Many Canadians are starting to see through the destructive folly of Multiculturalism and Diversity, this judging by countless media stories, comments from Canadians and politicians and world-wide opinion. The Globe and Mail series on Multiculturalism and Diversity is finally doing what a small Quebec town called Herouxville in part, started and led by their town councilor Andre Drouin in 2007.
To think a small town councilor Andre Drouin, spokesperson for the citizens of Herouxville took on a province, the media, a prime minister, Canada and the world in what Herouxville citizenry perceived as a failed experiment and the erosion of Canadian Judeo-Christian cultural way of life and traditions, all in the name of cultural groups looking to change Canada their way, with politicians using these groups in order to buy the ethnic cultural vote.
Here is a brief, though satirical analogy on Multiculturalism and Diversity:
Say a homeless person, cold, hungry and destitute comes to your door looking for help, food, lodging and a place to call home, until they can get on the feet and live independently.
Though the homeless person may or may not speak French or English, as a Canadian you welcome that person as a new family member into your home as your humanitarian duty, though you are already scraping by financially with your growing family.
Say at mealtime the homeless person states the food is not to their liking and would you please make them a meal more suited to their taste.
You apologize and make that person another meal, your children seeing this pipe up and say they want MacDonalds instead chipped beef on toast. You inform your children, eat what the family eats. Children are confused why the guest gets preferential treatment.
Your daughter prepares to go on a date, the date arrives, a male friend of colour and clearly a different culture and religion. Your new family member points out to you that this won’t do because his belief is one race, one culture, one religion and furthermore a family member must insist on picking the daughter’s suitor and only under strict supervision with a family member in attendance at all times. Also what is the deal with the halter top and tight jeans? That is a sexual invitation for this boy.
Nonplussed, you state to your guest that your daughter is a nice girl, dresses like her peers and her date is a fine young boy, though their family is poor, they are decent hard working people and the two teens have been dating for two years. You state to your guest that as a typical Canadian family, multiculturalism and diversity allow equality for all and perhaps you should see things their way.
Your guest, disgruntled, pushes himself from the dinner table and leaves the room ending the conversation because in his former country this would never happen.
The next day you get a visit from a government politician at the behest of your guest that perhaps you were too hard-line with your liberal views last night and with government assistance you could learn how to be more accommodating to your guest’s culture wants and needs.
You state to the government politician that my house my rules, our family is treated equally, from the dinner menu to who they decide to associate with. If our guest is in disagreement, that is his right, but know we as a family of Canadians are all under the same house rules, equally.
The politician states that this is a special circumstance, for you see under the multiculturalism and diversity laws, your guest’s viewpoint must be respected and accommodated if he is to live under your household.
You state, well perhaps our offended guest could move out to another household if my house rules are not to his liking?
The politician reiterates, Madam that statement is bordering on a hate crime!
How so? ,says the Canadian.
The politician states, your family as a majority are forcing your house rules against your guest, who is a minority group and who you welcomed into your home to change his ways to selfishly accommodate your family.
The Canadian: Goodness me, how selfish of me, look I am as accommodating as the next person, Tell me how I can make our guest more like part of our family?
The politician states: Well he is homesick, perhaps if you allow his family come live with you that would equal the balance when it comes to the democratic process when making your house rules.
The Canadian: I can’t afford to take in more people as I am having a hard time as it is supporting our household as it is. Besides, if these family member move into my home, where shall I put them? What if they become the majority decision maker in house rules? What about my rights as a Canadian, what about my right to dress and associate with anyone I choose?
The Politician: Madam, must I remind you again, your statement is bordering on hate crime.
The Canadian: How can you accuse me of a Hate Crime? All I am doing is stating a fact; my income cannot support more guests into my home.
The Politician: Not to worry, your government will provide the minimum financial assistance to help out your household in accommodating your expanding Canadian family.
The Canadian: But isn’t this just my hard earned tax dollars paying for all this?
The Politician: That’s it! You’re under arrest for Hate Crimes.
The citizens of Herouxville are having the last laugh as Canadians are now in agreement on “why should we as Canadians accommodate those cultures who refuse to assimilate, accommodate, integrate or denigrate our culture?” After all this is Canada, we would certainly not forcefully impose our traditions, laws, culture, denigrate the citizens of your country if we chose to immigrate there or use your country as a base of operations to carry out terrorist activities against another country.
It seems now that the media is in full swing, that Canadians have opened their eyes to the futility of Multiculturalism and Diversity, a failed experiment started in Europe in the late 1960s and coming full circle in the last two decades since; riots, culture clashes over which norms take precedence, Europe’s rule of law and culture or the rule of law and culture by those who immigrate to Europe. Canada tried to emulate the European model and perhaps is seeing the Trudeau experiment of Multiculturalism and Diversity may not be all it is cracked up to be.
Quebec politicians, perhaps masters at cultural vote buying lead the pack with the separatist movement in the late 1960’s, with Liberal party leader Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his multiculturalism and diversity mantra.
Problem being, Quebec looking to hold on their culture and language wasn’t buying what the Trudeau Liberals were selling, after all if the Liberals were pro Multiculturalism and Diversity, why were the Liberals not fighting to protect Quebec language and culture? One theory is Quebec also wanted sovereignty to control their destiny within Canada, which would result in the Liberals losing the Quebec vote if sovereignty came to be.
The Liberals on the other hand seem to fight tooth and nail to protect their multiculturalism and diversity pledge for the rest of Canada. Especially disturbing was a brand new federal ministry called Multiculturalism devoted to promoting said policies everywhere it seems but La belle province.
Quebec, a liberal stronghold in the past saw Quebec federal and provincial liberals losing their majority status, fractured by various Quebec separatist parties looking to get in on the action and pick up where the Liberals failed.
Quebec’s population with a one third majority in terms of the political arena, means political party fortunes were tied to the Quebec vote. Without Quebec, any political party who failed to get Quebec was regaled to live out their terms in back bencher status until the next federal election.
Political parties losing votes to the different separatist parties knew they had to look elsewhere to boost their voting numbers. Ontario seemed a good bet as the second largest voting bloc in Canada, problem being, Ontarians voted back and forth between the Liberal and Conservatives, with a smattering of pro union New Democrats.
The Liberals needed an edge to get the majority of Ontarians to vote for them in order to govern Canada, rehashing the Multiculturalism and Diversity full force seemed their holy grail, what with Ontario’s growing immigrant population, what better way to get votes than to pander to those newcomers with promises which would embarrass a used car salesman and enrage the Canadian taxpayer.
Other political parties looked on with envy, needed an identifiable buzzword(s) to define itself as unique with various cultural or special interest groups in order to get elected.
Soon new and rarely used words such as Diaspora, mosaic, free trade, status of women, challenged, handi-capable, festival trees, anti-Americanisms, alternate lifestyles, sustainability etc., soon started to emerge from the politically correct birth canal and work their way into the everyday Canadian lexicon. It seems the politicians went through every word in Webster’s to find filler to insert into their politically correct playlist, hoping voters would notice BIG WORDS equate to political intelligence!
One political buzzword which has endured for the last 4 decades is Multiculturalism and Diversity, seen by many as a sure fire vote getter.
Considering immigrants and new Canadians tend to congregate into cultural specific communities with some cultural communities large enough to be considered political ridings are seen as a large enough voting block for politicians to take advantage of, whether these cultural specific ridings share a political parties view with the political candidate matters not as long as a vote is to be had, by hook or by crook is all that matters.
One dangling carrot to get the ethnic vote was an old age pension bill federal Member of Parliament Ruby Dhalla was proposing to push through. Ruby Dhalla hails from a large ethnic riding from Metro Toronto, scene of the recent illegal Tamil migrant fiasco, where the Tamil population at over 200,000 in Toronto is the largest population in the world next to Sri Lanka.
This proposed bill Liberal Ruby Dhalla is looking to gain acceptance on Parliament Hill would allow immigrants who sponsor to bring elderly family members to immigrate to Canada to collect a Canadian pension to the tune of close to a billion dollars a year, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.
The current Canadian Old Age Pension mandates a new Canadian of pensionable age, whether the new Canadian has never worked or contributed to the pension plan is entitled to taxpayer funded cash for life in Canada.
The current system states new immigrants of pensionable age sponsored by family members to come to Canada must endure a ten year waiting period in order to collect this Canadian old age pension. Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla wishes to reduce the waiting period to three years. One can certainly see a voter gold mine for Ruby and the Liberal party.
Notwithstanding, the issue of convenience rears its ugly head as many new Canadians once they secure citizenship retain both their Canadian passports including their previous countries passports claiming dual citizenship, moving back to the old country, until it is convenient to come back to Canada, such as give birth in order for their children to attain Canadian citizenship, collect old age pension, medical treatment or to plead for Canada to come to their rescue when the country they returned to live in experiences yet again another civil war. Again the politically correct set and politicians in Canada state only a minority of Canadians do this and not the majority. I would think 15, 000 Canadians of one cultural group being rescued in another country all at one place at one time should be considered larger than a minority.
What is another disturbing trend is many, many of those who immigrate to Canada vote liberal, despite their strong ultra conservative cultural or traditional views against gays, alternate lifestyles, human rights, freedom of speech, birth control, a woman’s right to dress and work, date or associate with anyone from all classes or race. Not to be outdone, there are some who as cultural groups express extremist views come to Canada only to wage war against other countries from the relative safety of Canada.
Why would the Liberal party, or any party for that matter welcome these groups into the party fold knowing they detest what the political party stand for such as anti sharia laws, honour killings, and social caste systems when it comes to equality for all Canadians? The answer is Multiculturalism and Diversity. Does this not create a contradiction?
Extremist groups know full well they can be protected under the banner of Multiculturalism and Diversity. Past and present examples where Liberals have bent over backwards to accommodate those in the quest for the ethnic vote are the Khadr’s, Tamil Tigers, Babbar Khalsa (Tigers of the True Faith) for example, which included said group to threaten the life of a female city mayor who spoke her mind. The extensive list is far longer than one can imagine as statistics attest.
In 1996 the federal Liberal government under then Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, intervened on behalf of known terrorist Ahmed Khadr, a Bin Laden confident, securing the elder Khadr’s release from a Pakistan prison for his role in terrorist bombing activities in that country.
Soon after arriving safely back in Canada to recuperate, Canadians learned the elder Khadr returned to fight and die another day, this time bringing the kids with him to join in the festivities of martyrdom in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Now many will dispute that these are a minority who do not share our Canadian sense of democracy. Problem being, these extremist groups are not just a handful of members, but do number in the hundreds of thousands, with many others who share their sentiments.
Do politicians have no clue of world events, when politicians gladly accept these groups of immigrants, including immigrants with extremist views into their political fold, including attending their festivals, only to realize when pointed out by the media; they are in fact attending and endorsing a terrorist party.
Again, I reiterate, the Liberal party and NDP really must not have a clue of world events, what other explanation is there why they would accept these groups and some with extremist views into their political party as supporters.
The only answer is, making a deal with the devil, in which the immigrant with opposing views what the Liberal and NDP stand for will give these political parties support under the multicultural and diversity laws which ensure protection of anyone of culture regardless if their views go against everything Canada stands for. The Liberals and NDP on the other hand will always Dance with the Devil if it is a means of gaining political power in Canada. Hence my stance the Liberal and NDP quest for the ethnic votes, regardless if you agree with us or not. Votes over human rights seem to be the norm.
For Multiculturalism to work you need both sides in agreement, as for Diversity, well there are thousands of unmarked graves in war zones all over the world which attest that it ain’t working!
In ending, the citizens of Herouxville, Andre Drouin and many Canadians see Multiculturalism and Diversity as our Eve of Destruction and spoke out, the problem being no one was listening, until now.