Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

By Jared Taylor

[In] November 2006 , Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor’s background, and was now unwilling to let him speak.

These are [some of] the remarks Mr. Taylor had planned to give.


And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that an assertion — a belief — is all it is. How, exactly, is racial diversity a strength for Canada or any other country? Does it raise per capita GNP? Does it improve crop yields? Does it lower crime rates? Does it reduce green house gases? Does it lower taxes?

No, it doesn’t do any of those things. I’m not sure I have ever heard its boosters say specifically what it does. I will tell you what racial diversity does: It results in conflict, tension, and hostility. At its worst, racial diversity can lead to race riots, racially-motivated murder and assault. At its best, when communities of different races try to live together they simply leave each other alone. The result is relatively peaceful voluntary segregation. Except for a few bohemians, people of different races do not often mingle naturally and happily.


Now, you probably think that every major Canadian institution from the federal government on down takes the view that racial diversity is a “great strength” for Canada. In fact, they all agree with me. They all assert most emphatically that racial diversity is not a source of strength, but a source of conflict. The only difference is that instead of the word “conflict,” they use the word “racism.” Whatever “racism” may be, they all agree that it is a very bad thing, and that Canadian society is riddled with it.

Now, if there were no racial diversity in Canada, there could be no racial discrimination, could there? So please remember this: Whenever people complain about racism, bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, discrimination, they are not talking about the joys and benefits of racial diversity. They are admitting that it is a source of tension and suffering.


How bad is the race problem? The Ontario Human Rights Commission says “Racial discrimination and racism” are “pervasive and continuing.” The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says “racism is serious and pervasive.” The Canadian Commission for UNESCO says racism “imperils democracy.” The federal Human Rights Commission says “hate and, in particular, its manifestation on the Internet pose a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society.”

How can racial diversity be a strength if it gives rise to something that “imperils democracy” that “poses a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society?”

This question deserves an answer, ladies and gentlemen, but because Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me, I’m afraid it will not get one. In fact, I suspect Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me because he knows this question has no answer.


Racism within the health care system; Racism in the criminal justice system; The racism inherent in white civilization; Racism in Shakespeare’s The Tempest; Everyday racism in medical school; The systemic racism that is prevalent in Nova Scotia; Contemporary Representations of Racism in Children’s Books; Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights; Racism and Science Fiction; Thinking More Creatively About Racism and How to Tackle It; Systemic racism affects every aspect of our daily lives; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. By golly, its everywhere!
And this is just a tiny sample of the stuff that’s on the Dalhousie site.


So it appears that racism is a very considerable scourge in Canada, but it is reassuring to know that commissions and tribunals and study groups and associations and foundations are beavering away night and day fighting it. They’ll soon have it under control, right? Well, maybe not. A recent survey by Statistics Canada found that, nearly 50 percent of blacks say they have suffered from discrimination or unfair treatment, as have 33 percent of South Asians and Chinese. (No report by StatCan on whether any Whites suffer from racism.) A 2003 report on immigrants living in West Central Toronto found that 68 percent had suffered just from housing discrimination, let alone any other kind of discrimination.


Let us accept, for a moment, the lefty view of all this, namely that racism — whatever that may be — is a moral failing that afflicts only Whites.

Non-whites — every man, woman and child — are noble, un-offending sufferers, whose sole aim is to be accepted as the loyal Canadians they are. Parenthetically, this seems to be the view of all your human rights commissions, too, but no matter. If this view is correct, it means Whites are a uniquely defective people who break out in helpless spasms of racism whenever they encounter NON-whites.

But if that is true, why must Whites — and their NON-white victims — be put through the ordeal of racial diversity? If, after decades of combating racism, Whites are still hopelessly “racist”, what is gained by an immigration policy that brings in yet more NON-whites only to make them suffer at the hands of Whites, and that degrades Whites by bringing out the worst in them?

TORONTO used to be virtually all-white. There couldn’t have been much racial discrimination. Now, all official sources agree that Toronto is a hive of racial discrimination. How has racial diversity therefore been a strength for Toronto or for Canada?

gooderham building in toronto

TORONTO – Canada’s largest city had a HOMOGENEOUS WHITE population of about 97% in the 1970s. [Today in 2017, the city of Toronto’s WHITE population has plummeted to just 48% while 3rd-world, NON-white immigrants continue to flood into this once “Canadian” city .]


Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. (see below) We know, for example, that blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in youth gangs, and blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn’t want to know.

Minorities, Crime and Punishment (PDF File)


Back to Toronto. In 2005 — a coalition of 22 black community groups — but let’s stop right there. A coalition of 22 black community groups? Twenty-two race based associations? What do they all do? Why are they needed? Why are they racially exclusive? How many more are there that are not part of this coalition? Are they all glorying in the strengths of racial diversity?

[Also read:

Is Burlington TOO White?

Canada’s BLACK Population


So what are we to conclude from all this? Ladies and gentlemen, let us face facts squarely. Racial diversity in Canada, just as it is in America, is an ordeal. Sometimes, a difficult, agonizing ordeal. It is a source of resentment, guilt-mongering, and endless charges of racism.

If it were a strength, non-white groups would not set up countless race-based organizations to protect and advance their interests. If it were a strength, no one would need diversity managers or sensitivity training. If it were a strength, Canadians would not naturally separate on racial lines.


Let’s return for a moment to the subject of speaking freely. Let’s talk abut white flight. There was a 2004 Toronto Star article about a new Statistics Canada report on the appearance of visible minority neighborhoods in Canada’s big cities. Whites used to live in these places but they have moved out. According to the Toronto Star, StatCan could not bring itself to use the term “white flight,” and (instead) wrote only about “rapid replacement.”

Well, someone apparently wasn’t told about how we are now supposed to talk. That same year, 2004, Toronto city councilman from Scarborough Mike Del Grande told his local paper that “a lot of white people are moving out” of his ward. Another councilman immediately jumped on Mr. Del Grande: “To hear someone say White people are leaving and Chinese are coming in can be nothing other than a racist comment,” said Joe Mihevc. Poor Mr. Del Grande had to apologize: “I should have said many older residents of the community (are moving out),” he said. “I didn’t say it in a politically-correct way.”

Now, what is going on when a city councilman says something that is obviously true, is accused of racism, and is forced to say he should have spoken in code rather than speak clearly? You can’t even describe what is going on before your very eyes, much less talk about why whites are leaving and whether they might even be justified in leaving. This doesn’t sound like a strength to me.

The vice principal of Queens University unbosomed what strikes me as a significant truth about Canada. Recently he was quoted as saying, “Our Canadian culture has been squeamish about gathering race-based statistics because no one wants to see ethnic makeup reduced to numbers on a page. But unless you get this kind of information, you don’t really know if you have a problem.”

Well, yes. How do you even begin to assess whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness unless you gather the information. Do different groups have different rates of illegitimacy? School failure? Poverty? If they do, does it make [any] sense to add to those groups through immigration? Take crime data. [Read: Importing Black Violence] I understand Canada does not keep records of racial differences in crime rates. Too squeamish, I suppose. And yet everyone knows some groups commit more crime than others. Your newspapers talk about it indirectly.    >MORE>>



Race Diversity – But WHY?

Frank Talk On Immigration

Immigration & Race

Non-Assimilating Immigrants

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force


Racism – It’s Everywhere


8 thoughts on “Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

  1. Murder rates in Venezuela are 35 times higher than in England according to article in The Guardian (London), by Ben Whitford.

    Murder rates in Columbia and Mexico are given as 33 and 10 per 100,000 according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, by Mary O’Grady:

    According to the UN, the murder rate in the Carribean is four times that of North America and fifteen times that of West and Central Europe. (source: Times leading article, London 30 July 08).

    Murder rates in Jamaica given as 30 times that of Britain in ITV program called “the secret carribean” (2009) presented by Trevor McDonald (black journalist). (can be viewed online).

  2. It is claimed above that “blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times……”. This is naive and understates the problem for the following reasons.

    Anyone going to live in another country or culture tends to adopt the habits and rules of that culture. For example murder rates amongst blacks are lower in low murder rate countries than in “all black” countries.

    In other words to get idea of the effect of Africanising Canada, look at the murder rates in “all black” or more or less “all black” countries. I put some figures on a separate post (presumably above or below this one). Murder rates in at least two non-white countries (Jamaica and Venezuela) are around 30 times the rates in white countries.
    Put another way, the “blacker” Canada becomes, the more it will presumably adopt black culture, lifestyles, etc and the more it will tend towards to horrific murder rates that obtain in “all black” countries. Put another way, if Canada becomes say 90% black (nirvana for the politically correct) murder rate for the country as a whole will not rise to “eight or ten times” current levels. Murder rates will presumably rise to near thirty times current levels.

  3. I agree with much of Jared Taylor’s article, but he is less than honest in pretending he doesn’t know what the supposed advantages of multiracialism are. The politically correct have told us all a thousand times that the advantage is a “richer” cultural environment, or a more “diverse” cultural environment.

    The above is more or less the advantage claimed for mulitculturalism in one of the few full length books written advocating multiculturalism: Bhiku Parekh’s “Rethinking Multiculturalism”.

    The flaws in the latter PC argument are glaringly obvious. Indeed, I would argue that is precisely the glaringly obvious nature of these flaws that partly explains peoples’ failure to see them. This is called “not seeing the wood for the trees”. (Or in the words of Goering – Hitler’s propaganda minister – “Never tell a small lie – always tell a whapper”).

    Anyway, the first flaw in the above PC argument is that there is nothing inherently desirable about a more diverse cultural environment. For example adding a bit of Pol Pot’s “lets shoot anyone with glasses” culture to the average Western country liberal democracy would increase the cultural diversity of the latter, but would hardly be an improvement. Same goes for adding a bit of Saddam Hussein’s “lets shoot anyone who disagrees with Saddam Hussein” culture.

    Second, whence the utterly bizarre idea that in order to learn about or adopt the best characteristics of another culture, one has to import a million members of that culture? This idea is raving bonkers. The Chinese in the last two decades have vastly improved their standard of living by adopting a characteristic of Western culture: the West’s technology.

    The Chinese have a lot more brain than the depraved scum that make up the political correctness brigade in the West. That is, the Chinese managed to learn and adopt Western technology, not by importing ten million Westerners, but by learning the technology from books, the internet, sending students to study in the West and so on.

    The cleverest people on planet Earth are the ones who think up new ideas, like the above technology. The next cleverest are the ones who can get a grip of ideas relatively easily (e.g. the Chinese, as mentioned above). And right down at the bottom, about half way between Australian Aboringinees and Chimpanzees are the politically correct.

  4. “According to the UN, the murder rate in the Carribean is four times that of North America and fifteen times that of West and Central Europe.”

    This is a very broad statement and totally false, the crime rate in Jamaica is a thousand times greater than the crime rate in Barbados or even the Virgin Islands.
    To state that “black” people commit crime is a bit misleading, these articles give the impression that whites are pure and do not commit crime.
    I won;t list the many crimes that whites commit.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s