Liberal stronghold, but provincial Conservatives were still able to win seats in the suburban 905 belt. However, immigration has now changed that area as well. Yesterday, the Toronto Star had an article that describes how immigration has changed politics in Brampton, a 905 city:
The good news for Liberal incumbent Colleen Beaumier is that her Brampton West riding, Liberal red for decades, could be won with the Punjabi-Canadian vote. The problem: this time, her Conservative opponent, like the other three incumbents in Brampton, is Punjabi.
Punjabi power is flourishing across burgeoning Brampton, where the South Asian population has grown to about 85,000 people — about 21 per cent of the city's residents. By deploying political strategies that appeal to recent immigrants, Punjabi Canadians have emerged to form an almost impenetrable political monopoly across a ring of ridings north of Mississauga.
Drafting friends and family to win nominations, launching platforms that highlight immigrant concerns and utilizing a huge volunteer network to pull the vote gives Punjabi Canadian candidates distinct advantages.
"In these ridings it's impossible for a non-ethnic candidate to win a nomination now, much less a campaign," says Brampton's Sam Basra, a Fijian of Punjabi descent who arrived in Toronto 20 years ago and ran federally for the Conservatives during the '90s in Etobicoke North.
Basra says that in such a tight-knit community, the nomination process works in favour of Punjabi-Canadians with political aspirations. "They sign up as many friends and family as they need to take out memberships, pay the fee so they can vote, and then they win the nominations."
Note this:
Some, Basra claims, don't even care which party they're nominated for.
The article goes on to challenge this claim, but I believe it, because I've seen the same phenomenon among Ukrainian-Canadian voters who'll vote for any party as long as the candidate is one of "ours". The Ukrainian word for ours is Nash and if a candidate is Nash, he's good whatever his politics.
I don't know the exact number, but about half of Ontario's seats are in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). It used to be that the Conservatives had a shot in the outer suburbs (the so-called 905 belt). This area once voted for Harris, but since then it's been flooded with immigrants and the only way the party can win seats is by running "ethnic" candidates and pandering to ethnic voters.
Mike Harris, for those of you outside Canada, was a Conservative
premier (prime minister) of Ontario. Even though his party was shut out of Toronto proper, it was able to win seats in the suburban regions that circle the city. These suburbs are called the 905 area after their area code. Phone numbers in the city itself have a 416 prefix. Political analysts often contrast voting patterns in the 905 area with those in the 416 area. Clear as mud? I hope so.
A long time ago Toronto was a Conservative bastion. Post-World War II immigration turned the city into a Liberal stronghold, but provincial Conservatives were still able to win seats in the suburban 905 belt. However, immigration has now changed that area as well. Yesterday, the Toronto Star had an article that describes how immigration has changed politics in Brampton, a 905 city:
The good news for Liberal incumbent Colleen Beaumier is that her Brampton West riding, Liberal red for decades, could be won with the Punjabi-Canadian vote. The problem: this time, her Conservative opponent, like the other three incumbents in Brampton, is Punjabi.
Punjabi power is flourishing across burgeoning Brampton, where the South Asian population has grown to about 85,000 people — about 21 per cent of the city's residents. By deploying political strategies that appeal to recent immigrants, Punjabi Canadians have emerged to form an almost impenetrable political monopoly across a ring of ridings north of Mississauga.
Drafting friends and family to win nominations, launching platforms that highlight immigrant concerns and utilizing a huge volunteer network to pull the vote gives Punjabi Canadian candidates distinct advantages.
"In these ridings it's impossible for a non-ethnic candidate to win a nomination now, much less a campaign," says Brampton's Sam Basra, a Fijian of Punjabi descent who arrived in Toronto 20 years ago and ran federally for the Conservatives during the '90s in Etobicoke North.
Basra says that in such a tight-knit community, the nomination process works in favour of Punjabi-Canadians with political aspirations. "They sign up as many friends and family as they need to take out memberships, pay the fee so they can vote, and then they win the nominations."
Note this:
Some, Basra claims, don't even care which party they're nominated for.
The article goes on to challenge this claim, but I believe it, because I've seen the same phenomenon among Ukrainian-Canadian voters who'll vote for any party as long as the candidate is one of "ours". The Ukrainian word for ours is Nash and if a candidate is Nash, he's good whatever his politics.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Wisdom from the Ambler: don't confuse the state with God
I haven't been online much lately, but today I took the opportunity to catch up on what other blogs have been saying in the past little while. Commenting on Stephen Harper's new found respectability among those Thomas Sowell calls the the anointed, Kevin Michael Grace at the Ambler writes:
The reason I've had so little to say about the election is that I'm disinclined to conflate the State with Almighty God and have no patience with those who do. "Conservative," my ass. Stephen Harper is what David Cameron hopes to be when he grows up.
The reason I've had so little to say about the election is that I'm disinclined to conflate the State with Almighty God and have no patience with those who do. "Conservative," my ass. Stephen Harper is what David Cameron hopes to be when he grows up.
Conservative immigration policy is contemptible
I didn't post anything to this blog for a month. This was due to a couple of things: computer problems, some health issues and a busy Christmas season. (My Ukrainian-Canadian family celebrates Christmas twice: once on December 25 like most Canadians and a second time on January 7. My Christmas season just ended.)
However, there was another reason I didn't write. I was having second thoughts about this blog. I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a blogger.
Even though I know Canada's immigration system is a disaster, I'm not an expert in immigration issues. I follow immigration news as best I can and I have read a few books on the subject. Still there's a lot about immigration I don't understand and I'm not comfortable presenting myself as an immigration pundit.
I find it especially hard to come up with instant commentary on every immigration story I come across. I read other Canadian blogs. I find them interesting because the other bloggers speak with such confidence and authority. At their best, Canadian blogs are full of passion and vigour. But that's not really my style.
Where other bloggers see black and white I often see gray. Political issues just don't seem as clear-cut to me as they do to other people. Take, for example, public healthcare. There are serious problems with the Canadian system. People are literally dying while waiting for surgery. Other people avoid the problem by going to the US and paying for treatment there. Canada already has a two-tier system. There are good arguments for full or partial privatization. Still, the part of me that's a bleeding heart worries that privatization will leave the poor, including the working poor, without adequate care. I don't know what Canada should do about healthcare.
I don't believe the poor are always responsible for their own fate. In many cases they are, but not always. A variety of factors, including the surfeit of low-skilled labour caused by immigration, contribute to povery.
Back to immigration.
Canadian immigration policy doesn't make sense. We are bringing in far more people than our society can absorb. On the one hand, we have engineers and PhD's driving cabs; on the other hand, we have immigrants on welfare. Some immigrants still do well for themselves, but many don't. Toronto is full of ethnic enclaves and is beginning to develop violent ghettos. Last year's gun violence, which is continuing into the new year, wouldn't be happening if immigration hadn't given the city a black underclass. Much of the time, Toronto doesn't even seem like Canada any more.
I'm angry about what immigration has done to my hometown. I'm especially angry that Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't have the wisdom or the courage to tackle this issue head on. Why should I vote for a party that won't do anything about a policy that is destroying my city? I can't think of any reason to vote Conservative. As much as I hate the Liberals, I can't bring myself to support Harper. I really don't care who wins this election. That's one reason I haven't been commenting on it.
By all accounts Harper is a smart and decent man, but his approach to immigration is contemptible. He is supporting a policy that undermines his own electoral base. There's a lot commentary in the media about the inability of the Conservatives to win seats in Ontario during previous elections. This is attributed to the party's alleged "extremism" on social issues, but it has more to do with the fact that immigrants vote Liberal.
I don't know the exact number, but about half of Ontario's seats are in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). It used to be that the Conservatives had a shot in the outer suburbs (the so-called 905 belt). This area once voted for Harris, but since then it's been flooded with immigrants and the only way the party can win seats is by running "ethnic" candidates and pandering to ethnic voters.
The Conservatives are now grovelling to the point where they won't publicly condemn the Tamil Tigers terrorist group because it might offend the delicate sensibilities of Toronto's terrorist-supporting Tamil community. Not all Tamils support the Tigers. Some Tamils know better than anyone else what scum the Tigers are, but don't kid yourself. Tamil-Canadian support for the Tigers is real and substantial. If only a minority of Tamils support the Tigers, why are politicians afraid to condemn this group? If Tamils didn't support the Tigers what would there be to lose in attacking the terrorists?
But then again Canada is a country whose prime minister blamed the 9-11 attacks on poverty, implicitly blaming the US for bringing the attack on itself. If only those nasty Americans had been more like us saintly Canadians. If only Bush had invited Bono to the White House for a consultation on world poverty.
It's a frustrating situation. Why have Canadians allowed the situation in their country, my country, to reach the point where "conservative" politicians are afraid to condemn a terrorist group because it might cost them votes?
However, there was another reason I didn't write. I was having second thoughts about this blog. I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a blogger.
Even though I know Canada's immigration system is a disaster, I'm not an expert in immigration issues. I follow immigration news as best I can and I have read a few books on the subject. Still there's a lot about immigration I don't understand and I'm not comfortable presenting myself as an immigration pundit.
I find it especially hard to come up with instant commentary on every immigration story I come across. I read other Canadian blogs. I find them interesting because the other bloggers speak with such confidence and authority. At their best, Canadian blogs are full of passion and vigour. But that's not really my style.
Where other bloggers see black and white I often see gray. Political issues just don't seem as clear-cut to me as they do to other people. Take, for example, public healthcare. There are serious problems with the Canadian system. People are literally dying while waiting for surgery. Other people avoid the problem by going to the US and paying for treatment there. Canada already has a two-tier system. There are good arguments for full or partial privatization. Still, the part of me that's a bleeding heart worries that privatization will leave the poor, including the working poor, without adequate care. I don't know what Canada should do about healthcare.
I don't believe the poor are always responsible for their own fate. In many cases they are, but not always. A variety of factors, including the surfeit of low-skilled labour caused by immigration, contribute to povery.
Back to immigration.
Canadian immigration policy doesn't make sense. We are bringing in far more people than our society can absorb. On the one hand, we have engineers and PhD's driving cabs; on the other hand, we have immigrants on welfare. Some immigrants still do well for themselves, but many don't. Toronto is full of ethnic enclaves and is beginning to develop violent ghettos. Last year's gun violence, which is continuing into the new year, wouldn't be happening if immigration hadn't given the city a black underclass. Much of the time, Toronto doesn't even seem like Canada any more.
I'm angry about what immigration has done to my hometown. I'm especially angry that Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't have the wisdom or the courage to tackle this issue head on. Why should I vote for a party that won't do anything about a policy that is destroying my city? I can't think of any reason to vote Conservative. As much as I hate the Liberals, I can't bring myself to support Harper. I really don't care who wins this election. That's one reason I haven't been commenting on it.
By all accounts Harper is a smart and decent man, but his approach to immigration is contemptible. He is supporting a policy that undermines his own electoral base. There's a lot commentary in the media about the inability of the Conservatives to win seats in Ontario during previous elections. This is attributed to the party's alleged "extremism" on social issues, but it has more to do with the fact that immigrants vote Liberal.
I don't know the exact number, but about half of Ontario's seats are in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). It used to be that the Conservatives had a shot in the outer suburbs (the so-called 905 belt). This area once voted for Harris, but since then it's been flooded with immigrants and the only way the party can win seats is by running "ethnic" candidates and pandering to ethnic voters.
The Conservatives are now grovelling to the point where they won't publicly condemn the Tamil Tigers terrorist group because it might offend the delicate sensibilities of Toronto's terrorist-supporting Tamil community. Not all Tamils support the Tigers. Some Tamils know better than anyone else what scum the Tigers are, but don't kid yourself. Tamil-Canadian support for the Tigers is real and substantial. If only a minority of Tamils support the Tigers, why are politicians afraid to condemn this group? If Tamils didn't support the Tigers what would there be to lose in attacking the terrorists?
But then again Canada is a country whose prime minister blamed the 9-11 attacks on poverty, implicitly blaming the US for bringing the attack on itself. If only those nasty Americans had been more like us saintly Canadians. If only Bush had invited Bono to the White House for a consultation on world poverty.
It's a frustrating situation. Why have Canadians allowed the situation in their country, my country, to reach the point where "conservative" politicians are afraid to condemn a terrorist group because it might cost them votes?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Are the Conservatives pandering to Tamil Tiger supporters?
A small Canadian Press article in today's Toronto Star suggests to me at least that the Conservative Party is pandering to Tamil Tiger supporters in Toronto.
According to the article:
An internal party email obtained by The Canadian Press indicates the Conservatives moved to placate Tamil voters around Toronto yesterday after an ill-timed reminder of the party's tough line on the Tamil Tigers organization.
The email says Tory candidates in Toronto's east end complained after Deputy Leader Peter MacKay publicly reiterated a proposed ban on Tigers — apparently not realizing the Conservatives had agreed not to discuss the ban during the election.
Late yesterday, the party released a statement saying it wanted to improve the targeting of Canadian aid to Tamil communities in Sri Lanka and to get more involved in the Norway-brokered peace process.
According to a party email circulating yesterday, MacKay's comments to a newspaper earlier this week "have caused trouble for the seven candidates with sizeable Tamil support in and around Scarborough."
His comments were picked up yesterday by news organizations in Thailand and Colombo.
According to the article:
An internal party email obtained by The Canadian Press indicates the Conservatives moved to placate Tamil voters around Toronto yesterday after an ill-timed reminder of the party's tough line on the Tamil Tigers organization.
The email says Tory candidates in Toronto's east end complained after Deputy Leader Peter MacKay publicly reiterated a proposed ban on Tigers — apparently not realizing the Conservatives had agreed not to discuss the ban during the election.
Late yesterday, the party released a statement saying it wanted to improve the targeting of Canadian aid to Tamil communities in Sri Lanka and to get more involved in the Norway-brokered peace process.
According to a party email circulating yesterday, MacKay's comments to a newspaper earlier this week "have caused trouble for the seven candidates with sizeable Tamil support in and around Scarborough."
His comments were picked up yesterday by news organizations in Thailand and Colombo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
