By Dorothy A. Seese

Are we all on the same page when it comes to “racism?” No. Sometimes it is used to imply that one race thinks they are superior to others. Another dictionary definition is discrimination against people of a certain race or races. But in today’s world, it means just about anything a court, a group, an action committee, or any other faction wants it to mean in order to denigrate the other party (the one doing the offending, which by the amount of space devoted to it in media, is a full-time occupation of most European-heritage Americans who aren’t even thinking about it). What is even more confusing is that when “racist” is an epithet hurled at someone because they are allegedly anti-Islamic, then “Islam” becomes a race rather than a religion. The same is true of people of Mexican origin, although Mexican is a nationality, not a religion and not a race.

If this sounds somewhat confusing, that is because it is. Special interest groups have made sure it’s confusing.

This isn’t the first time I’ve said that I’ve never liked a race of people in my life. First, I’ve never met a whole race of people. Second, I’ve disliked as many people of the misnamed “white” race as I have of any other, and probably more because I’ve met more “white” people. However, that statement contains a flaw, because I’ve never met anyone who is “white” compared to a sheet of white paper or a can of white paint. I’ve met people of light skin who are of European heritage. But I’ve also met people who are Mexican who are lighter than some hyphenated Euro-Americans of say, Greek or Romanian ethnicity.

Now, if certain people of Mexican descent and probably nationality come and take over 40 acres of property that I own under the laws of our land, is it “racist” to dislike that act and take action against it? Let’s test it not by just the issue, but by another, more modern standard: would I be just as angry if the people who came and grabbed off 40 acres of grazing land to which I own title are Finnish, is that “racist?” If you answer yes to the first and no to the second proposition, you have a big inconsistency and furthermore, a ridiculous answer. Neither you, whoever you are, nor I, are going to like a person or a group of people who come nabbing 40 acres. It just happens to be a way to defeat my objection to yell “racist” if the people belong to one group as opposed to another. It diverts attention away from the real issue, which is the nabbing of 40 acres of my land, to a supposed feeling I have against the nabbers because they have a different ethnic background and are perhaps of a different color. It shifts the crime from them (land-nabbing) to me (racism).

Isn’t that a clever way to becloud the issue and shift the crime from the perpetrator to the victim? Of course. That’s why it is being used in multiple nations, in numerous cases, for countless reasons, in increasing incidents, all over the Western world. Legal issues such as immigration according to the laws of the land have been made subservient to the supposed attitude of the landowners and citizens toward certain “races” of people, such races being in fact nationalities, religions or various skin colors.

Justice peeks from behind that supposed blindfold.

The word “racism” is a ploy being used to effect the redistribution of peoples around the globe. Once people settle in another land in sufficient numbers to have a league of their own for defending their supposed rights above others, they have a hold on that land, its political flavors and its cultural climate. Yet any suggestion that the immigrant peoples be moved back to their homeland is defeated, met with profuse apologies for such racist conduct, and the citizens who are (take your pick) Dutch, British, Belgian, French, Spanish, Italian, or other European nationality, are fined, reprimanded or have to resign their position and take cover elsewhere.

The United States of America is importing people of other races, ethnicities and colors (other than light tan) so that the formerly European, and largely Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Germanic, heritage and homogeneous cultural background of “America” doesn’t mean the same thing as it did thirty or forty years ago. There is a cultural dilution occurring, of which the open borders are a large part. And it isn’t by accident.

Cultural redistribution will result in the erasure of borders so that this conglomerate of people, now all called American or some hyphenation of it (which is absurd and technically incorrect) will be a geographic region rather than a nationality with distinct laws. The laws of the land are, or will be, superseded by the higher law of the Globalist government, administered by the United Nations or some international court.

And there went the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, and all the other protections that American citizens over forty years of age recall, even if somewhat vaguely.

This has been a rather cursory explanation of the ploy of “racism” to achieve cultural dilution rather than equity before a court of law or other tribunal. The fact that it exists should be obvious to anyone who is capable of observation.

What I will not do is tag this as being “right” or “wrong” for one reason, and one only: The founders of the United States warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and traditional “Americans” (European heritage, light skin darked in tanning parlors) have been too lazy and taken too much for granted about their land. They have trusted politicians which is ignorance gone to seed. They’ve let their comfort zones dictate their attitudes about standing up for their country, so if it’s lost (and it is) to the multiculturalism agenda of the Global Governance crowd, they have no one to blame but themselves. Hundreds of internet writers and bloggers have warned of what was coming years ago, and to no avail.

Notice also that Asia is not mentioned in this article, and China is (at last glance) in Asia. Yet we have millions of Asians coming into this country [and Canada] very, very quietly, while all the noise comes from the other corner of the house where the argument is over someone’s lettuce patch or grape vines.



The ‘Right’ To Hate

By Selwyn Duke

Former NBA star Tim Hardaway made waves on the airwaves recently by remarking that he hated homosexuals. It became the story du jour the next day, prompting the obligatory posturing and feigned outrage. Pundit Bill O’Reilly said (I’m paraphrasing), “We can’t have this in America,” although at least he was sincere.

Now, I know we should hate the sin but not the sinner, so far be it from me to advocate hatred for anyone (his actions and beliefs are a different matter). But given the West’s increasing embrace of hate crime/hate speech laws, we need to ask ourselves a question. Do we have a right to hate?

The Shill Media won’t discuss it, but the aforementioned laws are metastasizing in the supposedly free countries of the West. I’ve often written about the case of Mark Harding, a Canadian pastor punished for criticizing Islam. But such examples abound; Bob Unruh writes at,

Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word ‘homosexual’ rather than ‘gay.’ Now, a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, ‘fornicators’ and ‘adulterers’ are protected classes and cannot be criticized.

And just in case you think it can’t happen here in the US, I’ll point out that on October 10, 2004, eleven Christians were arrested in Philadelphia, Pa., for criticizing homosexuality. They were arrested under a Pennsylvania hate crime law, which, ominously, is almost identical to one (H.R. 254) going through Congress at this very moment.

Now, I must point out that it’s unlikely the individuals in the above cases were motivated by hate, unless it’s hate of certain behaviors or beliefs. Yet, the law has prosecuted them under hate laws, Orwellian legislation predicated on the notion that the government belongs in the hate business. So I ask again, do we have a right to hate?

In terms of moral rights, the answer is no. For that matter, however, we have no moral right to embrace or indulge any evil idea or tendency. This includes not just wrath but the rest of the Seven Deadly Sins as well: Lust, pride, greed, envy, sloth and gluttony. But the issue here isn’t one of moral rights, but legal ones.

If I were as shallow as some of my critics, I’d now rail against “legislating morality,” but I know better. A law by definition is the imposition of morality, as it prescribes or proscribes something based on the idea that it is, respectively, a moral imperative or morally wrong or a corollary of that which is so. If this isn’t the case, why create the law? It would make no sense to outlaw that which isn’t bad or mandate that which isn’t good. Thus, those who dislike such intrusion need to be heedful: To have government legislate morality as little as possible means to have it legislate as little as possible, which is why it needs to be as small as possible.

The government definitely has no legitimate role prohibiting hate, real or imagined. And here I think of radical Moslem groups like the Taliban, which are condemned for enforcing laws based on a different deadly sin. When Moslems punish those who indulge lust (note: Lust is “disordered sexual desire”), they sometimes stone adulterers or homosexuals. Their medieval penalties are most disproportionate and I’m the last one who’d want to live under the iron burka. Having said that, in certain respects, they are morally superior to our Thought Police.

Insofar as the above goes, what the Moslems proscribe actually is wrong, whereas the Thought Police often punish those who criticize what is wrong. Put differently, the Moslems do actually target lustful acts but, while the Thought Police claim to want to eliminate hate, their true focus is eliminating expression that refutes their agenda. Thus, the latter are far more contemptible in their deceit and sanctimony.

Their dishonesty is evidenced in double standards that would inflame the electorate if the Shill Media actually brought them to light. While Pastor Harding was hauled into court for criticizing Islam, the true hatred expressed by Moslems outside who chanted “Infidels, you will burn in Hell” was met with the sanction of government silence.

This is par for the course. When did you last see someone punished for criticizing Christianity, whites or those with normal [heterosexual] desires? Why do you think so-called hate crimes perpetrated by a member of these groups, becomes front page news while one perpetrated against them is swept under the rug? Hate laws are used as a hammer to silence politically incorrect dissent and persecute those not enjoying victim-group status. Hate laws have nothing to do with opposition to hate and everything to do with hating opposition.

Thus, another question should be, do we have a right to hate whom we wish? Governments are more and more the arbiter of who and what can be hated and, in fact, play God as they would have us accept that hate is whatever they deem it to be. This is why I recoil at any intimation that people have no legal right to hate. The Tim Hardaways of the world have every right to hate whom they wish, and, too, you have a right to scorn and ostracize them for it. But he who implies we have no right to voice our beliefs is the most contemptible of haters: A hater of liberty.

A big part of our problem is that people tend to be as blind to hang-ups collectively as they are individually. Just as Moslem Wahhabis may believe infidels are the bane of humanity and that any means to subjugate them is justified, we have hate on the brain. Wrath is merely one of the Seven Deadly Sins, not the be-all and end-all. We have become errant radicals, much like the Shakers, who taught that all copulation was a sin, even that within marriage. The only difference is that we focus our tunnel-vision elsewhere.

Personally, even where real hate is concerned, I’d much rather have it expressed and know where people stand than see it bottled up, simmering beneath the surface, perhaps only becoming evident when it explodes in a fit of violence. It’s ironic, the irreligious left would call the Shakers sexually repressed. Yet, the same set wants to create repressed haters.

Getting back to moral rights, one the government does not enjoy is the moral right to remove the legal right to make moral pronouncements. Governments have long done this, such as that of Korea and China, which imprison dissidents. And we would do well to remember that if we walk the same path, silencing those who disagree with the prevailing ideology, we will have no moral capital with which to condemn them. They will simply be the man in the mirror.

We have every right to hate. In fact, I’m starting to hate the government with a passion. And that’s a hatred we should indulge without temperance.

Read more, click >> Hate Crime Laws

Twenty Million Illegal Aliens

By Frosty Wooldridge

Have you heard the old saying, “Tea for two”? For the most part, it’s when one lady invites a friend to come over to the house for a cup of tea and conversation. A whole new meaning for the cliché awaits you in the near future.

Within weeks, Senators Teddy Kennedy and John McCain, both hand-holding with President Bush, unveil their blatant invitation for as many as 20-28 million illegal aliens, not only to enjoy American hospitality, but these senators open up our entire overburdened social-services system to unlimited additional abuse.

Kennedy-McCain unveil their gift to no less than 20 million — to a potential high of 28 million illegal aliens, plus many of their family members- to U.S. citizenship amnesty. Lies, lies, and more lies

To give you a sobering handle on how Kennedy-McCain intend to pick your pocket, they insist only 12 million illegal aliens stand now on U.S. soil. When the 1986 law passed, within two years we suffered 3.4 million “new citizens.” We may expect a similar 300 percent growth-magic again this time.

The 2005 Bear-Stearns Report told us we housed 20 million illegals ­ and nobody closed the open-borders. Today, in 2007 reputable experts tell us we endure as many as 20-28 million illegal aliens within the United States borders ­ plus 10 million of their kids and grandchilds.

Please… Allow me to repeat myself ­ this is BIG! In 1986, when Kennedy engineered the last amnesty, he promised only 1.1 million illegal aliens would enjoy America’s freedom after breaking her laws to come here illegally. The true number turned out to be 3.4 million. If you do the math, his estimated 12 million today could and most likely stands at least twice as high ­ to as much as three times that number.

New Cost-Estimate ­ Center for Immigration Studies

A new <> study by Dr. Steve Camarata shows a minimum number of 12 million illegal aliens will tap into $843 BILLION in social-services, education, medical care, school breakfasts and lunches, prison, rising insurance rates and other costs ­ and this is NET — more than they will pay in taxes and usage fees over their lifetimes.

Dr. Camarata also estimated the costs if illegal aliens exceed 30 million, the worst-case scenario. That cost to your pocketbook skyrockets to $2.4 TRILLION. In other words, Senator Teddy Kennedy, the man who brought you the 1965 Immigration Reform Act that added 100 million people to the USA in 42 years, and the 1986-IRCA amnesty fiasco — is about to outdo himself again by giving our country a jump start on another 100 million added people. As President Bush cheers, McCain gleefully follows Teddy into this “tea for 20-28 million” ­ a $2.4 TRILLION financial Katrina for the U.S. taxpayer.


The entire aggregation of “new citizens” all sport relatives who lineup to come to the land of good-and-plenty. Direct experience taught us that each new citizen-by-the grace-of-amnesty sponsors an average of seven new naturalized citizens within ten years after they receive their papers. What does the amnesty do? Easy! It opens the flood gates to this “Human Katrina.” What are people-on-the-street saying about it?

“The cost of closing our borders is a tiny fraction of the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Paul Kehren of Colorado Springs, CO said. “If Mexico would just practice free-market capitalism and birth control, they would not be poor. But no, their rampant socialism and religious ban on birth control cause massive poverty, forcing millions to flee north.”


Those who broke into this country against our laws show no respect for American citizenship or the rule of law. Additionally, they will not invest themselves emotionally or intellectually into becoming participating U.S. citizens. Millions will not invest in the American Dream of speaking English, assimilating and adding to our social fabric. Millions of Mexicans arrive to ‘take back’ their turf. How? They colonize in such great numbers that they force Americans out of the four borders states.

Assimilation? NO…. ­ overthrow-by-numbers!

Ultimate reality of this amnesty: displacing and fracturing Americans out of their own country. That leads to civil unrest with consequences much like Kosovo, Lebanon, France, Holland, Denmark and other nations where “immigrants” create a repetitive nightmare for host countries.

Just like Teddy Kennedy failed this nation with his proposal of the 1965 1.1 million added immigrants annually ­ and again with his 1986 amnesty for 3.4 million illegal aliens — his enclaved-in-the-senate-forever addicted-mind cannot understand what he bequeaths future generations. In a similar addictive-behavior pattern, Bush has shown — with his shortsighted Iraq War — that he cannot and does not understand the nightmare he brings Americans. These behaviors are not coincidence.

Mission Illegal Amnesty Accomplished”

Once this amnesty passes, you can imagine Bush in his flight suit striding across an aircraft carrier deck announcing, “Mission Illegal Amnesty Accomplished.” Beside him, Senators Kennedy and McCain waddle out in their flight suits — bursting at the seams. The reality of our fractured nation will follow much of what happened in Iraq — with civil war orchestrated solely by President George W. Bush, who denied the obvious.

This great nation rides a dangerous wind into an uncertain, if not violent future. If not great civil unrest, we shall degrade ourselves into the maelstrom of greater poverty for our people as we stand by while criminals who employ the slave-labor class get rich ­ destroy our lower-middle-class — widen the earnings gap — and invite millions of Mexico’s poor to colonize our country.

As noted above, Mexico won’t change from being one of the most corrupt countries in the Western Hemisphere. As the Catholic Church encourages unlimited births, Mexico’s population grows by an added 200 million in this century. When will that travesty be addressed? Take a guess! No leader in Mexico takes responsibility for the abominable conditions causing flight by 12 million Mexicans into America-and millions more after this amnesty.

No Winners ­ — Millions of Losers

No one wins and everyone loses this great “Human Dilemma”. I don’t care for 20 million strangers in my home for any reason. Do you? Would you like a spot of arsenic in your tea, madam?


[For some numbers, click:

Stagnated Black Countries

By Elias Biryabarema The Monitor (Kampala, Uganda)

Mr. Yoweri Museveni [President of Uganda] has a background of good education. A calm and well exposed man. Straight thinking and intelligent, his grasp of contemporary world affairs, including some quite complex stuff, is commendably firm.

For years he burned his young energies battling vile governments. Narrowly escaping death on occasions, he showed resolve, sacrifice, devotion to his people and a deep abhorrence for oppressive leadership. Sure. This man had no shortage of good qualities.


And yet, to the astonishment of history, Mr Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has still failed us. 20 years at nation building have produced incompetence so shocking that some think a psychopathic illiterate, Idi Amin, did better work.

Uganda has been fairly stable long enough. The conditions for an economic takeoff have been there for 20 years. Mr. Museveni has enjoyed generous goodwill from nearly all the world’s rich governments. Their largesse has poured in ceaselessly and in hefty amounts.

Uganda should have taken off. We haven’t. We’re stuck. And so is Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Eritrea, Malawi, Congo Republic and pretty much all of Black Africa, excluding the region’s sole economic power, South Africa. This led me to pose a question to myself: can Black people build prosperous societies?

Just about every reason-from slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism to inequitable world trade rules-cited for the backwardness of Black African nations has been so debunked by time that it has now become necessary to look beyond the realm of such contemporary explanations. The maddening inertia of Black people and the mystical forces that keep tramping down our nations, in fact, seem to have their roots deep within us, not from without as has been argued for decades.

Just about everywhere you look, evidence abounds. Vietnam suffered a war of colonial conquest and it was eventually subdued by France in 1884. For almost a decade, it again fought a devastating independence war until France was vanquished in 1954. And then came the epic battle of 1965 to 1973 with US military and its allies, seeking to squelch the North Vietnamese communists.

When the guns fell silent with the withdrawal of US troops in 1973 and the eventual fall of Saigon in 1975, the Vietnamese toll stood at a horrifying three to four million. Diplomatically isolated, its economy shredded and its population maimed and traumatised on a scale unparalleled in any Black African nation (except DR Congo), Vietnam would seem to have no chance at success.

But just two and a half decades later, Vietnam is storming the world stage as an economic powerhouse. Its exports are flooding western nations; heavy and advanced manufacturing is thriving at a rapid pace. Its GDP, $258 billion, is having an average growth rate of 8%, the second highest in Asia after China. Europe had to put curbs on the country’s shoe exports after they nearly sunk much of the continent’s manufacturers.

According to a news report in New York Times on October 25, 2006, Vietnam now sells “nine times as much to Americans as it buys from there.” Since 1990, a space of 15 short years, Vietnam has pulled off one of the most stunning economic feats: reducing absolute poverty-World Bank standard: subsisting on $1 a day-from 51 to 8% of its population.

Back home here, the sort of wars and the scale of devastation that Uganda has suffered since independence can hardly be said to be as crippling as the cataclysm that struck Vietnam.

This is true for many of the Black African nations. But the difference is staggering. Vietnam’s economy is roaring. Sub Saharan Africa is dead stuck known more for: constant disease outbreaks, emergency food relief appeals, civil strive, genocide, chronic corruption, flimsy or nonexistent infrastructure, constitution breaches, state failure than anything else. This disgusting state of affairs after, according to an estimate by South Africa’s Brenthurst Foundation, a colossal $580 billion worth of donor money has been poured into the region since independence. Why have the Vietnamese overcome their historical setbacks and prospered while Black Africans stagnated or regressed?

Or if we may ask another question: why is it that White people prosper wherever they settle while Black people head for the opposite direction. The British crown started asserting its colonial rule over small territories on the continent of Australia in 1788, taking several decades before it brought all the areas into a unified Australian colony.

Throngs of Europeans emigrated en masse and settled there throughout the 1800s. These émigrés went ahead, starting from really little or nothing, and established one of the world’s economic and military powers that is Australia today. The history of New Zealand, the other White country in the Southern Hemisphere, is pretty much the same.

Now contrast these nations with Haiti, the only black nation outside of Africa. It gained independence in 1804. It’s near the US, the richest market on earth and Haiti has a coastline unlike other African nations whose landlocked status is blamed for their underdevelopment. And fine, it has had a fairly brutal past but nowhere near Vietnam’s horrors. But what have our Haitian brothers made of these generous natural advantages: it remains the most backward country in the Western hemisphere, bound up by privation, cyclical coups, spasms of mayhem and blood-thirsty gangs. At home and away, that’s your Black people!

In fact Haiti is perhaps just about the best that we can achieve in nation building. Ethiopia never had colonialism. It registered impressively high levels of literacy as early as 1970, a fact a friend of mine brought to my attention recently. It has a rich and widely shared cultural heritage, a common ancestry. This should have propelled Ethiopia but see the shameful portrait of hunger and disease that this country projects to the world.

And so, to go back to that question that I have been chewing over and over again of late: can Black People build prosperous societies; I firmly believe the answer is a sad NO.

The dumbfounding incompetence of President Museveni thus is not a failure of an individual. It’s a failure of a people: Black People. Museveni only rose and touched our low ceiling. The shamefully limited achievement of his “fundamental change” regime thus should be interpreted in this cruel context.

Minority Whites Fighting Back

By Kristen Cucan – The Charlatan (Carelton University)

A steady growth of online groups devoted to white students has triggered a wave of concern from Ryerson University administration and students who worry the groups are fostering racism.

Administration is investigating how university policy could apply to the groups, many of which were created by Ryerson students on the networking website Facebook.

Among the user groups are “I’m a White Minority @ a Toronto University” with more than 200 members, and “Equal Rights for Whites” with more than 150.

With posts such as “white people unite” generating uproar and a surge in national media attention, the university is facing a “sensitive and complicated issue” in an electronic age where jurisdiction is unclear, said Julia Hanigsberg, general counsel for Ryerson.

“We’re talking to other universities […] because this is something we’re all facing,” said Hanigsberg. “This isn’t something that’s unique to this university, and we want to make sure we’re dealing with it in the most appropriate way.”

Muhammad Ali Jabbar, the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) president, said the growth of these online groups demonstrates a lack of education about anti-discrimination, and another civil rights movement may be needed to counter intolerance.

“The future looks pretty bleak when things like this are going on, and it just shows there’s a lot more work that needs to be done,” he said.

Jabbar said the union can do nothing about the groups because they exist only in cyberspace.

Although no white culture groups have tried to gain club status on campus, comments online have implied students might try to do so. But they would have a “very hard time” trying to prove a white culture exists, said Nora Loreto, RSU vice-president (education).

She says many cultural groups exist for white students, including clubs for Italian and Polish students.

“So do white students have a group and a place to organize, and do they have a chance to organize on campus? Yes,” said Loreto. “Is there such a thing as white culture or have we been approached to form a white culture club? No.”

Trevor Morris, a Ryerson student and president of the new Facebook group called “Ryerson Students Against Race Based Groups,” said a “double standard” against white students is proven by RSU’s refusal to grant club status to white culture groups.

This is why he wants to gather support for the removal of all culture clubs if a club for white students is prohibited, he said.

Morris also said the media has “overreacted” because nothing racist has been said in any of the groups—but he said that doesn’t mean he agrees with everything that’s posted, referring to a comment written by an administrator of “Equal Rights for Whites,” that stated, “white people are Gods [sic] gift to the world.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in any of these groups that actually have any hatred towards anybody,” he says.

Morris says that particular comment was probably a joke and it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Jabbar said a racism fact sheet and anti-racism training for RSU board members are currently in the works, part of a motion passed last November when the online groups first grabbed attention.


“A steady growth of online groups devoted to white students has triggered a wave of concern from Ryerson University administration and students who worry the groups are fostering racism.”

How radical and refreshing, students celebrating their white culture. But it sounds like the university’s communist elite are in a panic at this threat to their Stalinist regime. They much prefer their students to be tame, trite and tiresome litte marxists who assault freedom of speech and association. The whole totalitarian crowd is beginning to smell like Karl Marx on a summer day. [Marx never bathed and consequently was covered in boils from head to toe.]”

“Muhammad Ali Jabbar, the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) president, said the growth of these online groups demonstrates a lack of education about anti-discrimination, and another civil rights movement may be needed to counter intolerance.”

Exactly the opposite… Mr. Jabbar. They are the direct result of a lifetime of being forced to listen to anti-white propaganda that simply does not square with what is right in front of their face.

Furthermore, regarding the administration boobs, if white students have hate directed at them as white students in the curricula, from faculty members, third-world student associations, race seminars etc. then they certainly have the right to organize as white students for their own protection and own interests.”



Whiteness Studies“??

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

Canadian Generosity Versus Stupidity

A recent story from The Vancouver Sun unwittingly demonstrates the ongoing theme of serious abuse of Canadian generosity. The article looked at the Vancouver suburb of Surrey where a Seniors’ Home has just been opened to house a group of aging South Asian immigrants. The article painted a sentimental picture of the home which will house seniors in one bedroom apartments. Even the person who wrote the title of the story contributed to the sentiment, calling the place “A home with a heart”. However, the sentiment covers an unpleasant and ironic reality.

In the article, Bidar Swamy, administrator for the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society’s (PICS) housing, described the new facility as the first assisted living residence in North America for the South Asian population. “These are all first-generation, they have been here a couple of decades but there is still a barrier with language, with the culture, food — we have tried our best to create a climate that is comforting for them,’ said Swamy.”

Without any questioning or second thought, the reporter added that this home is “subsidized by BC Housing and the Fraser Valley Health Authority” and that “the apartments and care account for not more than 70 per cent of the residents’ net incomes”. It would have been worthwhile to find out exactly what the net incomes of these people were. If the incomes were zero, it would have been good for the reporter to have stated that 70% of zero is zero and that most of these apartments were being entirely paid for by the Canadian public.

Here are a few other unpleasant realities or ironies not revealed in the sentimental story about the opening of this seniors’ residence:

Irony #1: When the provisions for family class sponsorships of parents were put in place around 1980, the sentimental rationale for allowing aging parents into Canada was that it was a “cultural tradition” in South Asia for parents to remain with their children. However, the irony now is that these people seem to have grown out of their “cultural traditions”. After bringing their parents to Canada, and now seeing an opportunity, the sons and daughters say that they have so adapted to Canadian society that they are going to send their parents to a Seniors’ Residence so that someone else can take care of them. What does this say about “cultural traditions”?

Irony #2: It was assumed that when these parents were sponsored by adult children who had their Canadian Citizenship, that those children would pay for the parents’ living expenses which obviously included the cost of shelter. However, by moving the parents to the new retirement home, the children have abandoned that responsibility and are taking advantage of Canada. In fact, they have succeeded in having the home cater almost exclusively to that group, provide them with traditional food, and hire appropriate workers who speak the language of the residents. What does this say about financial commitments and responsibility to Canada?

Irony #3: As early as 1982, Canada’s Auditor General pointed out that bringing parents to Canada was actually being used as a device to bring into Canada the brothers and sisters of family members who were already here. Immigrants were doing this because parents could sponsor the brothers and sisters (who, it is important to note, would then not have to satisfy any skill or language requirements that regular immigrants had to satisfy!!). The adult children who were already here could not do this sponsoring.

The Auditor General’s report dealt specifically with the issue of “Courier Parents”, that is, parents who were couriered (sent) to Canada for the sole purpose of sponsoring brothers and sisters of immigrants already here. After the sponsoring had ended, these “Courier Parents” conveniently left Canada and returned to their native country, an early sign that “cultural traditions” were not as “sacred” as claimed.

The irony is that the Auditor General’s concerns about the general issue of sponsorship of parents were not heeded then and have not been heeded since then. Large numbers of parents have continued to arrive—with the clear intent of sponsoring other unskilled children whose spouses will bring in their parents who will bring in new children and continue the endless process of chain migration.

In the case of the large number of parents who have actually stayed here, the federal government’s failure to stop this practice has enormously magnified the negative effects of supporting this so-called “cultural tradition”. Canadians recently witnessed a few ethnic groups virtually elect the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Undoubtedly, these groups will demand a return for their favour—as they have done in the past— and insist that the so-called “cultural tradition” of bringing parents in continue and that their immigration interests take precedence over the interests of all other Canadians—particularly the social safety net that all other Canadians have built.

Canadians have recently seen Mr. Flaherty, our finance minister, rein in the ability of Income Trusts to avoid paying taxes, precisely because this tax avoidance would endanger the federal treasury’s ability to meet its obligations. How about Mr. Flaherty reining in the “cultural traditions” of certain ethnic groups–especially because these practices are undoubtedly endangering
Canada’s social safety net?

Irony #4: The newspaper reporter seemed completely unaware of any of these issues and seemed to think of the retirement home as a reward to the aging parents. The irony is that many, if not most, of the aging seniors that are to be housed in the Surrey home or that have been housed in other similar homes were probably [foreign-born] sponsored parents and have contributed little, if anything, to Canada’s social safety net. Most Canadians are generous, but as the Auditor General probably had in mind, there are limitations to the funds available for generosity. Canada simply cannot be a de facto Seniors Home for very large numbers of the world’s aging people.

Immigrants who have brought their parents may not want to admit this, but they have created a situation where their parents are now competing for scarce housing and medical care with aging Canadians who, in contrast to immigrants’ parents, contributed to Canada’s safety net for most or all of their working lives. The people who are doing these things seem to think that there is nothing wrong with their actions and that Canada has an unlimited pot of money to satisfy their demands. Once again, they are using sentiment about “cultural traditions” to mask what they are doing. However, most Canadians would say that these people are brazenly taking advantage of Canadian generosity and would ask this question: When is Canada’s New Government going to correct this situation?

Read Full Article at:

Halifax Stalls Jared Taylor, Yet Again

HALIFAX (CP) – Saint Mary’s University in Halifax has decided against allowing a debate on racism to take place on its premises.

Philosophy professor Peter March was supposed to debate so-called “race realist” Jared Taylor at the university Tuesday night. But Saint Mary’s now says there is a higher need for security than the university can provide.

The announcement comes shortly after a group opposed to the event said it would protest outside the building where the debate was to occur.

Taylor, who is with American Renaissance magazine in Virginia, was roughed up in January when he tried to give a speech on his racial views at a Halifax hotel.

Taylor, who advocates the separation of races, was pushed out of a hotel room by protesters.

He has filed a complaint with city police but no charges have been laid.

It wasn’t immediately clear if the debate would be held off campus.

Saint Mary’s, in a release, said it is committed to “fostering academic freedom and free speech in our diverse society.”

“We also have an obligation to provide a safe environment for members of our campus community and those who visit our campus,” it said.

The university said it will reimburse March for any related expenses incurred in planning the debate.

Neither March nor Taylor were immediately available for comment.